AES50 Cables and ESD

[Dan Mortensen]

So does not the extra shielding substantially reduce (perhaps eliminate) that risk of transfer?

snip

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?

While I can't answer the first of those questions (but you can, by getting a sparker and trying it), the answer to your second question is to meet the (by 2015 or so standards) insane data transfer rate of CAT7/8. They need to use every trick they can to get that kind of data through copper, and shielding each individual pair is one way. The insulation is probably some kind of special, too, since the electron flow is not only in the copper but though the insulation, too, and the wrong kind will slow things down.

Here is a link to a workshop I put together for my local AES Section in 2013 about Ethernet cable.

There are two videos there which address some of these issues but not all of them. The first is more history of Ethernet, with some internal cable info, the second shows how to terminate a cable and confirm the efficacy of the termination with a US$20,000+ tester.

The design of CAT cable is really fascinating, with all the factors of its construction and termination entering into play in how it works.

So now you tell us if all that shielding makes a difference, and show your work like Brian did.

BTW, here is the sparker I got. Brian's is a piezo device, which doesn't seem to give a reliable spark each time you click the trigger; this one is electric and will give a spark for as long as you hold the trigger.

Since you're trying to test the console and not kill it, I'd recommend sparking in short duration to try to simulate the spark from your finger against the console or microphone.

Good luck!

[GaryH]

@Dan Mortensen I did order a (different) sparker, if I have any working equipment left after the sparks, I’ll let everyone know the results I guess if I’m asking I should be willing to do the testing. It will be here early this week, maybe by weeks end I’ll know. Depending on my energy level, I might even do a video! I guess I’ll need a cable that will show failure to prove success…we shall see…

[Dan Mortensen]

Good for you, Gary!

Looking forward to hearing your results.

Regarding your CAT8 cable, it would be interesting if you could connect the three 100' lengths together as you did before, and then connect in a fourth 100' of whatever kind (5e or above) to see if your cable's superior conductance abilities fool the console/stagebox into thinking all is cool with a length that violates the limit.

[GaryH]

Well....I did my spark tests, at least as many as I am willing to risk! Some interesting twists, no pun intended.

It is however most official, it doesn't matter what type of shielded cable is used, ethercons are THE DEAL BREAKER, and THE TRUE KEY as far as I can tell, for disrupting ESD. Despite all other interventions.

What I tested:

I have my X32 Core and an S16 easily accessible so they were the subjects of my abuse. Also a short Cat6 cable was already in place without ethercons, I had apparently used it in haste at one point and just left it in. It worked out well in a way as I didn't need to go far to cause failure

Test 1: One click at the S16 frame and out...wow, quick and easy. One click at the X32 frame and bang...out. I was at first a little concerned as I thought I had at least a Cat7 patch cord in but it was not the case, that would have meant my premise was officially in the toilet before I even had coffee...but no it was a shielded Cat6 without any ethercons. Fail.

Test 2: I had a short piece, maybe 6 feet, of Cat8 with just shielded rj45's no ethercons. I plugged that in and...it took more clicks yes but I saw the same results, bang and out. Interestingly here is: It seemed to make a difference which end was zapped. At the S16 itself it pretty much lost connection after but a few sparks, however from the X32 side it took MANY to get it to fail (I'm still not sure what that means)-BUT fail it did.

Test 3: I wanted to see if a commercially made Cat7/8 would make a difference so I tried one. It resulted in the same outcome. Fail, in the same manner.

Test 4 and 5: I have a shorter patch cable of Cat8 with ethercons, I tested it with ethercons on and ethercons off.

With ethercons off it zapped out fairly quickly.

With Ethercons on there was nothing I could do spark wise caused a failure. Worked perfectly.

SO the results with regard to ESD are clear: Cat7/8 also NEED ethercons to do the job. I will never ask again!

That said there are other benefits from Cat7/8 like better protection from EMI, RFI and Crosstalk, not to forget more flexibility. It as a cable choice is still worth consideration IMO. What wasn't proved, even though it failed, was that it didn't still offer MORE protection against ESD than other cable types. I can't prove or disprove that. Even if so, the protection is not enough to use it without ethercons CLEARLY!
I did try a 30 foot Cat8 cable too, with ethercons no problems with that, no signal loss.

One unrelated but none the less odd occurrence. When I first pulled out my cheapo sparker, I tested it against a tool holder to see if I got spark. My wireless mouse about 2 feet away lit up with each and every spark...so odd! Case closed.

Edit: I forgot a few things I wanted to try. 1) Test the three 100 footers together, zapping the ends and at each NE8FF, 2) Try using a newer snake like the SD8 to see if the grounding has changed at all. So I may try these soon!

[curtbl]

Well....I did my spark tests, at least as many as I am willing to risk! Some interesting twists, no pun intended. It is however most official, it doesn't matter what type of shielded cable is used, ethercons ARE THE deal breaker, and the TRUE KEY afaict, for disrupting ESD. Despite all other interventions. What I tested: I have my X32 Core and an S16 easily accessible so they were the subjects of my abuse. Also a short Cat6 cable was already in place without ethercons, I had apparently used it in haste at one point and just left it in. Worked out well in a way as I didn't need to go far to cause failure One click at the S16 frame and out...wow, quick and easy. One click at the X32 frame and bang...out. I was at first a little concerned as I thought I had at least a Cat7 patch cord in but it was not the case, that would have meant my premise was officially in the *hiter before I even had coffee...but no it was a shielded Cat6 without any ethercons. Fail. Test 2: I had a short piece, maybe 6 feet, of Cat8 with just shielded rj45's no ethercons. I plugged that in and...it took more clicks yes but I saw the same results, bang and out. Interestingly here is, it seemed to make a difference which end was zapped. At the S16 itself pretty much lost connection after but a few sparks, however from the X32 side it took many to get it to fail...BUT fail it did. Test 3: I wanted to see if a commercially made Cat7/8 would make a difference so I tried one. It resulted in the same outcome. Fail, in the same manner. Test 4 and 5: I have a shorter patch cable of Cat8 with ethercons, I tested it with ethercons on and ethercons off. With ethercons off it zapped out fairly quickly. With Ethercons on...nothing I could do spark wise caused a failure. Worked perfectly. SO the results with regard to ESD are clear Cat7/8 also NEED ethercons to do the job. I will never ask again! That said there are other benefits from Cat7/8, better protection from EMI, RFI and Crosstalk, not to forget flexibility. It as a cable choice is still worth consideration IMO. What wasn't proved, even though it failed, is that it didn't still offer MORE protection against ESD. I can't prove or disprove that. Even if so, not enough to use it without ethercons clearly! I did try a 30 footer too, with ethercons no problem, no zap. One unrelated but none the less odd occurrence. When I first pulled out my cheapo sparker, I tested it against a tool holder to see if I got spark. My wireless mouse about 2 feet away lit up like a Xmas tree! With every spark every time! Like a light show...so odd! Case closed.

Well, Gary Kudos! for time well spent! Interesting, without testing I would have put money, not alot, on the shielded without Ethercon connector yielding the same result as with the ethercon installed. it appears that ground is ground but the amount of ground surface that the ethercons provide makes a difference ..... Interesting for sure.
Did like that you mouse lit up like a Christmas Tree!
Curt

[Dan Mortensen]

Thanks, GaryH, for doing the tests and providing the results expeditiously.

It's nice to be proven right once in a while, and to have your view of a fairly complex situation proven to be correct.

Still would like to see you try an over-length run of CAT8 to see what happens.

Also, be aware that people who want to read your complex tale will have an easier time doing so if the block of text is broken up so it can be scanned.

Like this post is, with each point you're trying to make as its own paragraph.

FYI.

Thanks again!

[GaryH]

I was thinking all day of the other testing I wished I had done. So I just said to hell with it and set the last few things up. @Dan Mortensen best I could do (so far) with the extra length was add it from the SD8 to an S16 because I don't own another NE8FF. I'm trying to remember if I have something else that might work but no luck yet. Anyway I think it makes the situation somewhat different because of the powered device in the middle of the chain, however the results were still pretty interesting.

Additional Test 1: I connected the three 100' sections of Cat8 together using 2 NE8FF's From the X32C to an SD8 all reels with ethercons on.
I zapped from both devices, at the SD8 case side and then at the X32C case. No loss of connection either way, spark away as I might.

Additional Test 2: I zapped the Neutrik NE8FF' metal cases between reel 1 and 2 and then the one between reel 2 and 3. No loss of connection no matter what. All solid. Again spark away as I might.

Additional Test 3: I connected a 30 foot section of Cat8 with ethercons between the SD8 and the S16, perfect sync. Spark at any point from the mixer or at either of the stageboxes mattered not. That's 330 total feet, X32C to S16.

Additional Test 4: I added a 150' section of Cat7 with ethercons from the SD8 to the S16. Again, zapping from any device at any point resulted in no loss of signal, perfect sync. That's 450 total feet X32C to S16.

That's all for now.

[Dan Mortensen]

@GaryH:

Nice job in all ways! Thanks for taking the time to redo your initial findings, and for doing the additional testing.

Note, though, that putting an active device in the middle of some cable runs resets the distance meter so that each run between active devices becomes its own 100meter maximum. So you can put 100meters between console and SD8, and another 100 meters between the SD8 and an S16, or whatever devices you choose to use.

You will need another Ethercon coupler in order to test any over-length cable runs, to see if using the higher grade CAT cable somehow gives the ability to ignore the 100m max length. Prediction: It won't. But you'll be able to prove for sure.

Good job, though. You are advancing our knowledge base.

Edit: How do I call someone out? I get notifications when other people do that to me, which is nice, and I want to do that for others. TIA.

[GaryH]

@Dan Mortensen Thanks Dan, I agree about the extra distance business and I also doubt I will get much extra distance beyond 320-330 but I left things somewhat connected. I think I may own something but need to look for it.

to get the "call out" In your reply, type the @ key followed by a letter, in your case the @ key followed by a d (for dan) then you see a drop down list of all the members who have a name starting with d and you select it.

[RexBeckett]

Great work @GaryH , that is truly courageous engineering!

I suspect, but cannot easily prove, that the etherCONs work because they are connected directly to the metal cases. This provides a low-impedance path to ground for (most of) the ESD current without passing through any PCB tracks. If the current runs through any PCB tracks, it is much more likely to disturb the link through inductive or capacitive coupling.