Audio and 9VDC in the same snake?

[David]

Is it feasible to have two channels of an 8-channel stage snake devoted to 9VDC power and the remaining 6 devoted to audio and switching?  There were other posts here that doubted the wisdom of such an idea, but at least some of them were referring to line voltage.  I most emphatically do not wish to transport that in a snake.

Back in the fall, I built a box with three external footswitches for the chorus, distortion and reverb on my Epiphone SC-28 amp.  I also split my pedalboard up so the compression, distortion and boost portion went into the amp's input, and the modulation effects went through the amp's effect loop.  I made what were effectively two snakes to bundle the cables together.  Trouble is, the "snakes" wound up being pretty short, and I've been forced to play with my amp facing me and very close to my pedalboard rig.  I'd like to get some distance back.

I have an 8 channel snake that's about 13 and a quarter feet long on the way.  I was planning to rebuild the amp footswitch box into a kind of snake interface for my pedaboard.  It would contain the footswitches as before, but would add connectors for the "to amp input", "effects send" and "effects return".  I would link my pedals to the interface with patch cords leading to the appropriate leads on the snake.

As I said, if there is some way to do it, I would like to run 9VDC power from my two power supplies through the remaining snake channels back to my pedalboard.  One supply is for the pedals.  The other is for the footswitch indicator LEDs.  I knocked out the pedal power supply when I tried connecting it to the LEDs as well as to pedals.  I'm thinking this is because I have the LEDs wired in parallel.  The power harness may very well be series.  Anyway, putting the LEDs on their own power supply did the trick there.  The idea with the snake is I would have the capability of putting the amp quite a distance away from me.  I would also clean up the scene visually since there would be exactly one cable linking the pedalboard to the amp.

[Michael Allen]

Don't see why it would be an issue. Those cables would be dedicated to 9VDC for the pedals/LEDs or would they also carry AC audio signal?

Phantom power supplies run DC and audio on the same line, just use coupling caps to block DC from getting into anything down the line. If the 9VDC channel is only for the pedal supplies and no audio, then it should be fine.

[R.G.]

There is - not surprisingly - a commercial product that does this. I think they even got a patent on it, somehow.

[David]

AARRRRGGGHHHHH!!   

No snake for me.  The seller mysteriously could not find the item, so canceled the auction.  Bummer!  Well, maybe I'll just get cable instead.  That might be cheaper yet.

[Paul Marossy]

If you do use a snake for phantom powering something, does voltage drop become a consideration for long lengths?

[G. Hoffman]

There is - not surprisingly - a commercial product that does this. I think they even got a patent on it, somehow.

They have a patent.  But I think it's more likely on the whole modular ends thing.  I'm not convinced that either is defensible.


Gabriel

[R.G.]

They have a patent.  But I think it's more likely on the whole modular ends thing.  I'm not convinced that either is defensible.

I'm actually convinced that it's not defensible. But lots of people seem to be awed by "patented". Look how far "PAF" got Gibson. 

Patent law really is one of those places where the one with the most money can buy the most justice.

[G. Hoffman]

They have a patent.  But I think it's more likely on the whole modular ends thing.  I'm not convinced that either is defensible.

I'm actually convinced that it's not defensible. But lots of people seem to be awed by "patented". Look how far "PAF" got Gibson. 

Patent law really is one of those places where the one with the most money can buy the most justice.

Well, to be fair, the Gibson Humbucker WAS defensible.  It was also very easy to get around.  Look at P-Bass pickups - all they did was put the coils in two packages instead of one and BINGO, new design.


As for the Snake company - well, live sound guys have been doing that kind of stuff for years for their powered speaker stacks, not to mention us lighting guys with our DMX snakes and such.  But hey, I wouldn't use their product anyway.  (Nothing against the company, I just don't like the style of stuff they are making, and prefer to make everything in my signal chain myself.  It's a geek thing.  Also, I really dislike the idea of a DIN connector for audio - have you seen the contacts in those things?)


Gabriel

[David]

If you do use a snake for phantom powering something, does voltage drop become a consideration for long lengths?

Actually, the plan was to dedicate two of the snake cables to supplying power.  They would not carry audio at all.  I intend to connect my pedalboard power supplies to the snake at the amplifier side, then run 9VDC to the pedalboard.  I would have to change the connectors on those two cables, but that presents no problem.  But to directly answer your question, I have used phantom power in the past to power a DI for my rig.  I would say the run from my pedalboard to the console was about 150 feet.  No issues.

As for the voltage drop, I'm dealing with a 20-foot run at the most.  If I do encounter a voltage drop, I guess I'll just plug the wall warts in somewhere else.

[Paul Marossy]

I guess I shouldn't have used the term "phantom", I wasn't thinking about what that actually meant. Anyway, I was just thinking that voltage drop could be an issue if you had a long length that you were working with. A 20 ft run shouldn't be too big a deal, it ought to work fine.

[R.G.]

Well, to be fair, the Gibson Humbucker WAS defensible. 

Yes, it was. And Gibson probably had the money at the time to do that. But my comment about PAF was intended to point out that they simply put "Patent Applied For" on the pickups and that was enough in most cases to keep people from trying to copy. For people stopped by that labeling, you don't even need to go to court.

That's the same reasoning that leads people with not much to patent to label things "Patent pending". This actually should mean "We've applied for a patent, and we'll see you in court." However, often it means "We may apply for a patent on this someday, so don't copy this or we'll get really mad." 

The case which really illustrates patent law for me is the case of the interval windshield wiper. In the 1960s (I think) a fellow came up with the interval wiper. He obtained a valid patent, then went to the (then!) Big Three automakers in the USA and offered to license it to them. They all declined to license it, but put interval wipers in their next model year. The inventor, properly, took them to court for patent infringement. Open and shut, right?

Wrong. The Big Three held him off in court until he died, decades later. He had to syndicate out interests in his eventual returns to get money to stay in court pursuing the case, because if he ever stopped showing up, the judge would rule for the infringers. His estate finally won the case, at which time they got little if anything out of it because of the time and legal fees.

In many instances, the court awards judgements to those who can buy the most justice.

[Paul Marossy]

In many instances, the court awards judgements to those who can buy the most justice.

And that is why I have serious issues with the court system. The whole system is corrupt and needs to be changed.