The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Monster cables unbalanced theory
Old 15th March 2006
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Monster cables unbalanced theory

I was trying to research whether there could be sense into using the left over core of a twisted pair balanced cable and adding it to either (-) or to the ground / shield when soldering TS cables. Found someone stating that such would not be recommendable for the capacity aspect.

Then I found this from Monster cables site which consequently appears wrong to me somehow:
Quote:
Why does my instrument cable have arrows?
There are two typical types of cable construction; coaxial and twisted pair. Coaxial construction, as used in our P500 Rock cable, consists of one conductor and the shield. Twisted Pair construction, used in our P500 Jazz and all Studiolink cables, utilizes two conductors and a shield. Connectors such as the RCA type and mono ¼" are considered Unbalanced connectors; due to their two contact surface areas, the tip and the sleeve. (Connectors such as XLR, TRS ¼" (Tip/Ring/Sleeve,) etc. are considered Balanced.) A coaxial cable terminated with an unbalanced connector, uses the conductor as the positive lead, terminated to the Tip, and the shield as the negative lead, terminated to sleeve. Monster Cable makes our Unbalanced cables, "Semi-balanced" by utilizing twisted pair cable. We use one conductor as the positive lead, terminated to the Tip, one conductor as the negative lead, terminated to the sleeve, and we terminate the shield to the Source side of the cable; thereby making the cable directional. The theory goes, if you ground the shield at the Source end and leave it open to "Drain" at the Destination end, any noise or interference which enters the shield, will be kept from making its way into your destination device. Source is considered where the signal is originating from, (think it terms of your signal flow,) Destination is considered the device to which your signal is going.
http://monstercables.com/faqs/

Guess better still to leave the second core of twisted pairs unconnected when making unbalanced cables, correct?

BTW, what about using guitar cables for unbalanced line connex? Would they have too high resistance, respectively get too warm or somethin´?

Bozus
Old 15th March 2006
  #2
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

If you want to go the way they say, then what they say is:
POSTIVE = TIP = CORE 1 = HOT
NEGATIVE = SLEEVE = CORE 2 = GROUND
SHIELD = SLEEVE on SOURCE side of cable

Guitar cables can be used for any audio cabling needs. They might not be the best choice in some situation tho'.

No audio will burn up any other audio cables "guitar cables" or XLR audio cables, or 1/4" patch cords, etc. running through it because there is not huge voltage drop over audio cables or current draw or any of that stuff.

If you used your audio cable to carry current from your mains wall outlet to an iron pipe, you might get some interesting results burning cables....
!!!

Last edited by EveAnna Manley; 16th March 2006 at 01:02 AM..
Old 16th March 2006
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Thank you, EveAnna,

I knew that it´s about low voltage, but have been wondering for instrument cables being for much lower power than line level.
Anyway, now that you said so guess I can just use them, especially for sidechain tasks as no high fidelity been required there anyway.

Quote:
If you want to go the way they say, then what they say is:
POSTIVE = TIP = CORE 1 = HOT
NEGATIVE = SLEEVE = CORE 2 = GROUND
SHIELD = SLEEVE on SOURCE side of cable
Yep, the shield connected to the source side I suppose would make a difference in that RF could be passed to ground and protect the cores from induction, however ... err ... That means the RF would nonetheless enter the +/- circuit if I see that correctly ... maybe as the electrons on (+) being on their way to the exit RF would not harm routed this way ... - or not.


Provided engaging the shield in this manner helped in a way how would it be about capacitance then? The current would not pass through the entire surface of the shielding, for it taking the shortest path, but the shield would still increase the mass / diameter at the short spot were it connects to the connectors ground.

This is not intended as pun ( just "yes" or "no" would be alright as compass ), only trying to grasp basics and to understand whether the theory followed by monster or of the other partie mentioning capacitance aspects was rather of sense and with that me understanding a tad more of basic principles.



BTW, for co-bozos here is something interesting I found from Canare in case any were experiencing hum problems when interconnecting balanced / unbalanced.

Quote:
The best way to interconnect balanced and unbalanced signals is with transformers that match signal type

and impedance. In addition to matching the wiring and impedance, the levels must also be matched. Small

pre-amps can be used to boost levels that are too low, and attenuator pads can reduce levels that are too

high. If you don't have the proper matching equipment, careful and consistent wiring practices can keep the

signals relatively clean.

