gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Jim Brown, Audio Engineering Society past committee chair on EMI/RFI writes:

Output Wiring is Important Too! It is well known, for example, that RF interference is often coupled
into the output stage of audio equipment – for example, the power amplifiers that feed loudspeakers
or headphones. There is always feedback around that output stage, so RF present at the
output will follow the feedback network to the input of a gain stage, where it will be detected and
amplified. This problem is made much worse when parallel wire cable (zip cord) is used to feed
the loudspeakers or headphones, and can usually be solved simply by replacing the zip cord with a
twisted pair of POC (plain ordinary copper). [Pseudo-scientific advertising hype for exotic cables
notwithstanding, it was shown nearly 30 years ago that #12 copper twisted pair (or #10 for very
long runs) is a nearly ideal loudspeaker cable.] As we will discuss later, the twisting of a pair greatly reduces the
level of RF that the wiring couples to circuitry.

This is from (don't let the title fool you, this started a a audio system paper then he added lots of Ham information.

"A Ham's Guide to RFI, Ferrites, Baluns, and Audio Interfacing"

by Jim Brown K9YC
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Audio Systems Group, Inc. Home Page
Audio Systems Group, Inc. Publications

The basis of this tutorial is a combination of my engineering education, 55 years in ham radio, my
work as vice-chair of the AES Standards Committee working group on EMC, and extensive research
on RFI in the pro audio world where I’ve made my living. That work is documented in technical
papers and tutorials that can be downloaded from the publications section of my website.

more at:
http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf
Thanks, I've never seen this. However all of my telcom work of the past has been with twister pair wiring. Personally I've NEVER seen or measured an RFI problem with speaker cables or audio amplifiers especially if everything is designed properly with a solid grounding scheme. I don't operate HAM radio so I suspect that in itself has it's own issues to contend with. I was speaking strictly about audio amplifiers connected to speaker leads. I just NEVER see RFI ingress as being an issue. Now with some Class D amps, I suppose its more a likely possibility. Hence why twisted pair cabling with a shield would help.

We actually have an article on this topic here:
Bulletproofing Your System from Interference | Audioholics

and here: http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/cable-budget-guidelines

But I rarely recommend going to shielded twisted speaker cables b/c so few people use AM radios these days that RFI ingress is just not a significant issue.
 
Last edited:
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
I was curious as to who that guy was, so I looked up the book on amazon. If anybody is interested, here is a little information:


His book has great reviews but I'm guessing it's too advanced for an uneducated guy such as myself :)
I already own this one. Good stuff.
 
Last edited:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
RFI is not at audio frequencies, it's Radio Frequency Interference. The schematic in the back of a manual is the audio frequency schematic, at radio frequencies there are lots of hidden paths that are not on the schematic.
Well that's a matter of perspective since I consider any type of electrical interference to be RFI or EMI related. AM is more susceptible to noise than FM because noise affects amplitude which is where the audio signal is stored in an AM signal.
 
Speedskater

Speedskater

Audioholic General
In the Bob Cordell book, see page 378.

C o n t e n t s 18
Interfacing the Real World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
18.1 The Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
The Loudspeaker Is Not a Resistive Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Transmission Line Effects of Speaker Cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
18.2 EMI Ingress: Antennas Everywhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
RFI and EMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
EMI Ingress from the Amplifier Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
Implications for Input Stage Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
EMI Ingress from the Loudspeaker Cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
Implications for Output Network Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Implications for Feedback Network Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
EMI Ingress from the Mains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
EMI Distortion Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
18.3 Input Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Achieving a Linear Phase Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
18.4 Input Ground Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Ground Break Resistor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Balanced Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Interconnect Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
18.5 Mains Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
Line Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
Ferrites and Inductors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
18.6 EMI Egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
18.7 EMI Susceptibility Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
Cell Phones and Electric Drills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
EMI Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
I like the folks at Kimber. They make a nice product. Yes some of their claims are questionable. My articles debunk the nonsense around cables very clearly. It's up to the reader to decide if a particular product is or is NOT for them. There is a lot of abuse in science in the audio industry, especially by some loudspeaker companies that claim to cherish science. But people love to jump on the cable vendors b/c it's a much easier target. Personally I cut them some slack if they don't violate basic EE principles to sell their products and their products actually measure well.
And this that acknowledgement I officially remove my tin foil hat .... for now
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Transmission Line Effects of Speaker Cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
OK now this just makes me question the credibility of the whole book based on this very topic. The author doesn't recognize that TL effects of speaker cables are negligible and completely swamped out by insertion loss effects of resistance far before the cable lengths become long enough to be of concern.

