Pre-Out Voltage AV receiver

[Fischus]

Hi everyone,

 

I've got some high-end active loudspeakers that are meant to be connected to an unregulated line-level output with a max voltage of 2Vrms.

 

In order to use them with my TV however I have to connect them to the pre-outs of my AV receiver, which of course do have their own volume control, meaning I would have to somehow find a balance between the AV receiver's and the speakers' volume control and the adjust it using either of them.

 

I've contacted Marantz and asked them about it. In response, they sent me the attached graph, (I hope it doesn't get too compressed) which frankly, I absolutely don't understand. Can anyone roughly tell me what volume output on the scale of 0-98 at the highest possible input to the receiver would be safe for the speakers to handle?

 

Thanks in Advance

[Derkoli]

Well, the graph tells us the voltage outputs at different volume levels.

 

Usually a "Line-level" (So pre-outs/the voltage RCA cables carry) is typically 1.23Vrms or so, which is +4dBU

 

None of us can really tell what level that is on the receiver's volume control. However, I would say to turn the speakers volume all the way up, and then use the AV receiver volume control. This way you will likely never exceed 2Vrms input to the speakers, and it will keep distortion low from the pre-outs.

 

If the speakers are designed to take a maximum 2Vrms input, then they will need that level to achieve maximum SPL, if you know your speakers maximum SPL, then as soon as you get to that SPL level, never exceed it, this will prevent you from clipping the speakers input/overdriving the input.

[Fischus]

50 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

Well, the graph tells us the voltage outputs at different volume levels.

 

Usually a "Line-level" (So pre-outs/the voltage RCA cables carry) is typically 1.23Vrms or so, which is +4dBU

 

None of us can really tell what level that is on the receiver's volume control. However, I would say to turn the speakers volume all the way up, and then use the AV receiver volume control. This way you will likely never exceed 2Vrms input to the speakers, and it will keep distortion low from the pre-outs.

 

If the speakers are designed to take a maximum 2Vrms input, then they will need that level to achieve maximum SPL, if you know your speakers maximum SPL, then as soon as you get to that SPL level, never exceed it, this will prevent you from clipping the speakers input/overdriving the input.

Hi, Thanks for the detailed answer

 

So basically as long as I stay within the max 108dB SPL (stereo, pair) of the speakers, no matter which one I turn up, there shouldn't be any danger?

 

Wouldn't usually turning up the pre-outs give a better signal to noise ratio as the power amplifier doesn't need to amplify the overall input as much? I tried turning up the speaker volume all the way up, but there's very noticable noise starting around 80%. Guess that happens when you pair 20'000$ speakers with a 1'000$ receiver... unlike distortion the noise is easier to measure so the way to go would probably be to turn the speakers up to the point where it's not noticable and then lock the receivers volume just below distortion and hope it gets as close to the SPL as possible? Say I would reach the SPL this way with the speakers at 75% as long as I don't turn them further up I'm safe? How would I test for distortion?

 

 

[Derkoli]

Just now, Fischus said:

Hi, Thanks for the detailed answer

 

So basically as long as I stay within the max 108dB SPL (stereo, pair) of the speakers, no matter which one I turn up, there shouldn't be any danger?

 

Wouldn't usually turning up the pre-outs give a better signal to noise ratio as the power amplifier doesn't need to amplify the overall input as much? I tried turning up the speaker volume all the way up, but there's very noticable noise starting around 80%. Guess that happens when you pair 20'000$ speakers with a 1'000$ receiver... unlike distortion the noise is easier to measure so the way to go would probably be to turn the speakers up to the point where it's not noticable and then lock the receivers volume just below distortion and hope it gets as close to the SPL as possible? Say I would reach the SPL this way with the speakers at 75% as long as I don't turn them further up I'm safe? How would I test for distortion?

 

 

Well, the speakers amplifier ideally should have a good SNR, which such expensive speakers would (Or should) have.

 

If they produce 108dB SPL a pair, then not exceeding that should keep them happy. They wouldn't need more than the maximum input voltage to hit their max SPL.

 

If you get noticeable noise above 80, then keep it at 70/75, aslong as the noise is below the rooms noise floor, then you should achieve your maximum Dynamic Range possible in that specific room.

 

I would set the volume on the speakers to 75, then just use the AV Receiver's volume control. Realistically you should only be listening at 85dB SPL (A-Weighted) or so for extended periods of time. (http://dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/decibel-exposure-time-guidelines/) 108dB is incredibly loud, so you shouldn't really need to use that kind of volume.

