Network cable differences for AES50?

Post Reply
KMaxwell
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:42 am

Network cable differences for AES50?

Post by KMaxwell »

Network cable differences for AES50?

The thread about AES50 Cables and ESD brought to mind some questions I have wanted to ask.

From what I have read over the years it seems like the best cable to use for AES50 should have bonded pairs and a separator (or is it called a spacer) between the pairs. For cabling that may get stepped on. I thought at one time I had read that some of the Cat cables above (in numbering) the Cat5 had different twist rates that could affect the usable length and even mess with the performance due to uneven lengths between the pairs. I don’t know how much of this is accurate and how much is inaccurate.

I also understand that if the wire is stranded instead of solid that the usable length is reduced. But I also know that stranded cable is usually more flexible. I used to have a snake cable from a long time ago that used solid conductor cable and I never had an issue with it. But in general my preference would be for stranded cable where possible. I thought that the 8P8C connectors (usually called RJ45) may be different for stranded cabling, how about the pass thru versions? But it seems like the ones I am looking at say that they can handle either solid or stranded cable.

I have no problem making my own cables. But I really should say I have no problem terminating my own cables. I have terminated a LOT of Cat cable and have even terminated a bunch of EtherCon cabling for installs. And I won’t’ even mention all of the other cables I have made.

I am looking for the cable that is as flexible as is possible with the ruggedness so it isn’t a problem if someone were to step on it. I will probably make a 150 long EtherCon.

The outdoor shows that I would use this for we presently run multiple snake cables and power cable in the grass and use some Bumble Bee Cable protectors where we cross a concrete sidewalk. The cabling is heavy enough that is sinks enough in the grass and isn’t a trip hazard. If we switch to a Midas DL32 stage box I would need to run an EtherCon cable and a power cable and an Ethernet cable (to control the DSP that we use) so I want cabling that is going to lie as flat as is possible. I know how to properly coil cables so that they don’t get a twist to them.

Any suggestions of the best cable that will fit my needs?
User avatar
GaryH
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:19 pm

Re: Network cable differences for AES50?

Post by GaryH »

I don’t discard the twists per inch argument but I believe it factors in as less of an issue than some might claim. Same with the solid/stranded issue. I think if you were Going for absolute max distance both would probably be more of a factor. 100M has been the accepted max length but Music group seems to have cautiously lowered the max distance to 80m these days anyway. Bonded grounds still used at both ends for sure, and ethercons for sure.

So at 46M I think you will be safe enough with the higher category types and using stranded conductors. I have tested 300 feet of Cat8 which worked just fine under less than optimal conditions. I might then suggest Cat7 (I would say 8 but it’s hard to find single lengths over 100 feet and the 2 types are very similar anyway). You can get some nice flexible cable, rugged and pretty cheap, 200 foot lengths easy enough. With regard to rj45 type, I would never go back to anything but pass through myself. They are so much easier to assemble IMO. Just make sure you get the larger opening Cat6 shielded kind of rj45 as the diameter of Cat7 and 8 is usually larger than most 5/6. You can draw up the twisted pairs much tighter to the contacts and get the shield and covering up into the shell further with pass through type. The cable I link to below comes with molded rj45’s. You can trim back the plastic they were molded with (to fit ethercons) or re terminate them yourself, which is what I would suggest. If you are making shorter lengths, you could keep the trimmed molded ones on each end and your own on the other ends. I have done that a few times. You WILL need to trim the ends to fit in an ethercon shell though, a real pain but will work if you are careful.They need to be trimmed back to the metal case. If terminating your own, once prepared I usually crimp (gently) the cable end slightly out of round to help get it up inside the rj45 case more easily. A few other favorite tips and tricks too. I find most Cat7 is very flexible also, more similar to good mic cable than not. I have not used the type I link below, but it looks equal to or better than what I do own.

If you are averse to Cat7, my previous all time favorite cable is Canare RJC5ES-4P-BS, nothing comes close to its flexiblity, durability and overall construction IMO. Not cheap, about $1.50 per foot but you will be very happy if you want Cat5E. It lays out like good quality mic cable.

Some options:








http://store.haveinc.com/p-60530-canare ... hbEALw_wcB
Dan Mortensen
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:43 pm

Re: Network cable differences for AES50?

Post by Dan Mortensen »

KMaxwell wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 4:27 pm Network cable differences for AES50?

The thread about AES50 Cables and ESD brought to mind some questions I have wanted to ask.

