AES50 Cables and ESD

[GaryH]

@Klaus Well...I can say I survived the "sparker" test wars and I may have just been lucky. Some say that is very true. However I did a s--t load of sparking without any damage to anything that I am aware of. Still use the same equipment and did those tests at least a year ago. Not suggesting anyone else casually try it. It was not in this thread but I did extensive testing a while ago with Cat8 cables because I believed that the extra shielding of Cat7/8 could maybe alleviate the effect of ESD with regard to AES50 cable. I really wanted to know as I am a big promotor of both Cat7 and Cat8 for aes50 use and had suggested that might be true several times in several threads. The sparkers I used were also pretty potent. Though it took more zaps to interrupt the signal, I was still able to do it. The results being Cat7/8 cable even with all that extra shielding need ethercons like any other. I still am a big fan of Cat7/8 and use it almost exclusively, for at least a few years now without problems. Besides the extra shielding, almost all Cat7/8 is more flexible, easier to roll up and out. I have tested Cat8 up to 300 feet (in 3 interconnected 100 foot rolls) and it worked just fine. I would say (just like MG now seems to) Guaranteed to work for 50M, 80M is very probable. Test ANY type cat cable in the real world first rather than at an important gig to be sure it does what you want. They shy away form 100M use these days, results may vary. Some users have had success at 100m others not.

[Klaus]

Thanks GaryH
so while a 'System' functions without problems, sparking it can make it lose sync,
not ?

Klaus

[GaryH]

@Klaus The sparker replicates the effects of ESD and causes what can happen when ESD is actually introduced to a system. That is it causes pops and clicks and interrupted audio signal (or worse) for our aes50 systems. This was shown many years ago by a Brian Wynne (not sure of that name spelling) in several YouTube videos. He showed that by adding Ethercons, ESD could be defeated. The outcome being that everyone now accepts the use of Ethercons as standard practice for AES50 cable. Cat 7/8 did not exist back then. I did my tests in hopes to prove my theory that Cat7/8 would possibly not require ethercons-I proved myself wrong, it does. Most Cat7/8 has an overall shield (foil or mesh) a drain wire and each data pair has its own shielding layer as well My thinking was that all these shielding layers would give the needed extra protection against ESD. I found it took more persistent zapping, but it did not completely protect the signal interruption. I still prefer it. It also gives added protection against EMI and RFI and in almost all cases it is more flexible.

[Klaus]

My story lately until now :
Each X32Core / S16 device has it's 'breakout on both A / B connectors
: Ethercon on Daetwyler patch cord 2m Cat5a Ethercon > Neutrik NE8FF
Ethercon on 70m Sommer Cat6 S/FTP > Ethercon
or
Ethercon on 70m Sommer Cat7 PUR > Ethercon
With only the FOH side connected thru these breakouts,
and the above Sommer cables connected directly to an X32 board,
no problems...
Now this past august, a festival was connected thru all my S16s including
breakouts like above...

and towards the end of the evening, sync was completely lost...
reboot was needed, and eventually again sync was lost...

After the live show, sync was stable...
Less crowd was around, and thus
it maybe the artists 800MHz wl mics could have interfered
during their show,
or the Cat cable inside the cable protectors
parallel with a power line and an audio line
and a DMX line has not been
protected enough or slipped out of the protectors
or something similar and beeing stepped on...

I must admit that I was powered from a diesel generator, but
everything X32C / S16 was powered from a Eaton UPS

The AES50-B connector @ FOH was used for another S16 @ FOH,
that supplied the delay speakers @ FOH,
and these amps got power from another power line,
( that went thru the cable protectors to FOH )
Maybe this could have caused funny grounding loops...
?
Now I'm going to replace the breakouts by the new
NE8FFX6-W coupler, and all patch cables by 0.5m
and Ethercons...

Klaus

[GaryH]

@Klaus The old adage is still true. Even the very old unshielded cat5 cable can carry aes50 signals (sometimes) without issues. They will work right up to the point they don't. We know now how effective shielded cable with ethercons are with regard to all this stuff. My point being that the perfect storm may have occurred that festival day when whatever weak link it was in the system was breached by whatever it was doing the breeching. It may never happen again...or it may occur way more often. That said it seems like you have a good handle on improving/fixing the whole thing and will be just fine in the end.

[Klaus]

First I'm going to 'spark' as-it-is

More comments are welcome !

Thanks a lot and best regards

Klaus

[Klaus]

sparked...3 Dropouts during 30 minutes...
Only happened on the A AES50 port on the X32Core, in line 2 break outs,
70m Cat 6 / 7... all Ethercon !
The other B Aes50 port on the X32Core , when sparked on that S16,
2 break outs in line ( no long Cat ) didn't drop out...
But I found a maybe bad break out cable on the A port line...
Otherwise pretty stable...
Klaus

[GaryH]

Curious, you say all ethercon BUT are the cable shields/ground connected to the rj45'S? Both ends of the cable? The reason the ethercons work is they make contact with the shielded rj45. If the cable grounds/shields are properly connected to the rj45 shell, the ESD is directed to the case via the ethercon mechanical connection to the case. The quick and easy way to tell is check continuity ethercon shell to ethercon shell. It should show continuity if wired correctly. In all my sparker tests, I have not been able to cause dropouts with ethercons in place, only when not using them. Interesting.

[Klaus]

Maybe I misread from your earlier posting...
>I found it took more persistent zapping, but it did not completely protect the signal interruption
That was my observation too
I'll recheck the 'grounding' with Ethercons...

Thanks

Klaus

[GaryH]

@Klaus That statement was in regard to zapping Cat8 without ethercons. It took more jolts to disrupt it than cat5/6 did but it would eventually disrupt the signal. The result being it needs ethercons placed too.