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

[cshepherd]

There's a first set / second set comparison recording with The Hydra's available courtesy of Dennis Tyler.  Thanks for your efforts, Dennis.

edit:  Opinions welcome.

Chris

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=504774
Umphrey's McGee
March 2nd, 2007
Bijou Theater
Knoxville, TN

1st set: Schoeps CMC6/MK4>Hydra XLR>Oade ACM Marantz 660
2nd set: Schoeps CMC6/MK4>Van Den Hul Mic Hybrid XLR>Oade ACM Marantz 660

Center Orchestra, Row J, Seat 16(DFC, FOB) DIN, ~9ft high

CF>HD>CDWAV>FLAC

Taped and Transfered by Dennis Tyler(dennistyler3819@yahoo.com)

A big thanks goes out to Jon McLennand for the ticket and to Kevin Browning(sound caresser)

There is an audible "crackle" that was present in the PA system at the show. It is most commonly heard during Brendan's vocals. This crackle is present on other taper's copies. This recording came out great so i decided to seed it even with the occasional crackle. The crackles are few and far between. This is also a cable comp between Hydra silver XLRs and Van Den Hul Mic Hybrid cables. If you would like info on either cables please email me. Thanks and enjoy!

[cshepherd]

The show is now up on the Archive.  For those just wanting to sample a couple of tracks, I think these two make for a good comparison.

Chris


Set 1 / Track 8 - Nothing Too Fancy  http://www.archive.org/download/um2007.03.02.flac16/um2007-03-02d1t08.flac

Set 2 / Track 6 - Hurt Bird Bath  http://www.archive.org/download/um2007.03.02.flac16/um2007-03-02d2t06.flac

edit:  Streaming mp3's are also available at http://www.archive.org/details/um2007.03.02.flac16

[cshepherd]

I just saw these comments posted on the BT thread (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,80653.msg1075916.html#msg1075916) for the show and thought they should be repeated over here.  Thanks for the comments, Shane. 

Just to be clear, The Mic Hybrid cables are $125 - $150 more than the various mil-spec silver clad cables that everyone uses.  Special introductory pricing is available for a limited time.  Check the Mic Hybrid thread in the retail forum for details.  http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,77224.0.html

Chris

For anyone that thinks that cables don't make a difference or a good cable is a good cable and a bad one is a bad, download this show and compare the two sets.  I'm not a big fan of Umphreys McGee but I checked this show out just to hear the difference in the cables.  The first set doesn't sound bad.  In fact it sounds pretty good.  That is until you listen to the second set.  The music just comes alive with this mic cable.  The sound was fuller, more detailed and was just richer overall.  And this was just listening on computer speakers.  I imagine its only better on disc and played through the stereo.  Anyone else compare the two and have thoughts?  Great tape Dennis, now how's about going out and taping a band I like

Shane 

[Brian Skalinder]

Hmmm...I don't see the comments on the BT thread linked in the original post. 

Downloading a couple tracks now just for kicks.  Still would like to hear a more controlled comparison - too many variables in this one: was the mic stand the same height, orientation of the mics the same relative to source, did the sound engineer make any tweaks, did the crowd empty out or pack in for the 2nd set, etc. - but this will be fun listening, anyway.

[imgoinmad]

It's clearly difficult to create direct comparisons in the field. I think it's common to have shows where the 2nd set sounds better than the first.

[bgalizio]

It's clearly difficult to create direct comparisons in the field. I think it's common to have shows where the 2nd set sounds better than the first.

Or at least louder (which sounds better to some). I've been to a bunch of shows where I don't touch my levels, but there is a significant volume difference between sets.

I'm interested in hearing this comp when I get home. Thanks for running it, as there aren't many cable comps around.

[Church-Audio]

There's a first set / second set comparison recording with The Hydra's available courtesy of Dennis Tyler.  Thanks for your efforts, Dennis.

edit:  Opinions welcome.

Chris

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=504774
Umphrey's McGee
March 2nd, 2007
Bijou Theater
Knoxville, TN

1st set: Schoeps CMC6/MK4>Hydra XLR>Oade ACM Marantz 660
2nd set: Schoeps CMC6/MK4>Van Den Hul Mic Hybrid XLR>Oade ACM Marantz 660

Center Orchestra, Row J, Seat 16(DFC, FOB) DIN, ~9ft high

CF>HD>CDWAV>FLAC

Taped and Transfered by Dennis Tyler(dennistyler3819@yahoo.com)

A big thanks goes out to Jon McLennand for the ticket and to Kevin Browning(sound caresser)

There is an audible "crackle" that was present in the PA system at the show. It is most commonly heard during Brendan's vocals. This crackle is present on other taper's copies. This recording came out great so i decided to seed it even with the occasional crackle. The crackles are few and far between. This is also a cable comp between Hydra silver XLRs and Van Den Hul Mic Hybrid cables. If you would like info on either cables please email me. Thanks and enjoy!

No offence Chris but you cant have a comparison if your not using the exact same song with the mics in the exact same position. A good test might be placing the mics in a room with a good stereo and playing the same track once with one set of cables then with out disturbing the position of the mics plug in the next set of cables and record the same track again. Then we really could hear the difference.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

No offence Chris but you cant have a comparison if your not using the exact same song with the mics in the exact same position.

I think you can if you are familiar with the rig..  Though it may take a few sources to form an opinion (to reduce the chance of sound changes during 2nd set, etc). I am not familiar with Chris' rig so it will be more difficult.  That he has recommended particular tracks helps.

Ideally the sources are non-PA or are at least stage lip to get some more depth to the sound stage. Plus the balance is better up there

A good test might be placing the mics in a room with a good stereo and playing the same track

I've tried it quite a few times and have never been a big fan.  It can be good for some things (tone) but really falls short on others (sound stage).

[cshepherd]

I'm not real sure how a FOH engineer can improve a recording rig's ability to capture room acoustics. 

Considering the improvement in sound is noticeable from the opening notes of the second set, he would have had to dial the sound in while on break.  Dialing up an improvement of this caliber while the band wasn't even playing would be quite an accomplishment.  This thought also implies that he completely missed it while the band was on stage.  I've been taping for eight years.  I've never had a second set's sound improve like this.

Regarding the volume, the bass is noticeably better in the second set.  More low end will translate into a louder tape.  I haven't looked at the wave files yet, but that would be my guess.  Maybe Dennis or someone who was there could comment on the volume issue. 

No offense taken, Chris.  I could do it front of our stereo, but I don't think that would tell the full story either.  Room acoustics are a huge part of recording from the audience.  The Mic Hybrid handles them quite well.  I wouldn't be able to portray that with a rig in front of my stereo.  If Dennis used two identical rigs at the show, there would be a mic placement issue with that setup.  In the end, there is no perfect cable comparison for what we do here.  We have to accept a certain amount of inherent variables if we're going to compare these cables in our element.  I agree, more recordings will tell the story.

BTW, this was not my recording...dennisrtyler made this recording.  They're going out to someone with Hyperconductors in their rig next month.  I'll ask them to use the Mic Hybrids for the first set.  Then you guys can all blame the soundman for getting drunk at set break. <~a little humor there at the end.

Chris

[stevetoney]

No offence Chris but you cant have a comparison if your not using the exact same song with the mics in the exact same position. A good test might be placing the mics in a room with a good stereo and playing the same track once with one set of cables then with out disturbing the position of the mics plug in the next set of cables and record the same track again. Then we really could hear the difference.

I agree with this comment whole-heartedly.  The control group needs to be truly controlled so that the only variable is the cables...and that would of course mean controlling all of the outside influences that could potentially color the sound that comes through a sample.  So, I agree totally with Chris.  

I don't understand why a high quality cable manufacturer wouldn't do this anyway as a sales pitch for their product if it is true because a) this is so simple to do and b) the high quality cable makers make such definitive claims that cables make such a large sound difference.  

So, if the cable people DO want the consuming public to believe that there is such a difference, then please give us some objective evidence to support these statements.  Then I will believe it because there's enough skeptics out here in taping-land that it makes me balk at spending the extra money.  

Give me a reason to actually WANT to spend several hundred dollars on cables and I will!  

Frankly, the fact that there is little or no control group evidence out there makes me wonder if it isn't all bullshit, but I don't necessarily want to believe that if it isn't true.

Thanks.

[stevetoney]

A good test might be placing the mics in a room with a good stereo and playing the same track

I've tried it quite a few times and have never been a big fan.  It can be good for some things (tone) but really falls short on others (sound stage).

All this consumer wants is to HEAR the difference in cables in a controlled environment so that I can make an informed decision.  It doesn't need to be a full blown listening experience. 

However, not knowing for myself what all the issues are...if soundstage is an issue, then why couldn't a method be designed wherein a controlled environment is provided for this also? For example, maybe the cable manufacturer needs to take their cables out to a club, set up their controlled environment in the club by playing some loud music through the clubs PA system wherein all of the variables are controlled except for the cables.  If a cable manufacturer wanted to truly backup their claims of superior sound quality (even the small guys on this list) then I can't imagine that would be all that difficult to set up. 

[imgoinmad]

Regarding the volume, the bass is noticeably better in the second set.  More low end will translate into a louder tape.  I haven't looked at the wave files yet, but that would be my guess. 

Perhaps the bass player changed guitars or even onstage volume?

[cshepherd]

Frankly, the fact that there is little or no control group evidence out there makes me wonder if it isn't all bullshit, but I don't necessarily want to believe that if it isn't true.

Thanks.

That's pretty much what this thread is all about.  I agree, there is not much real evidence around this forum pertaining to cable performance.

For example, maybe the cable manufacturer needs to take their cables out to a club, set up their controlled environment in the club by playing some loud music through the clubs PA system wherein all of the variables are controlled except for the cables.  If a cable manufacturer wanted to truly backup their claims of superior sound quality (even the small guys on this list) then I can't imagine that would be all that difficult to set up. 

That would be just about impossible to set up and loud PA's blaring CDs in an empty club is about the worst sound in the whole world.  That just creates more variables.  This is about taping live bands and that's it.

Chris

[stevetoney]

Frankly, the fact that there is little or no control group evidence out there makes me wonder if it isn't all bullshit, but I don't necessarily want to believe that if it isn't true.

Thanks.

That's pretty much what this thread is all about.  I agree, there is not much real evidence around this forum pertaining to cable performance.

I understand, but unfortunately, enough people have pointed out enough questions in these samples that, for me personally, I haven't been able to make any definitive conclusions from the comparison, although I wish I could. 

If there were a control group study made, that would provide the defense you need to shield your claims against the comments of the skeptics.

