|
Propeller Head Plaza: RE: Check their math by tomservo Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
For Sale Ads |
76.16.72.176
In Reply to: Check their math posted by E-Stat on October 6, 2008 at 19:09:53:
Hi
"I'm surprised that radio quality non-audiophile cabling doesn't provide such basic information."
Keep in mind for RF, up where specialty coax cables like these would be used, one is many many decades higher up in frequency. That high up, it is attenuation per length that counts not the lumped values seen in audio.
For example;
http://www.amsat.org/amsat/articles/houston-net/coax.html
If i recall, the coax i used was about 23pf per foot, about 6 microhenry's per foot and 1000 feet has an Rdc of about 1.2 Ohms and 1.1 Ohms (inner and outer).
The important thing is the values of the secondary elements relative to the change they can make within the circuit.
The problem i had was the cable was 125 feet long, not 20 feet like in a living room so the L, R and C had to be small, like a short cable.
"I guess I would wonder how such actually works with real world amplifiers as a system."
I have a pair of coax loudspeaker cables that i use ocasionally, for a long time they were sitting side by side with the normal cables. I couldn't hear any difference but when i re-arranged my room, one coax was too short so i took them up.
If your interested in try this approach, locate a Hamfest in your area and keep a few of the wire names in mind.
Belden 9913
LMR400
Also these have a stranded core and are more flexible.
Belden 9913F
LMR400 ultraflex.
Hamfest's are a great place to troll for stuff, i bought a hundred feet of low loss coax for 16$ for example.
I wouldn't be too picky, compared to generic speaker cable any of these high performance RG-8 off spring have much smaller secondary elements.
Best,
Tom Danley
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Has anyone here actually *used* an ABX box before? - E-Stat 08:38:20 10/3/08 ( 28)
- Only In Software...... - Todd Krieger 14:46:41 10/4/08 ( 0)
RE: Has anyone here actually *used* an ABX box before? - tomservo 10:51:44 10/4/08 ( 9)
- Hi Tom - E-Stat 13:50:50 10/4/08 ( 8)
- RE: Hi Tom - tomservo 13:02:41 10/5/08 ( 7)
- RE: Hi Tom - E-Stat 14:46:36 10/5/08 ( 6)
- RE: Hi Tom - tomservo 17:30:59 10/5/08 ( 5)
- Check their math - E-Stat 19:09:53 10/6/08 ( 4)
- No surprise. Here's a link to the spec. - rick_m 15:37:42 10/7/08 ( 1)
- Thanks -nt - E-Stat 21:14:29 10/7/08 ( 0)
- RE: Check their math - tomservo 10/7/08 12:03:31 10/7/08 ( 1)
- That is pretty darn good - E-Stat 21:10:08 10/7/08 ( 0)
RE: Has anyone here actually *used* an ABX box before? - andy_c 15:50:01 10/3/08 ( 8)
- There appears to be an assumption - E-Stat 16:10:59 10/3/08 ( 7)
- RE: There appears to be an assumption - andy_c 16:17:05 10/3/08 ( 6)
- I guess I'm confused - E-Stat 16:22:42 10/3/08 ( 5)
- RE: I guess I'm confused - andy_c 16:42:12 10/3/08 ( 4)
- Let's read the title of my post again - E-Stat 18:08:39 10/3/08 ( 3)
- The actual questions you asked were... - andy_c 18:23:06 10/3/08 ( 2)
- If so... - E-Stat 19:26:00 10/3/08 ( 1)
- RE: If so... - andy_c 19:53:34 10/3/08 ( 0)
Yes. And an early version was favorably reviewed by J. Gordon Holt in Stereophile - Richard BassNut Greene 08:58:31 10/3/08 ( 7)
- Ah, that tells me a lot - E-Stat 15:42:01 10/3/08 ( 5)
- RE: Ah, that tells me a lot - andy_c 16:01:26 10/3/08 ( 4)
- More speculation - E-Stat 16:24:02 10/3/08 ( 3)
- No speculation involved - andy_c 16:51:01 10/3/08 ( 2)
- "Looks like this statement" - E-Stat 18:06:16 10/3/08 ( 1)
- RE: "Looks like this statement" - andy_c 05:29:11 10/4/08 ( 0)
RE: Yes. And an early version was favorably reviewed by J. Gordon Holt in Stereophile - kerr 09:23:15 10/3/08 ( 0)