Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Sensor wrote:
Agent 86 wrote: Skin effect isn't an issue. But I wouldn't consider 4 strands to be a *real* stranded cable. When you've only got 4 strands bundled together, you've got a pretty high percentage of air to copper. And air's not a particularly good conductor. Pretty high percentage of air to copper? What does this mean? It probably means we've got someone who seems to be confused with how wire is specified. Wire is specified in terms of actual area of conductor. Any air between the individual conductors in a stranded bundle doesn't count. This means that a standed wire bundle might be a little larger in diameter than the corresponding solid wire. And there would be nothing wrong with 1 strand! Agreed. It's common mistake to believe that stranding wire does something about skin effect. It doesn't. Skin effect is a magnetic effect. As long as there is magnetic coupling between the strands, the skin effect is about the same. That means that stranding the wire does nothing to affect skin effect, and neither does insulating the strands from each other. A true low skin effect wire deals with the magnetic effects by either making the conductor in the shape of a tube, or winding the strands of stranded wire around an non-magnetic core. Plastic has been used for the core material of low-skin-effect wire. However, increasing the diameter of the conductor usually increases the inductance of the wire unless the wire is coax. Inductance of speaker cables can be a larger source of losses than skin effect. The good news is that skin effect just isn't a problem at regular audio frequencies. It's not going to diminish the sheen of cymbals, etc. Unless the speakers have very low impedance, inductance isn't much of a problem, either. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Agent 86 wrote:
some 14 AWG zip cord (or speaker cable). If you look close, you'll notice that it's made up of lots (and lots) of teeney-tiny strands of wire that fit really close together so there's not much air space between them. The air's not particularly important, but the implication is that if you use enough strands so they fit together tightly, you have *almost* as much metal in a stranded wire as in a solid wire of the same gauge. This must be one of those schoolboy mathematics exercises: Calculate the percentage of copper in a cable of n strands. I make it 100% for 1 strand, 88% for 2 strands, 87% for 3 strands, 83% for 4 strands and 91% for many strands. Of course my geometry isn't what it was forty years ago. If you want 100% copper in your multi-strand wire you must fill the gaps with even smaller strands and sell it for $thousands per metre. -- Eiron. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander writes:
glw82664 wrote: I'm far from an audiophile and need help with some wiring. I have an old pioneer receiver that has an A/B switch. I use B for satellite speakers on my deck. Until recently, they worked fine having run about 30 feet of wire from where the receiver sits to the speakers. Yesterday, I moved the receiver to a room farther away and had to splice in about an extra 20 feet of wire. There are actually three splices in each wire now due to obstacles and such. Now, when I turn up the volume to even a moderate level the receiver stops transmiting the signal and starts clicking. Eek. Three splices and you expect it to work properly? I would expect three splices to work properly when splices are properly done. Soldering, reliable crimp type connections, screw terminals and good quality connectors are proven ways to splice pices of cables together. If you have mande bad splices, then things can break there. Every time you splice a wire you loose 2-4db per splice. Where did you get those numbers? They do not hold true. A properly done wire splices make very little loss. It is avery small fraction of ohms in resistance, typically in milliohms or test of milliohms range. And the volume loss is definatly below fraction of decibel. The effect of properly made splice is less than the effect of few meters of speaker cable! If the splice had 2-4 dB of loss, it would be a really bad splice and heat up very much in the use, because it would in this case loose around half of the power amplifier is sending out! Your claim is just proven NOT to be true! Three, plus the connectors on the end... That's going to add up to a noticeable load increase on the receiver. Those will not add up any noticeable load on the receiver! Splicing bad. Spilcing is bad for system reliabity. More splices you have in your system, the more propable is that some day one of them fails. The other effects of properly done splices on audio speaker wires are neglectable! I presume the extra wire I added is the problem. The wire I have been using, with success in other parts of the house, is using a load of telephone line that I came in to for free. It has eight wires in each run so I split 4 positive and 4 negative. It adds up to roughly 14 gauge. I have checked, re-checked, and re-checked again all the connections and they are correct so I presume the runs are simply too long for the wire I am using. I'd re-run it with two pieces of 12 gauge wire. Those 4 pieces of telephone wire aren't 14 gauge, btw. The look like it, but in terms of capacity, they are closer to 20 gauge at best. This is a common problem people make, in fact, with