# Mogami Neglex > Canare Starquad???



## pinkfloyd4ever

because, based on price, conventional logic would lead you to believe so, as Markertek sells Neglex for $.95 per foot and Starquad for $.42 per foot. The biggest difference I can see is in the shielding. For those who've had a lot of experience with both, does one sound better than the other? Anyone know what accounts for the over 2x difference in price? I'm only going to be buying 10 feet or less, so the difference in cost isn't that big of a deal to me, just wondering about SQ of course


----------



## aamefford

I'd like to throw my hat in for a "me too" on this thread, I've got a headphone cable project coming up in the semi near future.

 aamefford


----------



## sejarzo

I believe that Mogami uses strictly oxygen-free copper in their starquad and the other Neglex cables that all have blue and white conductors (and non-OFC in the ones with red and white conductors...which don't carry the Neglex designation), but I have never seen any claims re OFC for Canare.

 The served shield on Mogami is easier to unwind than the unbraiding that the shield on Canare requires. The Mogami also uses soft monofilament poly "filler" strands to hold the conductors in proper position, and they are simple to cut. Doesn't Canare use cotton? I used Canare 4S11 for speaker cabling, and I think when I looked at all their cables, Canare's starquads all used cotton stranded filler.

 Nate Maher commented on this in the past, and preferred the Mogami when it came to SQ, IIRC.


----------



## Zorander

I have not worked with Canare quad cables before so I cannot really compare. I would wager that both are similar enough in conductor quality that differences in sleeving, microphonics, weight, and not to mention price, will become the deciding factor.

 Regards.


----------



## n_maher

Can't say that I've tried to do any sonic comparisons between cables in a long, long time (likes years) but I greatly prefer the workability of the Mogami to the Canare especially since I've started tying the shield to ground on almost all of my cables. In the end even though the the Mogami is double the cost the actual differential is pretty darn small unless you're ordering hundreds of feet so I see no reason to not use it. In fact, the only reason that I can see to use the Canare is that you can order it in different colors, but I stopped worrying about that, techflex and a whole host of other aesthetic concerns a while ago too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sorry to not be much help on the SQ front. About the only other thing that I could add would be to say that I've never gotten a complaint about cables that I've built using the Mogami. But then again the same could be said about the Canare.


----------



## brainsalad

I extensively used both for a number of years and I am unable to tell any SQ differences. The Mogami is a little bit easier to work with because of the nylon thread. The Canare uses a cotton wrapping and cotton strings for strength and friction reduction when the cable bends although they are both relatively stiff. 

 The Mogami is slightly thinner diameter. I would go with the Canare and save 50%. They both are EXCELLENT cable choices.


----------



## pinkfloyd4ever

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *n_maher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've started tying the shield to ground on almost all of my cables_

 

really? I'd think that would introduce interference, I guess it's the opposite?


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pinkfloyd4ever* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_really? I'd think that would introduce interference, I guess it's the opposite?_

 

Shields don't work unless they are grounded. Where would they bleed off any induced currents?

 Nate.....did you mean tying the shield to ground at one end only of an interconnect, or for a headphone recable?

 The most common recommendation is to tie the shield to ground at the source end of the cable only when using a shielded twisted pair as an interconnect. In that way, any interference is sinked to ground at the source, rather than acting as an antenna at the input of the load, and the signal grounds are tied only by the conductor in the twisted pair. The housing on the connector effectively provides shielding over the cable at the load end.


----------



## pinkfloyd4ever

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shields don't work unless they are grounded. Where would they bleed off any induced currents?_

 

hell if I know. I don't actually know how any of this works, I just know how to follow directions and solder
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where in NW IN you from, sejarzo? I used to go to Valpo


----------



## pinkfloyd4ever

If you tie a shield to ground, even if you only physically solder it at the source end, isn't it still electrically connected to the ground in the rest of the cable and thus the next component just the same?


----------



## Mr.Sneis

I can only get mogami locally at about .85 per ft. I would buy both and report back with the results 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 At $.95 per ft. or $.42 per ft. + connectors that are only a couple of bucks it can't hurt. The shipping will likely be high no matter what so get your money's worth!


----------



## lui_boy

For a headphone recable, I would use the Mogami just for ease of stripping the outer cable and unwinding the shield, and it's slightly thinner and more flexible than the Canare StarQuad as well. The Canare would make for a good interconnect since it's a bit more durable. I'm not able to detect sonic differences between the two.

 This is a good read:
Mogami & Canare Differences


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pinkfloyd4ever* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you tie a shield to ground, even if you only physically solder it at the source end, isn't it still electrically connected to the ground in the rest of the cable and thus the next component just the same?_

 

Good point. Someone more solidly "grounded" in the knowledge of effective grounding for audio might have a better explanation as to why tying the shield to ground at the source is preferable.

 Signal grounds are often connected to chassis grounds at a single point, but in other devices (those with only two prong cords without a ground pin) the signal ground floats.

 It's been a while since I read this page on the Rane Corporation site (makers of pro audio gear), maybe you can glean some insight from it:

Grounding and Shielding Audio Devices

 It delves into the difference between a true shield (as should be the case, if properly implemented in balanced cabling) and the situation that exists in unbalanced cabling. I will read through it again tonight--something tells me that page made me understand things a bit better, but I don't recall why at the moment!!!


----------



## pinkfloyd4ever

just so there's no confusion, this is for ICs, not a recable. Nice links, lui & sejarzo. I think I'm gonna go with Mogami since I'm not going to be putting it thru the beating that cables get in live performance tours. 

 Soo, WRT the shield, it seems what I was thinking is correct-to use the shield as it was intended, I'll need 3 conductor connectors, so I guess it's back to looking for either some XLRs or 1/4" TRS plugs and jacks since RCA obviously only has 2. BTW, balanced cabling doesn't also mean balanced sources/amps/headphones, does it?


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pinkfloyd4ever* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ BTW, balanced cabling doesn't also mean balanced sources/amps/headphones, does it?_

 

Yes, it does......that is one of the points of the Rane document about grounding vs. shielding. Balanced connections theoretically use (or can use) a true shield that is connected to chassis ground, not signal ground--which isn't necessary in a balanced connection, in which the signal is taken as the difference between the "hot" pin 2 conductor and the "cold" pin 3 conductor.

 However, some makers wire pin 1 of an XLR to signal ground, which in most gear does have a single point connection to chassis ground.....which can result in hum from ground loops. In unbalanced cables, the signal ground and shield are the same when one uses a coax cable (center conductor is signal, the braid is both signal ground and "pseudo-shield", I guess.)

 There are lots of debates over what the right method is.....one can run coax for unbalanced connections (Blue Jeans Cables) or DIY with balanced mic cable, or in the case of Kimber interconnects, use a braid without an external shield......and all of them work.

 If you want to make unbalanced interconnects from Mogami, just tie the shield and ground together at the end you connect to the source and you should be fine......really. It's been working well for me.


----------



## sejarzo

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.


----------



## pinkfloyd4ever

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.


----------



## infinitesymphony

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.


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ 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.


----------



## slowth

that much difference in such cables huh.. the starquad seems to have been working well for me.


----------



## rodentmacbeastie

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.


----------



## brainsalad

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodentmacbeastie* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_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.


----------

