What do you think about Schoeps mic cables?

[achabloop5080]

I've been offered a deal on Schoeps omni capsules (discussed in another thread) and Schoeps mic cables (5 K10 10m).
How do they stand in comparison to Mogami, Canare, Monster Cable ecc.?
Should I buy them or invest in standard Starquad?
Thank you

[Roland]

If I am not mistaken the Schoeps mic cables are braided in such a way that when hanging mic's they do not twist. I had a job a while back and we used them for just this purpose. I would have no problem in using them as you can be sure that Schoeps would not sell a cable if they thought it would compromise the performance of their mic's.

Of course there are many other cables available such as the ones you mentioned. Starquad gives great protection against RF in "hostile" environments, however, because of it's construction capacitance is roughly doubled, though this is likely to be of no real significance unless you are running ridiculous lengths of several hundred metres. If the deal is good, I would go for it!

Regards


Roland

[Audiop]

Regarding capacitance of twisted pair vs. quad star:

Post #154
Best high end cables for monitoring

And:

Odd Question - DC Resistance of mic cables

In short: it depends! :-)


/Peter

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Regarding capacitance of twisted pair vs. quad star:

Post #154
Best high end cables for monitoring

And:

Odd Question - DC Resistance of mic cables

In short: it depends! :-)


/Peter

That the capacitance on starquad as against standard twin and screen is roughly doubled has been widely reported and to my knowledge never disputed, but I would concede that the HF loss due to capacitance is more academic. Working rule of thumb with 150 ohm source 300 metres of cable equates to HF roll off starting around 60khz (with starquad this should be 150m approx). Pretty superfluous when the response of actual mic's and recording systems are taken into account.

I would also add the caveat that I am not an electronics expert, however, I have seen these same figures mentioned on numerous occasions from different sources including respected electronics engineers. I believe that this information is also mentioned in DPA microphone literature amongst others.

Regards


Roland

[Audiop]

As I mentioned in those posts the capacitance do not depend on the geometry as such but by surface area, distance and type of dielectricum.

The capacitance of a given quad will double when connecting all four vs. only two of the conductors but there is nothing that makes a quad having double the capacitance compared to any twisted pair.


/Peter

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Audiop

As I mentioned in those posts the capacitance do not depend on the geometry as such but by surface area, distance and type of dielectricum.

The capacitance of a given quad will double when connecting all four vs. only two of the conductors but there is nothing that makes a quad having double the capacitance compared to any twisted pair.


/Peter

So you are saying, all you need to do is find a quad that has half the capacitance of your average twisted pair? Ok, whichever way you want to call it.

Roland

[Audiop]

Um, no I don't think that is what I'm saying. :-) There are certain factors that gives a cable its capacitance and the numbers of conductors and geometry has no direct influence.

If it's critical I would suggest getting short pieces of some interesting alternatives and measure capacitance. That way you know you have numbers that you can trust and compare.


/Peter

[Roland]

Peter, I do understand whay you are saying, my point is quite simple:

I am (for example) a really good cable manufacturer, I decide to make a really good quality twin and screen mic cable, I know capacitance is an issue, so I engineer the cable to have the lowest capacitance over distance possible.

Some of my clients are TV companies that work in particularly hostile rf environments, so they have asked if I can make a starqaud version for them. I again engineer my best cable, which is basically the same as my twin, but this time has 4 conducters and screen. They wire it as starquad should be wired, and the capacitance has effectively doubled over my other cable.

Regards


Roland

[Audiop]

Yup, but (at the risk of repeating myself :-) if you make the conductors thinner in the quad cable and use slightly thicker dielectricum you can end up with similar capacitance as the first twisted pair design.

But then again, if you turn that new quad design into a twisted pair (or simply use only one of the pairs) obviously the capacitance drop to about half.

I only thought it was important to point out the mechansim behind this so that no one get's the idea that the numbers of conductors or the geometry in itself is what sets the capacitance.

Ok, I'll be quiet for a while now! :-)


/Peter

[Plush]

Schoeps mic cables are made by Sommer cable. So you can get the same thing for a substantial savings direct from Sommer. Just make your own cables.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Plush

Schoeps mic cables are made by Sommer cable. So you can get the same thing for a substantial savings direct from Sommer. Just make your own cables.

Although I am sure you are absolutely correct on this, the original poster should check that Sommer are making exactly the same thing and that the Schoeps cable isn't made specially to Schoeps own specification. I say this because Shoeps make a big song and dance about how the cable is mechanically constructed in a specific way as to reduce "twist" whilst hanging mics in auditoriums. Of course this might just all be marketing blub.

Also the OP did mention that he had been offered a silly deal on the Schoeps cables, perhaps this deal makes them competitive with the cable/connector price.

Regards


Roland