The first area to look at is ac power. Make sure that all of the audio equipment is powered by the same

circuit. If this is not possible, keep the number of circuits small. Second, any ac plugs that are not

polarized can be reversed. If noise is detected, reverse the ac plugs one at a time, leaving the plugs in

the position that produces the least hum.

At this point, the process can get a little messy. When you wire an unbalanced output to a balanced input,

connect the signal wire to the positive, or hot, input. Generally, connect the ground to the negative, or

cold, input and to the ground input. Depending on the situation, better results may be obtained if the

ground input is left unconnected. When you connect a balanced output to an unbalanced input, connect the

signal input wire to the positive, or hot, output, and connect the ground wire to the ground output

connection. At this point, check the frequency response at 100Hz, 1kHz arid 10kHz. It should be flat. If

the response increases with frequency, place resistors from the positive output terminal to ground and from

the negative output terminal to ground. The value of each resistor should be about half the output

impedance listed in the equipment specifications.
Ruphus
Old 16th March 2006
  #4
Lives for gear
 

My thoughts on guitar cables - they are always a compromise. The trade off is between flexibility and noise. A lot of guitar cables suffer from tribolelectric noise - you can hear when you shake them.

A cheap shortcut that is often used is to use the shield as your return wire. This isn't really a shield, and it is likely to suffer tribolectric noise.

It's much better to have two solid wires for signal and return, and an external shield that is grounded at both ends. The shield can really act as a shield then, and doesn't add noise when shaken.

But sold wires aren't flexible, so you trade off with stranded wire. Ideally a twisted pair, for extra EMI cancelling.

The idea of only grounding one end of a shield comes from hifi installations. Unbalanced cables are prone to ground loops between grounded appliances. But a guitar isn't really a grounded appliance, and I doubt this idea has any merit for guitar.

Of course - that depends on whether your body acts as a ground or a shield. In practice, it sort of does both. It's wierd.

I used to strongly believe that our body acted as a ground - e.g. when you put your hand on the strings, the noise goes away. But in fact, a guitar is typically already grounded via the cable to the amp. You can check this with an ohmeter - and adding another electrical ground to the guitar doesn't stop the hum.

So typically you body is acting as a semiconductor/large capicitor. You are mainly composed of essentially dirty water - quite conductive. So at times you are acting as a semi-conductor of EMI - improving the flow of AC hum between transformers and stuff and your guitar pickup.

Or - if you ground yourself (e.g. by touching the grounded guitar strings) you become an effective shield, shunting that EMI to ground before it gets to your pickups.
Old 16th March 2006
  #5
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Capacitance: how many picofarads per foot do you measure when you hook up the cable using two cores in parallel vs one core? Measure for total capcitance then divide by length. If you don't know how to do this, probably best to go find out what the capacitance of the cable is from the manufacturer and then skip to the bottom.

Vs. another cable with a different dialetric/wire gauge geometry?

Vs. what impedance are you running into?

vs. how long is the cable run?

Multiply how many picofarads per foot that cable is times the length and then look up on a reactance chart where your HF response is at a given frequency, considering the impedance.

vs. can you hear any of these factors (and many more not mentioned) make a difference?

Like, you probably won't for the applications you are trying to make them work for that you mentioned. Just use a short as possible good quality audio cable with the right connections on it. Monster, Canare, Mogami, whatever. Listen to some and pick your fave...

(Trying to keep things ULTRA simple.)
Old 16th March 2006
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Thanky you, Kiwi, very interesting.

Just as a side note: I´m not intending to use the sidechain as two way / return, only planing of using the way in.

Do you suggest that I´d better solder a cable and make use of twisted cores for +/- like with the method described by monster, eventhough it´s only meant for sidechain signal?

Ruphus
Old 16th March 2006
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EveAnna Manley
(Trying to keep things ULTRA simple.)

Dang, electronics are just too complicated.
"Ringing circuit" as we call it in German was the highest I ever understood about it.

