Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these

different
cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the

cable,
assuming a consistent overall gauge?

Thanks,
Colin


They don't. Braiding the cables closely together leads - as you

would
expect - to greater capacitance, not lower inductance. However,

the
net effect in network terms is that the overall reactance is

less
inductive. This is of course the same thing as more capacitive.


We might need to define braiding.

If the + wire is braided with itself and the - wire is braided
with itself but the two never exchange places then the inductance
probably doesn't change much (and probably not the capacitance
either).

However, if the + and - wires swap places ala twisted pair then
the inductance most certainly changes since the mutual inductance
terms partially cancel. Capacitance may or may not go up. In
the instance of a long twisted pair the inductance drops
dramatically over untwisted and the capacitance doesn't change
(the capacitance per unit length does increase slightly since
twisting the cable shortens it but not anywhere near the
magnitude of inductance decrease).

Of course, unless you have a pathologically deficient amplifier
none of this matters to audio.


  #42   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these

different
cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the

cable,
assuming a consistent overall gauge?

Thanks,
Colin


They don't. Braiding the cables closely together leads - as you

would
expect - to greater capacitance, not lower inductance. However,

the
net effect in network terms is that the overall reactance is

less
inductive. This is of course the same thing as more capacitive.


We might need to define braiding.

If the + wire is braided with itself and the - wire is braided
with itself but the two never exchange places then the inductance
probably doesn't change much (and probably not the capacitance
either).

However, if the + and - wires swap places ala twisted pair then
the inductance most certainly changes since the mutual inductance
terms partially cancel. Capacitance may or may not go up. In
the instance of a long twisted pair the inductance drops
dramatically over untwisted and the capacitance doesn't change
(the capacitance per unit length does increase slightly since
twisting the cable shortens it but not anywhere near the
magnitude of inductance decrease).

Of course, unless you have a pathologically deficient amplifier
none of this matters to audio.


  #43   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these

different
cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the

cable,
assuming a consistent overall gauge?

Thanks,
Colin


They don't. Braiding the cables closely together leads - as you

would
expect - to greater capacitance, not lower inductance. However,

the
net effect in network terms is that the overall reactance is

less
inductive. This is of course the same thing as more capacitive.


We might need to define braiding.

If the + wire is braided with itself and the - wire is braided
with itself but the two never exchange places then the inductance
probably doesn't change much (and probably not the capacitance
either).

However, if the + and - wires swap places ala twisted pair then
the inductance most certainly changes since the mutual inductance
terms partially cancel. Capacitance may or may not go up. In
the instance of a long twisted pair the inductance drops
dramatically over untwisted and the capacitance doesn't change
(the capacitance per unit length does increase slightly since
twisting the cable shortens it but not anywhere near the
magnitude of inductance decrease).

Of course, unless you have a pathologically deficient amplifier
none of this matters to audio.


  #44   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:30:26 -0600, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .
So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these

different
cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the

cable,
assuming a consistent overall gauge?

Thanks,
Colin


They don't. Braiding the cables closely together leads - as you

would
expect - to greater capacitance, not lower inductance. However,

the
net effect in network terms is that the overall reactance is

less
inductive. This is of course the same thing as more capacitive.


We might need to define braiding.

If the + wire is braided with itself and the - wire is braided
with itself but the two never exchange places then the inductance
probably doesn't change much (and probably not the capacitance
either).

However, if the + and - wires swap places ala twisted pair then
the inductance most certainly changes since the mutual inductance
terms partially cancel. Capacitance may or may not go up. In
the instance of a long twisted pair the inductance drops
dramatically over untwisted and the capacitance doesn't change
(the capacitance per unit length does increase slightly since
twisting the cable shortens it but not anywhere near the
magnitude of inductance decrease).

Of course, unless you have a pathologically deficient amplifier
none of this matters to audio.


I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Capacitance increases
because the cable is shortened? No.

Also, study the equation relating conductor area and separation and
you will find that the best way to increase capacitance between two
conductors is to bring the closer to each other. There is no question
of "may or may not go up".

With the question of twisted vs untwisted pair, neither inductance nor
capacitance changes. What does happen with a twisted pair is that
coupling to external fields cancels at each half twist, but that is
another matter entirely.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #45   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:30:26 -0600, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .
So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these

different
cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the

cable,
assuming a consistent overall gauge?

Thanks,
Colin


They don't. Braiding the cables closely together leads - as you

would
expect - to greater capacitance, not lower inductance. However,

the
net effect in network terms is that the overall reactance is

less
inductive. This is of course the same thing as more capacitive.


