Krack said:
Intercepts currents? Does that include magnetic fields? Or do you mean the shielding reacts by generating currents? Not quite sure what you mean, could you explain what "capacitively coupled currents" are? Sorry I am not EE.
magnetic field can't be shielded , it goes right through copper or aluminum shield.
Electric field can be stopped though by a shield.
Any two conductors separated by a dielectric form a capacitor.
A voltage source in proximity to your signal wires can pass current into them through that capacitance.
The shield forms one plate of a capacitor surrounding your signal wire.
By earthing the shield you siphon off that current before it reaches your signal wires.
Krack said:
Is this as opposed to balanced signal wires?
Yes.
or, in balanced signal wire, the added signal eventually gets eliminated, so it doesn't matter as much as opposed to unbalanced signal wires?
Again yes. In balanced the noise voltage induced in each wire is the same so it cancels at the differential input.
In essence, all signal wires will exhibit this behavior, just that the balanced has its signal cleaned out at a later stage? Saying that this happens "...in unbalanced signal wires..." can be a misleading statement to those that are less knowledgeable.
Sorry if you felt misled.
Yes, a balanced scheme with differential input should cancel any noise that arrives in BOTH wires in phase and equal in amplitude.
Such noise is called "Common Mode" because it's common to both wires , and is referred to signal common.
The caveat here is no amplifier has perfect common mode rejection .
You also want the shield wire as close as possible to same potential as signal wires so that there'll be little capacitive coupling between shield and signal wires.
Could you explain this further?
If there is voltage between the shield and signal wires there will be noise current coupled into the signal wires.
Since it is unlikely that both signal wires have equal impedance to ground, there'll be unequal noise current flowing in the signal wires.
Those unequal currents produce unequal voltage drops along the length of the signal wires, meaning even if you have zero volts of noise between the wires at measuring end you no longer have zero volts of noise between them at receiving end.
Noise volts
between the wires is called "Normal mode noise" as opposed to noise volts between signal wires and signal common(ground).
The mechanism i just described is called "Conversion of common mode noise to normal mode noise"
That's why you tie shield at signal end of the wire.
What exactly is the reason why? Unclear to me from what I have read from you so far...
So that shield and signal wires are at same potential, ie there's minimum voltage between them.
Ideally the shields would form a Faraday cage around the whole measurement system , grounded at the point of measurement.
What is considered the "point of measurement" for a Faraday cage? Just any point of measurement that moves around anytime you measure it?
The physical location of your signal's origin.
That's the ideas behind shielding.
But you run into practical complications, usually from capacitive coupling.
What if the amplifier itself is a strong source of common mode voltage?
You might be better off grounding shield at amplifier so common mode current is shunted to ground there and doesn't flow in your shield all the way out to signal source.
High level audio typically sent via 3.5mm jacks is low enough impedance that one gets away with murder because the capacitances involved are small.
Connecting a Walkman to a 1 volt stereo input will be way more forgiving of inattention to shielding details than connecting a 2 millivolt magnetic phonograph to same stereo's phono preamp input.Lastly there are cases where the shield is not grounded , instead it's actively driven to same voltage as signal wire. That's called "driven shield" . As above it is intended to minimize capacitive current in signal wires.
Bottom line is one wants to understand the basics so he can decide how much rigor is warranted.
Thirty years ago I spent a lot of time in this book
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780471616177-5
the author does a good job with the underlying physics
and i see he's published a couple editions since so others must have found it worthwhile.
since you have an interest i'd recommend you dig into the subject. It's logical enough once you grasp the basics above.