Topic: Cable Comparison with The Mic Hybrid & Hydra mic cables

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

Post deleted because I used bad language and had a bad attitude. 

Sorry to everyone that had to see that.  -T to myself.

Special apologies to Chris.

Terry

[Church-Audio]

It takes a real man to apologize thanks Terry. I am sorry I came on so strong too!  I did not mean to offend you or anyone, life is too short.

Chris

[Krispy D]

every once in a while, (very rarely) I hate the interweb...

[cshepherd]

Let's not pollute this thread (or any) three pages of BS.  It's like the Kreutzmann Factor around here.  How long til the next incident.  I think we should take this stuff to PMs so the discussion stays a little more focused.  Two years from now when someone is doing cable research, they don't need to read through pages of personal blah blah blah's.  This is a fairly important topic to me.  Thanks for understanding.

Chris

[Church-Audio]

Let's not pollute this thread (or any) three pages of BS.  It's like the Kreutzmann Factor around here.  How long til the next incident.  I think we should take this stuff to PMs so the discussion stays a little more focused.  Two years from now when someone is doing cable research, they don't need to read through pages of personal blah blah blah's.  This is a fairly important topic to me.  Thanks for understanding.

Chris

You are 100% correct I edited my post as did Terry. I think we can now move on. And find a good way to do a good test ok.

Chris

[stevetoney]

I'm excited to see that there is a reasonable interest in this subject. 

I'd be happy to send my custom made cables with Canare Star Quad material and Neutrix connectors out (after I get back from my European work assignment at the end of March) for someone to perform testing on.  I'd offer to do the testing myself, but I honestly don't feel that I have a good enough home sound system and, since I'm not a techie, about the only feedback I could provide would be sound samples through MBHO mics (nothing more scientific).

If I may, regarding the discussion of the merits between the mono samples and stereo samples, I don't see that there has to be a definitive answer ahead of time as to which could be more informative, because in a controlled test environment, the emphasis is on maintaining information about how the variables change the end result. 

So, why is it not a simple thing to run samples in both mono and stereo? 

As long as the test data is accompanied by objective infomation about the changes in variables, then we can all judge for ourselves which data provides the most meaningful feedback.  In the end, the sound samples will probably speak for themselves and should provide the objective data directly that hopefully resolves most cable debates anyway, including which is the best test methodology.  At a minimum, it provides some real data that adds a little credibility to any claim someone may wish to make about which sample might have better sound or which technique provides a better test methodology.

[stevetoney]

Doubts and variables aside, anybody else care to comment on the differences?  Theoretically speaking...if it were the cables...would this type of improvement to recordings be worth an extra $150?  Would the taping community be happy to have an attainable performance upgrade (read:  Not $2000 Orchids) from the mil-spec silver clad copper cables that is considered to be the standard amongst tapers? 

Speaking personally...and this is probably an obvious response...but I suppose there is a threshold in my budget beyond which I would have to debate the merits of investing in better cables versus investing in better mics.  Obviously, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so if the price of a set of cables and the sound I get out of them through my MBHO's would not improve my overall sound to the point of getting me sound that, for the same overall price I could sell my mics and get with a better set of mics, then I'd have to say NO it's not worth it because I'd of course rather put the incremental difference towards the better mics.

But in general, with a $150 price point, that isn't a big enough price to compel me to go looking for a new mic system, so for me, most definitely YES that would be a worthwhile investment towards a reasonable sonic upgrade. 

Course, the price isn't usually just the $150 for the mic cables...it's more in the $200 to $300 range because if you're gonna upgrade your mic cables, it seems to me that you should also upgrade all of the equipment interconnects also.  But even that cost wouldn't keep me from upgrading cables if the sound improvements are there.

But again, there's that caveat, what's a reasonable improvement and how subjective is it?  To answer that, I really want to hear the data and make my own conclusions.

I appreciate everyone's input and I'll work on a mono recording when the cables return.  I think I can line some Mogami or Canare up locally.

Chris, please don't take the following comment the wrong way...but...