For example, maybe the cable manufacturer needs to take their cables out to a club, set up their controlled environment in the club by playing some loud music through the clubs PA system wherein all of the variables are controlled except for the cables.  If a cable manufacturer wanted to truly backup their claims of superior sound quality (even the small guys on this list) then I can't imagine that would be all that difficult to set up. 

That would be just about impossible to set up and loud PA's blaring CDs in an empty club is about the worst sound in the whole world.  That just creates more variables.  This is about taping live bands and that's it.

Chris

OK, then use a different environment...I don't care.  I was just throwing out ideas. 

I've personally always like the 'loud stereo in the living room' method because it's works for me 100% of the time for any A versus B testing that I've ever wanted to conduct.  Sure, it might not provide the total listening experience, but I'd think there could be some simple test environment designed (other than the living room) to provide some of the objective evidence that I've been asking about.  If it doesn't provide an accurate representation of some aspect of the listening experience, such as soundstage, then just include that caveat in the test results.

[Krispy D]

I did a cable comp a while ago that worked well.  I took two mics each with a different cable into my pre into my deck.  I then ran the mics paralell to one another in front of the stereo directly infront of one speaker.  This is very important.  If you record in stereo then, well, the chanels will be different.  balance as well as possible (good meters will pay off here) and there you go two chanel cable comp.

[stevetoney]

That's pretty much what this thread is all about.  I agree, there is not much real evidence around this forum pertaining to cable performance.  

By the way, Chris.  Please don't be offended in any way by any of my comments above.  I don't think they're offensive, but I certainly want you to know that there was no critical commentary intended in anything that I have written.

It just comes down to the simple fact that anybody wants to know ahead of time if their money is well spent and unfortunately on this board, there is not a concensus on cables so that makes it very difficult for a person that's upgrading their rig significantly (such as me at the present time) to know for sure...thus my request for data.

[Brian Skalinder]

While LR stereo comps aren't ideal in that they don't replicate the soundstage and environment of our field recording, they -are- controlled.  And since they're controlled, they will highlight the audible differences in the cables and the cables alone - if imperfectly relative to true field use - so that one may at least begin to identify the audible differences.  In the current case, and the case of a LR comp, more listening is due - no question.  But at least in the case of a LR comp we've introduced control to the initial comparison.

FWIW, there's an easy way to do a reasonably controlled comp:  find someone with a stock R-4, or with the same Busman or Oade mod on both pairs of channels, run a single pair of mics, split the mic cables, set levels properly, and...voila!  There's your comp.  This is not hard to do.  It is sometimes difficult arranging the appropriate gear and motivation from a taper willing to give it a go.

My R-4 is differently modded on both pairs of channels, unfortunately, else I'd offer to do it.  If anyone wants to loan me a stock R-4 (or Busman R-4 with the same mod across all channels), I'll not only do the cable comp, I'll also comp stock/Busman v. Oade Warm and Transparent mods.

[Church-Audio]

No offence Chris but you cant have a comparison if your not using the exact same song with the mics in the exact same position. A good test might be placing the mics in a room with a good stereo and playing the same track once with one set of cables then with out disturbing the position of the mics plug in the next set of cables and record the same track again. Then we really could hear the difference.

I agree with this comment whole-heartedly.  The control group needs to be truly controlled so that the only variable is the cables...and that would of course mean controlling all of the outside influences that could potentially color the sound that comes through a sample.  So, I agree totally with Chris.  

I don't understand why a high quality cable manufacturer wouldn't do this anyway as a sales pitch for their product if it is true because a) this is so simple to do and b) the high quality cable makers make such definitive claims that cables make such a large sound difference.  

So, if the cable people DO want the consuming public to believe that there is such a difference, then please give us some objective evidence to support these statements.  Then I will believe it because there's enough skeptics out here in taping-land that it makes me balk at spending the extra money.  

Give me a reason to actually WANT to spend several hundred dollars on cables and I will!  

Frankly, the fact that there is little or no control group evidence out there makes me wonder if it isn't all bullshit, but I don't necessarily want to believe that if it isn't true.

Thanks.

I think the test I mentioned is the only way to get a subjective evaluation. If I was to A-B a pair of speakers I would not do it with two different peaces of music! I would do it with the same music with the same level in the same position or the test is not valid. A valid test for a mic cable or an interconnect is a simple one to do.

Take a mic that is on a good stand place it in front of a speaker and substitute one cable for the other with out moving the mic at all. You can not do this test with two different mics you can only do it with one. Because your less likely to move one mic then you are two in the test. Then record something with fidelity like a nice stereo speaker and lets get the evaluation underway. that's how I would do it. I think if I was in the cable business I would want a few sample files of the same exact source with different cables.. TO prove that my cable is worth what I say it is.. And to show how much better my cable performs but I have yet to see such a simple test be executed and that's a shame because it could be the cable builders best friend to increase sales.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

FWIW, there's an easy way to do a reasonably controlled comp:  find someone with a stock R-4, or with the same Busman or Oade mod on both pairs of channels, run a single pair of mics, split the mic cables, set levels properly, and...voila!

I'm not sure I can agree.  You are changing the impedance of the system by connecting two loads to the mics.  The preamps also see a different impedance than normal..  I really don't know how much it matters and it may depend on the mics and pres.

I did a show last year where I used my splitters and had some weird bass issues. One possibility is that I only had 48v turned on from one source (either v3 or dav/bg1). I'm not sure if that was it or maybe it was the MGs (that was the only time I'd split the MGs) but the splitters have been left at home since... 


I was thinking about 744 based comps earlier today and it got me wondering if the 744's inputs are truly identical when running a pre in front of both.. Since one of them has a built in pre and the other does not, I'm not so sure.

[OFOTD]

FWIW, there's an easy way to do a reasonably controlled comp:  find someone with a stock R-4, or with the same Busman or Oade mod on both pairs of channels, run a single pair of mics, split the mic cables, set levels properly, and...voila!

I'm not sure I can agree.  You are changing the impedance of the system by connecting two loads to the mics.  The preamps also see a different impedance than normal..  I really don't know how much it matters and it may depend on the mics and pres.

I did a show last year where I used my splitters and had some weird bass issues. One possibility is that I only had 48v turned on from one source (either v3 or dav/bg1). I'm not sure if that was it or maybe it was the MGs (that was the only time I'd split the MGs) but the splitters have been left at home since... 


I was thinking about 744 based comps earlier today and it got me wondering if the 744's inputs are truly identical when running a pre in front of both.. Since one of them has a built in pre and the other does not, I'm not so sure.

Brian is on the right path though.  Using a stock R4 or one with the same mods on both channels you'd run two sets of the same mics.  While NOTHING can be exact this seems to be a pretty good way of doing it.

I am also NOT a fan of stereo tests.  I don't tape my stereo so i'm not going to base my dollars on a stereo recording. 

[Brian Skalinder]

I'm not sure I can agree.  You are changing the impedance of the system by connecting two loads to the mics.  The preamps also see a different impedance than normal..  I really don't know how much it matters and it may depend on the mics and pres.

Brian is on the right path though.  Using a stock R4 or one with the same mods on both channels you'd run two sets of the same mics.  While NOTHING can be exact this seems to be a pretty good way of doing it.

I am also NOT a fan of stereo tests.  I don't tape my stereo so i'm not going to base my dollars on a stereo recording.

At the very least, I think it's far more controlled than the current test.  Running two sets of mics v. the splitter's an even better idea, but in the past I've found it difficult to track down 2 pairs of mics.

I hear you on the stereo test, but the intent is not for the stereo test to stand as the be-all end-all, rather only as a starting point that at least illustrates - under very controlled conditions - that there is an audible difference and helps inform listeners of what those audible differences may be (granted they may change or reveal themselves or others differently under true field conditions).

[Church-Audio]

FWIW, there's an easy way to do a reasonably controlled comp:  find someone with a stock R-4, or with the same Busman or Oade mod on both pairs of channels, run a single pair of mics, split the mic cables, set levels properly, and...voila!

I'm not sure I can agree.  You are changing the impedance of the system by connecting two loads to the mics.  The preamps also see a different impedance than normal..  I really don't know how much it matters and it may depend on the mics and pres.

I did a show last year where I used my splitters and had some weird bass issues. One possibility is that I only had 48v turned on from one source (either v3 or dav/bg1). I'm not sure if that was it or maybe it was the MGs (that was the only time I'd split the MGs) but the splitters have been left at home since... 


I was thinking about 744 based comps earlier today and it got me wondering if the 744's inputs are truly identical when running a pre in front of both.. Since one of them has a built in pre and the other does not, I'm not so sure.

Brian is on the right path though.  Using a stock R4 or one with the same mods on both channels you'd run two sets of the same mics.  While NOTHING can be exact this seems to be a pretty good way of doing it.

I am also NOT a fan of stereo tests.  I don't tape my stereo so i'm not going to base my dollars on a stereo recording. 

Two mics = a waste of time for an evaluation how could you tell it was not the mics that were showing a difference in sound quality and not the cable. You need one MICROPHONE and change the cables. If you use two different microphones you have two different sounding channels... Because no two mics are exactly the same. But what do I know.. about doing objective tests...

[Shawn]

FWIW, there's an easy way to do a reasonably controlled comp:  find someone with a stock R-4, or with the same Busman or Oade mod on both pairs of channels, run a single pair of mics, split the mic cables, set levels properly, and...voila!

I'm not sure I can agree.  You are changing the impedance of the system by connecting two loads to the mics.  The preamps also see a different impedance than normal..  I really don't know how much it matters and it may depend on the mics and pres.

I did a show last year where I used my splitters and had some weird bass issues. One possibility is that I only had 48v turned on from one source (either v3 or dav/bg1). I'm not sure if that was it or maybe it was the MGs (that was the only time I'd split the MGs) but the splitters have been left at home since... 


I was thinking about 744 based comps earlier today and it got me wondering if the 744's inputs are truly identical when running a pre in front of both.. Since one of them has a built in pre and the other does not, I'm not so sure.

Brian is on the right path though.  Using a stock R4 or one with the same mods on both channels you'd run two sets of the same mics.  While NOTHING can be exact this seems to be a pretty good way of doing it.

I am also NOT a fan of stereo tests.  I don't tape my stereo so i'm not going to base my dollars on a stereo recording. 

