Hello,

any experience with this solution? If yes: Any pitfalls? If no: Why not?

Thanks.

You're not being exactly clear in which application you are planning to use this cable.

Can you elaborate a bit?

russ wrote:You're not being exactly clear in which application you are planning to use this cable.

Can you elaborate a bit?

Of course.. we are planning to rely soleley on twisted pair wiring in our new office. We have "conventional" twisted pair applications (i.e. ethernet and telephone) as well as transmittal of VHS/ CCTV Data including a downmixed audio signal (speech, that is). There are four rooms, each with one (surveillance type) camera , up to 6 microphones and one submixer. The signals should be transmitted on one (two?) twisted pair cables to the control room, from where it will be redistributed back to other rooms.
I've read about an item that's sold by the name of StudioHub... seems to be a series of baluns in a mountable 19'' - Rack... know that one?

Thanks.

I assume you're in Europe if using shielded CAT6. In North America most, if not all, CAT6 is unshielded. Shielded CAT6 is more costly and may end up costing as much or more than 2 or 4 pair audio STP cable.

Some tips if you decide to employ this type of system:

-Use separate color CAT6 jacketing to discern:
-LAN/TELECOM
-Digital Audio/Video
-Analog Audio
-Analog Video
Make sure you label everything at each end to clearly indicate the type of signal that is intended for each cable color.

-Your audio/video CAT6 should be terminated on separate patch panels and racks at the IDF or 'hub' to avoid accidental cross-connection to your LAN. I'm not familliar with this particular brand system you listed, but 99% of these solutions ARE NOT ethernet compatible and CAN POTENTIALLY DAMAGE SWITCHES, HUBS, ROUTERS, etc...

(If the equipment is not rack mountable, that should be a red flag. Plywood backboard mouted equipment is becoming archaic. On most projects I do nowdays we are even mounting our voice 110 cross-connect blocks and risers on the rack, since most voice cabling is CAT5e or CAT6 and can be patched to the voice riser or LAN as such.)

These systems are typically recommended in environments where using traditional STP copper, Coax, or bundled cables is impratical due to raceway size restrictions, attenuation over extended distances, or cost due to distance/quantity.

If your rooms are close together (less than 150'/45m) there should be no real need for this solution. Standard copper audio STP or coax should suffice and will cost less than the CAT6 plus the cost of the proprietary patching equipment and baluns/converters. This system may not be as flexible as appears in the long run.

The only times I've used these type of balun to CAT6 converters are:

-When running high bandwidth RGBHV video (XGA to XUGA 250MHz+) at distances 200-500'

-When raceway/conduit size makes pulling bundled ((5)RG-6 RGBHV - about 1-1/4" diam.) cables impractical or impossible.

-When digital audio/video must be run over long distances/areas in a large facility where audiophile quality is not an issue. In many instances I would not use copper at all and use a single-mode fiber pair based system. These find regular use in convention center/campus type applications.

Overall, make sure you evaluate cost/benifit and cost/lifetime comparisons before deciding. You may find the "low tech" solution to be the most benificial.

geiginni,

[OFF-TOPIC]

We have a Avaya telephone system here without a voice mail block attached.

I've read a little bit about using a simple computer setup to serve as a voice mail interface rather than having to buy the expensive voice mail block made for the system from a distributor.

You seem to know some about this stuff. Any experience or suggestions that you could share?

I'm sorry to disappoint, but voice applications are my weakest suit. That's actually the one thing I let my department head handle (my expertise is integrated a/v, sound reinforcement, and structured wiring systems).

I'm going to guess, without knowing what Avaya model PBX you've got, that there is probably a way to program your system to allow unanswered calls to be sent to a line assigned to output to a PC based VM system. The VM could then be accessed by dialing that internal line. That is probably the most basic possibility. You may be able to use a call transfer fucntion to address specific extentions in the VM software as separate accounts, and then access those accounts individually.