 

I suspect the speakers would greatly benefit from a better source. AV Receivers tend to not have amazing DAC performance.

 

If you want to test for distortion properly, then something like this is usually used: https://www.ap.com/analyzers-accessories/apx555/

 

That unit is just under 30,000 dollars though, so its hella impractical.

 

REW allows you to test for distortion, and its free software. However you need a proper measurement microphone, such as the UMIK-1, which is under 100 dollars.

[Fischus]

2 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

Well, the speakers amplifier ideally should have a good SNR, which such expensive speakers would (Or should) have.

 

If they produce 108dB SPL a pair, then not exceeding that should keep them happy. They wouldn't need more than the maximum input voltage to hit their max SPL.

 

If you get noticeable noise above 80, then keep it at 70/75, aslong as the noise is below the rooms noise floor, then you should achieve your maximum Dynamic Range possible in that specific room.

 

I would set the volume on the speakers to 75, then just use the AV Receiver's volume control. Realistically you should only be listening at 85dB SPL (A-Weighted) or so for extended periods of time. (http://dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/decibel-exposure-time-guidelines/) 108dB is incredibly loud, so you shouldn't really need to use that kind of volume.

 

I suspect the speakers would greatly benefit from a better source. AV Receivers tend to not have amazing DAC performance.

 

If you want to test for distortion properly, then something like this is usually used: https://www.ap.com/analyzers-accessories/apx555/

 

That unit is just under 30,000 dollars though, so its hella impractical.

 

REW allows you to test for distortion, and its free software. However you need a proper measurement microphone, such as the UMIK-1, which is under 100 dollars.

Spending 30k to measure distortion of 1k gear would be quite... inefficient... nornal line out from the PC has superior SNR, so the receiver's DAC must be really crappy. So REW + UMIK-1 would be worth a shot if I don't want to remodel my entire setup?

 

Thanks a lot for your help.

[Derkoli]

1 hour ago, Fischus said:

Spending 30k to measure distortion of 1k gear would be quite... inefficient... nornal line out from the PC has superior SNR, so the receiver's DAC must be really crappy. So REW + UMIK-1 would be worth a shot if I don't want to remodel my entire setup?

 

Thanks a lot for your help.

If you want to see differences that certain things make to your setup, REW is great at this. The UMIK-1 just plugs into a PC via USB, so an interface isn't needed.

 

Most receivers have crappy DAC's:

 

 

This is from a 9000 dollar AV Receiver. This AV receiver cannot actually properly reduce CD's as they have more dynamic range.

[Fischus]

1 hour ago, Derkoli said:

If you want to see differences that certain things make to your setup, REW is great at this. The UMIK-1 just plugs into a PC via USB, so an interface isn't needed.

 

Most receivers have crappy DAC's:

 

 

This is from a 9000 dollar AV Receiver. This AV receiver cannot actually properly reduce CD's as they have more dynamic range.

Even such a receiver cannot handle that? Wow... so investing 2-3000 dollars into a better receiver that can't hold a candle to that one isn't worth it. Depending on the loudness of the source material I managed to get to around 95ish dB when paying music with the speakers at around 75 and the receiver around 70 with minimal noise that I can either only hear when holding my breath at absolute silence or by holding my ear 30cm from the driver when nothing is playing. I could probably go up to 80 or so on the receiver but I doubt it'll be distortion free past that, voltage limit aside. No need to blow my ears off. Movie reference levels might require it though, voices there a lot quiter than on TV. The mic would definitely be useful to see if 80 is enough for noticable distortion.

[Derkoli]

2 minutes ago, Fischus said:

Even such a receiver cannot handle that? Wow... so investing 2-3000 dollars into a better receiver that can't hold a candle to that one isn't worth it. Depending on the loudness of the source material I managed to get to around 95ish dB when paying music with the speakers at around 75 and the receiver around 70 with minimal noise that I can either only hear when holding my breath at absolute silence or by holding my ear 30cm from the driver when nothing is playing. I could probably go up to 80 or so on the receiver but I doubt it'll be distortion free past that, voltage limit aside. No need to blow my ears off. Movie reference levels might require it though, voices there a lot quiter than on TV. The mic would definitely be useful to see if 80 is enough for noticable distortion.

Some AV receivers do measure well, but alot don't.

