KVR Audio

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:29 am

nuisance sonore wrote:My $0.02 CDN.

If I could buy Canare RCAs for that price, I'd prefer them to Neutrik as well.

P.S.: Your nick is an anagram of "No! Insane source!" which relates to the idea of getting connectors that cheaply, dunnit?

nuisance sonore · Post by **nuisance sonore** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:35 am

Well, Neutrik proline RCA's are $25.00 each here, the Canare are way cheaper than that while better, in my view, than the Chinese Neutrik line (they look better anyway's).

P.S.: Your nick is an anagram of "No! Insane source!" which relates to the idea of getting connectors that cheaply, dunnit?

Was that translated with an online translator?

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:42 am

two ways of thinking here...I use to do the same thing...I have this nightmare box of cables...if I can build a guitar I can make cables in my sleep...however there is the monster cable time winding to think about...it's not a myth...as stated I attended monster cable sales trainer and I in fact was the doubter...but my mind was changed...the cables are more efficient...

having said that I do question 1, what would be the difference with using a long monster cable or a short cable for recording. Cables lose signal around 6 feet, so what would be better a 20 foot monster cable (when I'm in a small room) or a ten foot regular cable?...Which would suffer more signal loss? 2, I wonder what difference it really means too me anyhow. I use active guitars, which not only boosting the signal it's also low z, which means less signal loss through long runs...so how much more sound am I gonna get through any cable?

I suspect the answer is none and the more important feature I should think about is how good the cable is shielded...face it running a hot guitar it's probably a bigger concern about what's getting picked up along the way, not what I lose...

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:47 am

Hink wrote: I suspect the answer is none and the more important feature I should think about is how good the cable is shielded...

You suspect right

nuisance sonore · Post by **nuisance sonore** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:59 am

dunder wrote:
Hink wrote: I suspect the answer is none and the more important feature I should think about is how good the cable is shielded...
You suspect right

Yeah, what's more, if you make it yourself, you'd normally make the exact lenght you need, no more no less. What if you need 7', with premade you have to buy 10' of cable; what do you do with the extra 3'? coil it somewhere? how good is that for the sound?

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:02 am

coil=resistance

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:06 am

nuisance sonore wrote:Was that translated with an online translator? :lol:

No, I rearranged the letters in "nuisance sonore." :-)

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:33 am

Hink wrote:coil=resistance

Hink, considering what you use and the actual signal level and lower impedence coming out of your guitar, you should be able to run about 50' of medium quality cable before worring about noise pick-up (forget about signal loss, that's a funtion of impedence matching, which in this case you are running whats known as 'bridging mode' where a low-impedence output (guitar) is 'bridged' by a high impedence input preamp/soundcard/whatever) there will be little or no voltage loss with even 26g wire.
The low-impedence output further lessens the noise-pickup of the interfacing cable, allowing you to use 'not-the-best' cable with the same or simular results as the monter stuff.

coil=tripping potential and tangles

if you need more noise immunity, start to consider the noise sources instead.

Cheers,

flugel45 · Post by **flugel45** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:33 am

Is this true? Cable loses signal after six feet? I thought the whole idea of balanced was to allow longer runs.

I can see maybe losing some signal after fifty feet, but it's hard to beleieve that a quality, ten foot long balanced cable would lose enough signal (and we're not talking about something only a dog would hear) over the same brand six foot cable...

Or are we talking about UNbalanced cables here?

JD

seldom · Post by **seldom** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:35 am

bahahaha, guffaw and etc.

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:37 am

with a high-impedence setup like a normal strat, you can get high frequency loss after about 10 feet with a standard cable and you might extend that to 20 feet with a better (unbalanced) cable

silly me, I was talkin unbalanced. With a balanced low-impedence line at guitar levels you won't get loss until about 200 meters, but there WILL be phase smearing.
heck anything less is better
For recording I run a 10ft cable.
when I usta play I ran a 10ft cable to the first stomp box (which, of course had a low output impedence)

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:01 pm

dunder wrote:with a high-impedence setup like a normal strat, you can get high frequency loss after about 10 feet with a standard cable and you might extend that to 20 feet with a better (unbalanced) cable

silly me, I was talkin unbalanced. With a balanced low-impedence line at guitar levels you won't get loss until about 200 meters, but there WILL be phase smearing.
heck anything less is better
For recording I run a 10ft cable.
when I usta play I ran a 10ft cable to the first stomp box (which, of course had a low output impedence)

dunder...balanced is not better...balanced adds a cold signal to the negative, it's primary function is to reduce a ground loop when daisy chaining effects. but a balanced cable will not change signal, only cancell some noise,

and yes the averagae guitar cable loses sisgnal starting at about 6 feet (2 meters)

ross g · Post by **ross g** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:06 pm

Hink wrote:
Chibs' Bath Toy wrote:I refuse to buy any of their products on the grounds that they end up sueing anyone who uses the name Monster.

vis-a-vis, tossers. Kinky Hinky, I'd find a different cable
actually that is a misconception, but I'm not going there again...it was started because of a publicity stunt...yes monster cable sued (and settled out of court) against disney for monster inc, and it was trademark infringement...

disney sued a daycare for painting Micky Mice on their walls...

freeztar · Post by **freeztar** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:19 pm

Hink wrote: dunder...balanced is not better... but a balanced cable will not change signal, only cancell some noise

Hence better eh?

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:21 pm

ross g wrote:disney sued a daycare for painting Micky Mice on their walls...

why disney giving them micky?

Monster Cable I have changed my mind!!!!!!!