At 20kHz, the 1/4 wavelength is 3,750 meters. I don't know of any speaker cable runs that long :) and insertion loss would certainly kill you before TL effects even matter.
 
Last edited:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
bears_t2

bears_t2

Junior Audioholic
I just hope they dont make the book into a 3 part movie like the hobbit :)
 
R

ReUpRo

Full Audioholic
OK now this just makes me question the credibility of the whole book based on this very topic if the author doesn't recognize that TL effects of speaker cables are negligible and completely swamped out by insertion loss effects of resistance far before the cable lengths become long enough to be of concern.

At 20kHz, the 1/4 wavelength is 3,750 meters. I don't know of any speaker cable runs that long :) and insertion loss would certainly kill you before TL effects even matter.
I'm very impressed that you can judge a book and dismiss the author based on its Table of Contents. Maybe, the author came to the same conclusion you state.

Ironically, your frequency to wavelength calculation is incorrect. The online conversion tool said, it should be about 0.0043m.

You are engaging in behavior that would get other forum members a ton of red Chiclets, labeled troll and/or banned. IMHO, this thread is going nowhere, might as well close the topic before it turns into a blood bath.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Ironically, your frequency to wavelength calculation is incorrect. The online conversion tool said, it should be about 0.0043m.
I think you are confusing the speed of sound and the speed of light. Signals in cable are a bit below the speed of light.
 
R

ReUpRo

Full Audioholic
I think you are confusing the speed of sound and the speed of light. Signals in cable are a bit below the speed of light.
Oh Sweet Jesus.
Ironically, your frequency to wavelength calculation is incorrect. The online conversion tool said, it should be about 0.0043m.
Open mouth insert foot. I'm out for the day.

Sorry Gene.
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
Oh Sweet Jesus.
Open mouth insert foot. I'm out for the day.

Sorry Gene.
This has to be the best post I've seen all day!

I do commend you for admitting a mistake, a lot of people can't or won't do that!
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
I'm very impressed that you can judge a book and dismiss the author based on its Table of Contents. Maybe, the author came to the same conclusion you state.

Ironically, your frequency to wavelength calculation is incorrect. The online conversion tool said, it should be about 0.0043m.

You are engaging in behavior that would get other forum members a ton of red Chiclets, labeled troll and/or banned. IMHO, this thread is going nowhere, might as well close the topic before it turns into a blood bath.

I doubt it but if the book states TL is not an issue then I stand corrected.

No bloodbath here just facts.

Your math is wrong using the speed of sound. Most consumers don't have even a basic grasp of EE hence why wild eye pseudo science thrives in this industry.
 
Speedskater

Speedskater

Audioholic General
OK now this just makes me question the credibility of the whole book based on this very topic. The author doesn't recognize that TL effects of speaker cables are negligible and completely swamped out by insertion loss effects of resistance far before the cable lengths become long enough to be of concern.

At 20kHz, the 1/4 wavelength is 3,750 meters. I don't know of any speaker cable runs that long :) and insertion loss would certainly kill you before TL effects even matter.
Once again, here we go. While this is very true at audio frequencies, but at radio frequencies is not. Almost 20 years ago, Cyril Bateman demonstrated that a SS amp output through a common speaker cable to a common loudspeaker can ring or even oscillate at radio frequencies.

The links to these articles move around.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><![endif]--> Cyril Bateman Articles
Electronics World Magazine

Measuring Speaker Cables: 1 Cyril Bateman Dec 1996 p925
Measuring Speaker Cables: 2 Cyril Bateman Jan 1997 p52
Measuring Speaker Cables: 3 Cyril Bateman Feb 1997 p119




<!--[if gte mso 9]><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <![endif]-->
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

ReUpRo

Full Audioholic
Your math is wrong using the speed of sound. Most consumers don't have even a basic grasp of EE hence why wild eye pseudo science thrives in this industry.
Yup, I'm going back to 5th grade.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top