[TriLUG] Re: OT: Old Thinnet coax & AM reception

[Brian Henning]

> I'll have to agree with Jim about extending the audio instead of the
> RF.  Receiving RF signals from those little whips doesn't provide much
> signal (about an order to 2 orders of magnitude compared to ethernet
> levels), and any extension of wire will add to the noise levels being
> picked up.  The longer the extension, the more like an antenna it too
> becomes, picking up the signals from the equipment you are trying to
> avoid.

Yes, I know.  Volts versus microvolts.  Obviously a signal in the V 
range is going to have much better SNR than a signal in the uV range. 
And I agree also.  But as I mentioned in my original post, we're limited 
by our current signal wiring setup.  The truth of the matter is, we have 
basically a 12+4-channel snake that someone made into a permanent 
installation from our stage area to our mixing console area, and all 12 
channels are already in use.  So we can't relocate the receiver to the 
stage area without another long run of shielded audio cable (a much more 
expensive and invasive proposal than simply cutting two small holes in 
the back wall for some coax...plus we may be moving to another building 
in a year or two, making us even less interested in spending much on 
installations).  I figure if I can find someone with a couple 20' 
thinnet cables they're willing to part with, it can be a reasonably 
inexpensive experiment.

~B