Walt,
Wow! what a reply, many thanks, gives me something to think about.
My concern of the use of starquad for stereo use was the possibility of
crosstalk between
the channels, looks like it's not a problem after all.
Thanks,
Mike
>Posted by: "Michael Oates"
>
>> What is the best mic cable for nature recordings, ideal qualities being:
>>
>> - flexible even in low temperatures
>
>no problem with canare cables, at least down below freezing. We don't
>get below zero F around here so I've not really tested it in super cold
>conditions. Like any plastic I'm sure it has limits.
>
>Canare's covering is also a matte finish which is not that slippery even
>when wet. Very nice to handle.
>
>> - lightweight (got to carry it!)
>
>The smaller diameter canare star quad is lightweight. And still fairly
>reasonable to handle.
>
>> - hard wearing, (rocks and trees can take their toll)
>
>I've yet to wear out canare star quad cables in many years use. They all
>still look new. I use, but don't abuse the cables. I don't drag them
>around on the ground.
>
>It is not immune to Beaver bites, however, ask Lang Elliott.
>
>> - capable of stereo transmission (prefrable to two seperate cables)
>
>Canare starquad in either diameter works fine for stereo nature
>recording for myself, Lang Elliott, and others. And we, at times, use
>long lengths. I've run out more than 400' a few times and it worked fine.
>
>> - good RF rejection ? I don't know how important it is to use starquad
>> when used outside. Any starquad is going be less flexable and greater
>> weight, so is this needed?
>
>For nature recording you are usually far away from strong EMF fields.
>Except if you record under high tension power lines. And under those the
>mics and recorder will generally not have enough shielding either. Note
>I don't think I'd recommend doing stereo with the star quad in other
>types of recording where much more EMF is around. There you'd need to
>either go to snake or two conductors.
>
>I don't think you will do much better than the high quality starquad. At
>least the Canare is very flexible. Either diameter is not all that
>heavy, the smaller diameter is particularly lightweight. This is well
>designed cable for the job it's doing. The Canare starquad is also not
>very likely to produce noise when bent, at least if you do not go to
>extremes. Some less well built cable will creak when bent. Be sure
>whatever you get it has a full braid shield instead of foil shield. Foil
>shield is intended only for permanent installations where it won't be
>moved, though you will find it in cheaper cables where it does not belong.
>
>> Canare starquad L-4E6S was mentioned in recent posts, but the spec doesn't
>> seem anything special. And to be honest using it for stereo seems rather
>> dodgy as each channel is not twisted together.
>
>Actually the 4 conductors of the star quad are twisted together. So when
>you use 2 opposite conductors for one channel and the other two opposite
>for the other they are still twisted together. In other words use the
>two blue conductors for one channel, the two white ones for the other.
>You do have to use a meter when making them up to ID the hot and cold
>wires for each channel.
>
>I used to worry about crosstalk between the channels, but have never had
>that problem.
>
>> So what do you recommend?
>
>I use and recommend Canare star quad in either diameter. I also use some
>of the even finer diameter star quad stripped out of Canare star quad
>two channel snake for the short Y breakouts.
>
>BTW, if you want to completely preserve the full capabilities of Canare
>star quad while avoiding two cables you could use the two conductor
>snake. But it is big and heavy. Still surprisingly flexible and
>reasonably easy to handle.
>
>If you are unsure, order in a small length and make up a cable and try
>it. That's what I did when I first started. I order much more at a time
>now to get cheaper per foot rates.
>
>Walt
|