Poll

Would you use BNC connectors?

Yes
6 (42.9%)
No
3 (21.4%)
Are you nuts?
5 (35.7%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Voting closed: 11 Dec 2003, 11:38 am

A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 3529 times.

wreilly

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 68
This may belong in the LAB Fourm, if the Moderator wishes to move it, it's fine with me.

After auditioning several Digital IC, one, the StereoVOX HDXV I got to thinking ( the smoke has nearly cleared ).

I'd like to take a poll.

What does the group think of the idea of using BNC connectors as a Standard for all cable IC connections ( asside from Balanced ): This would replace the RCA jacks on both ends. Also BNC to RCA adapters are available in the mean time.

I can't think of a down side to this ( other than the fact no one will do it ).

What do you think? All comments welcome.

NOTE: I removed speaker cables from the list.

Regards,
Bill

PhilNYC

A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2
« Reply #1 on: 6 Dec 2003, 01:17 pm »
The main issue would come from the rear panel of a lot of AV receivers and HT processors.  There are so many inputs/outputs jammed into the back, and I think making them all BNC would make it incredibly hard for anyone who has a lot of AV sources.  

And are you considering "transition costs" in this poll?  (ie. we'd all have to spend money on getting our cables re-terminated!)

wreilly

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 68
A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2
« Reply #2 on: 6 Dec 2003, 01:29 pm »
Quote from: PhilNYC
The main issue would come from the rear panel of a lot of AV receivers and HT processors.  There are so many inputs/outputs jammed into the back, and I think making them all BNC would make it incredibly hard for anyone who has a lot of AV sources.  

And are you considering "transition costs" in this poll?  (ie. we'd all have to spend money on getting our cables re-terminated!)


Hi Phill,

Considering the size of the current "high end" ICs I think the BNC would offer a space advantage, not a disadvantage. However you are right this would be an HUGE change. Which is why I suggested the BNC to RCA adapters.

We see many RCA connectors with locking barrels, when this was exactly what BNC was designed for.

At first it would have to be offered as an option.

Again a huge change to be sure.

Regards,
Bill

PhilNYC

A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2
« Reply #3 on: 6 Dec 2003, 01:37 pm »
Quote from: wreilly
Hi Phill,

Considering the size of the current "high end" ICs I think the BNC would offer a space advantage, not a disadvantage. However you are right this would be an HUGE change. Which is why I suggested the BNC to RCA adapters.
Regards,
Bill


I don't think moving to BNC would do anything to change the size of current "high end" ICs, would it?  But I was also thinking more that the BNC locking mechanism takes up more space than a typical RCA, so AV receiver/processor manufacturers would be challenged with spacing of the terminals in a way that would (a) have everything fit, and (b) have enough space to make locking/unlocking them easy.

Btw - I run Audience Au24 cables throughout my rig...and they are really slim and tiny.  I had forgotten how big some of those high end cables can get!

How about the idea of changing all ICs to Firewire/IEEE 1394 cables?  I know there's been a lot of talk about this in the industry, particularly as things become more digital...

wreilly

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 68
A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2
« Reply #4 on: 6 Dec 2003, 05:15 pm »
Quote from: PhilNYC
I don't think moving to BNC would do anything to change the size of current "high end" ICs, would it?  But I was also thinking more that the BNC locking mechanism takes up more space than a typical RCA, so AV receiver/processor manufacturers would be challenged with spacing of the terminals in a way that would (a) have everything fit, and (b) have enough space to make locking/unlocking them easy.

Btw - I run Audience Au24 cables throughout my rig...and they are really slim and tiny.  I had forgotten how  ...



Hi Phill,

I'm holding a set of HDXV in my hand and the diameter of the locking ring is the same or smaller than several other cables, one with locking bullet plugs the other without.

Other than change the rear panel connecter type I do not belive the
AV receiver/processor manufacturers would have to make any other changes.
Cable manufacturers would.

As to Firewire, this would be best for Digital cables. In fact I would not be surprized to see this become a standard.

But for Analoge and the current Digital cables BNC is the ticket. :)

Kind Regards,
Bill

kana813

A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2
« Reply #5 on: 6 Dec 2003, 05:44 pm »
Like PhilNYC, I use Audience cables so spacing is not a problem. Second,
I think AES balanced XLR digital cables are the way to go.


If your digital equipment supports AES, get a male & female  XLR plug and
make your own digital IC with a single twisted pair from some Cat5e cable. Just connect the +/- pins 2&3. Cost should be <$10., and compare it to the StereoVOX HDXV BNC.

For speaker connections I prefer bare wires, but if you want to replace bananas & spades, my vote is for the Neutrik Speakon. Easy to termnate
and biwire ready.

wreilly

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 68
A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2
« Reply #6 on: 6 Dec 2003, 06:38 pm »
Quote from: kana813
Like PhilNYC, I use Audience cables so spacing is not a problem. Second,
I think AES balanced XLR digital cables are the way to go.


If your digital equipment supports AES, get a male & female  XLR plug and
make your own digital IC with a single twisted pair from some Cat5e cable. Just connect the +/- pins 2&3. Cost should be <$10., and compare it to the StereoVOX HDXV BNC.

For speaker connections I prefer bare wires, but if you want to replace bananas & spades, my vote is for the Neutrik Speakon. Easy to termnate
and biwire ready.


kana813,

Ok I forgot about the AES and I was not familure with Neutrik Speakon.
Unfortunaily my equipmet does not have balanced I/O.

The Speakons look very promising, anyone else use them?

Unfortunatly just using pins 2 and 3 on a balanced cable defeats one of the main goals of a Balanced cable namely a seperate ground. You are in effect connecting the signal common ( which is not ground ), to ground; probably not a good idea if the device has true balanced I/O. This could actually cause damage if one was grounded and the other was not. Connecting the signal common to ground is a bad thing.

Regards,
Bill

RussKon

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 131
A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2
« Reply #7 on: 6 Dec 2003, 07:37 pm »
What does the group think of the idea of using BNC connectors as a Standard for all cable connections ( asside from Balanced ): Speaker as well as IC. This would replace the RCA jacks on both ends on RCA ICs and banana, spade on speaker wire. And BNC to RCA adapters are available.


it would be ok for ic but not for speakers.... the size of many speaker cables would not work with a bnc connector.....

additionally, it is not a good idea to mix line level connectors with speaker level connectors..... imagine making a mistake and accidentally hooking the output of your amplifier to the input of your cd recorder..... an easy way to damage your equipment!!!

wreilly

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 68
A modest proposal - BNC Vs. RCA: NOT speaker cables Ver -2
« Reply #8 on: 6 Dec 2003, 09:34 pm »
Quote from: RussKon

it would be ok for ic but not for speakers.... the size of many speaker cables would not work with a bnc connector.....

additionally, it is not a good idea to mix line level connectors with speaker level connector ...


HI RussKon

Point taken, Ok lets forget speaker cables. :oops:

I'll take it out of the original question. Perhaps I was wrong, the smoke had not fully cleared.

Regards,
Bill