Realizing that many of the comments in this thread have been directed at you and your responses to the original thread that you posted, and also realizing that this is your profession so you have a vested interest in getting information out to support the product you are promoting...but if you are confident that the test will show distinct results in favor of your product, the credibility factor would be higher if someone on this list that is willing to perform the test (but without a vested interest in the results) actually performed the test.  In the end, that will be to your advantage.  Not trying to pee in your wheaties, just trying to give you some real feedback that could in the end work in your favor.

[SonicSound]

Great Topic!

I am almost convinced that a perfect test does not exist.  The big concern I have with the mono/one mic test is - how can you compare a cables influence on imaging and inter detail?

[Church-Audio]

Great Topic!

I am almost convinced that a perfect test does not exist.  The big concern I have with the mono/one mic test is - how can you compare a cables influence on imaging and inter detail?

Here's the point I want to try and make. A cable I dont honestly think can improve your image. But Maybe a one cable can sound better over the other. So I would suggest we do the mono test and see if we can tell the difference if we can then we can move on to a stereo mic test. But Controls must be put in place so that the mics do not move while they are being "re cabled" so that we get a honest impression of the merits of the cable not a skewed result based on a moved microphone. I also strongly believe that we need one test source and only One pair of mics if a stereo test is to be done ( hopefully ) after a mono test is conducted. Then we can at least say Yes the mono test clearly shows these two cables sound different. And then the stereo test could be done to show if there is any difference in the stereo field like you suggest. I honestly think this is doable as long as basic controls are introduced and maintained. I Know that sound is very subjective.. I think in order to be subjective we need to have con trolls. I dont think this is so much about science as it is just making sure we remove any possibility of inconsistencies in our test procedure so we are really just hearing the differences of the cable.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Here's the point I want to try and make. A cable I dont honestly think can improve your image.

Disagree strongly..

The soundstage is perhaps the most difficult part of a live event to reproduce.  I would argue that any loss of detail will tend to impact the soundstage first.  Many playback systems do well at 2D soundstage.. Some will image outside the speakers..  Not as many will do a good job at reproducing depth and creating a good 3D soundstage.   My r09, regardless of mics and pre-amp, does not do well in recreating a 3D soundstage. The 722 does much better.

So in order to reproduce that 3D soundstage, I contend all of the components need to not muck up the detail.. Including the cables.

Of course...  "3D soundstage" for most pa recordings is somewhat of an oxymoron.. At least compared to a bunch of bluegrass players crowded around your mics or a stage lip recording, etc.

[Church-Audio]

Here's the point I want to try and make. A cable I dont honestly think can improve your image.

Disagree strongly..

The sound stage is perhaps the most difficult part of a live event to reproduce.  I would argue that any loss of detail will tend to impact the sound stage first.  Many playback systems do well at 2D sound stage.. Some will image outside the speakers..  Not as many will do a good job at reproducing depth and creating a good 3D soundstage.   My r09, regardless of mics and pre-amp, does not do well in recreating a 3D soundstage. The 722 does much better.

So in order to reproduce that 3D soundstage, I contend all of the components need to not muck up the detail.. Including the cables.

Of course...  "3D soundstage" for most pa recordings is somewhat of an oxymoron.. At least compared to a bunch of bluegrass players crowded around your mics or a stage lip recording, etc.

Well lets get to doing some tests. I would love to hear the mono test first followed by a stereo test. I have yet to have someone explain to me how a cable improves your sound stage. Or for that mater what soundstage really is. Are we talking stereo image and if so the only way I could see a cable improving it is for both cables to be electromechanically the same so that the sound arrives at the same time to the input of the preamp. But we are talking microseconds of difference. Can we really hear that? I dunno but if we can do these tests in a controlled way maybe we can! I cant wait to here the end result of these tests.

