"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
m

(N. Thornton) wrote in message
. com...

4) you haven't figured that the idea with money is to get something of
some function and value when you hand it over. Fools and their money
are soon parted.

I'm afraid you've lost me here.

I NEED new interconnects. I cannot hook up my system without them.
I have decided that I want to make them, because I do.

So given those points, I'm asking which way to best build these
cables, from an engineering perspective. shielded single conductor,
shielded twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair? And also, which
connectors are good?

With reasonable equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly
matters.

Now am I falling victim to the horrible evil cable hucksters by
needing new cables and wanting them to be solidly overengineered (at
effectively the same price)?

Seems like you've already given way too much credibility to a guy who thinks
that people need to spend the big bucks on cable to ensure against
horrifically badly designed preamps that may not even exist.

Am I a brainless moron for wanting to
better understand the electronics behind it all?

The electronics behind it all can be quickly summarized: With reasonable
equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly matters.

Pure audio performance isn't always the only measure of value in audio
equipment anyways. Construction quality, (visual) aesthetics,
reliability, and personal satisfaction all play a part. I don't see
why you're so quick to jump on my for that.

Audio jewelry ain't a bad thing, addressed as a visual (and not audible)
issue.

As an aside, I'm pondering Belden 1800B cable here for these things.

Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Anyone have some opinions on me throwing away my money like this? :-)

It's your money, just don't ask us to justify how you choose to spend it.

"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
m

(N. Thornton) wrote in message
. com...

4) you haven't figured that the idea with money is to get something of
some function and value when you hand it over. Fools and their money
are soon parted.

I'm afraid you've lost me here.

I NEED new interconnects. I cannot hook up my system without them.
I have decided that I want to make them, because I do.

So given those points, I'm asking which way to best build these
cables, from an engineering perspective. shielded single conductor,
shielded twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair? And also, which
connectors are good?

With reasonable equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly
matters.

Now am I falling victim to the horrible evil cable hucksters by
needing new cables and wanting them to be solidly overengineered (at
effectively the same price)?

Seems like you've already given way too much credibility to a guy who thinks
that people need to spend the big bucks on cable to ensure against
horrifically badly designed preamps that may not even exist.

Am I a brainless moron for wanting to
better understand the electronics behind it all?

The electronics behind it all can be quickly summarized: With reasonable
equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly matters.

Pure audio performance isn't always the only measure of value in audio
equipment anyways. Construction quality, (visual) aesthetics,
reliability, and personal satisfaction all play a part. I don't see
why you're so quick to jump on my for that.

Audio jewelry ain't a bad thing, addressed as a visual (and not audible)
issue.

As an aside, I'm pondering Belden 1800B cable here for these things.

Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Anyone have some opinions on me throwing away my money like this? :-)

It's your money, just don't ask us to justify how you choose to spend it.

"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
m

(N. Thornton) wrote in message
. com...

4) you haven't figured that the idea with money is to get something of
some function and value when you hand it over. Fools and their money
are soon parted.

I'm afraid you've lost me here.

I NEED new interconnects. I cannot hook up my system without them.
I have decided that I want to make them, because I do.

So given those points, I'm asking which way to best build these
cables, from an engineering perspective. shielded single conductor,
shielded twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair? And also, which
connectors are good?

With reasonable equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly
matters.

Now am I falling victim to the horrible evil cable hucksters by
needing new cables and wanting them to be solidly overengineered (at
effectively the same price)?

Seems like you've already given way too much credibility to a guy who thinks
that people need to spend the big bucks on cable to ensure against
horrifically badly designed preamps that may not even exist.

Am I a brainless moron for wanting to
better understand the electronics behind it all?

The electronics behind it all can be quickly summarized: With reasonable
equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly matters.

Pure audio performance isn't always the only measure of value in audio
equipment anyways. Construction quality, (visual) aesthetics,
reliability, and personal satisfaction all play a part. I don't see
why you're so quick to jump on my for that.

Audio jewelry ain't a bad thing, addressed as a visual (and not audible)
issue.

As an aside, I'm pondering Belden 1800B cable here for these things.

Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Anyone have some opinions on me throwing away my money like this? :-)

It's your money, just don't ask us to justify how you choose to spend it.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
om

(story of an evil preamp snipped)

Did I miss the part where he provided a real world example of this?

I've perused the schematics of more than 100 preamps and never seen anything
as ludicrous as a preamp with the output taken from the wiper of a 250 K
pot.

Strikes me that he's made up a straw man preamp, and used it to justify
exotic cables.

If there ever was a preamp this badly designed, it seems like switching over
to one of the zillions that was well designed would be the superior
approach.

OK, I stand somewhat corrected. I looked at the article last night again, and
he was talking about plans for a preamp that were published in a high-end
audio building magazine. There's no telling if such a beast was ever actually
built by anyone, but the plans were published, implying that someone had
at least made a prototype.

My guess it was a 'passive preamp,' i.e. a big pot and a few switches.
Even at that, I can't imagine why they'd need something as large as 250kohm,
but there you have it.

As far as justifying exotic cables, he pretty much did the opposite. He
pointed out that in worst case scenarios there were significant effects
to be found, but the solution was always the same: Well designed equipment
shouldn't care in the slightest about cables, assuming they weren't stupid.

And in case anyone is wondering, this whole thread stemmed from the fact
that I'm about to get a nice, intelligently designed, Adcom GFP-555-II
preamp. Nothing exotic or crazy in that design.

Colin

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
om

(story of an evil preamp snipped)

Did I miss the part where he provided a real world example of this?

I've perused the schematics of more than 100 preamps and never seen anything
as ludicrous as a preamp with the output taken from the wiper of a 250 K
pot.

Strikes me that he's made up a straw man preamp, and used it to justify
exotic cables.

If there ever was a preamp this badly designed, it seems like switching over
to one of the zillions that was well designed would be the superior
approach.

OK, I stand somewhat corrected. I looked at the article last night again, and
he was talking about plans for a preamp that were published in a high-end
audio building magazine. There's no telling if such a beast was ever actually
built by anyone, but the plans were published, implying that someone had
at least made a prototype.

My guess it was a 'passive preamp,' i.e. a big pot and a few switches.
Even at that, I can't imagine why they'd need something as large as 250kohm,
but there you have it.

As far as justifying exotic cables, he pretty much did the opposite. He
pointed out that in worst case scenarios there were significant effects
to be found, but the solution was always the same: Well designed equipment
shouldn't care in the slightest about cables, assuming they weren't stupid.

And in case anyone is wondering, this whole thread stemmed from the fact
that I'm about to get a nice, intelligently designed, Adcom GFP-555-II
preamp. Nothing exotic or crazy in that design.

Colin

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
om

(story of an evil preamp snipped)

Did I miss the part where he provided a real world example of this?

I've perused the schematics of more than 100 preamps and never seen anything
as ludicrous as a preamp with the output taken from the wiper of a 250 K
pot.

Strikes me that he's made up a straw man preamp, and used it to justify
exotic cables.

If there ever was a preamp this badly designed, it seems like switching over
to one of the zillions that was well designed would be the superior
approach.

OK, I stand somewhat corrected. I looked at the article last night again, and
he was talking about plans for a preamp that were published in a high-end
audio building magazine. There's no telling if such a beast was ever actually
built by anyone, but the plans were published, implying that someone had
at least made a prototype.

My guess it was a 'passive preamp,' i.e. a big pot and a few switches.
Even at that, I can't imagine why they'd need something as large as 250kohm,
but there you have it.

As far as justifying exotic cables, he pretty much did the opposite. He
pointed out that in worst case scenarios there were significant effects
to be found, but the solution was always the same: Well designed equipment
shouldn't care in the slightest about cables, assuming they weren't stupid.

And in case anyone is wondering, this whole thread stemmed from the fact
that I'm about to get a nice, intelligently designed, Adcom GFP-555-II
preamp. Nothing exotic or crazy in that design.

Colin

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
m

(snip)

So given those points, I'm asking which way to best build these
cables, from an engineering perspective. shielded single conductor,
shielded twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair? And also, which
connectors are good?

With reasonable equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly
matters.

Agreed. I started with that very premise in my first post.

Seems like you've already given way too much credibility to a guy who thinks
that people need to spend the big bucks on cable to ensure against
horrifically badly designed preamps that may not even exist.

If you're refering to the Jim Heyward article, his point was entirely
the opposite. He basically went through the various electrical parameters
pointing out that most of them were entirely irrelevant in audio, and
some _could_ infringe on the audio band in worst case scenarios. He also
said in the article something to the effect, "If you can't get the
output impedance for a preamp, or if it varies with volume, then keep
shopping."

Please, go order the back-issues and read the articles before assuming
that he's a high-end wetbrain.

The electronics behind it all can be quickly summarized: With reasonable
equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly matters.

Yes, this is true. However, I never asked for a summary. :-)

Audio jewelry ain't a bad thing, addressed as a visual (and not audible)
issue.

Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Well now, that's why I'm here isn't it? :-)
Does having a shield over a separate signal and ground pair offer any
theoretical improvements in shielding, vs. a single wire and shield?
Are there any _disadvantages_ to doing this? And again I'll ask, what
happens (from an electrical perspective, not an audible one) to the
shielding, if the shield is detached at both ends?

(As an aside, I've decided I'm more comfortable with 22gauge wires
and had some flashbacks to trying to solder foil shields in the past,
so have revised my plans to use Belden 8422. 2x22AWG copper braid
shielded.)

Anyone have some opinions on me throwing away my money like this? :-)

It's your money, just don't ask us to justify how you choose to spend it.

I'm not asking for justification, I'm asking for electronic information.
(knowing full well that any effects are likely to be nudging the bottom
end of the AM band)

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

Colin

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
m

(snip)

So given those points, I'm asking which way to best build these
cables, from an engineering perspective. shielded single conductor,
shielded twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair? And also, which
connectors are good?

With reasonable equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly
matters.

Agreed. I started with that very premise in my first post.

Seems like you've already given way too much credibility to a guy who thinks
that people need to spend the big bucks on cable to ensure against
horrifically badly designed preamps that may not even exist.

If you're refering to the Jim Heyward article, his point was entirely
the opposite. He basically went through the various electrical parameters
pointing out that most of them were entirely irrelevant in audio, and
some _could_ infringe on the audio band in worst case scenarios. He also
said in the article something to the effect, "If you can't get the
output impedance for a preamp, or if it varies with volume, then keep
shopping."

Please, go order the back-issues and read the articles before assuming
that he's a high-end wetbrain.

The electronics behind it all can be quickly summarized: With reasonable
equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly matters.

Yes, this is true. However, I never asked for a summary. :-)

Audio jewelry ain't a bad thing, addressed as a visual (and not audible)
issue.

Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Well now, that's why I'm here isn't it? :-)
Does having a shield over a separate signal and ground pair offer any
theoretical improvements in shielding, vs. a single wire and shield?
Are there any _disadvantages_ to doing this? And again I'll ask, what
happens (from an electrical perspective, not an audible one) to the
shielding, if the shield is detached at both ends?

(As an aside, I've decided I'm more comfortable with 22gauge wires
and had some flashbacks to trying to solder foil shields in the past,
so have revised my plans to use Belden 8422. 2x22AWG copper braid
shielded.)

Anyone have some opinions on me throwing away my money like this? :-)

It's your money, just don't ask us to justify how you choose to spend it.

