What interconnects for my amplifier?

[Speedskater]

The 50 or 75 Ohm Radio Frequency Characteristic Impedance has nothing to do with analog interconnect cables. Unless your cables are many miles long.
Almost all well made cables will have some Radio Frequency Characteristic Impedance. It's based on the RLC of the cable.
With interconnect cables, the thickness or gage of the central conductors doesn't matter. It could be very small but might break.
The RCA shield is another matter. A heavy braided shield is best.
As a side note. You could run a 1000 foot RCA coax interconnect to a battery powered receiver and only have small level and high frequency loses.

 

[Speedskater]

There is an agreed specification for cables. For audio RCA cables. Cables are specified in IEC 60958-3.
Many exotic cables do not when tested. Audio RCA cables are are 50 ohm impedance RCA digital cables 75 ohm.

Those are digital interconnect standards. NOT analog interconnects!

 

[PaulBe]

Here is a good no nonsense article that doesn't get too technical:

What is Impedance, Anyway?

What is Impedance, Anyway? -- Blue Jeans Cable

 

[PENG]

Here is a good no nonsense article that doesn't get too technical:

What is Impedance, Anyway?

What is Impedance, Anyway? -- Blue Jeans Cable

Another typical internet misinformation, surely not intentionally though. One can do better by simply going with Wiki's such as:

Characteristic impedance - Wikipedia

Site like those (BJ cable..) probably try to explain something that requires a fair bit of electrical circuit and field theory knowledge in what they thought might be "in simple English..".

 

[PENG]

You might want to look into the original reasons for XLR, which really doesn't need to be used- plenty of pro/commercial gear that uses complementary balanced circuitry has screw terminals or Euro-style plugs- it WAS for long runs and to eliminate noise but pro/commercial gear also uses Low Impedance circuitry, which prevents grund loops. The real kind, not the generic term for hum as so many inaccurately use it.

LoZ/balanced audio has been used for over 100 years.

Thanks, but why would I do that, what has that got to do with my post?

 

[PaulBe]

You might want to look into the original reasons for XLR, which really doesn't need to be used- plenty of pro/commercial gear that uses complementary balanced circuitry has screw terminals or Euro-style plugs- it WAS for long runs and to eliminate noise but pro/commercial gear also uses Low Impedance circuitry, which prevents grund loops. The real kind, not the generic term for hum as so many inaccurately use it.

LoZ/balanced audio has been used for over 100 years.

The original XLR was called a 'Canon' connector - because they were made by Canon. The style of balanced audio connection has nothing to do with the length of the run - it's just a matter of cost and what is most suited to the application. However, the best XLR connectors are much less expensive than fancy boutique RCA connectors - try offerings by Neglex, Amphenol, and Switchcraft. Both XLRs and RCAs can be uses for unbalanced connections - the connector doesn't care - and the XLR has a lock. The XLR uses more real-estate. The RCAs are smaller and normal molded consumer RCAs are cheaper.

Analog audio is a lump sum but terminating impedance does matter. Lower impedance terminations lower noise buildup. Sources with output capacitors may have compromised low frequency response when destination terminating impedance is too low.

Ground loops are eliminated by eliminating the... Loop - this is why you connect the cold and ground lines of unbalanced connections using XLRs OR RCAs and 3 wire cable ONLY at the source. The veracity of using 3 wire cable for unbalanced analog audio is questionable, but I have found that it doesn't hurt. I use short lengths of Canare L-4E6S Star Quad from my turntable to phono-pre, terminated with fancy Amphenol RCAs. I can't say I noticed any sound difference between these and the nice piece of coax unbalanced audio cable that came with the turntable. The main difference is the new runs are half the length and make a less messy install.

Pro audio did use low impedance connections long ago because tubes couldn't handle a direct connection to the line, and matching transformers were used - 600ohm - 600ohm. Current pro audio often uses a low impedance source to medium impedance destinations because multiple destinations can be accommodated without the need for expensive distribution amplifiers.

 

[highfigh]

Thanks, but why would I do that, what has that got to do with my post?

Was supposed to go to PaulBe. Sorry- first cup of the day.

 

[PaulBe]

Another typical internet misinformation, surely not internally though. One can do better by simply going with Wiki's such as:

Characteristic impedance - Wikipedia

Site like those (BJ cable..) probably try to explain something that requires a fair bit of electrical circuit and field theory knowledge in what they thought might be "in simple English..".

A non-technical person will get more out of the BJ article than the Wiki article. Both articles serve their purpose but to a different audience.

The BJ article serves common consumers, in simple English, who will never understand field theory as you and I learned in school. The BJ article gets as technical as most people will ever understand. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

If you are going to teach, respect the needs of the audience. When we learned the basics, we were both taught with analogies that didn't perfectly match reality. Yet, they served as adequate foundations for further and more in-depth study.

Edit - I'll bet that some of these boutique cables mess with the 'field' in detrimental ways. That makes a small difference, and the consumer who bought the expensive cable, and the BS that goes with it, is psychologically convinced that it is better.

 

[its phillip]

Some of yall need to learn how to quote posts

 

[PENG]

A non-technical person will get more out of the BJ article than the Wiki article. Both articles serve their purpose but to a different audience.

The BJ article serves common consumers, in simple English, who will never understand field theory as you and I learned in school. The BJ article gets as technical as most people will ever understand. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

If you are going to teach, respect the needs of the audience. When we learned the basics, we were both taught with analogies that didn't perfectly match reality. Yet, they served as adequate foundations for further and more in-depth study.

Edit - I'll bet that some of these boutique cables mess with the 'field' in detrimental ways. That makes a small difference, and the consumer who bought the expensive cable, and the BS that goes with it, is psychologically convinced that it is better.

I see your point except that imo a lengthy explanation like that might just defeat the purpose. I do agree with you, to a point.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I don’t do anything to impress others, public or private.

All I care about is feeling good about my HT in private.

That's all that matters, nothing more.

 

[Trell]

I see your point except that imo a lengthy explanation like that might just defeat the purpose. I do agree with you, to a point.

At least the article did not compare impedance with a car brake, or perhaps I missed that?

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

BTW- human hearing isn't so good that it hears what can't be measured and the mind plays a lot of tricks on us.

You mean we cannot hear what we cannot measure? Some believe in the supernatural, why not hear beyond science capability.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Three pages of this nonsense thread. You won’t be able to convince people of anything. Some people want to be fooled. Some want to fool.

There is a cup for every saucer. There is a grifter for every sucker.

"Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)"

Only three? I think historical records here have much longer dialogues over these matters.

 

[PaulBe]

I see your point except that imo a lengthy explanation like that might just defeat the purpose. I do agree with you, to a point.

I see your point. There is always a concern that too little information will not be enough, and too much information will add to confusion. No one will get it right for everyone.

 

[Trell]

I see your point. There is always a concern that too little information will not be enough, and too much information will add to confusion. No one will get it right for everyone.

90% to 100% of that article was a contorted car analogy.

 

[PaulBe]

90% to 100% of that article was a contorted car analogy.

Teach, oh Great One.

 

[Trell]

Teach, oh Great One.

Finally you show some proper deference, Padawan!

 

[PaulBe]

Finally you show some proper deference, Padawan!

You forgot the teaching... What you have to teach will determine Who is the 'Padawan'. Professor, I yield the floor.

 

[PENG]

90% to 100% of that article was a contorted car analogy.

That's my point, the first five paragraphs boils down to one sentence in the end "The "impedance" of the load represents the opposition to current flow which the load presents. "

I was being too harsh, in mentioning internet misinformation, that is hardly the case, so I am going to try and edit that out, just to be fair.