Two mics = a waste of time for an evaluation how could you tell it was not the mics that were showing a difference in sound quality and not the cable. You need one MICROPHONE and change the cables. If you use two different microphones you have two different sounding channels... Because no two mics are exactly the same. But what do I know.. about doing objective tests...

chris I believe thay are speaking of using a stereo pair and a pair of splitters so they can use two sets of cables on the pair of mics at the same time.

editted so it makes sense

[OFOTD]

Two mics = a waste of time for an evaluation how could you tell it was not the mics that were showing a difference in sound quality and not the cable. You need one MICROPHONE and change the cables. If you use two different microphones you have two different sounding channels... Because no two mics are exactly the same. But what do I know.. about doing objective tests...

Well by that logic you'll never get a true test.   Either you compromise on running two sets of the same mics or you use one mic and use two different sets of music. 

Personally I am very comfortable in knowing that BOTH sets of my 480 are damn close sounding to one another.  I would trust them before I would trust one mic recording two different takes of music. 

These are not tests for a lab environment.  These tests and more specifically these results are for bars and clubs and sheds.  Let's not forget that.

[Church-Audio]

Two mics = a waste of time for an evaluation how could you tell it was not the mics that were showing a difference in sound quality and not the cable. You need one MICROPHONE and change the cables. If you use two different microphones you have two different sounding channels... Because no two mics are exactly the same. But what do I know.. about doing objective tests...

Well by that logic you'll never get a true test.   Either you compromise on running two sets of the same mics or you use one mic and use two different sets of music. 

Personally I am very comfortable in knowing that BOTH sets of my 480 are damn close sounding to one another.  I would trust them before I would trust one mic recording two different takes of music. 

These are not tests for a lab environment.  These tests and more specifically these results are for bars and clubs and sheds.  Let's not forget that.

Post edit I am not going to spend $250 on a mic cable with a test that uses, two different sources is not effective two different microphones is pointless. They dont sound the same how would you know what was making one cable sound better over the other? I know exactly where your taping. But if you want to spend $250 on some cables would you not want to know that they are worth $250?

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

Two mics = a waste of time for an evaluation how could you tell it was not the mics that were showing a difference in sound quality and not the cable. You need one MICROPHONE and change the cables. If you use two different microphones you have two different sounding channels... Because no two mics are exactly the same. But what do I know.. about doing objective tests...

Well by that logic you'll never get a true test.   Either you compromise on running two sets of the same mics or you use one mic and use two different sets of music. 

Personally I am very comfortable in knowing that BOTH sets of my 480 are damn close sounding to one another.  I would trust them before I would trust one mic recording two different takes of music. 

These are not tests for a lab environment.  These tests and more specifically these results are for bars and clubs and sheds.  Let's not forget that.

I am not going to spend $250 on a mic cable with a half assed test. Two different sources is crazy two different microphones is pointless they dont sound the same how would you know what was making one cable sound better over the other? I know exactly where your taping. But if you want to spend $250 on some cables would you not want to know that they are worth $250? Or would you rather spin the wheel or moronic test procedures and guess what one sounds better?

Since how "good" something sounds is generally subjective, I'm not sure your logic is appropriate.  In a scientific sense, you are correct.  But I doubt there is anything scientific about how we tape.

First, the contention that "stereo" testing is bad:  I feel that "stereo" testing is a good thing - you can control your environment and you (should) know how your system sounds while paying specific songs.  In several minutes, you can have 3 "samples" - cable X, cable Y, and how the stereo sounds naturally.  Comparing the 3 should give you an idea of which cable you prefer.

Second, the 2 mics are pointless:  Yes, but all (most) of us tape with 2 mics.  So I think it is "pointless" to test your 2 mics individually and at separate times.  I think they should be tested at the same time, since you will be using them in the field at the same time.  Since SoundStage is one of the features we listen for, how is testing in mono help determine that aspect of your cable(s).

Third, one man's trash is another man's cash.  Scientific test gives you empirical data.  Most of us are looking for subjective data.  I don't care that a $1000 cable is "scientifically" blah-blah-blah.  All I care about is how it sounds to me. 

My worthless Euros,

Terry

[OFOTD]

Scientific test gives you empirical data.  Most of us are looking for subjective data.  I don't care that a $1000 cable is "scientifically" blah-blah-blah.  All I care about is how it sounds to me. 

+T

[Brian Skalinder]

Scientific test gives you empirical data.  Most of us are looking for subjective data.  I don't care that a $1000 cable is "scientifically" blah-blah-blah.  All I care about is how it sounds to me.

How does one make a subjective comparison without the controls?  Without the controls, to what do you attribute the subjective differences?  At least with proper (or at least Good Enough, i.e. as good as we can get) controls we have reasonably well captured the data so we may make an informed decision about the comparison - subjectively or objectively, however one wishes.

I think we're going to - if not already - spin our wheels on this one shortly.  To summarize:

A truly controlled test is effectively impossible (or at least -extremely- unlikely) to do in the field (unless someone owns a venue in which we can create our controlled environment).  So, we must compromise no matter what:

• include control but compromise on environment:  stereo test, one pair of mics, test, swap cables, repeat.
• include environment but compromise on gear:  two pairs of mics (compromising on one element of control) or a single pair with splitters into an R-4 or some such (compromising on another element of control, but IMO a better one than two pairs of mics)

As best I can figure, those are our options.  Neither is perfect, but I think there's value in both.  I'm still willing to do the tests if people offer the gear.

[Church-Audio]

Scientific test gives you empirical data.  Most of us are looking for subjective data.  I don't care that a $1000 cable is "scientifically" blah-blah-blah.  All I care about is how it sounds to me.

How does one make a subjective comparison without the controls?  Without the controls, to what do you attribute the subjective differences?  At least with proper (or at least Good Enough, i.e. as good as we can get) controls we have reasonably well captured the data so we may make an informed decision about the comparison - subjectively or objectively, however one wishes.

I think we're going to - if not already - spin our wheels on this one shortly.  To summarize:

A truly controlled test is effectively impossible (or at least -extremely- unlikely) to do in the field (unless someone owns a venue in which we can create our controlled environment).  So, we must compromise no matter what:

• include control but compromise on environment:  stereo test, one pair of mics, test, swap cables, repeat.
• include environment but compromise on gear:  two pairs of mics (compromising on one element of control) or a single pair with splitters into an R-4 or some such (compromising on another element of control, but IMO a better one than two pairs of mics)

As best I can figure, those are our options.  Neither is perfect, but I think there's value in both.  I'm still willing to do the tests if people offer the gear.

A mono signal path eliminates all room for discrepancies with this type of test Hell I hate listening to a mono source but you have to admit its the best way to eliminate any variables you simply swap out the mic cable for another one and hit play again on the cd player and you have your simple yet effective test Two mics = twice the discrepencey... One mic one stand one speaker two mic cables = fair test with reliable results. I would test a cheap digiflex cable against anything that someone wants to throw and it. That should be the control and then we can all have a listen and see what the differences are. I bet there is none, but that's just me.

[cshepherd]

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? 

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

[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.

[PH]

Not comparing takes, but comparing the same take with one mic/cable per channel.
using two mics. Anyone can do this test if they have matched mics. You only need two tracks.
I don't see the need to compare a pair of cables, one should suffice.

I plan on letting the picker play about one minute for each comparison.

[Church-Audio]

Not comparing takes, but comparing the same take with one mic/cable per channel.
using two mics. Anyone can do this test if they have matched mics. You only need two tracks.
I don't see the need to compare a pair of cables, one should suffice.

I plan on letting the picker play about one minute for each comparison.

That test will not provide accurate results because you cant get two mics to be exactly matched. And you cant get both mics in the same exact spot. So the tracks will sound different by them selves with out any help from the cable. That will not give a good indication of the cable but a indication of mic placement. I think you need one Microphone one track played back thru a monitor and miked. That's the only way to duplicate the tracks exactly and have the only variable be the cable it self. I know its not ideal in the sense of fidelity but its ideal in the sense that if there are differences we will hear them. Doing several takes with different mic position is not a good test IMHO.
Phil I am very sure you are aware if you move a mic a mm here or a mm there it makes a huge difference this is why only one mic in a fixed position can be used and since you cant get the player to sit still but you can get a studio monitor to "sit still" you can do the test and get repeatable results. I cant stress enough how important controls are to eliminate any other cause for a difference in sound quality between tracks. If we cant do that there is no point in doing a test. I think the results need to be repeatable in order for the test to have any validity.

[PH]

Chris, why don't you do the test yourself? You seem to have all the anwers.
Do the test and let's hear the results.

I didn't ever say multiple takes, I said one take, one mic, one cable, one guitar.
nevermind. 

[Church-Audio]

Chris, why don't you do the test yourself? You seem to have all the anwers.
Do the test and let's hear the results.

I didn't ever say multiple takes, I said one take, one mic, one cable, one guitar.
nevermind. 

Oh ok so how do you change mic cables then? I dont understand dont get pissed off explain what you mean since I obviously dont get what your saying.

[PH]

Read the first post I made, it explained how I was going to do the test.
Forget it, not interested in having you pick apart every sort of test that I would do and claiming it's flawed.
Some people do stuff just for fun, comparisons are always flawed in some way. It doesn't have to be perfect to hear noticable and rewarding results.

Just do the test yourself Chris, that way you can be sure it is perfect.
I'm out of this thread.

[cshepherd]

The Mic Hybrid cables aren't going to be back here until early April.  I will do the mono and stereo tests in front of my stereo, directly into the 722.  I'll even take pictures.  Once the theory that mic cables are capable of making a difference, any difference at all...we're going to get back to making comparison tapes at venues and talking about that.

Chris, did you listen to the recordings?  What do you think caused the second set to sound better?  I realize the comparison doesn't hold weight in your eyes, but the difference in sound is pretty hard to miss.  What do you think caused the sound to change the way it did?  I'm asking you because of your FOH experience.

Chris

[Church-Audio]

The Mic Hybrid cables aren't going to be back here until early April.  I will do the mono and stereo tests in front of my stereo, directly into the 722.  I'll even take pictures.  Once the theory that mic cables are capable of making a difference, any difference at all...we're going to get back to making comparison tapes at venues and talking about that.

Chris, did you listen to the recordings?  What do you think caused the second set to sound better?  I realize the comparison doesn't hold weight in your eyes, but the difference in sound is pretty hard to miss.  What do you think caused the sound to change the way it did?  I'm asking you because of your FOH experience.

Chris

I will tell you what please if you want to send me a cable I will do the test here. I will do it with a method that has repeatable results. If people are going to say that cables make a difference why not do this simple test take a recorder and a preamp and simply swap the cables out plug a cd player into the input of the preamp and lets have two sample files with the two sets of cables with the same exact track. If I was in the cable business I would sure want a test that no one could argue as not valid. I think its all about eliminating variables. And having a test that can not be argued away.

