Highly Shielded Audio Cable

[William Sommerwerck]

"dave" wrote in message
newsK2dnRfvzpqB4L3OnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

> That is pure audio snake oil.

My point was that the AR cables had features designed for good shielding. I
never directly claimed that they sounded better. Indeed, my experience has
been that expensive cables don't sound better than the cheap ones that come
"in the box".

 

[dave]

On 03/12/2014 09:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
newsK2dnRfvzpqB4L3OnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

That is pure audio snake oil.

My point was that the AR cables had features designed for good
shielding. I never directly claimed that they sounded better. Indeed, my
experience has been that expensive cables don't sound better than the
cheap ones that come "in the box".

And I pointed out as someone else did earlier it is not primarily a
matter of shielding.

 

[dave]

On 03/12/2014 09:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
newsK2dnRfvzpqB4L3OnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

That is pure audio snake oil.

My point was that the AR cables had features designed for good
shielding. I never directly claimed that they sounded better. Indeed, my
experience has been that expensive cables don't sound better than the
cheap ones that come "in the box".

I use the DAC in my home theater receiver for all the audio, which comes
in via S/Pdif. DTS multichannel audio is as exotic as it gets. Hosa
cables are good and cheap. I am just a customer.

 

[dave]

On 03/12/2014 09:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
newsK2dnRfvzpqB4L3OnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

That is pure audio snake oil.

My point was that the AR cables had features designed for good
shielding. I never directly claimed that they sounded better. Indeed, my
experience has been that expensive cables don't sound better than the
cheap ones that come "in the box".

Here we go. 3.5mm TRS male.

http://www.markertek.com/CATV-Headend-Interface/CAT-5-Transmission-Systems/Audio-Over-CAT5-Systems/MuxLab-Inc/500030.xhtml

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

dave wrote:

These are pretty darn close to what you need, as long as they are true
balanced. This will put a face on it, any way.

http://www.markertek.com/CATV-Headend-Interface/CAT-5-Transmission-Systems/Composite-Video-Over-CAT5.xhtml

75 Ohm unbalanced to 110 Ohm, balanced, twisted pair? The fact that he
is using unbalanced audio implies 5K ohm or higher impedance.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

dave wrote:

The Phone Company doesn't use shielded cable for baseband audio.


No, but they use twisted pair and they can still pick up a lot of RF.
I've seen over 5 volts of RF on phone lines at AM radio stations that
were wired with 'station wire' instead of twisted pair. The radio
station audio was louder than either party on the line could talk. The
fix was to rip out everything, run 25 pair twisted cable to localized
terminals and use short runs to the phones. There was still some common
mode RF, but at least the lines were usable since it no longer caused
the volume limiter to go into continuous conduction.

Yes, and even in the days of the no real electronics in the phones, there
were tips in the books about keeping RF out of the phones.

The issue becomes more significant when all the phones are made of
electronics, and there's a lot more that can act ad diodes to detect the
signals.

Michael

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

dave wrote:

The Phone Company doesn't use shielded cable for baseband audio.

No, but they use twisted pair and they can still pick up a lot of RF.
I've seen over 5 volts of RF on phone lines at AM radio stations that
were wired with 'station wire' instead of twisted pair. The radio
station audio was louder than either party on the line could talk. The
fix was to rip out everything, run 25 pair twisted cable to localized
terminals and use short runs to the phones. There was still some common
mode RF, but at least the lines were usable since it no longer caused
the volume limiter to go into continuous conduction.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Leif Neland]

Ralph D. udtrykte prćcist:

Hi,

I need a cable (ideally about 20ft), stereo 3.5mm male/male, highly shielded
to connect my audio source to a transmitter across a room. This cable passes
many sources of interference, so the shielding is critical.

I would prefer to get it from Amazon so as to get it quick with Prime
(incredibly narrow window of free-time during a currently very busy schedule)
but would be OK with ordering from one of the Ham sites if turnaround time is
very good. I could not get a good search parameter on Amazon that didn't turn
up thousands of hits that I just don't have time to sift through right now.

