July 2002 - USR-TC - mailman.xmission.com

RE: [USR-TC] The Balanced vs. Unbalanced discussion/definition...
by Brian Becker 05 Jul '02

05 Jul '02

Just as a comment...balanced is required to have a ground and a shield to be defined as balanced. Of course much of the audio gear can survive if the ground and shield are the same signal, but it is not part of the spec and all major recording studios will utilize separate and distinct paths for the ground and the shield to reduce the level of noise to its minimum. I am "Artist Formerly known as Brian Becker" with Benson Music Group, Nashville, (Christian Rock) and spent many hours working with top studios in Nashville & Houston...they would laugh at the thought of combining ground and shield. Brian Becker President, Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc. http://semo.net Home of TotallyFabricated.com Software & Web Design http://TotalScrutinizer.com - Tech Support Just Got Easier! POBox 190 - Poplar Bluff, MO 63902 - 573.686.9114 -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Mcadams Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:31 PM To: usr-tc(a)lists.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] The Balanced vs. Unbalanced discussion/definition... OK...this is probably rather off-topic, but there were a couple of different people participating, and it might be of interest to some, so feel free to delete if you're not interested. Talked (via email) to my uncle who works for Sweetwater Sound (http://www.sweetwater.com) and owns his own sound studio on the side, about the use of the term "balanced" in audio gear. He said that the term wasn't precisely defined (gee, sounds like the data world!), but that in his opinion it didn't require a ground line to be considered a balanced signal. He basically said that virtual every cable type that you'll run across in audio work *does* have a ground line (sometimes, its also the shield), so its kinda a moot point, but that its not strictly required. Indeed, he pointed out that it can be a *bad* thing to have ubiquitously connected ground lines in audio work. He pointed out that the local ground of one piece of equipment may not be the same as the local ground of another piece of equipment, so since they are both grounded through their AC line, connecting the ground line between the two pieces of equipment can result in a voltage and waveform across the ground line, which can result in a hum in the signal. He mentioned that the way they avoid this problem in his studio (plug: DSL Studios, http://www.dslstudios.com...hosted by IgLou ;) was to have every connection between different pieces of equipment run through patch bays. Each piece of equipment has its own ground (through the AC line), and the patch bay itself (a passive piece of equipment) is also ground, but that the ground line in the cable is *not* connected to the ground of the patch bay. This ensures that there is no continuous ground connection between two different pieces of equipment and avoiding a ground loop. FWIW, he pointed out the use of the balancing concept at http://www.equitech.com...specifically "balanced power", ie, rather than having a hot line at 120VAC and a ground, you have two hot lines at 60VAC, but in opposite phase. When the power supplies in the equipment run by this looks at the two lines, it still sees 120VAC, but the opposite polarity of the lines means that the "reactive currents" coming back out of the power supply end up cancelling each other out, resulting in a significant noise reduction. I found it interesting that there's a third field where balancing is used. Anyway...this is probably way more than most of you wanted to know, but I found the mental excursion interesting, hopefully others have found the discussion enlightening as well. Let me know if anyone has questions, if I can't answer them, I'll get better answers from my uncle...he's *quite* knowledgeable about audio production. :) -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm(a)iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

7 6

RE: [USR-TC] The Balanced vs. Unbalanced discussion/definition...
by JOHANNES＠ejs.is 04 Jul '02

04 Jul '02

Hi all To my knowledge this isn't a question of ground or not. A twisted pair cable is for example a balanced cable but a coaxial cable is un-balanced. When a TP cable is subjected to interference both wires are affected equally which means that the interference doesn't effect the signal at the end. When a coax cable is subjected to interference the outer conductor will be more affected than the core which means that more of the interference will be affecting the signal at the end. Pls correct me if I'm mistaken or don't remember correctly :) Regards Johannes Rognvaldsson Electronic technician -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Sent: mið. 3.7.2002 23:30 To: usr-tc(a)lists.xmission.com Cc: Subject: [USR-TC] The Balanced vs. Unbalanced discussion/definition... OK...this is probably rather off-topic, but there were a couple of different people participating, and it might be of interest to some, so feel free to delete if you're not interested. Talked (via email) to my uncle who works for Sweetwater Sound (http://www.sweetwater.com) and owns his own sound studio on the side, about the use of the term "balanced" in audio gear. He said that the term wasn't precisely defined (gee, sounds like the data world!), but that in his opinion it didn't require a ground line to be considered a balanced signal. He basically said that virtual every cable type that you'll run across in audio work *does* have a ground line (sometimes, its also the shield), so its kinda a moot point, but that its not strictly required. Indeed, he pointed out that it can be a *bad* thing to have ubiquitously connected ground lines in audio work. He pointed out that the local ground of one piece of equipment may not be the same as the local ground of another piece of equipment, so since they are both grounded through their AC line, connecting the ground line between the two pieces of equipment can result in a voltage and waveform across the ground line, which can result in a hum in the signal. He mentioned that the way they avoid this problem in his studio (plug: DSL Studios, http://www.dslstudios.com...hosted by IgLou ;) was to have every connection between different pieces of equipment run through patch bays. Each piece of equipment has its own ground (through the AC line), and the patch bay itself (a passive piece of equipment) is also ground, but that the ground line in the cable is *not* connected to the ground of the patch bay. This ensures that there is no continuous ground connection between two different pieces of equipment and avoiding a ground loop. FWIW, he pointed out the use of the balancing concept at http://www.equitech.com...specifically "balanced power", ie, rather than having a hot line at 120VAC and a ground, you have two hot lines at 60VAC, but in opposite phase. When the power supplies in the equipment run by this looks at the two lines, it still sees 120VAC, but the opposite polarity of the lines means that the "reactive currents" coming back out of the power supply end up cancelling each other out, resulting in a significant noise reduction. I found it interesting that there's a third field where balancing is used. Anyway...this is probably way more than most of you wanted to know, but I found the mental excursion interesting, hopefully others have found the discussion enlightening as well. Let me know if anyone has questions, if I can't answer them, I'll get better answers from my uncle...he's *quite* knowledgeable about audio production. :) -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm(a)iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

