Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular
RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. --Leonid |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
"Leonid Makarovsky" wrote ...
I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. NO You will rarely see a reference to that brand name without other common words like "botique", "snake-oil", "ripoff", "magic", "overpriced", "scam", etc. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. Nope. They're nicely made, but they don't carry a signal any better. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
"Leonid Makarovsky" wrote:
I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. What are you, new here? Are you really so bored that you have nothing better to do than troll? If you're gonna stir up ****, at least try to make it funny, wouldya? On the extremely slim chance that you're not kidding, *GOOGLE* baby! http://groups.google.ca/groups?&as_e...ec.audio.p ro -- "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) |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Jim Gilliland wrote:
Leonid Makarovsky wrote: I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. Nope. They're nicely made, but they don't carry a signal any better. I second the nicely made but no audio effect comment. If you want a truly useful upgrade, look for an RCA cable with a locking collet. With a twist the collar tightens down for a more secure connection. No audio benefit per se, but if you've ever had a loose RCA, you'll appreciate it. If you never move the equipment, you will never need it. -- J www.urbanvoyeur.com |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
: On the extremely slim chance that you're not kidding, *GOOGLE* baby! No, I wasn't. I didn't mean necessarily monster as brand name, but I meant those thick RCA cables which are similar to Monster ones. So my question is rather - old style regular RCA cables (L/R) vs Monster or similar thick fancy cables. Is it waste of $$$$? All I know that the old style thin cable can't be use to pass the digital audio out for instance (I did try it). I need a lot of them and I don't want to waste $$$ where it's not worth it. : http://groups.google.ca/groups?&as_e...ec.audio.p ro Thanks. I'll check it out. --Leonid |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote: I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Yes, much better . . . for the Monster shareholders. For that application, any cable that passes electricity will work fine. This doesn't sound like either a mission critical application or something that you're likely to be disconnecting and re-connecting a few times a week (in which case you shouldn't be using RCA connectors anyway), so there's no need to get a really beautifully constructed cable. Remember, you can buiy three or for Hosa or even Radio Shack cables for the price of a Monster cable, so even if it fails in ten years, you can replace it cheaply. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. As long as you plug them in going the right direction. There are arrows, you know. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote: All I know that the old style thin cable can't be use to pass the digital audio out for instance (I did try it). I've used ordinary audio cables to pass S/PDIF digital audio. You can't use a very long cable, but just about any pre-made RCA cable has done OK for me up to about 6 feet. And for not much money, you can buy real 75 ohm cable with RCA connectors on both ends under the guise of "video cable" which is the right stuff for S/PDIF. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Mike Rivers wrote:
And for not much money, you can buy real 75 ohm cable with RCA connectors on both ends under the guise of "video cable" which is the right stuff for S/PDIF. Yes, and for the avoidance of doubt, Monster and other snake oil brands and "fat" audio cables aren't 75 ohm, unless they're specifically sold as 75 ohm digital or video cable. -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. --Leonid Trolling? |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
: http://groups.google.ca/groups?&as_e...ec.audio.p ro Thanks for the link. I had no idea about this Monster crap. Now, I'll be avoiding this brand name. It's just recently I upgraded my system so I needed to buy new cables. All salesmen were trying to convince me to buy Monster brand. I suspected it was rather hype, so I decided to ask here. I had no idea it was rather a sensitive subject. --Leonid |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
All salesmen were trying to convince me to buy Monster brand. I suspected it was rather hype, so I decided to ask here. This is a hugely profitable item for them. They probably make more off of the Monster cables than the whole rest of the system that the cables will be hooking up. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Mike Rivers wrote:
: OK for me up to about 6 feet. And for not much money, you can buy real : 75 ohm cable with RCA connectors on both ends under the guise of "video : cable" which is the right stuff for S/PDIF. Thanks. By the way, going from 7.1 or 5.1 receiver to sub-woofer's built-in amp - the signal is analog - not digital, right? --Leonid |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote: Thanks. By the way, going from 7.1 or 5.1 receiver to sub-woofer's built-in amp - the signal is analog - not digital, right? Usually. But you were the one who mentioned digital. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. No, for the most part, Monster cables are more poorly made than typical mid-grade pro audio cables like Gotham or Whirlwind assemblies. The problem is that they are far more profitable for retailers to carry, so unfortunately at the typical MI store or stereo place, you see really crappy cables and overpriced Monster cables and nothing else. They have really driven everyone else out of the MI and home market with good marketing and dealer incentives. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
Lorin David Schultz wrote: : On the extremely slim chance that you're not kidding, *GOOGLE* baby! No, I wasn't. I didn't mean necessarily monster as brand name, but I meant those thick RCA cables which are similar to Monster ones. So my question is rather - old style regular RCA cables (L/R) vs Monster or similar thick fancy cables. Is it waste of $$$$? All I know that the old style thin cable can't be use to pass the digital audio out for instance (I did try it). IF you need to carry S-PDIF digital audio, or you need to carry video, then you need a 75 ohm coaxial cable. It doesn't matter who makes it as long as it has a real 75 ohm characteristic impedance. Buy the cheap Gepco foamcore ones. These are usually not very good choices for analogue audio, though. Different materials for different jobs. I need a lot of them and I don't want to waste $$$ where it's not worth it. To do what? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
from answers.com:
mon·ster (mÅ?n'stÉ™r) n. 1. a, An imaginary or legendary creature, such as a centaur or Harpy, that combines parts from various animal or human forms. b, A creature having a strange or frightening appearance. 2. An animal, a plant, or other organism having structural defects or deformities. 3. Pathology. A fetus or an infant that is grotesquely abnormal and usually not viable. 4. A very large animal, plant, or object. 5. One who inspires horror or disgust: a monster of selfishness. adj. Informal. Extremely large; monstrous Leonid Makarovsky wrote: Lorin David Schultz wrote: : On the extremely slim chance that you're not kidding, *GOOGLE* baby! No, I wasn't. I didn't mean necessarily monster as brand name, but I meant those thick RCA cables which are similar to Monster ones. So my question is rather - old style regular RCA cables (L/R) vs Monster or similar thick fancy cables. Most modern equipment with a low source impedance going short distances will not be effected by moderate amounts of cable capacitance. It's only when going long distances from high impedance sources does cable capacitance become an issue that produces audible signal degradation. There's no gaurantee that a fatter cable will have a lower capacitance. Does the Monster cable have pF/foot rating ? A heavier cable _might_ be more durable but for the typical fixed installation this is a minor consideration. Is it waste of $$$$? Yes. All I know that the old style thin cable can't be use to pass the digitalaudio out for instance (I did try it). I need a lot of them and I don't want to waste $$$ where it's not worth it. Good quality cable TV coax (RG59,etc) is not expensive. rd |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
RD Jones wrote:
Good quality cable TV coax (RG59,etc) is not expensive. Also not appropriate for audio or baseband video use because of the aluminum shield design; you can't solder to the stuff. This means you can't attach solder-type BNC or RCA connectors. Note that there are a lot of different cable designs all called RG59, all with different shields, center conductors, and dielectric. They only share dimensions and characteristic impedance, because that is all the Radio Guide specified for that cable. The stuff the cable TV guys use is really godawful. Spend an extra penny or two a foot and get copper braid shields. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
On 15 Dec 2005 20:52:41 GMT, Leonid Makarovsky
wrote: I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. My experience of Monster brand cables in consumer electronics is less than neutral. My day job troubleshooting folks' home installations has shown me quite a few examples of Monster brand cables physically destroying the jacks into which they were plugged, upon unplugging, by literally dragging the shield conductor out with them. Although it makes zero difference in sound from an ordinary cheap wire, if you really want a pretty factory- made wire, the Tributaries brand is rugged and reliable. Moving upscale from factory-made wires is custom made lengths of RG59, terminated with appropriate connectors. Properly dressed and laced, this can be very attractive and professional looking. You can do this yourself with only a little practice, but it requires some tools for proper terminations. Good fortune, Chris Hornbeck |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message ... Leonid Makarovsky wrote: I'm just wondering are Monster cables really that much better than the regular RCA cables for just regular analog devices such as tape deck going to a receiver or a CD player going to a receiver. Thanks. Nope. They're nicely made, but they don't carry a signal any better. I'd debate the "nicely made" part of this thread somewhat. I got a set of Monster interconnects one time that had not been assembled correctly.....NO solder on the center pin connections on either end. Sent some high-res ..jpg's to Monster, got the cables replaced and a t-shirt to boot. Still lost some project time on that one. dave |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
