Mic Cable for Interconnects

[west]

What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced mic cable so I can
buy in bulk and make my own audiophile interconnects? Thanks.

-west

[Arny Krueger]

"west" > wrote in message
news:dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08
> What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced
> mic cable so I can buy in bulk and make my own audiophile
> interconnects? Thanks.

RG-6

[Serge Auckland]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "west" > wrote in message
> news:dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08
>> What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced
>> mic cable so I can buy in bulk and make my own audiophile
>> interconnects? Thanks.
>
> RG-6
>
>
RG59 is also good. I've made all my interconnects with it. RG6 is better
shielded (although there are inferior RG6 cables out there)but it's
questionable whether the extra shielding is of value for audio.

Both are 75 ohms cables, so they can be used equally well for analogue
or digital.

By the way, neither should be thought of as a "mic cable" as they are
unbalanced. For mic use, (or balanced analogue) I would go for a
star-quad cable.

S.

[Meindert Sprang]

"Serge Auckland" > wrote in message
...
> RG59 is also good. I've made all my interconnects with it. RG6 is better
> shielded (although there are inferior RG6 cables out there)but it's
> questionable whether the extra shielding is of value for audio.

No, it is not.

> Both are 75 ohms cables, so they can be used equally well for analogue
> or digital.

The cable impedance has no influence at all at audio frequencies when cable
runs are short. compared to the wavelength of the signal. For audio, runs
longer than roughly 1000 metres would need some impedance matching.

Meindert

[Serge Auckland]

Meindert Sprang wrote:
> "Serge Auckland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> RG59 is also good. I've made all my interconnects with it. RG6 is better
>> shielded (although there are inferior RG6 cables out there)but it's
>> questionable whether the extra shielding is of value for audio.
>
> No, it is not.
>
>> Both are 75 ohms cables, so they can be used equally well for analogue
>> or digital.
>
> The cable impedance has no influence at all at audio frequencies when cable
> runs are short. compared to the wavelength of the signal. For audio, runs
> longer than roughly 1000 metres would need some impedance matching.
>
> Meindert
>
>
Correct. What I meant was that as the cable is 75 ohms, it can be used
for digital audio. Of course it can also be used for analogue, the
impedance then doesn't matter.

For runs of more than 10-20 metres I would want my circuits balanced in
any case.

S.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08>, west > wrote:
>What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced mic cable so I can
>buy in bulk and make my own audiophile interconnects? Thanks.

Go to the Belden catalogue. Look at the coax. Pick the one with the lowest
capacitance you can get. Belden 89269 is nice although it's kind of stiff.

The real solution to this problem is to use 600 ohm balanced interconnect
lines like the pro audio world has been using for nearly a century now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Serge Auckland > wrote:
>>
>RG59 is also good. I've made all my interconnects with it. RG6 is better
>shielded (although there are inferior RG6 cables out there)but it's
>questionable whether the extra shielding is of value for audio.

The problem is that most of the RG-6 and RG-59 cables out there have
aluminum screens and braid, which makes soldering problematic. You can
get copper RG-59, but you won't get it from the dumpsters behind the
cable headend. So check carefully before you take it home.

Note also that RG-59 won't fit into most RCA connectors, although RG-58
is usually okay.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[GregS]

In article >, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>In article <dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08>, west > wrote:
>>What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced mic cable so I can
>>buy in bulk and make my own audiophile interconnects? Thanks.
>
>Go to the Belden catalogue. Look at the coax. Pick the one with the lowest
>capacitance you can get. Belden 89269 is nice although it's kind of stiff.
>
>The real solution to this problem is to use 600 ohm balanced interconnect
>lines like the pro audio world has been using for nearly a century now.

I have used RG62. Still have a big roll. I see a roll of TFE type on Ebay.
Thats got to be the ultimate.

greg

[Richard Crowley]

"west" wrote ...
> What is the name & model # of the very hi-end
> unbalanced mic cable so I can buy in bulk and
> make my own audiophile interconnects? Thanks.

I make mine from Belden 9259 which is a nice, flexible
RG-59 coaxial cable with real braided copper outer shield,
and stranded copper inner conductor. www.mouser.com
part # 566-9259-100 (100 ft roll)

I use crimp-on RCA connectors. I think this was what I
bought last time... www.mouser.com part # 171-8114
The inner conductor of the RCA is soldered, of course,
not crimped.

You can get heat-shrink tubing in at least 10 colors to
put around the connector for color-coding. I have an
expensive heat gun to shrink tubing, but I usually just
use a candle.

