The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ts/50-7725.pdf

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...eld/dp/96K0889

On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ts/50-7725.pdf

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...eld/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

d

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ts/50-7725.pdf

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...eld/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of baluns was that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of a
transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.

On Sun, 5 May 2013 10:26:13 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ts/50-7725.pdf

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...eld/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of baluns was that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of a
transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

The downside of the transformer method is that lower bass response is
usually somewhat compromised.

d

In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ts/50-7725.pdf

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...-rca-plug-rj45
-shield/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of baluns was
that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of a
transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.

It will stop ground loop problems for the range of frequencies where the
transformers work. It's not clear what that is.

Transformers have a limited working range of frequencies. The ones you
posted have DC to MHz passthrough but limited common mode blocking. The
other wiring of isolators blocks DC to MHz common mode but only passes
through maybe 50Hz to 15 Khz; more or less depending on the quality.
Isolators can do weird things to the impedance too.

If this is pro-audio, the absolutely best fix is using balanced cables
with balanced connectors. The audio quality will be superior to any
other hack.
--
I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 5 May 2013 10:26:13 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ets/50-7725.pd
f

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...n-rca-plug-rj4
5-shield/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of baluns was
that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of a
transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the power
line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the desired
signal?

The downside of the transformer method is that lower bass response is
usually somewhat compromised.

For any sort of well-designed and properly terminated transformer, the
lower 3dB point will be well below the frequency of any "musical note"
you'll ever want to pass through it. So, no, bass response won't be
compromised at all.

Isaac

On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:04:35 -0700, isw wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 5 May 2013 10:26:13 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ets/50-7725.pd
f

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...n-rca-plug-rj4
5-shield/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of baluns was
that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of a
transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the power
line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the desired
signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

The downside of the transformer method is that lower bass response is
usually somewhat compromised.

For any sort of well-designed and properly terminated transformer, the
lower 3dB point will be well below the frequency of any "musical note"
you'll ever want to pass through it. So, no, bass response won't be
compromised at all.

Effects strat becoming apparent well before you hit the 3dB point.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:04:35 -0700, isw wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 5 May 2013 10:26:13 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ets/50-7725.pd
f

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...n-rca-plug-rj4
5-shield/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of
baluns was that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of
a transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the
power line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the
desired signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

The downside of the transformer method is that lower bass response
is usually somewhat compromised.

For any sort of well-designed and properly terminated transformer,
the lower 3dB point will be well below the frequency of any "musical
note" you'll ever want to pass through it. So, no, bass response
won't be compromised at all.

Effects strat becoming apparent well before you hit the 3dB point.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:04:35 -0700, isw wrote:

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of
baluns was that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of
a transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the
power line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the
desired signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

The windings being on a transformer arranged so that common mode noise cancels,
and the signal doesn't?

I was going to get involved in this conversation, but have decided not to. All
I know is that the schematics don't make much sense (primarily because there
doesn't seem to be "proper" isolation between the bal and the un.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I was going to get involved in this conversation, but have decided
not to. All I know is that the schematics don't make much sense
(primarily because there doesn't seem to be "proper" isolation
between the bal and the un.

Which was exactly why I posted the question. At the least, there is a DC(/LF)
path from one end to the other.

I was going to get involved in this conversation, but have decided
not to. All I know is that the schematics don't make much sense
(primarily because there doesn't seem to be "proper" isolation
between the bal and the un).

Which was exactly why I posted the question. At the least, there
is a DC(/LF) path from one end to the other.

Which seems to kill the whole reason for baluns, does it not?

On Mon, 6 May 2013 07:08:15 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:04:35 -0700, isw wrote:

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of
baluns was that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of
a transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the
power line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the
desired signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

The windings being on a transformer arranged so that common mode noise cancels,
and the signal doesn't?


That's it. The windings are wound in the same direction on the two
sides. That means that the forward and reverse signal currents on the
two windings are always in opposite directions magnetically. So the
signal doesn't see any net inductance.

d

On Mon, 6 May 2013 07:24:26 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I was going to get involved in this conversation, but have decided not to. All
I know is that the schematics don't make much sense (primarily because there
doesn't seem to be "proper" isolation between the bal and the un.