I know that in our office we have a small Samsung PBX that has a line interface to a PC based 4-line voicemail system. I'm not sure of the exact make of the hardware interface at the PC though.

Thanks for the info.

It's a project that's just on my "That might be cool someday" list.

Thanks again.

geiginni wrote:I assume you're in Europe if using shielded CAT6. In North America most, if not all, CAT6 is unshielded. Shielded CAT6 is more costly and may end up costing as much or more than 2 or 4 pair audio STP cable.

Jawohl. Chairmany kallink.

geiginni wrote:If your rooms are close together (less than 150'/45m) there should be no real need for this solution. Standard copper audio STP or coax should suffice and will cost less than the CAT6 plus the cost of the proprietary patching equipment and baluns/converters. This system may not be as flexible as appears in the long run.

That's the point. We still assume that our setup should be the most flexible available, with the possibility to have whatever signal in each and every room in the building just by patching LAN/ audio/ video - signals. We do not plan to use proprietary patching equipment, what we need is what seems to be an impressive amount of hf/ video/ audio baluns.

geiginni wrote:The only times I've used these type of balun to CAT6 converters are:
--snip --
-When raceway/conduit size makes pulling bundled ((5)RG-6 RGBHV - about 1-1/4" diam.) cables impractical or impossible.

That's one of our predicaments... Anyway: What about signal loss/ distortion when using baluns for analog audio/ video? One point every seasoned technician mentions is audio quality. As far as I am informed, we won't be able to achieve studio standard when transmitting analog audio/ video...

geiginni wrote:Overall, make sure you evaluate cost/benifit and cost/lifetime comparisons before deciding. You may find the "low tech" solution to be the most benificial.

Another excellent point. There's still some amount of testing to be done but... it seems the most flexible while still being the least costly of all the offers we got. If it works out technically, I don't see cost or lifetime problems...

Very helpful posting, thanks.

hanswurst wrote:That's the point. We still assume that our setup should be the most flexible available, with the possibility to have whatever signal in each and every room in the building just by patching LAN/ audio/ video - signals.

As I stated in my first post. It is my belief that you should use separate cable jacket colors, labeling, patch panels, rack locations, jack color/inserts, etc... so that you are not potentially placing video or audio signals on your LAN. These a/v signals can and will damage NICs, Switches, etc...

A voice/data network should be completely independant and separate from any non-ethernet, non-voice network application. The concept of convergance in this area carries little advantage, in my opinion. Total convergence only makes sense in a totally IP or ethernet environment.

hanswurst wrote:That's one of our predicaments... Anyway: What about signal loss/ distortion when using baluns for analog audio/ video? One point every seasoned technician mentions is audio quality. As far as I am informed, we won't be able to achieve studio standard when transmitting analog audio/ video...

I would not use any balun solutions that are passive. These baluns rely solely on cheap transformers to give you a CMR/balanced signal. There is an insertion loss to this along with the type of problems normally associated with transformers. You will lose bandwidth, gain phase distortion and attenuation. The active baluns are much better, but can cost significantly more. The ones I've used in the past are the active UTP transmitter/reciever pairs manufactured by Extron. They are not cheap (an RGBHV video T/R pair runs about $450) and are available from RGBmate and probably FSR or Altinex as well.

They are not "studio" quality. The passives, in my opinion, are not even "presentation facility" or "institutional" quality (with the possible exception of cash strapped K-12 public schools). I would be very hesitant to send anything that is supposed to be "studio" quality over UTP cable in analog form.

You may want to investigate a non-balun solution that uses the COBRANET digital audio over UTP. This is a proven solution that works. It's also not cheap, but you can get the "studio" type quality if that's a requirement. Digital is what UTP is meant for. To an analog signal - it's basically phone wiring. You wouldn't wire up a Studer 2" machine with CAT3 UTP bundled into a homemade "snake" (as an aside - I think the appearance of IDC punchdowns in audio TT patch panels is overdue and probably the only recent migration of telecom equipment into pro-audio that makes sense); I don't see the analog balun solution as much different.