Ruphus

PS: Not to be a pest, but: Should I rather solder a cable, not using the guitar cable for sidechain?
And when soldering unbalanced cables of twisted pair cable, just connect the cores and leave out the shield, or whether shield or not making no difference?
Old 16th March 2006
  #8
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

I would solder it up as per my post #2 above. If you have never soldered a cable before, well, that's another thing...


To be very straightforward, no offense meant, do you have a local german pal who is a tech kind of guy? He could show you some tips, speaking in your native tongue german, and you might more easily understand.
Old 16th March 2006
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Thanks EveAnna, so I´ll be soldering one.

Funny things is that I´m actually good at soldering.
Even once astonished a master at IBM in precision soldering PCB under a microscope. > pats himself on the shoulder <

The roughly hundred cables I got are all self made.
I´m even thinking of offering German peeps to solder cables for them ( - at least the kinds I know of like balanced types. heh ) Hard to believe I guess, but that means accurate work with no inclusions, no strand loss, not too much or too little solder, no cold joints and yet shiny tin.

I don´t have pals with electronic knowledge. Ok, my best friend has studied electro technique, but he knows nothing about audio constructions. I always call him when it´s about IT or communication devices like PC, servers, phones and internet stuff, that´s where he´s firm with. Also have a CS cousin who is a true crack in about anything electronical or software related, but that guy´s so busy with his international biz, 6 kids and a wife who had an apoplexy that I better spare him my weird "which pole should I stick to which connector?" questions.

Ruphus
Old 10th March 2015
  #10
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EveAnna Manley View Post
Capacitance: how many picofarads per foot do you measure when you hook up the cable using two cores in parallel vs one core? Measure for total capcitance then divide by length.
to celebrate the 9 year anniversary of this thread , I wanted to ask a follow up question:

if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the "new" capacitance from configuring the cable as [conductor to (conductor + shield)] is equal to the capacitance from [conductor to conductor] plus the capacitance from [conductor to shield]

for example, if the cap from conductor to conductor is 50pf/ft and the cap from conductor to shield is 62pf/ft, then the new capacitance as seen by the load is 112pf/ft, right?

also on the topic - since we're in the post 600ohm era, the paradigm, as I understand it, is having virtually 0 resistance at the source and infinite resistance at the load.

how does cable impedance fall in here? to be as theoretically transparent as possible, should the cable impedance match the source impedance?

thank you very much for the help!
Old 10th March 2015
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Richard Crowley's Avatar
The generally accepted notion is that you will see lower parallel cable capacitance from using only one of a twisted pair (the other wire being grounded) than you would if you were using BOTH of the twisted pair wires connected together. I can see how that might be the case, but I can also imagine a counter-argument. I suppose I could break out my LCR meter and actually measure the two cases with some various samples of shielded pair cable. Maybe I will collect some samples around the junk pile and make a YouTube video either confirming or debunking that theory.

OTOH, if you are designing something where the difference between using one or both of a twisted pair cable will make any significant difference, then I submit that you are pursuing the wrong design path and you should get back from that dangerous edge!

Yes, in the modern era, source impedances are well below 1K (and even 100 ohms), while input impedances are several K ohms. We aren't in the telephone line business where we are transmitting +4dBu over telephone lines measured in miles (or kilometers).

ONE of the reasons for low source impedance is to completely eliminate the issue of parallel cable capacitance in "normal" situations.

Cable impedance is an issue in some situations, particularly wavelengths approach the dimensions of the wiring in question, and/or where you are actually transmitting power (and not just signal).
For example, almost all cases dealing with Radio Frequencies (RF), are careful to match the source and load impedance to the impedance of the transmission line (which is mostly, but not always coaxial cable).
And even down at mains frequencies (50-60Hz), impedance and frequency can be an issue when the transmission path is measured in 100s of miles.

