Belden 9541 RS-232 Cable.. Is this OK or for Audio?

[brianroth]

Hmmmmmmm...seeing the pix, looks like that it reads "9451" vs. 9541 to my aging eyeballs. I used jillions of feet of 9451 cable for audio installs.

9451 was/is a very common audio cable. Easy to strip vs. older 8451.....

Bri

[Richard Crowley]

As Mr. Roth observes, you appear to have Belden 9451 which is a semi-rigid foil-shielded pair. It is great for fixed installation stuff, but not expected to hold up under repeated flexing as in a portable cord application.

It appears to have an impedance of 45 ohms which means that it wouldn't be very good for AES3 digital signal transmission (which wants 110 ohms).

With a 100% coverage foil shield, it is likely BETTER than some braid or wrap type shielded audio cable. So it is essentially as good as it gets for shielding from "noise, RF, etc.".

The main disadvantage is that the foil shield won't hold up under repeated flexing as you would expect from portable use. It would be great for fixed installations, though.

[brianroth]

Dear rcrowley,

MANY folks will claim 'this or that' cable sounds BETTER than 'this or that' cable.

IOW, you MUST use $1000/foot cable, because some 'guru' decided that cable made with Unobtanium wire and Unobtanium insulation "sounds better".

I like this description (MADE UP!):

"This cable was built with oxygen-free copper, and Vestal Virgins PEED on it beneath a Full Moon whilst their vampire men-friends danced naked around the wire, which was sitting in a fire pit fueled by the bodies of multiple toads from Transylvania. Then , we dipped the cable into a cryogenic bath of liquid helium."

Odd how many hit records were recorded with "cheap' wiring. Maybe it has to do with talent and great song writing....sorely lacking these days.

Bri

[Richard Crowley]

Not sure why that was addressed to me. I have never had the slightest shred of faith in "magic cables". And I hold particular disdain for brand-name, mass-market snake-oil ("Monster" et.al.) junk. Indeed it seems likely that ZERO big and/or popular hit recordings were made with "magic cable".

[ben_MKE]

Yes.. That was certainly a typo in the initial post. The Cable is 9451. Thanks so much for the helpful information! It's for installation purposes so the flexibility/rigidity is not an issue.. This stuff is really great & easy to work with though. It's nice not having to deal with peeling back the shielding at all. Especially compared to canare..

Regarding the super crazy expensive cable commentary. It totally agree, most of the science behind it is marketing and "snake oil" salesmanship.. That .01% improvement does not warrant a several hundred percent markup in retail price....

Thanks again fellas! .. I'll get back to soldering..

Side note.. Any ideas where someone could scavenge several hundred used Switchcraft TRS connectors!?

-ben

[vince @ speck]

My past experience with 9451 was not that great. I always found it more "microphonic" when used for line level signals than other competivitely priced cable.

I think it has something to do with the rigid outer PVC cover along with the metalized polyester shield.

[ben_MKE]

Originally Posted by vince @ speck

My past experience with 9451 was not that great. I always found it more "microphonic" when used for line level signals than other competivitely priced cable.

That's concerning.. Would you describe this monophonic nature as subtle or dramatic?..

[vince @ speck]

Originally Posted by ben_MKE

That's concerning.. Would you describe this monophonic nature as subtle or dramatic?..

With a really low output source impedence it's non-existant, but you can't always know what the output Z is. Some gear like synths/samplers have surprisingly high output impedence.

You should build a few cables using the 9451, terminate the cable(s) by hooking up the gear, then tap the cable(s) with a pencil and listen for noise.

IMO - I think there are better choices of cable for professional audio applications.

[ben_MKE]

Oh.. By microphonic you mean they will actually make noise when jostled or tapped.. I thought you were using "microphonic" as a way to describe a tonal difference...

I'll run a test as you've described.. Good idea.. Thanks again!

By the way.. Amazing looking gear your designing.. Would love to hear some of it one day.

-b

[ben_MKE]

Also, Vince. What do you consider a better alternative?

[vince @ speck]

Originally Posted by ben_MKE

Also, Vince. What do you consider a better alternative?

This is my favorite for price & quality for line level:
Canare L2B2-AT Microphone Cable 2-Conductor 25Awg Foil Shield - Cut

If you're are making multi-pair harnesses consider this:
Canare MR202-8AT Audio Snake Cable 8-Pair 25G Foil

I'm sure the experienced members here can recommend other quality bulk cable.

[ben_MKE]

Thank you!

[tINY]

http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/imag...7d639d105b.jpg
Here's another option.... I've had good luck with this.

I don't see how microphonics are an issue in fixed installations, though....




-tINY

[ben_MKE]

Is that Jack Black?

[brianroth]

Originally Posted by rcrowley

Not sure why that was addressed to me. I have never had the slightest shred of faith in "magic cables". And I hold particular disdain for brand-name, mass-market snake-oil ("Monster" et.al.) junk. Indeed it seems likely that ZERO big and/or popular hit recordings were made with "magic cable".

Apologies....I was just ranting a bit! <g>.

Bri

[lovekrafty]

9451 is used in just about every broadcast facility around the country
For analog audio, it is pretty much the standard
As stated before, this is good for fixed install
Not so good for microphone cable, or anything that needs to be flexible

And not to be used for AES

LK

[tINY]

Originally Posted by ben_MKE

Is that Jack Black?

I've been accused of looking like him before...



-tINY