cat-5 and simmilar wires. It takes a lot of them together to equal what one (by then, with the insulation factored in) decent wire will do. This is true. Not that it isn't possible, but most people find it cumbersome compared to using plain 12 or 14 gauge stranded electrical wire. Another option might be to get some Romex and run it under the house. Another option might be to go with self-powered speakers. Then you'd just be sending a preamp signal which should be no problem. (Or just get a small amp for the second room - the best solution of all, IMO) -- Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/) Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at http://www.epanorama.net/ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: I'd re-run it with two pieces of 12 gauge wire. Good advice. Those 4 pieces of telephone wire aren't 14 gauge, btw. The look like it, but in terms of capacity, they are closer to 20 gauge at best. I believe that doubling the amount of copper per foot drops you 3 wire gauges. The basic wire is 24 gauge so paralleling two strands gets you 21 gauge, paralleling 4 gets you 18 gauge, and if you went for broke, paralleing all 8 gets you to 15 gauge. Which brings up my second point in that sentance. 4 or 8 little wires with insulation added is larger than most electrical wire that you are trying to emulate. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Eek. Three splices and you expect it to work properly? Every
time you splice a wire you loose 2-4db per splice. Three, plus the connectors on the end... That's going to add up to a noticeable load increase on the receiver. Splicing bad. Utter baloney. 2 to 4 dB per splice? You lose nothing. The resistance of a proper solder joint is nearly zero. Where do you get this "information"? This is typical of UseNet groups. Someone asks a question, no one gives the right answer, and the discussion wanders off in all sorts of directions. Okay. You want the "right" answer to the original question? In all likelihood, at least one of the splices is shorted. The receiver is trying to work into at least a partial short, which is why the protective relays are activating. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Eek. Three splices and you expect it to work properly? Every time you splice a wire you loose 2-4db per splice. Three, plus the connectors on the end... That's going to add up to a noticeable load increase on the receiver. Splicing bad. Utter baloney. 2 to 4 dB per splice? You lose nothing. The resistance of a proper solder joint is nearly zero. Where do you get this "information"? This is typical of UseNet groups. Someone asks a question, no one gives the right answer, and the discussion wanders off in all sorts of directions. Okay. You want the "right" answer to the original question? In all likelihood, at least one of the splices is shorted. The receiver is trying to work into at least a partial short, which is why the protective relays are activating. An afterthought - did not the OP say he was using phone cable - and combining 3 pairs into one to reduce resistance? Pound to a penny he's crossed a pair in a splice somewhere and created a short. My advice would be to buzz the cables through to check this out. Chas |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Eek. Three splices and you expect it to work properly? Every time you splice a wire you loose 2-4db per splice. Three, plus the connectors on the end... That's going to add up to a noticeable load increase on the receiver. Splicing bad. Utter baloney. 2 to 4 dB per splice? You lose nothing. The resistance of a proper solder joint is nearly zero. Where do you get this "information"? This is typical of UseNet groups. Someone asks a question, no one gives the right answer, and the discussion wanders off in all sorts of directions. Okay. You want the "right" answer to the original question? In all likelihood, at least one of the splices is shorted. The receiver is trying to work into at least a partial short, which is why the protective relays are activating. I tend to agree, without being on the spot. Chas |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: Eek. Three splices and you expect it to work properly? Every time you splice a wire you loose 2-4db per splice. Three, plus the connectors on the end... That's going to add up to a noticeable load increase on the receiver. Splicing bad. Uh, well... Just to prove my own remaining sanity, I just did an experiment where I took three lengths of 24 gauge stranded wire (4 strands) and "spliced it." I didn't solder it, I didn't use any crimped connectors, I didn't use wire nuts or any other such contrivances. I simply stripped about 3/4" of insulation and twisted it together between by thumb and forefinger, then wrapped the result with about 1" of electrical tape. My crude "splices" added approximately 0.005 ohms to the total resistance of the wire. Maybe I am off a decimal place. You're off more than 2 decimal places, almost 3. OTOH, if your amp did what it did, you have a short somewhere and it kicked in its protection circuit. (checks) Ah. 2-4db is for radio/TV. No, its off so far that there is no excuse. So it would be a small percentage for audio. Like good amplifiers, good splices have no audible effects. ;-) |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:19:27 -0400, Agent 86 wrote
