Comparing the tone of three different "boutique" cables

[Florox]

even bill would disagree that his cabs yield dead flat response. the amount of flatness is limited to what the drivers used will do, and i've yet to see a driver with flat response. any cab that claims flat response either has expensive dsp added to it or is lying.

I think you didn't read my reply well.


I corrected the term I used; his cabs are reasonably flat. Q-Tuners and Michael Popes, on the other hand, are completely flat. However, while I realize that the signal isn't dead flat, doesn't mean it's too far away either. Furthermore, it's a pretty close representation and if I can get an even flatter reproduction of my tone, then I'll take it. If a cable can go dead flat, why not? Not everybody is looking to play Galliens, Ashdowns, Elliots or Ampegs.

 

[bongomania]

OK, here is an RMAA test of the system (using the shortest-possible patch cable) and the two previous cables, the Musician's Gear cheapo and the Evidence Audio Lyric HG:

Link Removed

 

[scotch]

even bill would disagree that his cabs yield dead flat response. the amount of flatness is limited to what the drivers used will do, and i've yet to see a driver with flat response. any cab that claims flat response either has expensive dsp added to it or is lying.

Yeah, even studio near-field monitors costing 5 figures rarely claim "absolute flat" response.

Is Florox looking for a cable with flat response outside of the human hearing range or something? Bongo's graphs are pretty darned flat! Most "mere mortals" aren't hearing 20k anyway.

 

[bongomania]

Is Florox looking for a cable with flat response outside of the human hearing range or something? Bongo's graphs are pretty darned flat! Most "mere mortals" aren't hearing 20k anyway.

Right, as was noted previously, you have to take into account the Y axis of the graph. In the first couple graphs there was approx 1/10 of a decibel of rolloff, at frequencies that humans can't generally hear anyway. Aside from that, they're flat. And if you remove the losses associated with the testing mechanism itself, there is not even 1/10th of a dB of rolloff.

 

[JimmyM]

I think you didn't read my reply well.


I corrected the term I used; his cabs are reasonably flat. Q-Tuners and Michael Popes, on the other hand, are completely flat. However, while I realize that the signal isn't dead flat, doesn't mean it's too far away either. Furthermore, it's a pretty close representation and if I can get an even flatter reproduction of my tone, then I'll take it. If a cable can go dead flat, why not? Not everybody is looking to play Galliens, Ashdowns, Elliots or Ampegs.

all these amps have tone controls to where they can be adjusted to get near flat response if so desired. i think way too much of a big deal is made out of flat response with all the controls nooned. i bought into that line of thinking for a little while, but i don't anymore. if you need to move a knob, move it. who cares? it's not a sin.

 

[mulchor]

I corrected the term I used; his cabs are reasonably flat.

Are you missing the part of the thread where we have measurements posted of the cables?

They're far far flatter than the flattest flat cab in an anechoic chamber in the flat part of Kansas. Tuned to Bb.

 

[thepontif]

Psycho-acoustics doesn't refer to the idea the someone psychs themselves into hearing something that isn't there. It refers to the notion that someone DOES hear something. Hearing happens wholely in the brain and partly in the ears. You can't separate the factors that add up to the result.

Plus, static tests don't tell us everything about the behavior of a piece of equipment. Obviously. The way something sounds is something you determine in real time. Measuring gives you a point of reference and a standard way of comparing results. But it simply doesn't explain how something sounds.

 

[mulchor]

Psycho-acoustics doesn't refer to the idea the someone psychs themselves into hearing something that isn't there. It refers to the notion that someone DOES hear something. Hearing happens wholely in the brain and partly in the ears. You can't separate the factors that add up to the result.

Plus, static tests don't tell us everything about the behavior of a piece of equipment. Obviously. The way something sounds is something you determine in real time. Measuring gives you a point of reference and a standard way of comparing results. But it simply doesn't explain how something sounds.

The tests weren't just multimeter static readings, but rather reading the results of a dynamic signal passed thru.

What more than this would you want?

(aside: I think psychoacoustics as a specialization of psychophysics, which is the most primitive of scientific psychology)

 

[MEKer]

To put it simply: I think bongomania has validated the point of his premise. Cable schmable. Just get a good one and you are good to go. Pshaw.

 

[scotch]

Psycho-acoustics doesn't refer to the idea the someone psychs themselves into hearing something that isn't there. It refers to the notion that someone DOES hear something. Hearing happens wholely in the brain and partly in the ears. You can't separate the factors that add up to the result.

Plus, static tests don't tell us everything about the behavior of a piece of equipment. Obviously. The way something sounds is something you determine in real time. Measuring gives you a point of reference and a standard way of comparing results. But it simply doesn't explain how something sounds.

