# The cable. Is it the missing ingredient in the perfect tone



## guitarman2

I've been trying to put together my perfect tone for the past year and a half. From selecting the right amp with the right speakers and the right pedals and the right NOS or current production tubes. My band mates and friends may think I'm a little obsessed and maybe I am. But to me its been a fun hobby. And an expensive one.Well for the past couple of weeks I've been thinking a lot about cables and have been doing a lot of research. I've been using Planet Waves for the past year and they've been doing a pretty good job. But now I'm thinking of stepping up to a more expensive cable. Just an experiment really. 
I've read lava cables "Cable Summit", (a bit outdated) and read countless reviews on different cables. I've read how the different high end cables can cater to different styles, etc. Its too bad I didn't have access to the different cables so I could test them my self before buying. Lack of free access to these cable's is what will make this experiment expensive. So I'm trying to do as much research as possible so that hopefully I can select the right cables for me first time.
I have come to the conclusion that the Evidence Audio Lyric HG cables seem to be the appropriate choice for me. They are fairly expensive but not as much as the Vanden hull which were close to being my first choice. 
I'll be ordering in the next day or 2 as soon as I psyche my self up to putting that much on the credit card. After I have tested them I'll post my thoughts.


----------



## Mooh

Sounds cool, and fun. Let us know what happens.

It's obvious, but whatever you do, compare equal lengths, and for any purpose shorter is better. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## starjag

Mooh said:


> [...] and for any purpose shorter is better.


Proof again that size does matter.


----------



## Andy

I absolutely love my Bullet Cables coiled cable. Compared to the Planet Waves, it's a little darker on the top, with thicker mids. Really helps out overdriven tones, and is still bright enough for cleans. Pricey, though.


----------



## bduguay

I've had experience with Evidence Audio cables and can say I heard a difference. At least compared to my mogami I prefered the performance of the E.A.
B.


----------



## jimihendrix

so many incidentals can affect an influence on sound...

air humidity...(moist air dampens speaker cone movement)
elevation from sea level (air pressure changes affecting sound waves)
ac/dc power (dc power is more consistant yet shorter life)
new strings/old strings(eddie van halen swears by old strings)
hemp cones/paper cones
tortex picks/plastic picks
physical size of the room
long cables/short cables
straight cables/coily cables
steel connectors/gold connectors 
etc...the list is endless

did you know that eric johnson is so tuned into the miniscule details of his sound that he can tell you what brand of batteries are used in effects pedals...and exactly how many minutes are left on them before they die...???...

"in the ballpark" is about as close as anyone is ever gonna get to their tone...


----------



## guitarman2

jimihendrix said:


> so many incidentals can affect an influence on sound...
> 
> air humidity...(moist air dampens speaker cone movement)
> elevation from sea level (air pressure changes affecting sound waves)
> ac/dc power (dc power is more consistant yet shorter life)
> new strings/old strings(eddie van halen swears by old strings)
> hemp cones/paper cones
> tortex picks/plastic picks
> physical size of the room
> long cables/short cables
> straight cables/coily cables
> steel connectors/gold connectors
> etc...the list is endless
> 
> did you know that eric johnson is so tuned into the miniscule details of his sound that he can tell you what brand of batteries are used in effects pedals...and exactly how many minutes are left on them before they die...???...
> 
> "in the ballpark" is about as close as anyone is ever gonna get to their tone...


Whats the point of agonizing over things you can't control like air and humidity?
GOD, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference:smile:


----------



## mhammer

Fundamentally, as *wire*, the role that a cable can play is a direct function of its length. Every line foot of cable increases the impact of whatever qualities the cable has (or doesn't). That's why you can use the crappiest cable in the world for a 6" patch cable between pedals, and it won't matter. If you normally run a 25 footer between your guitar and first pedal, though, cable WILL change your tone in one way or another.

Feel free to try this experiment at home. Take a standard 6-8" pedal patch cord and if possible plug your guitar directly into your amp with that cable. Now, take your longest (and what you consider "best") cable, and plug your guitar directly into the amp with that. The difference in tone will likely make you do a double take.


----------



## bduguay

Or, if you have a loop box, go guitar to box and box to amp with the shortest cables you have and in the loop, put the longest cable you have.
Play through that while stomping on the switch to introduce and remove the long cable. This way gives to instant feedback as to how cable length can, in most cases, deteriorate your guitar tone.
B.


----------



## megadan

As mentioned, length is really the major factor here. Wire is wire and will pass signal the same no matter what name is on the box. Connectors can high of higher or lower quality and you get what you pay for there.

as jimihendrix said, there are far more factors that you can't control that a different cable can't make that much difference. Snake oil, nothing more. You can change the cord between your guitar and amp a hundred times, yet the wire in your guitar and in your amp is the same old $0.01 copper wire... huh.


----------



## guitarman2

megadan said:


> As mentioned, length is really the major factor here. Wire is wire and will pass signal the same no matter what name is on the box. Connectors can high of higher or lower quality and you get what you pay for there.


So you feel there is no difference between solid core or stranded, oxygen free copper etc..?



megadan said:


> as jimihendrix said, there are far more factors that you can't control that a different cable can't make that much difference. Snake oil, nothing more. You can change the cord between your guitar and amp a hundred times, yet the wire in your guitar and in your amp is the same old $0.01 copper wire... huh.


So because we can't control certain factors in our environment you're saying nothing you do will make a difference? 
I'll bet the naysayers are those that have no experience with said "Snake oil". Which is exactly why I will experiment with this. If I'm going to become a nay sayer I at least want to be an educated one. 
Let some one come on here who used a very high end cable tell me that its exactly the same as the $1.99 specials at Long&Mcquade.


----------



## greco

guitarman2 said:


> oxygen free copper


I read somewhere that all the tone is transmitted through the oxygen.....9kkhhd

This was meant as a joke, BTW

Dave


----------



## hollowbody

Some wire will always be different than others. Whether it's quality of copper, or the dielectric used to shield the cable, amount of capacitance, etc. There's a ton of reasons why some cable is different than others. Whether or not you like the difference, or perceive it as being better, is up to you.

Go nuts with cables. You might find one that does exactly what you want it to.


----------



## jimihendrix

check this thread for the great cable debate...

http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=5127143

there are links to a guitarplayer mag cable shootout...

http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/49-guitar-cables/apr-08/34729

i own two dogs...three cats...three ferrets...they all love to chew cables...i'd be outta my mind to buy "boutique" cables....anything that involves a credit card to purchase are out of my league...


----------



## guitarman2

hollowbody said:


> Some wire will always be different than others. Whether it's quality of copper, or the dielectric used to shield the cable, amount of capacitance, etc. There's a ton of reasons why some cable is different than others. Whether or not you like the difference, or perceive it as being better, is up to you.
> 
> Go nuts with cables. You might find one that does exactly what you want it to.


What I don't get is there are people that swear by boutiqe amps made with superior transformers and wiring and pedals made of high quality materials and electronics and guitars that are hand made with better materials, yet when it comes to cables they doubt that better quality materials and scientific design make a difference. WTF!!! 
This is a serious hobby to me and I will hot rod the hell out different components in my signal chain for the hell of it. I'll keep the things that benefit me positively and discard those that don't make a difference. 
All I really want from a cable is for it to completely deliver my signal to its fullest potential so that I can hear the full potential of my guitar and amp. Whether a high end cable will do this better than my Planet waves cables remains to be seen. At this point I'm not spending money on the guarantee that the results will be favorable. I'm spending money on the opportunity to find out if it will. If it does work out then thats a bonus. And this is really what I've been doing with every component in my signal chain all along. From the guitar to the amp to the speakers I use in my amp to the tubes I've put in my amp and now the cables. When it came to the amps and my guitars I was lucky enough that L&M had a policy that allowed me to take them home and out on gigs to give them a full test drive before purchase. Even then I've purchased amps only to return them or sell them after a few months when I decided it wasn't what I want. I have one amp that is a life keeper and one of my 2 teles is a for sure life keeper. I've a massed a collection of tubes experimenting with what sounded better. Now I feel the last thing to do is test cables. I'd love to hear from people that have actually owned high end cables and low end and tell me there is no difference. But pretty much all the nay sayers are people that have never experienced the different cables and aren't discriminating enough about their sound to give 2 hoots anyway. And there is nothing wrong with not giving 2 hoots. I've got a brother that has sunk several thousand dollars in to the engine of his souped up car with chrome parts and other enhancements, some that make the car go faster and some that make it pretty. I'm not educated enough about cars to tell him what makes a difference and what doesn't even though I drive a car. So I just keep my mouth shut.


----------



## guitarman2

jimihendrix said:


> check this thread for the great cable debate...
> 
> http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=5127143
> 
> there are links to a guitarplayer mag cable shootout...
> 
> http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/49-guitar-cables/apr-08/34729
> 
> i own two dogs...three cats...three ferrets...they all love to chew cables...i'd be outta my mind to buy "boutique" cables....anything that involves a credit card to purchase are out of my league...


Well hell, I wouldn't even want an animal to chew up my Planet waves cables or the cheap one I keep by my bedside for jamming on my Peavy Bandit.
I've read those links you posted and many more. I've been researching for many days now. Beleive me I don't take this lightly. I find out as much as I can to see how much sense it makes. Then I see where the top of my budget is. I try to forecast the diminishing returns on how much I project to spend. With something like this, in the end it's gonna come down to a certain amount of faith.


----------



## megadan

guitarman2 said:


> So you feel there is no difference between solid core or stranded, oxygen free copper etc..?
> 
> So because we can't control certain factors in our environment you're saying nothing you do will make a difference?
> I'll bet the naysayers are those that have no experience with said "Snake oil". Which is exactly why I will experiment with this. If I'm going to become a nay sayer I at least want to be an educated one.
> Let some one come on here who used a very high end cable tell me that its exactly the same as the $1.99 specials at Long&Mcquade.



Oxygen free copper? Are you kidding me? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Copper and Oxygen are both BASIC ELEMENTS. Copper can oxidize when exposed to air (the outer layer, in other words, a purely cosmetic change). No cable maker can change basic chemistry.

I'm not saying that nothing we do can make a difference, not at all.

But the point stands, you can buy all the expensive cables you want, but the wire at the BEGINNING and END of the chain remains unchanged. 

Yes, a good quality cable will make your tone better. But a $300 patch cord is a joke and it's makers are laughing all the way to the bank. In the end, *as long as the cable is not degrading the tone in anyway, you have achieving all the cable you need.* Buying a better cable cannot add back frequencies or "mojo" that isn't there to begin with in the wiring of the guitar and amp.


----------



## fraser

i dont bother with boutique stuff- the tone may be better, or it may be worse than that of some stock old gear. i look for tonal improvements in the guitars set up- i may tweak the amp to get it to perform the way i want. i might muck about with tube swaps, or tone caps etc- might swap some speakers- but mostly just using parts ive got around- 
i dont throw money at "tone" because all too often i see guys buy expensive this and expensive that and they still sound like crap- or just the same as before.
i use good old belden cable, and switchcraft plugs. something else may last longer, and may sound different, but better? maybe for some, maybe even for me, but id never bother. i just dont have the urge to get that into the tiny details-
you however, have the urge, the motivation, and the resources- so why not?
do what pleases you, man.


----------



## Sneaky

fraser said:


> i dont throw money at "tone" because all too often i see guys buy expensive this and expensive that and they still sound like crap- or just the same as before.


When did you hear me play? 

I admit I'm a bit of a cable snob. I have tried many expensive cables and I do believe they make a difference to some extent. I have tried the Evidence Audio and a couple others from Mark at Lava Cable (my whole pedalboard is done with some of his "mid-priced" cable). I use Kimber and Two Rock speaker cables, have Van Den Hul interconnects on my Hi-fi, and have lots of high end instrument cables (Two Rock, Klotz, Excalibur, Canare, Mogami). 

It really comes down to whether you think it is worth it. Even though there is a difference from one cable to another, it is usually very subtle and "better" to one person may be "worse" to the next. For example, sometimes one cable sounds brighter than another one, but is that better or worse? And, if you don't like it can't you just knock the treble knob on the amp back a bit? 9kkhhd

In the end I have probably spent way too much on cables than any sane person would, but have enjoyed experimenting along the way. And no one will ever convince me that "wire is wire". There is a difference.


----------



## Lemmy Hangslong

Simple answere is YES.

I changed out to monster Cables Studio Pro 1000's two years ago. Great cable. The Evidence Lyric is another, Mogami another, and there are several more great cables.

Anyone who thinks it's snake oil needs to take another listen.

If you don't have the cable stop by my place I have a few different kinds kicking around and I'd be happy to A/B them.

Oxygen corrodes is does not conduct... simple physics air is a resistance.
All copper conductors are not created equal. Read anything on the research of conductors and you will quickly see there is a science behind the material used for conductors.

The cable is as important as the speakers, tubes, component quality and cicuit layout, pickups and dare I say even the guitar used.

Proof is in the pudding:smile:


----------



## guitarman2

Sneaky said:


> In the end I have probably spent way too much on cables than any sane person would, but have enjoyed experimenting along the way. And no one will ever convince me that "wire is wire". There is a difference.



Yes exactly And this is where I'm at now. The cable experimentation stage. I've spent the last year and a half meticulously putting together my rig paying attention to fine details. I'm not going to ignore the possible benefits high end cables may have on my sound.


----------



## guitarman2

KHINGPYNN said:


> The cable is as important as the speakers, tubes, component quality and cicuit layout, pickups and dare I say even the guitar used.
> 
> Proof is in the pudding:smile:



You would know better than me. I'm about to find out though.


----------



## Andy

http://www.aqdi.com/zerocap.htm

~ 1 pf/ft capacitance...your average cable is ~ 30 pf/ft. I don't have any personal experience, but there's some rave reviews on Gearslutz.


----------



## mhammer

My own earlier comment was not to suggest that cable quality or type does not matter. Rather, it was to suggest that quality matters more the longer the cable. You will not be able to hear a difference between brands/types when the cable is 6" but if the cable is 25 feet, most likely you *will* hear a difference, because the individual differences are magnified with each added linear foot. And of course, if you have one 25-footer to your pedalboard, and a second 25-footer to the amp, and everything on your pedalboard is true bypass, you will have a 50 foot cable to your amp when the pedals are off, and in that case cable quality will REALLY be evident.

Read the article on cable capacitance in the old issue of DEVICE that I have scanned and posted on my website: http://hammer.ampage.org/files/Device1-5.PDF

Is there a "best" cable? Not really. Every cable has properties that complement a given situation. If you have 1M volume pots on a single-coil-equipped guitar, you may well find that higher capacitance cable nicely trims back the unwanted highs. Jimi Hendrix used a crappy curly cord, which probably suited his Strat-into-distorted-Marshall setup. My guess is that a player like Nile Rodgers or Tuck Andress, whose tone demands pristine highs, is NOT going to use a curly cord.

My own feeling is that many of the fancy-schmancy cords out there will have some redeeming value. Whether it is a worthwhile expenditure for you in your particular context is a choice you have to make. I would be very hesitant, however, to make any global assumptions about any particular cable being "best" for any and all applications.


----------



## guitarman2

Well I ordered the Evidence audio cables tonight. Guitar to pedal board, pedal board to Dr Z Zverb and 6' cable from zverb to amp were Lyric HG. All pedal board patches were the EA Melody. Then a 2' SirenII speaker cable from amp to cab. All told with shipping $650. 
I did run some tests just to see the difference shorter cables make. I first ran my PW 10' cable directly in. Then I ran a 6' PW cable in and noticed an improvement. Then I took a 19" PW patch cable I had and wow could I hear an amazing improvement. When I gig I go through 6 true bypass pedals a sonic research turbo tuner and an axess buffer (being first in the chain of course) My hope with the new cables is that I can get very close to the tone I had with the 19" patch cable straight in. That would make me happy and be worth it to me. 
The reading I did on another website forum is that Mark at Lavacable will refund if not satisfied.


----------



## Guest

_With _the buffer you heard a difference? Or just auditioning each length of cable separately you heard a difference?


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> _With _the buffer you heard a difference? Or just auditioning each length of cable separately you heard a difference?


The buffer makes a difference but my testing tonight was strictly straight in to the amp.
I was only testing difference of cable length. If it were possible to strap my amp head to my leg and go with a 19" patch cable from guitar I'd be in tonal bliss.


----------



## Archer

I just turn the knobs on my amps until they sound good and use c ables that work. 

Fussing doesnt do a player any good. To me it boils down to a simple question: can you play or not?


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> The buffer makes a difference but my testing tonight was strictly straight in to the amp.
> I was only testing difference of cable length. If it were possible to strap my amp head to my leg and go with a 19" patch cable from guitar I'd be in tonal bliss.


Cool. You'll notice a similar difference if you're buying similarly different lengths of any cable really. And with the buffer: what did you think? Any difference at all detected?


----------



## mhammer

I might point out that on-board buffers in the guitar are precisely to make cable NOT matter.


----------



## jimihendrix

greco said:


> I read somewhere that all the tone is transmitted through the oxygen.....9kkhhd
> 
> This was meant as a joke, BTW
> 
> Dave


greco...you are one evil b*st*rd...ha ha ha...

so...um...you must be referring to a wireless guitar setup...

in that case...your tone is affected by...the air particles...smog...the barometric pressure...the prevailing winds...the u.v. index...the broadcast frequency you choose...the lunar cycle...high tide/low tide...gravitational pull of the sun...


----------



## kw_guitarguy

I don't think I have spent $650 on cables for 3 car audio installs, my instruments and my home theatre...I hope they help you as that's a hell of a lot of money for some wire.

For, my cheapest, oldest cable sounds the same as my brand new Planet Waves cable...but that's just me...$650 would be way better spent on speakers, amps, pickups, things that actually do make an audible difference...

I have taken part in this debate on the home theatre side for years...cable is cable, especially if you are talking digital.

~Andrew


----------



## guitarman2

mhammer said:


> I might point out that on-board buffers in the guitar are precisely to make cable NOT matter.



Since buffers do not gain the complete signal back that is lost by longer cable runs I would think that signal buffers combined with better cables would matter.
My Axxess signal buffer still does not sound as good as a very short cable directly in. But it does sound better than not being on my pedal board.


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> Cool. You'll notice a similar difference if you're buying similarly different lengths of any cable really. And with the buffer: what did you think? Any difference at all detected?



I've had the signal buffer on my pedal board for quite some time now. Months ago when I thought of getting better cable I opted to spend $100 on a used Axxes pedal instead. It certainly did make a lot of difference. When the new cables come I will be testing with the buffer and without. If there is no difference with or without the buffer using the new cable I will take buffer off the board and chalk the benefit of clearing a device off my board to the cable.


----------



## guitarman2

kw_guitarguy said:


> $650 would be way better spent on speakers, amps, pickups, things that actually do make an audible difference...
> 
> 
> ~Andrew


I have Celestion blues in my Dr Z open back, My Dr Z Stangray is my dream amp, I love the pickups in my Custom shop Nocaster and 52 hot rod tele plus I have a Lindy Fralin waiting to go in an new tele as soon as I find the one I want, every pedal on my board is exactly what I want and I certainly don't want to clutter up my board with more as I like to get away with the least possible in this respect. Any other ideas where I could spend $650. Because I have it if need be.


----------



## ne1roc

kw_guitarguy said:


> I have taken part in this debate on the home theatre side for years...cable is cable, especially if you are talking digital.
> 
> ~Andrew


 If you give this link a chance and listen to the sound clips, your opinion may change? 

http://www.aqdi.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> I've had the signal buffer on my pedal board for quite some time now. Months ago when I thought of getting better cable I opted to spend $100 on a used Axxes pedal instead. It certainly did make a lot of difference. When the new cables come I will be testing with the buffer and without. If there is no difference with or without the buffer using the new cable I will take buffer off the board and chalk the benefit of clearing a device off my board to the cable.


I'm eagerly waiting the final verdict!


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> Since buffers do not gain the complete signal back that is lost by longer cable runs I would think that signal buffers combined with better cables would matter.
> My Axxess signal buffer still does not sound as good as a very short cable directly in. But it does sound better than not being on my pedal board.


That's only true if, preceding the buffer, is a long cable run. Mark's suggestion was to move the buffer to the guitar -- before any cable run, save the internal wires in your guitar. You'll find that does make long cable runs unimportant in any way.

Incidentally: where do you run the treble control on your amp? Is it dimed? Cables represent low pass filters. So you can always compensate at the amp with a little introduction of treble, assuming you've got room to move the dial.


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> That's only true if, preceding the buffer, is a long cable run. Mark's suggestion was to move the buffer to the guitar -- before any cable run, save the internal wires in your guitar. You'll find that does make long cable runs unimportant in any way.
> 
> Incidentally: where do you run the treble control on your amp? Is it dimed? Cables represent low pass filters. So you can always compensate at the amp with a little introduction of treble, assuming you've got room to move the dial.



I don't have a treble on the amp but treble isn't a problem. I do have a cut on it and when I need more presence or highs I can turn it up but its almost off as Celestion blues + Tele + bright. For me anyway. Where I notice the difference is that the amp becomes more clear and punchy. Also more bass when using the buffer or especially when going direct with a short cable. Simply turning up cut (treble) doesn't achieve this clear articulation. It more tends to ice pick the highs.


----------



## bduguay

You said it right there. The amps sounds more 'clear and punchy'. This ahs been my experience too when using 'better quality' cables.
I believe if you can hear a difference in the cable, and it's not a ridiculously over priced cable, then knock yourself out.
B.


----------



## EGBDF

*Next up:* find and play to an audience that might appreciate the difference.

:banana:


----------



## Big_Daddy

I recently watched a CBC Marketplace special which investigated the difference between audio cables. Using some pretty sophisticated equipment, they compared the signals from $200 Monster cables and no-name $10 audio cables across the frequency spectrum. The result? The difference as tested was so negligible as to be virtually indistinguishable by the human ear. Just saying.....Monster, you are hwopv

And regarding having to pay for guitar cables (or anything for that matter) with your credit card..... in my +58 years on this planet, one thing I have learned is that if you can't pay cash for something, than you can't afford it. Economics 101 lesson ended. :smile:


----------



## The Usual

Cables do make a difference. I remember reading a great post/article about how capacitance is the biggest factor in guitar cables. I don't know all the math except longer is worse.

I found an old cable at a used guitar store in a bin that has "capacitance corrected" or something like that written on it. It sounds way better than all my other nice cables. But I also hear that a lot of boutique cables are all about shielding and other less important factors. I'd say try a bunch, and pick the ones you like. Funny thing is, I use those cheap POS little connectors for my stomboxes! But they all in a true bypass looper. I know, funny.

And as I understand it, Hendrix cared alot about his cables, funky wah parts that affected the way it swept, and a whole host of other minute details. And he found an audience that cared about what he played.


----------



## guitarman2

EGBDF said:


> *Next up:* find and play to an audience that might appreciate the difference.
> 
> :banana:


I am the audience. I do gig but if I were buying equipment soley based on my audience I'd have spent $1,000 total on everything instead of the estimated $18,000 I've spent in the past year and a half. 
I play gigs to help supplement my music equipment budget. My enjoyment comes from playing at home.


----------



## hollowbody

Big_Daddy said:


> I recently watched a CBC Marketplace special which investigated the difference between audio cables. Using some pretty sophisticated equipment, they compared the signals from $200 Monster cables and no-name $10 audio cables across the frequency spectrum. The result? The difference as tested was so negligible as to be virtually indistinguishable by the human ear. Just saying.....Monster, you are hwopv


Yes, but quite a bit of what goes on in the human ear cannot be quantified. For instance, 20khz is the ceiling for the human hearing range. We can't hear anything above it, theoretically. However, when you listen to DVD-A, SACD or any other medium which goes beyond redbooks 44.1khz limit, there _is_ an audible difference. I've heard it myself, so I choose to take scientific studies with a grain of salt.

Go listen to the exact same recording of a performance on redbook at 44.1khz and SACD at 192khz and come back and tell me you didn't hear a difference. I dare you.

Though we can't really hear beyond 20khz, the argument is that there are transients and harmonics that extend well into the range beyond our hearing that we somehow sense. Whether it's actually heard, or whether they are implicitly sensed is beyond my ken, but there is definitely something going on in the higher frequency bands that humans can interpret. Similarly with bass, there's a lot of low frequency notes that we don't necessarily hear, but feel. In a more guttural sense, it shakes us and we hear the noise through the actual motion of the soundwave. Why would this not work for high frequencies as well.

While this has more to do with digital sources than cabling, my point is that what can and cannot be scientifically "proven," isn't always going to pan out the way the numbers imply.

When I worked in high-end audio, I dealt with everything from Radio Shack cable to the kind of stuff that you'd have to take a second mortgage on your house to buy. I'll tell you this: every single cable sounds a little bit different. I've done blind tests, double-blind tests etc, etc. Every time a cable is changed in a system that has the kind of resolution to highlight small changes like that, you absolutely will hear a difference. However, whether you will _like_ that difference is another story entirely. Finally, whether that difference takes you close or further away from the truth of the original signal is anyone's guess. But, if you spend enough time with cables, you'll find one that suits your needs and tastes.

For me, that would be the Van den Hul Integration. My jaw dropped when I heard this cable in a system. It's by no means the most expensive cable I've heard, far from it in fact, but what it does to the musical signal is nothing sort of magical as far as I'm concerned.

Terry, more power to you in your search. If it's something that truly interests you, go for it! There's much worse things you can spend your money on, like debilitating drug dependencies, degenerative gambling tendencies, or some terrorist sleeper cell.


----------



## mhammer

1) "Punchy" often has to do with alignment of harmonics and fundamentals, something that units like the BBE process are intended to rectify. Alignment is different than mere filtering, although there can conceivably be some slight group delay introduced by cable capacitance effects.

2) I'd be curious as to whether there is audible difference between placement of a buffer in the guitar itself versus an unbuffered guitar running to a buffer in the pedalboard. Perhaps more to the point, I'd be interested in finding out just how much cable or cable capacitance has to be in the way before those two buffering arrangements tease apart. It may be that there is no difference with a 12-15' cable, but audible difference with a 50-footer.

As a sidenote, although it falls down in many ways, Dave Hunter's book on guitar effects pedals includes a terrific sample CD that provides comparison of true-bypass and the buffered bypass output of the Visual Sound pedals. Buffered bypass kicks royal ass.

3) Things like the CBC marketplace comparison, like so many "cable shootouts" often fail to consider context in the manner I described in an earlier post. I think it is also worth considering not just the signal properties of a cable, but the shielding properties too. As someone who does pretty much all his noodling, building, or recording in a room with a CRT monitor, and a couple of fluorescent fixtures, the shielding properties of a cable can be VERY important to me.

4) guitarman2, I'm pleased that the short-vs-long-cable-into-amp demonstration was so persuasive. So many folks don't reaize that the true baseline for comparison is not cable X vs cable Y, but rather what your axe sounds like when there is virtually NO cable. Pretty jarring when you hear it.


----------



## guitarman2

The Usual said:


> Cables do make a difference. I remember reading a great post/article about how capacitance is the biggest factor in guitar cables. I don't know all the math except longer is worse.
> 
> I found an old cable at a used guitar store in a bin that has "capacitance corrected" or something like that written on it. It sounds way better than all my other nice cables. But I also hear that a lot of boutique cables are all about shielding and other less important factors. I'd say try a bunch, and pick the ones you like. Funny thing is, I use those cheap POS little connectors for my stomboxes! But they all in a true bypass looper. I know, funny.
> 
> And as I understand it, Hendrix cared alot about his cables, funky wah parts that affected the way it swept, and a whole host of other minute details. And he found an audience that cared about what he played.


According to most of the cable guru's capacitance plays a less important role than it has been made out. Although it plays an important factor, according to the cable gurus, its less important than other design technologies. Evidence audio doesn't even publish their capacitance (although he supplied the specs when I requested them) as he feels that the numbers used in the industry are where some of the "Snake oil" reputation comes from. There were much cheaper cables with lower capacitance values then Evidence audio. so I didn't make up my mind based on that alone.
Planet waves claims to have a low capacitance value but does not publish it.
Just as an F.Y.I. Tony at Evidence Audio emailed me the specs as 32 pf/ft on his Lyric Hg cables which I will be using guitar to pedal board, pedal board to Dr Z Zverb and zverb to amp, and 40 pf/ft for the melody cables which I'm using on my pedal board. Although I realize that capacitance is important I wonder how accurate the advertised specs are on most cables.


----------



## guitarman2

hollowbody said:


> Yes, but quite a bit of what goes on in the human ear cannot be quantified. For instance, 20khz is the ceiling for the human hearing range. We can't hear anything above it, theoretically. However, when you listen to DVD-A, SACD or any other medium which goes beyond redbooks 44.1khz limit, there _is_ an audible difference. I've heard it myself, so I choose to take scientific studies with a grain of salt.
> 
> Go listen to the exact same recording of a performance on redbook at 44.1khz and SACD at 192khz and come back and tell me you didn't hear a difference. I dare you.
> 
> Though we can't really hear beyond 20khz, the argument is that there are transients and harmonics that extend well into the range beyond our hearing that we somehow sense. Whether it's actually heard, or whether they are implicitly sensed is beyond my ken, but there is definitely something going on in the higher frequency bands that humans can interpret. Similarly with bass, there's a lot of low frequency notes that we don't necessarily hear, but feel. In a more guttural sense, it shakes us and we hear the noise through the actual motion of the soundwave. Why would this not work for high frequencies as well.
> 
> While this has more to do with digital sources than cabling, my point is that what can and cannot be scientifically "proven," isn't always going to pan out the way the numbers imply.
> 
> When I worked in high-end audio, I dealt with everything from Radio Shack cable to the kind of stuff that you'd have to take a second mortgage on your house to buy. I'll tell you this: every single cable sounds a little bit different. I've done blind tests, double-blind tests etc, etc. Every time a cable is changed in a system that has the kind of resolution to highlight small changes like that, you absolutely will hear a difference. However, whether you will _like_ that difference is another story entirely. Finally, whether that difference takes you close or further away from the truth of the original signal is anyone's guess. But, if you spend enough time with cables, you'll find one that suits your needs and tastes.
> 
> For me, that would be the Van den Hul Integration. My jaw dropped when I heard this cable in a system. It's by no means the most expensive cable I've heard, far from it in fact, but what it does to the musical signal is nothing sort of magical as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> Terry, more power to you in your search. If it's something that truly interests you, go for it! There's much worse things you can spend your money on, like debilitating drug dependencies, degenerative gambling tendencies, or some terrorist sleeper cell.


I have spent countless hours for the past week reading reviews and forums where the debate about high end instrument cables rages on. I've read arguments that Mark from Lava Cable has participated in. Your post is the best I've read in support of the high end cables. As you say the numbers in science cannot be quantified necessarily but many very experienced professionals are hearing the difference.
Sometimes we hear with more than our ears. I remember an Hd35 Martin I had on loan for close to a year from Long&Mcquade. The bass that thing would kick in to my stomach was phenomenal. It wasn't necesarily what I heard that was the full experience. I felt it to.


----------



## guitarman2

mhammer said:


> 1)
> 4) guitarman2, I'm pleased that the short-vs-long-cable-into-amp demonstration was so persuasive. So many folks don't reaize that the true baseline for comparison is not cable X vs cable Y, but rather what your axe sounds like when there is virtually NO cable. Pretty jarring when you hear it.


Yeah I wonder how restricting it will be on stage to strap my amp head to my leg and go with a 20" cable from guitar to amp.


----------



## Big_Daddy

I am in total agreement with all of you that there is more to the subject of tone/sound then what the scientific evidence suggests, just as there is more to a guitar solo than simply the notes that are played. It's also about the attack and expression of the player, the emotions that he/she evokes and all of the other subtle nuances that are sometimes hard to put into words. Take two accomplished players and have them play the exact same solo, note for note, and you will see/hear what I mean. The most important part of a solo is the soul. But does a different cable augment or detract from the soul of the music? I honestly don't know but personally don't think so. I am certainly not trying to disparage the OP's quest for tone, just trying to express my own viewpoint about it. Will I spend $200 for Monster cables when the difference (if any) that I hear is negligible? Never. I'm too cheap.:smile:


----------



## guitarman2

Big_Daddy said:


> Will I spend $200 for Monster cables when the difference (if any) that I hear is negligible? Never. I'm too cheap.:smile:



We all have our vices. Everyone puts a different priority and value on things. I'm still using a cheap DVD player because I'm too cheap to upgrade to blu-ray. Even though they'd most likely look better on my 1080P Plasma's.
When it comes to my music equipment I have no problem putting out money on good quality. Sometimes the the money spent makes a difference and sometimes it doesn't. I have a lot of fun in finding out what works for me. To say any one enhancement is snake oil across the board for everyone is usually something said in ignorance.


----------



## Big_Daddy

guitarman2 said:


> I have a lot of fun in finding out what works for me. To say any one enhancement is snake oil across the board for everyone is usually something said in ignorance.


More power to you, man. Enjoy the journey. No ignorance was intended or implied on my part. Just playing devil's advocate. My apologies if that's the way you took it.


----------



## kw_guitarguy

ne1roc said:


> If you give this link a chance and listen to the sound clips, your opinion may change?
> 
> http://www.aqdi.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi


It's possible that there are differences, but my ears can't detect a change between any of my cables. 

That being said, I haven't done any real testing either. I just wish I had $650 to run a test with...

Oh well, I guess if it's truly extra money, go for it! But if playing around is what you want to do, try some tubes, or something, or buy a new guitar!

~Andrew


----------



## guitarman2

Big_Daddy said:


> More power to you, man. Enjoy the journey. No ignorance was intended or implied on my part. Just playing devil's advocate. My apologies if that's the way you took it.



No I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Just in general due to many of the threads I've read in several different discussion forums.


----------



## guitarman2

kw_guitarguy said:


> But if playing around is what you want to do, try some tubes, or something, or buy a new guitar!
> 
> ~Andrew


Been there done that many, many times over. I've pretty much established what I like in a guitar and amp and speakers. I've spent the last year or so experimenting with NOS and current tubes and know pretty much what I like. Its "Cables" turn.
And who said I was done buy ing guitars or trying different tubes anyway?:smile:


----------



## bduguay

Regarding what you wrote earlier about cable capacitance; I was quite surprised when I discovered the capacitance I measured on the 20' E.A. cable was actually higher than that of my 20' Mogami and I preferred the E.A.
B.


----------



## guitarman2

bduguay said:


> Regarding what you wrote earlier about cable capacitance; I was quite surprised when I discovered the capacitance I measured on the 20' E.A. cable was actually higher than that of my 20' Mogami and I preferred the E.A.
> B.


Yes as I said E.A capacitance is higher than some cheaper cables such as George L's. Yet many prefer the sound of the E.A. Mostly what low capacitance does from what I can tell is let way more of the high end through depending on your musical application or equipment this may not be a good thing. The Vanden haul is one of the most expensive cables Lava cable carries and has a very low capacitance 23 I think. It is recommended for cleans not so much high gain. Anyone I've ever heard from who uses it says the same thing. That its jaw dropping. If you use lots of high gain its not necessarily going to work for you. The E.A from what I've been reading seems to be a good balance between clean and higher gain, which is what I'm after. The only proof whether it will work for me is hands on.


----------



## mhammer

Keep in mind that capacitance will matter when the cable is long, and when it is coming from a high impedance source on the way to a device whose input impedance is modest. In other words, capacitance alone is a bad thng under a certain set of (fairly commonly occurring) circumstances. If the signal source is low-impedance, is capable of delivering high current, and the receiving device has a high input impedance, then the capacitance will matter much less, and other things will start to matter. Now, what those other things are is where we start to fall into black holes.

As people who use the Stellartone Tone-styler (or its functional equivalent) will note, when you stick different value caps to ground across the signal, they interact with the pickup inductance to create different resonances. It is easy to imagine that cable X, in tandem with pickup Y, and cable length Z, can produce desirable resonances that provide more benefit than whatever the other cable properties might subtract. So, the capacitance reads "bad", but the little peaks it inserts sound "good".


----------



## Wild Bill

mhammer said:


> I might point out that on-board buffers in the guitar are precisely to make cable NOT matter.


Precisely, Mark!

Man, sometimes I wish I wasn't bogged down with old hippy values! I could write technobabble crap with the best of them to sell snake oil but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night!

Wire is wire! Longer wire or thinner wire has more resistance. However, resistance does NOT change tone!

It only lowers the volume. Resistance lowers ALL frequencies the same! If you really think you lost some signal, that's why we have volume knobs!

A cable has extra factors, however. There are actually two wires to make a return electrical circuit. The main signal wire in the centre is obvious. The return wire has been formed into an over-all shroud that encloses the centre wire, making a shield that blocks hum and stray signals from being picked up by the centre wire.

There is a capacitance between that centre wire and the return shield. Capacitance leaks frequencies and leaks higher ones much more than lower ones. The amount involved in a guitar cable is rather small but when you start talking 20 feet or more it adds up to something significant. Leaking between the two conductors means something is getting shorted out a bit. You will notice it as a loss of highs.

NOT more distortion! Often when we hear ANY change we may not be truly sure just what we're hearing! As I said, more resistance will lower the ENTIRE signal and more capacitance will roll off the highs.

How much of a roll off? In the days before wireless mics the front man in our band would jump out into the audience, using a 50 foot cable I had made for him. He just turned the treble knob up a notch on his Ampeg V4 and that was that!

No matter how scientific we think we are it can be almost impossible to test cables by ourselves without becoming biased in our decisions. The only true way is to have someone ELSE switch the cables and play the guitar, WHERE WE CAN'T SEE THEM!

Everybody thinks they can tell their favourite beer but any bartender knows that after a few you can pour anything in front of them!

Everything else to do with guitar cables is about MECHANICAL QUALITY! This is probably absolutely the most important factor!

Cheap cables break or get poor connections that make scratchy noises. Those old curly cords that Hendrix used were lucky to last even a few days before they started to screw up. I know, I was there back then, cursing and swearing 'cuz it was my job to fix them!

I don't work with enough cables to give any advice or opinion on what are decent brands of quality. Other guys who have used brands for months or years hopefully will chip in with advice. All I believe is that anything over $50 has gotta be snake oil! Anything under $20 is likely crap!

Anything from China with the cable molded right over the ends of the plugs so you can't fix the connections is guaranteed to be crap!

I would agree with Mark that cables of less than a foot to patch pedals are not critical for capacitance but they still should be mechanically strong. 

If anybody wants to see the difference between quality and crap they should go to a real electronics store and ask for a few inches of Belden 8410 cable as a sample. Cut through the rubber and layers with a pocket knife and you'll quickly see what you're paying for. Then compare a Switchcraft 1/4" plug with one of those cheapo Chinese ones from Rat Shack. The plastic insulating material for the tip of the connector is so cheap that you are lucky if you can actually solder to the terminal without melting the plastic and ruining the connector.

Just my .02.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## The Usual

Great post, Bill.


----------



## guitarman2

Wild Bill said:


> All I believe is that anything over $50 has gotta be snake oil! Anything under $20 is likely crap!


This is the kind of statement that means absolutely nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. Its just as ridiculous as someone saying "if the cable costs $100 it must be good".
A wire is a wire. Then why isn't an amp an amp? Or a guitar a guitar? Yes there is more technology in them that will produce a much more dramatic and noticeable difference. But wouldn't using different types of material such as copper, silver or stranded versus solid core produce different audible results?
I'm not saying there isn't a certain amount of "Snake Oil" when trying to determine the appropriate cable but is that not true of and industry interested in making a buck?
To simply write off any cable over 50 bucks as "Snake Oil" is where the ignorance begins just as much as thinking any Cable over $50 is good because it costs that much.


----------



## Wild Bill

guitarman2 said:


> As you say the numbers in science cannot be quantified necessarily but many very experienced professionals are hearing the difference.


I would respectfully disagree, Terry! The science can ALWAYS be quantified!

We just don't always do it, 'cuz we may not have realized what factors are important. That's why predictions are always much less accurate than explanations after the fact.

The reason I'm quibbling is that some folks use the lack of good quantification as an excuse to spread mojo. Learning science is work! Spinning horoscopes is much easier.

With sound and music, engineers have often been guilty of ignorance with some important factors. When I was an electronics parts sales guy I often would be talking with an engineer and after we got past the parts I was offering for his design we'd get into general chit chat. Virtually every time I told him I worked on guitar amplifiers and that the overwhelming preference was for vacuum tubes he'd laugh and ask if I was crazy! After all, transistor circuits could be made so much cleaner than those with tubes.

By 'cleaner' he meant 'less distortion'. After all, we are talking engineers here! So I would gently point out that an electric guitar is SUPPOSED to have distortion! What's more, not all forms or amounts of distortion are equally pleasing to the human ear. Tubes have a long ramp into distortion as you overdrive them, where they gradually sound 'warmer' and 'thicker' before they finally go over the top and get harsh. Transistors tend to have no such ramp. They just stay clean until they lose it, when they then sound like a fuzz box!

If anyone wants to google 'psychoacoustics' there's some fascinating stuff about how we actually perceive sound!

So it wasn't that the engineer's science didn't apply. He just failed to include all the factors.

Sorta like: "Ignore that multi-million dollar high tech targeting computer, Luke! Go with your feelings! Use the Force! It's much more accurate!"

Yeah, right! In the real world Darth Vader would bite you in the ass! Mother Nature has Laws! She does not work by magic. 

Science rules! It's just that it demands some skull sweat to learn it. If you're wrong about something, it's not science's fault. It's your own! You have to learn more.

As for those 'experienced professionals' who claim to hear differences, you can't take them for granted if they're involved in selling you something. You wouldn't believe someone who worked for Imperial Tobacco if he told you nicotine was perfectly safe. Why should you believe someone about cables making a big difference if he works for a company that wants to sell you some? Or a magazine that depends on keeping you interested, either. When I was a kid those hifi magazines had articles so you could build your own amplifier. Those days are gone. They have to write about something so you get 5 pages about the difference in sound from using a $1000 power cord or $400/foot oxygen free copper speaker wire.

That being said, if you search long enough you will always find SOMEBODY with 'bat ears' who can tell you the colour of the batteries in your pedal, just by listening to you play. So what? These guys are so rare that you will never play to an audience who will notice or care about any such differences in your sound.

To paraphrase Kurt Cobain, just play the damn thing! And turn it up! Turn it up LOUD!:rockon2:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## ne1roc

So if Resistance changes volume and Capacitance changes tone, and a cable is manufactured with lower resistance and capacitance, why is this considered snake oil?


----------



## Rugburn

guitarman2 said:


> This is the kind of statement that means absolutely nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. Its just as ridiculous as someone saying "if the cable costs $100 it must be good".
> A wire is a wire. Then why isn't an amp an amp? Or a guitar a guitar? Yes there is more technology in them that will produce a much more dramatic and noticeable difference. But wouldn't using different types of material such as copper, silver or stranded versus solid core produce different audible results?
> I'm not saying there isn't a certain amount of "Snake Oil" when trying to determine the appropriate cable but is that not true of and industry interested in making a buck?
> To simply write off any cable over 50 bucks as "Snake Oil" is where the ignorance begins just as much as thinking any Cable over $50 is good because it costs that much.


I would agree that the connections are key with the better cables. The Planet Waves cables I use are pretty damn good. They've got a lifetime warranty and are really well made. If your on tour and your going to be rolling them up and unravelling them nightly, then perhaps the higher end cables will provide greater durabillity. I think big tonal differences just don't exist between any of the better (over $30 ) cables. In my humble opinion. 

Shawn 

P.S. On another note, I recently picked up an EQ pedal. Now this has really changed my rig's tonal colour for about the same price as a high end cable. I can't believe I waited this long to get one.


----------



## ne1roc

Wild Bill said:


> To paraphrase Kurt Cobain, just play the damn thing! And turn it up! Turn it up LOUD!:rockon2:
> 
> :food-smiley-004:



And then you will surely experience tone loss!:smile:


----------



## guitarman2

Rugburn said:


> P.S. On another note, I recently picked up an EQ pedal. Now this has really changed my rig's tonal colour for about the same price as a high end cable. I can't believe I waited this long to get one.


This is where I get a little annoyed. Because someone claims to hear benefits in tone for a high priced cable it MUST be "Snake Oil". 
The last thing I would ever do is buy a $3500 amp and stick a $50 EQ pedal in front of it. But I won't be grudge you or criticize you for having found a band aid that works.


----------



## kw_guitarguy

Hi Terry,

I agree generally with what you said but this part "To simply write off any cable over 50 bucks as "Snake Oil" is where the ignorance begins just as much as thinking any Cable over $50 is good because it costs that much."

But you bought $650 worth of cable to test, so you must feel that expensive is better?

I am not trying to start a fight, but when you are testing cable and spend $650 on it, then disagree when Wild Bill makes his comment and you disagree, it doesn't make sense...

~Andrew


----------



## guitarman2

Wild Bill said:


> I would respectfully disagree, Terry! The science can ALWAYS be quantified!
> 
> We just don't always do it, 'cuz we may not have realized what factors are important. That's why predictions are always much less accurate than explanations after the fact.
> 
> The reason I'm quibbling is that some folks use the lack of good quantification as an excuse to spread mojo. Learning science is work! Spinning horoscopes is much easier.
> 
> With sound and music, engineers have often been guilty of ignorance with some important factors. When I was an electronics parts sales guy I often would be talking with an engineer and after we got past the parts I was offering for his design we'd get into general chit chat. Virtually every time I told him I worked on guitar amplifiers and that the overwhelming preference was for vacuum tubes he'd laugh and ask if I was crazy! After all, transistor circuits could be made so much cleaner than those with tubes.
> 
> By 'cleaner' he meant 'less distortion'. After all, we are talking engineers here! So I would gently point out that an electric guitar is SUPPOSED to have distortion! What's more, not all forms or amounts of distortion are equally pleasing to the human ear. Tubes have a long ramp into distortion as you overdrive them, where they gradually sound 'warmer' and 'thicker' before they finally go over the top and get harsh. Transistors tend to have no such ramp. They just stay clean until they lose it, when they then sound like a fuzz box!
> 
> If anyone wants to google 'psychoacoustics' there's some fascinating stuff about how we actually perceive sound!
> 
> So it wasn't that the engineer's science didn't apply. He just failed to include all the factors.
> 
> Sorta like: "Ignore that multi-million dollar high tech targeting computer, Luke! Go with your feelings! Use the Force! It's much more accurate!"
> 
> Yeah, right! In the real world Darth Vader would bite you in the ass! Mother Nature has Laws! She does not work by magic.
> 
> Science rules! It's just that it demands some skull sweat to learn it. If you're wrong about something, it's not science's fault. It's your own! You have to learn more.
> 
> As for those 'experienced professionals' who claim to hear differences, you can't take them for granted if they're involved in selling you something. You wouldn't believe someone who worked for Imperial Tobacco if he told you nicotine was perfectly safe. Why should you believe someone about cables making a big difference if he works for a company that wants to sell you some? Or a magazine that depends on keeping you interested, either. When I was a kid those hifi magazines had articles so you could build your own amplifier. Those days are gone. They have to write about something so you get 5 pages about the difference in sound from using a $1000 power cord or $400/foot oxygen free copper speaker wire.
> 
> That being said, if you search long enough you will always find SOMEBODY with 'bat ears' who can tell you the colour of the batteries in your pedal, just by listening to you play. So what? These guys are so rare that you will never play to an audience who will notice or care about any such differences in your sound.
> 
> To paraphrase Kurt Cobain, just play the damn thing! And turn it up! Turn it up LOUD!:rockon2:
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


All I know is that there is a huge difference between playing my guitar clean through all my cables and pedal board and plugging a short patch cable in directly. If a high end cable can at least get some of that back for me then I'm satisfied regardless of the scientific numbers. Signal loss through my rig is a definite reality. I can hear the difference between plugging in to the pedal board and plugging direct in to the amp. I'm not talking long cable runs. I use 10' to pedal board, 10' from pedal board to zverb and 5' from zverb to amp head. And then the cable on my pedal board. Before I got my Axxes buffer there was a huge difference between going through pedal board and outboard reverb to amp and going directly in. The buffer probably regained half that. If the cables can give me a little more I'll take it. And if it happens I believe I'll hear it. What is so dam hard to believe about people hearing the differences that nay sayers have to imply that perceived differences are all in our head? If your ear is that bad then maybe music isn't your bag?


----------



## Rugburn

guitarman2 said:


> This is where I get a little annoyed. Because someone claims to hear benefits in tone for a high priced cable it MUST be "Snake Oil".
> The last thing I would ever do is buy a $3500 amp and stick a $50 EQ pedal in front of it. But I won't be grudge you or criticize you for having found a band aid that works.


Well, you seem to be angry about something I missed. FWIW the pedal cost $150 (regularly $199). I'm putting it in front of my '66 Princeton Reverb to cut some of the bassiness and lack of rich mids when I play my archtop through it. I was resistant to this type of pedal for quite some time, but if you get a decent one they can be an excellent addition to one's rig IMO.


----------



## Wild Bill

guitarman2 said:


> This is the kind of statement that means absolutely nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. Its just as ridiculous as someone saying "if the cable costs $100 it must be good".
> A wire is a wire. Then why isn't an amp an amp? Or a guitar a guitar? Yes there is more technology in them that will produce a much more dramatic and noticeable difference. But wouldn't using different types of material such as copper, silver or stranded versus solid core produce different audible results?
> I'm not saying there isn't a certain amount of "Snake Oil" when trying to determine the appropriate cable but is that not true of and industry interested in making a buck?
> To simply write off any cable over 50 bucks as "Snake Oil" is where the ignorance begins just as much as thinking any Cable over $50 is good because it costs that much.


There is logic behind my statement, Terry! I made my claims BECAUSE I have some knowledge of those materials you mentioned and HOW they affect a signal in an electronic circuit!

All cables use copper wire, to my knowledge. They may plate the connectors with silver or gold. They may also use better quality insulating materials to keep the inner wire and the outer shield separated, especially if the cable will be stepped on when used on stage.

However, as I had said, resistance does NOT affect tone! The lower resistance from plating gold on a connector is mice nuts anyway!

I cite a price range of from $20-$50 because from my knowledge of materials, elelctronics and selling the things to picky engineers for over 25 years I don't believe you'll find a cable of less than $20 that's decent and will last. I also don't believe that changing the materials you mentioned will improve anything once you've gotten up to that $50 mark. Any improvements beyond that with a more expensive cable I believe are just marketing mojo.

That being said, it's just my opinion. I'm entitled to mine, just as you are entitled to yours.

My opinions come from my technical experience. Your opinions come from your playing experience.

I freely admit, you will ALWAYS be a better player than I am!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## guitarman2

kw_guitarguy said:


> Hi Terry,
> 
> I agree generally with what you said but this part "To simply write off any cable over 50 bucks as "Snake Oil" is where the ignorance begins just as much as thinking any Cable over $50 is good because it costs that much."
> 
> But you bought $650 worth of cable to test, so you must feel that expensive is better?
> 
> I am not trying to start a fight, but when you are testing cable and spend $650 on it, then disagree when Wild Bill makes his comment and you disagree, it doesn't make sense...
> 
> ~Andrew


When I supplied the amount that I spent on cable it was merely an FYI. If I thought that amount spent had the most bearing on it I would have bought the Van den Hull cable as its about twice the cost. 
I read as much information about the different characteristics of the materials and the cable and chose based on the numbers. Yes, practical hands on before purchase would have been better but not available to me. 
Also another misconception that many enthusiasts have is that low capacitance is the only thing that matters. I also didn't choose soley based on this part myth as E.A. is far from the lowest.
I may find that this cable may not be my holy grail but it won't stop me from testing others. This is a hobby for me and one I take a great interest. If from a year from now I'm on hear poo pooing the validity of high priced cable, it will be from experience not what some book smart guy with all the numbers infront of him who hasn't even seen a high end cable.
When I golf whether I've payed $30 green fees or $200 green fees its still just land with grass and trees. Sometimes there's a difference and sometimes I just wasted $200 when the $30 experience would have been the same. But I'll never know if I don't try. Don't know if that analogy makes any sense but I am the last person that is going to take the word of a guy that might know more than me technically but him self has never had the hands on experience.


----------



## Wild Bill

ne1roc said:


> So if Resistance changes volume and Capacitance changes tone, and a cable is manufactured with lower resistance and capacitance, why is this considered snake oil?


Because there are practical limits with how much difference you can put into one guitar cable!

Consider a Champ amplifier. You have one 12AX7 preamp, a 6V6 output tube and a 5Y3 rectifier, in a cabinet with an 8" speaker.

You can do a few things to improve it. You can spring for a better speaker. You can buy better quality tubes that will last longer than the Chinese ones that came from the factory.

Once you've done that, now what? You can gold plate the faceplate and replace the tolex with mink or sable fur. You can carve the knobs out of diamond. There are all kinds of things you can do that will run up the price.

However, only the speaker and the tubes will affect the sound! All the rest is impressive but irrelevant to the tone.

The resistance and capacitance of cables in a given price range are going to be very similar, because of what you have to do to offer a product of similar quality. Nobody is going to be able to give you a Planet Wave quality cable for $5 without losing money. By the same token, you can make the shells on the plug ends out of platinum and you can't change the resistance or the capacitance enough to affect the tone. In fact, you would need expensive lab gear just to measure it and know that any difference was there!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## ne1roc

I don't agree with judging something without actually testing the product personally.

guitarman2 has taken the plunge and no doubt will verify that he achieved tone improvement with the cables. 

Give Wild Bill those same cable to try and he would verify they are snake oil.