High-power transmission of mains power over large distances is often done with DC rather than with AC because when the wire is very long, it starts "transmitting" the power out into the ether instead of conducting it all to the destination.
For example, there is a 3.1 Giga-Watt DC transmission line from our dams here along the Columbia river (here in the US Pacific Northwest), down to Los Angeles in southern California.
In the summer, we send a lot of hydro-generated power down to LA to keep them cool, and in the winter, they return the favor by sending power up to us to keep us warm.
Ref: Pacific DC Intertie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But there are still some cases where cable capacitance can be an issue. Check out another discussion currently ruinning here....
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/geek...nce-cable.html
Old 10th March 2015
  #12
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Crowley View Post
The generally accepted notion is that you will see lower parallel cable capacitance from using only one of a twisted pair (the other wire being grounded) than you would if you were using BOTH of the twisted pair wires connected together. I can see how that might be the case, but I can also imagine a counter-argument. I suppose I could break out my LCR meter and actually measure the two cases with some various samples of shielded pair cable. Maybe I will collect some samples around the junk pile and make a YouTube video either confirming or debunking that theory.
hey Richard, thank you for taking some time and answering my question. As much as I tried to be, I wasn't completely clear, so I have just a few more queries.

There are two things that can run in parallel when there are a total of three paths for electricity, and my question was specifically for running the ground in parallel through one of the conductors and the shield.

Since the ground is absolutely required for an unbalanced signal to pass through, I wondered if the performance of cable is therefore increased or decreased when the ground is ran in parallel through one of the conductors and the shield while the "tip" runs on the remaining conductor. (this is something that would occur when a TRS to TRS balanced cable is used to connect two unbalanced pieces of equipment).

Also, in the other thread you linked, the OP asked what significance the conductor to shield capacitance has in a circuit. In the case of a balanced output driving a balanced input, am I correct to assume this capacitance is of little importance, since the ground can be lifted out of the load in this circuit all together?
Old 10th March 2015
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Richard Crowley's Avatar
Yes the ground is "absolutely required" for an unbalanced signal. Not sure what "the performance of cable" means? There is some slight (virtually un-measurable) difference in the end-to-end resistance of the shield vs. the shield + one of the inner wires. This will certainly make no difference in the "performance of the cable" (whatever that means?). It will make some slightly-measurable difference in the parallel capacitance of the length of cable, but, as I said in the previous post, if that very slight difference of capacitance affects your circuit, then you have a very dodgy circuit design.

Avoid the influence of crack-pot, crazy people who think cable is somehow "magic". There are many factors within our sphere of influence that affect how music is recorded and reproduced. However these kinds of low-order differences in cable don't even make the top 20 list. The term "picking at nits" comes to mind.

The effect of parallel capacitance from the cable is dependent on the source impedance, and not really whether the signal is balanced or unbalanced. The output (series) impedance of the source, and the parallel capacitance of the cable will form a high-cut or low-pass filter. Most proper output signals from active audio gear is low enough output impedance that the cable capacitance is not a significant factor. The exception to this is those cases where you have (typically passive), high source-impedance outputs such as from an antique microphone, or from a vintage electric guitar pickup, etc.
Old 11th March 2015
  #14
Gear Addict
 

performance of the cable for me is along the theoretical sense - specifically frequency response and induced noise. Ideally, **nothing** happens to a signal when it crosses from one piece of equipment to another. Yet, in the real world, RFI/EMI, and cable capacitance both degrade a signal to some degree simply for being inside a cable! That degree may only make it problematic for ultrasonic frequencies - or not - as you've pointed out.

I also don't believe cable is "magic;" it's simply a path for the signal, and it can either degrade a signal a little bit or a lot. How, why, and when a signal is degraded .... that's the real magic.

Indeed, this is good information to know, as I'm trying to understand these concepts mostly to guide my purchasing decisions. $.50/ft vs $1.00/ft is a 100% increase in cost, and if it's unnecessary... well you get my drift. I appreciate you taking the time to go over some of these topics with me.
Old 11th March 2015
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Richard Crowley's Avatar
IMHO, the only significant way cable can affect frequency response is that unfortunate combination of high source impedance and high cable parallel capacitance. But, again, since virtually all modern audio equipment has quite low output impedance, you would have to go out of your way to encounter this kind of problem. There appears to be a great deal more anxiety about this kind of thing than there is any actual problem in the Real World.

As for induced noise, the cable is indeed responsible for a large portion of the job of maintaining a clean signal path. But the cable can't do everything. There are poorly designed and/or constructed input circuits that will be vulnerable to various kinds of interference no matter how good the cable is.
Old 11th March 2015
  #16
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
Meta-comment: please try to ignore all words published by monster people, they lie profligately, in my opinion, pure marketing hype.

As Apple said, sosumi

BTW. is EveAnna still here? I totally missed this thread back when it was new, nine years ago!

<L>
Old 11th March 2015
  #17
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Crowley View Post
IMHO, the only significant way cable can affect frequency response is that unfortunate combination of high source impedance and high cable parallel capacitance. But, again, since virtually all modern audio equipment has quite low output impedance, you would have to go out of your way to encounter this kind of problem. There appears to be a great deal more anxiety about this kind of thing than there is any actual problem in the Real World.

As for induced noise, the cable is indeed responsible for a large portion of the job of maintaining a clean signal path. But the cable can't do everything. There are poorly designed and/or constructed input circuits that will be vulnerable to various kinds of interference no matter how good the cable is.
awesome. thank you for the input!
Old 11th March 2015
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Hi
In many respects the cable does relatively little when it comes to 'interference rejection' as it is the ability of an input and output circuit to 'cancel' common mode interference. As long as the 'balance' of the cable is better than that of the input and output circuits there will be hardly and difference between the cables.
The instances of 'RF rejection' are more interesting and again it is mostly the gear at each end that is responsible.Speak no evil and hear no evil, with evil being interference!
Matt S
Old 11th March 2015
  #19
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
Monster cable always leaves a bad taste in my mouth - their over the top criminal behaviour in regards to their business made too much impact. Monster Cable Shifts Back Into Lawsuit Gear Against Monster Transmission | Audioholics
Old 11th March 2015
  #20
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Syson View Post
Hi
In many respects the cable does relatively little when it comes to 'interference rejection' as it is the ability of an input and output circuit to 'cancel' common mode interference. As long as the 'balance' of the cable is better than that of the input and output circuits there will be hardly and difference between the cables.
The instances of 'RF rejection' are more interesting and again it is mostly the gear at each end that is responsible.Speak no evil and hear no evil, with evil being interference!
Matt S
I suppose I "lucked out" in my musical upbringing. Way back in the beginning, I started with a synth, an overdrive pedal, a 2i4o interface, and of course the cables.

I didn't know it right off the bat then, but the signal was plagued with RFI and EMI; the overdrive amplified this problem. I was given the cables I was using, and they were particularly poor in the quality dept... but a cable is a cable, right? So I began troubleshooting.

Pretty quickly, I was able to determine the noise as something the overdrive was bringing out, but to my surprise (and relief), the OD still brought the noise out *even with the synth turned off.* I disconnected the cable at the output of the synth, and the noise still remained. Yet, when I disconnected the cable at the input of the OD, the noise would go away.

Then based on a post GS user tINY made regarding news crews liking Canare Starquad for its RFI/EMI noise rejection, I bought some and made my very first home made cable. (I didn't know what to do with the unused conductor, so it went to ground - which now I see was a lucky choice.) Once the cable was made, I plugged it into the OD and cranked the gain and volume to max. I'm sure you can guess the results. The noise was gone, and in that immediate instant, I became a believer of the importance of cabling.

Fast forward to today where I need to buy a substantial amount of cable. I have learned a bit more about electronics; I know that of all electrical properties - capacitance - affects interconnects, and my understanding of cabling has gone from "it must reject outside interference" to "it must reject outside interference, and it must not filter the signal."

...and thus the questions I've been asking
Old 11th March 2015
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Hi
You are correct to observe 'differences' but the actual mechanism of what and WHY things are different is not always obvious.
There are instances where cutting 1 foot from the length of cable can 'de-tune' it from the local radio station it was receiving but buying a 'fancy brand' of cable that happens to be 1 foot shorter than the original would also produce the same 'miracle' effect, not because it is better cable, but simply that it is not 'driving' so much radio signal into a (poorly designed) input or even output stage. I have witnessed and cured problems where a VHF transmitter was interfering with and being demodulated by the OUTPUT of a FET power amplifier. There was no VHF present at the input to the amplifier.
Matt S
Old 11th March 2015
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Syson View Post
... a VHF transmitter was interfering with and being demodulated by the OUTPUT of a FET power amplifier. There was no VHF present at the input to the amplifier.

Yikes.... Brings up memories of Spinal Tap.

