Shotgun connection

Use option 1.

Option 2 will considerably increase the inductance of the cables, which may have adverse effects at upper treble frequencies.

In saying this, I'm assuming that you are not using one of the few cable types that have ultra-high capacitance and ultra-low inductance, such as Goertz. Option 2 could conceivably be preferable in those unusual cases.

I'm also assuming that the goal is to minimize the sonic effects of the cables, as opposed to softening the upper treble.

Regards,
-- Al

Thanks, Al.

The cables are Ocellia Reference.
The goal with double run is to increase overal gauge and add a bit of weight to the sound.

Regards,

I shotgun my cables and use option 1 like Al suggests. I have always done it this way.

You would have 1 "stick" of cable that would normally be for both + & - , but in a shotgun configuration, these would be twisted together for EACH + & -. So you would need 4 "sticks".

I have seen Kondo KSL-SPz double run cables and there one cable was for + and another cable for - terminal.
It seems that different configurations exists.

" ...I shotgun my cables and use option 1 like Al suggests. I have always done it this way...."

I bought OEM shot gunned Nordost Freys this way: e.g. both "+"s rolled together and terminated with a single spade. I would not step out of this configuration IMO.

I can appreciate the wish to add greater weight to the woofer via a thicker diameter cable.

In my prior system, I followed the Atlas Cable (and dealer) recommended approach of matched cables but of differing thickness: a 3.5mm diameter thickness speaker cable to the woofer ("LF") but only a 2 mm diameter thickness to the tweeter("HF").

What I did find next is that this "staggered thickness approach" worked best in a full bi-amped system as an upgrade to the classical 2-to-4 bi-wire kit approach from a single integrated amp.

LFD cables also have this "staggered thickness approach " in their hybrid line of speaker cables. I believe that they take it further with not only different gauge wire (LF vs HF) but also a varied material construction between the two.

"I bought OEM shot gunned Nordost Freys this way: e.g. both "+"s rolled together and terminated with a single spade. I would not step out of this configuration IMO."

As long as your amp doesn't have 2 speaker terminals for each channel, that's the best way to shotgun, especially if you have stiff cables.

As I indicated, if the + wires and the - wires are not physically VERY close together (and preferably twisted together, as the OP described for Option 1), inductance will increase considerably. That is the main consideration in choosing between the two choices he described, IMO.

How critical minimizing inductance will be depends in part on the impedance of the speaker at high frequencies. The lower that impedance is the more critical keeping inductance low is likely to be. It also depends on the length of the cable, since if everything else is equal inductance is proportional to length.

And looking at this photo of the OP's specific cable it would appear that twisting + and - closely together, or even keeping them in close proximity, would be essentially impossible under Option 2. Therefore I respectfully disagree with Akg and ZD.

The OP's stated goals of increasing gauge and adding a bit of weight to the sound are likely to be accomplished to the same degree (whatever that degree may be) with either option, as I see it. But depending on the impedance characteristics of the speaker and on the length of the cable, Option 2 could very well end up acting as an unwanted tone control in the upper treble region, attenuating those frequencies at least slightly, and causing transient response to become more sluggish, at least slightly.

Regards,
-- Al

Thanks for all inputs.

My cables are rather short - less than 2 metres long.
Both runs are as close physicaly one to another as possible.
Ocellia speaker cables have only one gauge, so there is no possibility to use different gauges for LF and HF.

I do not have bi-wiring or bi-amping options. Single pair of binding posts at amp and speaker side.
So shotgun connection is only to increase overall gauge.

I am using Ocellia cables for about two years and have tchem connected like in variant 1. But I am considering trying variant 2 just for curious. Cables are rather fragile (I use bare wire no connectors), so I would like to learn theoretical approach first.

Thanks.

Here's another way to look at it:

With Option 1, you are connecting two Ocellia Reference cables in parallel.

With Option 2, in effect you would be connecting two cables that are no longer Ocellia References in parallel, since with the + and - conductors no longer being closely twisted together, you are in effect redesigning the cable. The "redesigned" pair of cables will have much higher inductance than in Option 1, and I suspect it would also have significantly higher inductance than if you were running just one cable per channel rather than two.

At a 2 meter length it might not make much difference either way, but why "redesign" an excellent cable, with unpredictable results?

Regards,
-- Al

Good point.

I will try to audition both options and will report the results.

In my experience I found that shotgun cables offer only very mild difference if any to the non shotgun.

read this thread last night . decided to give it a try . I am using some mogami 2921 speaker cables. 4 conductors per cable . The improvement on my electrostats is incredible. bass weight is much improved . nice !!