Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

after months of purchasing new audio equipment, wires re wiring, going through hell to stop that annoying whine, which never occured when i had a small system set up, i narrowed it down to 1 thing, my rca cables, how to solve it

in my case, 2 things have worked

1st, my big fat cadence cables i ran 6x wires from an earth from the back of my boot, to each of my 6x rca head where it plugs into the amp i edited a pic of an rca which u can view if u dont get what i mean

or the second thing i also tried a very thin rca home av cable i got from dick smiths as one of my cadence cables the connection messed up because of there dodgy crap soldering job on the internals, yes dont buy these rca's even my other 2 sets loose connectivity some times and speakers cut out!!

but yeah back to the point with the thin wire which dosnt let through as much signal dosnt seem to let through engine noise and didnt need to earth it like the cadence so yeh hope this may help a few people

post-5992-1160468721.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/138076-have-engine-noise-in-your-skyline/
Share on other sites

wtf?

So... you ran grounding wires from the boot, along with the RCA's, to the ends of them that plug into the HU, and then used the outer part of the RCA for the grounding?

I've tried this method also, with some success. I could cut the noise out of one set of RCA's, but not out of the other... no matter what I did.

In the end, the HU and amp should both be grounding the RCA cable, and if it's not, you might have blown the grounding circuit in either of the above.

I opened my Kenwood HU a while back and found a burnt track on the circuitboard which led to the ground of the rear RCA outputs. I soldered in a piece of wire over the gap, but it didn't change a darn thing. I guess the HU is just stuffed. (changed amp and RCA's) Oh, and I tested my new wire with a multimeter, and it's fine. There's probably another cut somewhere else that I can't find. (no fuses for ground)

sweet.I had a good ol gemi n had a bompn systm in that.The rca cables i bought for it were jaycar items n they came with an earth wire allready attatched end 2 end.So obviously they had stumbled accross this problem b4 n rectified it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...