AES50 Cables and ESD

[GaryH]

....He proves that it's not enough to have RJ45 continuity to ground; the uncovered parts of the wiring need to be covered, too. The Ethercon does that.

I guess my actual question does boil right down to this. That is 100% true while using shielded Cat5E, never doubted it after seeing it then and still do not. My question is would the substantial extra shielding that exists these days with Cat7 and Cat8 be enough to counteract the process he demonstrated from occurring? Time to go find that damn sparker....and that cable tester These Cat8 runs I own don't have any extensive field record yet because of covid...so maybe the jury is still out anyway. Time will tell. I do have a decent track record with Cat7 which is nearly identical in structure so I feel pretty confident it will be ok. I'm not asking for anyone to run out and get some either, just wanted to show it does indeed work. What ever happened to Brian anyway? He is the guy to ask perhaps.

[pvannatto]

My question is would the substantial extra shielding that exists these days with Cat7 and Cat8 be enough to counteract the process he demonstrated from occurring? Time to go find that damn sparker....and that cable tester

Since the ethercon shells can be purchased for less than $3 US (from B&H), to me, its cheap insurance.

[GaryH]

@pvannatto I agree, and they are already on in my case. Really just curious if the “Have to use them” is still true with this cable. I guess I’ll just have to get a sparker and start clicking

[Dan Mortensen]

Since there has to be a gap between the shield(s) and the RJ45, unless CAT8 RJ45's* are somehow different, then I would think the problem would be the same regardless of cable type.

That gap seems to be the problem, not the extent of the shielding.

*I believe I heard early on that to achieve CAT 7 or 8 performance, there is some kind of special connector for those cables which is pointedly NOT an RJ45. But I have not explored that, either, since CAT7 and 8 cables were unobtainium the last time I had reason to look. My gear hasn't been getting used, either...

[curtbl]

I "assume" the ethercons are not needed as you are stating, however the at the same time I think they are needed. I know that sounds crazy!
If we use rj45's that are the shield type connector do they actually connect to the ground of the Wing or X32 rj Socket? without the ethercons?
In other words, and I don't know, are the RJ's in the Wing and X and stage boxes able to connect the shielded RJ on cable without the ethercon. if so ethercons should not be needed.

Look at the Brian Wynn's videos in the first post. He proves that it's not enough to have RJ45 continuity to ground; the uncovered parts of the wiring need to be covered, too. The Ethercon does that.

Regarding updating the AES Standard, AES50 is only used by one company now AFAIK, so there would not be a need to update the Standard.

Standards exist, as I understand it, to provide agreement across differing interests about procedures. That agreement is worked out over time between competing and also economically disinterested but intellectually interested parties. It takes a fair amount of interest and motivation to get a Standards Committee together over time to produce the discussion and evaluation to create a Standard.

When only one entity winds up using the subject of a Standard, they can pretty much change it on their own to do whatever they want. I think this, but have nothing to do with it, so maybe I'm wrong.

Glad you're enjoying the discussion; I think it's important for us users to understand what the hell is going on with this mysterious part of the consoles, after being bitten on the butt by it, and have spent some time trying to figure it out.

@Dan Mortensen So I did revisit Brian's video and while I concur with the outcome I'm not totally convinced why the shell really makes the difference, and yet his video pretty much indicates it does.... hmmmm

As you see in the Nuetrik connectors ... https://www.neutrik.com/en/neutrik/prod ... connectors There is indeed connections to pickup the shield shell of the RJ45, they exist on the Behringer boxes. So that said it "shouldn't" matter weather there is a shell or not. Leaving one to ponder if the Behringer actually picks up that connection or only the shell. Who knows for sure but Brian's video does indeed raise questions.

I personally ran without Ethercons but with shielded connectors and cables for quite awhile, and recently added ethercons more for strain relief and to protect the RJ45's than any other reason, however as mentioned and for the cost why not have the ethercons it is cheap insurance. So far in a pinch I would not be to afraid to run a shielded cable without ethercons due to the connection that Nuetrik connector has on the units.... Now need to check continuity between the exposed connections shell connections in the behringer and the shell to see if they are the same.

Either way, so far haven't blown up the AES ports!

It's a new world in a lot of ways, the concept of doing a telescoping shield on analog lines still works as I don't want a loop between outputs and inputs, or AC if the facility doesn't have tech power and good grounding.

Meanwhile what happens if we do a telescoping shield here on this line, I don't know but inquiring minds would like to definitely know. I would worry that if there is lousy AC grounding the Ethercon suddenly picks up more responsibility that it should. Part of the reason we used to do telescoping shields in the analog world, actually still do.
I don't see the same issues with Hum etc on the digital connection as we used to but ground potential still is an issue in my simple mind.
Point, now anyone for Counterpoint! Great conversation.
Hope you all have a great weekend!
Curt

[curtbl]

Since there has to be a gap between the shield(s) and the RJ45, unless CAT8 RJ45's* are somehow different, then I would think the problem would be the same regardless of cable type.

That gap seems to be the problem, not the extent of the shielding.

*I believe I heard early on that to achieve CAT 7 or 8 performance, there is some kind of special connector for those cables which is pointedly NOT an RJ45. But I have not explored that, either, since CAT7 and 8 cables were unobtainium the last time I had reason to look. My gear hasn't been getting used, either...

@Dan Mortensen I concur it is the gap, why my question on the other response is the nuetrik connector really grounded in the behringer, i sure would think so.... But as I said inquiring minds would like to know.
C

[Dan Mortensen]

Since there has to be a gap between the shield(s) and the RJ45, unless CAT8 RJ45's* are somehow different, then I would think the problem would be the same regardless of cable type.

That gap seems to be the problem, not the extent of the shielding.

*I believe I heard early on that to achieve CAT 7 or 8 performance, there is some kind of special connector for those cables which is pointedly NOT an RJ45. But I have not explored that, either, since CAT7 and 8 cables were unobtainium the last time I had reason to look. My gear hasn't been getting used, either...

@Dan Mortensen I concur it is the gap, why my question on the other response is the nuetrik connector really grounded in the behringer, i sure would think so.... But as I said inquiring minds would like to know.
C

All it takes to confirm that the Ethercon shell is bonded to the console is an ohmmeter; I'm quite certain that I checked it around the time of Brian's videos and it is. You could do that, too.

But think about it: the mounting flange of the chassis-mount connector is metal, and is bolted to the metal of the console chassis, which is connected to power cord ground. They would have had to take extraordinary steps to avoid bonding that all together, and for what reason?

The remarkable ground connection is between the metal-shell RJ45 (which must have an ad hoc sort of soldered connection to the cable shield, since there's no solder lug or whatever compression fit for the drain wire to attach to the RJ45) and the Ethercon connector. Those are simply fitted together with no screws or pressure/compression bond, one simply fits inside the other.

It's apparently enough to do the job, since having it that way eliminates ESD interference, while not having that connection allows ESD interference.

[GaryH]

So let’s agree the gap is the point of contention with the rj45 and Aes50 ports. ESD has to first get generated and then get successfully transferred along the cable to the ‘gap’ to do any harm. So does not the extra shielding substantially reduce (perhaps eliminate) that risk of transfer? Some 8 years ago in Brians videos shielding was proven to NOT be enough in itself (with Cat5e anyway) But is it still so with cable that has 5 or 6 additional layers of protection? Cat6, 7 or 8 did not exist then to test. Aes50 use aside, the 'gap" would exist for any other rj45 connections as well. Why would a manufacturer bother with the extra expense and tooling required to add all that extra shielding in the cable design if it doesn’t make a real difference? It seems possible to me that it would also make a coincidental and beneficial difference here. Maybe it's futile, wouldn't be the first time I have spun my wheels to no avail, most likely won't be the last!

As an aside I used to solder the drain/ground wire to the rj45 case. Some rj45’s also came with a small tab where the drain wire could be passed through and securely crimped. Soldering it was a true pita but I did do it, I think Paul V did also. The design of the rj45's I now use allow the individual wires to be pulled up MUCH closer to the contacts which also then allows the shields to be pushed up further up inside the metal r45 case. The ground/shields make close to 360 degree contact with the metal case once they are crimped.

@curtbl R/T Dante business, I sent you a pm...I tried anyway.

[pvannatto]

As an aside I used to solder the drain/ground wire to the rj45 case. ... I think Paul V did also.

Yes I solder the drain wire. But I scrape the surface first to remove any protective coating, which makes tinning the surface much easier.

[kruntz]

Wing's AES50 8P8C (RJ45) screen *is* bonded to chassis ground.


---
Cheers.
Carlo