"Leonid Makarovsky" wrote:
I had no idea about this Monster crap. Now, I'll be avoiding this brand name. It's not just Monster. Snake Oil cable companies are everywhere. It's an industry. Buy cables that look well made, so that they'll be reliable. Any other characteristic is going to be irrelevant at typical home theatre system lengths. Is your system "typical?" Do you have any really long runs? If a salesman starts telling you how great a certain cable is, ask him the capacitance per foot. You don't even need to know what it means, because I guarantee he won't! -- "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) |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Jim Gilliland wrote:
Nope. They're nicely made, but they don't carry a signal any better. Nicely made? Really? The XLR cables that I have seen from Monster look like training projects for soldering 101 students. Very Sloppy. Luckily a Monster Rep gave them to me for free. He thought he could could get me hooked on them. Not likely. I would not pay $100-200 dollars for that ****. No way! -- Eric Practice Your Mixing Skills Download Our Multi-Track Masters www.Raw-Tracks.com www.Mad-Host.com |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Scott Dorsey wrote:
: I need a lot of them and I don't want to waste $$$ where it's not worth it. : To do what? L/R RCA cables to connect LD player (for analog soundtracks), CD player, tape deck (in/out), and VCR to a receiver. Then I will need 5 3.5 jack to RCA cables to connect my 7.1 soundcard to the receiver. Also a few digital coaxial (DVD player and one of the soundcards), optical tosslink (another soundcard and LD player). And a cable to connect a sub-woofer to a receiver. Spending over $200 on that kinda stuff looked suspecious, so I posted the question here. Glad I did. --Leonid |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Let me make the point that for audio and even digital you do NOT want
"cable guy" coax with the solid center conductor. That is designed for RF and will often be VERY microphonic on audio, plus as others noted the shield is typically aluminum foil. What you really want is cable designed to connect VCRs. These come in straight video or triple ones like three coax wires glued together with one Video and two audio lines. Get 'em cheap at your local Radio Shack store! I got a huge box for next to free at a Radio Shack "tent sale" and have been using them ever since. Even got gold plated RCA ends on them. Much more flexible than any solid core wire and designed to do the job. Well made and best of all, a fraction of the "monster" price. Benj |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Good quality cable TV coax (RG59,etc) is not expensive. Also not appropriate for audio or baseband video use because of the aluminum shield design; you can't solder to the stuff. This means you can't attach solder-type BNC or RCA connectors. If I were to recommend a style of connector for someone fairly new at this, there wouldn't be any (or at least, very little) soldering involved. With BNC, I've used crimped connectors for many years, and they're absolutely reliable. BUT...the parts have to match, including the crimp tool. The issue I have with soldering is that it's a lot harder to do it well, and still not melt everything together. Solder wicks up into the braid very quickly, and the heat melts some dielectrics, and all that. Soldering is great, but in my mind it has more issues. Making RCA cables is always a PITA, no matter what. :-) Note that there are a lot of different cable designs all called RG59, all with different shields, center conductors, and dielectric. They only share dimensions and characteristic impedance, because that is all the Radio Guide specified for that cable. The stuff the cable TV guys use is really godawful. Spend an extra penny or two a foot and get copper braid shields. ....but it's perfect if you're crimping. -John O |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: : I need a lot of them and I don't want to waste $$$ where it's not worth it. : To do what? L/R RCA cables to connect LD player (for analog soundtracks), CD player, tape deck (in/out), and VCR to a receiver. Then I will need 5 3.5 jack to RCA cables to connect my 7.1 soundcard to the receiver. Also a few digital coaxial (DVD player and one of the soundcards), optical tosslink (another soundcard and LD player). And a cable to connect a sub-woofer to a receiver. So you're talking about one installation, or hundreds of installations? If you only need a dozen cables or so, just call Markertek and get whatever cables they have this week with spring-loaded RCAs. The spring loading is a big deal because it compensates for the fact that there are no standard dimensions for the RCA connector so no two manufacturers products quite fit together. For the digital coaxial cables, buy some coaxial cable. Again, with the spring-loaded ends. If you want to make your own, the Canare spring-loaded RCAs are something like $3 each. If that's too much (and if you are doing hundreds of installs every penny counts), Waldom actually makes a decent RCA connector that is intended for coaxial cable, and has reasonable design (if somewhat cheesy gold flashing that will wear off in short order) for a buck or so onsie-twosie and less than a quarter if you buy 500. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
wrote ...
Let me make the point that for audio and even digital you do NOT want "cable guy" coax with the solid center conductor. That is designed for RF and will often be VERY microphonic on audio, I've never found that to be the case. I've used a dozen different kinds of solid center-conductor coax, with solid and foam dielectric, and braided and/or foil shield, and they all worked quite nicely. Maybe I just lead a charmed life? Of course mechanical properties might be an issue. You wouldn't want to use something stiff and with foil insulation for an application that needs flexibility or constant movement. plus as others noted the shield is typically aluminum foil. Not clear why that is an issue, either? What you really want is cable designed to connect VCRs. These come in straight video or triple ones like three coax wires glued together with one Video and two audio lines. Get 'em cheap at your local Radio Shack store! I got a huge box for next to free at a Radio Shack "tent sale" and have been using them ever since. Even got gold plated RCA ends on them. Much more flexible than any solid core wire and designed to do the job. Well made and best of all, a fraction of the "monster" price. Agreed. But my local Radio Shack stores seem to have only the thick "premium" cable in stock (likely because they make more profit on it). Last time I needed a bunch of cables, I got them from my favorite surplus discount online store... Audio: http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bi...940&type=store Video: http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bi...130&type=store |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
"John O" wrote ...
If I were to recommend a style of connector for someone fairly new at this, there wouldn't be any (or at least, very little) soldering involved. With BNC, I've used crimped connectors for many years, and they're absolutely reliable. BUT...the parts have to match, including the crimp tool. But the crimping tools are not expensive, $25 at my local electronics store. Likely even availble at Radio Shack. Mine has more than paid for itself when I need a good coax cable (whether RCA, BNC, etc.) of some particular length. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
In article , "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ... Let me make the point that for audio and even digital you do NOT want "cable guy" coax with the solid center conductor. That is designed for RF and will often be VERY microphonic on audio, I've never found that to be the case. I've used a dozen different kinds of solid center-conductor coax, with solid and foam dielectric, and braided and/or foil shield, and they all worked quite nicely. Maybe I just lead a charmed life? Of course mechanical properties might be an issue. You wouldn't want to use something stiff and with foil insulation for an application that needs flexibility or constant movement. plus as others noted the shield is typically aluminum foil. Not clear why that is an issue, either? What you really want is cable designed to connect VCRs. These come in straight video or triple ones like three coax wires glued together with one Video and two audio lines. Get 'em cheap at your local Radio Shack store! I got a huge box for next to free at a Radio Shack "tent sale" and have been using them ever since. Even got gold plated RCA ends on them. Much more flexible than any solid core wire and designed to do the job. Well made and best of all, a fraction of the "monster" price. Agreed. But my local Radio Shack stores seem to have only the thick "premium" cable in stock (likely because they make more profit on it). Last time I needed a bunch of cables, I got them from my favorite surplus discount online store... Audio: http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bi...940&type=store Video: http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bi...130&type=store I have received cheap cable from companies like MCM or Parts Express, or maybe even All, where instead of good cable with less than 30-40 pF per foot, had over 100 pF per foot, which are pretty poor. Never know until you measure them. Its not likely to create a problem with short cables though. Never know what the DA is with some of them. greg |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Mannr wrote ...
