good coax for internal rewiring?

[coppercone2]

Whats a good type of coaxial cable for internal rewiring of stuff that is direct soldered to things like switch posts, etc?

Like I think it should maybe hold its bends well.

[geggi1]

Get some teflon coax because the dielectric will handle soldering better.

[jonpaul]

Teflon is not as flexible as polyethelene, hard to strip the inner

We used RG174/U small dia, no issue on debraifing nor the polyethylene dielectric.

Fine for short runs.

Jon

[coppercone2]

Does it hold bends well? The problem is that after you solder it I want it to stay in the same position without yanking the contacts. I feel like alot of cables have too much spring to them.

Like do they have thermoset coax? For instance, I have a PCB that has a coax that goes into it, and then it does a 90 degree bend and plugs into the PCB with a pin. I want it so the center conductor can hold a 90 degree bend or something like that, so I can have heat shrink over the center pin and the wire (I had to make it so there is bare wire without the dielectric that bends 90 degree, and then just make a 'elbow' with electronics silicone. Works but its not what the factory had. And all these HP's have small area between the PCB and the body panel, so if the coax has spring it ends up rubbing against the body panel and stuff.

For some of them, I think I can measure current and down-grade to a thinner cable also (clip on RF probe).

If that does not exist I can get little brackets made out of whatever and use really small zipties or lashing to get the wire to form a 90 degree bend I guess..

I like RG400 but its like spring loaded for a chassis application lol

The RG174 is like way thinner then what is in here, I doubt it matters, Just need to verify the power level, but I don't think that will ever be a issue in a chassis? With RG174, its so thin that these bend problems go away.. I was thinking to maintain the same dimensions, which is hard/annoying.

[coppercone2]

Or do they have coaxial with like an additional metal piece that allows it to hold the bend shape? So it would be like semi rigid, but built like a ladder line cable (like the power company uses for the telephone poles, there is a steel cable attached to the coax that is just structural)

[coppercone2]

jon paul reminded me I have RG316 DS cable. That solves my problem. I forgot I bought it, I was looking to make some high flex cables for the lab, got the crimping tool and everything, then I forgot about it last year. I think it will work, its just alot thinner.

Just verified that the RG316DS cable holds a nice bend 90 degree bend radius that is tight. Unfortunately not teflon, but I have the resistance soldering tweezers from pace that work pretty good for soldering these (I dab a very small amount of flux on cable, cut a solder piece into the connector, heat with tweezers and insert center conductor, for coaxial it does nice job. I can control heat very well and not over heat with foot pedal so long I dial in settings.

[jonpaul]

Rebonjour, we used RG174/u for many applications, RF, audio, HV.

See the Belden wire and cable specs for full info.

To hold the coax in bends, we use small cable clamps of plastic or nylon, or hot melt glue.

Very easy to use.

Teflon is best for high temp, HV or very low leakage use

Jon

[precaud]

Every RG174/U I've encountered has steel in the braid, not good for audio.

[jonpaul]

Copper alloy, is commonly used in coax braid, for strength, flexibility.

I have not found 100% pure Cu in coax braid.

Cu plating over steel should not affect audio, or RF.

Try an ABX relay box, with random AB sélection, à double blind listening  test, that will upset most high end audio lore.

Jon

[coppercone2]

https://www.pasternack.com/flexible-0.114-rg316-ds-50-ohm-coax-cable-fep-jacket-rg316-ds-ft-p.aspx

the data sheet says copper braid and steel inner conductor (i wonder if this is a soldering problem, I have not tried yet)

[precaud]

Cu plating over steel should not affect audio, or RF.

Try an ABX relay box, with random AB sélection, à double blind listening  test, that will upset most high end audio lore.

Ahh DBT.... the fast track to uniform mediocrity in audio products. Rather than train yourself how to listen, turn your listening tests into a game show! Can you guess what's behind door number 1?

[alm]

Ahh DBT.... the fast track to uniform mediocrity in audio products. Rather than train yourself how to listen, turn your listening tests into a game show. Can you guess what's behind door number 1?

Mediocrity, or maybe those solid gold cables braided by angels where every electron gets hand-picked by a grey-bearded virgin don't actually make any perceivable difference? No one says you can't train before performing said test. What other scientific test are you proposing? Spend months saving for the product, buy it with your own money, and then listen to it? That's certainly a valid experiment, but a psychological one regarding bias that has very little to do with audio quality.

