Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Philip Roberts]

So the Fluke position is consistently that no device short of the US$10k ones can test to our needs, as I read this.

There is also a line in the User Guide which says (paraphrasing but close) that the CIQ will give "Acceptable" ratings to many cables which will fail on the more expensive testers, which is not encouraging.

The university I work for does have an older DTX-1800 that we use to certify all cables installed (mostly for traditional data use). With the right modules it will test up to Cat6A performance. While not cheap there looks to be a few on eBay for around $3k which is a lot better than a DSX-5000 or 8000.

From what you've said if you are doing just things like Dante, GigaACE, and AES50 the CIQ "should" do what you need but having the better tester is certainly nice.The real push for the $$$ testers is 10GB Ethernet (data, SDVoE), and HDBase-T.

While I can't be totally sure I expect the reason the CIQ will some times pass a cable that might fail on a DSX is because the standards are some time more conservative that real life. (This is a very good thing). I work for a university and we've got several PoE security cameras on the end of 400' Cat6/6A cables, it's far beyond spec but will generally work until it doesn't. As it seems the CIQ's test is "does it work" it will list as acceptable some runs that are beyond spec so the DSX would fail them.

[Erik Jerde]

Dan I've only been loosely following this thread, but it sounds like the CQI is a step up from the basic continuity tester but it still isn't the big-daddy qualification tool.  You have to decide what it is that you need.  If you're doing install work that requires qualification of each line and a report then you need the DSX level tool. 

Additionally some of what we do in pro A/V uses category cable but relies on specs for those cables that may not be as pertinent (or apparent if off spec) to vanilla network usages.  AES50 comes to mind as one where the mfgr spec requires cat5e and apparently using cat6 can cause problems due to different cable specs.  All my AES50 is cat5e so I've never really dug into the issue but I think there's threads here about it.  Similarly though less of an issue these days is pair length and it's effect on sku when using video over catx cable.  I believe HDBT isn't as sensitive to that as the old analog solutions were, but it's another example of where standard physical plant catx install may be golden for network (and measure as such with the CQI) but not work right for our uses.  Only a top end qualification tool will give you a view of the real underlying situation.

One thing to consider is if you're usage isn't enough to justify a proper qualifying tool maybe you just rent one when needed and keep the more basic tool around for day-to-day usage.

[Dan Mortensen]

Additionally some of what we do in pro A/V uses category cable but relies on specs for those cables that may not be as pertinent (or apparent if off spec) to vanilla network usages.  AES50 comes to mind as one where the mfgr spec requires cat5e and apparently using cat6 can cause problems due to different cable specs. All my AES50 is cat5e so I've never really dug into the issue but I think there's threads here about it.

Your text that I've bolded is something that I've been looking for evidence to prove, but only find evidence to disprove.

The actual text of the AES Standard, which I looked at again today, calls for CAT5 or higher cable. Behringer does say to use CAT5e cable, but they don't say not to use higher category cable nor do they discuss any ill effects from doing so.

I'm not saying that nobody has said what you wrote, but I've not found anybody that also offers proof.

This is one example of how hard it is to determine what are the relevant things to pay attention to in this use of cable and protocols for purposes that it wasn't specifically designed for, and/or that which the designers are well-versed in the designing but iffy on the usage. You address this nicely in the rest of your post. Thank you.

[Erik Jerde]

Your text that I've bolded is something that I've been looking for evidence to prove, but only find evidence to disprove.

The actual text of the AES Standard, which I looked at again today, calls for CAT5 or higher cable. Behringer does say to use CAT5e cable, but they don't say not to use higher category cable nor do they discuss any ill effects from doing so.

I'm not saying that nobody has said what you wrote, but I've not found anybody that also offers proof.

This is one example of how hard it is to determine what are the relevant things to pay attention to in this use of cable and protocols for purposes that it wasn't specifically designed for, and/or that which the designers are well-versed in the designing but iffy on the usage. You address this nicely in the rest of your post. Thank you.

You’re absolutely right that there’s a lot of FUD around the behringer aes50 cabling requirements.  It would be awesome if they could address the issue head on.

[Nathan Riddle]

While we SHOULD be Certifying our cables in the AV world it is prohibitively expensive for us small guys. So I go with Qualify.

I think you got it, but IIRC the basic gist was there are 3 levels.

Certify (to a standard) - says the cable is rated for cat5e, cat6A, Cat8, what-have-you  = ~$12k USD
Qualify - says the cable can pass data at whatever rate (10,100,1000) = ~$1-2k USD
Verify - Basic cable tester which is just a continuity tester (pointless for anything mission critical) - $15-50 USD

---------

After some research and seeing some articles of Fluke IQ vs SignalTEK NT I went with the NT.

I went with signaltek because it was stated to pass actual IP data down the line and verify that the data was received correctly. IQ was just a basic TDR unit, useful but not as good.

There's a new SignalTek with a touchscreen, but you can get used ones from their store for ~$1200

Here's a quick article that I found. (Not the one that convinced me to go with Signaltek though).
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3265039/review-network-test-tools-from-fluke-netscout-and-signaltek.html

And another one. https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/3ly5mq79

[Dan Mortensen]

After some research and seeing some articles of Fluke IQ vs SignalTEK NT I went with the NT.

I went with signaltek because it was stated to pass actual IP data down the line and verify that the data was received correctly. IQ was just a basic TDR unit, useful but not as good.

Thanks for that, Nathan, including the parts I edited out for brevity.

The idea of passing "actual IP data down the line and verify that the data was received correctly" is what makes sense to me in a tester, even though that IP data won't be an exact match for the data or methodology that my consoles use.

My son and I talked for a long time about this yesterday; he is a computer programmer/software troubleshooter now but grew up helping me at shows and figuring out PA gear details so he knows about our world.

After looking over the AES50 AES Standard again together, which he gets a lot more out of than I do, he pointed out there there is both backward and forward error correction built in, so that using an Ethernet tester, no matter how elaborate it is, won't definitively tell how well my consoles will connect to stage boxes when getting to the ragged edge (distance, cable condition issues, etc.).

A tester of almost any sort will give a gross generalization of whether it will work or not in most cases, but it's those ragged edge cases where the console is the best tester, and other testers are just indicative. (These are all my words, not his FWIW.)

That said, I still want something more than a continuity tester to be the indicator of cable assembly acceptability or not, and I like this Signaltek. Even though the one they are selling used is an older version, it looks like it would serve my purposes just fine.

A question, though: In the user manuals for both the one you have (NT) and the used one (II FO), their cable test examples only show UTP and the screens do not have an "S" pole with no connection. Can your tester show that the Shield is connected end-to-end?

It would be nice to have that feature in this level of tester rather than having to use a separate device to confirm Shield connection, like I do now.

Thanks!

[Scott Holtzman]

Thanks for that, Nathan, including the parts I edited out for brevity.

The idea of passing "actual IP data down the line and verify that the data was received correctly" is what makes sense to me in a tester, even though that IP data won't be an exact match for the data or methodology that my consoles use.

My son and I talked for a long time about this yesterday; he is a computer programmer/software troubleshooter now but grew up helping me at shows and figuring out PA gear details so he knows about our world.

After looking over the AES50 AES Standard again together, which he gets a lot more out of than I do, he pointed out there there is both backward and forward error correction built in, so that using an Ethernet tester, no matter how elaborate it is, won't definitively tell how well my consoles will connect to stage boxes when getting to the ragged edge (distance, cable condition issues, etc.).

A tester of almost any sort will give a gross generalization of whether it will work or not in most cases, but it's those ragged edge cases where the console is the best tester, and other testers are just indicative. (These are all my words, not his FWIW.)

That said, I still want something more than a continuity tester to be the indicator of cable assembly acceptability or not, and I like this Signaltek. Even though the one they are selling used is an older version, it looks like it would serve my purposes just fine.

A question, though: In the user manuals for both the one you have (NT) and the used one (II FO), their cable test examples only show UTP and the screens do not have an "S" pole with no connection. Can your tester show that the Shield is connected end-to-end?

It would be nice to have that feature in this level of tester rather than having to use a separate device to confirm Shield connection, like I do now.

Thanks!

Dan, the RF check is much more telling than using the network payload.  In the face of significant issues such as crosstalk (NEXT) or impedance mismatch (which would show on RF) you still could get good data transmission.


I think wiremap, distance (TDR) and RF performance matches your original application. 

[Dan Mortensen]

Dan, the RF check is much more telling than using the network payload.  In the face of significant issues such as crosstalk (NEXT) or impedance mismatch (which would show on RF) you still could get good data transmission.


I think wiremap, distance (TDR) and RF performance matches your original application.

Thanks, Scott. I agree that it is important to first measure the cable for those parameters (and ideally more) to qualify it for use, but posit that the functioning of the devices which are ultimately connected to it is (for all intents and purposes) the primary indicator that the system is working or not.

That's not really a huge insight, to say the least, but to circle back to the OP's situation, I think that the answer to his question is:

1) All cables in use should be checked with a significant tester (like we're talking about on this page) before putting into service. In the OP's case using rental cables, that should have taken place before loading the truck for the gig. This means having a significant tester* quickly available or renting one.

2) There should be at least one set of redundant cables available at the gig, and preferably two. For my system which uses one CAT cable, I like having at least three available, in part because three cables twist together nicely compared to two or four. Systems using two CAT cables for basic functioning should have at least two spares and maybe four. ("If you have one you have none if there's a problem, if you have two you have one, if you have three you have two.") I do like the Link and maybe the Elite Core 4 pairs, and am pursuing those as mentioned in another thread.

3) All the Ethercons should be protected from dust/dirt while not in use and during transport and in storage.

4) At least in the world I live in, where there is usually just barely enough time to set up and be ready for soundcheck/show and have time for minor problems like swapping Ethernet cables (or whatever else) in case the first one doesn't work for some reason, there is not enough time to run a snake test (using a significant tester*) before each show. The first sign of a problem will be the non-functioning of the console connection.

Summing up, if the primary connection is not happening, as in the OP's case, with the above as SOP it's easy to switch over to a spare. The spare is already in place, and if you make the switch, you still have another spare.

*The definition of "significant tester" will vary by the individual's level of comfort and finances, but definitely is not simply a continuity tester. I'm still trying to determine what this means for my company, but it definitely doesn't include a US$10k+ device, although that number is significantly less than the annual income from gigs that need to have consoles/stage boxes working reliably.

I'd like to learn more about this Signaltek tester and any others at that $$ level (please suggest some!), but think I've now said all I have to say in this thread until new info arrives. This has been very enlightening.

EDIT: Also noting in the OP's case his console announces transmission errors, unlike mine. That indicates that he CAN use his console/stage box/system (not sure which part of Dante/console does this) to suss out suspect cables...

[Nathan Riddle]

A question, though: In the user manuals for both the one you have (NT) and the used one (II FO), their cable test examples only show UTP and the screens do not have an "S" pole with no connection. Can your tester show that the Shield is connected end-to-end?

It would be nice to have that feature in this level of tester rather than having to use a separate device to confirm Shield connection, like I do now.

Thanks!

This is the exact model I bought for $1090
R156001 SignalTEK II FO

It has profiles for both shielded and unshielded and will throw an error during the wiremap test procedure if the cable doesn't meet the selected test profile.
It's been very useful when running shielded cat6 for soundboards in verifying we did our terminations correctly.

That said, it's not perfect. Sure I've found faults and it's told me exactly where the broken lines were located using the TDR function. POE test is nice for cameras and AP's. But I've had the tests pass and still had failures; It's not clear to me if it was equipment or the cable either.

As far as RF vs IP packets...I can't find the forum posts that discussed it, but what I remember was deciding IP packets were better based upon that thread.


Here's another (expensive) option.
http://jdsu.fiberoptic.com/T-BERD_8000.htm

[Dan Mortensen]

This is the exact model I bought for $1090
R156001 SignalTEK II FO

It has profiles for both shielded and unshielded and will throw an error during the wiremap test procedure if the cable doesn't meet the selected test profile.
It's been very useful when running shielded cat6 for soundboards in verifying we did our terminations correctly.

That said, it's not perfect. Sure I've found faults and it's told me exactly where the broken lines were located using the TDR function. POE test is nice for cameras and AP's. But I've had the tests pass and still had failures; It's not clear to me if it was equipment or the cable either.

As far as RF vs IP packets...I can't find the forum posts that discussed it, but what I remember was deciding IP packets were better based upon that thread.


Here's another (expensive) option.
http://jdsu.fiberoptic.com/T-BERD_8000.htm

The shielding verification is REALLY nice to hear.

I skimmed the User's Manual and like what I saw, so mine will be here in a week or so.

For a month or so before doing my Ethernet cable workshop for our local AES Section 5 or so years ago, Fluke loaned me a DTX-1800 and that was really great. I was very impressed by that gizmo, both its form factor and how quickly it did its thing and gave you a PASS/FAIL for the cable. While I'd love to have one, and am glad that they can be had used for around $3k (according to this thread), Fluke does not directly sell anything, including used gear, so I'd be too scared to buy an uncertified Certification device.

It's really neat that Ideal has a company store which sells used gear; I did the transaction by phone so I could ask questions, and one was if they confirmed functionality before reselling; the answer was yes.

Also, I like how the RJ45 contacts are replaceable, although learned that it needs a specific tool to do so, and the tool and 8(?) replacement contact units is approaching $150. I doubt I'll be using it enough to wear out the connector, but who knows?

Regarding your comment that you've had cables pass inspection but still had failures: this may not be the thread to discuss that, although I note that the OP has posted once in it, but I would like to know more about the circumstances and gear involved.

There is a locked Sticky from 2013 in the Lounge about "CATx Connectivity"; maybe we start another one specifically to discuss problems with Connectivity? That IS really what we are talking about, and it's fundamental to our ability to do a show.

Thanks again.

[ProSoundWeb Community]