[Tatonik]

I'm planning on terminating some speaker cables with Speakon connectors.
I've plugged in Speakons a few times, but never built any cables with
them. In addition to the Neutrik brand, I noticed Amphenol has their
own version (slightly more expensive). Is there any reason to pick one
over the other (or any other brand I don't know about), in regard to
quality or ease of wiring or general use?

I'm surprised this style of connector hasn't caught on in high-end home
audio. The basic design seems so much safer and more secure than
anything else I've encountered.

[[email protected]]

I broke one over twenty years ago while teching at a local hotel
and conference center.

[Scott Dorsey]

Tatonik wrote:
I'm planning on terminating some speaker cables with Speakon connectors.
I've plugged in Speakons a few times, but never built any cables with
them. In addition to the Neutrik brand, I noticed Amphenol has their
own version (slightly more expensive). Is there any reason to pick one
over the other (or any other brand I don't know about), in regard to
quality or ease of wiring or general use?

They are all fine. Neutrik will sell you some with metal bodies that are
more expensive but can stand a truck driving over them at a festival. I
tend to like those. Use the NL4, not the NL2, because nobody uses the NL2
and you won't be compatible with anyone else.

The Amphenols are fine. There are some cheap Chinese knockoffs also and
those aren't very rugged at all but you get what you pay for. They are
functional and cheap.

I'm surprised this style of connector hasn't caught on in high-end home
audio. The basic design seems so much safer and more secure than
anything else I've encountered.

High end people don't want secure and reliable, they want options for
tweaking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Tatonik wrote:

=============

I'm planning on terminating some speaker cables with Speakon connectors.
I've plugged in Speakons a few times, but never built any cables with
them. In addition to the Neutrik brand, I noticed Amphenol has their
own version (slightly more expensive). Is there any reason to pick one
over the other (or any other brand I don't know about), in regard to
quality or ease of wiring or general use?


** Speakons are cool connectors, I use them on my home stereo 3-way speakers. The cable clamping is very good and terminating cable ends is simple and requires no soldering.

Dunno about the Amphenol version but BEWARE of Chinese clones - with just a little wear they can FAIL to connect at all.


I'm surprised this style of connector hasn't caught on in high-end home
audio. The basic design seems so much safer and more secure than
anything else I've encountered.

** Nor have XLRs - chunky gold plated binding posts and matching 4mm plugs seem to be the only ones used. Horribly prone to short circuiting during handling IME. Same thing is near impossible with Speakons.


..... Phil

[John Williamson]

On 19/07/2020 00:33, Scott Dorsey wrote:

High end people don't want secure and reliable, they want options for
tweaking

I suspect a lot of them also want something they can see the workings of.

Pro audio people just want something they can plug in and will work well
enough for the purpose. Speakons and XLR using decent quality cable are
good at that, and it's easy to swap stuff round when you are out on
location or when a perforner moves round a studio.

Audiophiles don't trust what they can't see and fiddle with.

There is also the way the professionals alter the setup between jobs,
while a high end home audio person will want to set stuff up once and
for all, so the convenience of a Speakon isn't needed. Just bear in mind
very few of them even run line level audio through balanced leads...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 21/07/2020 2:13 am, John Williamson wrote:

while a high end home audio person will want to set stuff up once and
for all, so the convenience of a Speakon isn't needed. Just bear in mind
very few of them even run line level audio through balanced leads...



Something to be iad for unbal though. One lot of line-driver distortion
rather than that of two devices.

geoff

[geoff]

On 21/07/2020 8:45 am, geoff wrote:
On 21/07/2020 2:13 am, John Williamson wrote:

while a high end home audio person will want to set stuff up once and
for all, so the convenience of a Speakon isn't needed. Just bear in
mind very few of them even run line level audio through balanced leads...



Something to be iad for unbal though. One lot of line-driver distortion
rather than that of two devices.

geoff

Ooops "iad" = "said".

g.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:

======================


High end people don't want secure and reliable, they want options for
tweaking

I suspect a lot of them also want something they can see the workings of.

Pro audio people just want something they can plug in and will work well
enough for the purpose. Speakons and XLR using decent quality cable are
good at that, and it's easy to swap stuff round when you are out on
location or when a perforner moves round a studio.

Audiophiles don't trust what they can't see and fiddle with.


** The real reason is much simpler:

Pro audio amplifiers were once always fitted with 4mmm speaker terminals and 1/4 inch jacks plus XLR inputs. Then Speakons came along and were heavily marketed in that sphere - so folk started fitted them to speaker boxes in lieu of XLRs. Having 4 conductor links was much appreciated. Amp racks were often fitted up too.

Took a couple of decades, but now all such amps have Speakons fitted at the factory and also speaker boxes as is expected by buyers and installers.

No such thing applies to domestic hi-fi - few owners would even know what a Speakon connector was or looked like so no change is foreseen by anyone.


...... Phil

[John Williamson]

On 21/07/2020 00:52, geoff wrote:
On 21/07/2020 8:45 am, geoff wrote:
On 21/07/2020 2:13 am, John Williamson wrote:

while a high end home audio person will want to set stuff up once and
for all, so the convenience of a Speakon isn't needed. Just bear in
mind very few of them even run line level audio through balanced
leads...



Something to be iad for unbal though. One lot of line-driver
distortion rather than that of two devices.

geoff

Ooops "iad" = "said".

I got that, but the use of a balanced line reduces other problems, and
line driver distortion now is as close as makes no difference to zero.
Balanced lines at 600 ohm impedance are long established, very mature
technology. In some circumstances, a transformer is used as a special
effect to get that "warm", distorted, "analogue" sound. Even digital
signal transmission benefits from being balanced (or optical) if the
line is long, as it means the error correction is easier to do.

Unbalanced's only benefit is that it is (much) cheaper to make.

For professionals, the advantage of balanced signal connections is that
we can connect any pair of balanced items together, and it all "just
works", even over long connections (I use 25 metre microphone leads,
often with a couple of joints in them, for instance, running parallel to
a line level return in the same loom. Some on here have mentioned using
microphone leads a quarter of a mile long with no major problems.). The
only noticeable distortion is from the diaphragms inside the microphones
and monitors. Using that length of connection on an unbalanced wire only
needs someone to turn a fluorescent light on in a nearby room, and you
have interference on the signal, and as for cellphones...

The circuitry inside most professional equipment is generally balanced
all the way through, so there is no place where the circuit is unbalanced.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:

-----------------------

** Most of John's post is pure myth - the benefits of balanced mic lines are way overrated. ( more later)


For professionals, the advantage of balanced signal connections is that
we can connect any pair of balanced items together, and it all "just
works", even over long connections (I use 25 metre microphone leads,
often with a couple of joints in them, for instance, running parallel to
a line level return in the same loom.

** Agreed - unbalanced *multicore" cables can be a disaster. I have seen examples of internal cross coupling causing massive supersonic oscillation in a PA system.


Some on here have mentioned using
microphone leads a quarter of a mile long with no major problems.).

** An unbalanced line using good RF co-ax would go much longer - long as it is driven by a low Z mic. The capacitance of such co-ax is way less and the mag field rejection is actually *better* - see note.


The
only noticeable distortion is from the diaphragms inside the microphones
and monitors. Using that length of connection on an unbalanced wire only
needs someone to turn a fluorescent light on in a nearby room, and you
have interference on the signal, and as for cellphones...


** The issue here is only poor shielding, good RF co-ax ( RG58 or RG59 comes to mind) is normally well shielded.

Note: The internal symmetry of a co-ax cable is the secret to its excellent mag field rejection. Equal and opposite currents inject into the core and shield from a nearby AC mag field - so complete self cancellation.

OTOH with a twisted pair cable, the rate of twist per foot is critical to mag field rejection, but even the best will pick up hum from a supply frequency transformers when it gets too close - including the tiny ones in wall warts.

The "balanced is best" fallacy is historical nonsense based on a false comparison between a 200 ohm or 600 ohm mic and a long obsolete 50kohm one.

The ONLY real advantage of a 2 wire "balanced" mic line is when used for carrying phantom power to a mic or device that needs it ( eg a DI unit).

** Go ahead - make my day:

Make a lead using 20m or so of RG59 with an XLR at each end, wired with each pin 3 linked to pin 1. Use it with a 200 ohm mic of whatever brand.

Wind one turn around a wall wart transformer and note there is no hum.

Now, do the same with any of your twisted pair leads.

Who wins?


..... Phil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/21/2020 6:50 AM, Phil Allison wrote:


Note: The internal symmetry of a co-ax cable is the secret to its excellent mag field rejection. Equal and opposite currents inject into the core and shield from a nearby AC mag field - so complete self cancellation.

The ONLY real advantage of a 2 wire "balanced" mic line is when used for carrying phantom power to a mic or device that needs it ( eg a DI unit).

With the assumption that the input is differential, what you're losing
is common mode rejection. You're relying on the construction of the coax
to be all you need to keep EMI from getting to the destination through
the cable. A differential input fed from an accurately balanced source
is like "belt and suspenders."

A lot of the "unbalanced hums" netlore is a function of improper
grounding and shielding in the source and destination devices. Much of
this has been sorted out since the AES devoted a whole issue of the
Journal in 1975 to ways to build stuff right so you don't get EMI picked
up by the cable shield to the guts of the destination device via a
current path through what's supposed to be "ground."


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_5_]]

Tatonik wrote:

I'm planning on terminating some speaker cables with Speakon connectors.
Â*I've plugged in Speakons a few times, but never built any cables with
them.Â* In addition to the Neutrik brand, I noticed Amphenol has their
own version (slightly more expensive).Â* Is there any reason to pick one
over the other (or any other brand I don't know about), in regard to
quality or ease of wiring or general use?

I'm surprised this style of connector hasn't caught on in high-end home
audio.Â* The basic design seems so much safer and more secure than
anything else I've encountered.


Speakons all but preclude daisy-chaining unless it's provided for on the
panel ( or you make a box ). That's the only real downside and it might
be that big of one.

--
Les Cargill

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

=================

Phil Allison wrote:


Note: The internal symmetry of a co-ax cable is the secret to its excellent mag field rejection. Equal and opposite currents inject into the core and shield from a nearby AC mag field - so complete self cancellation.

The ONLY real advantage of a 2 wire "balanced" mic line is when used for carrying phantom power to a mic or device that needs it ( eg a DI unit).


With the assumption that the input is differential,


** The CONTEXT here is microphones - you snipped it out of sight.

The source is *floating* so no ground loops.


what you're losing is common mode rejection.


** Good shielding prevents such coupling with a *microphone*.


You're relying on the construction of the coax
to be all you need to keep EMI from getting to the destination through
the cable.

** Which actually works BETTER than a twisted pair - which does not have such good symmetry cos of having descrete loops.


A differential input fed from an accurately balanced source
is like "belt and suspenders."


** Picks up more hum than a good co-ax.

Try it out just like I suggested, sometime.


A lot of the "unbalanced hums" netlore is a function of improper
grounding

** One word - *microphones*.

Unique case.


...... Phil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/21/2020 6:58 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

** One word -*microphones*.

I'm a generalist. I know what works for all balanced connections but I
don't know what works for all microphones.

On a theoretical level, even backed up by measurements, your unique
setup might be better than what's been convention for a long time. You
can build it, but you probably couldn't sell it.

And on the "balanced" scene, things are getting better. Higher and
higher data rates are getting us more accurate twisted pairs than in the
past. Also, active inputs and outputs such as those from THAT Corp are
more accurate than transformers.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/21/2020 7:43 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:

** One word -*microphones*.

Oh, yeah. I guess I was distracted when the discussion drifted away from
SpeakOn connectors. Those can be used for balanced or unbalanced
connections, but nobody really thinks about them that way. They're
connectors that

(a) are (at least so far unique to loudspeakers so you won't mistakenly
plug a cable from a microphone into a loudspeaker and wonder why it's
not working, and

(b) are robust enough not to pull apart as easily as many other
connectors, and

(c) there's a standard wiring convention for them (including signal
polarity) that's more positive than red and black banana plugs


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 22/07/2020 9:44 am, Les Cargill wrote:
Tatonik wrote:

I'm planning on terminating some speaker cables with Speakon
connectors. Â*Â*I've plugged in Speakons a few times, but never built
any cables with them.Â* In addition to the Neutrik brand, I noticed
Amphenol has their own version (slightly more expensive).Â* Is there
any reason to pick one over the other (or any other brand I don't know
about), in regard to quality or ease of wiring or general use?

