Topic: how are the van den hul's different than hosa's?

[stevetoney]

That the folks listening knew the cable they were listening to before they heard it makes the test all but meaningless.  What does it prove? 

Right.  It doesn't prove much.  IMHO, even the methodology of a blind test will be shot to pieces after the fact by the people that are predisposed to believe one way or the other.

In the end, the result is always the same, there's no concensus on the subject and people that are new to the subject need to understand that there is a wide variety of different opinions that run the spectrum.

[intpseeker]

+ T's around for the explanations of the physical differences and the science behind why those differences would create different/better sound.

I realize that there are a multitude of variables involved in getting a great pull, but like anything in life, I can only control what i can control. I can't do anything about the acoustics of the venue, the proficiency of the sb tweaker, nor, sometimes, mic placement, but if spending a few bucks on cable 'might' make the recording better, I'm already in the hole for a fair amount.

The reality is that with the hearing loss that I seem to have, I probably might not hear the difference. My 'crappy' Hosa's sound ok to me, but who knows what someone with better hearing perceives when listening to one of my pulls.

[Tim]

^^^^  Your words; your thoughts. 

I said that mic placement was arguably more important than the cables.  I have yet to hear a difference between cables while I can easily hear a difference between various mic placements.

I don't doubt that you do. My point was that mic placement is more important than any other factor, including mics. That you can hear a difference in mic placement before you hear a difference between mic cables is not surprising.

And before you all tell me that your high-priced Centrifugal Bandersnatch cables sound better than anything, prove it with a few double-blind tests.  If I wanted, I could say that the cables I make myself sound better than anything I buy.  With enough ego I would believe it.  But that would not make it true.   

We've been down this road many times before and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I trust my ears, I've taped for over 12 years and also spent some time as a FOH engineer. I think my ears are above average but not great. I hear a difference in different types of cable. You do not. Perhaps your experience is different from mine, perhaps our ears are tuned differently.

I'm not talking about spending thousands of dollars on cables, I'm talking about spending a couple of hundred bucks - which, in this hobby, is a mere pittance.

[Tim]

In the end, the result is always the same, there's no concensus on the subject and people that are new to the subject need to understand that there is a wide variety of different opinions that run the spectrum.

Well said +T

[bgalizio]

And there are those of us who hear differences in silver vs copper cable and plain old prefer the copper. It's like the rest of the gear - it has to match with your mics.

[Tim]

And there are those of us who hear differences in silver vs copper cable and plain old prefer the copper. It's like the rest of the gear - it has to match with your mics.

yep!

[datbrad]

I think to get down to earth on this discussion we all really can agree that there is a low, middle, and high level with regards to cables, not just "cheap" and "high end". Also, there are differences between cables designed for careful use in controlled studio environments versus rough field or live stage use.

The most important break point between types of mic cables is the amount of RF resistance they have. Quad conductor cable, Canare and Ameriquad being two of the biggest selling brands, are not susceptible to RF interference like 2 conductor cable, and are therefore the preferred type for field or stage use. High end 2 conductor studio cable will out perform mid-level quad cable in the controlled studio environment where shielding against RF and 60 cycle AC fields are part of the facility construction. Take those high end cables out into the field, and any benefits from conductor formulation can be lost to RF interference.

Ameriquad cables, for example, have a Kevlar core to protect them from the strains of stage use, being coiled and recoiled daily, stepped on, pulled on, and swung around by the Roger Daltry's of the world. Many of the same types of rough handling seen with stage applications will apply to field recording.

For this reason, my advice is that while inexpensive Hosa type cables are usually going to deliver the classic "get what you pay for" lower performance, your next step does not have to leap frog to esoteric cables built by hand by Swiss watch makers using the purest metals extracted from rare meteorites with diamond encrusted locking switches. That would be like buying a Ferrari to drive back and forth to work simply for the bragging rights, as that would be all you would be gaining for the investment.

Look for good quad cables with gold Nutrix connectors in the $60-$80 per cable range and you will be just fine taping off PAs in the field.

[boojum]

From what I have read nickel plate is better.  The reason is that the gold plate is thin and will wear off quickly.  This leaves the easily corroded brass underneath.  Nickel plate is tough and even if you are young, the plate will probably outlast you.  Something to think about.  It makes a lot of sense to me.  I will not be buying any more gold plate Neutriks.

YMMV

[intpseeker]

...your next step does not have to leap frog to esoteric cables built by hand by Swiss watch makers using the purest metals extracted from rare meteorites with diamond encrusted locking switches.

Uhm...Does anyone on this board make these?

[Nick's Picks]

yea, I like nickel/silver plated better any ways.

[goodcooker]

I use all kinds of molded-end Hosa junk in my spare bedroom studio for patching and stuff. The only detractor is the cheap molded ends that can't be repaired. If it shorts you just toss it.

As for all that high end cable business.... I like silverclad.
I think its got a sound I like, represents the frequency range well with no bass build up that I find with quad conductor/copper. (and a 15 ft pair rolls up nice and tight and fits in a crown royal bag with a clamp ,a20 shock and kwon bar with room to spare)
I still use my Xstreams when on stage or somewhere they'll be getting walked on because they are tougher than my milspecs with techflex.

In the end physics don't lie.....silver is a better conductor than copper. About three times better if I remember correctly.

In the end you will find the happy medium between what you can afford and what sounds good to you.

Somebody want to jump in with the "skin effect" debate now?

[stevetoney]

One of the craziest/goofiest/funniest things about tapersection is how someone throws out that 'do cables make a difference' bone and this discussion gets resurrected.  It's clearly the one subject that there is no agreement on, yet there's a wide variety of fairly strong opinions.  It's kinda fun to watch the progression of comments.

[stevetoney]

Somebody want to jump in with the "skin effect" debate now?

What debate...when I see the right skin, the effect is that I get a woodie.

[boojum]

If the mics are all wired in copper it kind of makes this debate pointless. 

[Tim]

If the mics are all wired in copper it kind of makes this debate pointless. 

This does not follow. Better cables at the back end can ensure a more accurate capture of the mics output as well as a more accurate reproduction.

The fact that the source uses one type of wiring it does not negate the benefits of another type of wiring in the mic cables, interconnects or speaker cables.