----------



## guitarman2

Rugburn said:


> Well, you seem to be angry about something I missed. FWIW the pedal cost $150 (regularly $199). I'm putting it in front of my '66 Princeton Reverb to cut some of the bassiness and lack of rich mids when I play my archtop through it. I was resistant to this type of pedal for quite some time, but if you get a decent one they can be an excellent addition to one's rig IMO.


EXACTLY. So your $200 pedal sounds better than BOSS eq or some other chinese made peice of crap that cost $70. Or are you just percieving unconsciously that it sounds better because it cost more and its all in your head?:smile:
I'm not doubting that it sounds better. EQ's infront of amps is just not a theory that works for me but I don't doubt that your good quality one sounds better than a cheap quality.
I've played through cheaper boss pedals and low end equipment and I've played in past years with some great vintage stuff. I now own all boutique or high end fender and there is a difference. The cost has nothing to do with it other than it does cost more to provide this type of quality.


----------



## kw_guitarguy

The golf analogy works...

But what happens a lot, and I think it will happen to you, is when someone spends $X on a piece of equipment (cable, pedal, tv, stereo etc...) that is supposed to be high end...they will convince themselves they hear/see/feel a difference to rationalize the purchase.

I spent hours in a high end audio store demoing speakers for my home theatre...went with what some would consider low end...why? they sounded better to me...BUT had I purchased the really expensive stuff, I would have sworn up and down that they sounded better because I just dumped a ton of cash on them.

I tend to agree with the science side. What gets me is the companies like monster that sell $200 HDMI cables...that's digital...it's ones and zeroes...any cable that can transmit the one and zero is just as good as the monster...you can't improve that one and zero, it either arrives intact or it doesn't. Same with audio, the signal gets transmitted or it doesn't.

I think the only difference higher priced cables offer is better build quality.

To truly test your new cables fairly, you need to do what WildBill suggested, have someone else swap the cables and play the guitar in an area that you can't view so that your opinion isn't biased based on purchase price etc...

~Andrew


----------



## guitarman2

ne1roc said:


> Give Wild Bill those same cable to try and he would verify they are snake oil.


I don't know. Wild Bill seems like an honest and smart guy. I think if he were given a Van den hul or some other high end cable that other pro's revered, and he heard a remarkable difference he'd admit it.
And just so you know Bill, A lot of the pro's testimony I'm speaking of where I've read their endorsments, had no stake in selling the product. They were just users of the product. I saw a post on another thread where Mark at Lavacable said he'd refund if a buyer wasn't satisfied. Now if it was truly snake oil why would so many professional musicians buy in to it. Are they all collectively under the same spell that makes them hear improvements where none exist?


----------



## mhammer

ne1roc said:


> So if Resistance changes volume and Capacitance changes tone, and a cable is manufactured with lower resistance and capacitance, why is this considered snake oil?


"Snake oil" assertions occur when something is promoted as a cure-all, fixing things it stands no real chance of influencing.

Cable resistance can matter a whole heckuva lot when we're talking about speaker cable. Much much less so when we're talking about the few ohms that might accrue over 25ft cables. There may well be much greater resistance presented by oxidation on the input jack contacts than by any cable. If cable X presents 1/5 the linear resistance of cable Y, but both are well below 100 ohms, neither of them are really having as great an impact on sound as 250 ohms stemming from corrosion on the jacks at each end of that cable. That resistance changes volume is one thing. How much resistance it takes to have an audible effect is quite another. Five ohms of linear resistance going to the input jack is nothing. Five ohms between output jack and speaker makes a world of difference.


----------



## Rugburn

guitarman2 said:


> EXACTLY. So your $200 pedal sounds better than BOSS eq or some other chinese made peice of crap that cost $70. Or are you just percieving unconsciously that it sounds better because it cost more and its all in your head?:smile:
> I'm not doubting that it sounds better. EQ's infront of amps is just not a theory that works for me but I don't doubt that your good quality one sounds better than a cheap quality.
> I've played through cheaper boss pedals and low end equipment and I've played in past years with some great vintage stuff. I now own all boutique or high end fender and there is a difference. The cost has nothing to do with it other than it does cost more to provide this type of quality.


Actually it is a Boss!! The first I've ever bought. Though it's their higher-up version the GE-7. Honestly, the graphic equalizer is not really rocket science as far as guitar applications go. Until they come out with a parabolic EQ in a pedal format this one will do nicely. To each their own.

Shawn :smile:


----------



## Wild Bill

ne1roc said:


> I don't agree with judging something without actually testing the product personally.
> 
> guitarman2 has taken the plunge and no doubt will verify that he achieved tone improvement with the cables.
> 
> Give Wild Bill those same cable to try and he would verify they are snake oil.


Well, all I'm saying is that if you wanted me to believe there was a difference I would want to see you listen to somebody else playing when you couldn't see him, while we swapped cables.

We are all human beings and our minds can play tricks. A blind test is the only valid one. You can trust your own experience but for myself another man's experience is never enough. That other man likely is not dishonest. There is a difference between being sincere and being right. I also am not more likely to believe something if a 100 people tell me something or just one, at least when it comes to technical things. 

I just believe that if something is true then it will successfully pass a proper test. It should be able to be measured. 

I also don't care if someone disagrees with my opinion. We are all entitled to our own. My wife has been telling me that I'm wrong about everything since we got married! I've gotten used to it!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## guitarman2

kw_guitarguy said:


> But what happens a lot, and I think it will happen to you, is when someone spends $X on a piece of equipment (cable, pedal, tv, stereo etc...) that is supposed to be high end...they will convince themselves they hear/see/feel a difference to rationalize the purchase.


Seriously. You have to be a little emotionally unbalanced or delusional to hear things that aren't there. I'm not talking. "Oh I think I may have heard a millionth of a fraction more highs or lows". I'm talking "WOW, did you hear that?" If I find that I'm only hearing minute possibilities of improvement. Then, yes I'll agree. Snake oil. But if its a fairly dramatic improvement or change of any kind then I will hear it and not imagine it.


----------



## mhammer

Final comment...for now...

When its a greasy club, the sound of clinking glasses and shouted conversation drowns out a lot, and the distortion is on "11", it is hard to imagine that cables make much of a difference at all, other than simply not breaking easily (Belden 8410 :bow: ).

When it's a studio, the monitors are decent, the instrument feeding that cable has reasonable bandwidth and is played clean, better cables are what you need. How MUCH "better", and what that "better" is, is an entirely different matter, but you *will *want better.


----------



## guitarman2

Rugburn said:


> Actually it is a Boss!! The first I've ever bought. Though it's their higher-up version the GE-7. Honestly, the graphic equalizer is not really rocket science as far as guitar applications go. Until they come out with a parabolic EQ in a pedal format this one will do nicely. To each their own.
> 
> Shawn :smile:



Well I don't know all that much about those pedal EQ's. I did own a boss eq many years ago but I found all I was doing was trying to compensate for what the amp wasn't. Its a lot harder to search out the amp that already gives you those rich mids or sweet highs you're looking for, with out aid of an external eq but the rewards of finding that amp are sweeeeet. My Dr Z Stangray is proof of that. Not only do I have no eq infront of it There is barely eq on the amp it self. Just a Vol, tone and cut knob. Its pretty much already voiced the way I love it. But thats just my preference. I'm not a "Mesa boogie million knobs" kind of guy.


----------



## jimihendrix

anyone know where i can get some good quality cable and connectors for my phone...???...price is no object...for some reason it seems to sound like crap...

kkjuwkkjuwkkjuw


----------



## guitarman2

Wild Bill said:


> Well, all I'm saying is that if you wanted me to believe there was a difference I would want to see you listen to somebody else playing when you couldn't see him, while we swapped cables.
> 
> We are all human beings and our minds can play tricks. A blind test is the only valid one. You can trust your own experience but for myself another man's experience is never enough. That other man likely is not dishonest. There is a difference between being sincere and being right. I also am not more likely to believe something if a 100 people tell me something or just one, at least when it comes to technical things.
> 
> I just believe that if something is true then it will successfully pass a proper test. It should be able to be measured.
> 
> I also don't care if someone disagrees with my opinion. We are all entitled to our own. My wife has been telling me that I'm wrong about everything since we got married! I've gotten used to it!:smile:
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


If a cable truly makes a difference as the many claims I've read about. You should be able to hear it. Not imagine it. 
Can you tell the difference when someone turns up the bass or the highs or the mids or the volume on an amp? If not then no I guess you may not hear the difference between cables.


----------



## Guest

mhammer said:


> 1) "Punchy" often has to do with alignment of harmonics and fundamentals, something that units like the BBE process are intended to rectify. Alignment is different than mere filtering, although there can conceivably be some slight group delay introduced by cable capacitance effects.


Mark, I almost responded to the "clear & punchy" description with: but cables only represent low pass filters! And then I started to wonder if some all-pass filtering could be possible in a cable. Where it was unity gain, more or less, across the spectrum but doing a continuous phase shift across the spectrum. I'll admit I've never _heard_ of a wire acting this way. But I haven't heard of lots of things. You ever come across something like this? Where a cable is causing phase mis-alignment between high and low frequencies?

guitarman2: Have you considered a wireless unit? The X2 units sit as close to your guitar as "in the guitar" you can get.


----------



## mhammer

Isn't that pretty much what lowpass filtering IS - a load that makes it difficult for the current source to charge up the cap fast enough that the signal passes unimpeded? A cap is simply a device that says "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm _workin'_ on it, okay?!" And if the capacitance posed by a cable or whatever is large enough, wouldn't higher frequency content be "staggered" just a tad? Or have I misunderstood things? 

That's not a hands-on-hips-"Harumph" question. You're dealing with a largely untutored person here, but my understanding is that anything in the signal path, or connected to it, that imposes differential barrier to smooth flow of full-bandwidth signal can introduce some degree of group delay. It may not be substantive or audible, but it may still be measurable. What things like BBE were intended to fix was the cumulative group delay arising from all those different small sources of it along the way, and post hoc (i.e., misalignment of high and low drivers).

You see, I should have brough my BBE unit on Sunday, too!:smile:


----------



## Sneaky

These cable threads are always fun. 

kkjuw

I guess I should have also mentioned that my $200 two rock cables are directional too. God forbid you should plug one into the amp the wrong way. 

9kkhhd

Pete


----------



## Rugburn

guitarman2 said:


> Well I don't know all that much about those pedal EQ's. I did own a boss eq many years ago but I found all I was doing was trying to compensate for what the amp wasn't. Its a lot harder to search out the amp that already gives you those rich mids or sweet highs you're looking for, with out aid of an external eq but the rewards of finding that amp are sweeeeet. My Dr Z Stangray is proof of that. Not only do I have no eq infront of it There is barely eq on the amp it self. Just a Vol, tone and cut knob. Its pretty much already voiced the way I love it. But thats just my preference. I'm not a "Mesa boogie million knobs" kind of guy.



I really don't want to get in the way of this thread or hijack the discussion, but let's talk about sine wave signals. If we're using "good" quality cables, then are we hearing the "purest" or "truest" reproduction of the guitar's "true" sound? Different amps will have their own tones and/or "voices". Different guitars will have their own sound as well. In this context I'm not sure what magic or "wow" factor any one cable could really impart across the board. Moreover, what are we comparing it to? Percieved notions of how a given guitar and amp combo should sound? On the other hand, an EQ alters the tonal character of the sine wave *before* it reaches the amp. This won't turn a BF Fender into a Plexi or a Vox, but it can attenuate and accentuate some of the tonal characteristics inherent in a given amp or guitar. If we're not losing TONE, but rather VOLUME, then being able to boost certain frequencies' volume can be a real asset. Not trying to plug any particular gear here, just thinking we have similar goals with different paths, so far, to getting there.

Shawn :smile:


----------



## Guest

mhammer said:


> Isn't that pretty much what lowpass filtering IS - a load that makes it difficult for the current source to charge up the cap fast enough that the signal passes unimpeded? A cap is simply a device that says "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm _workin'_ on it, okay?!" And if the capacitance posed by a cable or whatever is large enough, wouldn't higher frequency content be "staggered" just a tad? Or have I misunderstood things?
> 
> That's not a hands-on-hips-"Harumph" question. You're dealing with a largely untutored person here, but my understanding is that anything in the signal path, or connected to it, that imposes differential barrier to smooth flow of full-bandwidth signal can introduce some degree of group delay. It may not be substantive or audible, but it may still be measurable. What things like BBE were intended to fix was the cumulative group delay arising from all those different small sources of it along the way, and post hoc (i.e., misalignment of high and low drivers).
> 
> You see, I should have brough my BBE unit on Sunday, too!:smile:


It really shouldn't be a noticeable thing though with a low pass who's knee is so high. There's accidental de-coupling and intentional, and guitarman2's description makes it sound more like an intentional design (ala BBE's front-end input stage).

I'm fixing to try some spice simulations now just to see what comes out of it. I'll have to see if I can get some time with our hspice licenses tomorrow at work...

I think we should have an mhammer-pedal-fest personally. I'd like a few many hours to sift through your collection.


----------



## jimihendrix

if you're going for the purest tone...just play acoustic...


----------



## allthumbs56

iaresee said:


> guitarman2: Have you considered a wireless unit? The X2 units sit as close to your guitar as "in the guitar" you can get.


So would a wireless unit be considered to be "copper-free oxygen"?


----------



## bduguay

jimihendrix said:


> if you're going for the purest tone...just play acoustic...


So would a wireless unit be considered to be "copper-free oxygen"? 
08-27-2009 06:45 PM 


My guess is an Acoustic through a wireless is the way to go.:smile:
B.