(in article ): I use automotive jumper cables from Pep Boys. They come in pairs with really heavy duty clamps. I had to tack weld them to my monitor terminals, but that was sort of fun. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:19:27 -0400, Agent 86 wrote (in article ): I use automotive jumper cables from Pep Boys. They come in pairs with really heavy duty clamps. I had to tack weld them to my monitor terminals, but that was sort of fun. But are you losing 3 db where through the weld. A bit of overkill if you ask me. But I bet you are getting as good or even better results over those $8000 speaker cables. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:19:27 -0400, Agent 86 wrote (in article ): I use automotive jumper cables from Pep Boys. They come in pairs with really heavy duty clamps. I had to tack weld them to my monitor terminals, but that was sort of fun. I was thinking that the speaker manufacturers have misssed an opportunity - add cables, add the margin to the speaker price, and profit. All sorts of opportunity for hype. Obviously tack-welding the speaker cables to the drivers or crossover terminals avoids possibility for connectors to mess up the sound. ;-) BTW ElectroVoice seems to have picked up on this. My new ZX5-60PI monitors came with built in speaker cables - about 6 feet long. There's even a notch for holding them molded into the enclosure. ;-) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
The receiver is trying to work into at least a partial short What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
The receiver is trying to work into at least a partial short
What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? Almost zero ohms, but not quite. Like being in, but not breaking....nevermind. -John O |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: The receiver is trying to work into at least a partial short What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? ....that, or partially pregnant. ;-) |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Eiron" wrote ...
Agent 86 wrote: some 14 AWG zip cord (or speaker cable). If you look close, you'll notice that it's made up of lots (and lots) of teeney-tiny strands of wire that fit really close together so there's not much air space between them. The air's not particularly important, but the implication is that if you use enough strands so they fit together tightly, you have *almost* as much metal in a stranded wire as in a solid wire of the same gauge. This must be one of those schoolboy mathematics exercises: Calculate the percentage of copper in a cable of n strands. I make it 100% for 1 strand, 88% for 2 strands, 87% for 3 strands, 83% for 4 strands and 91% for many strands. Of course my geometry isn't what it was forty years ago. Fortunetely, we don't have to rely on high-school geometry. Wire (both solid and stranded) is rated in terms of its cross- sectional area of copper (or whatever metal). In fact the larger sizes of wire are named after their cross-sectional areas For example see this chart... http://www.aseapower.com/technotes/tn_004.htm Stranded wire is rated by the combined cross-sectional area of all the strands added together. The airspace between them is not part of the calculation. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
The receiver is trying to work into at least a partial short What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? As opposed to a "dead short." A partial short is one whose resistance is rather lower than what the source is comfortable with. But it's not "zero." That's a dead short. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:34:52 -0400, Joe Sensor wrote
(in article ): Ty Ford wrote: On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:19:27 -0400, Agent 86 wrote (in article ): I use automotive jumper cables from Pep Boys. They come in pairs with really heavy duty clamps. I had to tack weld them to my monitor terminals, but that was sort of fun. But are you losing 3 db where through the weld. A bit of overkill if you ask me. But I bet you are getting as good or even better results over those $8000 speaker cables. They made a bit of a bump under the rug, but once we put in the raised floor and cut channels for the cables, everything was fine. Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 20:35:01 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote: They made a bit of a bump under the rug, but once we put in the raised floor and cut channels for the cables, everything was fine. Arf! Well I *really* have made jumper cables from some paralleled ancient greenish Monster cables that somebody gave me. Very limp. Also very liquid, and boisterous. Insouciant, maybe. My old Honda has a Monster cable wire from the battery neg to block. Still idles a little off pitch; dunno... Chris Hornbeck "What, never?" "No, never." "What, never?" "Well, hardly ever." "HMS Pinafore" |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ... My old Honda has a Monster cable wire from the battery neg to block. Still idles a little off pitch; dunno... It's unidirectional; you've got it running the wrong way. Glenn D. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:36:32 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote: My old Honda has a Monster cable wire from the battery neg to block. Still idles a little off pitch; dunno... It's unidirectional; you've got it running the wrong way. Doh! That's! why I've been wearing out all these rear-view mirrors. Thanks, Chris Hornbeck "What, never?" "No, never." "What, never?" "Well, hardly ever." "HMS Pinafore" |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:19:59 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote: What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? A single strand "cat wisker" bridged to the other wire in the pair. , _ , | \ MKA: Steve Urbach , | )erek No JUNK in my email please , ____|_/ragonsclaw , / / / Running United Devices "Cure For Cancer" Project 24/7 Have you helped? http://www.grid.org |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:05:29 GMT, Steve Urbach wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:19:59 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz" wrote: What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? A single strand "cat wisker" bridged to the other wire in the pair. Interesting concept. I've been working with audio for 35 years and never seen a single example of a "cat wisker" crossing through the insulation. Is this something that's really been a problem for you? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
AZ Nomad wrote:
What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? A single strand "cat wisker" bridged to the other wire in the pair. Interesting concept. I've been working with audio for 35 years and never seen a single example of a "cat wisker" crossing through the insulation. Is this something that's really been a problem for you? Read the thread as to what the OP was doing. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"AZ Nomad" wrote ...
Interesting concept. I've been working with audio for 35 years and never seen a single example of a "cat wisker" crossing through the insulation. Is this something that's really been a problem for you? It is always a concern when terminating stranded wire, especially in close quarters like inside connector shells. And especially with really fine wire where the individual strands are nearly invisible. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: The receiver is trying to work into at least a partial short What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? As opposed to a "dead short." Opposed to a 'dead short'...wouldn't that be a 'live short'? IOW, not so shorted as to completely kill whatever it was connected to, but.... Actually, that started out as a tongue in cheek answer, but there's actually some logic to it. A partial short is one whose resistance is rather lower than what the source is comfortable with. But it's not "zero." That's a dead short. Also, could be a short which only occurs when the voltage gets high enough to overcome the dielectric quality of whatever is keeping the conductors apart; be it air, paper, dirt or whatever...also could be a short which only shows up when the insulator becomes moist, as in corrosion or paper or dirt.... jak |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote:
What's a "partial short?" Is that like a partial virgin? "Steve Urbach" wrote: A single strand "cat wisker" bridged to the other wire in the pair. That's a short, period. It's not "partial." You don't have to have the entire bundle making contact to have a short. William suggested that his interpretation of the difference between a "partial" short and a "dead" short is resistance -- a partial short has some, a dead short doesn't. So what's the threshold for the difference between partial and dead? I guess it would depend on the circuit it's in. Is any case of insufficient load resistance a "partial short?" -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Crowley wrote:
Interesting concept. I've been working with audio for 35 years and never seen a single example of a "cat wisker" crossing through the insulation. Is this something that's really been a problem for you? It is always a concern when terminating stranded wire, especially in close quarters like inside connector shells. And especially with really fine wire where the individual strands are nearly invisible. Is quite a problem when terminating stranded wire at a PCB hole, especially if the hole is a tad too small. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"mc" wrote in message ... My understanding is exactly the opposite -- that separate strands (of the correct total cross sectional area) are better than a single wire. That's because of "skin effect" (tendency of high frequencies to be carried at the periphery of the wire, although that is probably negligible at audio frequencies) and also because of better heat dissipation. Can someone elucidate? Skin effect is really really important if you have any real program content you care about in the upper radio end of the spectrum Like I said, "negligible at audio frequencies"... I mentioned it because it's not a reason to *avoid* using multiple strands. Skin effect is also not a reason to choose multiple strands. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:33:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Skin effect is also not a reason to choose multiple strands. Yeah, regular plain old audio wire is *not* Litz wire. There was a theory, IIRC, that the various strands of multi-strand wire might have enough voltage differences along their entire summed length that the diode-y-ish junctions might become significant. Nowadays, I'd just have to say, well yeah, maybe so, and move on. Some, actually *most*, stuff that we know about is below our perceptual noise floor. And as I get older, more of the marginal stuff begins to fall below my interest floor. Leaving microphones, placement, musicians, in reverse order. Thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck "Been out haunting the neighborhood, And everybody can see I'm no good. When I'm walking out between parked cars, With my head full of stars." -Elliott Smith |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Last time I asked about "skin effect" at audio frequencies, I was talking
