"but no mention of a tight characteristic impedance tolerance so this could vary wildly along the length of any cable "
Oh! get real! You are just being silly! I guess you have neve rhad anything to do with real engineering or manufacturing
Oh! get real! You are just being silly! I guess you have neve rhad anything to do with real engineering or manufacturing
Sure, but no mention of a tight characteristic impedance tolerance so this could vary wildly along the length of any cable - we have no indication one way or another from your linked pdf
No, but a little research on your part on how SPC works might be educational. I gave the name of one major equipment producer, there's many more. This stuff is produced at high speed with superb Cpk.
"but no mention of a tight characteristic impedance tolerance so this could vary wildly along the length of any cable "
Oh! get real! You are just being silly! I guess you have neve rhad anything to do with real engineering or manufacturing
You do understand what the term nominal in the spec means?
Without a spec regarding tolerance we have no idea what is the variation about the nominal 75ohm.
Belden themselves even state this http://www.belden.com/docs/upload/Precision-Video-Cables-Part-1.pdf
The characteristic impedance value is important
because the cable must be as close to 75 ohms as
possible to minimize reflective losses. But it is
more critical that the variation of impedance
around the nominal be minimal. This is why
impedance is important. Impedance mismatches
cause signal reflections.
So, again the question, what then is the value of
a tight characteristic impedance tolerance? It
would seem that the characteristic impedance
value alone will not guarantee the performance
level of the cable. Rather it is primarily a
specmanship issue.
Actually, we do know the variation. Any process in control will have a Cpk over 2, and most coax manufacturing has Cpk over 3. Again, so what? It affects nothing.
Calculate worst case SWR.
Calculate worst case SWR.
I make no claim as to audibility - I simply gave an explanation for one specific example of directionality in a cable.
This is hard for me - how can a cable be 'directional' if changing it around doesn't make an audible difference?
For example, turning it around probably makes it look different - is that enough to call it 'directional'?
Jan
Simple - It may have different performance characteristics between each direction explained by variations in impedance along the cable which are not symmetrical about it's mid-point. I didn't say it wasn't audible - I made no claim in this regard.This is hard for me - how can a cable be 'directional' if changing it around doesn't make an audible difference?
For example, turning it around probably makes it look different - is that enough to call it 'directional'?
Jan
Actually, we do know the variation. Any process in control will have a Cpk over 2, and most coax manufacturing has Cpk over 3. Again, so what? It affects nothing.
Calculate worst case SWR.
But the SPDIF spec is 75ohm +/-5%
Why would a manufacturer produce a tighter spec cable considering it will cost more?
But the SPDIF spec is 75ohm +/-5%
Why would a manufacturer produce a tighter spec cable considering it will cost more?
I think we are into trolling territory here ...
No cable manufacturer is producing cable just for SPDIF! That is just an insignificant part of the market. And very low speed. And not worth the bother.
The only way that comes to mind for me is one of construction . I.E. using a balanced cable in an unbalanced way rca with shield only connected on one end and the - line connected at both end to the rca outer , + connected to the center of the rca.This is hard for me - how can a cable be 'directional' if changing it around doesn't make an audible difference?
For example, turning it around probably makes it look different - is that enough to call it 'directional'?
Jan
It doesn't cost more. You need to understand basics of process control.
Would love to know how achieving tighter manufacturing tolerance doesn't entail cost?
Last edited:
Would love to know how achieving tighter manufacturing tolerance doesn't entail cost?
I see you have 20ish posts since you joined here a few months ago.
Why don't you sit back and read a bit around what it is like here before you post here. Because if you don't, you are well on the way to making yourself look like a complete and utter pillock.
That may need some translation for our friends across the pond, but I am quite sure you know exactly what I mean.
Come on, do us all a favo(u)r, I am sure you have something useful to contribute.
Thanks for your input, DEFjammer ... people may get hung up on what I happen to be experimenting with at the time, but this is purely in the context of "how loowww can you gooo?!" 😉 - IOW, what ultimately determines whether an audio system, no matter how cheap, is capable of generating acceptable sound or not - obviously with higher quality elements it's theoretically easier, but that doesn't necessarily translate to good sound, on the ground. I just recently visited the home of a fellow member, highly tweaked, quality, respected components - very competent in many areas, but it has issues holding back its potential, the same that I hear over and over again ... the clarity of low level detail is what suffers, and improving that is key to getting optimum sound.Well anyway...I know and experienced what he has been imagining. 🙂
Last edited:
Would love to know how achieving tighter manufacturing tolerance doesn't entail cost?
It can actually reduce cost in continuous processes. I've given you the key concept, now it's time to do some studying.
Just point down and let her know that that pair is staying there. Its like this, if she can beat you up, then how can you protect her? ......... Next man to test please, this one failed the Darwin. (-:As that request came from a moderator I will assume a limited licence to go OT!
The lady and I have been good friends for many years but last year saw the nature of our relationship change and develop. Six months planning a wedding ended on 5 April. Got back from honeymoon on Friday and now catching up with things again.
I may need tips from more experienced members on how to accommodate an electronic hobby and a non-techie wife in the same house!
After 30+ years with my Designer wife, pretty much I need to say, "It will sound better.", and I get a chance. Of course, it has to look good to her, too....
I doubt you have ever owned a system or had experience with the kind of system he is talking about. You also misunderstand Frank's comment.
QUOTE]
LOL LOL LOL 😀😀😀😀😀😀
I have a spare Logitech PC system if anyone wants to test some serious high end.
We must start a list of standard replies, this is going to be number 2.
hearing not good enough has to be No1.
Last edited:
I make no claim as to audibility - I simply gave an explanation for one specific example of directionality in a cable.
It isn't an explanation because the theory is wrong, they are not directional...
Simple - It may have different performance characteristics between each direction explained by variations in impedance along the cable which are not symmetrical about it's mid-point. I didn't say it wasn't audible - I made no claim in this regard.
The two main impedance matches in an SPDIF transmission are the connectors, but then most SPDIF interfaces tend to have a termination resistor of 75R, this negates any impedance mismatches, there is plenty of info on the web for terminating digital lines, Howard Johnson has a whole chapter on it (6 I believe in High Speed Digital Design), as does Eric Bogatin and many others.
And to re-iterate impedance mismatches are not a big concern for normal SPDIF interface, or for most digital running around that clock speed and higher (low double figure MHz), even when you pay the exorbitant costs to have a impedance controlled PCB made you will only get +-/5% at the top end. looking at some real designs (standard not impedance controlled designs), out there working in the world, trace impedances range from around 50 to 120 Ohms single ended, depending on the board, complexity and number of layers.
So this is not an example of cable directivity, especially where SPDIF signals are used.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Funniest snake oil theories