[precaud]

These subjective vs objective arguments are silly either/or affairs, and usually go in the direction this one is heading. I am not advocating abandoning common sense, abandoning testing/measurement, and relying solely on listening tests. Both have their place, and all of the successful designers I have known use both. I can't assume that everyone can make useful and relevant measurements. Nor do I assume everyone is an equally-attentive listener; they clearly are not. Listening tests are by definition subjective. Some people have practiced putting themself into an impartial frame of mind, for example, by meditation. Some have not. Regardless, in my experience, listening tests, like measurements, are not always conclusive.

[alm]

I can't assume that everyone can make useful and relevant measurements. Nor do I assume everyone is an equally-attentive listener; they clearly are not.

So is there any point for those people in spending any extra money/effort on improvements they can't hear?

Listening tests are by definition subjective. [...] Regardless, in my experience, listening tests are not always conclusive.

The ABX test is about telling if the listener (however trained / talented / whatever) can reliably distinguish between A and B. Not if A or B are better. If you can't distinguish RG-174 from a more expensive cable, how can you argue then that the more expensive cable produces a better sound for that specific listener? If the test is inconclusive, clearly the cheaper one has the better price / performance. Once you have shown a listener can distinguish the two, then you can argue if A or B are subjectively better for that listener.

If you meditate, then you know how to put yourself into an impartial frame of mind.

Citation please. Are there psychological studies showing this?

[precaud]

So is there any point for those people in spending any extra money/effort on improvements they can't hear?

I dunno. Why are you arguing that point with me? I'm not advocating for it.

The ABX test is about telling if the listener (however trained / talented / whatever) can reliably distinguish between A and B. Not if A or B are better. If you can't distinguish RG-174 from a more expensive cable, how can you argue then that the more expensive cable produces a better sound for that specific listener? If the test is inconclusive, clearly the cheaper one has the better price / performance. Once you have shown a listener can distinguish the two, then you can argue if A or B are subjectively better for that listener.

That may be of statistical relevance, if that is your thing. However, you still seem focused on "expensive" and "a {i.e. any} listener", neither of which are the point here. We don't even know if the OP is rewiring audio gear.

If you meditate, then you know how to put yourself into an impartial frame of mind.

Citation please. Are there psychological studies showing this?

I've never searched for one. If you doubt impartiality, like anything else, takes practice, my guess is, it's something you've never done...

[alm]

You can lead a horse to the scientific method, but you can't make them use it. Let's hope the application is indeed not audio.

[precaud]

You can lead a horse to the scientific method, but you can't make them use it. Let's hope the application is indeed not audio.

IMO, you are needlessly making way too many assumptions. Listening is not science. Nor should it be.

[jonpaul]

Lots of refs on ABX testing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
https://bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

 Munson, W. A.; Gardner, Mark B. (1950). "Standardizing Auditory Tests". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Acoustical Society of America (ASA). 22 (5): 675–675. doi:10.1121/1.1917190. ISSN 0001-4966.
 Clark, David (May 1, 1982). "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator". Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. 30 (5): 330–338. Retrieved 8 October 2016.
 QSC ABX Comparator user manual. (1998) p. 10
 David Carlstrom. "Probability of Experimental Result Being the Same as Random Guesses". ABX Web Page. Retrieved 2011-12-14.] at
 "Recommendation ITU-R BS.1116-2" (PDF). Retrieved 8 October 2016.
 Meilgaard, Morten; Gail Vance Civille; B. Thomas Carr (1999). Sensory evaluation techniques (3 ed.). CRC Press. pp. 68–70. ISBN 0-8493-0276-5

Simple to make: OSC>>FlipFlop>>Realy driver>>DPDT or 4PDT gold contact relay

We saw speakers, amps and speaker cables undergo these double blind random tests in 1980s.

Real eye /ear opener!

Happy testing! Bon soiree!

Jon

[mikerj]

Ahh DBT.... the fast track to uniform mediocrity in audio products. Rather than train yourself how to listen, turn your listening tests into a game show! Can you guess what's behind door number 1?

Ahh DBT, the kryptonite of audiophiles.  Always problematic to the ego when you can't tell any difference between a $1000 solid silver power cable and the regular cheap copper one.

[precaud]

You guys are pathetic in your judgements. I am not advocating for, and have never used, silver-coated wire or any of the snake-oil garbage you describe.

[coppercone2]

well I see your point that perception can be effected by the stress of a 'test'