[OFOTD]

Chris, did you listen to the recordings?  What do you think caused the second set to sound better?  I realize the comparison doesn't hold weight in your eyes, but the difference in sound is pretty hard to miss.  What do you think caused the sound to change the way it did?  I'm asking you because of your FOH experience.

csheperd,

Give it up trying to explain something to someone who has proven over and over to just not "get it".   Mr. Taper errrr I mean Chris Church just likes the sound of his own voice/posts and has now won over more friends by polluting two cable threads in as many days.   Ugggh. 

I for one look forward to using your loaner pair and will attempt a comp using both pairs of my 480's in the future.

[cshepherd]

I'll take that as a 'No, I didn't listen to the recordings'.  I would rather send the cables out to someone who's taping a show.  I can do a lab test in ten minutes right here at home. 

Chris

[Church-Audio]

I'll take that as a 'No, I didn't listen to the recordings'.  I would rather send the cables out to someone who's taping a show.  I can do a lab test in ten minutes right here at home. 

Chris

Then do it and upload the files...

Then we can all have a listen! Great Idea when can we expect them?

[Brian]

be sure to use white and pink noise so i can i can vigorously analyze the spectrum analyzer.  who knows what my ears are hearing

[Church-Audio]

be sure to use white and pink noise so i can i can vigorously analyze the spectrum analyzer.  who knows what my ears are hearing

LoL I am not about using a spectrum analyzer. I have been using my ears for a long time. The products I build dont just get analyzed they get listened too  I am not all about being Mr Lab coat like I have been made out. I am about making sure you can remove the variables in a test so we know what it is exactly that is creating a difference if one does exist.

[Brian]

I am not all about being Mr Lab coat like I have been made out.

hey now. these guys recorded the beatles and they wore lab coats.  it's cool to wear lab coats

[cshepherd]

Early April, Chris.  In the mean time, I would love to hear your theory on the differences in sound between these sets. 

Chris

The Mic Hybrid cables aren't going to be back here until early April.  I will do the mono and stereo tests in front of my stereo, directly into the 722.  I'll even take pictures.  Once the theory that mic cables are capable of making a difference, any difference at all...we're going to get back to making comparison tapes at venues and talking about that.

Chris, did you listen to the recordings?  What do you think caused the second set to sound better?  I realize the comparison doesn't hold weight in your eyes, but the difference in sound is pretty hard to miss.  What do you think caused the sound to change the way it did?  I'm asking you because of your FOH experience.

Chris

[Church-Audio]

I am not all about being Mr Lab coat like I have been made out.

hey now. these guys recorded the beatles and they wore lab coats.  it's cool to wear lab coats

Yes but thats not my thing man.. I dont like the lab coat. I like lab rats... though... what do you think that means?  

[Church-Audio]

Early April, Chris.  In the mean time, I would love to hear your theory on the differences in sound between these sets. 

Chris

The Mic Hybrid cables aren't going to be back here until early April.  I will do the mono and stereo tests in front of my stereo, directly into the 722.  I'll even take pictures.  Once the theory that mic cables are capable of making a difference, any difference at all...we're going to get back to making comparison tapes at venues and talking about that.

Chris, did you listen to the recordings?  What do you think caused the second set to sound better?  I realize the comparison doesn't hold weight in your eyes, but the difference in sound is pretty hard to miss.  What do you think caused the sound to change the way it did?  I'm asking you because of your FOH experience.

Chris

Ok fair enough please give me a day ok and I will listen. Is there any more information you can give me about these tracks that I should know?

Thanks

[Brian]

in my quick listen the high end was much smoother and nicer to listen to in set 2 which i think were the van den haul's.

the hydra's were a little strident inthe high end. i'm assuming both cables were burned in.....

but like others have said.....kevin could have changed up the eq's of various instruments and/or the mains between sets

[cshepherd]

There's some distortion that comes in around one of the vocal channels throughout the show.  I think the two tracks I originally pointed out are good.  There's minimal distortion in both of those tracks.  With regards to set break tweaks by the FOH enginner, I would also suggest listening to the last couple of songs on the first set, followed with the first track on the second set.  Then ask yourself if you could have made those changes during set break.  I think that theory is pretty weak, but I would like to hear your opinion.

I would pay attention to the drums, bass and room acoustics.  Tonally, the differences were not as great.  It's more about the presentation.  Those are my thoughts.  Thanks to those who posted about the sound and to everyone for keeping this discussion fairly well on track...all things considered.

Does anybody work around here?

Chris

[Brian]

i work enough to not listen to that UM show that much  for tihs comp

[Todd R]

I'll take that as a 'No, I didn't listen to the recordings'.  I would rather send the cables out to someone who's taping a show.  I can do a lab test in ten minutes right here at home. 

Chris

Then do it and upload the files...

Then we can all have a listen! Great Idea when can we expect them?

The Mic Hybrid cables aren't going to be back here until early April.

I'll go out on a limb here and say....we won't be expecting them until early April. 

[Todd R]

I think we should also realize there is a value in having n= something more than 1 here.

That is, if recording one source at the same time with 2 differen sets of cables but with 2 sets of identical mics, recorded with the same model recorder, same pattern, same stand with mics pairs within inches of each other is not perfectly valid since the mics are in different places, are different sets of mics, and different recorders, then these are still useful tests. 

Run this test with this setup once and make judgements, then run it 20 or 50 or 100 more times (either going back and forth with what mics and recorder were used with each cable set, or by using entirely different matching sets of mics and matching recorders).  If the same characteristics are noticed every single time for a given cable for a set of tests run this way 100 times (n=100), it would be much more logical to conclude the differences are due to the cables than to assume that somehow you randomly came to the same set of characteristics even though the location, mics, and recorders had been varied so many different times.

[Jamos]

How about using 2 of the same model CD player, one with x cables, one with y cables...going into the same playback system.  Use a cleanly recorded track that you are very familiar with for the test.  Then you can A-B between the two sources and hear any actual differences.

While there still are some variables in there, this is a lot closer to "controlled".  It's not necessary to use mics just to hear the cable difference.    It will pass signal whether it is a mic signal or a line signal...and by not using mics you eliminate all kinds of other variables.  You can still use your ears this way, and you could even record from CD > 722 using each set of cables so you could share the results with the rest of us.

Shepard, you have some sweet playback gear up there I'm sure, you could probably do this pretty easily right?
 

I still haven't downloaded the show to listen, anyone have a couple tracks I could download individually without having to grab the whole show?

[OFOTD]

How about using 2 of the same model CD player, one with x cables, one with y cables...going into the same playback system.  Use a cleanly recorded track that you are very familiar with for the test.  Then you can A-B between the two sources and hear any actual differences.

While there still are some variables in there, this is a lot closer to "controlled".  It's not necessary to use mics just to hear the cable difference.    It will pass signal whether it is a mic signal or a line signal...and by not using mics you eliminate all kinds of other variables.  You can still use your ears this way, and you could even record from CD > 722 using each set of cables so you could share the results with the rest of us.

Shepard, you have some sweet playback gear up there I'm sure, you could probably do this pretty easily right?
 

I still haven't downloaded the show to listen, anyone have a couple tracks I could download individually without having to grab the whole show?

Thankfully Brian Sax made a comment earlier that brought me back down to earth on this topic.   

Running a comp isn't going to settle anything.  I don't tape in a living room or an office.  I run in smoky, smelly, beer soaked bars and hot-ass sheds.   All that hooking a cable up to a cd player will do is tell you the differences in a studio and we all know the difference between a studio and say Red Rocks. 

I passed on some thoughts via PM to a member here and want to suggest it.  If you are looking for new cables or really want to find out the differences between what you currently own then look in the Yard Sale.  You can always find great deals on used cables and if you don't like them then resell them.  Cables always seem to be in demand here anyways. 

No matter what I hear or Chirs Shepard hears or Mr. Taper hears YOU could hear something totally different.  You are taping for yourself not for me or anyone else.  You have to come up with the cash for cables for your rig not me. 

Find some in the yard sale and try them yourself, don't like em don't keep em.

[Jamos]

  All that hooking a cable up to a cd player will do is tell you the differences in a studio and we all know the difference between a studio and say Red Rocks. 

It will show what audible difference a cable makes in the signal chain...isn't that what we are trying to determine?
Any differences shown by this test will just translate into a field recording situation.  Whether the differences are positive or negative in use w/your specific microphone is a whole different discussion.
I understand your point of view, but testing in the "studio" is a way better approach as far as having control over the situation and being able to listen and then change your test...As opposed to listening to a show when you get home and then waiting until next time to try something different, where the whole mix at the show will be different anyway.  It's tough to do tests in the field since you only really get one shot.

[Shawn]

With regards to set break tweaks by the FOH enginner, I would also suggest listening to the last couple of songs on the first set, followed with the first track on the second set.  Then ask yourself if you could have made those changes during set break.  I think that theory is pretty weak, but I would like to hear your opinion.

I would pay attention to the drums, bass and room acoustics.  Tonally, the differences were not as great.  It's more about the presentation.  Those are my thoughts.  Thanks to those who posted about the sound and to everyone for keeping this discussion fairly well on track...all things considered.

Does anybody work around here?

Chris

well it's not just what the FOH engineer did during set break. what if the angle of your mics changed when you switched cables? what if the height of your stand was different? what if top section of the stand was rotated slightly while raising it and thus the mics were pointed in a different direction (bogen stands can do this easily), what if the musicians made adjustments on-stage, what if there were siginificantly more (or less) people in the room, what if the taper made adjustments to their levels, etc...

for me there are just too many possible explanations for why the sound is different for me to assign it to one any of the variables.

I think any theory that attributes the difference in sound to any one of those variables is pretty weak.

Eidt to fix sum spelin miss stakes

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I think any theory that attributes the difference in sound to any one of those variables is pretty weak.

So when I switch from the C4's to the MGs at the break, I'm not really hearing the impact of better mics?

[OFOTD]

  All that hooking a cable up to a cd player will do is tell you the differences in a studio and we all know the difference between a studio and say Red Rocks. 

It will show what audible difference a cable makes in the signal chain...isn't that what we are trying to determine?

It will ONLY show the audible difference between a cd player and a recorder.

Any differences shown by this test will just translate into a field recording situation.  Whether the differences are positive or negative in use w/your specific microphone is a whole different discussion.

I 100% totally disagree.  Nothing about cd player > recorder is anything like what I/we use in the field.   

