In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
I've seen loudspeaker installations in some of the finest recording
studios in the country. Custom built regardless of cost. And never
once have I seen co-ax cable used for them.

Me neither..

A recording environment is a specific application, different from a
domestic installation.

Often more hostile if it is a TV studio. All those powerful lights with
dimmers.


Radiated signals are minimised in the studio,
usually with screened twisted pair, an unecessary expense for
reproduction only.

Twisted pairs are used for balanced signals.

The comparison is ill-founded.

One of the few things shared between domestic and studio can be high end
amps and speakers. But not connected with co-ax cable.

Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Feb 22, 11:10*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

I've seen loudspeaker installations in some of the finest recording
studios in the country. Custom built regardless of cost. And never
once have I seen co-ax cable used for them.

Me neither..
A recording environment is a specific application, different from a
domestic installation.

Often more hostile if it is a TV studio. All those powerful lights with
dimmers.

Radiated signals are minimised in the studio,
usually with screened twisted pair, an unecessary expense for
reproduction only.

Twisted pairs are used for balanced signals.

*The comparison is ill-founded.

One of the few things shared between domestic and studio can be high end
amps and speakers. But not connected with co-ax cable.

Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,

Frequently not.

less flexible

Irellevant for a permanent installation.

and more expensive

last time I actually bought some was something like 9p a metre.

than the correct stuff when it offers no

It frequently IS the correct stuff.

advantages?

Already given.

Mike Barnes wrote:
Martin Brown :
On 22/02/2012 19:17, tony sayer wrote:
In
.com, scribeth thus
A recording environment is a specific application, different from a
domestic installation. Radiated signals are minimised in the studio,
usually with screened twisted pair, an unecessary expense for
reproduction only. The comparison is ill-founded.

Fer fecks sake stop digging a bigger hole!....
His credibility was almost zero before these latest posts but is now so
far below that TNPs previous expression "square root of **** all" will
have to deal with negative numbers.

In other words, he needs to get real.

well he cant even deal with imaginary numbers...

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,

Frequently not.

It is larger than any twin flex with an equivalent conductor cross
sectional area.

less flexible

Irellevant for a permanent installation.

Do you nail your cables through the carpet to the floor?

and more expensive

last time I actually bought some was something like 9p a metre.

Try looking it up now.

than the correct stuff when it offers no

It frequently IS the correct stuff.

It never is. Otherwise it would be the standard.

advantages?

Already given.

Must have missed that.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Feb 23, 12:21*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
Frequently not.

It is larger than any twin flex with an equivalent conductor cross
sectional area.

Comparative cable requires greater cross-sectional area with twinned
flex. The major dimension of such speaker cable is greater than cheap
co-axial.

less flexible
Irellevant for a permanent installation.

Do you nail your cables through the carpet to the floor?

Either under the boards or stapled. Loose wiring imay be used for
tempory installations but not generally appropriate for fixed,
permanent instalations.

and more expensive
last time I actually bought some was something like 9p a metre.

Try looking it up now.

8 years ago BICC CT100 was about 30p/m which is way beyond what I was
describing. So-called 79 strand speaker wire was about £5//m at the
wrong place.

than the correct stuff when it offers no
It frequently IS the correct stuff.

It never is. Otherwise it would be the standard.

advantages?
Already given.

Must have missed that.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
I've seen loudspeaker installations in some of the finest recording
studios in the country. Custom built regardless of cost. And never
once have I seen co-ax cable used for them.

Me neither..

A recording environment is a specific application, different from a
domestic installation.

Often more hostile if it is a TV studio. All those powerful lights with
dimmers.


Radiated signals are minimised in the studio,
usually with screened twisted pair, an unecessary expense for
reproduction only.

Twisted pairs are used for balanced signals.

The comparison is ill-founded.

One of the few things shared between domestic and studio can be high end
amps and speakers. But not connected with co-ax cable.

Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.
--
Ian

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
Do you nail your cables through the carpet to the floor?

Either under the boards or stapled. Loose wiring imay be used for
tempory installations but not generally appropriate for fixed,
permanent instalations.

At some point it has to be connected to the speaker.

--
*Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.

None whatsoever if it has adequate sized conductors. The design of the
cable simply doesn't matter with speakers and a decent amp. You could use
co-ax as mains lead too if you wanted. But the same point arises - why
would you?

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.

None whatsoever if it has adequate sized conductors. The design of the
cable simply doesn't matter with speakers and a decent amp. You could use
co-ax as mains lead too if you wanted. But the same point arises - why
would you?