 

The denon AVR-X3600H would suit you well, as it exceeds CD Dynamic Range, and it's best performance oddly enough is at 2 volts output.

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/denon-avr-x3600h-av-receiver-review.12676/

 

Achieved with volume 85 on the output. Always an option if you wanted an upgrade. However I would say get a DAC/Pre-amp combo for 2 channel stuff, then use the AVR for movies.

[Fischus]

13 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

Some AV receivers do measure well, but alot don't.

 

The denon AVR-X3600H would suit you well, as it exceeds CD Dynamic Range, and it's best performance oddly enough is at 2 volts output.

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/denon-avr-x3600h-av-receiver-review.12676/

 

Achieved with volume 85 on the output. Always an option if you wanted an upgrade. However I would say get a DAC/Pre-amp combo for 2 channel stuff, then use the AVR for movies.

With an AVR you of course always spend a lot on multi-channel processing, multiroom, network, video upscaling etc. Rather than on pure audio quality. They do have a digital coax input, which of course perfect for stereo music, but sadly that doesn't help with the TV set up, as surround sound is only possible via analog, and since they auto-sense digital input signals, then ignoring the analog input, I can't just use a toslink to coax converter from the TV for stereo as turning on the TV would disable the input from the receiver when I do want surround, so that one's on a cd player. Got to love the choice between audiophile sound quality and the ability to watch movies in dolby vision/atmos from the same source, even if not at the same time.

[Derkoli]

5 hours ago, Fischus said:

With an AVR you of course always spend a lot on multi-channel processing, multiroom, network, video upscaling etc. Rather than on pure audio quality. They do have a digital coax input, which of course perfect for stereo music, but sadly that doesn't help with the TV set up, as surround sound is only possible via analog, and since they auto-sense digital input signals, then ignoring the analog input, I can't just use a toslink to coax converter from the TV for stereo as turning on the TV would disable the input from the receiver when I do want surround, so that one's on a cd player. Got to love the choice between audiophile sound quality and the ability to watch movies in dolby vision/atmos from the same source, even if not at the same time.

My Bryston SP4 Processor manages to sound pretty good against my Chord DAVE and some of my other DAC's, which it should for 23k dollars. But it does 16 channel processing, and supports Auro-3D and most other formats, including ancient ones. But it wasn't designed for just 2 channel listening. Oddly enough it does support 192/24 PCM input though.

 

You also pay for alot of licensing stuff for various formats, among all the DAC channels, beefy power supply, larger chassis than usual, and in an AV receiver all the amplification. The DAC quality just tends to suffer as it really isn't given the best power supply and implementation, nor are the analogue circuits ideal.

[Fischus]

2 hours ago, Derkoli said:

My Bryston SP4 Processor manages to sound pretty good against my Chord DAVE and some of my other DAC's, which it should for 23k dollars. But it does 16 channel processing, and supports Auro-3D and most other formats, including ancient ones. But it wasn't designed for just 2 channel listening. Oddly enough it does support 192/24 PCM input though.

 

You also pay for alot of licensing stuff for various formats, among all the DAC channels, beefy power supply, larger chassis than usual, and in an AV receiver all the amplification. The DAC quality just tends to suffer as it really isn't given the best power supply and implementation, nor are the analogue circuits ideal.

Speaking of 192/24, while more than 44.1khz doesn't make sense, what do you think about 16 vs 24 bit? Airplay compresses my 48khz/24bit FLAC and wav files and Amazon music HD to 44.1/16, on the other hand going analogue from a phone probably isn't great either.

[Derkoli]

18 hours ago, Fischus said:

Speaking of 192/24, while more than 44.1khz doesn't make sense, what do you think about 16 vs 24 bit? Airplay compresses my 48khz/24bit FLAC and wav files and Amazon music HD to 44.1/16, on the other hand going analogue from a phone probably isn't great either.

I'm fine with 16 bit/CD quality files. But if I can get a download in 24 bits, I will, as my DAC can achieve 30dB more Dynamic Range than a 16 bit CD/File.

 

16 Bit's can technically be enough when compared to the noise floor of my listening room being at ~25dB and my maximum SPL being somewhere in the 115dB range, giving me a maximum dynamic range of roughly 90dB, however if I'm listening to my Martin Audio MLA Mini's, I can achieve a Dynamic Range of ~117dB, so I like to only use 24 Bit source's for them. But I like to use my gear to it's full potential no matter what so I try to use 24 bit files whenever I can. But if I can only get a song in 16 Bit's, I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.