Isolation is not implied in the function. As long as the signal on the
output is of equal amplitude and opposite phase on the two ports, the
job is done. This circuit satisfies that perfectly.

d

On Mon, 6 May 2013 09:24:53 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I was going to get involved in this conversation, but have decided
not to. All I know is that the schematics don't make much sense
(primarily because there doesn't seem to be "proper" isolation
between the bal and the un).

Which was exactly why I posted the question. At the least, there
is a DC(/LF) path from one end to the other.

Which seems to kill the whole reason for baluns, does it not?

Nope, nothing to do with it - unless you require performance down to
DC, which of course audio doesn't.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2013 07:08:15 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:04:35 -0700, isw wrote:

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of
baluns was that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings
of a transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the
power line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the
desired signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

The windings being on a transformer arranged so that common mode
noise cancels, and the signal doesn't?


That's it. The windings are wound in the same direction on the two
sides. That means that the forward and reverse signal currents on the
two windings are always in opposite directions magnetically. So the
signal doesn't see any net inductance.


Is this design going to avoid ground loop problems? Those signals would just be
on the one side, so would they be canceled?

On Mon, 6 May 2013 10:02:21 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2013 07:08:15 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:04:35 -0700, isw wrote:

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of
baluns was that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings
of a transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the
power line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the
desired signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

The windings being on a transformer arranged so that common mode
noise cancels, and the signal doesn't?


That's it. The windings are wound in the same direction on the two
sides. That means that the forward and reverse signal currents on the
two windings are always in opposite directions magnetically. So the
signal doesn't see any net inductance.


Is this design going to avoid ground loop problems? Those signals would just be
on the one side, so would they be canceled?



The ground loop is fixed by the inductance presenting a huge series
impedance to the hum current, which only passes along the ground wire.
There is no equal return current in the signal wire to cancel the
inductance.

d

Bob F wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.

http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ts/50-7725.pdf


This datasheet shows it is a VIDEO balun.

Jon

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:04:35 -0700, isw wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 5 May 2013 10:26:13 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...Sheets/50-7725
.pd
f

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...alun-rca-plug-
rj4
5-shield/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of baluns was
that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of a
transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the power
line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the desired
signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

I'd sure like to see (and measure) those inductors. My "spidey sense"
(combined with the fact that they don't bother to spec the CMRR at 50 or
60 Hz.) tells me that they're probably way too physically small for that
to be the case.

The downside of the transformer method is that lower bass response is
usually somewhat compromised.

For any sort of well-designed and properly terminated transformer, the
lower 3dB point will be well below the frequency of any "musical note"
you'll ever want to pass through it. So, no, bass response won't be
compromised at all.

Effects strat becoming apparent well before you hit the 3dB point.

Know anybody who can hear the difference *on actual program material*
between flat to 5 Hz and -3dB at 5 Hz? Because the little thumb-sized
not-at-all-special transformers I use in a homebrew groundloop killer
have that measured characteristic. It's just not hard to find decent
transformers for audio.

Isaac

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

I was going to get involved in this conversation, but have decided not to.
All
I know is that the schematics don't make much sense (primarily because there
doesn't seem to be "proper" isolation between the bal and the un.

The kind of sense the schematics make is economic -- to the seller.

Isaac

On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:19:26 -0700, isw wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:04:35 -0700, isw wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 5 May 2013 10:26:13 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:44:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...Sheets/50-7725
.pd
f

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...alun-rca-plug-
rj4
5-shield/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of baluns was
that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings of a
transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the power
line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in the desired
signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

I'd sure like to see (and measure) those inductors. My "spidey sense"
(combined with the fact that they don't bother to spec the CMRR at 50 or
60 Hz.) tells me that they're probably way too physically small for that
to be the case.


Spidey sense is not always very useful.

The downside of the transformer method is that lower bass response is
usually somewhat compromised.

For any sort of well-designed and properly terminated transformer, the
lower 3dB point will be well below the frequency of any "musical note"
you'll ever want to pass through it. So, no, bass response won't be
compromised at all.

Effects strat becoming apparent well before you hit the 3dB point.

Know anybody who can hear the difference *on actual program material*
between flat to 5 Hz and -3dB at 5 Hz? Because the little thumb-sized
not-at-all-special transformers I use in a homebrew groundloop killer
have that measured characteristic. It's just not hard to find decent
transformers for audio.