They used to. When I was working with the SESEB as a student, one area of
town was found to have the local distribution wired in co-ax. Why? now
that's another question.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
I've seen loudspeaker installations in some of the finest recording
studios in the country. Custom built regardless of cost. And never
once have I seen co-ax cable used for them.

Me neither..

A recording environment is a specific application, different from a
domestic installation.

Often more hostile if it is a TV studio. All those powerful lights with
dimmers.


Radiated signals are minimised in the studio,
usually with screened twisted pair, an unecessary expense for
reproduction only.

Twisted pairs are used for balanced signals.

The comparison is ill-founded.

One of the few things shared between domestic and studio can be high end
amps and speakers. But not connected with co-ax cable.

Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.

It tends NOT to come in seriously large cross sections suitable for tens
of watts or more. And milli-ohm resistances. And, when it does, its
bloody expensive and very hard to bend and prone to shorting out if you
do. And it adds more capacitance than standard flat twin cable for
similar values of resistance.


But equally, there is no *advantage* to using it.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.

None whatsoever if it has adequate sized conductors. The design of the
cable simply doesn't matter with speakers and a decent amp. You could use
co-ax as mains lead too if you wanted. But the same point arises - why
would you?

It is occasionally preferable. Underground feeds are often armoured
coax...where the neutral is tied to earth,.


Here the inability to bend is an advantage. Makes for a more robust cable.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:28:09 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

It seems more likely you can't bear
the thought of being wrong and wasting £100 on speaker wire

The majority of the responders on this thread wouldn't be daft enough
to spend that amount anyway - or are simply too tight, even if it were
shown to be worthwhile (which is unlikely).

wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:28:09 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

It seems more likely you can't bear
the thought of being wrong and wasting £100 on speaker wire

The majority of the responders on this thread wouldn't be daft enough
to spend that amount anyway - or are simply too tight, even if it were
shown to be worthwhile (which is unlikely).

2.5 T&E for fixed installations, or 16A mains flex if you're feeling
flush is as good for speakers as any boutique cable.

Of course, what's best for small rooms is powered speakers with balanced
signal cables feeding them. Up to three grand or more a pair for decent
ones which, unlike most domestic stuff, can show you the problems you
get if you don't acoustically treat the room.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article
..com, thirty-six scribeth thus
On Feb 22, 8:22*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, thirty-six scribeth thus









On Feb 22, 7:17*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, thirty-six scribeth thus

On Feb 22, 6:09*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus

In article
,
* thirty-six wrote:
Normal conditions matter to choice of speaker wire not hypothetical
no-
functioning conditions.

I've seen loudspeaker installations in some of the finest recording
studios in the country. Custom built regardless of cost. And never once
have I seen co-ax cable used for them.

Me neither..

A recording environment is a specific application, different from a
domestic installation. Radiated signals are minimised in the studio,
usually with screened twisted pair, an unecessary expense for
reproduction only. *The comparison is ill-founded.

Fer fecks sake stop digging a bigger hole!....

--
Tony Sayer

You've obviously a bigger spade.

Nope...

Time spent working at Rupert Neve, Audix broadcast, Pye TV transmitters
the BBC, Cambridge systems Tech (Audiolab)

and yourself, you in pro audio?..

--
Tony Sayer

Nope, I had some temporary contracts early on with ILR, theater and
band support alongside repair work but generally found that the
rewards were unrelated to effort and the lack of appreciation caused
me to abandon my quest for the ideal job.

Oh dear!;(....
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.

None whatsoever if it has adequate sized conductors. The design of the
cable simply doesn't matter with speakers and a decent amp. You could use
co-ax as mains lead too if you wanted. But the same point arises - why
would you?



This might make a decent speaker cable got a bit of copper in it. Bet Russ Andrews
would flog it for 10 times the price and get sales;!...

This is standard 20 mm dia stuff it can be obtained up to around 75 mm or more
even!..


http://www.broadcastwarehouse.com/eu...le/596/product
--
Tony Sayer

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
I've seen loudspeaker installations in some of the finest recording
studios in the country. Custom built regardless of cost. And never
once have I seen co-ax cable used for them.

Me neither..

A recording environment is a specific application, different from a
domestic installation.

Often more hostile if it is a TV studio. All those powerful lights with
dimmers.


Radiated signals are minimised in the studio,
usually with screened twisted pair, an unecessary expense for
reproduction only.