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> guitarman2: Have you considered a wireless unit? The X2 units sit as close to your guitar as "in the guitar" you can get.


The guys in my band use wireless. To be honest I'm just not a wireless guy. I don't move much from behind my mic. I like to stay close to my pedal board. I've also read the reviews and done some research on wireless units, as I did consider it at one time. For what I would've required a wireless unit would have cost me about $800.


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> The guys in my band use wireless. To be honest I'm just not a wireless guy. I don't move much from behind my mic. I like to stay close to my pedal board. I've also read the reviews and done some research on wireless units, as I did consider it at one time. For what I would've required a wireless unit would have cost me about $800.


Wireless gets rid of your biggest complaint with cables though: the filter it introduces. So you may "be a wireless guy" based on the fact that "you're having a hard time being a cable guy". 

What led you to believe you'd have to spend $800 on a wireless unit? The X2 stuff is superb. Interference-free. Built well. You could splurge on a better guitar <-> transmitter cable. Not anywhere near what you just spent on cables: http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.co...Digital-Wireless-Instrument-System?sku=271299


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> Wireless gets rid of your biggest complaint with cables though: the filter it introduces. So you may "be a wireless guy" based on the fact that "you're having a hard time being a cable guy".
> 
> What led you to believe you'd have to spend $800 on a wireless unit? The X2 stuff is superb. Interference-free. Built well. You could splurge on a better guitar <-> transmitter cable. Not anywhere near what you just spent on cables: http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.co...Digital-Wireless-Instrument-System?sku=271299


Even spending $400 or $500 on a wireless is spending just about what I have spent on cables and really wireless isn't of interest to me.
My band mates have wireless units and I've seen enough issues to keep me away. Thing cuts out batteries die, pack falls off the guitar strap and cuts out signal etc, etc. A couple weeks ago the singers wireless fails and we find its a small proprietary wire the died. So we aren't getting this thing up. Yeah sure we can just plug it in to a cable, but then we;re right back where we started. I'm minimalist kind of guy. I like that my amp has only one channel and 3 knobs. I like that my teles are among the most basic featured guitars. I like that I'm using as few pedals as possible on my board. I'd like to scale it down even more. And I like that a cable is as easy as plug and play. That being said I like to make sure that all my components are of high quality for durability and to deliver the tone that I like. No one would bat an eye if I spend 5 grand on an amp or 4 grand on a guitar. But you spend more than $50 on a cable and you bring out the disbelievers. 
For the record I've got this thread going on at the Dr Z site and I've read several very lengthy threads at Gearslutz and Harmony Central. 
Its quite interesting to note that out of hundreds of people that those who have actually used and A/B tested and Blind A/B tested high end cables to mid grade and low grade recognize that there is indeed a difference. Because some of these differences vary you need to choose the cable for your application. 
Pretty much all the nay sayers and doubters are people that admit they don't have a lot of knowledge on cables specifically (basically aren't really experts) and would never spend that much on a cable anyway.
It was very common to read a post "I never would have believed a cable would make a difference and I doubted the validity of high end cables making a difference. I thought it was all snake oil. Then I tried it and wow was I wrong".
So maybe there is a conspiracy among millions of musicians world wide to dupe all of us who have yet to invest in high end cables, to spend our hard earned dollars and find no difference, upon which we will then become a part of the conspiracy.


----------



## ne1roc

iaresee said:


> Wireless gets rid of your biggest complaint with cables though: the filter it introduces. So you may "be a wireless guy" based on the fact that "you're having a hard time being a cable guy".
> 
> What led you to believe you'd have to spend $800 on a wireless unit? The X2 stuff is superb. Interference-free. Built well. You could splurge on a better guitar <-> transmitter cable. Not anywhere near what you just spent on cables: http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.co...Digital-Wireless-Instrument-System?sku=271299


Hmmm.........maybe I should look into a wireless system! I was always under the impression that wireless degraded signal but I guess that is not the case? 

I love the idea of being able to do sound checks at the back of the bar!


----------



## guitarman2

ne1roc said:


> Hmmm.........maybe I should look into a wireless system! I was always under the impression that wireless degraded signal but I guess that is not the case?
> 
> I love the idea of being able to do sound checks at the back of the bar!


I think it was a problem in the past which is why I always resisted wireless years ago. I would imagine they must have improved things by now.


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> But you spend more than $50 on a cable and you bring out the disbelievers.


I've certainly not questioned your experience, or your purchase, I'm just exploring the choice with you. 

There is, as you're reading here, more than one way to skin this cat.


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> I've certainly not questioned your experience, or your purchase, I'm just exploring the choice with you.
> 
> There is, as you're reading here, more than one way to skin this cat.


I've still made this purchase with no practical experience. So the nay sayers could very well be right. I've done enough homework though, that the percentages are slightly in favor of realizing true benefits. But I won't know for sure until I hear with my own ears. And I will not be imagining something to justify my purchase. I have an awesome tone and so am not desperate to make a bad tone better. I won't expect anything less than an obvious difference. I am going in to this unbiased.
Yes there is more than one way to skin a cat but I like the most basic but good quality knife available.


----------



## mhammer

One of the things that rarely comes up in these sort of discussions is the pickups of the users that swear by this thing or that thing. While I do NOT wish to get into a pissing contest about this manufacturer's pickups or that one, the fact of the matter is that some pickups can retain all the detail they're probably going to have with fairly utilitarian cables, and others may lose much nuance along the way (because they have much to lose) unless certain care is taken with the signal.


----------



## guitarman2

mhammer said:


> One of the things that rarely comes up in these sort of discussions is the pickups of the users that swear by this thing or that thing. While I do NOT wish to get into a pissing contest about this manufacturer's pickups or that one, the fact of the matter is that some pickups can retain all the detail they're probably going to have with fairly utilitarian cables, and others may lose much nuance along the way (because they have much to lose) unless certain care is taken with the signal.


Thats like saying as long as you've got great pickups that are clear detailed an articulate you won't gain anything more with a better cable to link it to your amp.
But as far as questioning other components, I think anyone who has taken the time to research the benefits of high end cables aren't playing through crappy pickups and a 30 year old amp in need of a cap job.
Its a known fact that most pro studios wire their studios with these high end cables. If wire is just wire I guess they must be stupid.
Who knows I may not hear a major difference. It wouldn't be the first time I found the masses wrong. For one example I researched new saddles for my CS Nocaster. Mainly because I wanted compensated. Everyone who had Glendale said they noticed a big improvement in tone. So I though well if so, maybe that will be a benefit. Well when I got them on I did find they pretty much intonated near perfectly as designed but I'll be dammed if I could hear a difference between the brass Glendales and the Fender brass that I took off. Although being that I did get the twang set that comes with the aluminum saddle for the A/E strings to give it more bite, it did accomplish that ever so slightly. Those strings have a bit more snap but the brass saddles sound identical to me.


----------



## greco

guitarman2 said:


> I've still made this purchase with no practical experience. So the nay sayers could very well be right. I've done enough homework though, that the percentages are slightly in favor of realizing true benefits. But I won't know for sure until I hear with my own ears. And I will not be imagining something to justify my purchase. I have an awesome tone and so am not desperate to make a bad tone better. I won't expect anything less than an obvious difference. I am going in to this unbiased.
> Yes there is more than one way to skin a cat but I like the most basic but good quality knife available.


Terry...I have been reading this thread with interest. I'm not sure where I stand regarding this debate.

One of my hobbies is electronics...and I tend to think that my (limited) knowledge of electronics tends to bias my thinking (towards the "nay sayers" camp).

However, I have met some professional guitar players that told me that improving the quality of their cables had a direct/positive influence on their tone. In my early days of buying gear I bought a 15 foot Spectroflex cable (on the advice of a friend who is a professional player). I can't remember what I paid for it...but it seemed expensive to me (taking into account the related fact that I don't part very easily with my money...LOL).

I didn't hear any difference....but, to be honest, my hearing is not that "precise"...so *I don't want my experience to be given any value in this discussion.* Besides...I IIRC, the cable was under $50.00..so it might not even be a "contender" in this debate (given the cost factor alone).

I just want to say that I admire you for the research you have done/are doing along with your "approach" to this very polar topic (as seen in your responses in this thread). 

Cheers

Dave


----------



## guitarman2

greco said:


> I'm not sure where I stand regarding this debate.


Me neither really. I know what I'm looking for. I feel a 50.50 chance of finding it right now. People bet their money with way less odds.
When I tested a 20" patch cable direct in from guitar. It was an amazing improvement over going through all the cables from my guitar to pedal board to outboard reverb to amp. Thats generally what I'm looking for. With the new cables, if they realize a vast improvement in that direction then I'll be happy. If not, I may end up selling them and trying a different brand or maybe not. These cables I ordered may give a very different sound that I don't prefer. Then most likely I will try a different cable, knowing that cables do make a difference.
Yes $650 is a lot of money but how many hear have spent 2 to 3 times that on a musical product only to decide it wasn't for them?


----------



## greco

guitarman2 said:


> Yes $650 is a lot of money but how many *hear * have spent 2 to 3 times that on a musical product only to decide it wasn't for them?


Terry...I couldn't resist...Did you intend this "pun" ? 

Even if it doesn't qualify as a pun by strict definition, I'm still smiling as to the reality and power of it. Thanks for making my day (sincerely) :bow: 

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Lester B. Flat

Sneaky said:


> These cable threads are always fun.
> 
> kkjuw
> 
> I guess I should have also mentioned that my $200 two rock cables are directional too. God forbid you should plug one into the amp the wrong way.
> 
> 9kkhhd
> 
> Pete


What happens if you plug them in the wrong way? Is it like stroking the kitty's fur backwards? This sounds like a possible snake oil claim. I'd like to hear the technical explanation for this.


----------



## guitarman2

Lester B. Flat said:


> What happens if you plug them in the wrong way? Is it like stroking the kitty's fur backwards? This sounds like a possible snake oil claim. I'd like to hear the technical explanation for this.



Yeah I have a bit of hard time wrapping my head around that one to. But I'm not prepared to discount the whole concept over this yet.
The only explanation given that I've seen was a possible theory given by Mark at Lavacable. I won't go in to it here but if you want to know you can ask him via email. He will get back to you. But the explanation certainly won't satisfy your question.
I'll may include plugging in both ways as one of my tests but I'm not concerned with it. Still I'll most likely plug them in directionally correct as a habit for the same reason I don't make a practice of walking under ladders.


----------



## guitarman2

greco said:


> Terry...I couldn't resist...Did you intend this "pun" ?
> 
> Even if it doesn't qualify as a pun by strict definition, I'm still smiling as to the reality and power of it. Thanks for making my day (sincerely) :bow:
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave


Hmm I'd like to take credit for an intentional witty pun but sadly I'll have to admit a typo.:smile:


----------



## guitarman2

The following is quoted from a different forum on this subject:



> One thing I've really learned here on this forum is that we all listen for something different. Take any three of us, put us in the same room, with the same gear, on the same day, playing the same songs, and then interview them all, and you'll get three different descriptions of the tones they heard. So while we all like to discuss what cable sounds like what, in the final analysis, we all have to try things until we hear what pleases us. We can discuss broad generalities, but when it comes to the subtle stuff, it's all very subjective and personal. That's why this is all a YMMV discussion, because when it comes to cables, the differences can be very subtle. Those differences might be of great importance to some of us, and completely irrelevant to others.


+++1


----------



## mhammer

guitarman2 said:


> Thats like saying as long as you've got great pickups that are clear detailed an articulate you won't gain anything more with a better cable to link it to your amp.


Then either I expressed it wrong or you read it wrong or both!:smile:
What I meant to convey is that some pickups don't benefit much from help because all the things that better cables preserve are essentially not inherent in the signal from a pickup like that. Conversely, some pickups provide the sort of detail that CAN be preserved and presented by better quality cable. In other words, a worth-it/not-worth-it distinction.

I guess the thing I'm trying to avoid here is *not* people spending hours and dollars in search of their optimum cable, but rather people spending hours and dollars for cables to "improve" something that is not really a candidate for benefitting from different cable. If I'm powering a toaster, I'm happy with running a plug attached to 18 gauge zipcord. If I'm powering a recording studio mixer, I may well want power that is optimized to avoid any glitches along the power lines...because it can *matter* more. If somebody tells me they make better toast when they power their toaster via 14-gauge zipcord, the skeptic in me comes out quickly.

Of course, I'm one of those guys who thinks that much human belief in "quality" is folly.


----------



## Guest

Lester B. Flat said:


> What happens if you plug them in the wrong way? Is it like stroking the kitty's fur backwards? This sounds like a possible snake oil claim. I'd like to hear the technical explanation for this.


Nothing. If any of this was true everything electrical our society was built on would be wrong. Your cellphone wouldn't work, your car wouldn't start, your radio wouldn't turn on. I wouldn't be typing this now. Wires do not have direction.

There's only one physical setup that necessitates one plug always being at one end of the chain and that's when you've got a shield grounded at only one end (note: this is _not_ a floating shield, which isn't grounded at any end, and shouldn't be used). Where the shield is tied to the sleeve at the guitar end, but not at the amp end. Some twisted pair cables use this approach (PlanetWaves) for example. But this has NOTHING to do with "directionality". It's a shielding method that helps protect against ground loops at the expense of decreasing the shield's ability to reject RF frequencies and possibly turning it into an antennae. You want the RF interference to enter the signal chain as far away from the amplifier as possible, so you keep the shield grounded at the source.


----------



## WarrenG

Lester B. Flat said:


> What happens if you plug them in the wrong way? Is it like stroking the kitty's fur backwards? This sounds like a possible snake oil claim. I'd like to hear the technical explanation for this.