Real unbalanced mic cable is a rare thing (most mics being
low impedance balanced) and I would not recommend it
for audio interconnects. It is optimized for different things
(very low capacitance, low triboelectric effect, etc.) that
will only cost $$$ with no benefit for your application.
Also, termination is much more difficult than using RG
type coaxial cable with crimp connectors.

[GregS]

In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>In article >, (Scott Dorsey)
> wrote:
>>In article <dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08>, west > wrote:
>>>What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced mic cable so I can
>>>buy in bulk and make my own audiophile interconnects? Thanks.
>>
>>Go to the Belden catalogue. Look at the coax. Pick the one with the lowest
>>capacitance you can get. Belden 89269 is nice although it's kind of stiff.
>>
>>The real solution to this problem is to use 600 ohm balanced interconnect
>>lines like the pro audio world has been using for nearly a century now.
>
>I have used RG62. Still have a big roll. I see a roll of TFE type on Ebay.
>Thats got to be the ultimate.

I can't tell how they say its TFE.

I used to use the smaller TFE coax when I got it at hamfests or, for free.
Aside from being the best insulator, in electronics the signal goes faster
through TFE coax. It makes a big difference when timming circuits are
used. If its called hi-end, its got to be TFE.

greg

[Serge Auckland]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Serge Auckland > wrote:
>> RG59 is also good. I've made all my interconnects with it. RG6 is better
>> shielded (although there are inferior RG6 cables out there)but it's
>> questionable whether the extra shielding is of value for audio.
>
> The problem is that most of the RG-6 and RG-59 cables out there have
> aluminum screens and braid, which makes soldering problematic. You can
> get copper RG-59, but you won't get it from the dumpsters behind the
> cable headend. So check carefully before you take it home.
>
> Note also that RG-59 won't fit into most RCA connectors, although RG-58
> is usually okay.
> --scott

RG58 is fine for analogue, but being a 50 ohms cable, it shouldn't be
used for digital (although for short runs it really doesn't matter). I
would be very unhappy to introduce any 50 ohm stuff into my system, as
after a while, one may well forget what the cable was, and find odd
things happening on longer digital runs.

I agree that RG59 is thicker, but some of the better quality phono/RCA
plugs will accommodate it perfectly well. I have used Audio Technica,
WBT and Neutrix plugs on RG59 with no problems (With Neutrix, you have
to remove the strain-relief spring).

S.

[Arny Krueger]

"Meindert Sprang" > wrote in
message
> "Serge Auckland"
> > wrote in
> message ...
>> RG59 is also good. I've made all my interconnects with
>> it. RG6 is better shielded (although there are inferior
>> RG6 cables out there)but it's questionable whether the
>> extra shielding is of value for audio.
>
> No, it is not.
>
>> Both are 75 ohms cables, so they can be used equally
>> well for analogue or digital.
>
> The cable impedance has no influence at all at audio
> frequencies when cable runs are short. compared to the
> wavelength of the signal. For audio, runs longer than
> roughly 1000 metres would need some impedance matching.

Agreed, but obviously the OP is not into functional considerations. If he
was, the interconnects that came with his equipment would pass those
audio-modulated electrons about as good as anything.

I recommended RG6 primarily because common types of it are hard to solder,
and yield a stiff, bulky cable. So much the better for the bragging rights!
;-)

[west]

"GregS" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
> >In article <dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08>, west >
wrote:
> >>What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced mic cable so I
can
> >>buy in bulk and make my own audiophile interconnects? Thanks.
> >
> >Go to the Belden catalogue. Look at the coax. Pick the one with the
lowest
> >capacitance you can get. Belden 89269 is nice although it's kind of
stiff.
> >
> >The real solution to this problem is to use 600 ohm balanced interconnect
> >lines like the pro audio world has been using for nearly a century now.
>
> I have used RG62. Still have a big roll. I see a roll of TFE type on Ebay.
> Thats got to be the ultimate.

I couldn't find it on Ebay.

west
>
> greg

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article <dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08>, west >
wrote:
> >What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced mic cable so I
can
> >buy in bulk and make my own audiophile interconnects? Thanks.
>
> Go to the Belden catalogue. Look at the coax. Pick the one with the
lowest
> capacitance you can get. Belden 89269 is nice although it's kind of
stiff.
>
> The real solution to this problem is to use 600 ohm balanced interconnect
> lines like the pro audio world has been using for nearly a century now.

