I agree this is a serious issue. On two different occasions I've encountered problems with my girlfriend because when asking Alan for personal advice he said "always take the back road" only to learn later after following his advice that he in fact meant to say "always take the high road".

Whew! For a moment there I thought he was going to say something else...wait a minute...what exactly did he mean by that?

Sometimes bad advice opens new avenues?

In the first place, Ernie, the thread is not about whether we should put an oaciloscope on wire run in prewire but in wether the specifications for wire manufacturers provide are accurate on items in the field. Have you ever tested a wire? Neither have I. But this relative is a value added manufacturer and his systems demand that each product be tested. In fact,Ernie, your postion is full of **** if you are suspecting that by virture of a typo this thread would have been shorter. It was an aside and irrelavant to the nature of the original post--which is that contrary to the posted specifications Mogami tested significantly better than Belden--And you damned well knew that I meant Belden despite the typo. I'd further suggest that your equally poorly worded response with respect to my incorect math about the value of the 1694A @ 100 ft being speaker wire does not foreswear your own failings.

Point: Does Belden model X wire measure 8 IRE down at 100 ft irrespective of the manufacturer specification. Does the same footage of Magomi measure only 1 IRE down.

I sent an email to my relative and if he responds I'll continue the thread. If he informs me of the two wire models he tested and specifically tells me how he measured the IRE I'll post. Other than that I'd suggest that as many have Belden 1694A in stock that they cut a 100 ft length and put a 100 IRE white field down it and measure its response. Do I think it possible that this is true? Was I surprised at learning this information? Think maybe that was the reason for the post.

I'd wager that I am more clear than most when posting and I'd futher suggest that Ernie, like everyone, else ought to have understood the meaning even with the "not" left out. To focus on a typo and miss the point that a wire measured in real world conditions did not come close to the manfacturer's posted specifications is significant and deserves more attention than Ernies school marmish criticisms warrant. And Ernie, I'll happily supply you with my password so you can spell check my posts. As for THON, well, it's THON and intelligence and THON are a Boolean NOR gate. Ernie Keep you mind on what matters and it's not a missing "not" on an aside. The issue is not should we place an osciloscope on every wire we run but his reporting the piss poor performance of the Belden cable he had and measured. And you can moo till the cow comes home if I mistype Belden, as well; Nothing here is to be published per se. If you spell better than I bully for you. Everyone understood the point, and I suspect so did you. I'll accept the incredulty of QQQ and others. But Bill certainly understood my pont as did Steve. So why focus on the unimportant? To do so is to mislead. You post how you'd like and I'll post with spelling errors and occasional typos. If that's too much for your brain to deal with then skip the post. The point is not that every word is spelled correctly or that there are no typos. Nor is it that I misquoted a specification as I cited where it could be found so you could check it for yourself. The point is about the manufacturer's stated specifications and if they the wire we actually purchase lives up to the posted specification. Now that is important, I'd wager; far more important than if I spell Belden correctly or if I leave out a word form a sentance. Otherwise leave the foolishness to THON. You may try to be as foolish as THON and focus on what is irreleavant but I would have thought better of you. School marmish criticisms are beneath you when a more weighty matter is up for discussion--and everyone understood this point, even you.

Alan,

Though I fear igniting your ire, could you at least apologize to my girlfriend, or at the least warn me to use copius amounts of lubrication the next time you engage in such a serious mistatement?

LOL, I think copious amounts of lubricant is a requirement for this thread based on the amount of reaming that is being done by the various parties.

QQQ, as far as your girl friend is concerned, I think you should do the apoloigizing and Alan needs to provide the appropriate warning and disclaimers.

Actually, I would like to suggest that Alan insert the warnings and disclaimers in his tag line. That way everyone is forewarned.

I'm just glad that Alan is not a spelling critic.



Edited to correct a spelling mistake, LOL

I am guilty in the extreme of mis-spelling. I grant that leaving out a word as I did with the missing "not" can be confusing, though I more than suspect that everyone understood the point I was making, despite the "grevious error" I committed in leaving it out. I have no idea if my relative is correct. I well understand the incredualty of many with respect to his findings. I've always had the greatest respect for Belden wire but his is the first instinance of anyone actually measuring the wire we use in the field. If he responds to my email I'll post otherwise those who are skeptical may be proven right by default. Nonetheless, only Ernie seems to have had a problem understanding what the point of this thread was or have had any difficulty understanding any of the claims I made; that despite the error I made in posting the Beldon 1694A specifications---but then when you also note your source it is not hard to have these errors checked and corrected, as they were.

To QQQ:I find it hard to believe that anything as tawdry as lubricant would be required for something so small and insignificant. I will most heartily apologize to her if you feel it will be helpful although I fear that yours is the apology most required. Once again a woman choses personality and wealth over endowment and physical pleasure, though I grant you that at my age when one sees a bed one can only think of one use for it..............sleep. However, if I can be of any help I will happily make the trip west to be of service.

Alan

Here is part 1 of the response from my relative with the EE who reported the IRE issue. Note that it is still incomplete as he does not have the information on the Belden wire. Now had someone suggested that without this information this thead may best have not been begun I might have argued but would have had to have conceded the point, even though I think this to be very important information. Below you will find information on the Mogami wire and how the test was made. The other relavant point is that he made this test several years ago. Nonetheless, and not having the Belden wire model is crucial, this is the first instannce, to my knowledge, of anyone discovering and reporting a discrepancy between what is specified by the manufacturer and measurements taken in the field from actual cable purchased from manufacturers that suggests that there may be problems with those specifications with respect to the actual product shipped. However, without the model number the issue is still open. Nonetheless, one may comment on how the test was conducted.

"The Mogami S-Video cable is WV-2947. It has 1.82 dB/100 ft @ 10 MHz and capacitance of 16.8 pf/ft.

I will have to research the Belden cable part number in our computer. It was several years ago.

I used a 100 IRE signal from a generator into a waveform monitor/vectoscope. I used the variable gain control to set the level at exactly 100 IRE. I then inserted 100 feet of Moagami cable and measured the signal at the end of the cable. It was approx 98 IRE. I did the same with the Belden cable and the result was approx 92 IRE."

Now flame away. I'm certain Erinie will tut-tut the many words mis-spelled.

Alan

Alan, why not try:

[Link: iespell.com]

or if you are a Mozilla type:

[Link: google.com]

You'll never have to wear the pedant's pendant of shame again!.

Holy Crap, that google toolbar spell checker for Firefox is awesome. Thanks for the tip.

Part II
I just got off the phone with him. He looked the part up in his computer and it was Belden 1813A. He needed a good S-video cable and a few years back he claims there were not many choices. No comment.
[Link: bwccat.belden.com]

The 1694A has much better specifications. The capacitance on the 1813 is 66pF/ft where the 1694A is 16.2pF/FT. The 1694 is a coaxial serial digital design whereas the 1813 is 2 conductor twisted/shielded and "low capacitance." It's not surprising the the Mogami was the better cable. It is a much better cable then the 1813A but not nearly as good as the 1694A. I'd still like to see how close to manufacturer's specifications this cable performs when installed in real world conditions; with sharp bends, after sitting unterminated for 6 months during construction but there is a world of difference between 1813 and 1694. I may be coming around to the CEDIA video manufacturer who insists that all cables be measured with an osciloscope after being pulled.

Alan