From what I have read over the years it seems like the best cable to use for AES50 should have bonded pairs and a separator (or is it called a spacer) between the pairs. For cabling that may get stepped on.
This is my opinion, too. There is a type of signal disruption that happens when the pairs are close to each other and then moved relative to each other. That either does not happen or happens less when the pairs are physically further apart. It seemed like the higher grades had that separator while 5e and below didn't.
KMaxwell wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 4:27 pm I thought at one time I had read that some of the Cat cables above (in numbering) the Cat5 had different twist rates that could affect the usable length and even mess with the performance due to uneven lengths between the pairs. I don’t know how much of this is accurate and how much is inaccurate.
This is a theory that was propagated by people with zero evidence beyond conjecture.

Twist rates in the pairs do vary over distance to solve other problems, but it's designed to even out over distance. The same pair will have one rate at this point in space which is different at that point than the adjacent pairs, but the rate will change for all of them as you move over the length of the cable. The twist rate variation will change more in the higher grades of cable, but it's in order to help them pass signal better, not to diminish capacity. Or so I was told when looking into this.
KMaxwell wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 4:27 pm I also understand that if the wire is stranded instead of solid that the usable length is reduced. But I also know that stranded cable is usually more flexible.
Last sentence is definitely true, although the wire manufacturers will tell you that the solid wire of today is much more accepting of movement than previous solid wire and even than non-CAT solid wire. Still, stranded (which is lots of tiny wires working together on one signal) will always be more flexible than a solid wire, and those of us who move gear around as a condition of working IMO will always want to be using stranded.

The funny thing about your first sentence in this segment is that the stranded measuring standard is much more stringent than the solid wire measuring standard, and is intended to be so because stranded wire is what you are going to want for "Patch cables", which are short-ish cables that are plugged and unplugged frequently to patch things in and out of the system. They need to hold up to that abuse/use, and stranded is better for that and the measuring standard is higher. They are also fairly short cables.

The other standard is for solid wires (maybe called "trunk" or something like that?) that are designed to go into walls and conduits and basically left alone. It is much more forgiving because the cables are not intended to be handled once they are in place. They are also long-ish cables that are much closer to the length limits than the typical patch cable.

At an audio cable discussion with the then-Sales Engineer for Belden (which is the OEM for most brands of wire but not all), I did my best to pin him down about the difference between the two measurement standards ( a cable that will pass the "Solid" standard can fail the "Patch" standard) and our (PA people) use of stranded for long runs that are more similar to trunk runs than patch.

He eventually conceded that, yes, perhaps the trunk standard would be the more appropriate one for our snake cables, but I've not seen that appear anywhere. Obviously, in the context of all CAT cable users, PA people are a very tiny minority, so why address our needs directly?

I have no good info about what the best cable for you would be, sorry.

I AM a big believer in the concept that people who make their own CAT cables need to test their work on something other than a console/stage box combination to assure that they are not just barely meeting the performance specs.

Getting the tester is the issue; the most affordable one I've seen is the Byte Brothers Real World Certifier, which does catch problems in my experience but takes a while to do it, which gets old when you're trying to do a lot of cables. It also takes some shortcuts, apparently, which the companies that make the real certifiers don't like. But it does test many parameters at once and gives you a Pass/Fail for the cable. And mine has kept working over the last 6 years or so when I've needed it.

After reading some good comments about it, I also got an Ideal Networks SignalTek NT just before the pandemic hit and my need stopped. I've checked it a few times and it works much faster than the Byte Brothers one, and a B-stock one was about 4 times as much as the Byte Brothers. (There was also a Fluke for around the same money that sounded like it did the right things to test cables, but after digging deeper into it and talking to a design engineer at Fluke, it turned out not to be there right thing and the Fluke guy said they did not have the right thing for that money to do what I wanted.)

For the CAT Cable workshop that was linked in the other thread, I was able to borrow from Fluke a DTX-1800 for a month and check out lots of cables, and this was the same model as the guy from Blue Jeans cable uses to test his cables (shown in the second video of that workshop). But it's close to 10x (EDIT: actually closer to 50x -!!!!- or more, depending on accessories) the cost of the Byte Brothers one, and that made no sense for my purpose. But it's really cool and goes really fast. I believe it's now discontinued and is superseded by something better that is even more money.

Hope some of that is helpful to you. Good luck!
Last edited by Dan Mortensen on Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KMaxwell
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:42 am

Re: Network cable differences for AES50?

Post by KMaxwell »

Thank you Dan for all of your work on this. I read all that you posted back when you first did the testing of the cabling for the X32.
soundresource
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:42 pm

Re: Network cable differences for AES50?

Post by soundresource »

Max I/O on a XM32 is 54-56 channels? We seem to have added alot of fail-points and question marks regarding cable & connector durability & grounding vs. old school copper snakes. IMO the culprit is the vulnerability to disruption of the Level 1 protocol used, rather than Level 3 of Dante, DigiGrid, etc.
Post Reply

Return to “Stageboxes”