• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

"Tone of boutique cables" continued: spectrum analysis graphs

#41
I repaired my PW cable, took my bass downstairs where I've got a Yorkville XS400 sitting on top of an Ashdown 115D. I've always felt is a dark sounding muddy setup and frequently boost lots of treble. I'm currently building a Fearful to remedy the situation. I compared the Elixir and the PW cable and there is a huge noticeable difference in volume and tone. I prefer the Elixir on my home setup, probably because of the "fuller" tone. The Elixir has much more volume, a huge difference, and the sound is much "brighter and fuller". The PW sounds like mud by comparison, and the volume must be turned up considerably to match the Elixir. I believe some EQing could help, but I'm simple and like it when it sounds good close to the center.


There is no tweeter on my home setup, which may be why I preferred the PW at my friends house, and the Elixir here. The difference in volume output has me perplexed. Perhaps all this time (2 years+) I've been thinking my system sounds like pure mud is caused by a crappy cable? Wow....

This is on a passive P bass, and I'll take the Pepsi Challenge any day. There has to be a way to setup a video camera, the difference in output volume and tone is so immediate and obvious, anybody claiming there is no difference between instrument cables on a passive bass is just plain WRONG. Fatso Flex is en route from the great Amazon..... ;)


Luke
 
#43
If a cable causes even a slightly noticeable reduction in volume, it's defective.

When you consider that passive input impedances are typically 500 kΩ or higher, and even active inputs are tens of kilohms, it's clear that a cable will not have any effect on volume unless it has very high resistance, like at least hundreds of ohms. And how hard is it to make an instrument cable that has less than, say, 1 ohm of resistance? Answer: not hard at all.
 
#44
bongomania said:
That's an even more extreme case of what I was describing there about the Elixirs! George L's have even lower capacitance, so with a passive instrument they pass more high frequencies and have less of a hump in the mids, making them seem thin, shrill, brittle, etc. But again, all that means is you can do the EQ shaping at the amp instead of with the cable. Or, alternately, you can choose higher-capacitance cables, and have your signal pre-EQ'ed before it hits the amp--that's a completely legitimate personal preference.
Click to expand...

That is what I figured. Yes, they are really quite a bit brighter and more 'open' sounding with my passive P. I like that, but I also like the more attenuated top end and 'perceived warmth' of some of my other higher capacitance cables.

+1 to your comment though that there is some beauty to getting the 'full signal' into your amp and then controlling the tone from there. Of course, with my active instruments, the George L's sound like everything else. However, with my passive P, it is a surprisingly noticable effect in the upper mids and treble.
 
#45
Bob Lee (QSC) said:
If a cable causes even a slightly noticeable reduction in volume, it's defective.

When you consider that passive input impedances are typically 500 kΩ or higher, and even active inputs are tens of kilohms, it's clear that a cable will not have any effect on volume unless it has very high resistance, like at least hundreds of ohms. And how hard is it to make an instrument cable that has less than, say, 1 ohm of resistance? Answer: not hard at all.
Click to expand...

Both cables look good, work fine and both measure less than 1 ohm on either conductor from plug to plug, just replaced the bad end on the PW, otherwise both cables are in good shape and fairly "new". Both sound alright, but definitely different in tone and volume. Face it, there can be a difference in tone/volume on a passive setup with different types of cable.

Bongo says t's the capacitance that is causing the difference, not the resistance.
 
#46
Actually, you would have to have significant resistance to get a change in volume.

Differences in capacitance can affect tone, but you'd have to lock down your tone control to make a good comparison because even a slight nudge of the knob would tend to affect the tone more than a change of cable would, except for extremely capacitive cables.
 
#47
Regarding change in levels, there's two things going on (that I know of):

1) The RC filter created by a cable connecting to passive pickups/pots can have a resonant hump at a fairly wide range of frequencies.
2) I posted graphs earlier in the thread that clearly showed a difference in levels, when the only thing changed was the cables, even when connecting a low-z output to a hi-z input with no guitar electronics in the chain. Those differences in level were 1 dB or less, so not audible on their own--but when you combine them with the movement of the resonant peak, it's quite reasonable to see how somebody could perceive a change in volume.
 
#48
The difference in perceived volume is OBVIOUS. All I did was swap cables, no knobs bumped or touched. Strange thing is, the Elixir seemed more quiet on my friends Peavey, the PW seemed more quiet on my Yorkie. I'm sure the natural frequency response of said amp and cab had a lot to do with the volume difference. I'm talking 1/3 to 1/2 turn of the volume knob on the bass to compensate from cable to cable. I swapped it several times to be sure.

Again, no perceived difference on my Tascam, very little difference on my 15w practice amp (more highs with the Elixir), BIG difference using larger amps/cabs.
 
#50
The fact that super low capacitance cables appear to reproduce unlikable tones seems to echo the whole Tube/transistor and digital /analog preferences many express.
Seems that 100% hi fidelity at all points int the signal chain may not be the most desirable goal for music.

Makes you wonder how much time Leo Fender spent in front of an oscilloscope vs in front of a speaker.
 
#53
Yes, I think that's the idea behind what mambo4 was saying--that very often there is content in a flatly, "perfectly" reproduced signal that many ears find to be harsh, nasal, thin, etc., and that the coloration provided by non-linear processing can make the signal sound much better to the average human ear! Over on TGP I get into this argument fairly often, where people say "X cable sounds warmer and smoother", and I say "yes, that's because it has high capacitance and you're playing a passive guitar", and they invariably respond that I'm an idiot who listens with his oscilloscope instead of using his ears like a real musician... :rolleyes: Never mind that I was just explaining a probable reason why they were right, in their particular case... A resonant hump in the mids and a rolloff of ultra-highs is a recipe for "warm and smooth" in terms of human listening perception.
 
#54
bongomania said:
Yes, I think that's the idea behind what mambo4 was saying--that very often there is content in a flatly, "perfectly" reproduced signal that many ears find to be harsh, nasal, thin, etc., and that the coloration provided by non-linear processing can make the signal sound much better to the average human ear! Over on TGP I get into this argument fairly often, where people say "X cable sounds warmer and smoother", and I say "yes, that's because it has high capacitance and you're playing a passive guitar", and they invariably respond that I'm an idiot who listens with his oscilloscope instead of using his ears like a real musician... :rolleyes: Never mind that I was just explaining a probable reason why they were right, in their particular case... A resonant hump in the mids and a rolloff of ultra-highs is a recipe for "warm and smooth" in terms of human listening perception.
Click to expand...

+1 This hits the nail on the head.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back