Guess they need caps and inductors on the output filter



-tINY

Old 11th March 2015
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Hi tINY
Yes a filter fixed that problem.
The point of the illustration was that things can go go on that are not obvious without decent test gear and proper examination. Simply 'swapping' a cable and listening is not scientific enough.
Matt S
Old 12th March 2015
  #24

Yeah, and it can get worse:

I'm doing hardware validation on a test system with at least 30 VRs (1/3 are SMPS) ...and we care about 20mV of noise at 1GHz.....

Getting repeatable measurements is challenging at some point too.



-tINY

Old 14th March 2015
  #25
Lives for gear
 
lame pseudonym's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruphus View Post
I was trying to research whether there could be sense into using the left over core of a twisted pair balanced cable and adding it to either (-) or to the ground / shield when soldering TS cables.

"All thinking men are atheists." Ernest Hemingway

Bozus
Oh, I do that. Not for hi-impedance guitar cables but I do that. Cable makers and users think that the signal only goes through the center conductor but it's a circuit, including the neutral wire. The signal is just as dependent on the materials and construction of the shield, if it is the neutral conductor.

If I'm going to have a cable that's optimized for clean transmission I'm going to want both paths to be optimized for clean transmission, not one of them being a noisy braided shield made of who knows what and bonded on the outside to who knows what.

People who believe that it doesn't matter, don't bother responding. I know you're there.

Of course, the shield is grounded on one end only so it's not a conductor.



"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his own age." -G.K. Chesterson

Last edited by lame pseudonym; 16th March 2015 at 11:22 PM..
Old 14th March 2015
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Hi
In an UNBALANCED setup the shield/ground should have as low a resistance as possible as it is the 'reference' between one piece and the other.
Matt S
Old 14th March 2015
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Syson View Post
Hi
In an UNBALANCED setup the shield/ground should have as low a resistance as possible as it is the 'reference' between one piece and the other.
Matt S
I'll second that!
The shield/return should have as low end-to-end resistance as is reasonable.
Always chose a coax cable with a heavy braided shield. The longer the cable, the more important this is.
Old 14th March 2015
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Richard Crowley's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
Monster cable always leaves a bad taste in my mouth - their over the top criminal behaviour in regards to their business made too much impact. Monster Cable Shifts Back Into Lawsuit Gear Against Monster Transmission | Audioholics
I fully endorse a complete boycott of any product from "Monster Cable". The fact that they use sleazy tactics to sell monstrously overpriced, imported commodity goods would be bad enough. But the fact that they appear to have a "side-business" of suing every company in the country (or maybe the world?) with the name "Monster" just reduces them to despicable and contemptable.

Kurt Denke, president and founder of BlueJeans cable posted his legal encounter with Monster on his website. It makes for quite entertaining reading: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/

Last edited by Richard Crowley; 14th March 2015 at 10:44 PM..
Old 26th April 2015
  #29
Here for the gear
 

My opinion of monster: again

I don't like monster because they are manufactured overseas. If you look at their cable specifications, in all reality they suck. There is a reason they don't share their cable capacitance like other manufacturers do. I can find a much higher quality cable at a much lower price elsewhere and still receive the same warranty. What most people don't realize is that monster charges the price they do because they sell in stores. Those manufacturers who sell online don't have a middle man and so you get more cable for your money. This is the brand that I have been buying from. They offer real quality and are produced right here in the USA unlike monster who produces their cables overseas. Check out the company Edge of Sound. Ill attach a link: Edge of Sound's Homepage
Old 26th April 2015
  #30
Lives for gear
 
S2udio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnOwings View Post
I don't like monster because they are manufactured overseas. If you look at their cable specifications, in all reality they suck. There is a reason they don't share their cable capacitance like other manufacturers do. I can find a much higher quality cable at a much lower price elsewhere and still receive the same warranty. What most people don't realize is that monster charges the price they do because they sell in stores. Those manufacturers who sell online don't have a middle man and so you get more cable for your money. This is the brand that I have been buying from. They offer real quality and are produced right here in the USA unlike monster who produces their cables overseas. Check out the company Edge of Sound. Ill attach a link: Edge of Sound's Homepage
Goodluck.......$12 a foot ..........
Probably good value if you are in the USA and cable incompetant.
Otherwise ...buy a good soldering iron.
📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump