Bummer, Dan - jneutron - Propeller Head Plaza

Bummer, Dan

Posted by jneutron (A) on March 24, 2004 at 14:22:30

In Reply to: Another Perspective posted by Dan Banquer on March 24, 2004 at 13:26:53:

You should have waited a few days....because of this:

Bruno: ""Or will it? There's one well known (and usually ignored) effect in unbalanced connections, which is that the same conductor that connects the chassis also serves as reference to the signal. In a normal cable, these are 100% coupled, which means that the part of the chassis error voltage that drops across the inductive part of the cable impedance (end-to-end impedance of the shield) will couple into the conductor and be compensated 100% (Yes! Unbalanced connections have got CMRR in some way). However, lower frequencies will cause more voltage drop across the resistive component of the shield, and this appears as an error voltage at the receiving end. Take a coaxial cable, take the jacket (sheath) off and dress it in a number of extra layers of shield salvaged from other cables. Hear the sound improve... This addresses the same problem as "mains conditioners" but it does so much more effectively.

He hasn't correctly considered the way a shield works..

A current in a shield does not couple to the internal conductor..it can't, because there is no magnetic field within the shield...

If you peruse the posts at AH, you will see what I am talking about..

Geeze....coupla days...Oh well.

Bruno didn't have a correct understanding of shielding/coaxial currents...his example was actually a coaxial CVR example...I use them a lot at work..

Cheers, John

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Another Perspective - Dan Banquer 13:26:53 03/24/04 (18)

Thanks Dan.. - slope 19:29:13 03/24/04 (13)

Re: Thanks Dan.. - Dan Banquer 03:02:23 03/25/04 (12)

Re: Thanks Dan.. - slope 09:43:12 03/25/04 (11)

Re: Thanks Dan.. - Dan Banquer 10:10:36 03/25/04 (10)

You raise a very good point... - slope 15:55:59 03/25/04 (9)

Be careful of standards.... - Commuteman 16:45:59 03/26/04 (1)

Re: Be careful of standards.... - Dan Banquer 18:00:13 03/26/04 (0)

Re: You raise a very good point... - Dan Banquer 06:42:54 03/26/04 (6)

OK.. Redbook is a fine standard... - slope 15:09:04 03/26/04 (5)

Re: OK.. Redbook is a fine standard... - Dan Banquer 17:55:49 03/26/04 (0)

Re: OK.. Redbook is a fine standard... - Phil Tower 16:18:09 03/26/04 (3)

Re: OK.. Redbook is a fine standard... - Dan Banquer 03:26:52 03/27/04 (2)

Re: OK.. Redbook is a fine standard... - Phil Tower 04:10:21 03/27/04 (1)

Re: OK.. Redbook is a fine standard... - Dan Banquer 06:39:15 03/27/04 (0)

Bummer, Dan - jneutron 14:22:30 03/24/04 (3)

OK...I'll bite - slope 19:30:44 03/24/04 (1)

OH yah...forgot about that. - jneutron 06:59:45 03/25/04 (0)

Re: Bummer, Dan - Dan Banquer 14:35:55 03/24/04 (0)

Follow Ups

Bummer, Dan - jneutron 14:22:30 03/24/04 (3)

OK...I'll bite - slope 19:30:44 03/24/04 (1)

OH yah...forgot about that. - jneutron 06:59:45 03/25/04 (0)

Re: Bummer, Dan - Dan Banquer 14:35:55 03/24/04 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.