[Fischus]

8 hours ago, Derkoli said:

I'm fine with 16 bit/CD quality files. But if I can get a download in 24 bits, I will, as my DAC can achieve 30dB more Dynamic Range than a 16 bit CD/File.

 

16 Bit's can technically be enough when compared to the noise floor of my listening room being at ~25dB and my maximum SPL being somewhere in the 115dB range, giving me a maximum dynamic range of roughly 90dB, however if I'm listening to my Martin Audio MLA Mini's, I can achieve a Dynamic Range of ~117dB, so I like to only use 24 Bit source's for them. But I like to use my gear to it's full potential no matter what so I try to use 24 bit files whenever I can. But if I can only get a song in 16 Bit's, I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.

Ah I see. The maximum digital input of my speakers is 88.2khz 16bit, and my rooms noise floor is usually very quiet, to the point where I can hear a mosquito flying from almost 10m away. With a max SPL of 108dB I wondered if a high-end analogue source that supports 24bit input might actually be superior. Although there's always the extra step of ADC before passing through the DSP while coax input skips that and directly goes to the DSP. B&O always says coax is superior, even over their own (outdated) Beosystem 3 preamp. Oh right I haven't said they're Beolab 5 yet have I (please don't kill me for presumably bad price/performance ratio, some audiophiles tend to dislike them, but I like the acoustic lenses) Your thoughts?

[Derkoli]

11 hours ago, Fischus said:

Ah I see. The maximum digital input of my speakers is 88.2khz 16bit, and my rooms noise floor is usually very quiet, to the point where I can hear a mosquito flying from almost 10m away. With a max SPL of 108dB I wondered if a high-end analogue source that supports 24bit input might actually be superior. Although there's always the extra step of ADC before passing through the DSP while coax input skips that and directly goes to the DSP. B&O always says coax is superior, even over their own (outdated) Beosystem 3 preamp. Oh right I haven't said they're Beolab 5 yet have I (please don't kill me for presumably bad price/performance ratio, some audiophiles tend to dislike them, but I like the acoustic lenses) Your thoughts?

It probably will sound better to have a better source. The DSP won't be able to account for a crappy source, especially if the input is full of noise and aliasing errors.

 

However, If the speakers only accept 16bit input, they're probably increasing the Dynamic Range by using noise-shaped dither. So really no point in feeding them 24 bit's, as they'll just downsample it before DSP.

 

I personally think the Bang & Olufsen stuff is pretty cool. Alot of people think active stuff is where the industry will probably move, and the fact they use DSP + Separate amplifiers for each driver means that crossover problems are removed. You also don't need to find an amplifier that works well with the speaker.

[Fischus]

37 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

It probably will sound better to have a better source. The DSP won't be able to account for a crappy source, especially if the input is full of noise and aliasing errors.

 

However, If the speakers only accept 16bit input, they're probably increasing the Dynamic Range by using noise-shaped dither. So really no point in feeding them 24 bit's, as they'll just downsample it before DSP.

 

I personally think the Bang & Olufsen stuff is pretty cool. Alot of people think active stuff is where the industry will probably move, and the fact they use DSP + Separate amplifiers for each driver means that crossover problems are removed. You also don't need to find an amplifier that works well with the speaker.

Your MLA minis are active as well right? I've always wondered why there are so many ultra high-end passive speakers. Is there any specific benefit? Whatever special cabinet or driver design they engineer, aren't they bottlenecked by something so obvious?

[Derkoli]

1 minute ago, Fischus said:

Your MLA minis are active as well right? I've always wondered why there are so many ultra high-end passive speakers. Is there any specific benefit? Whatever special cabinet or driver design they engineer, aren't they bottlenecked by something so obvious?

My MLA Mini's are technically passive, but the 2 subwoofers they come with have 9 channels of amplification in each one. So each MLA section is bi-amped, then the subwoofer gets 1 channel of amplification. Then they use DSP for all sorts, including "hard-pass" areas, where they actually won't put sound to. So you can set a specific area to not get any sound, which is pretty damn cool.

 

I think alot of high-end passive speakers exist as when you put so much money into a product, you can remove crossover errors etc. with alot of engineering/work. I love my PMC Fact Fenestria's, which are passive. However they are bi-amped, so the crossover is done by a McIntosh Room Correction unit, not the speaker. However the speaker does do the midrange/tweeter crossover. But they're controlled by DSP so it removes some errors from them.

 

Most of my speakers are actually active. Some of my favourite speakers are my JBL M2's, which contain 0 crossover, and they each get 2 channels of amplification + DSP Crossover/Room correction. Genelec stuff also does active speakers amazingly well.

 

Personally, I think eventually most speakers are going to be active. Gryphon, B & O, KEF and some others are already making really high end active stuff, and it all sounds great. The advantages of each driver having its own channel of amplification + DSP are numerous. The main downsides are each speaker needing its own power input + signal, unless one speaker has everything in it then a simple interconnect between each speaker. Another downside is obviously the cost of all the amplifiers + DSP, but then again you don't need anything for them, except a source. Fitting it all into a small-ish enclosure is obviously an issue aswell. Unless you go for everything external like JBL does.

[Fischus]

15 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

My MLA Mini's are technically passive, but the 2 subwoofers they come with have 9 channels of amplification in each one. So each MLA section is bi-amped, then the subwoofer gets 1 channel of amplification. Then they use DSP for all sorts, including "hard-pass" areas, where they actually won't put sound to. So you can set a specific area to not get any sound, which is pretty damn cool.

 

I think alot of high-end passive speakers exist as when you put so much money into a product, you can remove crossover errors etc. with alot of engineering/work. I love my PMC Fact Fenestria's, which are passive. However they are bi-amped, so the crossover is done by a McIntosh Room Correction unit, not the speaker. However the speaker does do the midrange/tweeter crossover. But they're controlled by DSP so it removes some errors from them.

 

Most of my speakers are actually active. Some of my favourite speakers are my JBL M2's, which contain 0 crossover, and they each get 2 channels of amplification + DSP Crossover/Room correction. Genelec stuff also does active speakers amazingly well.

 

Personally, I think eventually most speakers are going to be active. Gryphon, B & O, KEF and some others are already making really high end active stuff, and it all sounds great. The advantages of each driver having its own channel of amplification + DSP are numerous. The main downsides are each speaker needing its own power input + signal, unless one speaker has everything in it then a simple interconnect between each speaker. Another downside is obviously the cost of all the amplifiers + DSP, but then again you don't need anything for them, except a source. Fitting it all into a small-ish enclosure is obviously an issue aswell. Unless you go for everything external like JBL does.

DSP and 4 proprietory class D amps with 2500W total per speaker certainly makes a big chunk of the BL5's price. There are of course people who change speakers like underwear, so already having the amplifier(s) might be cheaper in the long run too. Although as you said, they have to match. And as you said the electronics have to be accounted for in the enclosure. Having a power cord for each speaker doesn't really bother me. For powerlink and s/pdif, daisy chaining is possible, eliminating some clutter. 

 

 

[Derkoli]

12 minutes ago, Fischus said:

DSP and 4 proprietory class D amps with 2500W total per speaker certainly makes a big chunk of the BL5's price. There are of course people who change speakers like underwear, so already having the amplifier(s) might be cheaper in the long run too. Although as you said, they have to match. And as you said the electronics have to be accounted for in the enclosure. Having a power cord for each speaker doesn't really bother me. For powerlink and s/pdif, daisy chaining is possible, eliminating some clutter. 

 

 

That's probably also part of the reason that most people still buy passive speakers. Most people's previous speakers are most likely passive, so they probably already have the amplifier's for passive speakers, so they buy passive speakers.

 

Having power cables to each speaker also doesn't bother me, as speakers already have cables going to them. But it bothers some people who want a clean looking setup, especially if that setup is in a living space such as a living room.

[Fischus]

30 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

That's probably also part of the reason that most people still buy passive speakers. Most people's previous speakers are most likely passive, so they probably already have the amplifier's for passive speakers, so they buy passive speakers.

 

Having power cables to each speaker also doesn't bother me, as speakers already have cables going to them. But it bothers some people who want a clean looking setup, especially if that setup is in a living space such as a living room.

Well there's of course always the recommendation for extra carpenters, electricians etc. who will gladly take as much as the speakers' price to lay all the cables through the floor and walls... which is probably the most profitable part for the B&O retailers. Though I personally prefer to cram everything behind furniture, leaving only around half a meter of cables visible on each speaker. It's messy but looks clean, so it's fine... until I need to change something and curse that idea time and time again... Longevity might be a concern too. While Beolabs enter standby immediately after use or a maximum of 3 min depending on the input signal mode, Genelec's power supplies apparently need to be replaced every few years because they stay on for much longer, at least from what I've heard from a technician, while some people still swear on nearly 50 year old passive speakers.

[The Flying Sloth]

28 minutes ago, Fischus said:

-snip-

I use bookshelf and some homemade speakers for the surround system in my bedroom, I literally have speaker wire going halfway around the perimeter of my room to get signal to the satellite speakers on my nightstands. The wire spends time next to nearly 10 different power cables too....... And these aren't fancy shielded stuffs either, it's just 16m of cheap imported 'copper' speaker wire but hey, if it works.....

 

As for power cables, I mean, if I could cut down on some I would but I really can't, I am scared to count the amount of sockets I'm using (actually I just did count and I think the number is 30 sockets available and most of them are being used) but they're mostly hidden in cable trays, behind furniture or in cupboards so it doesn't look too messy.

[Fischus]

37 minutes ago, The Flying Sloth said:

I use bookshelf and some homemade speakers for the surround system in my bedroom, I literally have speaker wire going halfway around the perimeter of my room to get signal to the satellite speakers on my nightstands. The wire spends time next to nearly 10 different power cables too....... And these aren't fancy shielded stuffs either, it's just 16m of cheap imported 'copper' speaker wire but hey, if it works.....

 

As for power cables, I mean, if I could cut down on some I would but I really can't, I am scared to count the amount of sockets I'm using (actually I just did count and I think the number is 30 sockets available and most of them are being used) but they're mostly hidden in cable trays, behind furniture or in cupboards so it doesn't look too messy.

If every audio setup needed siltech cables, 99.999% of people would probably use the TVs built-in speakers, me included. Counting every power and connection cable I'm probably at over 100. 30ish power then HDMI, DP, RCA speakers, USB... Even my reclining armchairs have cables for power and controls... I always wonder how neat it looks from a normal perspective, until I look at that unidentifiable black mass of rubber behind my lowboard and desk. Though I always try to get high quality cables where it matters. High quality doesn't mean expensive though. Some cables that cost a few dollars can actually perform very well.

[Derkoli]

3 hours ago, Fischus said:

If every audio setup needed siltech cables, 99.999% of people would probably use the TVs built-in speakers, me included. Counting every power and connection cable I'm probably at over 100. 30ish power then HDMI, DP, RCA speakers, USB... Even my reclining armchairs have cables for power and controls... I always wonder how neat it looks from a normal perspective, until I look at that unidentifiable black mass of rubber behind my lowboard and desk. Though I always try to get high quality cables where it matters. High quality doesn't mean expensive though. Some cables that cost a few dollars can actually perform very well.

Pro tip: Get different colour interconnect, USB and Power cables. Makes stuff alot easier to identify.

 

4 hours ago, The Flying Sloth said:

, I literally have speaker wire going halfway around the perimeter of my room to get signal to the satellite speakers on my nightstands.

God, tell me about it. I've mostly got the cables for my 9.2.4 setup in the walls/roof, but god the mess behind the two amplifiers for it all is amazing. Especially when combined with all the interconnects between the processor and amplifiers, it's 33 cables just for the Home Theater audio stuff. Then I have my MLA Minis, JBL M2's, 7.2 monitoring setup, stereo "Audiophile" stuff and of course networking + power distribution and video stuff.

[Fischus]

10 hours ago, Derkoli said:

Pro tip: Get different colour interconnect, USB and Power cables. Makes stuff alot easier to identify.

Decades of anguish solved in one sentence... Why didn't I think of this earlier?!?

[Derkoli]

5 hours ago, Fischus said:

Decades of anguish solved in one sentence... Why didn't I think of this earlier?!?

Haha, It's a trick I've used for a while. Green/Red interconnects, Blue USB cables, Black + Grey Power cables. Makes swapping gear in and out 10 times easier. Plus you can actually follow the cable's route, as it stands out from other colour cables.

[Fischus]

16 hours ago, Derkoli said:

Plus you can actually follow the cable's route, as it stands out from other colour cables.

This was always my main problem. There's nothing worse than losing track of a cable that disappears into a tangled mess. I can't really effectively use cable leads or lay them through the walls because I need flexibility. But this is really effective and simple.

 

Thank you very much for everything.