Let's say you want to buy a sports car.  Are you going to test in on the open road or in a school zone?  Both involve driving.  What that car does at 20mph in the school zone has absolutely nothing to do with how its going to drive on the highway or on a track. 

By testing from cd player > recorder you are taking out thousands of variables that I/we incur any night taping.  Say there are 1000 different variables at a show.  If a nice set of cables can make a positive effect on say half of those variables are they worth it?  If they positively effect just 1 variable is it worth it?

[Todd R]

  All that hooking a cable up to a cd player will do is tell you the differences in a studio and we all know the difference between a studio and say Red Rocks. 

It will show what audible difference a cable makes in the signal chain...isn't that what we are trying to determine?
Any differences shown by this test will just translate into a field recording situation.  Whether the differences are positive or negative in use w/your specific microphone is a whole different discussion.
I understand your point of view, but testing in the "studio" is a way better approach as far as having control over the situation and being able to listen and then change your test...As opposed to listening to a show when you get home and then waiting until next time to try something different, where the whole mix at the show will be different anyway.  It's tough to do tests in the field since you only really get one shot.

Not necessarily.  Not to say living room tests aren't useful, but these tests might not convey all field conditions.  

Take for instance noise.  First off, you'll have a hard time finding someone with both a balanced (XLR) out CD player and a balanced (XLR) in preamp to do the living room tests.  So you might be testing unbalanced cable response vs. balanced cable response.  Second, how different cables handle noise -- RFI and EMI noise -- affects how they sound.  Your living room is likely to have far less RFI/EMI noise than a music venue with SCRs, florescent lights, much more high current power lines running through it, etc.  So a living room test would totally miss this aspect of cable differences as compared to a field test in a club.

[Church-Audio]

  All that hooking a cable up to a cd player will do is tell you the differences in a studio and we all know the difference between a studio and say Red Rocks. 

It will show what audible difference a cable makes in the signal chain...isn't that what we are trying to determine?
Any differences shown by this test will just translate into a field recording situation.  Whether the differences are positive or negative in use w/your specific microphone is a whole different discussion.
I understand your point of view, but testing in the "studio" is a way better approach as far as having control over the situation and being able to listen and then change your test...As opposed to listening to a show when you get home and then waiting until next time to try something different, where the whole mix at the show will be different anyway.  It's tough to do tests in the field since you only really get one shot.

Not necessarily.  Not to say living room tests aren't useful, but these tests might not convey all field conditions.  

Take for instance noise.  First off, you'll have a hard time finding someone with both a balanced (XLR) out CD player and a balanced (XLR) in preamp to do the living room tests.  So you might be testing unbalanced cable response vs. balanced cable response.  Second, how different cables handle noise -- RFI and EMI noise -- affects how they sound.  Your living room is likely to have far less RFI/EMI noise than a music venue with SCRs, florescent lights, much more high current power lines running through it, etc.  So a living room test would totally miss this aspect of cable differences as compared to a field test in a club.

Fair enough Todd but you have to have the same microphone for the test and the same source if not how can you make a meaningful comparison between cables? so you need at the very least a cd player or some recording played back thru a speaker because in a live situation you can not get the band to play the same song twice exactly the same way so the results are then not worth much. I mean if I am going to listen to a pair of speakers and A/B them I want to hear the same track on both sets of speakers of course at different times. So you need a prerecorded source in order to make sure that what the mic captures is exactly the same so that you will know what differences the cables made in the first place right? I know what your saying about emf and emi I agree 100% that these things effect sound. They do but if we just want to listen to the basic difference of a cable dont we at least need the same exact source and same exact mics in the same exact position so we can know for sure that if there are differences its the cable that is making the changes not the fact that its a new song or a new mic position? That's All I have ever wanted to say about this subject I know science is not what we are about we are about using our ears. But I can make an objective decision when you have two different pairs of mics or different mic positions or different sources.... Can you? if so you have better ears that I do. I cant I need to hear the same song with the same exact setup in order to know what the differences are with 100% certainty. And if we are going to do tests dont we want to be a certain as we can before we lay down our hard earned money. Look I am not saying good cables dont make a difference that would be stupid what I am saying is can we really tell between a nice star quad and a super high end cable? and if so why not do a simple test that puts this to bed once and for all? then all the people who dont believe will... Sales will increase and everyone wins right?

[Shawn]

I think any theory that attributes the difference in sound to any one of those variables is pretty weak.

So when I switch from the C4's to the MGs at the break, I'm not really hearing the impact of better mics?

maybe, maybe not. certainly an argument can be made that any one of the factors I listed or a few hundred other possiblities all could have played some small part in the differences. This is one data point with literally hundreds of variables, and so making an assertive statement that one of the variables was responsible for the result would be errant. For the data to be more reliable one of two things must happen.

1) a new test with a more rigourous attempt to reduce the number of variables must be done
2) more data points are required. if he switched cables at dozens of shows then we could start to analyze the results and see if a pattern emerges.

let's put it this way... if I was running mic brand X that you had never heard for one set and mic brand y that you had never heard for the second set would you attribute the difference in sound to the mics or would you want more data?

[cshepherd]

Hey Jmos, try these tracks:

The show is now up on the Archive.  For those just wanting to sample a couple of tracks, I think these two make for a good comparison.

Chris


Set 1 / Track 8 - Nothing Too Fancy  http://www.archive.org/download/um2007.03.02.flac16/um2007-03-02d1t08.flac

Set 2 / Track 6 - Hurt Bird Bath  http://www.archive.org/download/um2007.03.02.flac16/um2007-03-02d2t06.flac

edit:  Streaming mp3's are also available at http://www.archive.org/details/um2007.03.02.flac16

I've got some rca>xlr turnarounds from BAT that sell for $90/pair.  I could record tracks from a cd player to the 722 with The Orchid rca's, the turnarounds and the different sets of cables.  I don't mind doing the cd player test.  I don't mind doing the single mic test either.  I think what people want to see is consistently better performance out of the MIc Hybrid, regardless of the testing parameters.  I don't mind proving that out.  Keep in mind, none of these tests will tell us how they perform in the field.  It is a vastly different source.  The mic signal is a very low level signal.  Low level signals are much more susceptible to EMI/RF Interference.  Todd raised a very good point about the cable's screenings not being tested for field recording (The Mic Hybrid is triple screened, btw).

These lab tests are for those who believe a cable does not influence the signal path at all.  Once this issue is dealt with, I think we'll all be able to move forward with the comparisons made in the field.  We'll have another first set / second set comparison available in a couple of weeks with different mil-spec cable.  I feel confident that Dennis Tyler is taking care to ensure that the stand height and mic configuration are consistent between sets.  We all want valid results.  It's surprising the number of people who have suggested that the taper's lack of basic setup skills could be the culprit.  I think we're all better than that.  I don't think a 2 mm movement in any direction is going to wreck a recording.  We've all had mic setups that have drifted in one way or another during a show.  Maybe a slight shift in balance, but that's about all I've ever experienced from it.  Most of the time the changes are negligible to non-existent.

Chris

[Jamos]

Thanks Chris, I must've missed that it's up on the archive...

You guys bring up valid points re: the "living room" testing...
I guess ideally we'd have a studio test and a field test, and then discuss the results of both.  It's certainly nicer to do it in the studio since you can repeat, change, alter things as many times as you wish. (even if you do use a mic in front of a speaker cabiniet, in the studio would allow for all of this)

Maybe the most "controlled" field test would include a matched set of mics set up in exactly the same direction, i.e. straight forward, directly next to each other...not set up in a stereo config.

[Brian Skalinder]

From another thread:

Chris - it doesn't seem to me that anyone disagrees that your very controlled test will provide value.  But I am (and perhaps others are) suggesting it's not the be-all, end-all test that will for once and ever make up everyone's mind with respect to audible differences between cables.  I am (and I think others are) suggesting that - in addition to your very controlled comp - there's still value in comps that make a very limited number of compromises.

Feel free to disagree.  I think we're going in circles at this point.

[Church-Audio]

Thanks Chris, I must've missed that it's up on the archive...

You guys bring up valid points re: the "living room" testing...
I guess ideally we'd have a studio test and a field test, and then discuss the results of both.  It's certainly nicer to do it in the studio since you can repeat, change, alter things as many times as you wish. (even if you do use a mic in front of a speaker cabiniet, in the studio would allow for all of this)

Maybe the most "controlled" field test would include a matched set of mics set up in exactly the same direction, i.e. straight forward, directly next to each other...not set up in a stereo config.

The problem with that test is this.. Two mics even side by side are not going to pick up exactly the same sound at the same time unless they occupied the same space and unfortunately that's not possible. So why not take a single microphone? that way it does not move and you can simply swap out cables?  then you have a good chance of really hearing a difference. I mean these changes might not be huge so if the mics were just off slightly maybe someone would say hey this cable sounds better but maybe its the fact that even though the stereo set of mics is matched via a COMPUTER PROGRAM they might not be actually perfectly matched. People are saying I am using to much science here is the real issues if you use a pair of mics your 100% relying on science to tell you that they are matched. The major problem with this is The science of measuring a microphone is not yet perfected.. So if we remove one mic from the equation then we just have a single source to listen to then we can make an evaluation on the merits of one cable over the other cable.

[Todd R]

Fair enough Todd but you have to have the same microphone for the test and the same source if not how can you make a meaningful comparison between cables? so you need at the very least a cd player or some recording played back thru a speaker because in a live situation you can not get the band to play the same song twice exactly the same way so the results are then not worth much. I mean if I am going to listen to a pair of speakers and A/B them I want to hear the same track on both sets of speakers of course at different times. So you need a prerecorded source in order to make sure that what the mic captures is exactly the same so that you will know what differences the cables made in the first place right? I know what your saying about emf and emi I agree 100% that these things effect sound. They do but if we just want to listen to the basic difference of a cable dont we at least need the same exact source and same exact mics in the same exact position so we can know for sure that if there are differences its the cable that is making the changes not the fact that its a new song or a new mic position? That's All I have ever wanted to say about this subject I know science is not what we are about we are about using our ears. But I can make an objective decision when you have two different pairs of mics or different mic positions or different sources.... Can you? if so you have better ears that I do. I cant I need to hear the same song with the same exact setup in order to know what the differences are with 100% certainty. And if we are going to do tests dont we want to be a certain as we can before we lay down our hard earned money. Look I am not saying good cables dont make a difference that would be stupid what I am saying is can we really tell between a nice star quad and a super high end cable? and if so why not do a simple test that puts this to bed once and for all? then all the people who dont believe will... Sales will increase and everyone wins right?