Any good cable with known good isolation would be good. I have ferrite chokes
I can use, but would prefer a cable of suitable quality that did not need
them (current cable is getting interference even with them as this is not
just run-of-the-mill 60cycle stuff).

Any good suggestions would be appreciated.


You could go digital/optical with a analog-toslink-analog combo.

There is a combination at the bottom of the ad here:
http://amzn.com/B005F20756

It claims only 18 feet, that could be close enough to your approx 20ft,
when there are analog cables in either end.

But I haven't seen an 18ft toslink cable...

There must transmitters which are more powerful, if you need a longer
range.

Leif

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Leif Neland" wrote in message news:mn.6a0f7de3b3dc8140.130671@neland.dk...

> But I haven't seen an 18ft TosLink cable...

There are couplers.

 

[dave]

On 03/12/2014 10:20 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

dave wrote:


These are pretty darn close to what you need, as long as they are true
balanced. This will put a face on it, any way.

http://www.markertek.com/CATV-Headend-Interface/CAT-5-Transmission-Systems/Composite-Video-Over-CAT5.xhtml


75 Ohm unbalanced to 110 Ohm, balanced, twisted pair? The fact that he
is using unbalanced audio implies 5K ohm or higher impedance.

Baseband Video is always 75 Ohms unbalanced 1VAC p/p. 110 Ohms is a
standard for digital audio. The fact the device is a BalUn means the
unbalanced audio (and video) is transformed for the balanced
transmission line (and back again after). The video will be a couple
10ths low but the first DA it hits will fix that, otherwise most devices
will AGC it to where it needs to be. As long as the group delay isn't
hideous it'll work for SDTV. There are audio only devices that is the
application we need here.

PS I'm surprised Ma Bell didn't try to sell you a bunch of 111C coils
and active official interface devices.

 

[RobertMacy]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:00:33 -0700, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


dave wrote:

The Phone Company doesn't use shielded cable for baseband audio.


No, but they use twisted pair and they can still pick up a lot of RF.
I've seen over 5 volts of RF on phone lines at AM radio stations that
were wired with 'station wire' instead of twisted pair. The radio
station audio was louder than either party on the line could talk. The
fix was to rip out everything, run 25 pair twisted cable to localized
terminals and use short runs to the phones. There was still some common
mode RF, but at least the lines were usable since it no longer caused
the volume limiter to go into continuous conduction.

Yes, and even in the days of the no real electronics in the phones,
there were tips in the books about keeping RF out of the phones.

The issue becomes more significant when all the phones are made of
electronics, and there's a lot more that can act ad diodes to detect the
signals.

Michael

AND! the designers usually violate concept of exactly what 'balanced' line
means, then the telephone's own protection system will rectify the AM
signals.

Most radio stations will supply little pigtails to place between your
phone and the line that pretty much drops that RF, for free, as a good
neighbor act.

In one doctor's office sitting by the relatively low powered 10kW AM
towers [Jeff will know where this is, driving south along highway 1 to
your left, just south of Santa Cruz] had between 1V/m upwards to 3V/m and
in some places concentrated to over 7V/m and the station came in louder
than conversations. Now,..extrapolate that to EMP at 20kV to 50kV/m and
you can see why nobody wants missiles AND nuclear capability in the same
hands.

 

[Smarty]

On 3/13/2014 8:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Leif Neland" wrote in message
news:mn.6a0f7de3b3dc8140.130671@neland.dk...
But I haven't seen an 18ft TosLink cable...

There are couplers.

Monoprice offers this 25 foot Toslink cable for under $5, as well as
longer ones out to 50 foot length.

They work beautifully for the applications I have tried, including the
connection of an AppleTV audio output to a distant A/V receiver in
another room.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=102&cp_id=10229&cs_id=1022901&p_id=2668&seq=1&format=2

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

dave wrote:

On 03/12/2014 10:20 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

dave wrote:


These are pretty darn close to what you need, as long as they are true
balanced. This will put a face on it, any way.

http://www.markertek.com/CATV-Headend-Interface/CAT-5-Transmission-Systems/Composite-Video-Over-CAT5.xhtml


75 Ohm unbalanced to 110 Ohm, balanced, twisted pair? The fact that he
is using unbalanced audio implies 5K ohm or higher impedance.


