DIY "Pro-Audio" Interconnects

willjrichard said:
I went to the Canare site and found a diagram that shows wiring the connector to ground on both ends.

http://www.canare.com/files/Cat11_p35.pdf

This was for the Quad Microphone cable L-4E6S

Yup, and for microphones, or other non-mains powered devices (like musical instruments), that is the correct configuration, shield connected at both sides. But with a device to device connection, the shield isn't necessary on both sides, and could potentially create a ground loop between the units.

peace,
sam
 
House de Kris said:
YIKES, really opening up the proverbial can-o-worms, eh? Unlike digital circuit simulators, simulating analog circuits leans a bit towards the 'art' end as opposed to the 'science' end. In other words, how well you model the circuit and its environment plays into how well the simulation mimics real life.

The way you've modeled each conductor is to have an L and R in series with a C in parallel to that. I believe the L and R are correct, but the C would be a parallel network between conductors. Next big question is, how should the noise source be modeled? You've got it as a voltage source with respect to the system ground. Perhaps it should be a differential voltage source applied across the length of the cable, or a current source in series with it. Really, I don't know, I'm just tossing up questions here.

I did attempt to do a simulation of a cable with similar components you've got here, and found that I wasn't comfortable enough with the cable model and how I was injecting a noise that I wasn't inclined to continue with it too far. But, I say keep plugging away, you may be onto something here.

Yes, I admit I took a number of liberties with the cable model in the simulation. Like I said, I wasn't trying to 'prove' anything, just experimenting to see if I could reconcile my intuition about the topic with an actual model. Your comments about the nature of a noise source are apt.. I was assuming it would be like a voltage source with respect to signal ground, because that is how we experience noise, a random, low level modulating voltage with reference to our signal ground. But the origins of that signal, and how they are affected by the properties of the cable, aren't 100% clear to me yet.

Maybe I need to go at this the experimental route. Make two unbalanced, cables, one with the shield connected at both ends, and one with it connected at one end only, run it between two pieces of gear, and then watch the noise at the load. Maybe I could put an SCR dimmer next to it or something, to really fire up the noise so I can resolve it with my scope...

I'll give that a try! I'd welcome you to do something similar, Kris, if you have the time, since you seem to have access to better measurement tools than I. :)

peace,
sam

PS Here is another company that does it with the shield connected at one end only. They've got a great cable FAQ too, btw. Its got a little of their own marketing in it, but a lot of good, well backed up information.

http://www.vandenhul.com/artpap/groundend.htm
 
It's interesting how conversations evolve. I originally entered into this discussion because of a comment in the first post when discussing unbalanced cables:
phidauex said:
Then connect the shield to the signal ground at one end only (preventing a ground loop).
Now it appears we're talking about maximizing the rejection of induced noise from external sources. Which is fine. Only reason I bring this up is because I wanted to let you know I'm not disagreeing with "shield on only one end in unbalanced cables" for the purpose of noise rejection. It was only the preventing ground loops in unbalanced cables which I objected to.

At any rate, I've read the VdH page and their words make sense to me on first glance. Your idea of doing some experiments sounds like a good way to validate such thoughts.
 
Ahh, I see! Well, now that I think about it, you are indeed correct, my wording wasn't the most accurate, the unbalanced cable w/ shield at one end only doesn't really prevent a ground loop, in the traditional sense of the word, since unbalanced signals always need a ground reference, regardless of shield configuration. I was imagining a looped signal path, IE, shield connected at both ends, and imagining why that wouldn't be the best idea, and then, because I was thinking of it as a loop, misused the term 'ground loop'.

Heh, I'm glad that we are on the same page, even if I wasn't aware of it.

peace,
sam
 
Phidauex,

Thanks for the 'teach-in'. I've just made up some interconnects using Van Damme starquad with Neutrik phono plugs (easier to get here in the UK than Canare). There's noticeably less noise than I had using my unscreened DNM cables - not surprising given the number of mains cables and hulking great toroidal trannies in my setup. Musically, there's a bit more detail and a greater sense of atmosphere in recordings, but no sense of the cable adding any of it's own 'character'. They'll do for me.

In many ways I find the whole 'high-end' cable thing slightly amusing. After all most recordings are made using the likes of Canare, Belden and Van Damme cables - if they're good enough for recording, they're good enough for playback!