The only explanation I've heard personally was from a tech who worked for a large band who said that the directional markings are just for quickly tracing cables onstage.

As far as I know, biasing the dielectric of certain cables, so they're directional, seems to be in the audiophile world. I wouldn't think the practice is good for musicians because the cables can take on a microphonic quality, which is bad if you can hear a guitar cable scraping and thumping around onstage.


----------



## jimihendrix

guitarman2/terry...maybe this thread that you started should have began...

"well, i purchased "x" brand cables...i hope they deliver on their promise to deliver the ultimate tone that i am seeking.i'll report back with my results of my personal findings."

the forum members here are trying to help you out...much like the audience participation part of "who wants to be a millionaire"...the audience (forum) consists of a cross-section of people that represents a segment of the population that includes a spectrum of people's expertise/intelligence/experience ranging from non-existant to rocket scientist and beyond...

we're all "rooting" for you...everyone wants you to find your tone...just as the audience tries to help the contestant "who wants to be a millionaire"...

we're not "attacking" you personally...we're questioning the validity of the cable company's claims...along with their scientific "facts" and their celeb endorsees...both of which are financially compensated for their parts...

you seem to dismiss the helpful advice from the "naysayers" and "experts" while at the same time defending the "snake oil salesmen" and "endorsees" who are out to make a quick...and substantial buck off of you...

sit back...relax...and appreciate everyone's valuable input...remember...we're all trying to HELP you...

remember...opinions are like a**holes...everyone's got one...:smile:


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> Nothing. If any of this was true everything electrical our society was built on would be wrong. Your cellphone wouldn't work, your car wouldn't start, your radio wouldn't turn on. I wouldn't be typing this now. Wires do not have direction.
> 
> There's only one physical setup that necessitates one plug always being at one end of the chain and that's when you've got a shield grounded at only one end (note: this is _not_ a floating shield, which isn't grounded at any end, and shouldn't be used). Where the shield is tied to the sleeve at the guitar end, but not at the amp end. Some twisted pair cables use this approach (PlanetWaves) for example. But this has NOTHING to do with "directionality". It's a shielding method that helps protect against ground loops at the expense of decreasing the shield's ability to reject RF frequencies and possibly turning it into an antennae. You want the RF interference to enter the signal chain as far away from the amplifier as possible, so you keep the shield grounded at the source.


Yeah this is one of those things I know very little about so can't comment one way or the other really. Although I have my trusty insight and through all my research I could not find one good explanation for the direction of an instrument cable in improving the tone. I've heard some testify that when they went against the direction the tone suffered but the testimonies were not convincing so this is definitely 1 for those that oppose high end cables.


----------



## guitarman2

jimihendrix said:


> guitarman2/terry...maybe this thread that you started should have began...
> 
> "well, i purchased "x" brand cables...i hope they deliver on their promise to deliver the ultimate tone that i am seeking.i'll report back with my results of my personal findings."
> 
> the forum members here are trying to help you out...much like the audience participation part of "who wants to be a millionaire"...the audience (forum) consists of a cross-section of people that represents a segment of the population that includes a spectrum of people's expertise/intelligence/experience ranging from non-existant to rocket scientist and beyond...
> 
> we're all "rooting" for you...everyone wants you to find your tone...just as the audience tries to help the contestant "who wants to be a millionaire"...
> 
> we're not "attacking" you personally...we're questioning the validity of the cable company's claims...along with their scientific "facts" and their celeb endorsees...both of which are financially compensated for their parts...
> 
> you seem to dismiss the helpful advice from the "naysayers" and "experts" while at the same time defending the "snake oil salesmen" and "endorsees" who are out to make a quick...and substantial buck off of you...
> 
> sit back...relax...and appreciate everyone's valuable input...remember...we're all trying to HELP you...
> 
> remember...opinions are like a**holes...everyone's got one...:smile:


Not sure why you seem to think I've made this a fight. Its a discussion of which I've got some very good input. If you have any positive contributions based on your experience with High end cables (Van den Hull, Vovox, Mogami, etc) then I'd love to hear them. Its you that needs to sit back and relax and stop making this about a us versus them and let the info and opinions flow. Yes every A-holes got an opinion but the biggest A-holes speak with out technical or practical experience.
So far none of your posts have been useful other than to try to make light of the subject.


----------



## Guest

WarrenG said:


> The only explanation I've heard personally was from a tech who worked for a large band who said that the directional markings are just for quickly tracing cables onstage.


I would buy that.



> As far as I know, biasing the dielectric of certain cables, so they're directional, seems to be in the audiophile world.


What on earth is that supposed to mean? What are the "dielectrics" in cables they're referring to? The _plastic_ insulator sleeves around the wire? If (and this is a big if) we're talking about a coaxial cable, where the conductor is surround by a plastic insulator and then a shield which also carries ground, there is potential for this arrangement to act as a capacitor. It's incredibly outside though -- the charge on the conductor is minuscule, and the dielectric (the insulator here) is HUGE, it's an infinite chasm of nonconducting material to what tiny charge flows on that wire. But how on earth do you put a charge on the the plastic? Where are you getting the electricity from to bias the insulator? How are you making it appear uniformly along the length of a material specifically chosen as the insulator because it _doesn't conduct electricity_? And even if you did, through some incredibly secret method to date unknown to anyone else around the world, the conductor wire is always your cathode and the shield is always your anode no matter which way current flows through the wire in the cable. It is symmetric. If it wasn't the signal wouldn't get from your guitar to the amplifier.


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> I would buy that.
> 
> 
> What on earth is that supposed to mean? What are the "dielectrics" in cables they're referring to? The _plastic_ insulator sleeves around the wire? If (and this is a big if) we're talking about a coaxial cable, where the conductor is surround by a plastic insulator and then a shield which also carries ground, there is potential for this arrangement to act as a capacitor. But how on earth do you put a charge on the the plastic? And even if you did, through some incredibly secret method to date unknown to anyone else around the world, the conductor wire is always your cathode and the shield is always your anode no matter which way current flows through the wire in the cable. It is symmetric. If it wasn't the signal wouldn't get from your guitar to the amplifier.


Ian, you seem to be quite knowledgeable. What do you think if any are the benefits of a center core as opposed to a stranded core in the instrument cable? The Evidence Audio I've ordered have solid core which is one of the technologies sited for improving tone over stranded core. If I like any improvement I may hear I'm going to have to make up my mind whether I want to put up with the extra stiffness and lack of flexibility this cable is reputed to have. I've been given a guarantee from Tony at E.A. that if I don't like the stiffness of the Lyric for my guitar to pedal board he will send me a replacement of an upcoming released cable called the Forte which is supposed to be similar to the Lyric but more flexible.
David Gilmour uses all E.A. Lyric cable except on his guitar where he uses the lower graded E.A. cable "Melody" on stage which is said to have more flexibility. In the studio he is reported to use all Lyric cable. He's been quoted as saying the more flexible melody is good because of all his guitar changes. I don't really change guitars much during a performance and I wanted to test the best E.A. had. So I ordered all Lyric from guitar to amp with the exception of the pedal board where I'm using melody where obviously flexibility is key.


----------



## YJMUJRSRV

gone fishing


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> Ian, you seem to be quite knowledgeable.


I know how electricity works. It's my job. There are fundamental laws that apply to everything electrical. And cable salespeople seem to like to ignore the laws and explain away everything with a wave of the hand and the, "But this audio, not semiconductors, we're talking about." Sometimes that works, most times it does not. If anything could be done to homogeneous metals (or the insulators surrounding them) to make electrons flow better in one direction the semiconductor industry would be doing it. Because our entire life is consumed with the best ways to make electrons move from one point to another without any interference or loss in power. This is the bane of our existence.

Does it mean I know a lot about cables per se? Probably not. I don't know a lot about materials science. I'm human; fallible; prone to errors and the occasional bouts of irrational behaviour. But I can make some pretty good educated inferences so...



> What do you think if any are the benefits of a center core as opposed to a stranded core in the instrument cable?


I think the only difference is mechanical and quite frankly I can't believe they sell solid core wire for an application where the wire is going to do a lot of flexing and bending. Both stranded and solid core wire can be built with similar F/foot specs in the same gauges. The difference between the two is durability. You just can't make a thick metal conductor that flexes well or holds up well when repeatedly flexed. Baby those solid core cables. Never wind them up by looping them over your elbow and palm. Do the whole turn in, turn out method that you see audio techs doing. Try to be random with your loop size so you're not always bending the solid core at the same place every time.

From a conductive point of view: I think they'll sound the same. But you said you thought they sound more focused. And then Mark and I bandied about the possibility that there's some continuous phase shift function that's occurring, probably as a result of cable capacitance and the low pass filter that's formed with the cable and the amplifier input. Without simulating things I can't say how likely it is that phase separation occurs. Maybe. Maybe not. The way you describe the result: it's possible. But I don't think it has anything to do with the conductor being solid core. I think it's a capacitance/foot difference between the cables you're A/B'ing.

And at the signal power we're talking about here, gauge is largely unimportant. What does it matter if you've got a 12 AWG wire from your guitar to your pedal board? When it hits the first pedal that's on it's going to run through traces on a PCB that are WAY thinner than any wire in your cable. So scratch any manufacturer trying to sell you a gauge for a guitar cable as being superior. You gauge wire to handle the power of your signal. Guitar signals are, to use a Wild Bill phrase I love, mouse nuts when it comes to power.

So there's my take on it. These guys selling cable use a lot of vague terms that mean nothing at all or nothing to electrons. If I look at how Evidence describes the Lyric HG:



> IGL™ Copper conductors: Smooth midrange and highs


Sure. I can't say anything about this. All conductors pass signals slightly differently over long lengths because they have different capacitance/foot ratings. I will point out that passive circuits can only subtract, never add to your signal. So a cable can't "boost" anything, it can only "not take it away". Not that Evidence is claiming that here, I'm just point that out.



> Symmetrical Design: Dynamics scream from the quietest of backgrounds without using the shield to carry your signal


This is one of those vague statements I was talking about. Of course it's symmetrical. If it was asymmetrical you would have one end connected to nothing and you wouldn't have a signal flowing through. Although, their statement gives me pause because they say it's "symmetrical" but then they say "without using the shield to carry your signal" -- which makes it sound like the don't ground the shield about both ends (its a 2-conductor + shield cable) which is _not_ a symmetrical setup (because its not the same at both ends), it's definitely _asymmetrical_. This marketing BS at its best. 



> Solid Core Conductors: Preserve clarity and focus, revealing harmonic detail and articulation


Meh. See above. As long as your conductor is homogeneous (and I've yet to see a wire that wasn't) solid vs. stranded is a question of flexibility.



> 20 awg Conductor Size: Large enough to communicate punch and authority, small enough to preserve a sense of air and delicacy


See above. If this mattered one iota than the first stomp box in your chain would instantly strip all that "punch and clarity" from your signal is it "crammed" it through wire channels many times smaller than 20 AWG. Even when bypassed it's using wires from the input to the output to pass your signal that are many times thinner than your cable.



> Enhanced Dielectric: Additional air reduces dielectric involvement


This one is so amazingly vague as to say nothing at all. This means nothing. I can't deduce anything meaningful from this statement. Dielectric involvement? Involvement in what exactly?



> Conductive skins applied to positive and negative runs Reduced microphonics with high gain amps


What does this mean? Again...so vague as to mean nothing at all. I can guess that they've applied something around the wire before covering it in plastic and then encasing it in yet another layer of plastic and wrapping that in a braided copper sheild, and then more plastic, and then fabric. Maybe. I'm guessing. Useless information == useless claim in my mind.



> High Density Copper Braid Shield: Nothing but signal gets to your amp


Sure: because "signal == anything sent along the wire". Including noise. It's "signal" -- it's just "signal" you don't want to hear.  What they don't say is, "No noise gets to your amp" -- because they can't. And noise is what you don't want. So this is like me saying, "Some people are old". Why yes: thank you for stating the obvious. 



> Woven Nylon Jacket Increases flexibility and protection for stage use


I'll argue that every layer added to a cable decreases flexibility. It's one more layer of mechanical resistance. Really what they're trying to say is: the jacket we've chosen is more flexible than some other jackets we _could_ have picked. You can't add a layer and get "more flexible" it's either "no change" or "less flexible". But this is a mechanical property. And hey, I'll admit their outer layer looks hella cool. Who wouldn't want that? I do. I'm vane. 

That was way more than you wanted, eh? Sorry. I should stay the hell away from cable threads.


----------



## WarrenG

iaresee said:


> What on earth is that supposed to mean? What are the "dielectrics" in cables they're referring to? The _plastic_ insulator sleeves around the wire? If (and this is a big if) we're talking about a coaxial cable, where the conductor is surround by a plastic insulator and then a shield which also carries ground, there is potential for this arrangement to act as a capacitor. It's incredibly outside though -- the charge on the conductor is minuscule, and the dielectric (the insulator here) is HUGE, it's an infinite chasm of nonconducting material to what tiny charge flows on that wire. But how on earth do you put a charge on the the plastic? Where are you getting the electricity from to bias the insulator? How are you making it appear uniformly along the length of a material specifically chosen as the insulator because it _doesn't conduct electricity_? And even if you did, through some incredibly secret method to date unknown to anyone else around the world, the conductor wire is always your cathode and the shield is always your anode no matter which way current flows through the wire in the cable. It is symmetric. If it wasn't the signal wouldn't get from your guitar to the amplifier.


