Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
mono 1/4 inch jack
Hi guys, just need some quick expert advice.
I have a mono 1/4 inch jack that has two prongs, one I guess is for the tip, the other for the shield (called common sometimes too?) My problems was I had to use stereo mic cable because I'm in Chile and it's a pain to go to get other cable. So, how would everyone recommend I wire the connection? Should I solder both cables to the tip? Or just one and not use the other cable? Or should I solder one to the tip, and solder the ground and the other wire to the common (ground) connection? Thanks, sorry if this is a bit confusing English. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
David M wrote:
Hi guys, just need some quick expert advice. I have a mono 1/4 inch jack that has two prongs, one I guess is for the tip, the other for the shield (called common sometimes too?) My problems was I had to use stereo mic cable because I'm in Chile and it's a pain to go to get other cable. So, how would everyone recommend I wire the connection? Should I solder both cables to the tip? Or just one and not use the other cable? Or should I solder one to the tip, and solder the ground and the other wire to the common (ground) connection? Thanks, sorry if this is a bit confusing English. What are you going to connect using this cable? -- ha |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The cable you describe is not a stereo one but I believe it's an overall
screened twisted pair. The 1/4" jack: The 2 "prongs" you refer to are known in the trade as tip and sleeve. I should ask, what is it to be used for? X factor. So I'll cover two eventualities.... If you are using this cable to span to another 2-pole interface: Join both internal conductor wires to the tip and terminate (screw or solder) screen to the sleeve of jack. Same convention at other end! If you have a 3-pole (or more!) connector to span to: then here the 2 conductor wires are for the programme circuit and the screen goes to screen/ground - and at the jackplug end, join one of those wires to screen at sleeve, the other to tip, making the wiring known as "unbalanced". Hope it's clear. Jim "hank alrich" wrote in message . .. David M wrote: Hi guys, just need some quick expert advice. I have a mono 1/4 inch jack that has two prongs, one I guess is for the tip, the other for the shield (called common sometimes too?) My problems was I had to use stereo mic cable because I'm in Chile and it's a pain to go to get other cable. So, how would everyone recommend I wire the connection? Should I solder both cables to the tip? Or just one and not use the other cable? Or should I solder one to the tip, and solder the ground and the other wire to the common (ground) connection? Thanks, sorry if this is a bit confusing English. What are you going to connect using this cable? -- ha |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Everyone,
Thanks a lot for the responses, I appreciate it. The cable is like this http://www.colomar.com/Shavano/2cable.gif The connectors I'm connecting look like X and Y on the page: http://www.colomar.com/Shavano/xlr_sn_c.gif (or another pic at http://www.highlystrung.co.uk/acatalog/jsw2.jpg ) They're the same type used in a guitar I assume, a mono 1/4 inch socket with 2 'prongs' to solder the cable to, I guess you'd call them. Sorry I don't know the English vocabulary. I'm putting one socket one one side of a wall, the other on the other side of the wall. like this (female mono 1/4" socket) --- |||| wall ||| --- (female mono 1/4" socket) They'd be connected with the cable mentioned above. Thanks everyone! dav=EDd |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
David M wrote:
Hi Everyone, Thanks a lot for the responses, I appreciate it. The cable is like this http://www.colomar.com/Shavano/2cable.gif The connectors I'm connecting look like X and Y on the page: http://www.colomar.com/Shavano/xlr_sn_c.gif (or another pic at http://www.highlystrung.co.uk/acatalog/jsw2.jpg ) They're the same type used in a guitar I assume, a mono 1/4 inch socket with 2 'prongs' to solder the cable to, I guess you'd call them. Sorry I don't know the English vocabulary. I'm putting one socket one one side of a wall, the other on the other side of the wall. like this (female mono 1/4" socket) --- |||| wall ||| --- (female mono 1/4" socket) They'd be connected with the cable mentioned above. If you use a stereo 1/4" in the walls, you'll have that connection if you ever need it, and mono 1/4" cables will work fine, too. "Prong" is usually the sticking-out part of a connector (like an AC power connector) or a point on a fork, "terminal" or "solder lug" is the part you solder to. But you got your point across just fine. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
David
The cable you illustrated is a screened, twisted pair. Use both colours (line 1 + line 2) together as one conductor to (signal) centre of the next item.... X and Y as illustrated are known as 1/4" mono jacksockets. (I had thought earlier you were talking about the jackplugs!) Is this the type of cable with which you're linking the sockets? You could use cheap antenna cable if it's only about a metre. If to be mounted in a metal box, for safety's sake make sure the jacksocket floats (no connection to shield) and ground the box metalwork at a corner by a wire to a suitable, permanent earth (ground) point. If housing in a plastic or wooden box, no grounding is needed. Or you could even try to run the apparatus' external cable through the wall (if holes can be hidden from view) and omit the wall sockets! You have still NOT mentioned what the wall sockets lead to/from at their other ends. Can you say what will be their function? If you are trying to link high- or medium-impedance (AC resistance) circuits, there is, unfortunately, a limit to cable length due to its self-capacitance per metre which affects progressively audio high-frequencies. Yet if the sending impedance is low ohms, ie below 150ohms, no problema. Jim "David M" wrote in message oups.com... Hi Everyone, Thanks a lot for the responses, I appreciate it. The cable is like this http://www.colomar.com/Shavano/2cable.gif The connectors I'm connecting look like X and Y on the page: http://www.colomar.com/Shavano/xlr_sn_c.gif (or another pic at http://www.highlystrung.co.uk/acatalog/jsw2.jpg ) They're the same type used in a guitar I assume, a mono 1/4 inch socket with 2 'prongs' to solder the cable to, I guess you'd call them. Sorry I don't know the English vocabulary. I'm putting one socket one one side of a wall, the other on the other side of the wall. like this (female mono 1/4" socket) --- |||| wall ||| --- (female mono 1/4" socket) They'd be connected with the cable mentioned above. Thanks everyone! davíd |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hi guys, ok, sorry about the lack of information...I'll try to do a
small diagram if possible and then explain more in English....here it goes... (INSIDE VOCAL BOOTH) (WALL) (OUTSIDE -- MOTU 828mkII input) guitar-----1/4" mono jacksocket-----cable---1/4" mono jacksocket -----cable ----MOTU input So basically, I have a small vocal booth I've built, with a selection of different jacksockets on each side of the wall of the booth. one of the jacksockets is the mono 1/4" jacksocket. The problem is, I'm in Chile and it's difficult to find all professional level supplies, so I have to use stereo cable as illustrated above. I have other XLR jacksockets for microphones, and stereo jacksockets for headphones, but I figured I'd install one mono jacksocket in case someone wanted to bring a guitar or something else into the booth. I would have installed extra stereo but I thought the mono signal would short out the stereo jacks....this isn't true? Is it the other way around? does a stereo signal short out mono jacks? I remember a teacher of mine warned me much about this, but it was a couple of years ago so I'm not sure. Anyways, so the signal chain would start with a guitar (or another mono instrument), plug into the 1/4" mono jacksocket, travel through stereo wire (illustrated above) through a wall of a couple inches, transfer to another mono 1/4" jacksocket, then through a cable to my 828 mk II. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
If we understand your descriptions properly, you are wiring
a short (~6 inches?) connection between two female, 1/4", 2-conductor ("mono"), panel-mount phone jacks. 1) Use shielded ["screened"] cable. 2) Connect the shield/screen to the terminals on the jacks that connect to the outside barrel. 3) Take both of the inner wires and connect them to the remaining ("hot") terminal. You may find this reference useful. http://www.rane.com/note110.html Although it shows only wiring cable-end connectors (not panel- mount). But the principles are the same. For such a short distance it doesn't really matter how you assign the inner conductors. For a longer cable, I would wire it as if it were balanced (with one inner conductor to the "hot pin" and the other one grounded). That way, if you needed to change the connector at one end (like replacing a phone plug with XLR, etc.) the cable would be ready for it. Purists would say that you should try to get some low-capacitance cable made for high-impedance ("Hi-Z") applications like guitar pickups. But your cable may be OK for such a short distance. I would use 3-conductor "stereo" jacks rather than mono. That way you can also use your interconnection point for things like balanced lines or stereo headphones, etc. It would still work fine for mono jacks like guitar pickups, etc. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
David
What length in total of cable (crucial to know) from the actual guitar-mounted socket to your MOTU 828 Mk ll, whatever that is (a model of mixer?). Does it have a high impedance (roughly 50kohm) line input? Has the route already been tried out successfully without this extension work? Or is the guitar going to route into a guitar amp first? If not, and you intend it going into a mixer, you may need a Direct Inject isolation transformer device to step down both signal impedance and signal voltage, inserted between the instrument pickups and the mixer input at Mic level. One "DI Box" normally serves only one instrument into one channel. Jim |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
wow, thank you everyone for the replies. the MOTU 828 mk II I'm
referring to is a computer input/output interface (I think this is the correct terminology). A webpage with more information is http://www.motu.com/products/motuaudio/828/body.html/en I'm not sure of the impedence of everything, actually, I'm a bit unclear about what impedence really means in the acoustic sense, it seems like a difficult concept for someone new to all this like me. thank you everyone for the responses, you are all very kind... david |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
David
I had found out from my AppleMac musician mate what a MOTU 828 is - he thought I *should* have known such a thing! Clicked on your url to Motu. Yes a very streamlined interface, you guys are spoilt nowadays. Small theory lesson for beginners... Not acoustics. Impedance is basically resistance in Ohms but at AC frequencies: mains, audio, RF, UHF, etc - so it varies electrically according to what part of the spectrum it is placed in! This is why a cable with an internal capacitance (inherent charge attraction sandwiched between its conductors, linear value per metre) reaches a point where the HF top response is compromised noticeably compared with the LF and mid-band behaviour. Kept shorter than that, its bandwidth is fine. Jim |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:35:40 GMT, "Jim Gregory"
wrote: David I had found out from my AppleMac musician mate what a MOTU 828 is - he thought I *should* have known such a thing! Clicked on your url to Motu. Yes a very streamlined interface, you guys are spoilt nowadays. Small theory lesson for beginners... Not acoustics. Impedance is basically resistance in Ohms but at AC frequencies: mains, audio, RF, UHF, etc - so it varies electrically according to what part of the spectrum it is placed in! This is why a cable with an internal capacitance (inherent charge attraction sandwiched between its conductors, linear value per metre) reaches a point where the HF top response is compromised noticeably compared with the LF and mid-band behaviour. Kept shorter than that, its bandwidth is fine. Jim Utter nonsense. Every cable used in audio is good for at least 1,000MHz virtually without attenuation. This is down to matching the cable's IMPEDANCE with the source and load - nothing to do with the capacitance, which can be any value you like as long as it is balanced by an appropriate inductance. If you are going to post theory, at least make it right. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:35:40 GMT, "Jim Gregory" wrote: David I had found out from my AppleMac musician mate what a MOTU 828 is - he thought I *should* have known such a thing! Clicked on your url to Motu. Yes a very streamlined interface, you guys are spoilt nowadays. Small theory lesson for beginners... Not acoustics. Impedance is basically resistance in Ohms but at AC frequencies: mains, audio, RF, UHF, etc - so it varies electrically according to what part of the spectrum it is placed in! This is why a cable with an internal capacitance (inherent charge attraction sandwiched between its conductors, linear value per metre) reaches a point where the HF top response is compromised noticeably compared with the LF and mid-band behaviour. Kept shorter than that, its bandwidth is fine. Jim Utter nonsense. Every cable used in audio is good for at least 1,000MHz virtually without attenuation. This is down to matching the cable's IMPEDANCE with the source and load - nothing to do with the capacitance, which can be any value you like as long as it is balanced by an appropriate inductance. Don't work with video much, do you? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce wrote:
"Jim Gregory" wrote: snipitty doo dah Impedance is basically resistance in Ohms but at AC frequencies: mains, audio, RF, UHF, etc - so it varies electrically according to what part of the spectrum it is placed in! This is why a cable with an internal capacitance (inherent charge attraction sandwiched between its conductors, linear value per metre) reaches a point where the HF top response is compromised noticeably compared with the LF and mid-band behaviour. Kept shorter than that, its bandwidth is fine. Utter nonsense. Every cable used in audio is good for at least 1,000MHz virtually without attenuation. This is down to matching the cable's IMPEDANCE with the source and load - nothing to do with the capacitance, which can be any value you like as long as it is balanced by an appropriate inductance. If you are going to post theory, at least make it right. Cat **** in your tea this morning or something, Don? Glasses fogged? Read this, which Jim wrote above; I requote it since you missed it: Impedance is basically resistance in Ohms but at AC frequencies: mains, audio, RF, UHF, etc - so it varies electrically according to what part of the spectrum it is placed in! Now wash the teapot and start your day anew. -- ha |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 06:19:35 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:35:40 GMT, "Jim Gregory" wrote: David I had found out from my AppleMac musician mate what a MOTU 828 is - he thought I *should* have known such a thing! Clicked on your url to Motu. Yes a very streamlined interface, you guys are spoilt nowadays. Small theory lesson for beginners... Not acoustics. Impedance is basically resistance in Ohms but at AC frequencies: mains, audio, RF, UHF, etc - so it varies electrically according to what part of the spectrum it is placed in! This is why a cable with an internal capacitance (inherent charge attraction sandwiched between its conductors, linear value per metre) reaches a point where the HF top response is compromised noticeably compared with the LF and mid-band behaviour. Kept shorter than that, its bandwidth is fine. Jim Utter nonsense. Every cable used in audio is good for at least 1,000MHz virtually without attenuation. This is down to matching the cable's IMPEDANCE with the source and load - nothing to do with the capacitance, which can be any value you like as long as it is balanced by an appropriate inductance. Don't work with video much, do you? Plenty - this applies at audio, video and RF. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:46:35 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: "Jim Gregory" wrote: snipitty doo dah Impedance is basically resistance in Ohms but at AC frequencies: mains, audio, RF, UHF, etc - so it varies electrically according to what part of the spectrum it is placed in! This is why a cable with an internal capacitance (inherent charge attraction sandwiched between its conductors, linear value per metre) reaches a point where the HF top response is compromised noticeably compared with the LF and mid-band behaviour. Kept shorter than that, its bandwidth is fine. Utter nonsense. Every cable used in audio is good for at least 1,000MHz virtually without attenuation. This is down to matching the cable's IMPEDANCE with the source and load - nothing to do with the capacitance, which can be any value you like as long as it is balanced by an appropriate inductance. If you are going to post theory, at least make it right. Cat **** in your tea this morning or something, Don? Glasses fogged? He writes that the capacitance of a cable causes some kind of fundamental limit to the top end of a cable - "noticeably compromised" are his words. As I said - utter nonsense. I can take that same cable he claims to compromise the top end of audio, and pass 1GHz through it with minimal loss. Read this, which Jim wrote above; I requote it since you missed it: Impedance is basically resistance in Ohms but at AC frequencies: mains, audio, RF, UHF, etc - so it varies electrically according to what part of the spectrum it is placed in! Now wash the teapot and start your day anew. And what has t this to do with anything I wrote? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce wrote:
Utter nonsense. Every cable used in audio is good for at least 1,000MHz virtually without attenuation. This is down to matching the cable's IMPEDANCE with the source and load - nothing to do with the capacitance, which can be any value you like as long as it is balanced by an appropriate inductance. Don't work with video much, do you? Plenty - this applies at audio, video and RF. Except, of course, that characteristic impedance is something different and shouldn't even be called "impedance" at all. But half the time it is what people are talking about when they talk about impedance. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Feb 2005 13:09:21 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: Utter nonsense. Every cable used in audio is good for at least 1,000MHz virtually without attenuation. This is down to matching the cable's IMPEDANCE with the source and load - nothing to do with the capacitance, which can be any value you like as long as it is balanced by an appropriate inductance. Don't work with video much, do you? Plenty - this applies at audio, video and RF. Except, of course, that characteristic impedance is something different and shouldn't even be called "impedance" at all. But half the time it is what people are talking about when they talk about impedance. --scott Well, characteristic impedance and termination impedance are what give you a flat frequency response. The post I was replying to made it sound like a cable was some sort of lowpass filter. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, characteristic impedance and termination impedance are what give you a flat frequency response. The post I was replying to made it sound like a cable was some sort of lowpass filter. A cable _can_ be a lowpass filter when it's short enough to be modelled as a lumped-sum device. A cable can _also_ have ringing and reflection problems when it's long enough to be modelled as a transmission line. When a cable is short enough to be considered a lumped-sum device, you care only about the series impedance and shunt capacitance, and the cable really doesn't have a characteristic impedance. This is basically the case when the length of the cable is less than half a wavelength. When a cable is long enough to be considered a transmission line, you care only about the characteristic impedance. This is basically the case when the length of the cable is longer than half a wavelength. (You also do have high end rolloff because of shunt capacitance here, but you can't think about it as a lumped sum thing.... this is why the data sheets for coaxial cables have attenuation curves instead of just scalar numbers). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Feb 2005 13:46:56 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: Well, characteristic impedance and termination impedance are what give you a flat frequency response. The post I was replying to made it sound like a cable was some sort of lowpass filter. A cable _can_ be a lowpass filter when it's short enough to be modelled as a lumped-sum device. A cable can _also_ have ringing and reflection problems when it's long enough to be modelled as a transmission line. A cable does not ring. A network, of which a cable may or may not be a part, can ring. And there is no lower limit to the length you can model as a transmission line. As a microwave engineer I used routinely to use transmission line models for cables as short as one hundredth of a millimetre. When a cable is short enough to be considered a lumped-sum device, you care only about the series impedance and shunt capacitance, and the cable really doesn't have a characteristic impedance. This is basically the case when the length of the cable is less than half a wavelength. The lumped approximation is simply something you can do if a cable is short enough. The cable itself knows nothing of this, and remains firmly a transmission line - nothing magic happens to it on account of being short. A cable can not be a lowpass filter. A cable can, however form part of a network which makes a low pass filter. When a cable is long enough to be considered a transmission line, you care only about the characteristic impedance. This is basically the case when the length of the cable is longer than half a wavelength. (You also do have high end rolloff because of shunt capacitance here, but you can't think about it as a lumped sum thing.... this is why the data sheets for coaxial cables have attenuation curves instead of just scalar numbers). --scott Exactly. And those attenuation curves assume that you have matched the thing properly. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I was talking there only about losses incurred by *long* cables from
*medium* Z going into medium Z or high Z (a useful practice likely inherited from valve/tube grid days). Very few calls to *match* impedance anymore in Audio. Leaving out power amps and PSUs which work on current amplification, I always think in terms of off-load source voltage, routeing path, and at-load voltage, giving an insertion loss figure from spot freq tests made across the whole 22Hz-22kHz range. Low into High - that's our watchword. Eg, 150 or 200 Ohm mics look into a Z of at least 1k2 (sometimes1k6) Ohms on channel input for maximum level transfer. Can be run floating or "balanced" for 1000 metres easily. If source Z were matched (impossible at whole AF range), the gain after receiving would have to be stepped up about 6dB and there would be a *noticeable* lack of harmonic overtones. As far as I am aware there is no such thing as screened twisted-pair 200Ohm mic cable! 600 Ohm Line Source (probably less than 70 Ohm nowadays) is happy to see 8kOhm or much higher and would be measured in dBU. Termination by resistive 600 Ohm (in dBm) is usually for fulfilling a calibrated voltage match. Not only does capacitance/metre characteristic play its part, but in high-gain high Z stages, the wrong type of unclamped cable can be heard to behave microphonically. Any cable catalogue list will quote the capacitance figure in pF /metre for each specific type (and sometimes for each core).... and dB /100m loss in data/RF cables. Why, do you think? Not many bandwidth problems happen from low Z into 50 or 75 Ohms with decent RF co-ax cable! But then the sending level is usually bumped up to arrive at a proper usuable level. Jim |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Feb 2005 18:19:58 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote: In article writes: He writes that the capacitance of a cable causes some kind of fundamental limit to the top end of a cable - "noticeably compromised" are his words. As I said - utter nonsense. I can take that same cable he claims to compromise the top end of audio, and pass 1GHz through it with minimal loss. You won't lose any power to standing waves if the characteristic impedance matches all along, but the electrical resistance of the cable (which is a function of its length) doesn't go away just because you're terminating it with the correct load. All coaxial cable has loss rating in dB per 1000 feet. Please don't introduce red herrings. Nobody here is discussing resistive losses. The post I was replying to was about the capacitance of the cable causing a loss at the top end of audio. If you want to discuss resistive loss, of course I am happy to, but for goodness sake don't make it sound as if you are thus contradicting what I wrote. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1108855310k@trad... In article writes: I was talking there only about losses incurred by *long* cables Well, since the question that started this thread was about a short cable, the length being just enough more than the thickness of a wall, perhaps it's time to start another thread. -- This was my point, I was trying to indicate that there could be HF loss that may result from the total cable run. Jim |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
dumb question AND opinion needed | Audio Opinions | |||
Falling in love with mono. (I shouldn't kiss my stereo) | Pro Audio | |||
Falling in love with mono. (I shouldn't kiss my stereo) | Pro Audio | |||
Newbie : How to play back in mono, and why | Pro Audio | |||
1ms to 100ms Stereo Delay converting to Mono Question/Problem... | Pro Audio |