Isaac

Construction of these transformers doesn't have to follow the normal
rules. They don't need good linearity, so very high permeability
ferrite can be used for the core in order to get a high inductance
value. This is because the audio doesn't have to pass through the
ferrite, it bypasses it.

d

Construction of these transformers doesn't have to follow the normal
rules. They don't need good linearity, so very high permeability
ferrite can be used for the core in order to get a high inductance
value. This is because the audio doesn't have to pass through the
ferrite, it bypasses it.

?????????????????????????????????????????

I know of no transformer type in which the signal "passes through" the core
material.

Bob F wrote:

The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ts/50-7725.pdf


That is a VIDEO Balun for 75 ohm unbalanced to 100 ohm balanced. It
is not intended for audio. It is to use Cat5 wire for 75 Ohm video from
security cameras.


http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...eld/dp/96K0889

Another link to the same part.

On Tue, 7 May 2013 03:46:38 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Construction of these transformers doesn't have to follow the normal
rules. They don't need good linearity, so very high permeability
ferrite can be used for the core in order to get a high inductance
value. This is because the audio doesn't have to pass through the
ferrite, it bypasses it.

?????????????????????????????????????????

I know of no transformer type in which the signal "passes through" the core
material.

Nit-picking the terminology? In a transformer, the core is used to
couple the signal from the primary to the secondary. In this sense the
signal "passes through" it. In the series balun the only signal that
interacts with the core is the unwanted common mode or single sided
signal. This is generally of such a low value that it has no chance of
causing sufficient field strength to cause non-linearity.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...Sheets/50-7725
.pd
f

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...alun-rca-plug-
rj4
5-shield/dp/96K0889

Looks OK to me. It's configured as a series common mode stopper.
What's the problem?

Will this design eliminate ground loop problems? My concept of
baluns was that
they isolated the two ends by placing them on opposite windings
of a transformer. I am no expert, which is why I asked.


That is a different thing. You need a transformer to kill a ground
loop entirely, but yes, provided there is enough inductance in the
coils this will still make a good job of getting rid of hum from a
ground loop.

If there's enough inductance to attenuate 60 (or 50) Hz from the
power line, why won't it do the same for similar frequencies in
the desired signal?


No, because of the way the windings are arranged their inductances
cancel each other out for the audio signal, but not for the induced
hum.

I'd sure like to see (and measure) those inductors. My "spidey sense"
(combined with the fact that they don't bother to spec the CMRR at
50 or 60 Hz.) tells me that they're probably way too physically
small for that to be the case.


Spidey sense is not always very useful.

The downside of the transformer method is that lower bass
response is usually somewhat compromised.

For any sort of well-designed and properly terminated transformer,
the lower 3dB point will be well below the frequency of any
"musical note" you'll ever want to pass through it. So, no, bass
response won't be compromised at all.

Effects strat becoming apparent well before you hit the 3dB point.

Know anybody who can hear the difference *on actual program material*
between flat to 5 Hz and -3dB at 5 Hz? Because the little thumb-sized
not-at-all-special transformers I use in a homebrew groundloop killer
have that measured characteristic. It's just not hard to find decent
transformers for audio.

Isaac

Construction of these transformers doesn't have to follow the normal
rules. They don't need good linearity, so very high permeability
ferrite can be used for the core in order to get a high inductance
value. This is because the audio doesn't have to pass through the
ferrite, it bypasses it.


Doing a little research, I found the following page. It seems these baluns are
"current mode" baluns.

http://vk5ajl.com/projects/baluns.php

If these small transformers won't provide the characteristics you want/need,
you could look for an opto-isolation solution.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Bob F" wrote in message
...
The schematic here seems completely wrong to me.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/conten...ts/50-7725.pdf

http://canada.newark.com/mcm-custom-...eld/dp/96K0889

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Effects strat becoming apparent well before you hit the 3dB point.

d

Yeah, but what about on a Gibson ?

geoff

On Sat, 11 May 2013 01:17:11 +1200, "geoff"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Effects strat becoming apparent well before you hit the 3dB point.

d

Yeah, but what about on a Gibson ?


You talking about my Gisbon?

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 May 2013 01:17:11 +1200, "geoff"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Effects strat becoming apparent well before you hit the 3dB point.

d

Yeah, but what about on a Gibson ?


You talking about my Gisbon?

d

As opposed to your 'strat' above ....

;-)

geoff