Hi all,
I am about to to make my first 2 pairs of RCA IC's.
The plan is to compare them to my existing cables and see for myself if there is any difference.
I've read about this thoroughly but just want to make sure I got this correctly.
I'm going to use Mogami W2534 for one cable and DH Labs BL-1 for second cable.
The Mogami has 4 insulated wires and a shield. I use 2 wires for signal, and 2 wires for ground on both ends. The shield should be trimmed on the amp end and used additionally to the ground on the source end.
The DH-Labs consists of 2 insulated wires, a drain wire and aluminium shield (if I'm not mistaken).
Here I use 1 wire for signal and 1 for ground. I use the drain wire similar to the shield on the Mogami (floating on one end and attached to ground on source end). And the aluminum foil just trimmed on both sides?
Thanks for the advice!
(posted also on AK)
I am about to to make my first 2 pairs of RCA IC's.
The plan is to compare them to my existing cables and see for myself if there is any difference.
I've read about this thoroughly but just want to make sure I got this correctly.
I'm going to use Mogami W2534 for one cable and DH Labs BL-1 for second cable.
The Mogami has 4 insulated wires and a shield. I use 2 wires for signal, and 2 wires for ground on both ends. The shield should be trimmed on the amp end and used additionally to the ground on the source end.
The DH-Labs consists of 2 insulated wires, a drain wire and aluminium shield (if I'm not mistaken).
Here I use 1 wire for signal and 1 for ground. I use the drain wire similar to the shield on the Mogami (floating on one end and attached to ground on source end). And the aluminum foil just trimmed on both sides?
Thanks for the advice!
(posted also on AK)
Last edited:
RCA is an unbalanced connection, so it basically just needs one shielded wire for the signal and one return wire. In many cases the return wire needs to have low impedance so the best way to achieve this is to use the shield as the return (assuming a proper braided or lapped shield, not a thin piece of film). If the source is electrically floating then you may be able to get away with a higher impedance return, such as using the same type of wire as used for the signal.
If you can hear a difference then either a cable is faulty or the equipment is poorly designed.
If you can hear a difference then either a cable is faulty or the equipment is poorly designed.
An RCA/Phono interconnects needs two wires to compete the circuit connection.
The most usual is a piece of coaxial cable.
The Flow/Hot being the core and the Return/Cold being the Screen/Shield.
Alternatively in a low interference environment you will probably find that a twisted pair for the Flow and Return works equally well.
In a higher interference environment a star quad may give sufficient interference attenuation to match the performance of the coaxial. In the star quad cable the 4wires need to be connected appropriately. Two cores pass the Flow signal. Use two diametrically opposed wires of the twisted 4wire bundle. The remaining two diametrically opposed wires become the return route.
For additional interference attenuation both the star quad and the twisted pair can have a screen/shield around the signal carrying bundle. This screen/shield should NOT be connected to the Signal Return at the Receive end. It can be connected to the Signal Return at the transmit end. In both cases the screen/shield is better connected to the chassis at both ends. Unfortunately this chassis connection requires a 3pole connector.
Read post3 again. It contains valuable information.
Except that lapped screens are not as good as braided screens.
And a drain wire electrically connected to a screen ruins the performance of the screen. Don't use a drain wire version of a screened cable. Instead use an electrically separate wire/cable to connect the chassis to conduct interference signals between the coupled chassis.
The most usual is a piece of coaxial cable.
The Flow/Hot being the core and the Return/Cold being the Screen/Shield.
Alternatively in a low interference environment you will probably find that a twisted pair for the Flow and Return works equally well.
In a higher interference environment a star quad may give sufficient interference attenuation to match the performance of the coaxial. In the star quad cable the 4wires need to be connected appropriately. Two cores pass the Flow signal. Use two diametrically opposed wires of the twisted 4wire bundle. The remaining two diametrically opposed wires become the return route.
For additional interference attenuation both the star quad and the twisted pair can have a screen/shield around the signal carrying bundle. This screen/shield should NOT be connected to the Signal Return at the Receive end. It can be connected to the Signal Return at the transmit end. In both cases the screen/shield is better connected to the chassis at both ends. Unfortunately this chassis connection requires a 3pole connector.
Read post3 again. It contains valuable information.
Except that lapped screens are not as good as braided screens.
And a drain wire electrically connected to a screen ruins the performance of the screen. Don't use a drain wire version of a screened cable. Instead use an electrically separate wire/cable to connect the chassis to conduct interference signals between the coupled chassis.
Last edited:
True. Braided screens are better at keeping out RF, but they usually cost more and make the cable less flexible. However, even a lapped screen will be better than a twisted pair.AndrewT said:
Thanks for the info!
I'm trying to confirm if I understand correctly specifically in case of the DH Labs BL-1 which is sold retail as both balanced and unbalanced connection.
In my case, I would use one wire for signal and one wire + drain for ground (on the source end). The shield is foil and would be trimmed on both sides
I'm trying to confirm if I understand correctly specifically in case of the DH Labs BL-1 which is sold retail as both balanced and unbalanced connection.