We might need to define braiding.

If the + wire is braided with itself and the - wire is braided
with itself but the two never exchange places then the inductance
probably doesn't change much (and probably not the capacitance
either).

However, if the + and - wires swap places ala twisted pair then
the inductance most certainly changes since the mutual inductance
terms partially cancel. Capacitance may or may not go up. In
the instance of a long twisted pair the inductance drops
dramatically over untwisted and the capacitance doesn't change
(the capacitance per unit length does increase slightly since
twisting the cable shortens it but not anywhere near the
magnitude of inductance decrease).

Of course, unless you have a pathologically deficient amplifier
none of this matters to audio.


I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Capacitance increases
because the cable is shortened? No.

Also, study the equation relating conductor area and separation and
you will find that the best way to increase capacitance between two
conductors is to bring the closer to each other. There is no question
of "may or may not go up".

With the question of twisted vs untwisted pair, neither inductance nor
capacitance changes. What does happen with a twisted pair is that
coupling to external fields cancels at each half twist, but that is
another matter entirely.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com


  #46   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:30:26 -0600, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .
So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these

different
cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the

cable,
assuming a consistent overall gauge?

Thanks,
Colin


They don't. Braiding the cables closely together leads - as you

would
expect - to greater capacitance, not lower inductance. However,

the
net effect in network terms is that the overall reactance is

less
inductive. This is of course the same thing as more capacitive.


We might need to define braiding.

If the + wire is braided with itself and the - wire is braided
with itself but the two never exchange places then the inductance
probably doesn't change much (and probably not the capacitance
either).

However, if the + and - wires swap places ala twisted pair then
the inductance most certainly changes since the mutual inductance
terms partially cancel. Capacitance may or may not go up. In
the instance of a long twisted pair the inductance drops
dramatically over untwisted and the capacitance doesn't change
(the capacitance per unit length does increase slightly since
twisting the cable shortens it but not anywhere near the
magnitude of inductance decrease).

Of course, unless you have a pathologically deficient amplifier
none of this matters to audio.


I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Capacitance increases
because the cable is shortened? No.

Also, study the equation relating conductor area and separation and
you will find that the best way to increase capacitance between two
conductors is to bring the closer to each other. There is no question
of "may or may not go up".

With the question of twisted vs untwisted pair, neither inductance nor
capacitance changes. What does happen with a twisted pair is that
coupling to external fields cancels at each half twist, but that is
another matter entirely.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #47   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Capacitance

increases
because the cable is shortened? No.


Yes.

Take a 1 foot long untwisted cable with zero conductor OD spacing
(i.e. the insulation of both wires is touching) you will have
some inductance and some capacitance.

Now take that same 1 foot section and twist the wires. Total
capacitance will remain unchanged since the spacing between
conductors did not change. However, the capacitance per foot
increases because twisting shortened the cable to something less
than a foot. However, even with heavy twisting the length is only
shortened by maybe 10% or so. So the capacitance per foot
increases by the same amount (say 10%).

Also, study the equation relating conductor area and separation

and
you will find that the best way to increase capacitance between

two
conductors is to bring the closer to each other. There is no

question
of "may or may not go up".


Reread what I said. In the case above the total capacitance is
the same but the capacitance/length increases. If the twisting
method brings the wires closer together then capacitance
increases. However, it's just as easy to take two parallel
conductors, twist them loosely, and get lower capacitance (both
total and per unit length)...because the separation distance
increases.

So capacitance per unit length can go up or down depending on
changes in separation distance and amount of twisting.

With the question of twisted vs untwisted pair, neither

inductance nor
capacitance changes. What does happen with a twisted pair is

that
coupling to external fields cancels at each half twist, but

that is
another matter entirely.


With twisted pair not only does the external coupling cancel but
the mutual inductance between the two wires cancels.

Inductance is defined as the algebraic sum of self inductance and
mutual inductance. Your analysis neglects the effect of mutual
inductance.

As you point out self inductance does not change with twisting
(assuming conductor diameter and separation do not change).
However, mutual inductance drops dramatically and in the ideal
case becomes zero.

The inductance of untwisted parallel wires is proportional to
x*(ln(s/r)+log(s/r)) where x is length, s is separation, and r is
conductor radius. For twisted pair the log term goes to zero
(ideal case). If you don't believe me take a run of zip cord put
it on an LCR meter and measure inductance before and after
twisting.

Capacitance can go up or down depending on conductor separation
before and after twisting and the increased capacitance/length
due to length shortening.





  #48   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Capacitance

increases
because the cable is shortened? No.


Yes.

Take a 1 foot long untwisted cable with zero conductor OD spacing
(i.e. the insulation of both wires is touching) you will have
some inductance and some capacitance.

Now take that same 1 foot section and twist the wires. Total
capacitance will remain unchanged since the spacing between
conductors did not change. However, the capacitance per foot
increases because twisting shortened the cable to something less
than a foot. However, even with heavy twisting the length is only
shortened by maybe 10% or so. So the capacitance per foot
increases by the same amount (say 10%).

Also, study the equation relating conductor area and separation

and
you will find that the best way to increase capacitance between

two
conductors is to bring the closer to each other. There is no

question
of "may or may not go up".


Reread what I said. In the case above the total capacitance is
the same but the capacitance/length increases. If the twisting
method brings the wires closer together then capacitance
increases. However, it's just as easy to take two parallel
conductors, twist them loosely, and get lower capacitance (both
total and per unit length)...because the separation distance
increases.

So capacitance per unit length can go up or down depending on
changes in separation distance and amount of twisting.

With the question of twisted vs untwisted pair, neither

inductance nor
capacitance changes. What does happen with a twisted pair is

that
coupling to external fields cancels at each half twist, but

that is
another matter entirely.


With twisted pair not only does the external coupling cancel but
the mutual inductance between the two wires cancels.

Inductance is defined as the algebraic sum of self inductance and
mutual inductance. Your analysis neglects the effect of mutual
inductance.

As you point out self inductance does not change with twisting
(assuming conductor diameter and separation do not change).
However, mutual inductance drops dramatically and in the ideal
case becomes zero.

The inductance of untwisted parallel wires is proportional to
x*(ln(s/r)+log(s/r)) where x is length, s is separation, and r is
conductor radius. For twisted pair the log term goes to zero
(ideal case). If you don't believe me take a run of zip cord put
it on an LCR meter and measure inductance before and after
twisting.

Capacitance can go up or down depending on conductor separation
before and after twisting and the increased capacitance/length
due to length shortening.





  #49   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Capacitance

increases
because the cable is shortened? No.


Yes.

Take a 1 foot long untwisted cable with zero conductor OD spacing
(i.e. the insulation of both wires is touching) you will have
some inductance and some capacitance.

Now take that same 1 foot section and twist the wires. Total
capacitance will remain unchanged since the spacing between
conductors did not change. However, the capacitance per foot
increases because twisting shortened the cable to something less
than a foot. However, even with heavy twisting the length is only
shortened by maybe 10% or so. So the capacitance per foot
increases by the same amount (say 10%).

Also, study the equation relating conductor area and separation

and
you will find that the best way to increase capacitance between

two
conductors is to bring the closer to each other. There is no

question
of "may or may not go up".


Reread what I said. In the case above the total capacitance is
the same but the capacitance/length increases. If the twisting
method brings the wires closer together then capacitance
increases. However, it's just as easy to take two parallel
conductors, twist them loosely, and get lower capacitance (both
total and per unit length)...because the separation distance
increases.

So capacitance per unit length can go up or down depending on
changes in separation distance and amount of twisting.

With the question of twisted vs untwisted pair, neither

inductance nor
capacitance changes. What does happen with a twisted pair is

that
coupling to external fields cancels at each half twist, but

that is
another matter entirely.


With twisted pair not only does the external coupling cancel but
the mutual inductance between the two wires cancels.

Inductance is defined as the algebraic sum of self inductance and
mutual inductance. Your analysis neglects the effect of mutual
inductance.

As you point out self inductance does not change with twisting
(assuming conductor diameter and separation do not change).
However, mutual inductance drops dramatically and in the ideal
case becomes zero.

The inductance of untwisted parallel wires is proportional to
x*(ln(s/r)+log(s/r)) where x is length, s is separation, and r is
conductor radius. For twisted pair the log term goes to zero
(ideal case). If you don't believe me take a run of zip cord put
it on an LCR meter and measure inductance before and after
twisting.

Capacitance can go up or down depending on conductor separation
before and after twisting and the increased capacitance/length
due to length shortening.





  #50   Report Post  
Glenn Booth
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Hi,

In message , Richard Crowley
writes
wrote ...
Now to partly answer my own question, I came across
a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering.
He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very
little time on true skin effect.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html
He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects
of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and
most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable,
nonetheless.


But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko
"pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying
to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website
appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it
doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will
actually HEAR at audio frequencies.


That's Jim Lesurf's site. You'll find he's a regular poster in
uk.rec.audio, and he's by no means pathological. He would probably point
out that the information on the site is just that - information from
experimental observation. He deliberately does not draw conclusions
(probably, but I'm guessing, because he doesn't want to fan the flames).
He's a very good and thorough scientist, judging from his posts and his
books.

I believe he once designed amplifiers for Armstrong, and he's a very
knowledgeable chap. I think the website doesn't 'follow through' because
Jim simply didn't want it to.


--
Regards,
Glenn Booth


  #51   Report Post  
Glenn Booth
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Hi,

In message , Richard Crowley
writes
wrote ...
Now to partly answer my own question, I came across
a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering.
He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very
little time on true skin effect.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html
He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects
of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and
most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable,
nonetheless.


But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko
"pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying
to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website
appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it
doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will
actually HEAR at audio frequencies.


That's Jim Lesurf's site. You'll find he's a regular poster in
uk.rec.audio, and he's by no means pathological. He would probably point
out that the information on the site is just that - information from
experimental observation. He deliberately does not draw conclusions
(probably, but I'm guessing, because he doesn't want to fan the flames).
He's a very good and thorough scientist, judging from his posts and his
books.

I believe he once designed amplifiers for Armstrong, and he's a very
knowledgeable chap. I think the website doesn't 'follow through' because
Jim simply didn't want it to.


--
Regards,
Glenn Booth
  #52   Report Post  
Glenn Booth
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Hi,

In message , Richard Crowley
writes
wrote ...
Now to partly answer my own question, I came across
a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering.
He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very
little time on true skin effect.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html
He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects
of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and
most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable,
nonetheless.


But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko
"pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying
to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website
appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it
doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will
actually HEAR at audio frequencies.


That's Jim Lesurf's site. You'll find he's a regular poster in
uk.rec.audio, and he's by no means pathological. He would probably point
out that the information on the site is just that - information from
experimental observation. He deliberately does not draw conclusions
(probably, but I'm guessing, because he doesn't want to fan the flames).
He's a very good and thorough scientist, judging from his posts and his
books.

I believe he once designed amplifiers for Armstrong, and he's a very
knowledgeable chap. I think the website doesn't 'follow through' because
Jim simply didn't want it to.


--
Regards,
Glenn Booth
  #53   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Glenn Booth" wrote ...
That's Jim Lesurf's site. You'll find he's a regular poster in
uk.rec.audio, and he's by no means pathological. He would
probably point out that the information on the site is just that -
information from experimental observation. He deliberately
does not draw conclusions (probably, but I'm guessing, because
he doesn't want to fan the flames).
He's a very good and thorough scientist, judging from his
posts and his books.

I believe he once designed amplifiers for Armstrong, and he's
a very knowledgeable chap. I think the website doesn't 'follow
through' because Jim simply didn't want it to.


Thanks for the additional info. I was intending not to criticize
Mr. Lesurf's excellent website, but to warn readers against
drawing unwarranted extrapolations from it.


  #54   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Glenn Booth" wrote ...
That's Jim Lesurf's site. You'll find he's a regular poster in
uk.rec.audio, and he's by no means pathological. He would
probably point out that the information on the site is just that -
information from experimental observation. He deliberately
does not draw conclusions (probably, but I'm guessing, because
he doesn't want to fan the flames).
He's a very good and thorough scientist, judging from his
posts and his books.

I believe he once designed amplifiers for Armstrong, and he's
a very knowledgeable chap. I think the website doesn't 'follow
through' because Jim simply didn't want it to.


Thanks for the additional info. I was intending not to criticize
Mr. Lesurf's excellent website, but to warn readers against
drawing unwarranted extrapolations from it.


  #55   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Glenn Booth" wrote ...
That's Jim Lesurf's site. You'll find he's a regular poster in
uk.rec.audio, and he's by no means pathological. He would
probably point out that the information on the site is just that -
information from experimental observation. He deliberately
does not draw conclusions (probably, but I'm guessing, because
he doesn't want to fan the flames).
He's a very good and thorough scientist, judging from his
posts and his books.

I believe he once designed amplifiers for Armstrong, and he's
a very knowledgeable chap. I think the website doesn't 'follow
through' because Jim simply didn't want it to.


Thanks for the additional info. I was intending not to criticize
Mr. Lesurf's excellent website, but to warn readers against
drawing unwarranted extrapolations from it.




  #62   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Bruce" wrote ...
Transmission line theory is useless below about a 1/10
wavelength. At 20 kHz, this is several thousand feet.

