| Author |
Topic: George L .155 or .255? |
Al Terhune
From:
Newcastle, WA
|
Posted 28 Dec 2004 8:00 pm |
|
I've had the .155 cable for a number of years and have no complaints. Does anyone use the .255 and like it better for particular reasons? Also, I found a place on line -- although I've not ordered yet (but am planning on it after I hear from those who use .255), that sells George L cable for the going rate -- buck a foot (two bucks for the .255), BUT with each 12' of cable you buy, you get TWO FREE plugs!!! Now, maybe I truly am a hillbilly at heart (both of my parents are from the hills of Kentucky), but -- ain't that quite the deal?
http://www.proaudiomusic.com/accessories/george_L_cable.htm
Al |
|
|
|
Jay Ganz
From:
Out Behind The Barn
|
Posted 29 Dec 2004 7:14 am
|
|
I've used the .155 for as long as it's been
on the market. Only thing is it tangles
really easy if you have a long run. The
.255 supposedly avoids that. |
|
|
|
John Daugherty
From:
Rolla, Missouri, USA
|
Posted 29 Dec 2004 9:13 am
|
|
| Al, you can do a search for that topic here on the forum. The two sizes of cable were discussed here a few months ago......JD |
|
|
|
Al Terhune
From:
Newcastle, WA
|
Posted 29 Dec 2004 10:00 am
|
|
Thanks, J.D. Before I posted, I did try a search using .155 and .255 along with George L (both with L and L's) and didn't get anything. I assumed it had been discussed. I'll try again.
OKAY: Found it. Thanks, J.D.
Al[This message was edited by Al Terhune on 29 December 2004 at 10:05 AM.] |
|
|
|
Bill cole
From:
Cheektowaga, New York, USA
|
Posted 29 Dec 2004 7:00 pm
|
|
| Before you buy any you should check out the new Bill Lawrence cable. I have some and it is great no noise call-toll free 1-877-647-2651 |
|
|
|
Al Terhune
From:
Newcastle, WA
|
Posted 30 Dec 2004 7:24 am
|
|
Thanks, Bill. I just got off the phone with a very polite and well-informed young lady who sold me on 50 feet of cable with 10 plugs for $48 (plus shipping). Much appreciated.
Al[This message was edited by Al Terhune on 30 December 2004 at 07:26 AM.] |
|
|
|
Morton Kellas
From:
Chazy, NY, USA 1
|
Posted 30 Dec 2004 8:22 am
|
|
HI! Al:
I have both and prefer the .255 over the .155.
Randy Beavers once told me that he and Johnny Cox did a comparison test and found that you loose bottom end with the smaller size. Some say that they both sound the same. I tried my .155 last week and went right back to the .255.
I sure can hear the difference. To each their own. |
|
|
|
ajm
From:
Los Angeles
|
Posted 31 Dec 2004 9:58 am
|
|
"....you loose bottom end with the smaller size."
Do you lose bottom end with the smaller size, or does the larger size attenuate the highs more because of more capacitance (this may give the impression of more bass)?
------------------
Artie McEwan
|
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 31 Dec 2004 10:58 am
|
|
| In this case "size" has nothing to do with it. It's the electrical characteristics of the cable. And in the case of the old and new Bill Lawrence cable (and maybe in the George L's) there is a special anti-static chemical treatment. |
|
|
|
ajm
From:
Los Angeles
|
Posted 31 Dec 2004 12:33 pm
|
|
The reference to the "size" of the cable means that the two cables are not of the same construction and are a different part. Since they are technically not made of the same cable, they may have different electrical properties, which may affect the frequency response.
It would be easy for some folks to perceive something as having more bass, when in fact it may have less treble. I gotta admit though, with two guys like Johnny Cox and Randy Beavers driving the experiment, I'd be stunned if they fell victim to that trap.
------------------
Artie McEwan
|
|
|
|
Bill cole
From:
Cheektowaga, New York, USA
|
Posted 1 Jan 2005 2:35 pm
|
|
| You may want to listen a little to Jack Stoner for he has talked an awful lot with Bill Lawrence on this subject and many other subjects I might add |
|
|
|
Dan Tyack
From:
Olympia, WA USA
|
Posted 2 Jan 2005 5:25 pm
|
|
Did he ask Bill what the impedence of the cables are?  |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 3 Jan 2005 2:59 am
|
|
| Dan, do you have a couple of hours to talk? (Ha Ha) |
|
|
|
CrowBear Schmitt
From:
Ariege, - PairO'knees, - France
|
Posted 3 Jan 2005 6:28 am
|
|
i remember when Bill Lawrence was workin' at Dan Armstrong's shop round the corner from Bleecker st in the village (NYC)back in the late 60s/early 70s
Man, i spent hours listenin'to Bill's theories
that was a great shop & great times  |
|
|
|
Randy Beavers
From:
Lebanon,TN 37090
|
Posted 4 Jan 2005 6:30 am
|
|
Johnny Cox and I went through a spell where we experimented with just about everything imaginable. We would try a Nashville 400 preamp into a Mossvalve power amp. Then to a JBL, EV, Black Widow, etc. This is just one of several combinations. The number of cables running around the living room to hook up all our trials kinda looked like a bowl of black spaghetti. It took about all of the cables he and I owned for these experiments. Then one day we started listening to the difference in sounds from different cables. This is something we had both assumed would not make much of a difference as long as it was a decent cable with good connections. The only cables that didn't sound good were the cheap ones with molded ends. We both had a collection of George L's, Bill Lawrence, and Scotty's Blue. Something else we were surprised at was the difference between the small and large cable. It's not that the larger cable had lost highs, they were still there as much as with the smaller cable, but that there were more lows. Not a muddy sound but just larger. Some people would probably not like the added lows, and some will. So you have the preference. Today I still use the larger cable. I have tried some of the very expensive cables like "Monster Cable", but to me the George L's and the Lawrence in the larger diameter sounds as good as anything out there. I'd like to try the new Lawrence to see if it's better that my old.
------------------
Randy
http://hometown.aol.com/pulltightb/home.html
|
|
|
|