I'm not asking for justification, I'm asking for electronic information.
(knowing full well that any effects are likely to be nudging the bottom
end of the AM band)

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

Colin

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Colin Bigam" wrote in message
m

(snip)

So given those points, I'm asking which way to best build these
cables, from an engineering perspective. shielded single conductor,
shielded twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair? And also, which
connectors are good?

With reasonable equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly
matters.

Agreed. I started with that very premise in my first post.

Seems like you've already given way too much credibility to a guy who thinks
that people need to spend the big bucks on cable to ensure against
horrifically badly designed preamps that may not even exist.

If you're refering to the Jim Heyward article, his point was entirely
the opposite. He basically went through the various electrical parameters
pointing out that most of them were entirely irrelevant in audio, and
some _could_ infringe on the audio band in worst case scenarios. He also
said in the article something to the effect, "If you can't get the
output impedance for a preamp, or if it varies with volume, then keep
shopping."

Please, go order the back-issues and read the articles before assuming
that he's a high-end wetbrain.

The electronics behind it all can be quickly summarized: With reasonable
equipment at both ends of those pieces of cable, it hardly matters.

Yes, this is true. However, I never asked for a summary. :-)

Audio jewelry ain't a bad thing, addressed as a visual (and not audible)
issue.

Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Well now, that's why I'm here isn't it? :-)
Does having a shield over a separate signal and ground pair offer any
theoretical improvements in shielding, vs. a single wire and shield?
Are there any _disadvantages_ to doing this? And again I'll ask, what
happens (from an electrical perspective, not an audible one) to the
shielding, if the shield is detached at both ends?

(As an aside, I've decided I'm more comfortable with 22gauge wires
and had some flashbacks to trying to solder foil shields in the past,
so have revised my plans to use Belden 8422. 2x22AWG copper braid
shielded.)

Anyone have some opinions on me throwing away my money like this? :-)

It's your money, just don't ask us to justify how you choose to spend it.

I'm not asking for justification, I'm asking for electronic information.
(knowing full well that any effects are likely to be nudging the bottom
end of the AM band)

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

Colin

"Mr. Admin" wrote in message gam-bosscha.org...

I'm not asking for justification, I'm asking for electronic information.
(knowing full well that any effects are likely to be nudging the bottom
end of the AM band)

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

And you were given it... I dunno. I guess maybe you dont know what to
believe. Ask us on the sci.electronics ngs where you'll find folk who
know the subject.

Regards, NT

"Mr. Admin" wrote in message gam-bosscha.org...

I'm not asking for justification, I'm asking for electronic information.
(knowing full well that any effects are likely to be nudging the bottom
end of the AM band)

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

And you were given it... I dunno. I guess maybe you dont know what to
believe. Ask us on the sci.electronics ngs where you'll find folk who
know the subject.

Regards, NT

"Mr. Admin" wrote in message gam-bosscha.org...

I'm not asking for justification, I'm asking for electronic information.
(knowing full well that any effects are likely to be nudging the bottom
end of the AM band)

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

And you were given it... I dunno. I guess maybe you dont know what to
believe. Ask us on the sci.electronics ngs where you'll find folk who
know the subject.

Regards, NT

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, N. Thornton wrote:

"Mr. Admin" wrote in message gam-bosscha.org...

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

And you were given it... I dunno. I guess maybe you dont know what to
believe. Ask us on the sci.electronics ngs where you'll find folk who
know the subject.

Well actually, I wasn't given it.

I asked:
"What are the electrical differences between one configuration and
another?"

and the answer I got was:

"It won't make any audible difference for your application."

A perfectly acceptable answer to a _different_ question.

Colin

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, N. Thornton wrote:

"Mr. Admin" wrote in message gam-bosscha.org...

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

And you were given it... I dunno. I guess maybe you dont know what to
believe. Ask us on the sci.electronics ngs where you'll find folk who
know the subject.

Well actually, I wasn't given it.

I asked:
"What are the electrical differences between one configuration and
another?"

and the answer I got was:

"It won't make any audible difference for your application."

A perfectly acceptable answer to a _different_ question.

Colin

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, N. Thornton wrote:

"Mr. Admin" wrote in message gam-bosscha.org...

So really, that's all. I want a better understanding of electronics
here.

And you were given it... I dunno. I guess maybe you dont know what to
believe. Ask us on the sci.electronics ngs where you'll find folk who
know the subject.

Well actually, I wasn't given it.

I asked:
"What are the electrical differences between one configuration and
another?"

and the answer I got was:

"It won't make any audible difference for your application."

A perfectly acceptable answer to a _different_ question.

Colin

(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...
(Colin Bigam) wrote in message om...
(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...

I owe an apology here. This post, which answered my technical questions,
never appeared on my ISPs news spool (hence, I'm replying on google).

shielded single conductor, shielded
twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair?

co-ax.

Interesting. What's the rationale here?

ones that fit, will take the size of cable used, have a working cable
cord grip, and are robust enough not to fall apart. Spring or plastic
moulding extending out from the plug will also maximise cable
reliability and life. If you are in a damp building with mould or
corrosion problems then I would also add gold plated.

Heh. I realise now that I asked the question poorly. I'm actually looking
for recommendations of specific plugs which fit the above criteria. As an
aside, Heyward made the point that a thin gold coating is probably worse
than none at all, since it's going to get scraped off fairly easily,
exposing the bare (easily oxidized) metal underneath. Nickel plating, in
his eyes, is better than flash plated gold. (And rhodium, being incredibly
hard and remarkably oxide-resistant, is very good).

As a further aside, it seems to me that the biggest problem with RCA plugs
is that there isn't much of a standard, as near as I can tell; thus, we
have an endless supply of different dimension plugs and sockets from
different vendors. "Fit" can be a real bugbear for RCA, I've found, and
that's why I'm hoping to find some solidly built plugs with a split pin
and locking sleeve, but costing less than a small fortune.

no, you're considering options that offer features that arent
relevant. That's no problem if you dont decide on them.

