This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:09:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
To: joel williams <joel@emlinux.com>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241105500.15752-100000@george.he.net>
In-Reply-To: <3E5A6897.10906@emlinux.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 7
At Mon, 24 Feb 2003 it looks like joel williams composed:
> > I need to test Cat-5 UTP cable connections for the basic
> > stuff - short, crossed, reversed, split pair, etc.
> >
> > I don't have the BIG $ for the $2,000 - $8,000 meters.
> > About the best I can do is $400 - $600, which yields
> > meters like the Fluke 620 or Fluke MicroScanner.
>
>
Question,
I have a 1000' spool of Cat5 and was wondering if it could be used for
a 50' speaker run under a floor (crawl-space) of a home.
Using it soley for the LEFT and RIGHT speaker channels, could all 8
wires be utilized for the two channels in some respect?
This is for standard stereo music, not BOOM_BOX stuff, nothing loud or
intense.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:21:18 -0800
From: Aaron T Porter <atporter@primate.net>
To: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <20030224192118.GG1571@primate.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241105500.15752-100000@george.he.net>
References: <3E5A6897.10906@emlinux.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241105500.15752-100000@george.he.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 8
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 11:09:51AM -0800, Bill wrote:
> I have a 1000' spool of Cat5 and was wondering if it could be used for
> a 50' speaker run under a floor (crawl-space) of a home.
Sure, and depending on how crazy you want to get, you can hit
audiphile quality:
http://www.venhaus1.com/diycatfivecables.html
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:25:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030224192118.GG1571@primate.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 1
At Mon, 24 Feb 2003 it looks like Aaron T Porter composed:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 11:09:51AM -0800, Bill wrote:
> > I have a 1000' spool of Cat5 and was wondering if it could be used for
> > a 50' speaker run under a floor (crawl-space) of a home.
>
> Sure, and depending on how crazy you want to get, you can hit
> audiphile quality:
>
> http://www.venhaus1.com/diycatfivecables.html
>
Now that had some unexpected information on it....
In just powering two home speakers, should I run two lengths of cat5,
one for each channel and then "braid" all the ends of each? Is that
what your saying?
The site you referred to has some "high-end" sound in mind, I'm just
tying to utilized the 1000' spool of wire I have to see if I can put
sound into a room that is actually about thirty ( 30' ) from the stereo.
--
|<----------------------------Word_Wrap_At_72------------------------->|
"ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito"
Do not yield to misfortunes, but go more boldly to meet them.
Bill Schoolcraft
http://wiliweld.com
--===============094442862390688553==
Content-Type: message/rfc822
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:03:14 -0800
From: Marc MERLIN <marc_news@merlins.org>
To: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <20030224210314.GG8007@merlins.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
References: <20030224192118.GG1571@primate.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 2
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:25:34PM -0800, Bill wrote:
> > Sure, and depending on how crazy you want to get, you can hit
> > audiphile quality:
> >
> > http://www.venhaus1.com/diycatfivecables.html
> >
>
> Now that had some unexpected information on it....
>
> In just powering two home speakers, should I run two lengths of cat5,
> one for each channel and then "braid" all the ends of each? Is that
> what your saying?
I run sound over CAT-5 and through a patch panel. Works fine.
The only thing is that I run non amplified sound to amplified speakers
I don't know how well it would work if I were sending 80W worth of sound
through those tiny wires.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:42:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Herlein <gherlein@herlein.com>
To: joel williams <joel@emlinux.com>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241336210.28124-100000@tux.herlein.com>
In-Reply-To: <3E5A6897.10906@emlinux.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 4
> Note that 10BaseT does not use all of the 8 wires in the
> cable, whereas 100BaseT does use them all, so test with
> a hub for your intended application.
Uhm, 100BaseT uses the same 4 wires as 10BaseT - just at a higher
signal rate.
The remaining wires can be used for other things, like power
http://www.poweroverethernet.com/articles/overview_imp.html
Using a hub is a cheap way to test a cable, but be warned that I
have seen link light and STILL had a bad cable. YRMV. Also, the
hub failing link light just tells you that you have a bad cable,
not what is wrong (ie, split pair, etc).
I've used the relatively cheap Fluke tester with good
results. However, I found it really not all that necessary. Buy
good color coded CAT5 cable to start with, a good quality
crimper, and pay careful attention to your crimps. Unless you
are doing a high volume installation, a hub will work fine as a
fast test.
You're probably better off buying a good wire label maker and a
test tone wire locator kit. :)
Greg
--===============094442862390688553==
Content-Type: message/rfc822
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:46:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: Robert Hajime Lanning <lanning@lanning.cc>
To: Greg Herlein <gherlein@herlein.com>
Cc: "svlug@lists.svlug.org" <svlug@lists.svlug.org>
Cc: joel williams <joel@emlinux.com>
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302242144280.15218-100000@hamner.monsoonwind.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241336210.28124-100000@tux.herlein.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc
Message: 5
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Greg Herlein wrote:
> Uhm, 100BaseT uses the same 4 wires as 10BaseT - just at a higher
> signal rate.
>
> The remaining wires can be used for other things, like power
>
> http://www.poweroverethernet.com/articles/overview_imp.html
Cool, just doesn't work with Gig-over-copper. That does use all four
pairs.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:47:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Herlein <gherlein@herlein.com>
To: Marc MERLIN <marc_news@merlins.org>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Cc: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241342570.28124-100000@tux.herlein.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030224210314.GG8007@merlins.org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 6
> I don't know how well it would work if I were sending 80W worth of sound
> through those tiny wires.
Not recommended. Power over Ethernet is 48VDC current limited to
350mA - or about 13 Watts. :(
However, I'm not sure what the limiting factor is - it might be
the insultation melting point on the wire, or the small size of
the RJ45 pins. If you are pulling some of the wires out to a
seperate connector (as in the case of speakers) then the latter
may not be an issue for you.
It might be hard to get insulation specs on the cables though
since the manufacturers certainly did not get them rated for
that.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:51:02 -0800
From: Aaron T Porter <atporter@primate.net>
To: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <20030224215102.GJ1571@primate.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
References: <20030224192118.GG1571@primate.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 7
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:25:34PM -0800, Bill wrote:
> > http://www.venhaus1.com/diycatfivecables.html
>
> Now that had some unexpected information on it....
>
> In just powering two home speakers, should I run two lengths of cat5,
> one for each channel and then "braid" all the ends of each? Is that
> what your saying?
Oh, no. I was just including the link as an interesting asside
demonstrating how far some people have taken the audio over cat5 calbe
idea. Using single pairs (ie 4 wires per speaker total, 1 stero pair
per cat5) would be fine.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:53:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: Robert Hajime Lanning <lanning@lanning.cc>
To: Marc MERLIN <marc_news@merlins.org>
Cc: "svlug@lists.svlug.org" <svlug@lists.svlug.org>
Cc: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302242146490.15218-100000@hamner.monsoonwind.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030224210314.GG8007@merlins.org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc
Message: 8
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> I run sound over CAT-5 and through a patch panel. Works fine.
> The only thing is that I run non amplified sound to amplified speakers
> I don't know how well it would work if I were sending 80W worth of sound
> through those tiny wires.
>
> Marc
That is why you use multiple wires in parallel. In that article refered to
earlier, there are nine pairs used. (in the smallest cable)
The way you have it wired, I would only do it the way you are. Except, I
would look into balanced outputs. (XLR connections) This would work more
like 10Base-T with +/- pairs, to enhance noise rejection.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:07:16 -0800
From: Rick Schultz <bloodyvikings@sbcglobal.net>
To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Speaker Wire vs CAT5 (was Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test)
Message-ID: <20030224230716.GA3487@superhallway.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
References: <20030224192118.GG1571@primate.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 10
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:25:34PM -0800, Bill wrote:
> At Mon, 24 Feb 2003 it looks like Aaron T Porter composed:
> > http://www.venhaus1.com/diycatfivecables.html
No offense, but this guy says "Give them a while to break-in before
giving a seriously critical listen, though. They age nicely." I don't
know if I'd go taking electrical advice from him.
> The site you referred to has some "high-end" sound in mind, I'm just
> tying to utilized the 1000' spool of wire I have to see if I can put
> sound into a room that is actually about thirty ( 30' ) from the stereo.
CAT5 is 24 gauge. Most stuff sold as "speaker wire" is at least 18.
I use 16. For the length you're talking about, depending on the wattage
and the like, I'd probably go with 14. Fry's will sell you a 50ft.
spool for ten bucks. In a stuck-on-a-desert-island, MacGyver-type
situation, you could solder together 11 24-gauge wires for the
equivalent amount of metal, and you'd probably get a slightly different
frequency response out of it due to the skin effect, but only your dog
would notice[1], if anyone.
All in all, I'd say you're better off not wasting the time and effort.
my two cents,
rick
[1] I remember actually doing the math for this once during college. In
the end, it turned out that, in general, you're better off getting
higher gauge wire than you are spending wads of cash on wire with
individually insulated strands. Has anyone seen any convincing
arguments the other way on this (that aren't "expert testimonials") ?
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:09:13 -0800
From: Aaron T Porter <atporter@primate.net>
To: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <20030224230913.GL1571@primate.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241502390.26391-100000@george.he.net>
References: <20030224215102.GJ1571@primate.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241502390.26391-100000@george.he.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 11
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:07:02PM -0800, Bill wrote:
> Hmm, so you mean 4 wires for two speakers, correct?
>
> One left channel with one "+" and one "-" seperate speaker wire
> One right channel with one "+" and one "-" seperate speaker wire
>
> Means four wires total out of one cat5 cable right?
Personally, I'd do 4 wires per speaker.
One left channel with 1 twisted pair "+" and one twisted pair "-", etc
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:12:13 -0800
From: Aaron T Porter <atporter@primate.net>
To: Rick Schultz <bloodyvikings@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: Speaker Wire vs CAT5 (was Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test)
Message-ID: <20030224231213.GM1571@primate.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030224230716.GA3487@superhallway.com>
References: <20030224192118.GG1571@primate.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
<20030224230716.GA3487@superhallway.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 12
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:07:16PM -0800, Rick Schultz wrote:
> [1] I remember actually doing the math for this once during college. In
> the end, it turned out that, in general, you're better off getting
> higher gauge wire than you are spending wads of cash on wire with
> individually insulated strands. Has anyone seen any convincing
> arguments the other way on this (that aren't "expert testimonials") ?
You can't quantify anything with audiophiles. I've even seen
reviews attributing better sound to higher quality cables for optical
connections... digital optical connections.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:23:20 -0800
From: Jeffrey Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com>
To: Aaron T Porter <atporter@primate.net>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Cc: Bill <bill@wiliweld.com>
Subject: Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test
Message-ID: <3E5AA968.1060407@quiotix.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030224230913.GL1571@primate.net>
References: <20030224215102.GJ1571@primate.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241502390.26391-100000@george.he.net>
<20030224230913.GL1571@primate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 2
Content-Disposition: inline
Aaron T Porter wrote:
> Personally, I'd do 4 wires per speaker.
>
> One left channel with 1 twisted pair "+" and one twisted pair "-", etc
You're defeating the noise-rejection properties of twisted pair by doing
that.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:02:08 -0800
From: Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com>
To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: Speaker Wire vs CAT5 (was Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test)
Message-ID: <20030225030208.GA17287@synapse.neuralscape.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030224230716.GA3487@superhallway.com>
References: <20030224192118.GG1571@primate.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0302241219060.15752-100000@george.he.net>
<20030224230716.GA3487@superhallway.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 6
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:07:16PM -0800, Rick Schultz wrote:
>
> spool for ten bucks. In a stuck-on-a-desert-island, MacGyver-type
> situation, you could solder together 11 24-gauge wires for the
> equivalent amount of metal, and you'd probably get a slightly different
> frequency response out of it due to the skin effect, but only your dog
> would notice[1], if anyone.
Uhm, these audio signals are baseband. Skin effect is an RF issue related
to intrinic impedance of the line at RF frequencies. Baseband rounds of to
DC (0 Hz) in this case...
Issues that are of concern are impendance mismatches, ohmic losses in
the lines, and exceeding the power rating for the lines.
This is an interesting thread, but I would just go buy speaker wires...
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:47:34 -0800
From: "Ron Hinchley" <ron@biovalid.com>
To: "Aaron T Porter" <atporter@primate.net>,
"Rick Schultz" <bloodyvikings@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: RE: Speaker Wire vs CAT5 (was Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test)
Message-ID: <FNELJHFOOFGPHEAOBDDGCEJBCGAA.ron@biovalid.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030224231213.GM1571@primate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 11
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:07:16PM -0800, Rick Schultz wrote:
>
> > [1] I remember actually doing the math for this once during college. In
> > the end, it turned out that, in general, you're better off getting
> > higher gauge wire than you are spending wads of cash on wire with
> > individually insulated strands. Has anyone seen any convincing
> > arguments the other way on this (that aren't "expert testimonials") ?
>
> You can't quantify anything with audiophiles. I've even seen
> reviews attributing better sound to higher quality cables for optical
> connections... digital optical connections.
>
The skin effect is probably not insignificant, I would like to know the
penetratio-n at 20KHz. I think at 60Hz it is 1/4 inch.
But note that if speakers were powered, the speaker technology would no
longer be an defining issue to the audiophile. A pre-distorted waveform
could correct the speaker distortion, and any speaker that goes in and out
could be characterized for good performance given enough power with a
matched driver.
The speaker companies are like Cisco pushing obtuse technology so the torch
doesn't get passed. But somebody gets stuck in the end. You pay an extra
$900 on your speakers because they are a work of mechanical genius without
the two dollars of silicon.
===
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:12:43 -0800
From: Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com>
To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: Speaker Wire vs CAT5 (was Re: [svlug] re: Cat-5 Cable Test)
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 09:47:34PM -0800, Ron Hinchley wrote:
> The skin effect is probably not insignificant, I would like to know the
> penetratio-n at 20KHz. I think at 60Hz it is 1/4 inch.
For copper, the skin depth at 20KHz is about .12 inches. Now
these are round conductors, so we're talking about radius
rather than diameter. This means that for a wire with a 1/4
inch (0.25 inches) diameter, a 20KHz signal will interact
with the wire in a manner similar to a DC signal. The
diameter of the wires used in CAT5 cables and speaker wires
are smaller than 1/4 inch.
Anyway, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on skin depth. Skin
depth is more a measure devised to estimate the loss a
propagating plane wave will incur in traveling along a
surface with a finite conductivity. The wavelength of a
20Khz signal is about 15Km. The dimensions of these audio
circuits are not large enough to support a propagating wave
at baseband audio frequencies.
===
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:30:16 -0500
From: Walter Reed <wreed@hubinternet.com>
To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: [svlug] Digital Speakers (Was Re: Speaker Wire vs CAT5)
Speaking of using Cat5 to run speakers, is anyone aware of
self powered speakers that use digital signals instead of
wireless or line level?
===