I am sure most people are familiar with this diagram from VH Audio. It looks like a great idea, in terms of geometry and layout for a single ended interconnect, although I doubt its usefulness (as described on that site) for a ballanced IC..
I am wandering, however, if it is not also a great idea for a speaker wire, only modified so that instead of a single +/- conductor, there are, for example 5 parallel + conductors, ribbon style, and 5 parallel minus conductors, wound in the same helical configuration. Perhaps a pair of small teflon tubes can be wound on the substrate first to serve as spacers and to hold the build up of the individual conductors. The entire thing held together by teflon tape.
From what I can see, this will maintain low copacitance and retain the common mode rejection somewhat, without a serious hit in the inductance department (can someone verify inductance for this config). The only questionalble part here is that not all conductors in the 5 line array will have equal exposure to the opposing field. That can be solved by the way by using a total of 4 conductors (2+ and 2-), each being exactly one quarter of the circumfrance of the substrate from each other arranged in a +-+- fashion, or at 90 degrees each. A quad helix? I believe this is close to what Pear Cable co does on their $7K per pair wires, although its proprietery...
Any ideas? I am sure someone has comments on this one.
By the way, the image shows a wire inside the teflon tube for the + portion of the signal. In the configuration I am describing no such wire would be placed in the middle, all conductors would be wound around the empty tube instead.
I am wandering, however, if it is not also a great idea for a speaker wire, only modified so that instead of a single +/- conductor, there are, for example 5 parallel + conductors, ribbon style, and 5 parallel minus conductors, wound in the same helical configuration. Perhaps a pair of small teflon tubes can be wound on the substrate first to serve as spacers and to hold the build up of the individual conductors. The entire thing held together by teflon tape.
From what I can see, this will maintain low copacitance and retain the common mode rejection somewhat, without a serious hit in the inductance department (can someone verify inductance for this config). The only questionalble part here is that not all conductors in the 5 line array will have equal exposure to the opposing field. That can be solved by the way by using a total of 4 conductors (2+ and 2-), each being exactly one quarter of the circumfrance of the substrate from each other arranged in a +-+- fashion, or at 90 degrees each. A quad helix? I believe this is close to what Pear Cable co does on their $7K per pair wires, although its proprietery...
Any ideas? I am sure someone has comments on this one.
By the way, the image shows a wire inside the teflon tube for the + portion of the signal. In the configuration I am describing no such wire would be placed in the middle, all conductors would be wound around the empty tube instead.
Attachments
I wish i knew the answer. Maybe straight run is the way to go. Maybe modifying the geometry will improve some aspects of the final result which otherwise can not be improved in that specific way. If i had such info I would post it here as a fact, not as a question. But from what I can tell, the environment is permiated with radiation we can measure, and probably particles or enargy we don't even know exists.
Even if i place my amps right next to my speaker, the wires have to run all the way up the inside of the tower and be subjected to all kinds of forces, mechanical and electromagnetic. If someone has a definitive answer that a thick traight wire is the best method of relaying the electrical signal to all the drivers, I will have one less thing to obsess over. But then again, I will be forced to obsess about some other completely irrelevent issue, so long as it is contained in the world of excessively overbuild audio and not cross over into, well... reality
Even if i place my amps right next to my speaker, the wires have to run all the way up the inside of the tower and be subjected to all kinds of forces, mechanical and electromagnetic. If someone has a definitive answer that a thick traight wire is the best method of relaying the electrical signal to all the drivers, I will have one less thing to obsess over. But then again, I will be forced to obsess about some other completely irrelevent issue, so long as it is contained in the world of excessively overbuild audio and not cross over into, well... reality
Hmmm shouldn’t post to forum at weird hours, just a bit out there I guess
But really, its not as complicated as I made it sound. It is essentially a twisted pair (which has served humanity so well), only with the twisted conductors separated by a Teflon tube to maintain the double helix configuration but introduce a distance between conductors, thereby lowering capacitance at higher current, with the (somewhat reduced) benefit of common mode rejection. To further accommodate higher power transmission, conductor size or count may be manipulated. And the optimal solution, it seems, would be a modest conductor size of say 18 AWG solid core of your favorite alloy, with your favorite insulation, arranged in a quad helix for a total of 4 conductors and a total of about 12 AWG on the positive and negative leads. More twists will probably yield better noise rejection at the expense of inductance and vice versa, so one may configure based on his required distance and stray field saturation.
Any comments on the validity of my assumptions? I am sure someone here is well versed in physics!
But really, its not as complicated as I made it sound. It is essentially a twisted pair (which has served humanity so well), only with the twisted conductors separated by a Teflon tube to maintain the double helix configuration but introduce a distance between conductors, thereby lowering capacitance at higher current, with the (somewhat reduced) benefit of common mode rejection. To further accommodate higher power transmission, conductor size or count may be manipulated. And the optimal solution, it seems, would be a modest conductor size of say 18 AWG solid core of your favorite alloy, with your favorite insulation, arranged in a quad helix for a total of 4 conductors and a total of about 12 AWG on the positive and negative leads. More twists will probably yield better noise rejection at the expense of inductance and vice versa, so one may configure based on his required distance and stray field saturation.
Any comments on the validity of my assumptions? I am sure someone here is well versed in physics!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.