to an RF engineer at Cascade Microtech where they KNOW what skin effect is. He was drinking from a can of Pepsi at the time and he laughed to hard that soda came out of his nose. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ... On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:33:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Skin effect is also not a reason to choose multiple strands. Yeah, regular plain old audio wire is *not* Litz wire. And, when skin effect actually is an issue, Litz wire is not commonly used. There was a theory, IIRC, that the various strands of multi-strand wire might have enough voltage differences along their entire summed length that the diode-y-ish junctions might become significant. The current densities required for that to *actually* happen would probably melt the wire. Nowadays, I'd just have to say, well yeah, maybe so, and move on. Some, actually *most*, stuff that we know about is below our perceptual noise floor. Or, is just plain bad physics or electrical engineering. And as I get older, more of the marginal stuff begins to fall below my interest floor. Audio systems that fail to satisfy generally fail in terms of the basics. Leaving microphones, placement, musicians, in reverse order. Something like it. It is amazing how relatively easy it is to get nice-sounding recordings with good musicians in a good room, as compared to working with mediocre or poor musicians in a mediocre or poor room. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... Last time I asked about "skin effect" at audio frequencies, I was talking to an RF engineer at Cascade Microtech where they KNOW what skin effect is. He was drinking from a can of Pepsi at the time and he laughed to hard that soda came out of his nose. Which reminds me of that saying about amateur soldiers studying tactics, while professionals study logistics. Transmission lines that carefully consider skin effect are as close as the nearst cable system trunk line. Of course its coax. The center conductor is usually a relatively large-diameter solid sliver-plated aluminum wire. No tiny strands, no separate insulation, none of that crap. The signal is in the silver plating on the large-diameter aluminum carrier structure. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... glw82664 wrote: You are possibly clipping the signal as the receiver tries to supply enough voltage to get the amplifier gain you require. **Nonsense. Utter, banal nonsense. Read what the poster typed. He said: --- "There are actually three splices in each wire now due to obstacles and such. Now, when I turn up the volume to even a moderate level the receiver stops transmiting the signal and starts clicking." --- What is happening is now obvious. The key words a "moderate" and "splices". Generally, if there is a direct short between the leads the ENTIRE signal will pass through that short, even at the very lowest levels. Consequently, he would have problems at all levels, even low ones, and the speakers would remain silent, period. But you have a point. If he were cranking things all the way up he might clip things, but a moderate turn should not clip the amp. My guess is that he has some weird shorts possibly between channels. It is also possible that the configuration of the wire is causing some capacitive artifacts. **Possible, but extremely unlikely. Check all possibilities, I say. A splice may also be shorting together, although if that were happening you would not be getting sound even at low levels, let alone at moderate levels. **Wrong! The protection systems in many amps rely on the current flow through the output devices. At low levels, little current will flow and the amp will not shut down. Baloney. While the amp might not shut down, he certainly would not be getting sound from his speakers, even at low levels. A short would shunt virtually all the juice through the shorted sections, and the speakers would make no sound at all, because no current would be flowing through them. I suggest going for heavier wire, without all of those potentially problem causing splices. Places like Home Depot and Lowe's have 12 AWG low-voltage wire for use with outdoor lighting systems that is ideal for making long cable runs to speakers located as yours are, especially outdoors. The wire is fairly cheap and is available in 100 and 50 foot lengths. **On that we agree. CONTIGUOUS lengths of cable will probably solve the problem. Yep. Howard Ferstler |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... glw82664 wrote: You are possibly clipping the signal as the receiver tries to supply enough voltage to get the amplifier gain you require. **Nonsense. Utter, banal nonsense. Read what the poster typed. He said: --- "There are actually three splices in each wire now due to obstacles and such. Now, when I turn up the volume to even a moderate level