dont forget the rca ends into your equation.

 

signal wires arent supposed to be thick The thicker the core the more emi it will conduct and the more shielding it will require to do the same job.

Your RCA cables probably have 22ga cores with a single layer shielding.

 

My method is for making your own speaker wire...not rca's. Doubt you would want to use 26 gauge wire on speakers.

 

Ok, quick question on that then? Why do Stinger / Monster / Microphone cable sound very much noticably better than Radio Shack RCAs?

 

Thats what im saying, i dont know why you would want to use 26ga vs a nice hefty 18.

 

Because the person who made them didnt use shielded cable? Wait.. are you talking about home made cables or radio shack cables??? two totally difff things.

If you tear apart monster rca cable you will find one or more layers of foil, one(maybe two) layers of braded copper wire similiar to coaxial tv cable, and many many layers of plastic.

If you tear apart a good quality cat5 network cable you will find the same thing (two layrs of aluminum and one layer of braded copper) only instead of two or four conductor leads you will find 8 at the core of it... There are cheaper cat5 cables that use single layer aluminum and a very light braded aluminum shield but even that is better quality than most rca cables.

One important feature homemade signal cables may or may not have - Balanced terminations. If one side of the cable has a higher resistance than the other, the cable will be more prone to emi which is why you see a lot of high quality cables with special "balanced" conductor crap. Basicly you want to make sure you get a clean, permanent solder joint between the lead and the RCA plug.

And you can get RCA plugs at radio shack that are identical to the monster rca plugs except with no monster stickers...

 

back in the late 80's, every cable manufacturer was into double, and triple shielding, shield drain wires, huge conductors...RCA cables were getting out of control. Some of them were around 3/4 inch in diameter, an cost a fortune.

About 1990, Richard Clark showed up at one of the big events, IASCA finals, I think, with a demonstration. He twisted together a pair of simple speaker wires (about 18 ga, from memory), and soldered on some ends. Then, he put them through all sorts of EMI rejection testing, both on the bench and in the car. They were every bit as clean, or cleaner, than all the major big time cables, which were of a coax design back then. Twisting the wires has the effect of cancelling the interference.

Guess what...everyone went to twisted pairs. For a while (and some still today) that's all they were...two twisted wires. Now, due mainly to marketing, folks are adding back all sorts of 'flux drain shielding' and the like, and the cables are getting fat again.

For my money, its not necessary. Once you find a cable with good quality ends, and a twisted pair construction, your search is over. Any upgrading at this point should be for cosmetics (color) or construction (more flexible, thinner or thicker jackets, etc.).

Why does Monster sound better than the shack? Well, if you are comparing two twisted pair products with decent ends, I'll venture to say you won't hear the difference. Most likely, if there is a noticable difference, you're comparing a good quality twisted monster cable to a junky coax radio shack.

Don't get sucked into the marketing hype.

Toby

 

^^^ I agree, I like cat5 cable because I can but the fronts and subs in the same line

 

I've never tried Cat5, but it sounds like a great idea.

Toby

 

I just assumed the lines were a bit on the thin side for putting the signal through.

very interesting.