Twisted pairs are used for balanced signals.

The comparison is ill-founded.

One of the few things shared between domestic and studio can be high end
amps and speakers. But not connected with co-ax cable.

Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.

It tends NOT to come in seriously large cross sections suitable for tens
of watts or more. And milli-ohm resistances. And, when it does, its
bloody expensive and very hard to bend and prone to shorting out if you
do. And it adds more capacitance than standard flat twin cable for
similar values of resistance.


But equally, there is no *advantage* to using it.



Well you can get it to take Kilowatts of RF and indeed thats done, not
cheap mind you;!. You can get co-ax rigid feeder up to around 6 and
quarter inch if you are really serious about sound)..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.

None whatsoever if it has adequate sized conductors. The design of the
cable simply doesn't matter with speakers and a decent amp. You could use
co-ax as mains lead too if you wanted. But the same point arises - why
would you?

They used to. When I was working with the SESEB as a student, one area of
town was found to have the local distribution wired in co-ax. Why? now
that's another question.


They do this a lot now, the outer is the neutral return the inner the
live supply.

IIRC it was so that if Padriag hit it with his digger it would
internally short out and blow a sub station fuse rather then cause any
high potential in the equipment or implement that had hit the cable...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
scribeth thus
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:28:09 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

It seems more likely you can't bear
the thought of being wrong and wasting £100 on speaker wire

The majority of the responders on this thread wouldn't be daft enough
to spend that amount anyway - or are simply too tight, even if it were
shown to be worthwhile (which is unlikely).

It does have differences if you have some serious speakers. I found it a
bit hard to believe till Phil Swift of Audiolab demo-ed it one afternoon
some years ago.

However as long as the conductor is of a very low resistance and size
then there is a point of diminishing returns...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Just why would anyone in their right mind use a cable which is larger,
less flexible and more expensive than the correct stuff when it offers no
advantages?

Electrically - and especially if one side of the speaker connection is
at earth potential (ie connected to the 'chassis side of the amplifier)
- I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use coax.
None whatsoever if it has adequate sized conductors. The design of the
cable simply doesn't matter with speakers and a decent amp. You could use
co-ax as mains lead too if you wanted. But the same point arises - why
would you?



This might make a decent speaker cable got a bit of copper in it. Bet Russ Andrews
would flog it for 10 times the price and get sales;!...

This is standard 20 mm dia stuff it can be obtained up to around 75 mm or more
even!..
##
it appears to be 50mm OD.

"Outer sheath
-Material Black polyethylene
-Thickness (mm) 1.7
-Diameter (mm) 50.0"


Frankly it looks more sutable for either connecting up KW sized
transmitters, or six of the best in thirty-sixes buttocks.


http://www.broadcastwarehouse.com/eu...le/596/product

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus

But equally, there is no *advantage* to using it.

Well you can get it to take Kilowatts of RF and indeed thats done, not
cheap mind you;!. You can get co-ax rigid feeder up to around 6 and
quarter inch if you are really serious about sound)..

That's a waveguide, isn't it?

no. That's when you remove the centre part entirely..:-)

This might make a decent speaker cable got a bit of copper in it. Bet Russ
Andrews
would flog it for 10 times the price and get sales;!...

This is standard 20 mm dia stuff it can be obtained up to around 75 mm or more
even!..
##
it appears to be 50mm OD.

Yes!, was thinking of some LDF 450 I have to buy and how bl^^dy much
thats going to cost;!..


"Outer sheath
-Material Black polyethylene
-Thickness (mm) 1.7
-Diameter (mm) 50.0"


Frankly it looks more sutable for either connecting up KW sized
transmitters, or six of the best in thirty-sixes buttocks.


http://www.broadcastwarehouse.com/eu...le/596/product

--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus

But equally, there is no *advantage* to using it.

Well you can get it to take Kilowatts of RF and indeed thats done, not
cheap mind you;!. You can get co-ax rigid feeder up to around 6 and
quarter inch if you are really serious about sound)..

That's a waveguide, isn't it?


No its co-ax in structure..

Just made out of rigid pipes and tubes and PTFE insulators and filled
with pressured Dry Nitrogen;!..
--
Tony Sayer

On Feb 23, 10:02*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

Do you nail your cables through the carpet to the floor?
Either under the boards or stapled. *Loose wiring imay be used for
tempory installations but not generally appropriate for fixed,
permanent instalations.

At some point it has to be connected to the speaker.


go on.