1 0

PRESS CLIPPING: CommWorks V.92/InternetNews.com
by Thomas_Goodman＠3com.com 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

(Embedded image moved to file: pic22336.pcx) InternetNews.com CommWorks Pins V.92 Hopes On ISPs By Michael Singer July 2, 2002 www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article.php/1380241 Although broadband technologies (DSL and Cable) are all the rage right now, in reality, most people around the world only have access to analog phone lines. Because of that, Santa Clara, Calif.-based 3Com (COMS: Quote, Company Info) subsidiary CommWorks said Monday that it is supplying some regional ISPs with its V.92 technology. V.92 is the latest dial-up modem specification from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The standard transmits at the same speed as V.90 but offers a reduced handshake time and an on-hold feature. Currently, the only national service provider to have announced plans for V.92 support is Level 3. Most service provider support for the new modem standard has come from regional ISPs, which is why CommWorks is targeting the little guys. Some 300 ISPs have signed up to date. Connecticut-based Cybershore, Utah's InfoWest Global Internet Services and RipNET, an emerging ISP in Ontario are among the early adopters of CommWorks' V.92 products. "Broadband technologies have received much attention in recent years, but the reality is that most people around the world use dial-up modems to access the Internet," said CommWorks director of wireline product management Patrick Henkle. "According to industry forecasts, market expansion will continue in the traditional dial access market as applications such as e-commerce, telecommuting and mobile computing continue to drive demand. The features enabled by V.92 make dial access an attractive and viable connectivity option for many users." That forecast from In-Stat/MDR, entitled V.92 - Broadening Narrowband , estimates that in 2001 close to 11 percent of all US consumer analog modems shipped were V.92. This will grow to close to 44 percent in the year 2003 and nearly 100 percent by the year 2004. Furthermore, dial-up access will remain the primary access technology in the US home through 2006. Features of V.92 include Quick Connect, which shortens the time it takes to connect to the Internet. Modem-on-hold allows users to accept an incoming phone call during an Internet session without losing the dial-up connection. Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) Upstream increases the speed at which users can send information, such as file transfers and e-mail attachments, to a network. Rolling Meadows, Ill.-based CommWorks said its Total Control 1000 multiservice access platform supports all three V.92 features, as well as V.44, the latest standard for compressing data. V.44 boosts throughput speed by 20-60 percent, providing users with a significant improvement in upstream and downstream performance, such as faster download of HTML pages. For the vast majority of current CommWorks customers using the Total Control 1000 platform, the move to V.92/V.44 can be done through a software upgrade to their current modem cards. With both the amount of modems being shipped, and the percent of homes using dial-up, service providers won't be able to hold off on their V.92 plans for long. CommWorks is hoping its early investment in the new technology will pay off in the short term and the long run.

2 1

RE: [USR-TC] Anyone familiar with Balance and Un-Balanced E1/PRI
by RickL＠solunet.com 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

Das ist true. There is also balanced coax type cable and connectors (PL75-9's used a lot in Video applications) that work on three wires: TX, RX and ground. The ground is shared, as ground is, well, ground. Rick Team Solunet -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:59 AM To: usr-tc(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [USR-TC] Anyone familiar with Balance and Un-Balanced E1/PRI Also sprach Charles Sprickman >I'm pretty sure T1's are NOT balanced. Think of the tx and rx pairs as >two seperate lines, they aren't necessarily bundled together. If it >was balanced, you'd see three wires per tx/rx "pair"; you'd have the >ground, positive and negative... Haven't seen that (yet). The closest >I've seen is a shielded run... Being balanced doesn't require a ground. A ground just means that its grounded. Balanced is just having two signals of opposite polarity and reading the signal as half the voltage differential between the two wires. Unbalanced is reading the signal as the differential between the signal wire (just one) and ground. Ground, in the unbalanced case, can be a local ground, there doesn't have to be a ground in the cable to measure against. In fact, after a cable run, its likely to *not* have the same potential as a real ground as there's a good chance that there will have been current induced in it. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm(a)iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

3 2

old quads
by Charles Sprickman 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

Hi, How old is a quad card with hardware revision 0.2.0? How about 2.0.0? I've got some of each where when I set the DTE interface via TCM to be "packetbus" instead of "nic", the setting doesn't stick... I'm wondering if these cards are so old they don't work on the packet bus??? Thanks, Charles -- Charles Sprickman spork(a)inch.com

1 0

The Balanced vs. Unbalanced discussion/definition...
by Jeff Mcadams 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

OK...this is probably rather off-topic, but there were a couple of different people participating, and it might be of interest to some, so feel free to delete if you're not interested. Talked (via email) to my uncle who works for Sweetwater Sound (http://www.sweetwater.com) and owns his own sound studio on the side, about the use of the term "balanced" in audio gear. He said that the term wasn't precisely defined (gee, sounds like the data world!), but that in his opinion it didn't require a ground line to be considered a balanced signal. He basically said that virtual every cable type that you'll run across in audio work *does* have a ground line (sometimes, its also the shield), so its kinda a moot point, but that its not strictly required. Indeed, he pointed out that it can be a *bad* thing to have ubiquitously connected ground lines in audio work. He pointed out that the local ground of one piece of equipment may not be the same as the local ground of another piece of equipment, so since they are both grounded through their AC line, connecting the ground line between the two pieces of equipment can result in a voltage and waveform across the ground line, which can result in a hum in the signal. He mentioned that the way they avoid this problem in his studio (plug: DSL Studios, http://www.dslstudios.com...hosted by IgLou ;) was to have every connection between different pieces of equipment run through patch bays. Each piece of equipment has its own ground (through the AC line), and the patch bay itself (a passive piece of equipment) is also ground, but that the ground line in the cable is *not* connected to the ground of the patch bay. This ensures that there is no continuous ground connection between two different pieces of equipment and avoiding a ground loop. FWIW, he pointed out the use of the balancing concept at http://www.equitech.com...specifically "balanced power", ie, rather than having a hot line at 120VAC and a ground, you have two hot lines at 60VAC, but in opposite phase. When the power supplies in the equipment run by this looks at the two lines, it still sees 120VAC, but the opposite polarity of the lines means that the "reactive currents" coming back out of the power supply end up cancelling each other out, resulting in a significant noise reduction. I found it interesting that there's a third field where balancing is used. Anyway...this is probably way more than most of you wanted to know, but I found the mental excursion interesting, hopefully others have found the discussion enlightening as well. Let me know if anyone has questions, if I can't answer them, I'll get better answers from my uncle...he's *quite* knowledgeable about audio production. :) -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm(a)iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456

1 0

Need Help about Clear Back Signalling
by nopadol 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

Hello everybodies, I 've problem about Total Control that it have many lost-carrier signal to users. After i asked about this problem to the telephone organization, he said it 's occured from Clear Back Signal in Total Control Box. Does anyone know how to solve tis? Nopadol Chartrangson Network Administrator (CCNA) nopadol.c(a)bu.ac.th

1 0

Anyone familiar with Balance and Un-Balanced E1/PRI
by Stephen Rivera - WRCA.Net 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

Customer is asking....(in regards to Dual E1/PRI) Can you please explain to me whether these should be balanced or unbalanced? I'm asking..Is this dictated by Telco? If so, does the card have the ability to change via software setting or board jumper? Does it even matter to the card set? Steve Rivera IM: srivera711 Toll Free: (877)WRCANET x102 DIRECT: 732-833-2034 Fax available equipment to: (732)833-2115 for more product info got www.wrca.net

3 3

Anyone need some DSP cards??
by WayneG 01 Jul '02

01 Jul '02

We have some more HiPer DSP cards that we've taken off line and would like to sell. We have 20 card sets available. I have freshly loaded v.4.3 firmware on each card and reset to factory defaults. These didn't sell at $800 last time I posted them here, so please make me an offer. Thank you, -Wayne. Wayne Griswold Network Administrator U.P.Log-On Internet Computer Connection U.P. 500 N. Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 (906) 774-4847 (906) 774-0335 (fax) SysAdmin(a)uplogon.com

2 1

Re: [USR-TC] Anyone need some DSP cards??
by Mike Greene 01 Jul '02

01 Jul '02

Sorry list, that was supposed to be private! - Mike ------------------------------------------------ Rock Island Communications, Inc. (360)-378-5884 http://www.rockisland.com/ San Juan Islands, WA ------------------------------------------------

1 0