[Javier Cinakowski]

Soundstage and imaging is a result of the difference between and placement of two microphones in relation to the sound source from what I can understand.  I do think that a shitty cable could lose detail that might effect the image by not transfering the small details that make up the difference between channels. The type of cable I speak of is something you could buy at Wal-Mart.    I highly doubt that a rediculously expensive and overhyped cable will produce an improvement over the studio standare like StarQuad.  IMO if you are using a good cable like Belden or Canare, you aint gonna notice a chane in imaging.  I guess what I am saying is copper has worked just fine for many, many good recordings....

[Church-Audio]

Soundstage and imaging is a result of the difference between and placement of two microphones in relation to the sound source from what I can understand.  I do think that a shitty cable could lose detail that might effect the image by not transfering the small details that make up the difference between channels. The type of cable I speak of is something you could buy at Wal-Mart.    I highly doubt that a rediculously expensive and overhyped cable will produce an improvement over the studio standare like StarQuad.  IMO if you are using a good cable like Belden or Canare, you aint gonna notice a chane in imaging.  I guess what I am saying is copper has worked just fine for many, many good recordings....

I agree but I still want someone to show me I am wrong. I would love to get this test underway. So we can hear the differences. I dont see anyone stepping up I would do it but I dont have a matching pair of mics to do the stereo test with. I own enough cheap mic cable though. All I need is a "high end" cable to do the tests with. Whoever does the test should be as unbiased as possible Neutral like Switzerland. I am not Neutral so I dont think I am a good candidate. What about Our fearless leader Brian? I am sure he has all the gear to do this he just needs the expensive cable to do a test with...

[PH]

I've got to track some guitar overdubs with Cody Kilby (Ricky Scaggs) early next week. I have a stock R4 and several pairs of matched Schoeps.
I wanted to do a test like this comparing Gumbino's Hi-Ho cables with a pair of Canare quad that I have and also a pair of monster's best cable.

I'll try to do that and post my results. It would be close micing an acoustic guitar, which has most of the frequency bands covered.
It wouldn't cover many of the ultra low freqs though. That would require an impressive playback system or large PA with subs.

I was thinking of using a rubber band to attach the schoeps together at the same angle, distance, etc...
Use one cable for each channel. my schoeps are identical to my ears.
I think that would be the best way to do the test, as opposed to splitting any signal thus degrading the signal through the splitter and forcing a double impedence load on the mic, which would slightly color the sound. I could also run the test on some congas that I have around.

Any suggestions?

[Church-Audio]

I've got to track some guitar overdubs with Cody Kilby (Ricky Scaggs) early next week. I have a stock R4 and several pairs of matched Schoeps.
I wanted to do a test like this comparing Gumbino's Hi-Ho cables with a pair of Canare quad that I have and also a pair of monster's best cable.

I'll try to do that and post my results. It would be close micing an acoustic guitar, which has most of the frequency bands covered.
It wouldn't cover many of the ultra low freqs though. That would require an impressive playback system or large PA with subs.

I was thinking of using a rubber band to attach the schoeps together at the same angle, distance, etc...
Use one cable for each channel. my schoeps are identical to my ears.
I think that would be the best way to do the test, as opposed to splitting any signal thus degrading the signal through the splitter and forcing a double impedence load on the mic, which would slightly color the sound. I could also run the test on some congas that I have around.

Any suggestions?

If you are going to have the player play the take over and over again I dont think that will work. As a guitar player my self I can play a peace of music many different ways and get many different tones. I can do this with out even knowing I am doing it. I think that it would be impossible to use a live musician and get him to play exactly the same way over and over again Never mind keeping the mic placement in relation to the players body stay the same and try different cables would be a huge challenge.

There are to many variables. I think we just need a simple CD track or an single take of your guitar player in the studio and a mic placed in front of a speaker. To have a fair test if you can use the same exact track and mic a studio monitor with out moving the mic when you change cables I think we could have a very good test in witch to base an opinion on cable quality. What do you think? I think its pointless to use multiple takes because they will sound different because its a human playing the parts and the guitar is a very expressive instrument you can change tone way to easy even a pro guitar player has real trouble playing something with the exact same tone as the last take.