I agree! I just made another post and I definitely agree the transformers are the better route over active devices for long audio runs. The active devices are best suited for interfacing un-balanced devices to balanced connections in a production or control room.
I am thinking of running a cable that has several shielded audio pairs between the two locations to give me room for future needs and to carry ptt and cor signals. This is an example of what I am thinking of using for cable... http://www.gepco.com/products/proav_cable/analog_audio/multi_gf22_M.htm ------ Original Message ------ Received: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:21:39 AM PST From: "Al Wolfe" <k...@arrl.net> To: <Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Digest Number 7130 > John, > You will save yourself a lot of grief by using real transformer > isolation at each end in addition to balanced lines. The $12 dollar ones at > RS will work fine for communication audio frequencies. If you want to go > first class find some WE111 repeat coils. > > For wire CAT 5 will work and give you four pairs to play with. Some E > and M signaling or COR maybe.? > > Al, K9SI, retired BC engineer (now occasional highly paid consultant) > > > > > LOOONG audio runs > Posted by: "JOHN MACKEY" jmac...@usa.net jmackey_usa_net > Date: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:49 pm ((PST)) > > I have a odd situation where I need to run long audio cables between my > repeater controller and two repeaters. In this case, the repeater > controller > will be connected to 2 repeaters in the same cabinette. The other two > repeaters will connected thru about 140 feet of wiring to the other side of > a > building. I am thinking of using balanced audio wires for the long runs and > using Henry Engineeering boxes to convert between balanced/un-balanced at > each > end. > > Anyone ever done long audio runs like this? Am I over engineering it and > unbalanced will be good enough? > > I use the Henry Engineering boxes for several audio conversions in > broadcasting, here is a link for what they are: > > http://www.henryeng.com/matchbox.html > > > > >