This is true. On the other hand, if I need digital cables down the line
(higher frequency, where capacitance may become significant in the
calculation), then it'd be nice if I could just grab one of my existing
cables (or at least a spool and make a new cable) and go.

Its not that, I see you understand the questions. The issue for me is
in your suggestion to do a number of things that have no real world
benefit.

I confess, part of it is satisfaction that I could throw these cables
at audiophiles with crazed passive preamps and oddball tube power amps,
and have them ooh and ahh over my outrageously transparent cables,
when in fact they're only more 'transparent' than something else, because
of the gross deficiencies in their equipment.

On the other hand, I don't actually know any audiophiles like this. I tend
to avoid 'em. :-)

A much bigger factor is that for 50 feet or so of cable, the difference
between radio shack's cheapest coax, Belden 8422, and anything else I'm
considering is going to be on the range of a buck or two, so why not?

At $60 for 250 ft, around 80m, 75c/m its overpriced for whats needed.
In terms of specs, whats wanted is coax thats robust. 50 ohm rf coax
or 75 ohm flexible UK TV coax both fill this requirement happily.
1800b offers features that arent relevant to your app.

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.

You stated the principles well, the problem is that youre then
discussing items that are either of the audiophool nature or not
suited to the app. I would recommend crossposting to
sci.electronics.design for more informed qualified input.

Might just do that. Thanks!

Colin

(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...
(Colin Bigam) wrote in message om...
(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...

I owe an apology here. This post, which answered my technical questions,
never appeared on my ISPs news spool (hence, I'm replying on google).

shielded single conductor, shielded
twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair?

co-ax.

Interesting. What's the rationale here?

ones that fit, will take the size of cable used, have a working cable
cord grip, and are robust enough not to fall apart. Spring or plastic
moulding extending out from the plug will also maximise cable
reliability and life. If you are in a damp building with mould or
corrosion problems then I would also add gold plated.

Heh. I realise now that I asked the question poorly. I'm actually looking
for recommendations of specific plugs which fit the above criteria. As an
aside, Heyward made the point that a thin gold coating is probably worse
than none at all, since it's going to get scraped off fairly easily,
exposing the bare (easily oxidized) metal underneath. Nickel plating, in
his eyes, is better than flash plated gold. (And rhodium, being incredibly
hard and remarkably oxide-resistant, is very good).

As a further aside, it seems to me that the biggest problem with RCA plugs
is that there isn't much of a standard, as near as I can tell; thus, we
have an endless supply of different dimension plugs and sockets from
different vendors. "Fit" can be a real bugbear for RCA, I've found, and
that's why I'm hoping to find some solidly built plugs with a split pin
and locking sleeve, but costing less than a small fortune.

no, you're considering options that offer features that arent
relevant. That's no problem if you dont decide on them.

This is true. On the other hand, if I need digital cables down the line
(higher frequency, where capacitance may become significant in the
calculation), then it'd be nice if I could just grab one of my existing
cables (or at least a spool and make a new cable) and go.

Its not that, I see you understand the questions. The issue for me is
in your suggestion to do a number of things that have no real world
benefit.

I confess, part of it is satisfaction that I could throw these cables
at audiophiles with crazed passive preamps and oddball tube power amps,
and have them ooh and ahh over my outrageously transparent cables,
when in fact they're only more 'transparent' than something else, because
of the gross deficiencies in their equipment.

On the other hand, I don't actually know any audiophiles like this. I tend
to avoid 'em. :-)

A much bigger factor is that for 50 feet or so of cable, the difference
between radio shack's cheapest coax, Belden 8422, and anything else I'm
considering is going to be on the range of a buck or two, so why not?

At $60 for 250 ft, around 80m, 75c/m its overpriced for whats needed.
In terms of specs, whats wanted is coax thats robust. 50 ohm rf coax
or 75 ohm flexible UK TV coax both fill this requirement happily.
1800b offers features that arent relevant to your app.

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.

You stated the principles well, the problem is that youre then
discussing items that are either of the audiophool nature or not
suited to the app. I would recommend crossposting to
sci.electronics.design for more informed qualified input.

Might just do that. Thanks!

Colin

(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...
(Colin Bigam) wrote in message om...
(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...

I owe an apology here. This post, which answered my technical questions,
never appeared on my ISPs news spool (hence, I'm replying on google).

shielded single conductor, shielded
twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair?

co-ax.

Interesting. What's the rationale here?

ones that fit, will take the size of cable used, have a working cable
cord grip, and are robust enough not to fall apart. Spring or plastic
moulding extending out from the plug will also maximise cable
reliability and life. If you are in a damp building with mould or
corrosion problems then I would also add gold plated.

Heh. I realise now that I asked the question poorly. I'm actually looking
for recommendations of specific plugs which fit the above criteria. As an
aside, Heyward made the point that a thin gold coating is probably worse
than none at all, since it's going to get scraped off fairly easily,
exposing the bare (easily oxidized) metal underneath. Nickel plating, in
his eyes, is better than flash plated gold. (And rhodium, being incredibly
hard and remarkably oxide-resistant, is very good).

As a further aside, it seems to me that the biggest problem with RCA plugs
is that there isn't much of a standard, as near as I can tell; thus, we
have an endless supply of different dimension plugs and sockets from
different vendors. "Fit" can be a real bugbear for RCA, I've found, and
that's why I'm hoping to find some solidly built plugs with a split pin
and locking sleeve, but costing less than a small fortune.

no, you're considering options that offer features that arent
relevant. That's no problem if you dont decide on them.

This is true. On the other hand, if I need digital cables down the line
(higher frequency, where capacitance may become significant in the
calculation), then it'd be nice if I could just grab one of my existing
cables (or at least a spool and make a new cable) and go.