I'm not saying I have better ears than you Chris, I'm just don't agree that the type of testing that has been done is useless, nor that the testing you seem to be proposing is perfect.  I don't really think any testing we can do will be both perfectly valid (with only one variable changing) and perfectly comprehensive.  So I'd vote to do more testing, more types of testing, and testing in different environments.

As I noted in the other thread and as Shawn has noted above, more data points can help us make judgements.  If we do lots and lots of pairwise tests, even though each individual one may not be perfect, we can start making judgements.  For instance, if we do 100 of these pairwise tests, and in every test come to the conclusion that the rig that always uses Cable X always sounds harsh on the high end and anemic on the low end, and the comps using rigs that always use Cable Y always sound sweet on the high end with a full, tight low end, we can reasonably conclude that Cable X sounds harsh and anemic and Cable Y sounds sweet and tight.  Otherwise we have to attribute these differences to just be random coincidence since all the other variables (mics, location, recorders, etc) were random over the course of the 100 tests.  And if everything were random, then sometimes randomly we wouldn't hear the rig that used cable X to sound harsh, yet it always did.

Long story short, I'm not arguing against the tests you propose, and they may in fact be better on a number of fronts.  But no test will be perfect, so folks should just do their best and keep the comps coming.

[Church-Audio]

From another thread:

Chris - it doesn't seem to me that anyone disagrees that your very controlled test will provide value.  But I am (and perhaps others are) suggesting it's not the be-all, end-all test that will for once and ever make up everyone's mind with respect to audible differences between cables.  I am (and I think others are) suggesting that - in addition to your very controlled comp - there's still value in comps that make a very limited number of compromises.

Feel free to disagree.  I think we're going in circles at this point.

Well here is the problem with compromises Why compromise? why do we have to have two mics in order to know if a cable is better then the other? This is not My method by any means its a method that all microphone companies use to measure microphones performance I am just turning it around and using it to test a cables performance. I think that no one will ever agree with me and that's ok. I think that unfortunately this will never get solved because to many people who dont do tests for a living are deciding what tests are valid and what tests are not. I can tell you if I was auditioning a pair of speakers I would want to hear both. But this is not about there performance of a pair of mic cables this is about there performance difference between A mic cable and another mic cable. So why not keep it simple? I wish you all good luck with your tests. I think that there are a lot of people here that just dont like me and they are painting me out to be something I am not. I am passionate about audio I am not here to show the dumb people of taperssection how much smarter I am then they are. I am here to share the little bit of knowledge I have about one subject audio. If you want to listen to me great if not thats ok. I will stop trying to show people that there is more then just one way to do things. That tests can be done at home that will reveal results that mean something and you dont have to have a pile of test gear or a lab coat in order to conduct them. Remember the time when people like Edison did experiments at home why did he achieve what others failed to do? because he knew that in order to have a valid test you have to be able to repeat the results time and time again. You cant do that with a bunch of mics and a bunch of sources because then you dont know whats making the difference anymore and you lose sight of the real reason you want to spend $500 on a set of XLR cables the sound improvement.

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

I can't believe we are still arguing over how to do a listening test.

[Church-Audio]

Fair enough Todd but you have to have the same microphone for the test and the same source if not how can you make a meaningful comparison between cables? so you need at the very least a cd player or some recording played back thru a speaker because in a live situation you can not get the band to play the same song twice exactly the same way so the results are then not worth much. I mean if I am going to listen to a pair of speakers and A/B them I want to hear the same track on both sets of speakers of course at different times. So you need a prerecorded source in order to make sure that what the mic captures is exactly the same so that you will know what differences the cables made in the first place right? I know what your saying about emf and emi I agree 100% that these things effect sound. They do but if we just want to listen to the basic difference of a cable dont we at least need the same exact source and same exact mics in the same exact position so we can know for sure that if there are differences its the cable that is making the changes not the fact that its a new song or a new mic position? That's All I have ever wanted to say about this subject I know science is not what we are about we are about using our ears. But I can make an objective decision when you have two different pairs of mics or different mic positions or different sources.... Can you? if so you have better ears that I do. I cant I need to hear the same song with the same exact setup in order to know what the differences are with 100% certainty. And if we are going to do tests dont we want to be a certain as we can before we lay down our hard earned money. Look I am not saying good cables dont make a difference that would be stupid what I am saying is can we really tell between a nice star quad and a super high end cable? and if so why not do a simple test that puts this to bed once and for all? then all the people who dont believe will... Sales will increase and everyone wins right?

I'm not saying I have better ears than you Chris, I'm just don't agree that the type of testing that has been done is useless, nor that the testing you seem to be proposing is perfect.  I don't really think any testing we can do will be both perfectly valid (with only one variable changing) and perfectly comprehensive.  So I'd vote to do more testing, more types of testing, and testing in different environments.

As I noted in the other thread and as Shawn has noted above, more data points can help us make judgements.  If we do lots and lots of pairwise tests, even though each individual one may not be perfect, we can start making judgements.  For instance, if we do 100 of these pairwise tests, and in every test come to the conclusion that the rig that always uses Cable X always sounds harsh on the high end and anemic on the low end, and the comps using rigs that always use Cable Y always sound sweet on the high end with a full, tight low end, we can reasonably conclude that Cable X sounds harsh and anemic and Cable Y sounds sweet and tight.  Otherwise we have to attribute these differences to just be random coincidence since all the other variables (mics, location, recorders, etc) were random over the course of the 100 tests.  And if everything were random, then sometimes randomly we wouldn't hear the rig that used cable X to sound harsh, yet it always did.

Long story short, I'm not arguing against the tests you propose, and they may in fact be better on a number of fronts.  But no test will be perfect, so folks should just do their best and keep the coms coming.

Todd the problem I have with all the different types of testing is this. Say I did not know anything about cables... So I saw the results of a single test and said WOW I have to go out and buy these cables! they are great. But if you dont understand that there were two different sets of mics and two different positions isn't this test misleading if we are not 100% sure why one sounds better then the other so we automatically assume its a cable? This kind of testing for the purposes of making a profit is irresponsible and not cool. Why do we have crash test standards? in the USA/Canada? because when you get into a car you know that the car you got into met a certain safety standard or it would not be allowed to be made for sale to the public. Now we know that as good as these standards are there are still cars on the road that really should never have passed. So what I am saying is this standards need to be employed when your talking about selling a product to a consumer so that you know that your product is not snake oil and you can prove it. Then you can sell your product knowing full well that it meets a standard for performance. If I was in the cable business I would want to do that because cables seem to be this intangible thing we dont really think about them much. Why not have a good solid test that leave very little wiggle room so you can say to a customer here look My product does make a real difference, and this is how it makes a difference. I think its ironic that people are saying I am too scientific about my method for testing cable, when I can be hard pressed to find a industry with less immersion in technology then the cable business.... Some of it is a little flaky but some of it actually make sense. I say if your going to sell a product if you have not got a reliable way of testing its performance how can you guarantee continuity of manufacturing. And if you cant guarantee that how can people charge $500 a pair for the said cables?? So if you dont have a test that is 100% fool proof or as fool proof as it can be how can you say that these $500 cables are in fact better?

[Church-Audio]

I can't believe we are still arguing over how to do a listening test.

Terry its not an argument.  Don't you want to know your cables are better for sure? I do. I am not arguing with anyone I am respectfully stating my case.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Mr. Chruch, just curious.. How many aud recordings have you made in the last year?

[Todd R]

The problem with that test is this.. Two mics even side by side are not going to pick up exactly the same sound at the same time unless they occupied the same space and unfortunately that's not possible. So why not take a single microphone? that way it does not move and you can simply swap out cables?  then you have a good chance of really hearing a difference. I mean these changes might not be huge so if the mics were just off slightly maybe someone would say hey this cable sounds better but maybe its the fact that even though the stereo set of mics is matched via a COMPUTER PROGRAM they might not be actually perfectly matched. People are saying I am using to much science here is the real issues if you use a pair of mics your 100% relying on science to tell you that they are matched. The major problem with this is The science of measuring a microphone is not yet perfected.. So if we remove one mic from the equation then we just have a single source to listen to then we can make an evaluation on the merits of one cable over the other cable.

Ok, just a follow up.  So say we do what you are suggesting.  Then we just introduce different variables into the equation.  One mic means the pairwise testing is done at different times.  You can control the source (same CD, same PA system if you're "field" testing mics, etc, etc).  But there could be a plane flying overhead in the distance in the second test.  There could be crappy power coming in from the utility which is used to run the CD player and the PA for only one of the tests, not the other.  The HVAC system could turn on in one of the tests.  A fluorescent light could start to flicker in one of the tests.  A mouse could fart during one of the tests.  Who knows?  Lots and lots of variables come into play, and we can only control so many of them. So if we do the testing you suggest, we're trading off one set of problems for another.  You may well be right that the testing you suggest has fewer uncontrolled variables of concern or that their impact is less, but you still will have problems.

[Brian Skalinder]

I think that no one will ever agree with me and that's ok. I think that unfortunately this will never get solved because to many people who dont do tests for a living are deciding what tests are valid and what tests are not. I can tell you if I was auditioning a pair of speakers I would want to hear both. But this is not about there performance of a pair of mic cables this is about there performance difference between A mic cable and another mic cable. So why not keep it simple?  I wish you all good luck with your tests.

Again, no one disagrees there's value in keeping it simple.  But there's also value in hearing not-quite-perfect comps, too (read Todd R's recent post for an example).  You obviously disagree.  (Fair enough...circles.)  If you're suggesting that the one and only test that will provide any value of any kind is a perfectly controlled test - then yes, I disagree with you.  Let's move on.

I am passionate about audio I am not here to show the dumb people of taperssection how much smarter I am then they are. I am here to share the little bit of knowledge I have about one subject audio. If you want to listen to me great if not thats ok.

We appreciate - and share! - your passion for audio.  No one has accused you (that I've seen...maybe I missed it) of trying to prove how much smarter you are than the dumb TSers.

I will stop trying to show people that there is more then just one way to do things. That tests can be done at home that will reveal results that mean something and you dont have to have a pile of test gear or a lab coat in order to conduct them.

We all agree there's more than just one way of doing things.  That's precisely my (and it seems others') point.

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

I can't believe we are still arguing over how to do a listening test.

Terry its not an argument.  Don't you want to know your cables are better for sure? I do. I am not arguing with anyone I am respectfully stating my case.

Well, I just don't think you support our Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Terry

[cshepherd]

Todd, let me just say it's nice to have you in on this conversation.

Chris

[OFOTD]

Mr. Chruch, just curious.. How many aud recordings have you made in the last year?

Your answer sir.     http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,71167.msg1078844.html#msg1078844

[Todd R]

Todd, let me just say it's nice to have you in on this conversation.

Chris

Thanks Chris!

[Church-Audio]

Mr. Chruch, just curious.. How many aud recordings have you made in the last year?

I have taped about 50-60 shows over the last 2 years these were shows I mixed. And shows that dont get uploaded or shared. Does that qualify me? I dont tape shows I dont mix. I did not see this question until someone nicely pointed it out to me. Over my life time I have recorded over 1000 shows. most of the recordings are gone but I still have at least 300-400 recordings. Of shows most of the shows I recorded were done at the bands request. Some were done with out the band knowing I dont claim to be a taper I am more of a sound engineer. But I know the right end of a microphone.
 

[Church-Audio]

Mr. Chruch, just curious.. How many aud recordings have you made in the last year?

Your answer sir.     http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,71167.msg1078844.html#msg1078844

I answered the question.

[SparkE!]

I can't believe how reluctant you cable vendors are to do a test that can be adapted for ABX listening!

I also can't believe that it's so hard to accept that the best way to compare two things is to subject them both to exactly the same conditions and then try to understand the differences that can be discerned.

Come on cable vendors, show us some integrity.  Do the simple test:

The same signal into the same recorder, once with one set of cables and then again with another set of cables with no other changes.

I can do a lab test in ten minutes right here at home. 

Chris

Agreed.  You've spent more time rationalizing why it doesn't tell the whole story.  Why not just do the simple test?

[cshepherd]

SparkE!, you should do a better job of catching up on things.  The tests are coming.  Exactly as you describe.  BTW, what do you think of the differences in sound on the comparison recording?

Here's some more food for thought.  The Mic Hybrid was used for the entire show, but it's another chance to hear The Mic Hybrid in our element.  Same rig as the UM show.  Big Thanks goes out to Dennis Tyler for his unbiased efforts.

Chris

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,81147.0.html

The Slip
March 12, 2007
Workplay Theater
Birmingham, AL

Schoeps CMC6/MK4>van den Hul Mic Hybrid XLR>Oade ACM Marantz PMD-660
DIN, DFC, ~10 ft. high, ~25 ft. from stage
CF>HD>CDWAV>FLAC
Taped & Transfered by Dennis Tyler(dennistyler3819@yahoo.com)
Special thanks go out to Chris Shepherd for loaning me the van den Huls and to Clinton Vadnais for the guest list spot. Thanks guys!

[jackmf]

Between this thread and several others, it seems there is quite a bit of interest in comparrison testing of equipment. Why don't we have a listening conference? In another lifetime (the 80's) I worked in the hi-fi industry. We actually used to attend conferences where serious comparisons were made. While it didn't meet the qualifications for scientific research, it was good qualitative research. It could be like a tapers summit. We could hire a couple bands, drink excellent beverages, ditch our wives, rigorously compare products, etc, etc. Maybe even some equipment firms would like to provide some sponsorship. How geeky would that be. Man, I would go. We would, of course, have to make sure there were no fist-fights over cable or mod disagreements. 

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

Between this thread and several others, it seems there is quite a bit of interest in comparrison testing of equipment. Why don't we have a listening conference? In another lifetime (the 80's) I worked in the hi-fi industry. We actually used to attend conferences where serious comparisons were made. While it didn't meet the qualifications for scientific research, it was good qualitative research. It could be like a tapers summit. We could hire a couple bands, drink excellent beverages, ditch our wives, rigorously compare products, etc, etc. Maybe even some equipment firms would like to provide some sponsorship. How geeky would that be. Man, I would go. We would, of course, have to make sure there were no fist-fights over cable or mod disagreements. 

Paper Rock Scissors to determine winners of arguements...

Good idea, we need to have a TS Party once a year to talk smack and get rid of bad blood...

Terry

[Church-Audio]

I said some very stupid things again. And I owe a few people an apology for even insinuating that they were less then honest. A debate over a testing method got twisted into a personal attack on both sides. For my side I am responsible for my words. There is no one to blame but me. This tread turned to shit mostly because I would not budge an inch on my position of how to test a cable and in the process of debate things were said that should not have been said. I made some comments about cable builders in general that I would like to say I sorry for saying. My position about how to test a cable is unchanged, but there was no need to take things to a personal level, so that's all I wanted to say. I know I have apologized before for remarks I have made in the past but I think I finally get every ones point, I guess I am not very good at communication, and I do come off as arrogant that was not my intention but that is exactly how it looks when I read my own words. For that I owe all of you an apology I like to share what I know but I think in the future try and find a more constructive way to "add" my view to threads instead of force my view. I am a bit thick headed and I should have just stated my point and left it at that.

[SparkE!]

SparkE!, you should do a better job of catching up on things.  The tests are coming.  Exactly as you describe.  BTW, what do you think of the differences in sound on the comparison recording?

I'm caught up on things Chris.  Not much gets by me.  I've seen that you've offered to do the tests.  I just wish you'd invest more effort in doing some well-controlled tests and less effort on trying to rationalize why those tests are somehow irrelevant and why they have to wait until April (when everyone will have lost interest in this thread).  If you had put your "10 minutes" into the tests, we'd all be listening to relevant ABX comparisons now instead of hurling obtuse insults at each other at each other under the guise of being somehow uniquely true to the noble art of live recording.

And yeah, I listened to the recordings.  They don't tell me anything.  How could they?  I'm not familiar enough with Umphrey's McGee's music to have any point of reference.  And that's exactly my point.  There is no common point of reference for anyone that is not intimately familiar with Umphrey's McGee's music.

[jcrab66]

hey chris (shepard), when you go to do the testing in april might i suggest using the mudhoney croc show from last year as test vehicle 

[PH]

I've agreed to try out the Hybrid cables next week. Dennis is sending them my way and Chris Shepherd is also sending some other guitar and interconnect cables for some other testing I have planned.

I am planning to do this:
Rubber band a pair of CMC6/MK4's (matched) together and close mic a Collings guitar played by Cody Kilby.
I'm going to use one cable from each maker and record the pair in stereo to a stock R4. I'll then flip the cables to the other mic and retest.
That will give you two seperate tests for each cable, one with each mic. That should isolate any difference between the two matched mics. I'm sure the difference in the mics is less than the difference in the cables, but we shall see.

I'm going to test:
 Gumbino's hi-ho silvers VS Van Den Hol's Mic Hybrid
 Mogami VS Canare
 el cheapo VS Van Del Hol's
probably test the mogami vs gumbino's too.

Each cable will go directly from the mic to the stock R4 for recording. no splitters, nothing. 

after that, I have several other tests planned such as testing out a few pre's
V3 vs R4
Great River VS Grace V3 versus Neve Portico VS API 3124
etc......

I am in the market to buy some new cable and pre's right now, so this test is mainly for me, but I'm sure others would like to hear the results.
I'll try to test it out on other instruments or a live club setting, but not sure that is possible to do right now. I'll start with the guitar tests and see what happens.

I've spent many hundreds of dollars on cables over the years and I suspect I know what makes a good cable, it's completely transparent. Cheap cables aren't, that's a fact. It doesn't mean you need to spend $500 on a pair of mic cables, but the less the cable gets in the way of your clarity, the better off the recording will be. The better the wire, the better the chances of making a good recording.

About cable burn-in, that's a misnomer. Cables do sound much better after they have "burned in", however very few people understand that as soon as you touch or move them, they lose that quality. It takes a few days of being untouched or perfectly still to achieve that effect, it happens on the sub-atomic level.

For us tapers, that has no value at all. We move our cables around constantly.
It does have major value in a playback system where cables are usually left alone for long periods of time.
Ever move your speaker cables around and notice they don't sound as good for a while? that's it.

look for these results to be posted in a NEW thread late next week or so.
Cheers, Phil

[Church-Audio]

I've agreed to try out the Hybrid cables next week. Dennis is sending them my way and Chris Shepherd is also sending some other guitar and interconnect cables for some other testing I have planned.

I am planning to do this:
Rubber band a pair of CMC6/MK4's (matched) together and close mic a Collings guitar played by Cody Kilby.
I'm going to use one cable from each maker and then flip the cable to the other mic.

I'm going to test:
 gumbino's hi-ho silvers
 hybrids
 mogami
 canare
 el cheapo

Each cable will go directly from the mic to the stock R4 for recording.

after that, I have several other tests planned such as testing out a few pre's
V3 vs R4
Great River VS Grace V3
Neve Portico VS Grace V3
API 3124 VS Neve Portico
 etc......

I am in the market to buy some new cable and pre's right now, so this test is mainly for me, but I'm sure others would like to hear the results.

I'll try to test it out on other instruments or a live club setting, but not sure that is possible to do right now. I'll start with the guitar tests and see what happens.

I've spent many hundreds of dollars on cables over the years and I suspect I know what makes a good cable, it's completely transparent. Cheap cables aren't, that's a fact. It doesn't mean you need to spend $250 on a pair of mic cables, but the less the cable gets in the way of your clarity, the better off the recording will be.

About cable burn-in, that's a misnomer. Cables do sound much better after they have "burned in", however very few people understand that as soon as you touch or move them, they lose that quality. It takes a few days of being untouched or perfectly still to achieve that effect, it happens on the sub-atomic level.

For us tapers, that has no value at all. We move our cables around constantly.
It does have major value in a playback system where cables are usually left alone for long periods of time.
Ever move your speaker cables around and notice they don't sound as good for a while, that's it.

look for these results to be posted in a NEW thread late next week or so.
Cheers, Phil

Hey Phil let me know when its done I would like to hear it.

[Corbin]

I did a quick cable test last week..

Using the same mic in the same position, I recorded my stereo with the stock LSD2 cable and with a Hydra XLR that I got from Nick.  Once I listened to the two recordings I was amazed at how much of a difference the Hydra made.  The transparency of the Hydra is definitely worth the money I paid for it. 

[SparkE!]

The same signal into the same recorder, once with one set of cables and then again with another set of cables with no other changes.

The only way I know of to get the same signal twice is to play back the same recording, once through one set of cables and again through another set of cables.  Having some guys play the same song twice isn't going to cut it.  You will be able to tell the difference if you rely on people to play the same song twice.  The goal needs to be two recordings of exactly the same signal, one through one set of cables and another through another set of cables.  That way you can do ABX testing.  If the source material is not the same, it will be easy to recognize one recording vs. the other.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

If the source material is not the same, it will be easy to recognize one recording vs. the other.

I argue that is somewhat specious.  Jason is running a v3 vs. 722 A/D comp right now... And they are from the same live source. I can fairly easily tell which is A and which is B. Though I do not know for certain which is the v3 or 722. Merely being able to differentiate between the two recordings does not invalidate the comp.

[SparkE!]

Merely being able to differentiate between the two recordings does not invalidate the comp.

Of course it invalidates the comparison if it's easy to recognize the difference between the source material for the two recordings!  The very concept of ABX comparison requires that you use identical source material.  In Jason's case, the two recordings are of the same source and all that changes is the recorder.  In this case, we are comparing cables.  We still should use the same source and all that changes is the cables.

[PH]

Well, I did the test today. A bit earlier than expected.
I must say that I was surprised at the results.

The differences in cables were actually rather large, more than I was expecting.

We tested the Van den Hul's Mic Hybrid vs Gumbinio's Hi Ho Silvers and also against a dirt cheap cable
We tested Mogami against Canare and Hi Ho's.
We tested the V3 analog out to the R4 VS The R4 alone.

They all showed noticable results. I'll work'em up and try to get it posted early this week.
stay tuned......Phil

[stevetoney]

I did a quick cable test last week..

Using the same mic in the same position, I recorded my stereo with the stock LSD2 cable and with a Hydra XLR that I got from Nick.  Once I listened to the two recordings I was amazed at how much of a difference the Hydra made.  The transparency of the Hydra is definitely worth the money I paid for it. 

Thank you Corbin. 

For all this 8 pages of discussion about the merits of how this test should be performed, this is really the only type of input that I personally wanted.  I know others may want more objective details, but I'm not sure how they'd be given.  In the end, I just want to know...if you had it to do over again, would you spend the money and you answered that question in 100 words or less!  Thanks again.

[stevetoney]

Well, I did the test today. A bit earlier than expected.
I must say that I was surprised at the results.

Thanks for taking the time Phil.  I'm really looking forward to seeing your results. 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The show is now up on the Archive.  For those just wanting to sample a couple of tracks, I think these two make for a good comparison.

Set 1 / Track 8 - Nothing Too Fancy  http://www.archive.org/download/um2007.03.02.flac16/um2007-03-02d1t08.flac

Set 2 / Track 6 - Hurt Bird Bath  http://www.archive.org/download/um2007.03.02.flac16/um2007-03-02d2t06.flac

Finally took the time to listen to those tracks and the differences are *huge*..  Makes me wonder, as we have already beat to death, if there were any other changes with the PA, stand height, whatever

That said, I tried another track as an alternative to the first.. My alternate (t3, I think) did sound better than the first but it had some feedback problems so it also wasn't a good comp.  I'm not a big UM fan so I didn't listen to any others.

I'm guessing there were other sources available for this show?  A source that remained constant between the first and second sets would provide a reference that could answer the uncertainty regarding PA changes, etc.

[dennisrtyler]

The show is now up on the Archive.  For those just wanting to sample a couple of tracks, I think these two make for a good comparison.

Set 1 / Track 8 - Nothing Too Fancy  http://www.archive.org/download/um2007.03.02.flac16/um2007-03-02d1t08.flac

Set 2 / Track 6 - Hurt Bird Bath  http://www.archive.org/download/um2007.03.02.flac16/um2007-03-02d2t06.flac

Finally took the time to listen to those tracks and the differences are *huge*..  Makes me wonder, as we have already beat to death, if there were any other changes with the PA, stand height, whatever

That said, I tried another track as an alternative to the first.. My alternate (t3, I think) did sound better than the first but it had some feedback problems so it also wasn't a good comp.  I'm not a big UM fan so I didn't listen to any others.

I'm guessing there were other sources available for this show?  A source that remained constant between the first and second sets would provide a reference that could answer the uncertainty regarding PA changes, etc.

FWIW...i ran the comp and i changed *nothing* except for the cables. i also don't remember any noticeable improvements coming from the PA in set 2.

[Ryan Sims]

I was also at this show and remember no noticeable differences in the PA sound between the first and second sets, FWIW.

[dennisrtyler]

FWIW...i ran the comp and i changed *nothing* except for the cables. i also don't remember any noticeable improvements coming from the PA in set 2.

Thanks for the clarification.. I wasn't trying to imply there was anything nefarious going on.. The difference is just really dramatic. A second source would help reduce any concerns about PA changes, etc. I like to be very objective about these things..  I just checked archive and the etree db and couldn't find any others..

there were 3 other tapers that night, all of whom are active on this board. perhaps one of them will step up with a new source +T for the use of nefarious

[Massive Dynamic]

Finally took the time to listen to those tracks and the differences are *huge*.. 

I've always been curious about the VDH Linear Structured Carbon. Makes me really want to hear The Mic Hybrid in my rig, but I think the size of the cable will prohibit its use in a 7-pin connector for my LSD2. 

[PH]

Sorry for the delays in getting these comps posted. Been crazy busy this week, which is good.
I'll try to get them done tonight and posted tonight or tommorrow.
Anyone have a place I can host them? Pm me
Phil

[PH]

Ok, found a place to upload them tonight. Thanks, Phil

[cshepherd]

FWIW...i ran the comp and i changed *nothing* except for the cables. i also don't remember any noticeable improvements coming from the PA in set 2.

Thanks for the clarification.. I wasn't trying to imply there was anything nefarious going on.. The difference is just really dramatic. A second source would help reduce any concerns about PA changes, etc. I like to be very objective about these things..  I just checked archive and the etree db and couldn't find any others..

there were 3 other tapers that night, all of whom are active on this board. perhaps one of them will step up with a new source +T for the use of nefarious

A new source would be a nice addition to the conversation.  Thanks for the studio comps, Phil.  I look forward to hearing them.

Chris

[stevetoney]

Ok, found a place to upload them tonight. Thanks, Phil

I'm looking forward to hearing your results.  You got me baited with your 'surprised with the results' statement, so I been anxious to see what you found out.

[PH]

I know....I know.
I'm really sorry for the continued delay, it will be worth the wait I promise.
Hopefully tonight. I have a place to put them, so just need to make time to do it.
Cheers, Phil

[PH]

I did this in a casual way, so let's not get all worked up about how the test should have been done or all the reasons why it's flawed. You can judge the comparison and results on their own merits and either take them under consideration or not. I felt there were some interesting results and I was frankly surprised that there were so many differences in the gear that was sampled. There is also a V3/R4 comparison thrown in just for fun.

I did this for my own uses, but thought many others would find it useful, so here you go.
All the info is below, enjoy.
Cheers, Phil
==============================

http://www.turtleside.com/misc/nashphil-cable-comp/Cable_Test/

All of these various samples were recorded with a stock Edirol R4.
The mics used were a matched pair of Schoeps CMC6/mk4 and a matched pair of Studio Projects C4.
Cody Kilby (from Ricky Skaggs Band) is playing a Collings Acoustic Guitar and mic pairs are placed
about 10 inches away from guitar and directly in front of the 12th fret.

The two pairs of mics were attached together using rubber bands to place them at
exactly the same angle and distance from the source. Each pair were placed
as close to each other as would allow. This gives you a good comparison of two cables at a time,
plus an interesting (but flawed) mic comparison between the $2000+ Schoeps and the $300 C4's.

The cables used are:
Van den Hul's Mic Hybrid (provided by Eugene Hi-Fi)
Hi-Ho Silvers (provided by The Great Gumbino)
Mogami Quad 2534 (their best cable)
Canare Mini-Quad
Guitar Center Cheapo Cables



TEST 1

test1a_hybrid
test1a_silvers
test1b_mogami
test1b_canare

The hybrid/silvers are the Schoeps and the mogami/canare are the C4's
==========================================================================

TEST 2

test2a_hybrid
test2a_cheapo
test2b_mogami
test2b_silver

The hybrid/cheapo are the Schoeps and the mogami/silvers are the C4's
==========================================================================

TEST 3

test3_R4
test3_V3-digiout

This test compares the R4 pre's/ad converter alone vs the V3 digi-out to the R4.
The two samples are the schoeps pair with hybrid cables, were recorded in
stereo seperately, and aren't the exact same performance. However, it does give
you an idea of the differences between the overall sound of the two units.
==========================================================================

TEST 4

test4_R4
test4_V3-analogout

This test compares the preamps of the two units. The R4 sample is mic direct
to R4 using hybrid cables. The V3-R4 sample is the mic to the V3, then
analog out to the R4 line input. Between this and Test3, you get an idea
of what the preamps and AD converters sound like in comparison to each other.

[dennisrtyler]

thanks Phil! +T

[stevetoney]

Good work Phil.  Much appreciated.

[cshepherd]

Thanks, Phil.  +T

Chris

[Ryan Sims]

thanks Phil! +T

[dennisrtyler]

Phil are all the files 24/48?

[Nick's Picks]

Great tests.

this group is like free R&D.

+T to all those who I can reach on one page.

the silver cable stock (mine any way, I wont speak for everyone , though we probably all use the same materials) are nice.  they are not "holy shit, the best in the world" nice, but some folks find that.  Especially true w/the LSD2 cable (I agree, that is dramatic).

the good part about TS.com supplied silver cable
- inexpensive.  hell, 4 RA neutrik black XLRs approach $40, then the wire, and the techflex, and the tubing, and the silver solder...., well over $50 in parts alone.  Then bench time.
add all that plus the cost of a facility to make them in...and then you're talking pro retail prices.

I think the cables we (myself, todd, matt..etc etc) offer are a great product for the money.  You can do better, but you'll really have to put your homework and time in to find better at the price.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Then bench time.

Definitely..  And when you're doing techflex, etc, it really is quite a lot of time.. and it requires a fair bit of attention to detail. Never any fun to discover you forgot some heat shrink or techflex after you've soldered the xlr on..  It also takes time to clean the flux off (I hate that step). You can use no-clean fluxes and try and skip that step but I don't take that shortcut. Kester 44 for me.. Some suggest that the solder and flux combo make a significant difference.  I haven't done those tests so I don't know.

I think folks who have never made cables would be surprised at the effort required if you sat them down at the bench and walked them through every step they have to do.  Especially for custom stubbie xlr's..

One cable I would like to try... Schoeps active cable.  It is a 3 conductor copper with the heaviest shielding I have seen.. About $1.25 a foot.

One thing about cable cost.. I'm sure there are basically 'free' sources of cable from folks with military connections and huge spools of the stuff. And also surplus and being in the right place at the right time.