# ssabripo's DIY Interconnect cables Tutorial: $200 cables for 1/10 th the cost!



## ssabripo

I've been doing these cables for a couple of years now for myself and many audio friends and family, so rather than keep explaining the procedure one on one, I've decided to post it here for you boys and girls. These interconnect cables are about the best quality you can get south of silver cables, and you wont have to sell your Pre/Pro to get them! hehehe.

*Materials/Tools:*


some of the tools you will need:

1) Coax Stripper: Canare TS-5C $60 or TS-100E $99 ( http://www.markertek.com/SearchProdu...=TS100E&off=68 )

2) Crimp Handle: Parts Express # 360-680 $15

3) Wire Stripper and cutter

4) exacto knife or blade knife

5) scissors

6) Heat gun
 (click to enlarge)


Your materials will consist of:

1) _*Belden 89259 cable:*_ the dielectric, the teflon, and the quality of copper used in this wire makes it a prime candidate for high-end cables. The outer diameter of the 89259 center conductor (.030 in.) and the nominal core OD (.135 in, also called the insulator OD) make this cable also very easy to handle.
 


2) _*Canare RCAP-C4F die*_: this is one of the best bang for buck caps for cable endings. Gold plated ends, extremely low impedance material, and best of all, the perfect fit for the Belden 89259 cable.


3a) _* Techflex 3/8" Sleeving *_: This will make your cables look as good as they sound, while protecting the cable from cuts, etc. After all, you dont put cheap Goodyear's on your Porsche, do you?

3b) Belden 9259 cable: As an alternate, I've used belden 9259 cable to strip the outer mesh from it, and use that as the sleeving: it looks nicer, it protects better, and since it is non-plastic nor rubber, it has less issues with heat, etc. This is my sleeving of choice, but it is a lot of work, and most people are content when they go with option 3a.


4) _* 19mm HeatShrink *_ : This is very important, as it will not only protect the ends, but keep everything tidy! You can also use 5/8" heatshrink if needed.


5) _*Electrical tape.*_
 


*Construction:*

*Step1*

Cut the desired length of Belden 89259 cable you will be using; in this example, I have used a 3ft length per cable, and constructed 5 of them (for interconnects between the Pre/Pro and amplifier). I suggest you cut all the lengths at once. Before you start cutting, place your scissors onto the stove to heat up...you will need that for step 2 in a couple of minutes.

*Step2*

Once done, Cut the Techflex in the same length of the cables minus 2.5inches (so if your cable was exactly 3ft, your techflex will be 2ft -9.5in). The techflex is expandable so you want to be able to pull it a little to mesh with the thickness of the cable. You will have to cut this with a *hot scissor*! do NOT use a regular scissors or knifes, as you will most likely start to untangle the braid of the techflex and it will be a nightmare to fix!


If you are using option 3b, and are gonna be using Belden 9259, you will have to cut the length equal to the length of the Belden 89259 (step1) minus 1.5 inches. With an exacto knife or box cutters, lightly cut the outer covering of the 9259, and remove. The Gently pull the mesh out and keep it aside.

*Step3*

With the TS-100E or equivalent stripper, strip the 89259 cable for about 1.2 inches. The rule of thumb I use is that I measure the cable from where the lettering on the Canare RCAP-C4F starts until its end, and then use that as my measuring stick to get exact. You will need to adjust your stripper so that doesn't cut thru the outer mesh and the telfon. Leave about 1/4" length of the inner core wire to stick out, as this is what you will use to crimp the pin on. Pull back the outer mesh gently to the side (creating an umbrella). Your wire should look like this:
 

*Step4*

With the Crimper (shown above in orange), crimp on the small pin onto the inner core, and then try it to make sure it's not lose. Then proceed to gently push it onto the outer cap....you should hear a slight click. Once there, use the scissors to trim the outer mesh so that it fits just flush with the lower part of the cap. Give it a nice haircut...don't leave any strands dangling outside as it will look not only ugly, but could cause shorts.
 

*Step5*

Slide the center crimp jacket flush with the cap body, and make sure everything is in place. Don't push hard enough as it could push the small pin out of place. With the crimp handle, proceed to crimp the jacket. You should now look like:
 

(notice the one little strand of wire sticking out? with a razor blade or exacto knife, make sure you clean all of that out!)

*Step5*

Pull the techflex through your wire, and leave it half way from the crimped jacket. You will be using electrical tape to keep it in place until you heatshrink wrap it, thus you need the tape to stick to the metal jacket to hold the techflex in place (ditto if you are using the Belden 9259 as the outer sleeving). Tape the sleeving onto the jacket, but do NOT use too much...a small piece of tape just to hold it in place should be plenty:


----------



## ssabripo

*Step6*

Cut a piece of heatshrink of about 2-3" long (or enough to cover from the end of the CAP where the jacket was crimped to, until you cover the electrical tape). With a heat gun, apply the heatshrink so that it will hold everything in place. Make sure you do not keep the heatgun against the techflex sleeving, as it will melt it:
 

*Step7*

So you are now DONE with one side, so pay attention: *make sure you put another piece of heatshrink and the Canare Crimp Jacket from step5 on the other end!!* Most people I've showed this to undoubtedly forget to do this and end up having to redo one side because they forgot to put the jacket or the heatshrink in before they started to strip the wire on the other end!!

Repeat steps 3-6, and you are done!



So there you have it folks....you have now made yourself cables that have better transfer than Monster(crap) M950i cables or the Tributaries SCA 150 cables . I've played with this cable against several Kimber Cables as well such as their "Hero" series and it blew it out of the water. The only cable that I've been able to use under $500 that sounded as good (slightly better actually) were the Panther DBS Interconnect cables ($525/pr) , and that outta put these in perspective for you!
   


You can play with different color sleeving from techflex, or different heatshrink colors to separate each channel, etc. For example, if you had chosen option 3a and used the Belden 9259, you would have looked like this:
 



Hope this helps some of you, and enjoy!!


ps- more pics found at http://community.webshots.com/user/ssabripo (link in my sig)


----------



## AcuraCL

How much do you sell them for?


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AcuraCL* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How much do you sell them for?



I dont!










I just make them for my own use...I made this Tutorial for you guys! get the parts, and make it yourself in one week night.


Next time you need interconnect cables, you know how to do it yourself!


----------



## AcuraCL

Dude, you should sell 'em here. You'd get rich, be able to retire and buy new audio gear every week !


----------



## chasw98

Very nice job there sab! I would like to listen yours against the Blue Jeans Cable LC-1 wire with Canare RCAP's.
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...sign-notes.htm 

A 4 foot length of the LC-1 with RCAP's sells for $17.00. OTOH, I have always wanted a full set of the Canare crimp tools, just couldn't justify the cost.


Chuck


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chasw98* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Very nice job there sab! I would like to listen yours against the Blue Jeans Cable LC-1 wire with Canare RCAP's.
> http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...sign-notes.htm
> 
> A 4 foot length of the LC-1 with RCAP's sells for $17.00. OTOH, I have always wanted a full set of the Canare crimp tools, just couldn't justify the cost.
> 
> 
> Chuck



the LC-1 would fare ok but not as good, as the LC-1 uses the canare LV-77S , which has higher capacitance and more "hum" than the Belden 89259. I will look for the post over at AudioAsylum about. It will be hard to get anything better than the 89259 in terms of "cheap" cable with the low impedance and capacitance, unless you start to look at silver braids!










The LC-1 is an excellent buy, and my first choice if "buying" something....but since I like to do my own stuff when possible, and since these cables will sound cleaner than the LC-1, I go this route.


the only problem is getting a hold of Belden 89259 by the foot....my old provider is gone, and it took me forever to get a hold of 20ft of it this time around!







Unless you are willing to fork up $300 for a spool










ps- keep in mind that the LC-1 is more of a subwoofer cable


----------



## Naylia

Very cool







I've been making my own coax cables and ethernet cables this summer, I guess next time I need new interconnets I'll have to give this a shot.


----------



## Chu Gai

A very thoughtful and useful post. Nice job.