Baseband Video is always 75 Ohms unbalanced 1VAC p/p.

Yawn. Actually, it's 1.4 volts, because the sync is .4 volts below
the video.

110 Ohms is a
standard for digital audio. The fact the device is a BalUn means the
unbalanced audio (and video) is transformed for the balanced
transmission line (and back again after). The video will be a couple
10ths low but the first DA it hits will fix that, otherwise most devices
will AGC it to where it needs to be. As long as the group delay isn't
hideous it'll work for SDTV. There are audio only devices that is the
application we need here.

PS I'm surprised Ma Bell didn't try to sell you a bunch of 111C coils
and active official interface devices.

'Ma Bell' didn't own the telephone hardware on that Army base. In
fact, they didn't own the White Alice' microwave network that provided
the long distance phone service for a large part of Alaska.


Test some of those cheap video baluns with audio, then tell us the -3
dB points. You keep forgetting that I built Telemetry & video equipment
that you'll never see, and to standards that you can't come close to.
Long before digital TV, my video hardware was flat to 40 MHz. That
included diversity reception, and video combiners that would provide a
solid video signal from multiple fading signals.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:01:01 -0700, dave <ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

On 03/12/2014 09:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"dave" wrote in message
newsK2dnRfvzpqB4L3OnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

That is pure audio snake oil.

My point was that the AR cables had features designed for good
shielding. I never directly claimed that they sounded better. Indeed, my
experience has been that expensive cables don't sound better than the
cheap ones that come "in the box".

And I pointed out as someone else did earlier it is not primarily a
matter of shielding.

And i will point out that in OP's case, it is a cabling issue if not
exactly a shielding issue, rather than any other issue.

?-)

 

[dave]

On 03/14/2014 04:58 AM, josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:01:01 -0700, dave <ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

On 03/12/2014 09:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"dave" wrote in message
newsK2dnRfvzpqB4L3OnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

That is pure audio snake oil.

My point was that the AR cables had features designed for good
shielding. I never directly claimed that they sounded better. Indeed, my
experience has been that expensive cables don't sound better than the
cheap ones that come "in the box".

And I pointed out as someone else did earlier it is not primarily a
matter of shielding.

And i will point out that in OP's case, it is a cabling issue if not
exactly a shielding issue, rather than any other issue.

?-)

The shield can make things worse sometimes.

 

[Ralph D.]

"dave" <ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dMqdnVeB5swRPr3OnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

On 03/12/2014 09:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"dave" wrote in message
newsK2dnRfvzpqB4L3OnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

That is pure audio snake oil.

My point was that the AR cables had features designed for good
shielding. I never directly claimed that they sounded better. Indeed, my
experience has been that expensive cables don't sound better than the
cheap ones that come "in the box".

Here we go. 3.5mm TRS male.

http://www.markertek.com/CATV-Headend-Interface/CAT-5-Transmission-Systems/Audio-Over-CAT5-Systems/MuxLab-Inc/500030.xhtml

!!!

Cat5 (e & 6 as well) is something I have a *lot* of. Is there any advantage
to 5e as opposed to 5 for this application? I'd rather hang on to my 6 & 5e
if I could.

How about these adapters. I know they may not have the same quality, but for
2 for $15US it might make it worth taking a shot... not much lost if it
doesn't work:

http://www.amazon.com/3-5mm-To-Audio-Balun-Extender/dp/B00D0E6R96/ref=pd_bxgy_misc_text_z

 

[dave]

On 03/16/2014 09:50 AM, Ralph D. wrote:

"dave" <ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dMqdnVeB5swRPr3OnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
On 03/12/2014 09:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"dave" wrote in message
newsK2dnRfvzpqB4L3OnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

That is pure audio snake oil.

My point was that the AR cables had features designed for good
shielding. I never directly claimed that they sounded better. Indeed, my
experience has been that expensive cables don't sound better than the
cheap ones that come "in the box".

Here we go. 3.5mm TRS male.

http://www.markertek.com/CATV-Headend-Interface/CAT-5-Transmission-Systems/Audio-Over-CAT5-Systems/MuxLab-Inc/500030.xhtml


!!!

Cat5 (e & 6 as well) is something I have a *lot* of. Is there any advantage
to 5e as opposed to 5 for this application? I'd rather hang on to my 6 & 5e
if I could.

How about these adapters. I know they may not have the same quality, but for
2 for $15US it might make it worth taking a shot... not much lost if it
doesn't work:

http://www.amazon.com/3-5mm-To-Audio-Balun-Extender/dp/B00D0E6R96/ref=pd_bxgy_misc_text_z

They may or not work depending on the quality of the transformers. Look
up "CMRR", "differential input"

 

[Ralph D.]

"Ralph D." <not@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:AL2dncMV16ZBrIDOnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com...

Hi,

I need a cable (ideally about 20ft), stereo 3.5mm male/male, highly
shielded to connect my audio source to a transmitter across a room. This
cable passes many sources of interference, so the shielding is critical.

I would prefer to get it from Amazon so as to get it quick with Prime
(incredibly narrow window of free-time during a currently very busy
schedule) but would be OK with ordering from one of the Ham sites if
turnaround time is very good. I could not get a good search parameter on
Amazon that didn't turn up thousands of hits that I just don't have time
to sift through right now.

Any good cable with known good isolation would be good. I have ferrite
chokes I can use, but would prefer a cable of suitable quality that did
not need them (current cable is getting interference even with them as
this is not just run-of-the-mill 60cycle stuff).

Any good suggestions would be appreciated.


Thanks!

Thanks to everyone for their input. I guess the discussion has about worn
itself out.

After reading what was posted in both groups, I have decided to try this
option first, as I have cable on hand and it would be great if it resolved
for cheap


http://www.amazon.com/Headphone-Jack-3-5mm-Audio-Balun/dp/B00D0E206A/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1395020991&sr=1-1&keywords=3.5mm+To+3.5mm+Balun+Cat5



Hopefully I'll have a positive follow-up.


Thanks again.

 

[aji darmawan]

in my very hard to get this.

http://belajarteknolgi.com

Pada Senin, 10 Maret 2014 10:30:08 UTC+7, Ralph D. menulis:

Hi,



I need a cable (ideally about 20ft), stereo 3.5mm male/male, highly shielded

to connect my audio source to a transmitter across a room. This cable passes

many sources of interference, so the shielding is critical.



I would prefer to get it from Amazon so as to get it quick with Prime

(incredibly narrow window of free-time during a currently very busy

schedule) but would be OK with ordering from one of the Ham sites if

turnaround time is very good. I could not get a good search parameter on

Amazon that didn't turn up thousands of hits that I just don't have time to

sift through right now.



Any good cable with known good isolation would be good. I have ferrite

chokes I can use, but would prefer a cable of suitable quality that did not

need them (current cable is getting interference even with them as this is

not just run-of-the-mill 60cycle stuff).



Any good suggestions would be appreciated.





Thanks!

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, March 10, 2014 8:24:12 AM UTC-7, D. Peter Maus wrote:

On 3/9/14 23:49 , isw wrote:

In article <AL2dncMV16ZBrIDOnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,

"Ralph D." <not@anytime.com> wrote:

I need a cable (ideally about 20ft), stereo 3.5mm male/male, highly shielded
to connect my audio source to a transmitter across a room. This cable passes
many sources of interference, so the shielding is critical.

A more effective solution would be to convert the audio to a balanced
line at one end, and then back to unbalanced at the other. Better CMRR.
Shielded twisted pair, here, will get the job done.

Yep, this is the best solution: it takes transformers (or active-circuitry equivalents)
though, so it might be a tad hard to implement. The wiring for this kind of thing
is widely used for microphones (microphone cable and microphone connectors
solves the cable-purchase part of the problem).

I'm not sure where to buy, but searching on 'audio balun' seems appropriate.
The word 'balun' indicates a balanced-to-unbalanced transformer (and you'll need two).