Does anyone ever cut/dissassemble these cables? I have. Many, if not most of the cheap cables are not shielded at all! By shielded I mean there is an insulated inner wire and an outer stipped wire, braided or twisted around it. What I'd like to know if is there is a way to test this, without cutting the cable. X-ray? I've cut into the cheap cables I've gotten from All Electronics and while they are "wrapped" shield (i.e. not "braided"), they are full (95%) coverage. I have seen some like you refer to which have the "shield" spiral- wrapped around the inner conductor insulation. Lucky if it was even 10% coverage. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
In article , Chel van Gennip wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:21:44 +0100, Mannr wrote: I have received cheap cable from companies like MCM or Parts Express, or maybe even All, where instead of good cable with less than 30-40 pF per foot, had over 100 pF per foot, which are pretty poor. Never know until you measure them. Its not likely to create a problem with short cables though. Never know what the DA is with some of them. greg Does anyone ever cut/dissassemble these cables? I have. Many, if not most of the cheap cables are not shielded at all! By shielded I mean there is an insulated inner wire and an outer stipped wire, braided or twisted around it. What I'd like to know if is there is a way to test this, without cutting the cable. I think a 75 Ohm coax is no rocket science. 75 Ohm cables for sattelite will transfer signals up to 2 GHz over quite long distances, 75 Ohm cables for cable TV will do the same for frequencies up to 1 GHz, 75 Ohm cables for camcorders will do that up to 5 MHz. All those cables go for about 0.30 per meter in bulk. Where is the monstrous magic you need to transfer a 20KHz (50KHz???) audio signal? You find some specifications for standard wires at: http://www.rfcafe.com/references/ele...coax_chart.htm Its all about drive impedance. Many consumer devices have 500-1000 ohm driving impedance. A 100 foot el-cheapo cable might have 6 dB loss at 20kHz. Not that many people use 100 foot cables! greg |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
Scott Dorsey wrote:
: So you're talking about one installation, or hundreds of installations? If Yeah, just myself. : you only need a dozen cables or so, just call Markertek and get whatever I'll check this out. By the way, so for sub-woofer going from receiver to a sub-woofer with built-in amp do I need 75 Ohms or not? Also my soundcard shares mini-jack female output of LFE with center channel. Will I need 75 Ohms for that too? Thanks a lot. --Leonid |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
"Leonid Makarovsky" wrote ...
By the way, so for sub-woofer going from receiver to a sub-woofer with built-in amp do I need 75 Ohms or not? Also my soundcard shares mini-jack female output of LFE with center channel. Will I need 75 Ohms for that too? If it is digital, yes, 75-ohm would be best. If it is analog, no you do not need 75-ohm. Simple as that. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:12:32 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote: Although it makes zero difference in sound from an ordinary cheap wire, if you really want a pretty factory- made wire, the Tributaries brand is rugged and reliable. reading this thread with interest. what about speaker wire gauge? 12 versus 16 or whatever. is there no difference? just salesmen selling thicker cable because they can say it's better to unknowing consumers? or is thicker gauge better over a longer run? bob |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
bob wrote: reading this thread with interest. what about speaker wire gauge? 12 versus 16 or whatever. is there no difference? just salesmen selling thicker cable because they can say it's better to unknowing consumers? or is thicker gauge better over a longer run? We had this discussion recently. Yes, thicker wire is better for long runs. And when you're dealing with "wire" as opposed to "speaker cable" the cost difference between 16 and 12 gauge isn't much. What's not worth while is cable stranded with three different gauge wires for the lows, mids, and highs, cable that's solid to reduce skin effect, cable that's stranded to reduce skin effect, cable advertised to have 8 ohms impedance, and so on. That's all high profit stuff that your dealer likes to sell. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
On 20 Dec 2005 12:41:36 -0800, "Mike Rivers"
wrote: What's not worth while is cable stranded with three different gauge wires for the lows, mids, and highs, cable that's solid to reduce skin effect, cable that's stranded to reduce skin effect, cable advertised to have 8 ohms impedance, and so on. That's all high profit stuff that your dealer likes to sell. What about "oxygen free" copper wire. I saw that stuff even in the hardware store. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Monster RCA cables vs. regular RCA cables for analog devices
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com bob wrote: reading this thread with interest. what about speaker wire gauge? 12 versus 16 or whatever. is there no difference? just salesmen selling thicker cable because they can say it's better to unknowing consumers? or is thicker gauge better over a longer run? We had this discussion recently. Yes, thicker wire is better for long runs. And when you're dealing with "wire" as opposed to "speaker cable" the cost difference between 16 and 12 gauge isn't much. What's not worth while is cable stranded with three different gauge wires for the lows, mids, and highs, cable that's solid to reduce skin effect, That's a hoot, but regrettably represented by a number of actual products. cable that's stranded to reduce skin effect, Which can't even work because you need a tubular conductor to minimize skin effect. cable advertised to have 8 ohms impedance, and so on. The 8 ohm impedance speaker wire (patented) that Dunlavy sold was I believe based on fairly ordinary multistrand cable. I seem to recall that Dunlavy once said it was custom made by Belden or some such. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: Audio Cables & Adapter Cables | Pro Audio | |||
Question about the Monster Cable lawsuits | Pro Audio | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio |