Eeek! Snakes!

[Frank Stearns]

I've been looking at several cable samples (the folks at Belden are great,
BTW), and have come down to a few selections, but am now seeking a little
wisdom

I can buy Belden AES-EBU cable (1800 and 7890 series) for analog snake
use, and then also be ready to send digital data down the snake when I can
afford to put pres and converters near the stage. AES-EBU cable is a bit
more expensive, but now I'm wondering if I'd ever run AES-EBU for
long haul data, or whether I'd wind up using something else, like the
appropriate baluns and a Cat6 snake of some type.

The AES-EBU cable is 13 pf/ft; the standard analog stuff (1900 series) is
26 pf. Others have posted that 26 pf/ft should not be an audible issue for
at least 600 ft. It'd be rare that I'm over 400 ft for the kind of venues
I'll be in (medium to small halls; no arenas). I also wonder if the higher
capacitance might help a little with RF immunity (short of going to star
quad which, at nearly 40 pf/ft, would probably be too reactive at those
lengths).

So, for the lower capacitance should I lean toward AES-EBU whether I ever
send digital or not, or stick with the regular analog stuff?

The other question is size: for mic runs under, say, 500 ft, do I gain
much by going to 24 gauge v. 26? That 24 gauge 180x series is big stuff;
even with an 8 channel might become a mechanical issue (rolling,
transporting, etc).

Thanks in advance,

Frank
--

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I can buy Belden AES-EBU cable (1800 and 7890 series) for analog snake
> use, and then also be ready to send digital data down the snake when I can
> afford to put pres and converters near the stage. AES-EBU cable is a bit
> more expensive, but now I'm wondering if I'd ever run AES-EBU for
> long haul data, or whether I'd wind up using something else, like the
> appropriate baluns and a Cat6 snake of some type.

Crystal ball not working well today? The thing about using "digital"
cable for analog use is that it's better for analog than the analog
cable that you could buy for a little less money (or you could spend a
whole lot more money if you're into the "Monster" thing). You might
not notice the difference for one microphone or eight channels between
your 16-bit ADAT and your Behringer mixer, but building and running
cables is a pain and you'll appreciate being able to use the same
cable if and when you upgrade.

> The AES-EBU cable is 13 pf/ft; the standard analog stuff (1900 series) is
> 26 pf. Others have posted that 26 pf/ft should not be an audible issue for
> at least 600 ft. It'd be rare that I'm over 400 ft for the kind of venues
> I'll be in (medium to small halls; no arenas). I also wonder if the higher
> capacitance might help a little with RF immunity (short of going to star
> quad which, at nearly 40 pf/ft, would probably be too reactive at those
> lengths).

At those lengths, the reduced capacitance will be worth while. Shunt
capacitance won't help with RF rejection, and you're right to avoid
star quad unless you really need it. Not only is it higher
capacitance, but it's more expensive, and heavier - something you'll
regret when the gig's over and it's time to coil it up and pack the
truck.

> So, for the lower capacitance should I lean toward AES-EBU whether I ever
> send digital or not, or stick with the regular analog stuff?

Think about the difference in cost, and what you'd do with the money
you save by buying the analog cable.

> The other question is size: for mic runs under, say, 500 ft, do I gain
> much by going to 24 gauge v. 26?

The difference in DC resistance isn't going to be significant since
you're not passing significant current through it. What might be
significant is a slightly more robust cable, important if you'll be
handling it a lot, or maybe walking or driving over it. Managing a 50
or 100 foot snake for a portable club PA system is one thing. Managing
a 500 foot snake is a different cage of pythons and requires some
other hardware. You'll want a reel, perhaps even a motorized one, and
one that's on wheels so you don't have to lift it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I can buy Belden AES-EBU cable (1800 and 7890 series) for analog snake
> use, and then also be ready to send digital data down the snake when I can
> afford to put pres and converters near the stage. AES-EBU cable is a bit
> more expensive, but now I'm wondering if I'd ever run AES-EBU for
> long haul data, or whether I'd wind up using something else, like the
> appropriate baluns and a Cat6 snake of some type.

Crystal ball not working well today? The thing about using "digital"
cable for analog use is that it's better for analog than the analog
cable that you could buy for a little less money (or you could spend a
whole lot more money if you're into the "Monster" thing). You might
not notice the difference for one microphone or eight channels between
your 16-bit ADAT and your Behringer mixer, but building and running
cables is a pain and you'll appreciate being able to use the same
cable if and when you upgrade.

> The AES-EBU cable is 13 pf/ft; the standard analog stuff (1900 series) is
> 26 pf. Others have posted that 26 pf/ft should not be an audible issue for
> at least 600 ft. It'd be rare that I'm over 400 ft for the kind of venues
> I'll be in (medium to small halls; no arenas). I also wonder if the higher
> capacitance might help a little with RF immunity (short of going to star
> quad which, at nearly 40 pf/ft, would probably be too reactive at those
> lengths).

At those lengths, the reduced capacitance will be worth while. Shunt
capacitance won't help with RF rejection, and you're right to avoid
star quad unless you really need it. Not only is it higher
capacitance, but it's more expensive, and heavier - something you'll
regret when the gig's over and it's time to coil it up and pack the
truck.

> So, for the lower capacitance should I lean toward AES-EBU whether I ever
> send digital or not, or stick with the regular analog stuff?

Think about the difference in cost, and what you'd do with the money
you save by buying the analog cable.

> The other question is size: for mic runs under, say, 500 ft, do I gain
> much by going to 24 gauge v. 26?

The difference in DC resistance isn't going to be significant since
you're not passing significant current through it. What might be
significant is a slightly more robust cable, important if you'll be
handling it a lot, or maybe walking or driving over it. Managing a 50
or 100 foot snake for a portable club PA system is one thing. Managing
a 500 foot snake is a different cage of pythons and requires some
other hardware. You'll want a reel, perhaps even a motorized one, and
one that's on wheels so you don't have to lift it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>The AES-EBU cable is 13 pf/ft; the standard analog stuff (1900 series) is
>26 pf. Others have posted that 26 pf/ft should not be an audible issue for
>at least 600 ft. It'd be rare that I'm over 400 ft for the kind of venues
>I'll be in (medium to small halls; no arenas). I also wonder if the higher
>capacitance might help a little with RF immunity (short of going to star
>quad which, at nearly 40 pf/ft, would probably be too reactive at those
>lengths).
>
>So, for the lower capacitance should I lean toward AES-EBU whether I ever
>send digital or not, or stick with the regular analog stuff?

For a couple hundred feet, you won't notice any big difference. BUT, if
you buy the AES-EBU cable, it is future-proofed. You can use it for digital
connections a decade down the road when you need to. It will sound a
little different than the higher capacitance cable, and it will be more
subject to RFI than the star-quad cables. But the star-quad stuff is
totally unusable for digital connections.

>The other question is size: for mic runs under, say, 500 ft, do I gain
>much by going to 24 gauge v. 26? That 24 gauge 180x series is big stuff;
>even with an 8 channel might become a mechanical issue (rolling,
>transporting, etc).

Going to the smaller conductor gives you increased fragility and you don't
really lose that much weight.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>The AES-EBU cable is 13 pf/ft; the standard analog stuff (1900 series) is
>26 pf. Others have posted that 26 pf/ft should not be an audible issue for
>at least 600 ft. It'd be rare that I'm over 400 ft for the kind of venues
>I'll be in (medium to small halls; no arenas). I also wonder if the higher
>capacitance might help a little with RF immunity (short of going to star
>quad which, at nearly 40 pf/ft, would probably be too reactive at those
>lengths).
>
>So, for the lower capacitance should I lean toward AES-EBU whether I ever
>send digital or not, or stick with the regular analog stuff?

For a couple hundred feet, you won't notice any big difference. BUT, if
you buy the AES-EBU cable, it is future-proofed. You can use it for digital
connections a decade down the road when you need to. It will sound a
little different than the higher capacitance cable, and it will be more
subject to RFI than the star-quad cables. But the star-quad stuff is
totally unusable for digital connections.

>The other question is size: for mic runs under, say, 500 ft, do I gain
>much by going to 24 gauge v. 26? That 24 gauge 180x series is big stuff;
>even with an 8 channel might become a mechanical issue (rolling,
>transporting, etc).

Going to the smaller conductor gives you increased fragility and you don't
really lose that much weight.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kurt Albershardt]

Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> I can buy Belden AES-EBU cable (1800 and 7890 series) for analog snake
> use, and then also be ready to send digital data down the snake when I can
> afford to put pres and converters near the stage. AES-EBU cable is a bit
> more expensive, but now I'm wondering if I'd ever run AES-EBU for
> long haul data, or whether I'd wind up using something else, like the
> appropriate baluns and a Cat6 snake of some type.
>
> The AES-EBU cable is 13 pf/ft; the standard analog stuff (1900 series) is
> 26 pf. Others have posted that 26 pf/ft should not be an audible issue for
> at least 600 ft. It'd be rare that I'm over 400 ft for the kind of venues
> I'll be in (medium to small halls; no arenas).


Remember that the multichannel variants of Belden 1800 are foil shielded wires and not really suited to portable use. Only the 1800F (single pair) has the braided shield. Can't speak to the 7890 but you ought to check it out carefully IMO.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> I can buy Belden AES-EBU cable (1800 and 7890 series) for analog snake
> use, and then also be ready to send digital data down the snake when I can
> afford to put pres and converters near the stage. AES-EBU cable is a bit
> more expensive, but now I'm wondering if I'd ever run AES-EBU for
> long haul data, or whether I'd wind up using something else, like the
> appropriate baluns and a Cat6 snake of some type.
>
> The AES-EBU cable is 13 pf/ft; the standard analog stuff (1900 series) is
> 26 pf. Others have posted that 26 pf/ft should not be an audible issue for
> at least 600 ft. It'd be rare that I'm over 400 ft for the kind of venues
> I'll be in (medium to small halls; no arenas).


Remember that the multichannel variants of Belden 1800 are foil shielded wires and not really suited to portable use. Only the 1800F (single pair) has the braided shield. Can't speak to the 7890 but you ought to check it out carefully IMO.