I'm surprised this style of connector hasn't caught on in high-end
home audio.Â* The basic design seems so much safer and more secure than
anything else I've encountered.


Speakons all but preclude daisy-chaining unless it's provided for on the
panel ( or you make a box ). That's the only real downside and it might
be that big of one.


Why should that be any more difficult for daisy-chaining than XLR
female/male or jack ins/outs on a speaker, which are usually 'panel'
anyway ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/07/2020 11:54 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/21/2020 7:43 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:

** One word -*microphones*.

Oh, yeah. I guess I was distracted when the discussion drifted away from
SpeakOn connectors. Those can be used for balanced or unbalanced
connections, but nobody really thinks about them that way. They're
connectors that

(a) are (at least so far unique to loudspeakers so you won't mistakenly
plug a cable from a microphone into a loudspeaker and wonder why it's
not working, and

I always shudder when I see a speaker with XLRs, and more-so with an amp
with XLR outputs.

a - because of the potential for equipment disaster.
b - with the confusion when scrambling for the appropriate cable.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
Why should that be any more difficult for daisy-chaining than XLR
female/male or jack ins/outs on a speaker, which are usually 'panel'
anyway ?

You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P connectors either,
all of which are popular for speakers.

But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 22/07/2020 1:43 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
Why should that be any more difficult for daisy-chaining than XLR
female/male or jack ins/outs on a speaker, which are usually 'panel'
anyway ?

You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P connectors either,
all of which are popular for speakers.

But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.
--scott


I though the qualification 'panel' implied parallel connectors mounted
on a panel (or chassis, or whatever), in which case a doddle for any
connector.

Just don't hang too much cable-weight on those piggy-backed bananas !

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
=================
Phil Allison wrote:

** One word -*microphones*.

I'm a generalist. I know what works for all balanced connections but I
don't know what works for all microphones.


** ??

On a theoretical level, even backed up by measurements, your unique
setup might be better than what's been convention for a long time. You
can build it, but you probably couldn't sell it.


** It ain't unique - many folk were using co-ax for low Z mics decades ago.

Before the "it has to be "balanced" rot set in.

Pro audio is infested with myths plus " monkey see, monkey do" thinking.

The corollary of which is " monkey no see, monkey no do " insanity.



..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

==================


(a) are (at least so far unique to loudspeakers so you won't mistakenly
plug a cable from a microphone into a loudspeaker and wonder why it's
not working,


** XLR mic cables cannot be used with speakers - cos the two versions are physically incompatible.

The speaker version might be plugged into a mic and not work or do damage - but I have never seen an example of the latter.

..... Phil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

====================


You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P
connectors either, all of which are popular for speakers.


To "daisy chain" speakers only requires each box to have two sockets wired in parallel. The type of connector is NOT relevant.

Mic leads can be directly used as extensions - but speaker leads cannot without an "joiner" box.

Bewa Cargill is totally clueless.



...... Phil












But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/21/2020 9:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P connectors either,
all of which are popular for speakers.

But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.

What variety of daisy are you talking about here? Of course you can
daily-chain common XLR cables with a male on one end and another. What
you can't do is connect something in parallel without some special
arrangements, either a Y adapter or a speaker that's built for
daisy-chaining to another speaker, with a parallel-connected
opposite-gender XLR added to the connector panel.

Of course you can stack banana plugs as long as they have a "stacking"
hole in them. But that isn't universal.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 7/21/2020 9:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: You can't daisy-chain XLRs,
1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P connectors either, all of which are
popular for speakers.
But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.

Of course you can stack banana plugs as long as they have a "stacking"
hole in them. But that isn't universal.

I use banana plugs for all my P.A. speakers. Every speaker has three
sets of sockets in parallel so that an incoming signal can be fed
onwards to at least two more units. The entire system is standardised
on 100v line, so everything is in parallel and impedance matching
becomes a non-concept (as long as the amplifier can handle the total
load).

The inclusion of a tapped transformer in each loudspeaker unit allows
balancing of sound levels and I have an auto-transformer that can be
used to reduce the level to a whole group of speakers simultaneously.
Ordinary switches on a plastic box with banana sockets at the back can
be used to switch groups of speakers in or out.