Why would anyone want to worry about 100kHz, when
most people can no longer hear 20kHz?


If you have to ask then you'll never get it! :-))


  #63   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Bruce" wrote ...
Transmission line theory is useless below about a 1/10
wavelength. At 20 kHz, this is several thousand feet.

Why would anyone want to worry about 100kHz, when
most people can no longer hear 20kHz?


If you have to ask then you'll never get it! :-))


  #64   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Bruce" wrote ...
Transmission line theory is useless below about a 1/10
wavelength. At 20 kHz, this is several thousand feet.

Why would anyone want to worry about 100kHz, when
most people can no longer hear 20kHz?


If you have to ask then you'll never get it! :-))


  #68   Report Post  
Bob-Stanton
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Bruce wrote in message


Transmission line theory is useless below about a 1/10 wavelength.



Transmission line theory works at any wavelenght. What you said above,
is a common misconception.

Bob Stanton
  #69   Report Post  
Bob-Stanton
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Bruce wrote in message


Transmission line theory is useless below about a 1/10 wavelength.



Transmission line theory works at any wavelenght. What you said above,
is a common misconception.

Bob Stanton
  #70   Report Post  
Bob-Stanton
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Bruce wrote in message


Transmission line theory is useless below about a 1/10 wavelength.



Transmission line theory works at any wavelenght. What you said above,
is a common misconception.

Bob Stanton


  #74   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
om...
I agree with you that a lumped element model is quite accurate.

A true
transmission line model is just only *slightly* more accurate.

But,
creating a true transmission line model is easy. One just

enters (into
a computer) the length of cable, the characteristic impedance,

and the
termination (load) impedance. What could be easier?


So how do you enter into the computer the load impedance being it
is a complex fuction of frequency?


  #75   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
om...
I agree with you that a lumped element model is quite accurate.

A true
transmission line model is just only *slightly* more accurate.

But,
creating a true transmission line model is easy. One just

enters (into
a computer) the length of cable, the characteristic impedance,

and the
termination (load) impedance. What could be easier?


So how do you enter into the computer the load impedance being it
is a complex fuction of frequency?




  #76   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
om...
I agree with you that a lumped element model is quite accurate.

A true
transmission line model is just only *slightly* more accurate.

But,
creating a true transmission line model is easy. One just

enters (into
a computer) the length of cable, the characteristic impedance,

and the
termination (load) impedance. What could be easier?


So how do you enter into the computer the load impedance being it
is a complex fuction of frequency?


  #77   Report Post  
dangling entity
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Kevin McMurtrie wrote in message ...

It's all irrelevant for audio frequencies and normal lengths of wire.
Having the two conductors side by side is perfectly good. Just don't
split the wires and route them to the speaker along opposite walls.


Just curious, but what *would* happen if you did that?
  #78   Report Post  
dangling entity
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Kevin McMurtrie wrote in message ...

It's all irrelevant for audio frequencies and normal lengths of wire.
Having the two conductors side by side is perfectly good. Just don't
split the wires and route them to the speaker along opposite walls.


Just curious, but what *would* happen if you did that?
  #79   Report Post  
dangling entity
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Kevin McMurtrie wrote in message ...

It's all irrelevant for audio frequencies and normal lengths of wire.
Having the two conductors side by side is perfectly good. Just don't
split the wires and route them to the speaker along opposite walls.


Just curious, but what *would* happen if you did that?
  #80   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!


"dangling entity" wrote in message
m...
Kevin McMurtrie wrote in message

...

It's all irrelevant for audio frequencies and normal lengths of wire.
Having the two conductors side by side is perfectly good. Just don't
split the wires and route them to the speaker along opposite walls.


Just curious, but what *would* happen if you did that?


The listener(s) would be inside a 1-turn magnetic loop.

Actually, some hearing-assist systems work by exactly that
method. They use "receivers" with pickup coils and amps
that drive the headphones. And some hearing aids will pick
it up directly (from the coils they use to pick up telephone
receiver audio.)


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: Neve, Manley, TT patch cables, Eventide, Neumann, Coles, bulk cable, connectors, etc. Lowndes Pro Audio 0 March 6th 04 06:01 PM
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. Bruno Putzeys High End Audio 78 December 19th 03 04:27 AM
cabling explained Midlant Car Audio 8 November 14th 03 04:07 AM
Digital Audio Cable Question(s) Hugh Cowan High End Audio 11 October 8th 03 07:15 PM
Quad snake cable Justin Ulysses Morse Pro Audio 8 July 3rd 03 05:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"