Its not that, I see you understand the questions. The issue for me is
in your suggestion to do a number of things that have no real world
benefit.

I confess, part of it is satisfaction that I could throw these cables
at audiophiles with crazed passive preamps and oddball tube power amps,
and have them ooh and ahh over my outrageously transparent cables,
when in fact they're only more 'transparent' than something else, because
of the gross deficiencies in their equipment.

On the other hand, I don't actually know any audiophiles like this. I tend
to avoid 'em. :-)

A much bigger factor is that for 50 feet or so of cable, the difference
between radio shack's cheapest coax, Belden 8422, and anything else I'm
considering is going to be on the range of a buck or two, so why not?

At $60 for 250 ft, around 80m, 75c/m its overpriced for whats needed.
In terms of specs, whats wanted is coax thats robust. 50 ohm rf coax
or 75 ohm flexible UK TV coax both fill this requirement happily.
1800b offers features that arent relevant to your app.

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.

You stated the principles well, the problem is that youre then
discussing items that are either of the audiophool nature or not
suited to the app. I would recommend crossposting to
sci.electronics.design for more informed qualified input.

Might just do that. Thanks!

Colin

"Colin Bigam" wrote in message

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.


Coax, as oppose to screened cable, is often very lacking in the screen
department . Sound-wise there will be little if any difference, so go for
whatever is physically most 'sound' .


geoff

"Colin Bigam" wrote in message

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.


Coax, as oppose to screened cable, is often very lacking in the screen
department . Sound-wise there will be little if any difference, so go for
whatever is physically most 'sound' .


geoff

"Colin Bigam" wrote in message

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.


Coax, as oppose to screened cable, is often very lacking in the screen
department . Sound-wise there will be little if any difference, so go for
whatever is physically most 'sound' .


geoff

(Colin Bigam) wrote in message om...
(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...

I owe an apology here. This post, which answered my technical questions,
never appeared on my ISPs news spool (hence, I'm replying on google).

Ah, well I apologise for considering the wrong conclusion then


shielded single conductor, shielded
twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair?

co-ax.

Interesting. What's the rationale here?

the idea is to shield the signal carrying conductor: co-ax does that.
The other fancies do other things that arent relevant to the app.


ones that fit, will take the size of cable used, have a working cable
cord grip, and are robust enough not to fall apart. Spring or plastic
moulding extending out from the plug will also maximise cable
reliability and life. If you are in a damp building with mould or
corrosion problems then I would also add gold plated.

Heh. I realise now that I asked the question poorly. I'm actually looking
for recommendations of specific plugs which fit the above criteria.

Oh

As an
aside, Heyward made the point that a thin gold coating is probably worse
than none at all, since it's going to get scraped off fairly easily,
exposing the bare (easily oxidized) metal underneath.

Thin gold plate doesnt offer anything to start with.

Nickel plating, in
his eyes, is better than flash plated gold. (And rhodium, being incredibly
hard and remarkably oxide-resistant, is very good).

anything that doesnt oxidise and fall apart is good.

As a further aside, it seems to me that the biggest problem with RCA plugs
is that there isn't much of a standard, as near as I can tell; thus, we
have an endless supply of different dimension plugs and sockets from
different vendors. "Fit" can be a real bugbear for RCA, I've found, and

they work.

that's why I'm hoping to find some solidly built plugs with a split pin
and locking sleeve, but costing less than a small fortune.

wouldnt be a solution anyway.


no, you're considering options that offer features that arent
relevant. That's no problem if you dont decide on them.

This is true. On the other hand, if I need digital cables down the line
(higher frequency, where capacitance may become significant in the
calculation), then it'd be nice if I could just grab one of my existing
cables (or at least a spool and make a new cable) and go.

this shouldnt be an issue with any reasonable cable.


Its not that, I see you understand the questions. The issue for me is
in your suggestion to do a number of things that have no real world
benefit.

I confess, part of it is satisfaction that I could throw these cables
at audiophiles with crazed passive preamps and oddball tube power amps,
and have them ooh and ahh over my outrageously transparent cables,
when in fact they're only more 'transparent' than something else, because
of the gross deficiencies in their equipment.

On the other hand, I don't actually know any audiophiles like this. I tend
to avoid 'em. :-)

why not just pick whats good for the job? I honestly think youre
making far too much of a meal out of this. Do you have nothing better
to do?


A much bigger factor is that for 50 feet or so of cable, the difference
between radio shack's cheapest coax, Belden 8422, and anything else I'm
considering is going to be on the range of a buck or two, so why not?

All this time you've spent here, whats it worth?


At $60 for 250 ft, around 80m, 75c/m its overpriced for whats needed.
In terms of specs, whats wanted is coax thats robust. 50 ohm rf coax
or 75 ohm flexible UK TV coax both fill this requirement happily.
1800b offers features that arent relevant to your app.

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.

yes it is, but its still flexible. Soft floppy stuff tends not to be
much cop.

Enough. This has got silly.


Regards, NT

(Colin Bigam) wrote in message om...
(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...

I owe an apology here. This post, which answered my technical questions,
never appeared on my ISPs news spool (hence, I'm replying on google).

Ah, well I apologise for considering the wrong conclusion then


shielded single conductor, shielded
twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair?

co-ax.

Interesting. What's the rationale here?

the idea is to shield the signal carrying conductor: co-ax does that.
The other fancies do other things that arent relevant to the app.


ones that fit, will take the size of cable used, have a working cable
cord grip, and are robust enough not to fall apart. Spring or plastic
moulding extending out from the plug will also maximise cable
reliability and life. If you are in a damp building with mould or
corrosion problems then I would also add gold plated.

Heh. I realise now that I asked the question poorly. I'm actually looking
for recommendations of specific plugs which fit the above criteria.

Oh

As an
aside, Heyward made the point that a thin gold coating is probably worse
than none at all, since it's going to get scraped off fairly easily,
exposing the bare (easily oxidized) metal underneath.

Thin gold plate doesnt offer anything to start with.

Nickel plating, in
his eyes, is better than flash plated gold. (And rhodium, being incredibly
hard and remarkably oxide-resistant, is very good).

anything that doesnt oxidise and fall apart is good.

As a further aside, it seems to me that the biggest problem with RCA plugs
is that there isn't much of a standard, as near as I can tell; thus, we
have an endless supply of different dimension plugs and sockets from
different vendors. "Fit" can be a real bugbear for RCA, I've found, and

they work.

that's why I'm hoping to find some solidly built plugs with a split pin
and locking sleeve, but costing less than a small fortune.

wouldnt be a solution anyway.


no, you're considering options that offer features that arent
relevant. That's no problem if you dont decide on them.

This is true. On the other hand, if I need digital cables down the line
(higher frequency, where capacitance may become significant in the
calculation), then it'd be nice if I could just grab one of my existing
cables (or at least a spool and make a new cable) and go.

this shouldnt be an issue with any reasonable cable.


Its not that, I see you understand the questions. The issue for me is
in your suggestion to do a number of things that have no real world
benefit.

I confess, part of it is satisfaction that I could throw these cables
at audiophiles with crazed passive preamps and oddball tube power amps,
and have them ooh and ahh over my outrageously transparent cables,
when in fact they're only more 'transparent' than something else, because
of the gross deficiencies in their equipment.

On the other hand, I don't actually know any audiophiles like this. I tend
to avoid 'em. :-)

why not just pick whats good for the job? I honestly think youre
making far too much of a meal out of this. Do you have nothing better
to do?


A much bigger factor is that for 50 feet or so of cable, the difference
between radio shack's cheapest coax, Belden 8422, and anything else I'm
considering is going to be on the range of a buck or two, so why not?

All this time you've spent here, whats it worth?


At $60 for 250 ft, around 80m, 75c/m its overpriced for whats needed.
In terms of specs, whats wanted is coax thats robust. 50 ohm rf coax
or 75 ohm flexible UK TV coax both fill this requirement happily.
1800b offers features that arent relevant to your app.

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.

yes it is, but its still flexible. Soft floppy stuff tends not to be
much cop.

Enough. This has got silly.


Regards, NT

(Colin Bigam) wrote in message om...
(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...

I owe an apology here. This post, which answered my technical questions,
never appeared on my ISPs news spool (hence, I'm replying on google).

Ah, well I apologise for considering the wrong conclusion then


shielded single conductor, shielded
twisted pair, or unshielded twisted pair?

co-ax.

Interesting. What's the rationale here?

the idea is to shield the signal carrying conductor: co-ax does that.
The other fancies do other things that arent relevant to the app.


ones that fit, will take the size of cable used, have a working cable
cord grip, and are robust enough not to fall apart. Spring or plastic
moulding extending out from the plug will also maximise cable
reliability and life. If you are in a damp building with mould or
corrosion problems then I would also add gold plated.

Heh. I realise now that I asked the question poorly. I'm actually looking
for recommendations of specific plugs which fit the above criteria.

Oh

As an
aside, Heyward made the point that a thin gold coating is probably worse
than none at all, since it's going to get scraped off fairly easily,
exposing the bare (easily oxidized) metal underneath.

Thin gold plate doesnt offer anything to start with.

Nickel plating, in
his eyes, is better than flash plated gold. (And rhodium, being incredibly
hard and remarkably oxide-resistant, is very good).

anything that doesnt oxidise and fall apart is good.

As a further aside, it seems to me that the biggest problem with RCA plugs
is that there isn't much of a standard, as near as I can tell; thus, we
have an endless supply of different dimension plugs and sockets from
different vendors. "Fit" can be a real bugbear for RCA, I've found, and

they work.

that's why I'm hoping to find some solidly built plugs with a split pin
and locking sleeve, but costing less than a small fortune.

wouldnt be a solution anyway.


no, you're considering options that offer features that arent
relevant. That's no problem if you dont decide on them.

This is true. On the other hand, if I need digital cables down the line
(higher frequency, where capacitance may become significant in the
calculation), then it'd be nice if I could just grab one of my existing
cables (or at least a spool and make a new cable) and go.

this shouldnt be an issue with any reasonable cable.


Its not that, I see you understand the questions. The issue for me is
in your suggestion to do a number of things that have no real world
benefit.

I confess, part of it is satisfaction that I could throw these cables
at audiophiles with crazed passive preamps and oddball tube power amps,
and have them ooh and ahh over my outrageously transparent cables,
when in fact they're only more 'transparent' than something else, because
of the gross deficiencies in their equipment.

On the other hand, I don't actually know any audiophiles like this. I tend
to avoid 'em. :-)

why not just pick whats good for the job? I honestly think youre
making far too much of a meal out of this. Do you have nothing better
to do?


A much bigger factor is that for 50 feet or so of cable, the difference
between radio shack's cheapest coax, Belden 8422, and anything else I'm
considering is going to be on the range of a buck or two, so why not?

All this time you've spent here, whats it worth?


At $60 for 250 ft, around 80m, 75c/m its overpriced for whats needed.
In terms of specs, whats wanted is coax thats robust. 50 ohm rf coax
or 75 ohm flexible UK TV coax both fill this requirement happily.
1800b offers features that arent relevant to your app.

"flexible coax" sounds good. That's one problem I've got with coax for
interconnects--it tends to be stiff.

yes it is, but its still flexible. Soft floppy stuff tends not to be
much cop.

Enough. This has got silly.


Regards, NT

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Good question. The answer is to simply modify all of one's equipment
that uses two-conductor cables, then go with two-conductors and a good
shield for cabling and use XLR connectors. Just get the soldering
iron out and buy some SSM2141 and SSM2142, line driver and receiver,
chips from Analog Devices (they're available in convienent 8-pin DIP
packaging). There now, that should eliminate such cabling dilemas once
and for all. ;-)

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Good question. The answer is to simply modify all of one's equipment
that uses two-conductor cables, then go with two-conductors and a good
shield for cabling and use XLR connectors. Just get the soldering
iron out and buy some SSM2141 and SSM2142, line driver and receiver,
chips from Analog Devices (they're available in convienent 8-pin DIP
packaging). There now, that should eliminate such cabling dilemas once
and for all. ;-)

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Good question. The answer is to simply modify all of one's equipment
that uses two-conductor cables, then go with two-conductors and a good
shield for cabling and use XLR connectors. Just get the soldering
iron out and buy some SSM2141 and SSM2142, line driver and receiver,
chips from Analog Devices (they're available in convienent 8-pin DIP
packaging). There now, that should eliminate such cabling dilemas once
and for all. ;-)

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

(R. D. Davis) wrote in news:vumi14sjv8r4d1
@corp.supernews.com:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Good question. The answer is to simply modify all of one's equipment
that uses two-conductor cables, then go with two-conductors and a good
shield for cabling and use XLR connectors. Just get the soldering
iron out and buy some SSM2141 and SSM2142, line driver and receiver,
chips from Analog Devices (they're available in convienent 8-pin DIP
packaging). There now, that should eliminate such cabling dilemas once
and for all. ;-)


The solution to all my IC problems was to buy some Neutrik Pro-FI
connectors.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

(R. D. Davis) wrote in news:vumi14sjv8r4d1
@corp.supernews.com:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Good question. The answer is to simply modify all of one's equipment
that uses two-conductor cables, then go with two-conductors and a good
shield for cabling and use XLR connectors. Just get the soldering
iron out and buy some SSM2141 and SSM2142, line driver and receiver,
chips from Analog Devices (they're available in convienent 8-pin DIP
packaging). There now, that should eliminate such cabling dilemas once
and for all. ;-)


The solution to all my IC problems was to buy some Neutrik Pro-FI
connectors.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

(R. D. Davis) wrote in news:vumi14sjv8r4d1
@corp.supernews.com:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
Why use 2-conductor shielded cable for line-level RCA cables?

Good question. The answer is to simply modify all of one's equipment
that uses two-conductor cables, then go with two-conductors and a good
shield for cabling and use XLR connectors. Just get the soldering
iron out and buy some SSM2141 and SSM2142, line driver and receiver,
chips from Analog Devices (they're available in convienent 8-pin DIP
packaging). There now, that should eliminate such cabling dilemas once
and for all. ;-)


The solution to all my IC problems was to buy some Neutrik Pro-FI
connectors.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low capacitance
value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good, right? However, am I
in any danger of causing problems by having both centre conductor and shield
tied to ground? I _think_ that having all of the shield-attached ends on the
same component should avoid ground loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in
my head. One question that comes to mind is why do almost all except the most
extreme (weird) high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries? Another one is am I mucking up the
low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

check out http://www.tnt-audio.com, an italien audio site. Got a few
interesting DIY-designs to set you on the way.

Just my €0,02

Gerbert

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low capacitance
value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good, right? However, am I
in any danger of causing problems by having both centre conductor and shield
tied to ground? I _think_ that having all of the shield-attached ends on the
same component should avoid ground loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in
my head. One question that comes to mind is why do almost all except the most
extreme (weird) high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries? Another one is am I mucking up the
low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

check out http://www.tnt-audio.com, an italien audio site. Got a few
interesting DIY-designs to set you on the way.

Just my €0,02

Gerbert

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low capacitance
value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good, right? However, am I
in any danger of causing problems by having both centre conductor and shield
tied to ground? I _think_ that having all of the shield-attached ends on the
same component should avoid ground loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in
my head. One question that comes to mind is why do almost all except the most
extreme (weird) high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries? Another one is am I mucking up the
low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

check out http://www.tnt-audio.com, an italien audio site. Got a few
interesting DIY-designs to set you on the way.

Just my €0,02

Gerbert

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low capacitance
value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good, right? However, am I
in any danger of causing problems by having both centre conductor and shield
tied to ground? I _think_ that having all of the shield-attached ends on the
same component should avoid ground loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in
my head. One question that comes to mind is why do almost all except the most
extreme (weird) high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries? Another one is am I mucking up the
low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

check out http://www.tnt-audio.com, an italien audio site. Got a few
interesting DIY-designs to set you on the way.

Just my €0,02

Gerbert

StrideR wrote in
:

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low
capacitance value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good,
right? However, am I in any danger of causing problems by having both
centre conductor and shield tied to ground? I _think_ that having all
of the shield-attached ends on the same component should avoid ground
loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in my head. One question that
comes to mind is why do almost all except the most extreme (weird)
high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries? Another one is am I mucking
up the low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

check out http://www.tnt-audio.com, an italien audio site. Got a few
interesting DIY-designs to set you on the way.

Just my €0,02

Gerbert


First of all, are you making RCA or XLR interconnect, looks like RCA but
you say you're going to connect the centre conductor and shield to ground?

Because in RCA, one is called signal, one is called return. Anyway, the
best way is you solder one of the twisted pair to the signal, and the
shield and the other twisted pair conductor to the return (this end should
be connected to the "source"). However, on the other end, you don't need to
connect the shield to the return.

By using coax wire to make interconnect, it is relatively cheaper and
quicker to make, a normal "clamp-on" RCA connector with coax wire will only
take 5 minutes to make.

Lawrence Leung

StrideR wrote in
:

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low
capacitance value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good,
right? However, am I in any danger of causing problems by having both
centre conductor and shield tied to ground? I _think_ that having all
of the shield-attached ends on the same component should avoid ground
loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in my head. One question that
comes to mind is why do almost all except the most extreme (weird)
high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries? Another one is am I mucking
up the low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

check out http://www.tnt-audio.com, an italien audio site. Got a few
interesting DIY-designs to set you on the way.

Just my €0,02

Gerbert


First of all, are you making RCA or XLR interconnect, looks like RCA but
you say you're going to connect the centre conductor and shield to ground?

Because in RCA, one is called signal, one is called return. Anyway, the
best way is you solder one of the twisted pair to the signal, and the
shield and the other twisted pair conductor to the return (this end should
be connected to the "source"). However, on the other end, you don't need to
connect the shield to the return.

By using coax wire to make interconnect, it is relatively cheaper and
quicker to make, a normal "clamp-on" RCA connector with coax wire will only
take 5 minutes to make.

Lawrence Leung

StrideR wrote in
:

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low
capacitance value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good,
right? However, am I in any danger of causing problems by having both
centre conductor and shield tied to ground? I _think_ that having all
of the shield-attached ends on the same component should avoid ground
loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in my head. One question that
comes to mind is why do almost all except the most extreme (weird)
high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries? Another one is am I mucking
up the low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

check out http://www.tnt-audio.com, an italien audio site. Got a few
interesting DIY-designs to set you on the way.

Just my €0,02

Gerbert


First of all, are you making RCA or XLR interconnect, looks like RCA but
you say you're going to connect the centre conductor and shield to ground?

Because in RCA, one is called signal, one is called return. Anyway, the
best way is you solder one of the twisted pair to the signal, and the
shield and the other twisted pair conductor to the return (this end should
be connected to the "source"). However, on the other end, you don't need to
connect the shield to the return.

By using coax wire to make interconnect, it is relatively cheaper and
quicker to make, a normal "clamp-on" RCA connector with coax wire will only
take 5 minutes to make.

Lawrence Leung

StrideR wrote in
:

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low
capacitance value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good,
right? However, am I in any danger of causing problems by having both
centre conductor and shield tied to ground? I _think_ that having all
of the shield-attached ends on the same component should avoid ground
loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in my head. One question that
comes to mind is why do almost all except the most extreme (weird)
high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries? Another one is am I mucking
up the low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

check out http://www.tnt-audio.com, an italien audio site. Got a few
interesting DIY-designs to set you on the way.

Just my €0,02

Gerbert


First of all, are you making RCA or XLR interconnect, looks like RCA but
you say you're going to connect the centre conductor and shield to ground?

Because in RCA, one is called signal, one is called return. Anyway, the
best way is you solder one of the twisted pair to the signal, and the
shield and the other twisted pair conductor to the return (this end should
be connected to the "source"). However, on the other end, you don't need to
connect the shield to the return.

By using coax wire to make interconnect, it is relatively cheaper and
quicker to make, a normal "clamp-on" RCA connector with coax wire will only
take 5 minutes to make.

Lawrence Leung

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:10:44 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

StrideR wrote in
:

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low
capacitance value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good,
right?

Yes, should be pretty good.

However, am I in any danger of causing problems by having both
centre conductor and shield tied to ground?

No, although a three-conductor balanced system such as XLR connectors
will allow, is even better.

I _think_ that having all
of the shield-attached ends on the same component should avoid ground
loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in my head.

That's essentially correct, and the shields should usually be
connected at the preamp end, for minimum system noise.

One question that
comes to mind is why do almost all except the most extreme (weird)
high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries?

Largely because this usually provides good results! :-)

Another one is am I mucking
up the low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

Um, what 'low impedance factor' might this be?

First of all, are you making RCA or XLR interconnect, looks like RCA but
you say you're going to connect the centre conductor and shield to ground?

Because in RCA, one is called signal, one is called return. Anyway, the
best way is you solder one of the twisted pair to the signal, and the
shield and the other twisted pair conductor to the return (this end should
be connected to the "source"). However, on the other end, you don't need to
connect the shield to the return.

It is usually best to connect the shield-connected end of the cable to
the preamp, *not* the source, for lowest system noise. This applies to
all cables, including the one from preamp to power amp, if not using
an integrated amp.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:10:44 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

StrideR wrote in
:

On 8 Dec 2003 11:00:10 -0800, (Colin Bigam) wrote:

Now I'm thinking here that I've got a twisted pair for induced-noise
cancellation plus a 100% coverage foil shield, and a fairly low
capacitance value (something like 25pF/m). Should be pretty good,
right?

Yes, should be pretty good.

However, am I in any danger of causing problems by having both
centre conductor and shield tied to ground?

No, although a three-conductor balanced system such as XLR connectors
will allow, is even better.

I _think_ that having all
of the shield-attached ends on the same component should avoid ground
loops, but I can't quite puzzle it out in my head.

That's essentially correct, and the shields should usually be
connected at the preamp end, for minimum system noise.

One question that
comes to mind is why do almost all except the most extreme (weird)
high-end commercial interconnects use either coax or at least
single-conductor-with-shield geometries?

Largely because this usually provides good results! :-)

Another one is am I mucking
up the low impedance factor by wiring it up this way?

Um, what 'low impedance factor' might this be?

First of all, are you making RCA or XLR interconnect, looks like RCA but
you say you're going to connect the centre conductor and shield to ground?

Because in RCA, one is called signal, one is called return. Anyway, the
best way is you solder one of the twisted pair to the signal, and the
shield and the other twisted pair conductor to the return (this end should
be connected to the "source"). However, on the other end, you don't need to
connect the shield to the return.

It is usually best to connect the shield-connected end of the cable to
the preamp, *not* the source, for lowest system noise. This applies to
all cables, including the one from preamp to power amp, if not using
an integrated amp.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering