I want to connect the record-out on my receiver to the line-in on my computer so that I can transfer some LP's to CD. It will require a cable run of 14 or 15 feet to connect the two units. I'm wondering if I need to be concerned about high frequency loss in a cable of that length. Should I use standard RCA type cables or something a bit more expensive? Thanks for any suggestions.

For analog stereo, RCA ables will be fine.

I second that notion.

BTW,
If you are looking for some good audio capture software, I recommend Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/). It's simple to use, totally free and has pop/click removal and dc offset removal built right in.

Thanks guys for responding to my post. I'm glad that I decided to post here. I had originally planned to buy a separate pre-amp to use right at the computer since I thought the cable would be too long. A friend suggested that 15 feet would be OK but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the info on Audacity. I'll download it today.

That length should be just fine. That's not even a particularly long length for video which is WAY more demanding than audio. The frequencies for an analog signal are gigantic compared to video signals, and with high-quality cable I wouldn't even be particularly concerned about signal rolloff with video signals which are many thousands of times higher in frequency.

If you want the best though: bluejeanscable.com

And very reasonable pricing. Piece of mind if you want it.

The frequencies for an analog signal are gigantic compared to video signals, and with high-quality cable I wouldn't even be particularly concerned about signal rolloff with video signals which are many thousands of times higher in frequency.

This doesn't make any sense.

This doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make sense? :confused:

What doesn't make sense? :confused:

This:

The frequencies for an analog signal are gigantic compared to video signals, and with high-quality cable I wouldn't even be particularly concerned about signal rolloff with video signals which are many thousands of times higher in frequency.

I understand that. How does that not make sense?

video frequencies are much higher than analog audio and are much more sensitive to cabling issues. And at these lengths I wouldn't be particularly concerned about rolloff with the frequencies invovled with vide, let alone with analog audio which are far lower in freq (much larger in size of wavelength).,

First you wrote this:
"The frequencies for an analog signal are gigantic compared to video signals,

I am assuming that the analog signal you are referring to is audio and you say that analog audio frequencies are gigantic compared to video?

Then you wrote this:
and with high-quality cable I wouldn't even be particularly concerned about signal rolloff with video signals which are many thousands of times higher in frequency.

Which is the opposite of what you wrote before. Now you say that video is higher in frequency.

True, video is much higher frequency than audio, and 15ft really is nothing to be concerned about in either realm.

First you wrote this:


I am assuming that the analog signal you are referring to is audio and you say that analog audio frequencies are gigantic compared to video?

Then you wrote this:


Which is the opposite of what you wrote before. Now you say that video is higher in frequency.

Sorry, you're right that is confusing. When I said gigantic I was referring to wavelength size. Frequencies don't have a "size" dimension. Analog audio is much lower in frequency (audio frequencies) and much larger in wavelength. Hope that clarifies? The bottom line is that analog audio is far less critical a signal and is more resiliant to cabling issues than video which is much more difficult to transmit and handle properly without degradation.