Graeme
 
i can't believe it, i just pulled out some canare L-4E6S last night and started doing exactly what you've done, was just about to head into town this morning for some connectors. i had some cable left over from headphone mod i had done (i ordered way to much) and had been wondering what to do with the rest of it
before i headed into town i was going to do a search on AK for any DIY cable advice, but i always check out new posts first, and :D
i haven't checked out the entire thread yet, so i'll do that, three pages, i'm sure there is a lot of good advice in there.
 
gfinlayson said:
Phidauex,

In many ways I find the whole 'high-end' cable thing slightly amusing. After all most recordings are made using the likes of Canare, Belden and Van Damme cables - if they're good enough for recording, they're good enough for playback!

Graeme

Yeah, but that's "old think".....there are many new folks out there in the recording industry that have been trying, and more importantly buying, "high-end" cables for their recording studios...and the difference between their recordings with modern wire, power condtioning, power cables, etc., and those made with the old crap wire you mentioned is staggering...

So, even though the recordings in the past may have been made with pedestrian cabling, that doesn't have to hold true for the future...unless of course our music is all screwed up by mpegs, iplods, etc....then all bets are off...

And yes, I do know a younger fellow who is very involved in studio recordings and who has outfitted a studio with better cabling and yes, the "engineers" are stymied for an explanation...

Just my $.02, as always, YMMV...
 
RickB,

As you should be well aware, there's more to engineering a good recording than power conditioning, mains cables, and high-end signal cables. I've heard some awful recordings made on top-of-the-line studio gear.

I don't think the likes of Canare, Belden and Van Damme would be best pleased to hear their cables described as 'old crap'. They make some of the best quality 'pro' cables in the industry using high quality materials developed from years of research and design.

A cable's performace can be distilled down into a handful of factors - resistance, inductance, capacitance, nature of the dielectric material, and EMI/RFI rejection. In other words, science and engineering. Snake oil doesn't come into it.

Reading your profile, I suspect your views on high-end cables aren't entirely objective coming from one who has a vested interest in selling them.
 
gfinlayson said:
RickB,

As you should be well aware, there's more to engineering a good recording than power conditioning, mains cables, and high-end signal cables. I've heard some awful recordings made on top-of-the-line studio gear.

I don't think the likes of Canare, Belden and Van Damme would be best pleased to hear their cables described as 'old crap'. They make some of the best quality 'pro' cables in the industry using high quality materials developed from years of research and design.

Yeah, I have heard some of their stuff..it's ok...but just...in 1985 when I started my trek back into HI-Fi I believed that the Radio Shack gold ended cables were good enough..and, for the stuff I had then, they may have been....today, though, I really wonder what my Infinty RS-IIIa's, Soundcraftsman PCR800, Onkyo Grand Integra P-308 preamp would have sounded like with different cabling than the Canare (as described in this thread) and original Monster Cable...as it was, it was terribly fatiguing to listen to, and led me to Magneplanars, then to Martin Logans, Lowthers and DIY....and, if you think that Lowthers are ear bleeders, when I took my Third Rethms to a local Bottlehead meeting one of the standout comments was "Wow! I didn't know Lowthers sounded like that! They're not harsh at all..." Part of this was the Rethm enclosure and phase plug, part the Cardas wiring in the speakers and cabling...part was 3 years of break-in...part was the high quality of the DIY amplifiers we were using....

gfinlayson said:
A cable's performace can be distilled down into a handful of factors - resistance, inductance, capacitance, nature of the dielectric material, and EMI/RFI rejection. In other words, science and engineering. Snake oil doesn't come into it.

Geeze, let's see, I started messing with electronics eight years before you were born, have worked as a QA tech at a once-upon-a-time major computer manufacturing company when you were two and three years old, had half a dozen MG's, Austin-Healeys, Triumphs and Jags run thru my garage, a bunch of motorcycles, have had an Advanced Class Ham Radio license for over 15 years (I taught myself the Morse Code and actually worked out the math problems on the tests rather than just memorizing the answers, I did top out at about 15WPM which was good for the Advanced, but I had passed all the writtens including Extra) and have the QSL card verification of talking to the astronauts on a Space Shuttle mission, did a lot of the digital modes via Ham Radio, and I don't care if you believe that cables can sound different or not.