----------



## KurtBJC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> the LC-1 would fare ok but not as good, as the LC-1 uses the canare LV-77S , which has higher capacitance and more "hum" than the Belden 89259.



Where did you get that idea? We do sell Canare LV-77S, but it's not the same as the LC-1, which is a custom cable manufactured to our specifications by Belden. The LC-1 shielding is much heavier, and capacitance much lower, than 89259.


Kurt

Blue Jeans Cable


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KurtBJC* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where did you get that idea? We do sell Canare LV-77S, but it's not the same as the LC-1, which is a custom cable manufactured to our specifications by Belden. The LC-1 shielding is much heavier, and capacitance much lower, than 89259.
> 
> 
> Kurt
> 
> Blue Jeans Cable



I'll look it up Kurt....there was a nice post about this a while ago on audioasylum regarding the differences between the different belden cables. Correct me if I'm wrong, which I certainly am often (







), but isn't the LV-77s almost identical to the Belden 8281? As I recall, the 89259 is a much better conductor than the 8281 in terms of lower capacitance and lower transient impedance.


either way, the LC-1 is an outstanding cable as I mentioned...I've recommended it as well as your 4S11 based speaker cables to most that I know who want to buy something made already.


cheers.


----------



## jakeman

Outstanding posts and thread Shervin. You outdid yourself this time.


----------



## Targus




> Quote:
> transient impedance



Could you define this term , please?


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Targus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Could you define this term , please?



my own term for "shielding"







........... shielding is such a simple and overused word, so i made my own term a while back to "impress the ladies"










no, but basically, as kurt and many others will tell you, shielding and capacitance are probably 2 of the most important things in cabling; in terms of "shielding", unless you are running balanced, the better the shielding the more success you will have in keeping external noise from being induced in your signal....unfortunately most cables used are unbalanced, and thus suffer from more CMN (Common Mode Noise)....thus, I look at this as "impeding" the signal from being unnaffected during this path, and since it is not Impedance in the sense of electrical "resistance" but just induced noise, I call it _transient impedance_.










hey, at least the ladies like it!


----------



## Targus




> Quote:
> shielding and capacitance are probably 2 of the most important things in cabling;



I think inductance and resistance play a big part as well.



> Quote:
> unless you are running balanced, the better the shielding the more success you will have in keeping external noise from being induced in your signal.



Unless the external noise is induced by a strong magnetic feild...which an electrostatic sheild has no effect on.



> Quote:
> I call it transient impedance.



So, you've taken words, that you really don't know the meaning of, and attempted to impress those of us who do know the meaning.


It didn't work.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Targus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think inductance and resistance play a big part as well.



this is a given....kinda like saying the size of the motor and suspension play a big part in a race car as well. Most of the wires, whether in coax cables or what have you, are copper or copper based, and their "inductance and resistance" will remain fairly equal.


but given your following replies, I see where you are going with this....












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Targus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Unless the external noise is induced by a strong magnetic feild...which an electrostatic sheild has no effect on.



interesing...and you wrote this thesis when??? so I guess all of us hobbyists, and even the commercial companies have been wrong all along! even in the link posted earlier from BJC is obviously wrong too:


> Quote:
> These two attributes, shielding and capacitance, are the most important factors in unbalanced audio cable quality. Shielding is important, of course, because it keeps out externally-induced noise, and because unbalanced audio, unlike balanced audio, can't take advantage of common-mode noise rejection. Capacitance contributes to high-frequency rolloff, so the lower the capacitance of the cable, the flatter the frequency response in any given application (how flat will depend on the device impedances as well as the capacitance, so it's not possible to generate a one-size-fits-all frequency response chart; but in every case, the lower the capacitance, the flatter that curve will be). Capacitance, like many cable attributes, is a per-foot characteristic; while high capacitance won't ordinarily make a significant difference in short runs, it becomes an increasing problem with longer runs.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Targus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So, you've taken words, that you really don't know the meaning of, and attempted to impress those of us who do know the meaning.
> 
> It didn't work.



LOL! nice try....


rather than getting into a pissing contest with someone who obviously enjoys just posting on threads to stir the pot, I'll let you do a "search" to see how obvious it is that I don't what I'm talking about.....and feel free to look me up on the Georgia Tech alumni association as well (Gatech EE class of '94, MSEE and MSCE class of 2000....Shervin Sabripour).


Finally, I posted this thread to help most of my fellow AVSers....kinda giving back to the community as much as I've learned. This is not a contest, nor am I trying to take anything away from commercial offerings. I dont sell anything, and I dont get anything from posting this here.


Here is the guide to build the cables...you can use it if you like, or you can choose not to. There is no debate here, and there is no reviews or comparisons. If any of you have any questions on building the cables, let me know and I'll gladly help.....I'm will not get into idiotic thread bashing replies.


----------



## Targus




> Quote:
> I'll let you do a "search" to see how obvious it is that I don't what I'm talking about



No need to search, you admitted to making stuff up in an attempt to impress....I'm just letting you know, you haven't impressed everyone.


----------



## KurtBJC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ...isn't the LV-77s almost identical to the Belden 8281? As I recall, the 89259 is a much better conductor than the 8281 in terms of lower capacitance and lower transient impedance.




Close. LV-77S is pretty much identical to Belden 8281F (not standard 8281, which has a braid/foil shield, a solid center conductor, and a less flexible jacket), the biggest difference being that LV-77S has a bare copper shield while the 8281F has a tinned copper shield. But LC-1 isn't 8281F relabeled; the dielectric is low-density foam PE and the center conductor is 25 AWG, which results in a capacitance of 12.2 pF/ft.


I can't say the term "transient impedance" makes much sense to me as a way of describing shielding, but I would be very surprised if you could find any measure of shield effectiveness where 89259, with a single braid shield, outperforms a high-coverage double braid in any part of the audio or radio spectrum. Did you mean "transfer impedance?" That's one good measure of shield effectiveness; I don't have any numbers on transfer impedance handy for 89259 or for the double-braid type shields, but in general as one goes to low frequencies (e.g., the whole audio spectrum) the total mass of the shield plays a larger and larger part in shield effectiveness.


The kind comments are much appreciated, and you've done a nice job with your DIY instructions and illustrations. I just wanted to jump in here because I don't want people to think that our LC-1 is just a repackaged stock product, or that it can be used interchangeably with video cable.


Kurt


----------



## jakeman

I'm impressed he took the time and effort to put together such a well thought our DIY cable thread.


----------



## ssabripo

much appreciated in the info on the LV-77S Kurt.....good stuff. I didn't know that LC-1 was based on the 25AWG conductor....I always thought it was done with the LV-77S, so my mistake!










and yes, my english sucks pretty much...this is commonly known around here as it is my 3rd language







. I've been using "transient impedance" all this time when the correct word was "transfer". hehe. few years back when I started doing my own cables, and while doing research on wires, etc, I ran across the term on on of Belden's manuals.....actually it's similar to this:
http://www.belden.com/pdfs/TechInfo/TechTransfer.htm 

thanks for the correction there as well.


and no problems on the references...I have and will continue to do so, as you make (IMO) the best commercial cables bang-for-buck....BAR NONE!!!







Unless of course, you go DIY..heheh.


-Sherv


----------



## JDHarding

I've bought BJC cables in the past, and still buy their Belden 5000UE speaker cable when I need it. BJC is only so many miles from my house, so shipping only takes a day.


I think they need to start selling their coax stuff by the foot. Infact, make DIY kits so we don't have to pay for the work. The newbs can pay for the custom work. 


Just add the coax plugs as a buyable item. Ship them with some shrink tubing. When they sent me their canare banana plugs, they came with shrink tubing and everything, so why not send their coax plugs with shrink tubing and sell the cable by the foot? Saves us DIYers some cash.


----------



## Greg_R

Great writeup Sherv! Here's another website with a good write-up for building Belden / Canare cables (it has some sources for the parts you mention).



> Quote:
> No need to search, you admitted to making stuff up in an attempt to impress....I'm just letting you know, you haven't impressed everyone.



Targus, have you ever written a post that was positive in nature?


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Greg_R* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Great writeup Sherv! Here's another website with a good write-up for building Belden / Canare cables (it has some sources for the parts you mention).



wow...excellent link Greg...cool!










this guy used parts similar to mine, and the cables actually look alike!!










great minds think alike I suppose...hahaha.


----------



## jakeman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KurtBJC* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ... but I would be very surprised if you could find any measure of shield effectiveness where 89259, with a single braid shield, outperforms a high-coverage double braid in any part of the audio or radio spectrum. Did you mean "transfer impedance?" That's one good measure of shield effectiveness; I don't have any numbers on transfer impedance handy for 89259 or for the double-braid type shields, but in general as one goes to low frequencies (e.g., the whole audio spectrum) the total mass of the shield plays a larger and larger part in shield effectiveness.
> 
> Kurt



I am intrigued by these statements. As best as I have been able to determine both through my experiments, after enlisting the aid of several cable audiophiles , comparing various Belden cables and having them lab tested it is not scientifically possible to ascertain much difference between the Belden cables.


While I do believe that capacitance and inductance can influence certain characteristics particularly when the dampening factor of the amp is taken into consideration, I have had difficulty convincing myself that the audible difference is verifiable in listening tests. More to the point does it really matter if one uses Blue Jean 1505f, L-4CFB, 89259, or LV-77S ?


I thought we detected an audible difference between 1505f and L-4CFB (1505f detrimentally affects low frequency response compared to L-4CFB) but so much depends on the cable interaction with the rest of the system particularly the amp that I remain uncertain and admittedly somewhat sceptical about any audible difference between these cables let alone one outperforming another, whatever that means.


----------



## CJO

Nice writeup.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> *Step3*
> 
> With the TS-100E or equivalent stripper, strip the 89259 cable for about 1.2 inches. The rule of thumb I use is that I measure the cable from where the lettering on the Canare RCAP-C4F starts until its end, and then use that as my measuring stick to get exact. You will need to adjust your stripper so that doesn't cut thru the outer mesh and the telfon. Leave about 1/4" length of the inner core wire to stick out, as this is what you will use to crimp the pin on.



Why are you bothering to measure? Doesn't the stripper cut the jacket and shield/dielectric to the correct lengths? Mine does.


CJ


----------



## Rick Sass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Greg_R* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Great writeup Sherv! Here's another website with a good write-up for building Belden / Canare cables (it has some sources for the parts you mention).
> 
> 
> Targus, have you ever written a post that was positive in nature?



The url above does not work for me; I get "page not found" message.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CJO* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Nice writeup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you bothering to measure? Doesn't the stripper cut the jacket and shield/dielectric to the correct lengths? Mine does.
> 
> 
> CJ



nope, mine doesn't. The length of the inner core is very small (enough to just fit the portion of the pin to be crimped), while the length of the dielectric is closer to 3/4". The stripper at default would cut it something like this (almost equal lenghts):










what you want is to end up with a cut more like this, with a small cut for the inner core, and a longer cut for the outer shield piece:
 (click to enlarge)

Notice that the inner core I left longer in this picture for demo purposes on pulling the shielding back....it wont be that long, more like 1/3 that size.


there may be strippers out there that may be able to cut the 89259 to these wierd lenghts, but I haven't found one......if you do, please post it here!


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rick Sass* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The url above does not work for me; I get "page not found" message.



when you get that page, look into your address bar and delete the jiberish that appears after the *.htm* and you will reload it.


----------



## Rick Sass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> when you get that page, look into your address bar and delete the jiberish that appears after the *.htm* and you will reload it.



Got it - thanx.


----------



## Buzz38

If you follow that link to the other DIY project you can see he uses tips on the end of the wire and doesn't need to cut the cable to your length. I have no idea if those tips are better or not. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks for your time and effort here.


----------



## KurtBJC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jakeman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> While I do believe that capacitance and inductance can influence certain characteristics particularly when the dampening factor of the amp is taken into consideration, I have had difficulty convincing myself that the audible difference is verifiable in listening tests. More to the point does it really matter if one uses Blue Jean 1505f, L-4CFB, 89259, or LV-77S ?



Well, in the majority of applications there isn't going to be any effective difference. The issue I was writing about, and to which you responded, was shield effectiveness, and one of the things about shield effectiveness is that whether it's critically important, moderately important, of little importance or of no importance at all depends very much on the environment in which the product is used. In a hypothetical utterly-noise-free environment, it could not possibly make a difference to sound quality; in a very noisy environment, it certainly can. And it depends on the type of noise, and whether the equipment's susceptible to it.


Capacitance, similarly, is very application-dependent. My brother is the family audio engineer, and down the street at the facility where he works, he had a heck of a problem with a particular mike preamp, which had a horribly uneven frequency response. It turned out that the preamp just couldn't handle the capacitance of the cable coming out of it. But in short lengths, of course, the capacitance becomes a small factor. Comparison of the cables you list wouldn't amount to much, capacitance-wise, because apart from LV-77S, they're all in the 17 pF/ft range. And how much capacitance affects the frequency response curve depends on device input and output impedances, and on how much those impedances vary with frequency--so in one application it's liable to be critical, and in another application completely unimportant.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Buzz38* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If you follow that link to the other DIY project you can see he uses tips on the end of the wire and doesn't need to cut the cable to your length. I have no idea if those tips are better or not. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks for your time and effort here.



no problem.


Maybe he is using a different stripper, although from the website sounds like the one I'm using. I can tell you though, that with the stripper I have, the cuts are not properly aligned.


good info though










as I always tell everyone, always make a couple of practice cuts on a spare piece before beginnning surgery


----------



## Rick Sass

When going to the Markertek link above, the Canare RCAP-C4F connector and die is listed as being for Belden 8241 cable. So will the connectors and die as listed above work with Belden 89259 cable?


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rick Sass* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> When going to the Markertek link above, the Canare RCAP-C4F connector and die is listed as being for Belden 8241 cable. So will the connectors and die as listed above work with Belden 89259 cable?



yes.


This is the canare connectors you want to use (cross reference with your link at Markertek to make sure they are the same):
http://www.westlake-electronic.com/c...BCAT=CAN-&rd=1


----------



## Rick Sass

Ya gotta love this - Westlakes online store is down for maintenance...


----------



## ssabripo

Lol!


----------



## Rick Sass

How flexible is the Belden 89259 cable vs the Canare LV77S cable? I want to make interconnects for audio and video. The typical rg6 used for cable/sat is quite stiff - are the Belden and Canare cable more flexible and supple?


----------



## ssabripo

they are pretty "stiff" compared to your average wires....remember, they are in essence Coaxials, with a good amount of dielectric, so its not gonna bend by blowing at it...










you can't have the cake and eat it too........


----------



## Greg_R

Rick, I've fixed the link. For some reason AVS decided to insert a 'break' after my URL.


As for the "stiffness" of cables, yes, the RG6 cable will be quite stiff. For audio, you can use a much thinner wire (significantly less bandwidth to carry) that will be more supple. However, you'll need another crimp die to work with this thinner wire (and crimp dies aren't cheap). It's a cost / convienience tradeoff. I made everything out of RG-6 because I don't move wiring around frequently (i.e. stiffness is not that big an issue).


----------



## Rick Sass

Greg -


Do you have a recomendation for a thinner wire? What I'm looking for is the wire for audio and video that is typically sold as interconnects. The wire is very flexible, lays flat and will loop down. Am I better off just buying this type of interconnect. I like the idea of making my own cables with a better grade of cable. but I don't want the cables to have a mind of their own and stick out or away from the source equipment.


I have two scenarios; The first having the sources in the living room and not much room between the equipment shelves and the wall and the second scenario of an equipment rack in the basement that will have the room but I'd like to have a nice neat route for the cablesto follow and I'm concerned that the rg6 might be too stiff to look neat.


I I'm incorrect on any of this, let me know.


----------



## Rick Sass

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canare LV-61S cable for audio and video interconnects under 3 feet? I will be making my own interconnects and I need a cable that is flexible and supple. Would I sacrifce video quality with these cables?


----------



## jakeman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KurtBJC* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well, in the majority of applications there isn't going to be any effective difference. The issue I was writing about, and to which you responded, was shield effectiveness, and one of the things about shield effectiveness is that whether it's critically important, moderately important, of little importance or of no importance at all depends very much on the environment in which the product is used. In a hypothetical utterly-noise-free environment, it could not possibly make a difference to sound quality; in a very noisy environment, it certainly can. And it depends on the type of noise, and whether the equipment's susceptible to it.
> 
> 
> Capacitance, similarly, is very application-dependent. My brother is the family audio engineer, and down the street at the facility where he works, he had a heck of a problem with a particular mike preamp, which had a horribly uneven frequency response. It turned out that the preamp just couldn't handle the capacitance of the cable coming out of it. But in short lengths, of course, the capacitance becomes a small factor. Comparison of the cables you list wouldn't amount to much, capacitance-wise, because apart from LV-77S, they're all in the 17 pF/ft range. And how much capacitance affects the frequency response curve depends on device input and output impedances, and on how much those impedances vary with frequency--so in one application it's liable to be critical, and in another application completely unimportant.



I agree with you regarding the importance of proper shielding if that was what you meant by performance. All the Belkin cables referred to earlier should hold up well in a noisy environment unless we are talking about an audio system near something like an x-ray machine and then the better shielded ones are a better choice.


Maybe its just me but I've always associated superior cable performance , ie. frequency response linearity, with low resistance and inductance. With all the Belkin cables I doubt we will see much variance in a typical HT or home environment. It seems to me of greater import are amps with high damping factors which maintain better control of reactive effects with the more inductive cablesthereby producing a flatter frequency response. Stated more simply, amplifier effects swamp the influence of cables but with a quality amplifier its possible acoustics are enhanced with better cables. Measuring for this is problematic though.


Earlier this year, I sent a batch of various 3 ft audio cables for lab analysis. They included several so-called exotics, BJs, run of the mill RCA HT cables and a pair of Belkin 89259/Canare DIY. We couldn't find a significant measurement difference in FR linearity with that selection using some state of the art lab equipment.


----------



## KurtBJC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jakeman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Maybe its just me but I've always associated superior cable performance , ie. frequency response linearity, with low resistance and inductance. With all the Belkin cables I doubt we will see much variance in a typical HT or home environment.



One note--it's BelDEN, not BelKIN. Very different companies. I'm not sure Belkin even manufactures cable itself--most of what I see from them looks like it's Chinese-made.


Resistance and inductance will not normally play any meaningful role in a line-level audio application. They're important, or can be, for speaker cable. The difference is that speaker connection is a high-current, low-impedance application, so inductive effects are larger, and resistance becomes important because of damping factor and because the circuit impedance is so low that it's easy for the speaker cable, if undersized, to present a resistance which is on the same order of magnitude as the impedance of the speaker. In a line-level application, we're talking about low voltage, low current, high impedance--so capacitance, out of the basic "RCL" factors, dominates. Damping factor doesn't come into play, because the circuit impedance is so much larger than cable resistance that a change in cable resistance, within even the broadest reasonable limits, can have practically no effect on the energy delivered to the load.


In other words, if we're dealing with an 8 ohm speaker load, the difference between cable presenting, say, 0.1 ohm versus 3 ohms of resistance will likely be very significant. If we're dealing with a line-level signal going into a 10,000 ohm impedance input, we'd have to have a cable presenting a positively ridiculous amount of resistance to get the same effect, even assuming that the impedance of that input varies with frequency as much as a speaker does, which it almost certainly doesn't.


----------



## jakeman

I have Belkin on the mind from looking at their power conditioners. Yes its Belden as per my original post. Good catch though.











> Quote:
> I am intrigued by these statements. As best as I have been able to determine both through my experiments, after enlisting the aid of several cable audiophiles , comparing various Belden cables and having them lab tested it is not scientifically possible to ascertain much difference between the Belden cables.



One of the better papers I've read on this subject worth reading is an by excellent article by Fred Davis, "Effects of Cable, Loudspeaker, and Amplifier Interactions", J. audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 39, No. 6, 1991 June.


Davis tested 12 speaker cable connections and investigated their interaction with the amplifier and loudspeaker. He found that there was considerable acoustical differences among the 12 cables he investigated based on the resistance and inductance properties of the cables themselves and their interactions with impedance of loudspeakers and dampening factors of amplifiers.


He found that 3 cables in particular showed superior performance characteristics which he identified as cables with low resistance and inductance. He did note that amps with high damping factors maintained better control of reactive effects with the more inductive cables, producing a flatter frequency response.


Davis wrote, "The ideal loudspeaker cable should transfer all audio frequencies with flat voltage response. Real cables will always show some loss due to resistance, but better cables will both minimize this loss and still transfer all frequencies unscathed. The acoustical result will depend on many factors, but the electrical interaction of loudspeaker, amplifier and cable forms an essential foundation".


With high current amps and processors being all the rage I have been wondering if Davis' ideas can also be applied to interconnects. It might explain why some systems actually are improved by the use of certain interconnects. What is maddening is attempting to replicate those improvements on other people's systems because of the different speaker and amp interaction.


----------



## PaulT_BC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jakeman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With high current amps and processors being all the rage I have been wondering if Davis' ideas can also be applied to interconnects.



Since the impedence of the speaker changes with frequency I can see where Davis' ideas with speaker wire have merit, however, I do not believe we see the same thing when talking about interconnecting components. The frequency of the signal being sent between a preamp and amp should not affect the impedence of the amp, for example (as long as we are reasonably matching the impedence of both the components with the connector/cable/connector).


I realised I am probably just paraphrasing Kurt's post, but -


Are we not just basically concerned with passing a certain bandwidth at a voltage level under 5VDC with minimal RF/EMI interference when talking about audio interconnects?


BTW - ssabripro - nice original post, very informative, thanks.


----------



## CJO




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> nope, mine doesn't. The length of the inner core is very small (enough to just fit the portion of the pin to be crimped), while the length of the dielectric is closer to 3/4". The stripper at default would cut it something like this (almost equal lenghts):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what you want is to end up with a cut more like this, with a small cut for the inner core, and a longer cut for the outer shield piece:
> (click to enlarge)
> 
> Notice that the inner core I left longer in this picture for demo purposes on pulling the shielding back....it wont be that long, more like 1/3 that size.
> 
> 
> there may be strippers out there that may be able to cut the 89259 to these wierd lenghts, but I haven't found one......if you do, please post it here!



The correct dimensions for stripping for Canare ends can be found on their website:
http://www.canare.com/index.cfm?obje...11112E3E150EF2 


The Canare TS-100E (and other Canare strippers) cut them to the correct lengths, as shown in your first picture, for using Canare ends. If you use ends from other manufacturers, you might need to do something closer to what you have shown in your second picture, though I, personnally, have not seen any that required that much material stripped off.


CJ


----------



## ssabripo

next, I will post some nice DIY speaker cables made from Cat5e in a nice braid....stay tuned!


----------



## oliverlim




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KurtBJC* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where did you get that idea? We do sell Canare LV-77S, but it's not the same as the LC-1, which is a custom cable manufactured to our specifications by Belden. The LC-1 shielding is much heavier, and capacitance much lower, than 89259.
> 
> 
> Kurt
> 
> Blue Jeans Cable



Agree on this. I tried the 89259, Canare LC5E, VDH 75ohm Video cable, QED Sub interconnect with one end shield broken among others and only the LV-77S solved my hum issue. Ok lessen it much much more then any of the other!


Oliver


----------



## Bghead8che




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jakeman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have Belkin on the mind from looking at their power conditioners. Yes its Belden as per my original post. Good catch though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the better papers I've read on this subject worth reading is an by excellent article by Fred Davis, "Effects of Cable, Loudspeaker, and Amplifier Interactions", J. audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 39, No. 6, 1991 June.
> 
> 
> Davis tested 12 speaker cable connections and investigated their interaction with the amplifier and loudspeaker. He found that there was considerable acoustical differences among the 12 cables he investigated based on the resistance and inductance properties of the cables themselves and their interactions with impedance of loudspeakers and dampening factors of amplifiers.
> 
> 
> He found that 3 cables in particular showed superior performance characteristics which he identified as cables with low resistance and inductance. He did note that amps with high damping factors maintained better control of reactive effects with the more inductive cables, producing a flatter frequency response.
> 
> 
> Davis wrote, "The ideal loudspeaker cable should transfer all audio frequencies with flat voltage response. Real cables will always show some loss due to resistance, but better cables will both minimize this loss and still transfer all frequencies unscathed. The acoustical result will depend on many factors, but the electrical interaction of loudspeaker, amplifier and cable forms an essential foundation".
> 
> 
> With high current amps and processors being all the rage I have been wondering if Davis' ideas can also be applied to interconnects. It might explain why some systems actually are improved by the use of certain interconnects. What is maddening is attempting to replicate those improvements on other people's systems because of the different speaker and amp interaction.




Do you have a link to this paper?


----------



## jakeman

The file is too large to upload. Pm me with an email address and I will forward it.


----------



## JDHarding




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> next, I will post some nice DIY speaker cables made from Cat5e in a nice braid....stay tuned!



You can also check out these designs:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/spkcbl_e.html 


The "UBYTE-2" ( http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ubyte2e.html ) cable is one of the most detailed speaker cable DIY designs I've seen yet. It's also one of the most time consuming to build.


The "FFRC" ( http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ffrc_e.html ) cable is a speaker cable built with Cat5.


There's also Chris Venhaus' Cat5 design ( http://www.venhaus1.com/diycatfivecables.html ) if you wanna do all that tedious braiding.


I'd like to see what ssabripo has cooked up for a Cat5 design.










Edit: Just found out Chris Venhaus has a manufactured version of his Cat5 design. It's available from the VH Audio products page ( http://www.vhaudio.com/wire.html ) for $17.99 a foot. The braid on it looks really nice. The external braid especially looks nice, almost like techflex. A bit too pricey for my tastes, though.


----------



## Ericglo

Audioholics has big speaker cable review. That is probably the best one I have seen so far with inexpensive options.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDHarding* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> I'd like to see what ssabripo has cooked up for a Cat5 design.



well....Ericglo is on to me

















> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ericglo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Audioholics has big speaker cable review. That is probably the best one I have seen so far with inexpensive options.



I plan on using the Cat5 V2 with a slight difference in braid...it's a tighter braid with double pair twisting. I will use the locking banana plugs from GBL and will wrap it up nice and tight with techflex and heatshrink.


should be done by the end of the week.


----------



## JDHarding

Cat5 V5 had better results.


----------



## Ericglo

 Here is the link to the results. 


The V5 was considered the best, but that was determined by the authors weighting factors. He says you can reweigh the cables, if you value one measurement more than another. I will let the engineering geeks debate from here.










I did some cables like V2 and there was an immediate difference. I can't remember what I was using at the time, but it was definitely audible. It may have been due to the higher gauge, though. Sherv, I hope you like braiding because I remember it being a PITA. For the cost, they can't be beat. Insert the smug audiophiles cables rebuttal here.







I know Chuck will have something to say because he bought some $3k silver cables with there own cleaning cloth a couple of months ago.










Ericglo


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Davis tested 12 speaker cable connections and investigated their interaction with the amplifier and loudspeaker. He found that there was considerable acoustical differences among the 12 cables he investigated based on the resistance and inductance properties of the cables themselves and their interactions with impedance of loudspeakers and dampening factors of amplifiers.



I don't see how resistance of a speaker cable could possibly affect damping of an amplifier. The damping factor of an amp, even when low, will not be influenced by the type of cable. The resistance of the coils in the speaker have a much greater influence than the type of speaker wire. Unfortunately, I do not have my two amplifier design books here, each of which has a discussion of damping factor. I will try to remember to consult them and relay the information here.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ericglo* /forum/post/0
> 
> Here is the link to the results.
> 
> 
> The V5 was considered the best, but that was determined by the authors weighting factors. He says you can reweigh the cables, if you value one measurement more than another. I will let the engineering geeks debate from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did some cables like V2 and there was an immediate difference. I can't remember what I was using at the time, but it was definitely audible. It may have been due to the higher gauge, though. Sherv, I hope you like braiding because I remember it being a PITA. For the cost, they can't be beat. Insert the smug audiophiles cables rebuttal here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know Chuck will have something to say because he bought some $3k silver cables with there own cleaning cloth a couple of months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ericglo



exactly...the V5 had more runs of the cable, and frankly, looking at the scores for inductance and capacitance, the difference is negligeable. V2 will do fine.


plus, I was only able to scrounge 80' here at work







, so for a pair of 10' runs for my mains, I can only go V2 ...hahahahaa










I have a pair of IXOS based cables I'm running now, so it will be interesting to see how this does.


ps- I did NOT know Chuck went with the Silver cables....hahahah...that fool!


----------



## JDHarding

I'm beginning to think a lot of the so-called Audiophile quality equipment is all about bling-bling. Pure silver cables, pure gold connectors, with included display case and cleaning kit/cloth.. what next? Diamond studded techflex? Platinum cores?


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDHarding* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think a lot of the so-called Audiophile quality equipment is all about bling-bling. Pure silver cables, pure gold connectors, with included display case and cleaning kit/cloth.. what next? Diamond studded techflex? Platinum cores?



as my boy CHappelle says....."_I puts diamonds in my food......1) because it's the most balla sh!t you can possible do, and 2)makes my dooki twinkle, man!_ "
















http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSv1EQZTYkI


----------



## ssabripo

I'm done with the first speaker cable...came out REALLY nice...will post in the next couple of days.


----------



## Bghead8che




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm done with the first speaker cable...came out REALLY nice...will post in the next couple of days.




Please post pics soon. I'd like to see your speaker cables.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bghead8che* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Please post pics soon. I'd like to see your speaker cables.



I will post a DIY thread on them this week....but here is a teaser:


----------



## JDHarding

Purdy..


----------



## jakeman

Looking good Sherv. Where do I put my order in for 4 pair of 8 footers.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jakeman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Looking good Sherv. Where do I put my order in for 4 pair of 8 footers.



hehehe....send me one of your EP's and we can call it even!

















but seriously, even you John can build these puppies...VERY simple. Just a tad time consuming that's all...


----------



## JDHarding

Time consuming? Were they braided or twisted?


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDHarding* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Time consuming? Were they braided or twisted?



no real man does twisted!

















braided of course.....it will all be posted.


----------



## JDHarding

And here I thought no real man braids.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDHarding* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And here I thought no real man braids.



allow me to expand further....











braids:










twist:










any questions???


----------



## JDHarding

Heh..


----------



## ssabripo

ok...done! here is the link:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=740215


----------



## RevToTheRedline

And if you are lazy you can get the Belden 89259 terminated with the Canare RCAP at Blue Jeans for pretty cheap also, and you don't have to buy a $60 crimper.


----------



## JDHarding

Actually, BJC doesn't use 89259. The closest thing they use is their LC-1 cable. It's a "tweaked" version of 89259 that Belden exclusively makes for BJC.


89259 is becomming more and more rare these days. I hope I can get my hands on some of it before it becomes extinct.


----------



## Bghead8che




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ok...done! here is the link:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=740215



Nice ssabripo!


Any idea where to purchase some metal splitters? Like here:


http-- www.cobaltcable.com-images-popups-speaker_cable.jpg


----------



## RevToTheRedline




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDHarding* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Actually, BJC doesn't use 89259. The closest thing they use is their LC-1 cable. It's a "tweaked" version of 89259 that Belden exclusively makes for BJC.
> 
> 
> 89259 is becomming more and more rare these days. I hope I can get my hands on some of it before it becomes extinct.




Actaully BJC does do 89259, they just don't list it under their analog stereo cables.


But you can get it in a stereo configuration terimated with Canare RCAP-C42's
http://bluejeanscable.com/store/shopbycable/89259.htm 


Considering the tools required to make DIY cables, which I don't have. It would be cheaper for me to go through BJC.


But then again, once you have the tools the initial cost is over, and you start saving money by making your own. So really it can either way.


