New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mogami Neglex > Canare Starquad??? - Page 2

post #16 of 22
I forgot to mention.......for interconnects, Mogami 2549 is probably the better choice--it's their best standard balanced mic cable (two conductors plus shield).

Yes, it's not starquad, but starquad has higher capacitance between the signal "pair" and ground "pair", and its geometry is most beneficial in a balanced connection. Soldering is much easier when you don't have to twist together two conductors, as is necessary when using starquad. Twisting together the "blues" for ground, and getting it soldered down to the bottom ground tab of a typical RCA while twisting together the "whites" for the signal--and being sure not to end up with a short--can be a challenge.....especially for someone with faltering near vision, such as myself!

Starquad is obviously necessary for headphone recabling, but frankly, I think it's a pain when making RCA interconnects.
post #17 of 22
Thread Starter 
ok cool. thanks for all the info, sejarzo! I definitely wasn't looking forward to going to XLR, especially with the tiny case of my alien.
post #18 of 22
I've been avoiding star-quad due to the rather large increase in capacitance, choosing instead to go with two-conductor plus shield. If interference was a concern in my area, I'd definitely go with star-quad, since its EMI/RFI rejection characteristics seem to be better.

The difference in price between Mogami and Canare is mostly due to reputation, IMO. Mogami markets themselves as being "what professionals use," or "used in major studios everywhere," whereas Canare is more of a "bulk cable, broadcast-quality" brand.

Looking specifically at Canare L-4E6S versus Mogami Neglex 2534, the Mogami has lower capacitance, which is better. For two-conductor wire, it appears that the Canare L-2T2S has lower overall capacitance than the Mogami Neglex W2549 (since Mogami only lists partial capacitance for this cable). Capacitance isn't the only important specification, and these cables are so similar that the differences probably wouldn't be audible.

For even lower capacitance, check out the Canare DA206 or smaller DA202. It's designed as balanced digital audio cable, but works well for analog purposes.
post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
For even lower capacitance, check out the Canare DA206 or smaller DA202. It's designed as balanced digital audio cable, but works well for analog purposes.
I've read that some studios are going to the AES/EBU raw cable for both digital and analog use--makes things simpler all around.
post #20 of 22
that much difference in such cables huh.. the starquad seems to have been working well for me.
post #21 of 22
The main difference is that the Canare is a lot more durable and rigid for stage use. The shield and cable are designed to be tough and handle rigorous misuse. The Mogami is more like a studio cable that I think sounds a little bit better and is still durable, but not tank-like durable likwe the Canare.
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentmacbeastie View Post
The main difference is that the Canare is a lot more durable and rigid for stage use. The shield and cable are designed to be tough and handle rigorous misuse. The Mogami is more like a studio cable that I think sounds a little bit better and is still durable, but not tank-like durable likwe the Canare.
For years I have used both cables extensively. Sonically, I don't hear a difference. I agree with the ruggedness of the Canare. I think it is better suited for mobile/touring equipment. Beause of the braid and cotton filaments, it lends itself to constant flexing and movement. The Mogami is easier to work with because the shield is not braided and you don't have to deal with all of the cotton filaments and cover.

For installed installations, I use Mogami, for touring setups, I use Canare.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: