Behringer X32 + SD16, no connection over 150’ cable?

[maryjanerelated]

The cable has ethercon connectors, and passes my LAN Explorer test including shielding. The connection works over a 20’ unshielded cable (the longest other run I have) but shows absolutely nothing on the console with the 150’ cable. Doesn’t work with or without the barrels on the connectors. Any ideas?

[pvannatto]

Hi @maryjanerelated, welcome to our forum. There must be something wrong with the cable itself if you can't exceed 150'. I have two 250' and a 300' reels that work fine with my X32 Rack and SD16/SD8. Do you know if the cable is cat5e, cat6, cat7 or cat8?

[maryjanerelated]

Hi @pvannatto, thank you! Happy to be here with my very own X32 finally.

The cable is supposedly Cat5e, it is specifically https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detai ... rcon-cable

[pvannatto]

The cable is supposedly Cat5e,

I would suggest that if you got it from Sweetwater, either contact them or return it. They have great customer service.

My reels are cat6 STP cable that I added the ethercons to the ends. (which can be separately obtained). I get my ethercons from B&H Photo Video.

[GaryH]

@maryjanerelated Besides the solid advice from Paul...IF you had those Ethercons off at some point, it is more than possible they (or one end) are not on correctly. You might want to double check them. Sometimes the rj45 doesn't get pushed up into the shell quite far enough and will either not connect at all or there can be intermittent disconnects. Sometimes the plastic cable clamp section doesn't fit up in the shell properly as well. If tested without the ethercons and it tests ok it could be that. You should feel and hear the ethercon "click" when the connection is solid and it should not require much force so do so. As stated, 150 feet should be a snap distance wise.

[maryjanerelated]

@GaryH I tried using the cable for the AES50 connection both without the barrels on, and with only one on (a suggestion from a friend). It did not work, unfortunately it’s not an issue with the way the cable is seated into the shell.

[KMaxwell]

@GaryH I tried using the cable for the AES50 connection both without the barrels on, and with only one on (a suggestion from a friend). It did not work, unfortunately it’s not an issue with the way the cable is seated into the shell.

It sounds like something is wrong with the cable. I know you said you tested it with your "LAN Explorer" but I have seen some testers that give you a false positive. I was involved in an install and there was a cable that wouldn't work that someone else built and their cable tester said it was fine but I had a more expensive cable tester (I had borrowed) and it showed me a problem with the cable. So I had to redo all of the cab;es that this other fellow had done. Everything worked after that.

[Dan Mortensen]

@GaryH I tried using the cable for the AES50 connection both without the barrels on, and with only one on (a suggestion from a friend). It did not work, unfortunately it’s not an issue with the way the cable is seated into the shell.

It sounds like something is wrong with the cable. I know you said you tested it with your "LAN Explorer" but I have seen some testers that give you a false positive. I was involved in an install and there was a cable that wouldn't work that someone else built and their cable tester said it was fine but I had a more expensive cable tester (I had borrowed) and it showed me a problem with the cable. So I had to redo all of the cab;es that this other fellow had done. Everything worked after that.

Scrolling through the forum again and replying to this month+ old post to elaborate a little on what Kevin wrote.

It's important with these data cables to understand that a tester that simply checks continuity and pin mapping (making sure that there's a physical connection from pin to pin and that each of the pins is connected in the same/proper sequence) is not at all sufficient to confirm proper working order, and that is especially true for longer cables, like over 50-100'.

There are factors affecting the data transmission ability negatively that are due to simple distance: the amount of wire the signal is going through, and how each individual wire interacts with its neighbors over that distance. Electrons are flowing not only inside the insulation around each little wire, but also through the insulation and outside of the insulation. How that flow interaction is handled and implementation will have neutral or more likely negative effects on the ability of each signal to reach the other end and be recognized there for the data it contains. It's tough to get all that right, apparently, which is why the cable needs to be tested after construction.

The better testers seem also able to tell if the pairs are handled correctly, meaning wires from different pairs can connected so there's continuity but still connected wrong.

I'm sure others here are more up on what testers are currently available to do the level of data transmission/reception evaluation that we need to be successful, but the cheapest decent one that was available early in the X/M 32 era was around US$300, and that one did the evaluation well but took its time to do so. Testers that did the same thing and as well but faster seemed to jump to around US$1000, and the coolest one I ever got to use started at around US$20,000 and got more expensive depending on what options you needed for your particular work. So if you can't afford the right tester you need to be able to take your cable to somebody who can. I don't know how you find those people other than knowing that people who install data cable as their business had better be able to test the installation.

The testers I bit the bullet for max out at CAT5e (which is all we need for the X/M series), and I don't know what higher CAT testers are now available or how much they cost.

OH, and there are people who make data cables for us to buy (like Blue Jeans Cable in Seattle) who have one of the elaborate testers and run a test on every cable they make and send you a printout of how that cable performed after they made it. They may be unique in doing that, but it should be standard for every cable, especially cables that are around 150' or more.

I was looking at cable from somewhere else (which is sold by Amazon and other places) who told me they tested all of the cables that I was considering purchasing (4 CAT5e in one jacket, so redundancy for a long run), but they refused to tell me how they tested it, which, along with the onset of the Pandemic, nixed the deal.

[GaryH]

@Dan Mortensen GLAD to see you are still here with us!! I consider you as THE expert with regard to all this AEA50 stuff.

There are factors affecting the data transmission ability negatively that are due to simple distance: the amount of wire the signal is going through, and how each individual wire interacts with its neighbors over that distance. Electrons are flowing not only inside the insulation around each little wire, but also through the insulation and outside of the insulation. How that flow interaction is handled and implementation will have neutral or more likely negative effects on the ability of each signal to reach the other end and be recognized there for the data it contains. It's tough to get all that right, apparently, which is why the cable needs to be tested after construction.

All the more reason (IMHO) to use Cat7/8 as they resist all the extraneous crap better...I have mediocre testers at best thou-still can't swing a pricy meter. But you may recall I physically tested over 300 feet of Cat 8 including POE and using 2 Neutrik connectors (not considered optimal) with zero issues real life. Truth be told I never use that extreme length as I have had no need to but I still use its shorter members all the time, and for a few years now. I do test with up to 2 different style meters but not the "good" ones. I still (when feeling brave) do battle in the private user FB forums, that age old (and boring) Cat5E ONLY fight. So lame and outdated in my opinion some 15 years on. Still get attacked and piled on...don't much care, all logic ignored, all proof ignored by the loud talker experts Some of it is funny if you have thick skin. Still looking for that elusive Fluke...also this:

https://behringer.world/viewtopic.php?p=8517#p8517

[Dan Mortensen]

@Dan Mortensen GLAD to see you are still here with us!! I consider you as THE expert with regard to all this AEA50 stuff.

There are factors affecting the data transmission ability negatively that are due to simple distance: the amount of wire the signal is going through, and how each individual wire interacts with its neighbors over that distance. Electrons are flowing not only inside the insulation around each little wire, but also through the insulation and outside of the insulation. How that flow interaction is handled and implementation will have neutral or more likely negative effects on the ability of each signal to reach the other end and be recognized there for the data it contains. It's tough to get all that right, apparently, which is why the cable needs to be tested after construction.

All the more reason (IMHO) to use Cat7/8 as they resist all the extraneous crap better...I have mediocre testers at best thou-still can't swing a pricy meter. But you may recall I physically tested over 300 feet of Cat 8 including POE and using 2 Neutrik connectors (not considered optimal) with zero issues real life. Truth be told I never use that extreme length as I have had no need to but I still use its shorter members all the time, and for a few years now. I do test with up to 2 different style meters but not the "good" ones. I still (when feeling brave) do battle in the private user FB forums, that age old (and boring) Cat5E ONLY fight. So lame and outdated in my opinion some 15 years on. Still get attacked and piled on...don't much care, all logic ignored, all proof ignored by the loud talker experts Some of it is funny if you have thick skin. Still looking for that elusive Fluke...also this:

https://behringer.world/viewtopic.php?p=8517#p8517

Thanks, @GaryH, I'm not here a lot but do walk through periodically.

Back when we were discussing this on this forum, I got 3 200' chunks of CAT8, maybe the ones you recommended from Amazon, and two of them connected end-to-end failed on the meters I have, so at 300' you are on the ragged edge IMO.

I'm in a discussion again about this subject on the Live Audio Board, which caused me to come here again to see if anyone here had new info on an old topic. It was asserted there today that there is increased Insertion Loss on higher CAT cables than 5e, and since my meter doesn't address that number (I think) I have no way to disprove it, but I basically doubt the assertion that cables that are designed to pass data more efficiently also cause problems that lower level cables solve. To me, it's not logically consistent, so I don't think I'm the expert that you credit me for being.

Maybe if I'd spent the $20k I'd be more of an expert...