But if you have to connect pre-existing unbalanced gear and want to make
your own interconnects, my recommendation is to get some Mogami or Canare
star-quad cable and wire it up unbalanced. One internal pair hot, one
internal pair ground, shield connected to ground at one end but not the
other. Or get Markertek to do the stripping and soldering for you.

Peace,
Paul

[Walt]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08>, west > wrote:

>> What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced mic cable so I can
>> buy in bulk and make my own audiophile interconnects? Thanks.
>
> Go to the Belden catalogue. Look at the coax. Pick the one with the lowest
> capacitance you can get.
>Belden 89269 is nice although it's kind of stiff.
>
> The real solution to this problem is to use 600 ohm balanced interconnect
> lines like the pro audio world has been using for nearly a century now.

Um, few people/facilities actually use 600 ohm connections anymore. A
typical analog interconnect is a few ohms output impedance and a 10k or
more input impedance. Bridging vs. Matching.

Balanced is good though. Likewise Belden products.

For the OP, just use a single pair shielded cable like Belden 8451 and
ignore the black wire.

//Walt

[Agent 86]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:05:18 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote:

>
> But if you have to connect pre-existing unbalanced gear and want to make
> your own interconnects, my recommendation is to get some Mogami or Canare
> star-quad cable and wire it up unbalanced. One internal pair hot, one
> internal pair ground, shield connected to ground at one end but not the
> other. Or get Markertek to do the stripping and soldering for you.

Why quad? Just curious.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "west" > wrote in message
> news:dQBxh.16120$VY5.2928@trnddc08
> > What is the name & model # of the very hi-end unbalanced
> > mic cable so I can buy in bulk and make my own audiophile
> > interconnects? Thanks.
>
> RG-6

One thing is for sure, RG6 makes lousy *microhone* cable. Far too stiff for
the purpose IMO.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> Real unbalanced mic cable is a rare thing (most mics being
> low impedance balanced) and I would not recommend it
> for audio interconnects.

In fact what most people call unbalanced mic cable is usually the same as
single conductor instrument cable. More often used for connecting electric
guitars, keyboards etc. rather than microphones.
Works perfectly well for audio interconnects, and a FAR better choice than
RG59/RG6 etc.

MrT.

[Phil Allison]

"Meindert Sprang"

> The cable impedance has no influence at all at audio frequencies when
> cable
> runs are short. compared to the wavelength of the signal. For audio, runs
> longer than roughly 1000 metres would need some impedance matching.


** Here we go again with another know nothing fool sprouting half baked ham
radio theory on an audio forum.

FYI :

1000 metres of unterminated 75 ohm co-ax has a **capacitance** of about
70nF.

If driven from a 600 ohm source, the response at the * drive* end would be
over 3 dB down by 3.8 kHz, ie the bandwidth of a telephone !!!

Terminating the co-ax with 75 ohms would eliminate the response droop
problem while appropriate matching at each end would eliminate voltage loss
as well.



........ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.T"

>
> In fact what most people call unbalanced mic cable is usually the same as
> single conductor instrument cable. More often used for connecting electric
> guitars, keyboards etc. rather than microphones.
>
> Works perfectly well for audio interconnects, and a FAR better choice than
> RG59/RG6 etc.


** How so ?

RG59 ( 6.15mm OD ) has about 10% the capacitance of " instrument cable "
and unlike the latter fits easily in most RCA plugs.



........ Phil

[Mr.T]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
> > Works perfectly well for audio interconnects, and a FAR better choice
than
> > RG59/RG6 etc.
>
> ** How so ?

*FAR* more flexible.

> RG59 ( 6.15mm OD ) has about 10% the capacitance of " instrument cable "

Depends on the instrument cable, and if the length is enough to worry about
it, in most cases you should be going to balanced anyway.
For the usual 1-2 metre interconnects, it is not a factor.

> and unlike the latter fits easily in most RCA plugs.

Are you suggesting using the cheapest available RCA pugs with 6mm instrument
cable, rather than buying the readily available RCA plugs designed for that
cable? Hell you get as much benefit from the better Neutrik etc. connectors,
as you will from the cable.

However 4mm or 5mm instrument cable is also available. Just what crap plugs
don't fit that?

MrT.

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.T"

>> > Works perfectly well for audio interconnects, and a FAR better choice
>> > than RG59/RG6 etc.
>>
>> ** How so ?
>
> *FAR* more flexible.


** Not important for cables that stay in one place.



>> RG59 ( 6.15mm OD ) has about 10% the capacitance of " instrument cable "
>
> Depends on the instrument cable,


** So you cannot see the word "about" ?



> and if the length is enough to worry about
> it, in most cases you should be going to balanced anyway.


** Plenty of cases exist where unbalanced is more appropriate.


> For the usual 1-2 metre interconnects, it is not a factor.


** Shame about what can happen with longer runs.

Shame about sources with impedances over 3000 ohms - ie Quad 33 and lotsa
valve stuff.


>> and unlike the latter fits easily in most RCA plugs.


** No sane answer given.


> However 4mm or 5mm instrument cable is also available.


** But not near as cheaply or so readily as the thicker kind.

You have lost on every point - asshole

**** off.




........ Phil

[Mr.T]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
> > *FAR* more flexible.
>
> ** Not important for cables that stay in one place.

In your opinion. Still put's a strain on those crappy RCA connctors
connectors you want to use though.

> >> RG59 ( 6.15mm OD ) has about 10% the capacitance of " instrument cable
"
> >
> > Depends on the instrument cable,
>
> ** So you cannot see the word "about" ?

Sure did, but then your statment is worthless.

> > and if the length is enough to worry about
> > it, in most cases you should be going to balanced anyway.
>
> ** Plenty of cases exist where unbalanced is more appropriate.

You didn't see the statement 'in most cases" :-)

> > For the usual 1-2 metre interconnects, it is not a factor.
>
> ** Shame about what can happen with longer runs.

So who was taliking about longer runs? Not the OP from what I saw.

> Shame about sources with impedances over 3000 ohms - ie Quad 33 and
lotsa
> valve stuff.

Yes, antiques require special consideration.

> >> and unlike the latter fits easily in most RCA plugs.
>
> ** No sane answer given.

...... from Phil, very true.

> > However 4mm or 5mm instrument cable is also available.
>
> ** But not near as cheaply or so readily as the thicker kind.

What crap.

> You have lost on every point - asshole

Says you and no one else. How surprising :-)

MrT.

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.Turd the Asshole"


( snip this asinine cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left )



** You have lost on each and every point - asshole.

Back to the kiddie porn for you.



.......... Phil

[Mr.T]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
> "the Asshole"
> ( snip this asinine cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left )

So True!

> ** You have lost on each and every point

I am SOOO worried about YOUR judgement :-)

> Back to the kiddie porn

Don't let me keep you from it then.

MrT.

[Tim Padrick]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "the Asshole"
>> ( snip this asinine cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left )
>
> So True!
>
>> ** You have lost on each and every point
>
> I am SOOO worried about YOUR judgement :-)
>
>> Back to the kiddie porn
>
> Don't let me keep you from it then.
>
> MrT.
>
>
>

Linn Analogue Interconnect. Simple, affordable, sounds very good.
http://www.knekt.com/spec_sound/product_display.cfm?ProductID=63&activeNavBar=products&activeSubNavBar=Playback

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.Turd the Asshole"


( snip this cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left ! )


** You have lost on each and every point - asshole.

Back to the kiddie porn for you.





.......... Phil

[Paul Stamler]

"Agent 86" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:05:18 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote:
>
> >
> > But if you have to connect pre-existing unbalanced gear and want to make
> > your own interconnects, my recommendation is to get some Mogami or
Canare
> > star-quad cable and wire it up unbalanced. One internal pair hot, one
> > internal pair ground, shield connected to ground at one end but not the
> > other. Or get Markertek to do the stripping and soldering for you.
>
> Why quad? Just curious.

It's good, solid cable, nice and flexible, lasts forever or nearly so.

Peace,
Paul

[Mr.T]

"Phil Allison the > wrote in message
...
( snip this cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left ! )

> ** You have lost on each and every point - asshole.
> Back to the kiddie porn
> ......... Phil


Your autoresponder seems to be stuck Phil.

MrT.

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.Turd the Autistic Asshole"


( snip this cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left ! )


** You have lost on each and every point - asshole.

Back to the kiddie porn.




.......... Phil

[Richard Crowley]

"Mr.T" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
>> Real unbalanced mic cable is a rare thing (most mics being
>> low impedance balanced) and I would not recommend it
>> for audio interconnects.
>
> In fact what most people call unbalanced mic cable is usually the same
> as
> single conductor instrument cable. More often used for connecting
> electric
> guitars, keyboards etc. rather than microphones.
> Works perfectly well for audio interconnects,

Using what connectors, exactly?

>and a FAR better choice than RG59/RG6 etc.