I have heard the difference. I have shown the difference to people that said there was no difference.

Sometimes it's like stepping from a 2004 Honda Accord into a 2005 model...other times it's like stepping out of my 130,000 mi. Nissan 4X4 pickup into my GF's new RX-8...

Yet, I really don't care what electrical parameters cause the change in sound, RCL, strand interaction, silver, copper, aluminum, monkey peepee, whatever, it makes no difference to me, all that matters is what it sounds like.

Many systems do not have the resolution to be able to discern the subtle qualities that cables exhibit, many of my classic pieces of gear do not care very much about the cabling..some do...if your system does not show up the differences between cables, then by all means, DON'T SPEND YOUR MONEY ON THEM and DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME trying other things, just listen to music and be happy!

And the fellow with the recording studio I mentioned in the previous note? Well, he started with a couple of Shunyata power cords on a few key pieces in his studio....he was really converted by HIS OWN EXPERIENCE, not by what anyone told him, not by what he read on the web, but by what he did by himself. He has found the value in his purchases and is beginning to see that small, subtle changes are cumulative in their nature...a little here, a little there, and all of a sudden everything snaps into focus.

gfinlayson said:
Reading your profile, I suspect your views on high-end cables aren't entirely objective coming from one who has a vested interest in selling them.

If you go back thru this entire thread, I suggested a few DIY options that I felt outperformed the Canare for not too much money, the JPS clones, the Chris VH based design, and the DH Labs based cables, even the Cardas Twinlink (which is now being sold in kits by Welborn Labs) are all alternatives that I felt were better....

The fellow I work part time for does not deal with any of the materials I used to make the DIY cables in my mini-review except for the Cardas wire.

We do sell Goertz (which Is why I have some, I am cheap and can buy at dealer cost so WTF not?), we do sell the real JPS products, and we are a Stereovox and Wireworld dealer, too...but nowhere in any of my posts have I suggested someone get in touch with me and buy cables from me or my employer...I am here as my own person, not a sock puppet, and my opinions as inflammatory, wrong-headed, obnoxious, or just poopy-panted are MINE.

That being said, I have had the chance to listen to a LOT of gear, a LOT of cables, and have them at my home, in my system, for extended times to get a handle on how they sound, many folks do not have that chance and I feel VERY lucky to have that ability....and price, as evidenced by my perception of the sound of the WW Equinox IN MY SYSTEM AT THE TIME is really no indication of how I feel something will sound.

So, I did not enter this discussion to smack another AK'ers design idea to the curb, only to offer my insight into this discussion as I had "Been there, Done that" many years before...

It is interesting, though, that the Canare cables did beat an approximately $80 pair of Monster Cable M850i's rather handily, right "out of the box" and in long term listening, in the system described earlier in this thread...the value is there...but, for half the price of the Monster, you can build the Twinlink or DH Labs BL-1, and have a cable that has, in my opinion, a better sound than the Canare....but for the $10 or $15 it costs to make a pair of the Canare cables, well, it's a stone cold slam dunk that they are going to be better than 99.999% of the "gimme" cables that came with your gear or that you can buy at what used to be Radio Shack.

If I had to cap off a final comment to this note it would be:

1.) Start with the Canare
2.) Build something different after getting used to and breaking in the Canare
3.) Listen to the new cable after it settles in for a while...like it more? or less?
4.) Try another design, let it burn-in,settle in, like it? or not?
5.) Have fun playing with your stuff, it costs less than drinkin' and ho-in' in the long run!

Rick
 
Last edited:
Balanced and Unbalanced connections

Thanks Phideaux and House de Kris,

You guys have launched me into the world of making my own cables. I bought some of the Canare cable some F10's and some XLR connectors.

I have made around 20 unbalanced cables of various sizes and 7 balanced cables. I have even color coded everything with various colors of Canare cable.

I really think they sound very good and the price is right. I have all McIntosh gear that is brand new so I decided to wire everything myself and get rid of the hodgepodge of cables I used to have.

I do have a question: I have a MX119 AV control center that is driving a MC207 7 channel power amp. The MX119 has 3 balanced outputs and the rest, are unbalanced outputs driving the MC207.

At first, I made 3 balanced cables to drive the MC20 for the left, right and center channels. I started hooking up the other 4 channels with unbalanced cables, then realized that even though the MX119 has only unbalanced outputs for the 2 back and 2 side channels, the MC207 can except balanced or unbalanced cables for its inputs. In other words, the MC207 has both balanced and unbalanced inputs for all of its channels.

I decide to make cables with an RCA plug from the AV control center and an XLR plug on the power amp side. I then used the ground on the XLR on the amp side and did not terminate it on the AV Controller (preamp) side. I like the positive connectiosn of the XLR and I thought this was a better electrical and mechanical solution. Any opinion? Is this the right thing to do or should I have stuck with RCA to RCA?

Thanks for all of your help, you guys have taught me a lot and I appreciate it.
 
i/c construction

Hi Sam
Read your terrific article on i/c construction,and I am thinking of having a go.The Canare cable and connectors are available here in the U.K.One quick question. I am building a powerful retro system JBL/YAMAHA .It will ultimately be tri amped. The interconnects I have from my previous modern set up are silver,and expensive.I believe your cable would be more suitable . Would you agree?.I would endevour to sell the silver cables. The heat shrink I am not sure about availability. I have been advised that silver cable is not good for every application. People like you, do a a hell of a lot to cut through the bull on this great hobby.
Regards
listener :tresbon:
 
Last edited:
Great thread! I just have a couple questions about the ground shield.

So, you should always connect the shield to the ground wire ONLY at the source side? What happens if you dont?

And, i am assembling a 3.5mm mini stero headphone jack to RCA plugs (like what is called an ipod cable sometimes). Should i only connect the shield to the ground wires at the 3.5mm plug side?

Need some info as i will be assemblin this cable tomorrow, thanks!
 
hmmmm...
if you make xlr-to-rca cables, would you still only connect the sheilding on one end? if so, i'm guessing the xlr end would be preferable, or should it matter?
 
hmmmm...
if you make xlr-to-rca cables, would you still only connect the sheilding on one end? if so, i'm guessing the xlr end would be preferable, or should it matter?

In general, stay consistent throughout the system. So, choose either "ground going forward" or "ground going back." I've always followed the "ground going forward" path. So, if I were to make a cable to go from an output on XLR to an input with RCA, I'd hook the shield to the XLR end only.
 
In general, stay consistent throughout the system. So, choose either "ground going forward" or "ground going back." I've always followed the "ground going forward" path. So, if I were to make a cable to go from an output on XLR to an input with RCA, I'd hook the shield to the XLR end only.

I follow the same 'downstream' end shielded rule for the shield between active stages on the idea of extending the input's ground from the most sensitive portion for shielding. For a conventional passive control where the RCA sockets are common-grounded to the case it's not so clear. Ideally, one should probably separate case ground from the signal return paths in the passive control box and separately ground it's case to the case ground of the other device(s). Then use a reversed-IC connection into the passive where the shield end is at the source device output (upstream) end. This gets the bulk of the passive's case totally out of the signal path and retains full-shielding of the path. I have run into this conundrum while reconfiguring my present revived 'big' system and am contemlating this as the proper way to handle it.
What say you all?
S.B.
 
I follow the same 'downstream' end shielded rule for the shield between active stages on the idea of extending the input's ground from the most sensitive portion for shielding. For a conventional passive control where the RCA sockets are common-grounded to the case it's not so clear. Ideally, one should probably separate case ground from the signal return paths in the passive control box and separately ground it's case to the case ground of the other device(s). Then use a reversed-IC connection into the passive where the shield end is at the source device output (upstream) end. This gets the bulk of the passive's case totally out of the signal path and retains full-shielding of the path. I have run into this conundrum while reconfiguring my present revived 'big' system and am contemlating this as the proper way to handle it.
What say you all?
S.B.

i'm going to DIY some Star Quad RCA->XLR cables to connect my unbalanced preamp to my XLR-only amp in a few days. so...to double-check that i'm clear on downstream vs. upstream, the best thing to do would be to tie the cable shield and one set of conductors to the RCA shield at the preamp, and leave the cable shield untied at the XLR end going into the amp. correctamundo?
 
Back
Top Bottom