The whole system is extremely versatile and adaptable to almost any
small to medium-sized outdoor event. Some of these smaller events are
sketchily planned, so the ability to re-rig in response to some
unforseen circumstance while the event is in progress can be a
life-saver. The system has also coped reasonably adequately with the
sort of small and medium-sized indoor music events where it is mainly
needed for sound reinforcement.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Les Cargill[_5_]]

geoff wrote:
On 22/07/2020 1:43 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoffÂ* wrote:
Why should that be any more difficult for daisy-chaining than XLR
female/male or jack ins/outs on a speaker, which are usually 'panel'
anyway ?

You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P connectors
either,
all of which are popular for speakers.

But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.
--scott


I though the qualification 'panel' implied parallel connectors mounted
on a panel (or chassis, or whatever), in which case a doddle for any
connector.


It did.

For some reason, every MI grade PA or bass guitar box ever made had two
1/4" jacks to enable daisy-chaining. I can think of no examples with
Speakon, probably because of panel real estate.

A time-honored way to set up especially a bass rig is to use a pair of 8
ohm boxes in parallel driven by a 4 ohm amp.

Not an issue with controlled configurations where you want things to
hook up only one way and can spend some engineering making it that way.

Just don't hang too much cable-weight on those piggy-backed bananas !


I've never used those in anger.

geoff

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_5_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
Why should that be any more difficult for daisy-chaining than XLR
female/male or jack ins/outs on a speaker, which are usually 'panel'
anyway ?

You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P connectors either,
all of which are popular for speakers.


Seems like every MI grade box made with 1/4" panels had two jacks in
parallel.

But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.
--scott


--
Les Cargill

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Les Cargill wrote:

===============

For some reason, every MI grade PA or bass guitar box ever made had two
1/4" jacks to enable daisy-chaining. I can think of no examples with
Speakon, probably because of panel real estate.


** Because most bass ( and many other) amps now have TWIN speakon outlets.

What an idiot remark you posted.

As usual.

...... Phil

[Trevor]

On 22/07/2020 12:26 pm, geoff wrote:
On 22/07/2020 1:43 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoffÂ* wrote:
Why should that be any more difficult for daisy-chaining than XLR
female/male or jack ins/outs on a speaker, which are usually 'panel'
anyway ?

You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P connectors
either,
all of which are popular for speakers.

But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.

I though the qualification 'panel' implied parallel connectors mounted
on a panel (or chassis, or whatever), in which case a doddle for any
connector.

Just don't hang too much cable-weight on those piggy-backed bananas !


Yes, much prefer Speakon in and out on every speaker. Banana plugs
barely adequate for heavy speaker cable when NOT piggy backed!

[Trevor]

On 23/07/2020 11:20 am, Les Cargill wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 22/07/2020 1:43 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoffÂ* wrote:
Why should that be any more difficult for daisy-chaining than XLR
female/male or jack ins/outs on a speaker, which are usually 'panel'
anyway ?

You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P connectors
either,
all of which are popular for speakers.

But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.

I though the qualification 'panel' implied parallel connectors mounted
on a panel (or chassis, or whatever), in which case a doddle for any
connector.

It did.
For some reason, every MI grade PA or bass guitar box ever made had two
1/4" jacks to enable daisy-chaining. I can think of no examples with
Speakon, probably because of panel real estate.


You are kidding right? All my PA speaker boxes have Speakon in and out.
Most have for a couple of decades. Last century it wasn't so common I
guess. I did have to convert a very old speaker that had XLR's and phone
sockets only. But that was 80's vintage!

[Dieter Michel]

Les,

For some reason, every MI grade PA or bass guitar box ever made had two 1/4" jacks to enable daisy-chaining. I can think of no examples with
Speakon, probably because of panel real estate.
I recently bought a bass instrument loudspeaker from
Barefaced Audio with two Speakons wired in parallel.

Best,

Dieter

[Les Cargill[_5_]]

Trevor wrote:
On 23/07/2020 11:20 am, Les Cargill wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 22/07/2020 1:43 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoffÂ* wrote:
Why should that be any more difficult for daisy-chaining than XLR
female/male or jack ins/outs on a speaker, which are usually 'panel'
anyway ?

You can't daisy-chain XLRs, 1/4 phone, Socapex, or Canon P
connectors either,
all of which are popular for speakers.

But you can daisy-chain banana plugs and spade terminals.

