| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 498.1 | Fiber optics, anyone? | REMEDY::KOPEC | Stand tall, don't think small.. | Mon Jun 30 1986 13:25 | 15 |
| 498.2 | Coax is for RF, not AF | YOUNG::YOUNG | | Tue Jul 08 1986 20:04 | 6 |
| 498.3 | What is video cable? | TLE::CLARK | Ward Clark | Wed Jul 09 1986 00:07 | 7 |
| 498.5 | Audio is not Video | YOUNG::YOUNG | | Wed Jul 09 1986 19:49 | 16 |
| 498.6 | Some technical explanation | CADSYS::BURDICK | Ed Burdick HLO2-2/G13, dtn 225-5051 | Wed Jul 09 1986 21:39 | 13 |
| 498.7 | | APOLLO::DEHAHN | | Thu Jul 10 1986 11:22 | 9 |
| 498.8 | | HYDRA::FEINBERG | Don Feinberg | Fri Jul 11 1986 17:10 | 49 |
| 498.9 | Golden ears not necessary, use numbers | YOUNG::YOUNG | | Fri Jul 11 1986 21:14 | 29 |
| 498.10 | Audio cable modeling | COGITO::WHITE | Bob White | Sun Jul 13 1986 15:12 | 53 |
| 498.11 | just turn down the treble! | REMEDY::KOPEC | Stand tall, don't think small.. | Mon Jul 14 1986 14:05 | 18 |
| 498.12 | twin-lead sounds better to these ears | GRAMPS::WCLARK | Walt Clark | Mon Jul 14 1986 14:53 | 17 |
| 498.13 | In heaven they use balanced lines... | REMEDY::KOPEC | Stand tall, don't think small.. | Mon Jul 14 1986 15:32 | 5 |
| 498.14 | Balanced inputs --> unbalanced minds | WHICH::YERAZUNIS | | Mon Jul 14 1986 20:07 | 10 |
| 498.15 | prox. | CYBORG::LAMBERT | Max Headroom....Catch the wave... | Mon Jul 14 1986 21:37 | 1 |
| 498.16 | More analysis | COGITO::WHITE | Bob White | Tue Jul 15 1986 00:18 | 47 |
| 498.17 | Why do I do this to myself? | CONEJO::SANDERS | Bob Sanders; Parker St. | Tue Jul 15 1986 17:58 | 16 |
| 498.18 | | BISTRO::HEIN | Hein van den Heuvel, Valbonne. | Thu Aug 28 1986 12:52 | 17 |
| 498.19 | Surround speaker cables? | SMURF::SWARD | Common sense is not that common | Wed Mar 19 1997 13:35 | 10 |
| 498.20 | RS Has something | MPGS::WENTWORTH | | Thu Mar 20 1997 10:17 | 4 |
| I know this sounds weird but Radio Shack sells a heavy gauge flat cable
(it's a flat braid) that work's pretty good for me. Considering the
distance to most rear speakers, and the fact they they are for
effects mostly, I wouldn't go overboard.
|
| 498.21 | | SMURF::PBECK | Paul Beck | Fri Mar 21 1997 12:22 | 21 |
| > <<< Note 498.19 by SMURF::SWARD "Common sense is not that common" >>>
> -< Surround speaker cables? >-
>
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions for speaker cables for rear speakers
> in an AV system?
Metal would be good.
For under-the-carpet, I found the flats from Radio Schlock rather thick,
and created a ridge you could feel under a relatively thin carpet. (A
thick or shag might be different.) I switched to a much flatter cable I
bought at Cambridge Soundworks, with double-stick tape on the back. It
works out to 18 gauge, which should be fine for surround sound signals
(given all the processing that goes into that signal, any putative
degradation due to gauge would be completely irrelevant). However it isn't
cheap (if memory serves it works out to about $.50/foot).
Monster cable grade wire for surround sound speakers strikes me as
throwing perfectly good money away.
|
| 498.22 | Put something respectable in the rear... | ASDG::SBILL | | Fri Mar 21 1997 13:30 | 11 |
|
Re -.1
It may not be a waste if someday you upgrade to AC-3 or Dolby Digital
or whatever it's called now. The surround channel(s!) will carry
much more than just wind, traffic, crowd, etc sounds.
So don't put wimpy speakers/wires in the rear anymore if you ever plan
to upgrade. THAT would be a waste.
Steve B.
|