In my case, I would use one wire for signal and one wire + drain for ground (on the source end). The shield is foil and would be trimmed on both sides
I think you have misunderstood what I wrote about the drain wire.
Coaxial cable comes in at least three varieties.
Plain ordinary core + screen/shield The core carries Flow/Hot and the screen carries Return/Cold
Super coaxial with a woven screen and a foil screen the two screen are usually in electrical contact and the outer is usually the woven.
Same as above, the core carries the Flow/Hot and the screen carries the Return/Cold
Coaxial with a drain wire.
The drain wire is along one side of the screen and in electrical contact with the screen. Because the drain wire makes the construction asymmetrical, the current flows in the screen are asymmetrical. Coaxial relies on the screen being symmetrical to achieve good screening. A drain wire prevents the screen from being good.
In addition to the signal carrying cable between two modules inside their enclosures, you can also attach a high current capacity chassis/enclosure to chassis/enclosure cable. This carries non signal interference currents. The lower the impedance of this extra cable the lower the interference voltage between the two enclosures.
Coaxial with a drain wire makes no sense, for the reasons given by AndrewT.
Twisted pair with a flimsy screen and a drain wire makes some sense for a balanced connection (i.e. not RCA). The twisted pair deals with magnetic fields, and the screen and drain wire deals with electric fields so you are less reliant on system balance and the CMRR of the receiver.
Most ordinary audio cables are good enough and do not degrade the signal. Any change cannot be an improvement. A whole industry relies on audiophiles believing this to be too good to be true.
Twisted pair with a flimsy screen and a drain wire makes some sense for a balanced connection (i.e. not RCA). The twisted pair deals with magnetic fields, and the screen and drain wire deals with electric fields so you are less reliant on system balance and the CMRR of the receiver.
Most ordinary audio cables are good enough and do not degrade the signal. Any change cannot be an improvement. A whole industry relies on audiophiles believing this to be too good to be true.
Thanks for the responses but my lack of basic knowledge here is still making it difficult to understand completely.
In regards to the BL-1 specifically, the assembly of the cable seems to make sense in a balanced connection.
In regards to the unbalanced configuration (because that is what I have on hand)
Since the 2 wires are a twisted pair, in theory I could just use those and not connect the drain wire. In that case, wouldn't it be similar to an unshielded twisted pair cable ? (similar to Kimber)
Assuming I would connect the drain to the ground wire... why would it be entirely asymmetrical if the ground wire is twisted around the signal?
Thanks for your patience!
In regards to the BL-1 specifically, the assembly of the cable seems to make sense in a balanced connection.
In regards to the unbalanced configuration (because that is what I have on hand)
Since the 2 wires are a twisted pair, in theory I could just use those and not connect the drain wire. In that case, wouldn't it be similar to an unshielded twisted pair cable ? (similar to Kimber)
Assuming I would connect the drain to the ground wire... why would it be entirely asymmetrical if the ground wire is twisted around the signal?
Thanks for your patience!
This stuff makes great pseudo balanced interconnects and it's cheap Van Damme - Specifications - Tour Grade Classic XKE microphone cable
Unshielded twisted pair is not suitable for unbalanced connections, unless you have no interference and very low source impedance so hum will not be a problem. Why not just use the correct cable: coaxial? Or why not leave things as they are?
Pseudo-balanced connections can work for isolated sources, such as phono cartridges, but most music sources are ground-referenced.
Pseudo-balanced connections can work for isolated sources, such as phono cartridges, but most music sources are ground-referenced.
I already have the bulk BL-1 and don't want to spend anymore money by buying different cable.
This cable is sold unbalanced by the manufacturer so I'm assuming it can be used properly that way.
I'm trying to understand the best way to do it.
When you're happy and done with your DIY RCA interconnects, I suggest you try making a pseudo-balanced one and compare.
RCA with shield also acting as return is the crappiest thing we could do for good SQ, yet it's the most common one...
RCA with shield also acting as return is the crappiest thing we could do for good SQ, yet it's the most common one...
Yup just using 4 cores instead of 2. There are plenty of commercial examples of pseudo-balanced interconnects about. There is a theory that if the signal return is a larger diameter (less resistance) it can bring some improvement. Probably just more pseudo - science.
Very short interconnects pretty much all sound the same, things like resistance and capacitance differences come into play when using long cables so make them as short as possible. That's probably the main benefit of making your own.
Very short interconnects pretty much all sound the same, things like resistance and capacitance differences come into play when using long cables so make them as short as possible. That's probably the main benefit of making your own.
Andrew said everything in his posts. The Rane docs have descriptions of all types of connections too and ranked from best to worst so you can choose what applies.
The ultimate is true balanced, and probably requires some gear change (internally or wholly).
Cheers!
The ultimate is true balanced, and probably requires some gear change (internally or wholly).
Cheers!
DF96 is wrong about twisted unshielded on single ended. You get hum if you use them for a turntable, but not regular interconnects. But I prefer them with a turntable despite the hum that you only hear when it's not playing.
Bluejeans sound different and bad, so they must be defective according to AndrewT...
Bluejeans sound different and bad, so they must be defective according to AndrewT...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.