I though the qualification 'panel' implied parallel connectors
mounted on a panel (or chassis, or whatever), in which case a doddle
for any connector.

It did.
For some reason, every MI grade PA or bass guitar box ever made had
two 1/4" jacks to enable daisy-chaining. I can think of no examples
with Speakon, probably because of panel real estate.


You are kidding right?

No, not at all.

All my PA speaker boxes have Speakon in and out.

That's good.

Most have for a couple of decades. Last century it wasn't so common I
guess.

Something like that. This was prior to 2012 or so. Stuff I've seen
since was powered.

We're not talking about nice PA here - bar band stuff. But it was
annoying for a while. A lot of these were size-constrained ( and cost
constrained ) so thah would be my guess why they left 'em off.

I did have to convert a very old speaker that had XLR's and phone
sockets only. But that was 80's vintage!


I've never seen XLR for speakers.



--
Les Cargill

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Les Cargill Lunatic Troll wrote:
=================================


You are kidding right?

No, not at all.

All my PA speaker boxes have Speakon in and out.

That's good.

Most have for a couple of decades. Last century it wasn't so common I
guess.

Something like that. This was prior to 2012 or so. Stuff I've seen
since was powered.

We're not talking about nice PA here - bar band stuff.


** Who is "we" - fuchead.

You are not "we" - cos we are.

The context was hif- & PA systems till you posted you asinine troll.

**** off and Die


..... Phil


But it was
annoying for a while. A lot of these were size-constrained ( and cost
constrained ) so thah would be my guess why they left 'em off.

I did have to convert a very old speaker that had XLR's and phone
sockets only. But that was 80's vintage!


I've never seen XLR for speakers.



--
Les Cargill

[Richard Kuschel]

I have seen xlr for speakers. Vox used 3 pin xlr for speakers with pins 1 and 2 wired.Ampeg used a 4 pin xlr on the SVT and other amplifiers. Speaker signal was pins 1&4 pins 2&3 were shorted in the cabinet jack and the B+ was routed through the cable to the speaker jack. This prevented the amp from destroying the output transformer from burning up without speaker termination. When the plug was inserted into the speaker jack, the B+ was fed back to the amp.

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

Richard Kuschel wrote:
I have seen xlr for speakers. Vox used 3 pin xlr for speakers with pins 1
and 2 wired.Ampeg used a 4 pin xlr on the SVT and other amplifiers.
Speaker signal was pins 1&4 pins 2&3 were shorted in the cabinet jack and
the B+ was routed through the cable to the speaker jack. This prevented
the amp from destroying the output transformer from burning up without
speaker termination. When the plug was inserted into the speaker jack,
the B+ was fed back to the amp.


I can see what they were trying to do, but I cant imagine a more dangerous
way to achieve that than sending B+ through a speaker cable.

[Les Cargill[_5_]]

Phil Allison wrote:
Les Cargill Lunatic Troll wrote:
=================================


You are kidding right?

No, not at all.

All my PA speaker boxes have Speakon in and out.

That's good.

Most have for a couple of decades. Last century it wasn't so common I
guess.

Something like that. This was prior to 2012 or so. Stuff I've seen
since was powered.

We're not talking about nice PA here - bar band stuff.


** Who is "we" - fuchead.

You are not "we" - cos we are.


I am using a language called "English". Perhaps you've hear of it?

In English a common phrase is "we're not talking about" when it really
means "I'm not talking about".

Most people grasp this.

Hope this helps.

--
Les Cargill

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Les Cargill Lunatic ****wit Troll wrote:


==================================
Phil Allison wrote:
Les Cargill Lunatic Troll wrote:
=================================


You are kidding right?

No, not at all.

All my PA speaker boxes have Speakon in and out.

That's good.

Most have for a couple of decades. Last century it wasn't so common I
guess.

Something like that. This was prior to 2012 or so. Stuff I've seen
since was powered.

We're not talking about nice PA here - bar band stuff.


** Who is "we" - fuchead.

You are not "we" - cos we are.


I am using a language called "English".


** ROTFL


In English a common phrase is "we're not talking about" when it really
means "I'm not talking about".


** Using "we" to refer to oneself is know as the "Royal Plural".

Only used by kings, queens and a few pompous idiots.


Most people grasp this.

** No they don't.

It's complete bull****.


..... Phil