----------



## madpoet

So to be clear... 89259 and 9259 are NOT the same cable, correct? I'm trying to find an inexpensive source of 82959 and it's difficult


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madpoet* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So to be clear... 89259 and 9259 are NOT the same cable, correct? I'm trying to find an inexpensive source of 82959 and it's difficult



correct...they are NOT the same thing.


west-lake usually carries it by the foot, but they are out right now:
http://www.westlake-electronic.com/c...no=BEL-89259-C 


call them to see when they expect another shipment


----------



## madpoet

Thanks. I've found some 100' rolls for a reasonable price, I may just spring for 100' and make a bunch


----------



## badsatan

Is it important to choose coaxs for audio interconnects? Some european brands, like QED and Supra, are selling analog audio interconnects that are made of twisted pairs, wrapped with foil and braid, with this outter shied connected to one of the central conductors on one end only. In fact, QED only uses this topology for all theirs analog audio ICs.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badsatan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is it important to choose coaxs for audio interconnects? Some european brands, like QED and Supra, are selling analog audio interconnects that are made of twisted pairs, wrapped with foil and braid, with this outter shied connected to one of the central conductors on one end only. In fact, QED only uses this topology for all theirs analog audio ICs.



do a quick read on a link on the first page....you Don't HAVE to use Coax, and certainly there are plenty of topologies that will work very well in interconnect cables. The main issue is to avoid noise and keep the capacitance as low as possible. High end coax with good dielectrics such as the belden 89259 do this superbly, and are extremely cost competitive, and thus, the reason you see so many DIYers and some high end cables use them.


But again, there are many ways to skin this cat.


----------



## badsatan

I have read the whole thread carefully as I'm considering building 6 audio analog ICs. My question has to do with impedances and such things. The coaxs used has 75ohms so do the RCA plugs. As we are talking on low frequencies, up to 20khz, there's no transmission issues, but the power transfer to the load will be lower... is this irrelevant? And regarding twisted pairs, does this topology allows smaller capacitances per length than a coaxial topology, or it's just a matter on cable build quality and materials?


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badsatan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ....or it's just a matter on cable build quality and materials?



bingo!










yes, capacitance and shielding play the biggest part on how the interconnects perform, but the biggest differences will be immediately noticeable on long runs (assuming we are talking about great quality cables here, like my coax based ICs or some good twisted pairs like the DB9s).


----------



## JDHarding

Well I got my parts today to make these cables with. Not exactly the same stuff, but close. I got Belden 1694A cable instead, and decided to save some money by getting a Canare TS-31C stripper. This little stripper only strips 1694A and some Canare RG6 cables, but it was a better deal at $50.


One thing to mention about the Parts Express crimper (the green handled one), this crimper does not come setup correctly. It crimps too lightly. In order to fix this, there's a little dial on the side of the crimper that has a + and - symbol on it. Remove the screw, and try forcing the dial to turn counter-clockwise. Move it only 3 spots over, then put the screw back in. This should make the crimper crimp those pesky Canare plugs with very little effort.


And one last thing.. even though people say "Don't remove the plug after you install the locking tip!" this doesn't really hurt anything if you do. Simply slide the locking tip back inside the plug. As far as I know, it doesn't damage the inside of the plug anywhere.


----------



## JDHarding

Even though I'm using 1694A, and not the recommended cable, it still does an excellent job on quality. My dad originally had a cheap component cable (that comcast supplied) hooked up to his DVD player, and when upconverting to 1080i, there was a lot of distortion. Now with the new cables the distortion is gone and the image is crisp and clear. I'm glad I chose this cable as my main audio/video cable for my cable business. It's very impressive. I wonder if 89259 cable is any better.


I gotta get all of my RF cables and audio/video cables replaced with this stuff ASAP. So far I replaced a digital coax cable connected between the PC and the receiver and it sounds pretty clean too.


----------



## ssabripo

those who PM'd me, YES, these cables will do a marvelous job with subwoofer applications as well....the Canare LV-77S is usually thought of slightly better for sub use due to the lower frequency Noise Rejection at the cost of higher capacitance, but quite honestly the 89259 does as good a job for LFE use as well.....I'm running a 25 ft run for my sub, and it is just as good as my 10ft LV-77S i used before


----------



## dynfan

I am in need of advice for making my own audio cables for my dedicated room. I will be using a Cinenova Grande 5 amp in the front of my room to drive front LCR and the other 2 channels to drive dual IB subs. The issue is that my pre-pro and other gear is approx. 45 ft away (total cable length). I have seen many different recommendations on which cable brand to use for these runs.


Belden 1694A

Canare L-5CFB

Belden 89259 (which I cannot find reasonably)


My first question is should I use the same cable for both the 3 audio runs and the sub run? Or should I use the Canare LV-77S for the sub runs?


My second question is if I had to choose from the 1694 and L-5CFB which is more ideal?


Anything else to look out for/consider here? The cable runs will pass two outlets on their way to the front of the room. They only come within a few inches of the outlets and do not actually cross power wires at all. The only parallell wires are some 5'-6' above the audio runs.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dynfan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am in need of advice for making my own audio cables for my dedicated room. I will be using a Cinenova Grande 5 amp in the front of my room to drive front LCR and the other 2 channels to drive dual IB subs. The issue is that my pre-pro and other gear is approx. 45 ft away (total cable length). I have seen many different recommendations on which cable brand to use for these runs.
> 
> 
> Belden 1694A
> 
> Canare L-5CFB
> 
> Belden 89259 (which I cannot find reasonably)
> 
> 
> My first question is should I use the same cable for both the 3 audio runs and the sub run? Or should I use the Canare LV-77S for the sub runs?
> 
> 
> My second question is if I had to choose from the 1694 and L-5CFB which is more ideal?
> 
> 
> Anything else to look out for/consider here? The cable runs will pass two outlets on their way to the front of the room. They only come within a few inches of the outlets and do not actually cross power wires at all. The only parallell wires are some 5'-6' above the audio runs.



couple of points:


* you can use Belden 9259 as well....its basically the same cable except its not plenum. Same core, etc.

* Yes, you can use the same cable for audio runs and subwoofer. the LV-77S is probably best for the sub, but it will work for the other as well.


* I would strongly suggest you do NOT run the IB subs off the Cinenova! Yes, it is rated 300W @4ohms, but it is gonna clip like crazy if you plan on using it at very loud volumes. Power is cheap nowdays! get a used Crown K2, QSC, heck even an EP2500, and feed that to your IB.


----------



## dynfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> couple of points:
> 
> 
> * you can use Belden 9259 as well....its basically the same cable except its not plenum. Same core, etc.
> 
> * Yes, you can use the same cable for audio runs and subwoofer. the LV-77S is probably best for the sub, but it will work for the other as well.
> 
> 
> * I would strongly suggest you do NOT run the IB subs off the Cinenova! Yes, it is rated 300W @4ohms, but it is gonna clip like crazy if you plan on using it at very loud volumes. Power is cheap nowdays! get a used Crown K2, QSC, heck even an EP2500, and feed that to your IB.



Thanks for the input. I will give the Cinenova a try and see how well it does. If it clips too much I can always swap it out...


----------



## soyuppy

Can anyone give some insight on the types(best) cable to use for the various types of cabling:


1. Audio Interconnect (L/R)

2. Subwoofer Interconnect (Mono)

3. Component Video

4. Speakers (Bi-Amp)


For 1, 2, &3 Does it matter what kind of connector to use? Would Canare be used for all of them?


Thanks


----------



## soyuppy

I see some pretty cheap stripper on E-Bay going for like 1.99+5.99 shipping. Would these do the job as well or do I have to use the Canare stripper. The Canare are pretty expensive.


----------



## soyuppy

I see some pretty cheap stripper on E-Bay going for like 1.99+5.99 shipping. Would these do the job as well or do I have to use the Canare stripper. The Canare are pretty expensive.


----------



## cherry ghost




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *soyuppy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I see some pretty cheap stripper on E-Bay going for like 1.99+5.99 shipping. Would these do the job as well or do I have to use the Canare stripper. The Canare are pretty expensive.



Since the OP hasn't been responding, I'll direct you here

http://white.hometheatertalk.com/diycable.htm


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *soyuppy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can anyone give some insight on the types(best) cable to use for the various types of cabling:
> 
> 
> 1. Audio Interconnect (L/R)
> 
> 2. Subwoofer Interconnect (Mono)
> 
> 3. Component Video
> 
> 4. Speakers (Bi-Amp)
> 
> 
> For 1, 2, &3 Does it matter what kind of connector to use? Would Canare be used for all of them?
> 
> 
> Thanks



sorry, i've been out of the loop for a couple of weeks.


for audio interconnects, and component, and subwoofer, the directions in this thread (cable wise) are all you need. You can interchange the belden 89259 with the 9259, as the only difference is the plenum, but the core's are exactly the same, with the 9259 being much cheaper. Some people prefer the LV-77S because it theoretically works better with Low frequencies due to hum rejection, but overall, unless you are in a very noisy environment, you are fine with either.


for speakers, I use Cat5 braids:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=740215 

in this thread there is a link to the audioholics paper on DIY cables, and both cat5 and regular ol' homedepot/lowe's power cables work like any audiophile speaker cable.


the canare stripper on ebay works, but make sure it is compatible to RJ59 and RJ6.


----------



## Gir_1337




> Quote:
> the canare stripper on ebay works, but make sure it is compatible to RJ59 and RJ6.



also make sure it's in good condition. Make sure you aren't buying a really dull crappy one.


----------



## soyuppy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> the canare stripper on ebay works, but make sure it is compatible to RJ59 and RJ6.



I hope you mean RG59/RG6.

Thanks for your response though


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *soyuppy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I hope you mean RG59/RG6.
> 
> Thanks for your response though



yes...R*G*! fat fingers here


----------



## eb3604

ssabripo, what crimp die did you use? the TC-D-5CF?


----------



## funkstrong

If it helps anybody shopping for the proper die, the ones from parts express won't work to do the entire job. The smallest they'll do is .068, which is too big to crimp the end-cap on the copper. It will crimp the outer part, just not the end.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eb3604* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ssabripo, what crimp die did you use? the TC-D-5CF?



it's on the first page I believe


----------



## Chris White

Thanks for posting the correct link Cherry Ghost. My DIY cable page was active for years on my old UCF website, but I moved it in 2003 to the Home Theater Talk web pages (courtesy of Mike Knapp). Almost 177,000 folks have looked at it since then so I guess someone still finds it useful.









Do-It-Yourself Audio/Video Cables


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris White* /forum/post/10847579
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting the correct link Cherry Ghost. My DIY cable page was active for years on my old UCF website, but I moved it in 2003 to the Home Theater Talk web pages (courtesy of Mike Knapp). Almost 177,000 folks have looked at it since then so I guess someone still finds it useful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do-It-Yourself Audio/Video Cables



excellent!


----------



## Highendonbudget

I make my own interconnect cables, using Belden #8450 audio cable. It's solid core, 22 gauge, two conductor shielded cable with third, drain wire, with polypropylene insulation.


IMO, this is the absolute best-sounding cable without spending a fortune on interconnects. Why? Solid core is perfectly fine for line-level and MM/MC phono signals because with solid core, the signal doesn't jump from strand to strand. The signal travels through one and only one piece of copper wire, and line level signals involve so little voltage and current that it doesn't tax the 22 gauge wire. I've done listening experiments between multi-stranded cables and ones I've made with #8450 and I prefer the latter, as the sound is much cleaner and solid than the confused, muddled sound of multi-core interconnects.


Best of all, you can by the stuff for about $0.20 a foot. The metal RCA phono plugs you can buy at Home Depot work for a buck or two for a package of 2 work really well too, as the #8450 has a thin profile and fits into this phono plug just fine.


Remember to solder the drain (i.e. ground wire) to only one end of the black wire, since you only ground the shield at one end to avoid hum problems and sound quality problems (if you have the signal going through one wire in one direction and two wires in the other, you will find sound quality problems).


Coaxial cables are not something I would use. Why? Very simply, the electrical signal travels through the centre single wire in one direction, and a braid of wire or foil of conductor in the other direction. Hence, you will get an unbalanced sound. For instance, I have a Rega Planar 3 turntable whose stock interconnect cable has a small multi-stranded inner conductor, and a larger set of multistrans surrounding for the outer conductor. I replaced it with the #8450 and the sound became much more CD like, that is, cleaner, cleaner and better defined with less surface noise. Comparing a digitally recorded LP with the exact CD counterpart reveals that the turntable sounds much closer to the CD than before.


----------



## nathan_h

Rookie question: Is the coax stripper TS-100E applicable for Belden coax cable rg59 and rg6? I wasn't sure so I picked up a generic stripper -- and it ain't pretty.


----------



## KurtBJC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h* /forum/post/12304520
> 
> 
> Is the coax stripper TS-100E applicable for Belden coax cable rg59 and rg6?



Yes. And unlike some of the cheapie strippers, it's fully adjustable as to cut depth. There's a big instruction sheet that comes with it, and an Allen wrench you can use to tweak the settings.


Kurt

Blue Jeans Cable


----------



## nathan_h

Thanks!


By the way, love your cables. Got a couple of sets of them in my gear right now.


----------



## btp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highendonbudget* /forum/post/12303889
> 
> 
> Why? Very simply, the electrical signal travels through the centre single wire in one direction, and a braid of wire or foil of conductor in the other direction. Hence, you will get an *unbalanced sound*.



Unbalanced sound? You guys are killing me. In my opinion, this is just as bad as all the infamous speaker wire marketing or "snake oil". I'm not trying to piss people off here. I just can't believe how many people with magic or "golden" ears there are that can hear things almost no one else can -- that can allegedly hear how different patch cords sound -- all based on what kind of wire or cable is used to connect two pieces of audio gear.


The reason you don't need coax for audio signals is because THE BANDWIDTH IS ONLY 20kHz! Seriously... lamp cord would work nearly as well.


I confess I have not read this entire thread, so maybe this has question already been asked: *Have any of you true believer types done a double-blind test to see if you can discern the difference between any of these interconnect cables?*


By the way, I heartily commend ssabripo for his DIY approach to making affordable high quality cables. I like quality just as much as the next guy, even if I am not convinced there's a distinct, significant, or even measurable difference in sound quality.


----------



## Chris White




> Quote:
> Comparing a digitally recorded LP with the exact CD counterpart reveals that the turntable sounds much closer to the CD than before.



Lots of folks spend lots of money attempting to ensure that their analog-reproduced LPs do NOT sound like their digitally-reproduced CDs.










> Quote:
> Have any of you true believer types done a double-blind test to see if you can discern the difference between any of these interconnect cables?



Yes. I can hear a difference between the cables I make (using RG6) and the RackShack grip-of-death interconnects they replaced. Better? That's a matter of judgment. Different? Yes. In any event, I don't make most of my cables because they're better per se, it's mostly because they're cheaper and I can make the exact length I want.


----------



## Magnus_CA

Anyone sweating the tooling cost? I considered building a pair of sub cables but I can't justify buying $150 in crimping tools and dies.


----------



## nathan_h

Yeah I was sweating the cost, and went with a cheapo stripper -- which didn't work. So I ponied up for the Canare stripper, and will see about the rest.


I figure a set of 6 channel cables and a set of component video cables, made from these raw materials, will cost me more than $150 from a pre-made commercial outfit. And since I know the future will bring a need for many more cables, the investment is likely worth it.


----------



## impala454




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *btp* /forum/post/12318016
> 
> 
> The reason you don't need coax for audio signals is because THE BANDWIDTH IS ONLY 20kHz! Seriously... lamp cord would work nearly as well.



The point of using coax isn't bandwidth, it's to shield & ground the signal. Lamp cord most definitely would not work. Unless you enjoy a nice loud hum every time you turn on your amp.