the receiver stops transmiting the signal and starts clicking." --- What is happening is now obvious. The key words a "moderate" and "splices". Generally, if there is a direct short between the leads the ENTIRE signal will pass through that short, even at the very lowest levels. Consequently, he would have problems at all levels, even low ones, and the speakers would remain silent, period. **Wrong! You have neglected to allow for cable resistance. ALL wire has some resistance. Long wires have more resistance. But you have a point. If he were cranking things all the way up he might clip things, but a moderate turn should not clip the amp. My guess is that he has some weird shorts possibly between channels. **That is what I and other posters have suggested. It is also possible that the configuration of the wire is causing some capacitive artifacts. **Possible, but extremely unlikely. Check all possibilities, I say. **And how is the average user going to check capacitance? A splice may also be shorting together, although if that were happening you would not be getting sound even at low levels, let alone at moderate levels. **Wrong! The protection systems in many amps rely on the current flow through the output devices. At low levels, little current will flow and the amp will not shut down. Baloney. **After you spend several years studying electronics and after you spend most of your lifetime servicing domestic audio equipment, you will be qualified to argue with me. At this point you are speaking from a position of extreme ignorance. What I wrote is 100% on the money. I have seen it/analysed it/measured it many times. While the amp might not shut down, he certainly would not be getting sound from his speakers, even at low levels. **That would depend on the type of short. A short on one channel only, would allow the other channel/s to work. A short would shunt virtually all the juice through the shorted sections, and the speakers would make no sound at all, because no current would be flowing through them. **Yep. Unless it was a high resistnace short. Say 0.5 Ohms. And yes, I've seen that happen many times. I suggest going for heavier wire, without all of those potentially problem causing splices. Places like Home Depot and Lowe's have 12 AWG low-voltage wire for use with outdoor lighting systems that is ideal for making long cable runs to speakers located as yours are, especially outdoors. The wire is fairly cheap and is available in 100 and 50 foot lengths. **On that we agree. CONTIGUOUS lengths of cable will probably solve the problem. Yep. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:17:48 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote: Skin effect is really really important if you have any real program content you care about in the upper radio end of the spectrum Idiot. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 Jun 2005 13:18:57 -0700, "cirejcon" wrote:
This doesn't sound right. I suspect you're comparing diameters rather than area. Depending on the speaker power, even four phone wires might be marginal. Check the current ratings he http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm Add the current ratings of the wire you're using, and you'll see it's nowhere near 14 gauge. Right. A jump in 3 gauge sizes is approximately a doubling (a halving) of the wire cross-sectional area, so four 20-gauge wires is the same as one 14-gauge wire. However, the phone-wire that the OP is using is probably 26 gauge, so he'd need sixteen in parallel to equal a 14 gauge. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 Jun 2005 05:28:50 -0700, "glw82664" wrote:
Now, when I turn up the volume to even a moderate level the receiver stops transmiting the signal and starts clicking. I presume the extra wire I added is the problem. You must have a short or an "almost short" that arcs-over at higher voltages. Your receiver will never complain about having too much resistance to drive, only too little. The only drawback to having excessive resistance in the cable is inefficiency (wasting power in the wire). |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:17:48 GMT, SSJVCmag wrote: Skin effect is really really important if you have any real program content you care about in the upper radio end of the spectrum Idiot. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative contribution to the discussion. Plonk. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On 6 Jun 2005 05:28:50 -0700, "glw82664" wrote: Now, when I turn up the volume to even a moderate level the receiver stops transmiting the signal and starts clicking. I presume the extra wire I added is the problem. You must have a short or an "almost short" that arcs-over at higher voltages. Where do you live that typical speaker voltages can "arc-over" in an atmosphere that supports human life? If you are posting from an alternative universe, my apologies. We have had a rash of cross-postings from other worlds lately. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What size speaker wire for longer runs? | Audio Opinions | |||
James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that." | Audio Opinions | |||
Bose 901 Review | General | |||
FA: MONSTER CABLE POWERLINE 2 Plus 2+ Speaker Wire 5ft Pair! PL2+ for Mono Amp Owners! Shorter Runs = Tighter Sound eBay Item number: 5726906571 | Marketplace | |||
Speaker wire - another fine theory | High End Audio |