Sure, absolutely! Thats why I keep saying that there is always a 'human' factor. Playing an instrument isn't a laboratory endeavor. (At least, making music shouldn't be!) Everything from the mood of the player, their expectations, environment, etc... all play a significant role in what we 'hear'.

However, 'deluxe' cable markers use deliberate terminology and phraseology that leads the consumer into making purchases. Something as simple as a cable (a 1/4" instrument cable is simple compared to the rest of the circuitry we're playing through!) shouldn't cost hundreds of dollars. At least, not from an audio perspective! It's time to hold the high-end cable makers to task if their products aren't what they claim they are.

 

[bongomania]

Continuing with that theme, the cable makers use the claim of objective data to support their claim of subjective superiority. They do not simply say "ours sounds better", they try to make that claim plausible by talking about phase, transients, speed, and so forth--and these supposedly objective and measurable claims are what I intend to test. As stated multiple times already, spectrum analysis is just the first wave of testing here.

 

[ggunn]

He's not saying that. He's saying that we do need to not fall into the same trap that previous generations did - We can't just say that "a cable is a cable", just as they used to be able just say that "the universe revolves around the earth".

Just like we can point to graphs and say
"everything's is...the same... so it's the same", they pointed to the sky and said
"everything goes...around us..so they go around us".

And he's right. That's why science works, because things don't just stay the same. People constantly test things over

Scientific principles do not change; only our interpretations of our observations do.

As you were.

 

[ggunn]

And BTW, I have no interest in "being right" on an individual level. I have no ego attached to these results--and in fact I had to let go of some ego in order to publish them here. My only interest is in using objective tools to test subjective claims.

Every so often I have to have the conversation with my wife about the difference between "being right" and "being correct".

 

[thepontif]

The tests weren't just multimeter static readings, but rather reading the results of a dynamic signal passed thru.

What more than this would you want?

(aside: I think psychoacoustics as a specialization of psychophysics, which is the most primitive of scientific psychology)

Look, it's ALL primitive, bro. If it wasn't, someone would have real answers to this stuff.

Psychoacoustics is what it is. Fact is, people don't all hear the same thing given the same source. Just like two witnesses to a crime don't remember it the same way. We're not that cut and dried.

Given the REAL world, I just think that how something sounds is a function of what it does to a musical signal while the music is being played. So in that case what would you measure for? Frequency response doesn't even scratch the surface. Maybe notes per square inch?

Fact still remains, two cables that "measure" exactly the same may not necessarily "sound" the same. 2 different sets of monitors that measure "flat" (whatever that is) don't necessarily sound the same.

And the same cable listened to by 2 different people can't be a fair comparison since the two people bring their own unique sets of ears and whatever baggage comes along. How can one person know what another hears? Why does 440Hz sound like an "A" to some people and not to others? Everyone's eardrums vibrate at 440Hz...so why do some (and in some cases, people who are NOT musicians) recognize it as an "A"?

You can't measure how something sounds. You can't dance about architecture, and you can't think your way into a good musical performance. All disparate concepts.

 

[thepontif]

Sure, absolutely! Thats why I keep saying that there is always a 'human' factor. Playing an instrument isn't a laboratory endeavor. (At least, making music shouldn't be!) Everything from the mood of the player, their expectations, environment, etc... all play a significant role in what we 'hear'.

However, 'deluxe' cable markers use deliberate terminology and phraseology that leads the consumer into making purchases. Something as simple as a cable (a 1/4" instrument cable is simple compared to the rest of the circuitry we're playing through!) shouldn't cost hundreds of dollars. At least, not from an audio perspective! It's time to hold the high-end cable makers to task if their products aren't what they claim they are.

This I agree with. However, I know from experience that it can be more expensive than you might think to make a cable. If it costs the manufacturer $30.00 in quantities (including all overhead like packaging and shipping and yada yada) then that cable will sell for $120.00. To me, that's reasonable because if you're looking at the retail world, everyone in the chain has to make money. Boutique cables are made in small quantities and if they really are good, can be expensive.

My experience has been that a good quality cable...a solid design that isn't just cheap...is all you need as long as it holds up and is reliable. Sonically, as long as you're using a bass with a preamp, and hence some cable drive capability to swamp out capacitance, you're fine.

If you use a 20' cable with a high impedance passive bass, a really good quality, low capacitance cable will likely make some difference over a cheap one. Although I'm not sure there's any benefit to spending hundreds of dollars. Esoteric isn't the key.

And to whomever it was who pointed out capacitance as more of a factor than cable resistance, that's true sort of. But the fact is it's both together that get you into trouble.

If you have high resistance, and high capacitance, that's a bad combo. A low resistance cable, and a really low impedance source, will not be harmed much by relatively high capacitance in the cable.

It's the RC time constant that gets you into trouble.

f = 1 / 2(Pi)RC

If R is really low, C can be a little higher without a problem.