Awesome thread btw, I've always wanted some type of DIY coax tutorial. I'm for sure bookmarking this thread for the next time I need cables.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *btp* /forum/post/12318016
> 
> 
> The reason you don't need coax for audio signals is because THE BANDWIDTH IS ONLY 20kHz! Seriously... lamp cord would work nearly as well.



not quite. The reason is not bandwidth per se, but rather, noise rejection. Signal wires carry low level signal, and can be easily disturbed (polluted), and thus, you want something that will keep this low level signal as pure as possible.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *btp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By the way, I heartily commend ssabripo for his DIY approach to making affordable high quality cables. I like quality just as much as the next guy, even if I am not convinced there's a distinct, significant, or even measurable difference in sound quality.



thanks. I don't think many here will tell you that these cables made the sound "much better" or give you a "wow, it really opened up the vocals" stuff







.....but they may indicate to you that they see a cleaner signal going to their amps or preamps, etc.


----------



## btp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/12386558
> 
> 
> not quite. The reason is not bandwidth per se, but rather, noise rejection. Signal wires carry low level signal, and can be easily disturbed (polluted), and thus, you want something that will keep this low level signal as pure as possible.



Good point. I almost went back to edit my post to mention the noise rejection issue/benefit, because I had not seen it talked about very much.


Edit: the noise rejection benefit would be particularly helpful for longer cable runs and/or where there was an unusual noise problem. For shorter cables, I still stand by my earlier statement about lamp cord working nearly as well. Of course neither type of cable will solve ground loop hum.


----------



## NightHawk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *impala454* /forum/post/12339099
> 
> 
> The point of using coax isn't bandwidth, it's to shield & ground the signal. Lamp cord most definitely would not work. Unless you enjoy a nice loud hum every time you turn on your amp.



Have you ever seen an audio patch cord? It's not coax and it doesn't hum. Hum is indicitive of a ground loop, not inadaquate shielding. You can't shield 60 Hz magnetic radiation anyway, at least not with coaxial cable.


This supposed need for double shielded coaxial cable for audio connections is way overblown. In some cases it's possible it may help at the upper end of the audio spectrum _if_ there is a significant electric field interference source very nearby, such as an electric motor or buzzer. Even so your audio equipment isn't shielded so a point of ingress exists even if you do shield the cable. In most cases it provides nothing. Doesn't hurt either.


----------



## impala454




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NightHawk* /forum/post/12392261
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen an audio patch cord? It's not coax













no need to read the rest of your post after this.


----------



## NightHawk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *impala454* /forum/post/12394185
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no need to read the rest of your post after this.




Well it isn't. An audio patch is just a convenient way to package two wires going in the same direction. There is no specification for characteristic impedance, shield coverage or insertion loss. The outside wire will not function as a shield. Your fooling yourself if you think it will.


----------



## impala454

Then strip the shielding off and just run speaker wire. I'm sure it'll sound great!


----------



## NightHawk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *impala454* /forum/post/12394587
> 
> 
> Then strip the shielding off and just run speaker wire. I'm sure it'll sound great!



Don't take my word for it. Pick yourself up a text on EMC/RFI and maybe you can learn something.


----------



## impala454

I'll do that as soon as you find out the meaning of the word coaxial, and that every audio patch cord in existence is.


----------



## ssabripo

guys,


a quick update: I just tried these interconnects using the Belden 1505 wire, and worked great!










the only thing is you will need the Canare TS-4C stripper instead of the 3C


----------



## cherry ghost




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris White* /forum/post/10847579
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting the correct link Cherry Ghost. My DIY cable page was active for years on my old UCF website, but I moved it in 2003 to the Home Theater Talk web pages (courtesy of Mike Knapp). Almost 177,000 folks have looked at it since then so I guess someone still finds it useful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do-It-Yourself Audio/Video Cables



anyone know where these instructions can be found now? The link no longer works


----------



## vegasbiker

Just wondering if anyone has an opinion on these. I just came from my local Fry's and they have a display with all the tools / connectors to make DIY cables. These were MUCH cheaper than the Canare connectors so I'm guess not quite as good but for me they may be good enough. Especially with good cable. I would never by $200 interconnects anyway I just want clean wire management and decent sound.

http://www.paladin-tools.com/view_category.php?id=287 


Also this tool appears to make adding the connectors simple.

http://www.paladin-tools.com/view_to...&parent_id=138


----------



## LesFex

Great information: thanks for sharing such useful info with all


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LesFex* /forum/post/13854945
> 
> 
> Great information: thanks for sharing such useful info with all



no problem


----------



## duvetyne




> Quote:
> Very simply, the electrical signal travels through the centre single wire in one direction, and a braid of wire or foil of conductor in the other direction. Hence, you will get an unbalanced sound.



Are you a fiction writer?


----------



## mikieson

I think what suxx about threads like this is one guy "TC" posts a way to do something...The supplies to use...and everything...


THEN you have 20 other people come in with a new way to do it. New supplies. New this different that and then it really confuses everyone. ME actually..


Heck I want to make my own component cables and even a couple sub connectors, but I just cant make heads or tails out of anything.


One person says this is right and this is the best...THEN, another comes in and disagrees.....Really makes it hard to do anything at all.


----------



## KingLeerUK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikieson* /forum/post/15972319
> 
> 
> I think what suxx about threads like this is one guy "TC" posts a way to do something...The supplies to use...and everything...
> 
> 
> THEN you have 20 other people come in with a new way to do it. New supplies. New this different that and then it really confuses everyone. ME actually..
> 
> 
> Heck I want to make my own component cables and even a couple sub connectors, but I just cant make heads or tails out of anything.
> 
> 
> One person says this is right and this is the best...THEN, another comes in and disagrees.....Really makes it hard to do anything at all.



Building cables isn't rocket science. Generally, if you start with good ingredients (parts and wire) and are half-decent with your tools you will produce a perfectly serviceable interconnect. Some of the esoteric, "out there in the ether" designs have merit, but their complexity (and cost) are not borne out by the resulting performance for the average home user.


Don't think that the parts & supplies recommendations of one user outweigh those of another. You can achieve quality results with any number of different cable and termination hardware suppliers.


I've been "building" (and I use the term loosely) my own quad-shield RG6 patches and runs for years now since picking up a quality compression tool and cable stripper. It's by no means difficult, and the cost savings over buying pre-terminated (and set length) cables is outstanding. Sure, it took some trial and error to get to a level of confidence, but that's true for any skill worth having.


----------



## mikieson

I have no doubt I can make the cables. Its just when 20 different people chime in with 20 different cables, connectors, ect. It just gets overwhelming to say the least.


----------



## ssabripo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikieson* /forum/post/15972319
> 
> 
> I think what suxx about threads like this is one guy "TC" posts a way to do something...The supplies to use...and everything...
> 
> 
> THEN you have 20 other people come in with a new way to do it. New supplies. New this different that and then it really confuses everyone. ME actually..
> 
> 
> Heck I want to make my own component cables and even a couple sub connectors, but I just cant make heads or tails out of anything.
> 
> 
> One person says this is right and this is the best...THEN, another comes in and disagrees.....Really makes it hard to do anything at all.



I can't vouch for the validity of quality of some of the variances discussed in this thread.


what I can vouch for is the exact step-by-step I posted in this thread, as the originator.!!







Very good quality, it works, and I gave you all the required tools and methods.


good luck


----------



## Swampfox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssabripo* /forum/post/15998450
> 
> 
> I can't vouch for the validity of quality of some of the variances discussed in this thread.
> 
> 
> what I can vouch for is the exact step-by-step I posted in this thread, as the originator.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good quality, it works, and I gave you all the required tools and methods.
> 
> 
> good luck




I like Canare LV-77s for interconnects. It has a stranded core and is very flexible. It's a bit harder to work with, but makes great interconnects.


----------



## JohnyBGood

I just bought this maxi-crimper, on sale: http://www.amazon.com/Xcelite-MAC2210-Maxi-Crimper-Insulated-Terminal/dp/B004UNGB24
Can I use it in this DIY project? I know nothing about this stuff...


----------



## scruff67

That was a painful read.
Apparently, these guys are serious.


----------



## Bolinrocks

Would it matter if I used a cable with PVC casing as long as the dielectric was FEP?
Thanks.


----------

