KP11520 said:
The fatter guage would be to the disadvantage of the Cat 6, the greater consistency of thickness & quality a bonus.
I recently stripped up some Cat 6 and didn't really notice musch physical difference in the strands other than the move vivid colour of the insulation. I will have a close look.
dave
planet10 said:
Dave,
Putting on my scientist hat....
If you split the two conductors and run separate paths you will in effect make a large loop antenna that will pickup all sorts of unwanted RF garbage and noise, some LF noise as well like mains hum. This is not a good idea IMSO. (In My Scientific Opinion).
The twist or close parallel construction of a twin conductor like line cord is a technique that is very effective in making the wire system immune to such noise pickup effects.
Taking off my scientist hat now. Oh, that feels better!
I'm currently using the VH DIY Cat5s with 27 wires per run, and it was an improvement from the zip cord. It was not an improvement to my fingers, though 
I use it with a flea-powered '45 SET (no risk of oscillation, and low damping) and with an EL84PP, 15 WPC, with no oscillations either. Haven't compared with more expensive cables as I'm fat-wallet-impaired. But happy with them.
I use FE108EZ BLHs.
High capacitance/oscillation problems could be resolved with Zobel Networks, but having to add complexity to a layout only to use a cable doesn't fit my bill.
Gastón
I use it with a flea-powered '45 SET (no risk of oscillation, and low damping) and with an EL84PP, 15 WPC, with no oscillations either. Haven't compared with more expensive cables as I'm fat-wallet-impaired. But happy with them.
I use FE108EZ BLHs.
High capacitance/oscillation problems could be resolved with Zobel Networks, but having to add complexity to a layout only to use a cable doesn't fit my bill.
Gastón
HT receivers don't seem to like it either.planet10 said:
I used a single pair on my horns for ages, and when I multiamped, sometimes pairs from the same cable, just forr convenience, didn't notice any difference with seperate runs from each amp, just mainly used that when there were physical differences between the amp's location that made that less convenient.
Brett said:
It seems that the ARRL handbook (1988) does state that 'skin effect' is not significant at audio frequencies. That was the impression I was under. But after reading Scott's post and looking at the archive from Full Range Driver, I noticed GM talked about 'skin' and a guy named Hawkford. I looked this up and found information that showed comparisons of audio frequencies and how much 'deeper' in the wire lower frequencies travel. This would imply that higher frequencies are subjected to higher impedance since they use less of the CSA of the solid wire. So who's right? The amateur radio guys or Hawkford?
There is a long history of very sound engineering, by thoroughly trained engineers in the ARRL, so please don't think of them as amatuerish.awhite1159 said:
I respect Malcolm Hawksford a lot, but I feel he's way out on a limb with this one. The table near the bottom conveniently calcs out depth at various audio freq's. How thick is your wire, and do you really beleive you'll hear the difference with enough current and speakers making several orders of magnitude more distortion? Even at 20kHz it's still pretty much the full depth of a 24g cable, which is about the largest single strand / conductor size used anywhere in audio gear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
awhite1159 said:
I'd say they both are, it's just a question of manitude.
It wouldn't be enough to hear but it might be enough to measure in certain conditions.
has anyone tried using the outer conductors of ribbon cable?
John MJL: you could use 50 conductor SCSI ribbon, there is enough separation for three pairs.
The unused wires running along the field might affect it a bit.
Cryogenic treatment should fix that
Well actually I am not lacking in sense. I don't believe you implied that. I purposely bring these questions up to initiate responses. I am still in the process of digesting all the information. You may have taken me out of context with my amateur comment. It's a part of the acronym so thats why I said it that way. Brett, you make a good point. I don't doubt the validity of your most recent comment since I just don't know enough about it and it seems to make sense.
I wasn't having a go, jst making sure you had the info, as I don't know, and didn't want to dismiss the ARRL info because of the A. It's always good to ask and I hope I didn't seem like I was discouraging.
Philes do tend to get caught up in minutae that really aren't relevant, eg skin effect in cables. I have been and am sometimes guilty of this myself still.
Philes do tend to get caught up in minutae that really aren't relevant, eg skin effect in cables. I have been and am sometimes guilty of this myself still.
Brett, to bolster your point a little further, consider magnitudes. If a cable doubles in impedance between 20Hz and 20kHz but it's only 50 milliohms to begin with, the skin effect, though dramatic, is insignificant*. In reality, most cables are a bit more resistive than that, but the actual increase in impedance is a lot lower than 2:1. What makes audibility of skin effect even more unlikely (absent any actual controlled listening tests demonstrating audibility) is the rising impedance of most speakers at higher frequencies, which more than compensates for any changes in cable impedance.
*There was a famous paper in elementary particle physics which had the wonderful sentence, "The energy of an electron, though infinite, is small."
*There was a famous paper in elementary particle physics which had the wonderful sentence, "The energy of an electron, though infinite, is small."
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.