Using what connectors, exactly?

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 5, 11:13 pm, "Phil Allison" > wrote:

> RG59 ( 6.15mm OD ) has about 10% the capacitance of " instrument cable "
> and unlike the latter fits easily in most RCA plugs.

Nice to have you back, Phil. Hope the meds work this time around.

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler > wrote:
>"Agent 86" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:05:18 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote:
>> >
>> > But if you have to connect pre-existing unbalanced gear and want to make
>> > your own interconnects, my recommendation is to get some Mogami or
>Canare
>> > star-quad cable and wire it up unbalanced. One internal pair hot, one
>> > internal pair ground, shield connected to ground at one end but not the
>> > other. Or get Markertek to do the stripping and soldering for you.
>>
>> Why quad? Just curious.
>
>It's good, solid cable, nice and flexible, lasts forever or nearly so.

It's fairly high capacitance, though, so you wouldn't want it for guitar
cables, and it's something of a pain to use for unbalanced lines since
you have to strip eight wires, telescope the shield on one end, and pull
the shield back on the other hand.

But it sounds good, it's solid and flexible, and it _does_ last forever.
If you have to keep only one kind of cable in the shop, it's the cable to
keep, I think.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Geoff]

Tim Padrick wrote:
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>
> Linn Analogue Interconnect. Simple, affordable, sounds very good.
> http://www.knekt.com/spec_sound/product_display.cfm?ProductID=63&activeNavBar=products&activeSubNavBar=Playback

I auditioned one of these against some others including a $5
rat-shack-equivalent, and could discern no difference at all. And with a
simple single-blind unscientific test, neither could the cable's
owner/investor.

Build quality was good, but so were some others @ around the $20 mark.

geoff

[west]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Meindert Sprang"
>
> > The cable impedance has no influence at all at audio frequencies when
> > cable
> > runs are short. compared to the wavelength of the signal. For audio,
runs
> > longer than roughly 1000 metres would need some impedance matching.
>
>
> ** Here we go again with another know nothing fool sprouting half baked
ham
> radio theory on an audio forum.
>
> FYI :
>
> 1000 metres of unterminated 75 ohm co-ax has a **capacitance** of about
> 70nF.
>
> If driven from a 600 ohm source, the response at the * drive* end would be
> over 3 dB down by 3.8 kHz, ie the bandwidth of a telephone !!!
>
> Terminating the co-ax with 75 ohms would eliminate the response droop
> problem while appropriate matching at each end would eliminate voltage
loss
> as well.
>
I know Phil, that deep down inside you like me. Perhaps sometime we can
meet.

Fondly,
west
>
>
> ....... Phil
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:13:31 +1100, "Phil Allison" >
wrote:

>
>"Mr.T"
>
>>
>> In fact what most people call unbalanced mic cable is usually the same as
>> single conductor instrument cable. More often used for connecting electric
>> guitars, keyboards etc. rather than microphones.
>>
>> Works perfectly well for audio interconnects, and a FAR better choice than
>> RG59/RG6 etc.
>
>
>** How so ?

RG59 is microphonic in high Z circuits, it puts out noise when excited by
vibration.

[Phil Allison]

>>
>>> In fact what most people call unbalanced mic cable is usually the same
>>> as
>>> single conductor instrument cable. More often used for connecting
>>> electric
>>> guitars, keyboards etc. rather than microphones.
>>>
>>> Works perfectly well for audio interconnects, and a FAR better choice
>>> than
>>> RG59/RG6 etc.
>>
>>
>>** How so ?
>
> RG59 is microphonic in high Z circuits, it puts out noise when excited by
> vibration.


** Not even faintly an issue with line level audio interconnects - you
******.

Guitarists can notice it if they have a lead made with RG58 or 59 plugged
into a GUITAR amp while unterminated at the instrument end.




.......... Phil

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:02:42 +1100, "Phil Allison" >
wrote:

>

>>>
>>>> In fact what most people call unbalanced mic cable is usually the same
>>>> as
>>>> single conductor instrument cable. More often used for connecting
>>>> electric
>>>> guitars, keyboards etc. rather than microphones.
>>>>
>>>> Works perfectly well for audio interconnects, and a FAR better choice
>>>> than
>>>> RG59/RG6 etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>** How so ?
>>
>> RG59 is microphonic in high Z circuits, it puts out noise when excited by
>> vibration.
>
>
>** Not even faintly an issue with line level audio interconnects - you
>******.

no one mentioned high level, wankee... or S/N... read his post above,

I'll re-quote it for you: (please don't snip it later...)

>>>>More often used for connecting
>>>> electric
>>>> guitars,

you said:

>Guitarists can notice it if they have a lead made with RG58 or 59 plugged
>into a GUITAR amp
>

GUITAR amp? You didn't see those words above? You didn't notice he said
guitar amps?.

I did, and I answered your inquiry to his post perfectly.


>while unterminated at the instrument end.


Un terminated??? Bull****! a pickup is a termination... cable noise can be
heard while playing.

>
>
>......... Phil
losing it



yer really slipping, phil, I OWN you!!!

[Phil Allison]

= schizo asshole


>>> RG59 is microphonic in high Z circuits, it puts out noise when excited
>>> by
>>> vibration.
>>
>>
>>** Not even faintly an issue with line level audio interconnects - you
>>******.
>
> no one mentioned high level,


** Line level, unbalanced audio IS the application - you asinine
****wit.

Go read the first post in the thread from "west".

Then, GO DROP DEAD !!!




.......... Phil

[Mr.T]

"Phil Allison the Autistic Asshole" > wrote in
message ...
> ( snip this cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left ! )
> ** You have lost on each and every point - asshole.
> Back to the kiddie porn.

Your autoresponder is still stuck Phil.

BTW, keep advertising your fixation on kiddie porn, hopefully they will lock
you up soon!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> >and a FAR better choice than RG59/RG6 etc.
>
> Using what connectors, exactly?

Obviously the ones your equipment requires if not RCA!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Padrick wrote:
> > "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> >
> > Linn Analogue Interconnect. Simple, affordable, sounds very good.
> >
http://www.knekt.com/spec_sound/product_display.cfm?ProductID=63&activeNavBa
r=products&activeSubNavBar=Playback
>
> I auditioned one of these against some others including a $5
> rat-shack-equivalent, and could discern no difference at all. And with a
> simple single-blind unscientific test, neither could the cable's
> owner/investor.
>
> Build quality was good, but so were some others @ around the $20 mark.

Why is my name there though when you have included nothing from me?

MrT.

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.Turd the Autistic Asshole"

( snip this cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left ! )


** You have lost on each and every point - asshole.

Back to your kiddie porn sites.




.......... Phil

[Julian]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:33:40 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"Phil Allison the Autistic Asshole" > wrote in
>message ...
>> ( snip this cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left ! )
>> ** You have lost on each and every point - asshole.
>> Back to the kiddie porn.
>
>Your autoresponder is still stuck Phil.
>
>BTW, keep advertising your fixation on kiddie porn, hopefully they will lock
>you up soon!
>
>MrT.

How refreshing! Mr Allison is in my kill filter and the only time I
get to hear his words of wisdom is when someone else quotes him.

Keep feeding him and you too can end up in my kill filter!

Julian

[Geoff]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tim Padrick wrote:
>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Linn Analogue Interconnect. Simple, affordable, sounds very good.
>>>
> http://www.knekt.com/spec_sound/product_display.cfm?ProductID=63&activeNavBa
> r=products&activeSubNavBar=Playback
>>
>> I auditioned one of these against some others including a $5
>> rat-shack-equivalent, and could discern no difference at all. And
>> with a simple single-blind unscientific test, neither could the
>> cable's owner/investor.
>>
>> Build quality was good, but so were some others @ around the $20
>> mark.
>
> Why is my name there though when you have included nothing from me?
>
> MrT.

Mr T = Mr Titchy ?

Didn't you post the above

>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Linn Analogue Interconnect. Simple, affordable, sounds very good.

?

geoff

[Mr.T]

"Phil Turd the Autistic Asshole" > wrote in message
...
> ( snip this cretin's verbal diarrhoea = nothing left ! )
> ** You have lost on each and every point - asshole.
> Back to the kiddie porn sites.

Your autoresponder is still stuck Phil.
Let's hope the Federal Police take you and your kiddie porn fixation away
real soon!!!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Didn't you post the above
> >>> Linn Analogue Interconnect. Simple, affordable, sounds very good.

NOPE. That's why I'm puzzled you bothered to snip everything but my name!

MrT.

[Geoff]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Didn't you post the above
>>>>> Linn Analogue Interconnect. Simple, affordable, sounds very good.
>
> NOPE. That's why I'm puzzled you bothered to snip everything but my
> name!

I included what was relevant in the prior post, including a commemnt with
the same number of ">>>" indents as your name which was immediately above.

I guess some get 'out of kilter'.

geoff