 

[Florox]

Are you missing the part of the thread where we have measurements posted of the cables?

They're far far flatter than the flattest flat cab in an anechoic chamber in the flat part of Kansas. Tuned to Bb.

Sure they are, but I could swear I saw a rolloff at around 18k. Could be wrong, I have limited knowledge of graphs. As for JimmyM, I'm right there with you, I can't understand why people never use the EQ or boost the the signal, thinking it's a sin! However, I'm intrigued by the idea of getting the flattest, most accurate depiction of the sound of my bass before I do anything else with it; I like to know with what I'm working with, and have it completely controlled. You play an SVT, so I guess what I seek is of no importance to you. To each his own.

Edit: I would also like to add that there are humans capable of hearing 22K, and although I'm pretty sure I'm not one of them, I just want to put it on the table.

 

[thepontif]

Continuing with that theme, the cable makers use the claim of objective data to support their claim of subjective superiority. They do not simply say "ours sounds better", they try to make that claim plausible by talking about phase, transients, speed, and so forth--and these supposedly objective and measurable claims are what I intend to test. As stated multiple times already, spectrum analysis is just the first wave of testing here.

Yeah, I had a guy try to tell me that his power cord corrects the phase of the power.

"Relative to what?", I asked him.

I got an answer that didn't make any sense. But he still maintained the position that I didn't know what I was talking about. Power within an amplifier is DC. It doesn't have "phase". It gets rectified right away. Granted, if the AC is a perfect sine wave it's best, but a passive power cord isn't going to correct the phase of anything. It might clean up the AC a little. But if your power supply is made right, it has all the filtering it needs.

It really is a load that a lot of them are feeding us. It's a shame, because there are really good products out there that are worth using. And good cables CAN make a difference in the right application.

I think people make the mistake of thinking that because it gets a particular result for one person, that they'll get the same result.

Manufacturers try to make all this stuff plug and play, but truth still is you have to KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING in order to get the absolute best result.

 

[A440Hz]

So, Bongo, will there be some impulse-response and step-response testing?

Of course, if you run an FFT of the impulse response, you'll theoretically get the same as the frequency sweep, but via a different method. It'd be cool to measure transient response, as you seemed like you were hinting in this direction.

Another possible test is that of running multiple tone sweeps (or even just a 1kHz tone) at multiple levels to test linearity. I totally believe that Cu is linear, but dielectrics and other things can go nonlinear--probably only at extreme levels. Bongo, you're a compressor expert, so I don't know if you've developed quantitative measurement techniques for compressors, but this would be of the same variety of test.

BTW, I was reading something on Tara Labs site about "frequency linearity" in their (pretty sparse) white papers, and it was driving me up a wall. They meant "spectral flatness" but kept talking about "linearity." Of course, in audio, non-linearity is only desirable if it's of the 'euphonic' variety, usually from vacuum tubes and transformers. But to throw around jargon words like 'linearity' and be using them in the wrong context is at best ignorant and/or careless, and at worst, deceptive. I'd venture to say it was probably ignorance/carelessness, in the sense that I don't like lawyers.

 

[A440Hz]

Yeah, I had a guy try to tell me that his power cord corrects the phase of the power.

"Relative to what?", I asked him.

I got an answer that didn't make any sense. But he still maintained the position that I didn't know what I was talking about. Power within an amplifier is DC. It doesn't have "phase". It gets rectified right away. Granted, if the AC is a perfect sine wave it's best, but a passive power cord isn't going to correct the phase of anything. It might clean up the AC a little. But if your power supply is made right, it has all the filtering it needs.

It really is a load that a lot of them are feeding us. It's a shame, because there are really good products out there that are worth using. And good cables CAN make a difference in the right application.

I think people make the mistake of thinking that because it gets a particular result for one person, that they'll get the same result.

Manufacturers try to make all this stuff plug and play, but truth still is you have to KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING in order to get the absolute best result.

Tell all that to one of the marketing guys at a major MI corporation that starts with 'F'. He had a phase switch on the mains cord of a guitar amp and was switching it back and forth, swearing that there was a difference. Ignoring the fact that a rectifier completely removes all AC phase information from the power signal...

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Sure they are, but I could swear I saw a rolloff at around 18k.

The signal does roll off a bit before and after, where, I couldn't tell you exactly as the X-axis isn't marked. I can see some marker lines, but can't really make it out on this monitor to see the divisions (and even if I could, it would be speculation).

However, one thing I will point out, the drop we're seeing is about half a dB. Which is tiny! It also depends heavily on your speaker setup, but I don't think you'll find many bass cabs with stellar results in the 18-22K range or in the sub 50Hz range, so in that respect, I don't think it'll make a real-world difference.

I think the take home point from this experiment, is the similarity between the cables.