In Reply to: Re: making a cable snake posted by Roland on March 24, 2002 at 14:42:52:
Roland,Foil screens give coverage against interfence above 1 MHz, but doesn't do much for noise below that. A high quality, tightly twisted pair with good double braided shield will give much better results for long distance audio.
The best cable for long distance balanced audio (analog or digital) is without a doubt Belden 1800F digital audio cable. This cable has extremely low capacitance (which reduces high frequency roll off). In addition it has French Braided double shields (two layers of braided shields with the braid patterns mirrored to minimise gaps in coverage).
http://bwcecom.belden.com/college/Prodbull/np127.htm
Another issue with snakes is avoid the temptation to bundle speaker cables or even line level signal returns in the same snake. Doing this can create an ultrasonic feedback condition that will roast your amps (and tweeters) and you can't even hear it while it is happening.
About Starquad, This cable has 4 times the capacitance per foot of Belden 1800F. When you need to run cables long distance this factor quickly becomes of primary importance. The reason for this is that the capacitance of the cable combines with the output resistance of the sending device to form a low pass filter. The higher the capacitance (which increases linearly with length) the more the trebles get rolled off. What may work great at 10 feet will often perform miserably at 100 feet.
Phil
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: making a cable snake - Haldor 16:31:35 03/26/02 (11)
- Re: making a cable snake - Roland 14:54:13 03/27/02 (10)
- Re: making a cable snake - Haldor 19:35:52 03/28/02 (9)
- Re: making a cable snake - Roland 07:13:33 03/29/02 (8)
- I'm with Roland - NYCProAudioNut 09:50:57 03/29/02 (7)
- Re: I'm Not - Haldor 15:22:45 04/01/02 (6)
- Re: I'm Not - Roland 07:04:57 04/02/02 (5)
- Re: I'm Not - Haldor 15:02:05 04/02/02 (2)
- Re: I'm Not - SSL Tech 09:02:27 04/03/02 (1)
- Re: I'm Not - Roland 14:40:20 04/03/02 (0)
- Results of a very quick test... - SSL Tech 13:08:50 04/02/02 (1)
- Re: Results of a very quick test... - SSL tech 13:35:28 04/02/02 (0)