Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Barry Hufker]

I guess I'm going to try to stir the pot again on this subject: does/should a microphone cable have 'a sound'?

I just finished auditioning a new microphone cable (a new product) from Company X.  It's a good cable, well-built using a proprietary "system" (my word) of silver and copper.  The XLRs on the end are Neutrik.

I have heard cable differences in the past but usually attribute them to poor quality of the materials used or the amount of capacitance.  I tested "Cable X" (my name for it) as well as I could, comparing its resistance with others I own: Gotham "star quad", Gotham "regular" (2 conductors and a shield) and Canare Star Quad.  I purposely used different lengths of wire to see how the resistances might vary.  I measured pin 3 only for each.

Gotham Star Quad (50'): 13.2 ohms
Canare Star Quad (15'): 16 ohms
Gotham "regular" (25'): 2.4 ohms
Cable X "proprietary" (20') 3.2 ohms


Using an a capella concert as the music test, During rehearsal I used a pair of Sonodore RCM-402 microphones (omni) in an "A-B" configuration.  They have mogami wires going from the multipin output of the mics. to the power supply.  The mics are solid state but have their own dedicated supply.  From the supply I ran two 100' audio runs to a Gordon Instruments Model 5 preamp (two pres in a unit).  From there, I used two, 3'Canare cables to the input of a Sound Design 722 recorder (using it's built-in converters).  The rate was 96/24.

The sound for this set up was good and as expected.  For the concert, I kept everything the same except substituted two 40' runs of Cable X.  The difference -- an improvement -- was quite noticeable.  The sound was more open and "smoother".  I don't know how to expand on the idea behind that word.  Now you could say it was the different resistances between the Gotham Star Quad and Cable X.  And/or you could say it was the different lengths of the cables.  But I believe it to be more than that.

Adding Quickly: I did a similar voice test using a U-47 FET, Cable X and the "regular" Gotham cable.  The lengths and resistances not being exact but close.  Again I heard the difference. The setup was FET to Gordon preamp (same channels and gain setting used for the swap) to RADAR 24 (Adrenaline Plus) at 96/24.

I then ran a frequency sweep from my monitor speaker through the FET, using the same two cables, recording on a RADAR at 96/24.  I did an FFT of each sweep.  Cable X's sweep showed more detail than Gotham's.  Gotham "rounded" or didn't show a lot of things that Cable X's sweep did -- slightly sharper at points with the appearance of minor changes simply not in the Gotham sweep.

NOW: If the sound of cables comes from "something being wrong" with a system (and I am willing to accept that).  Then which system (wire -- Gotham, Cable X) is "wrong" and what is "wrong" in such a simple setup?

Thanks for reading this.  I've tried to say it all as briefly as possible, so it may be that I need to clarify things to you as this thread continues.

Barry

[Markus Sauschlager]

Until January this year I thought that the "cable affects sound" thing was nothing but esotherical BS. Then, by incidence, I spoke with someone who owns some Monster cables and stated my opinion. He simply gave me two SP1000 cables and said "try it!".
It struck me hard when there was a difference already in the headphones while doing some test recordings, even before actually A/Bing the recordings. I absolutely dislike the terrible handling properties of the Monster. I listened over and over again that evening and finally found the results with another cable "better" (interestingly from my first impression in the phones I liked the Monster best).
I listened to my test again time after time with fresh ears and unfortunately liked the Monster best each time…
I did further extensive tests including Gotham GAC-3 and Mogami 2534 and 2549 in the hope one of these may beat the Monster. None did. The Gotham was closest but the upper mids seem to be a bit scooped and smeared while offering similar top end resolution. Monster sounded most true in a certain way. (I tested with two acoustic guitars, mandolin and voice, and repeated the test using various mics. Only with an SM7 I liked the GAC-3 better).
I ended up buying two SP1000 cables, because at least for stereo mainmic applications I found myself finally wanting the extra "truth" and immediacy they offer. (I’m still feeling like a fool because I paid such an amount of money merely for cables).

However I still think that a cable cannot "sound" better than another, but that some are degrading the signal less or different than others and in popular music close miking applications it may not necessarily make a significant quality difference in the end.

Barry, I doubt that the differences are caused merely by resistance differences.
I neither think one can say that one is "wrong". But I think it’s best to simply use your ears. In case the "truer" sounding one was "wrong", would you use the "right" one even you don’t like it as much?

Could you say what "CableX" is? I’m quite interested, as I’m still looking for an equivalent substitute for the monster (that is more flexible, less expensive and doesn’t have that weird plastic mesh around it. They make a shockmount almost useless because of their stiffness)

Best regards,
Markus

[Barry Hufker]

Markus,

Now that I read your comment I'm sure you're correct.  It is not an issue as to which cable is better but as to which one degrades the signal least.

I'm sure it is not resistance as a sole factor.  Resistance, capacitance, quality of materials, etc. are certainly factors.  And I would always let my ears be the judge.  That's why I think Cable X has some advantages in certain situations and maybe few (or none) in others.  But I am really eager to have someone propose why two wires sound different when the electrical difference in the circumstances between them appears to be so small.  Some people will propose there can't be audible differences without some technical variance.  I don't know...

I'd prefer not to tell the brand for now.  For now, I'd like the discussion to be rooted in "the real" (an actual, true example) without bias.

Thanks,

Barry

[Schallfeldnebel]

I experienced capacitance is an important issue if you talk about the sound of a cable. I was one of the first users of special microphone cables in 1989 of the Van Den Hul brand. Most of my collegues did not take the issue seriously at that time, but I came home always with better sounding recordings, so finally some of them had to admit there was some truth.

What also plays a big role is the material of the dielectricum. Capacitance is one thing, but what is the material isolating the inner wires from the shield. That can be plastic, it can be Teflon or as in video distribution, it can be even air.

The cables using Teflon sound better than those using plastic, and the cables with airpockets, sound the best, only they are very hard, and used only in permanent set-ups. Also I believe that cables with a massive core, sound better than using thin single wires to make the cable flexible.

Most funny, although all my experience since 1989, I quitted using special cables when I placed converters on stage in 1995, and went AES out to my machines. The effect of only using 10m of cable weighted up against 50m or more highend cable. It was also out of practical reasons. Most of the time the best sounding cables are the worst in handling. Also single cables sound much better than snakes even when made from the same material, so I started to use single wires, until in found out rolling out, and cleaning up cables took about 2.5 hours of work altogether for every session.

Most cables of Van Den Hul I used in those days were in a sort of experimental stage, and never designed for the tough life on the road, so often these cables got problems. Broken wires inside causing me nightmaires. My worst sounding cables are still the ones which are still alive, most good ones are unuseable.

I use Gotham since it is flexible and good shielded. I do not care about the sound anymore because the time I win, I can put in balancing instead of rolling out several cables.

Erik Sikkema
Schallfeldwebel

[Barry Hufker]

Thanks Erik for sharing your story.  The cables I've been listening to are flexible and I believe durable, although only time will tell.

Investing in outstanding cables is a tough thing.  We use so many of them that if we purchased and used only the best, the financial cost would be huge.  As you know, I do a fair amount of remote recording and I've had people paint my cables when I wasn't around.  Yes, that's true.  I was recording a stage show of a chorus with a small band.  All my cables were run and the show was set.  When I returned I found the group had painted the stage floor black -- and my cables (grey already) as well.  I was furious and made a stink about it.  But the point is, the best cables are possibly not the best choice, as you say.

Oddly tho' the cables I am testing seem to make the sound smoother.  That can be wonderful for some things such as a capella chamber chorus or maybe a nice, "smoky" jazz vocal, but at the moment the cable makes me wonder if it is somehow robbing the signal of its transient response.  I haven't tested for that and I need to, but that is how this wire makes me feel, although I've no proof of that.

Barry

[mwurfl]

Hi Barry -

Did you have the Gordon's input impedance set for 2 M ohms, or the low Z setting?  I would expect that the 2 Mohm setting would minimize the effects of cable reactances (C and L), and would thus minimize any audible differences between the cables.  To that end, it would also be most interesting to have you repeat the whole test (if you have the time and inclination!), only changing the input Z switch to the other position, and then see if the audible difference between cables is more apparent, less apparent, or the same.  If you judge it to be the same, it would be most fascinating!

Thanks for the report!

Mark Wurfl

[Klaus Heyne]

This post comes at an interesting, coincident time:

After hearing from yet another of my clients (a highly reputable classical engineer) who was wondering why he gets RF in certain environments with his cables, I decided that from now on I will supply the interconnects as part of any major microphone restoration/upgrade/custom modification I provide.

It is plain ridiculous to spend thousands of dollares on such work, where I try to squeeze the last bit of available performance out of a mic system, only to give a considerable amount of that back over to (to me) unknown cable choices the client makes, or defaulted to by coincidence.

I will ask the client to use the cable I provide for several weeks/gigs, then, if he wishes, he can go back to the choices he would rather like to make.

The cable, by the way, is Gotham's GAC 3 (the old Austrian-made, thicker, doodo brown version) terminated to my instructions and equipped with Neutric goldplated connectors.

[maxdimario]

Barry have you tried making your own with shielded solid copper wire? there are some kinds of phone wire you can buy like this.

[Barry Hufker]

Max,

No, I haven't.  This wire supposedly is a combination of silver and copper, or silver-clad copper.  I haven't opened it up to look (lazy).  I should investigate more but other projects are taking my time.

Mark,

I'll have to check into this with Grant Carpenter.  I know for the Sonodore experiment the Model 5 input impedance was 2M ohms.  I wanted to get a signal straight from mic to cable to preamp for the next test so I powered a U47 FET directly from the preamp.  This is the part I have to check: pressing the phantom power button lowers the input impedance (I believe) to 1k ohms.  But in this test the difference in quality was noticeable as well.

Barry

[rodabod]

I don't really follow the argument that some cables sound noticeably better than others. However, I would recommend the use of Starquad cable in environments where picking up noise could be an issue.

[Barry Hufker]

Roddy,

I respect your opinion, please tell me what you "don't get" as I'd be very interested.

I use star quad all the time as I do a lot of recording in theatres as well as "downtown" where there's a lot of RF.  I know (from Klaus) about "reussening" for RF and so I use Gotham Star Quad.  I guess I am not yet in a financial or aethetic position to own poop colored tho'.

Barry

[Barry Hufker]

Mark,

I've just received a reply from Grant Carpenter:

"Yes, by the P48 standard, input XLR pins 2 and 3 are each pulled up to the phantom supply with a 6.81k ohm resistor, setting the common-mode Z, or a differential Z of 13.62k ohms.  At 2M ohms input Z, the input stage does little to further load the mic."

So to sort of answer your post, I've tried the experiment at 2M ohms for music and at 13.62k ohms for speech.  In both cases there was an audible difference.  I don't know exactly how similar because of the two difference sound sources.  But the essential character of the change was there in both cases.

Barry

[mwurfl]

Thanks for the update Barry -- interesting!

I can see that my near future may just see me doing this very sort of test for myself, using my own Gordon.  Although, it would be nice to know what "cable X" is so I can try the test with it too....

Mark Wurfl

[Grant Carpenter]

(Hello Barry and Mark),

Regarding audio paths, I prefer the least current through the shortest conductor, thus the 2M ohm input Z.  The P48 phantom supply is electrically part of the mic, is a part of the output Z of the mic, but is physically located outside the mic, typically in the pre.  The resulting signal and supply currents must pass through the mic cable and will be affected by the cable (and supply), becoming part of that mic's signature.

My shortest answer to the frequent "which mic cable?" question is Teflon is the best dielectric (between all conductors, but not the jacket), silver is the best conductor, and copper is close.  Better yet, when possible, lose the cable and put the pre at the mic.

Grant Carpenter
Gordon Instruments

[Barry Hufker]

Thanks for chiming in Grant.  The thought of plugging the mic directly into the preamp never crossed my mind.  I would try mic directly into preamp.  I do see some downside however -- one could only use phantom powered mics (or dynamic types) -- and there might be reflections off the preamp...

Of course... Grant.... you need to design a "preamp" stand for that....!

Barry