Yes. We're talking about the capacitance caused by having insulations like PVC, polyethylene, polypropylene, and Teflon next to the conductor and how high frequency energy gets trapped more readlily than low. It's just something I've read, indicating that a lower capacitance can be achieved in a low current cable by applying dc voltage to it. i.e. battery-powered cables. The directionality stems from the unavoidable asymmetrical molecular structure of drawn metal. 

Personally, the jury's out for me because I would like to believe that the goal of a cable is to transmit the input signal faithfully, and not change it. If I want to modify the tone of an instrument, it should be done by devices specifically designed to do so. Not the conduit. If the cable is modifying the tone on its own, there is something seriously wrong.


----------



## WarrenG

YJMUJRSRV said:


> 11 pages of cable debate. Exactly why mass market big box reigns supreme. Give the people what they want - enough rope.


Ha ha! Here's something closer to home: do you beleive that the fingerboard material has an audible effect on the tone of a solidbody electric guitar?


----------



## guitarman2

WarrenG said:


> If I want to modify the tone of an instrument, it should be done by devices specifically designed to do so. Not the conduit. If the cable is modifying the tone on its own, there is something seriously wrong.



And my quest for cable has nothing to do with modifying tone. I'm experimenting to see if there really is something that isn't reaching the speakers that should be.


----------



## Guest

WarrenG said:


> Yes. We're talking about the capacitance caused by having insulations like PVC, polyethylene, polypropylene, and Teflon next to the conductor and how high frequency energy gets trapped more readlily than low. It's just something I've read, indicating that a lower capacitance can be achieved in a low current cable by applying dc voltage to it. i.e. battery-powered cables. The directionality stems from the unavoidable asymmetrical molecular structure of drawn metal.


I've mentioned before I know little about materials science. The metal I work with is deposited and then etched away, not drawn. Can you give me some reading references? I've always treated conductors as homogeneous with respect to electrons. Sure there are manufacturing defects, but they're random and essentially negligible in their effects. I may be wrong. I've got a whole lifetime of learning ahead of me.

As for biasing dielectrics: any papers on this you can point me to? Inductance on wires for high frequency signals is, as you can imagine, a huge problem in semiconductors. I'd be interested in reading any research papers on this you might have.

And you're definitely talking about something completely different than what Evidence is selling: they're not powering their cables with anything. So biasing isn't possible. I'd also be interested to see what kind of potential you have to put across 20' of PVC to induce a charge.


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> I know how electricity works. It's my job. There are fundamental laws that apply to everything electrical. And cable salespeople seem to like to ignore the laws and explain away everything with a wave of the hand and the, "But this audio, not semiconductors, we're talking about." Sometimes that works, most times it does not. If anything could be done to homogeneous metals (or the insulators surrounding them) to make electrons flow better in one direction the semiconductor industry would be doing it. Because our entire life is consumed with the best ways to make electrons move from one point to another without any interference or loss in power. This is the bane of our existence.
> 
> Does it mean I know a lot about cables per se? Probably not. I don't know a lot about materials science. I'm human; fallible; prone to errors and the occasional bouts of irrational behaviour. But I can make some pretty good educated inferences so...
> 
> 
> I think the only difference is mechanical and quite frankly I can't believe they sell solid core wire for an application where the wire is going to do a lot of flexing and bending. Both stranded and solid core wire can be built with similar F/foot specs in the same gauges. The difference between the two is durability. You just can't make a thick metal conductor that flexes well or holds up well when repeatedly flexed. Baby those solid core cables. Never wind them up by looping them over your elbow and palm. Do the whole turn in, turn out method that you see audio techs doing. Try to be random with your loop size so you're not always bending the solid core at the same place every time.
> 
> From a conductive point of view: I think they'll sound the same. But you said you thought they sound more focused. And then Mark and I bandied about the possibility that there's some continuous phase shift function that's occurring, probably as a result of cable capacitance and the low pass filter that's formed with the cable and the amplifier input. Without simulating things I can't say how likely it is that phase separation occurs. Maybe. Maybe not. The way you describe the result: it's possible. But I don't think it has anything to do with the conductor being solid core. I think it's a capacitance/foot difference between the cables you're A/B'ing.
> 
> And at the signal power we're talking about here, gauge is largely unimportant. What does it matter if you've got a 12 AWG wire from your guitar to your pedal board? When it hits the first pedal that's on it's going to run through traces on a PCB that are WAY thinner than any wire in your cable. So scratch any manufacturer trying to sell you a gauge for a guitar cable as being superior. You gauge wire to handle the power of your signal. Guitar signals are, to use a Wild Bill phrase I love, mouse nuts when it comes to power.
> 
> So there's my take on it. These guys selling cable use a lot of vague terms that mean nothing at all or nothing to electrons. If I look at how Evidence describes the Lyric HG:
> 
> 
> Sure. I can't say anything about this. All conductors pass signals slightly differently over long lengths because they have different capacitance/foot ratings. I will point out that passive circuits can only subtract, never add to your signal. So a cable can't "boost" anything, it can only "not take it away". Not that Evidence is claiming that here, I'm just point that out.
> 
> 
> This is one of those vague statements I was talking about. Of course it's symmetrical. If it was asymmetrical you would have one end connected to nothing and you wouldn't have a signal flowing through. Although, their statement gives me pause because they say it's "symmetrical" but then they say "without using the shield to carry your signal" -- which makes it sound like the don't ground the shield about both ends (its a 2-conductor + shield cable) which is _not_ a symmetrical setup (because its not the same at both ends), it's definitely _asymmetrical_. This marketing BS at its best.
> 
> 
> Meh. See above. As long as your conductor is homogeneous (and I've yet to see a wire that wasn't) solid vs. stranded is a question of flexibility.
> 
> 
> See above. If this mattered one iota than the first stomp box in your chain would instantly strip all that "punch and clarity" from your signal is it "crammed" it through wire channels many times smaller than 20 AWG. Even when bypassed it's using wires from the input to the output to pass your signal that are many times thinner than your cable.
> 
> 
> This one is so amazingly vague as to say nothing at all. This means nothing. I can't deduce anything meaningful from this statement. Dielectric involvement? Involvement in what exactly?
> 
> 
> What does this mean? Again...so vague as to mean nothing at all. I can guess that they've applied something around the wire before covering it in plastic and then encasing it in yet another layer of plastic and wrapping that in a braided copper sheild, and then more plastic, and then fabric. Maybe. I'm guessing. Useless information == useless claim in my mind.
> 
> 
> Sure: because "signal == anything sent along the wire". Including noise. It's "signal" -- it's just "signal" you don't want to hear.  What they don't say is, "No noise gets to your amp" -- because they can't. And noise is what you don't want. So this is like me saying, "Some people are old". Why yes: thank you for stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> I'll argue that every layer added to a cable decreases flexibility. It's one more layer of mechanical resistance. Really what they're trying to say is: the jacket we've chosen is more flexible than some other jackets we _could_ have picked. You can't add a layer and get "more flexible" it's either "no change" or "less flexible". But this is a mechanical property. And hey, I'll admit their outer layer looks hella cool. Who wouldn't want that? I do. I'm vane.
> 
> That was way more than you wanted, eh? Sorry. I should stay the hell away from cable threads.


Thank you very much for your informative post. A lot of what you say makes sense. Very soon I will be able to put aside all the technical knowledge I've gained and do the listening tests. 
I agree some of the marketing hype does not make sense. And based on that theoretically one should run from any product where even some marketing claims are fluff. But it wouldn't be the first product I liked for one reason even though they claim benefits in another category. My Glendale saddles are proof of that. Marketing claims better tone with these saddles which I have found not really to be true. But they intonate my guitar better which is one claim that is true.
One thing I find hard to believe is the many many musicians that really know their gear and have proven knowledge their knowledge claim with out compensation that their is noticeable and subtle improvements in these high end cables. When I plug in through a ridiculously short cable direct as opposed to through all my gear there is a very noticeable and pleasing difference. Which I feel is a truer representation of what my amp can sound like. If better cables through all my gear can get me noticeably closer to the sound of a 20" cable going direct, then it will have been worth it for me. So thats really all I want to know. And I'm willing to pay to find out.
If high end cables are a scam and offer nothing over cheap cables I find it odd that reputable resources like "Guitar Player" magazine have done published cable comparisons and rated certain cables as excelling. Yeah I know the nay sayers will say there's and advertising dollar there but is it healthy to be that paranoid that everyone is willing to sell their souls for the almighty dollar to spread out and out scam lies. If this is the case then no one should be trusted and we should buy every product we consume from China.


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> Thank you very much for your informative post. A lot of what you say makes sense. Very soon I will be able to put aside all the technical knowledge I've gained and do the listening tests.


And that's all that matters. If you like it; it's good. 100%. I'd be lying if I said everything I ever bought was a rational decision.



> I agree some of the marketing hype does not make sense. And based on that theoretically one should run from any product where even some marketing claims are fluff. But it wouldn't be the first product I liked for one reason even though they claim benefits in another category.


There was a great Top Gear episode I watched where they pitted the new BMW Z4 against a new Nissan 350Z. As they were driving them they were going on and on about how great the 350Z was...superb handling, speed, torque and oh that wonderful price. And then back in the studio both guys, when asked which they'd pick, said, "The Z4" -- and neither could say why. It was just "better" -- even if on paper, it looked worse than the 350Z.

All of this stuff is _visceral_. I can go on and on about electrons on wires, but I can't say crap about how those electrons make you _feel_. And music, above all else, is about _feelings_.

So I say: if it feels good, do it.



> One thing I find hard to believe is the many many musicians that really know their gear and have proven knowledge their knowledge claim with out compensation that their is noticeable and subtle improvements in these high end cables. When I plug in through a ridiculously short cable direct as opposed to through all my gear there is a very noticeable and pleasing difference. Which I feel is a truer representation of what my amp can sound like. If better cables through all my gear can get me noticeably closer to the sound of a 20" cable going direct, then it will have been worth it for me. So thats really all I want to know. And I'm willing to pay to find out.


See above.


----------



## mhammer

I find about 5% of GP review content to be informative, and the other 95% to be an excuse to use their thesaurus. It's not payola-inspired BS or guys just showing off. Rather I just don't come away from it knowing more about the product that might distinguish it in any way. Consequently, I didn't find their cable shootout all that useful. I'm glad they tried, but it was a by-the-skin-of-your-teeth single, not a standing triple, as far as I'm concerned. I'm also not convinced they understood how cable and signal source can interact.

As for what companies tout in their ad copy, well I have long since learned to distnguish between ad copy and the product, especially when the ad copy is being written by folks who have invested their life savings into a product whose development they have eaten, slept, breathed for the last few years. There's also something to be said for leaving the superlatives at home and just letting the measurable properties of the product sell themselves.

Again, I'm not trying to razz anyone. I'm just saying that one shouldn't let ad copy provided by small manufacturers destroy your faith in human nature or mislead you about a product. Eventually they'll learn what needs to be said about the product and what is merely ephemeral. We just happen to be in that period where we don't know what to measure, so all we have are a buncha words batted around by people with vested interests that they may not be conscious of.


----------



## ronmac

If you want to have a good head spin, you really need to talk to "audiophiles" in the home theatre/audio world. I am constantly amazed as to how a bunch of highly educated folks (with a great deal of disposable income) get chewed up by the mumbo jumbo sold by pure marketing genius.

Exhibit A: Power Cable

....although you gotta admit, that is a pretty nice box it comes in. kqoct


----------



## guitarman2

mhammer said:


> I find about 5% of GP review content to be informative, and the other 95% to be an excuse to use their thesaurus. It's not payola-inspired BS or guys just showing off. Rather I just don't come away from it knowing more about the product that might distinguish it in any way. Consequently, I didn't find their cable shootout all that useful. I'm glad they tried, but it was a by-the-skin-of-your-teeth single, not a standing triple, as far as I'm concerned. I'm also not convinced they understood how cable and signal source can interact.
> 
> As for what companies tout in their ad copy, well I have long since learned to distnguish between ad copy and the product, especially when the ad copy is being written by folks who have invested their life savings into a product whose development they have eaten, slept, breathed for the last few years. There's also something to be said for leaving the superlatives at home and just letting the measurable properties of the product sell themselves.
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to razz anyone. I'm just saying that one shouldn't let ad copy provided by small manufacturers destroy your faith in human nature or mislead you about a product. Eventually they'll learn what needs to be said about the product and what is merely ephemeral. We just happen to be in that period where we don't know what to measure, so all we have are a buncha words batted around by people with vested interests that they may not be conscious of.


I might agree with you if it were just GP magazine we are talking about. But believe me I've consulted a lot of sources and looked at this from many angles.I've collected a lot of plain technical data along the way and have listened to the nay sayers and the praise testimonies. I have decided it was a worth while project to explore.
I've seen it roughly broken down in to 3 groups.

#1. The people with the technological knowledge:

I find this group kind of split between admitting the high end cables make a difference. Although the edge is given to skepticism. I have learned a lot from this group.

#2. Those that have used and tested high end cables:

This group includes some of group 1 who were skeptical with the technical knowledge but had to admit that they heard a remarkable improvement. Of course this group is mainly made up of people who use and love it. Although a very small percentage admit to not enough of a difference to make it worth it. But "Worth it" can mean so many different things to different people.
This group is a mix of people who seem to know that they are talking about and guys that may have just got caught up in the hype. You basically have to decide for your self how reliable the info is from this group and take it with a grain of salt. 

#3. Naysayers: People who seem to have an agenda that its bunk but have no real background or experience to make that judgment:

Easiest group to read. Easiest group to discount. Although it seems like there are many members to this group, if you read through the different threads on different forums where these discussions are happening its the same very few individuals that troll the threads with ill intentions.


----------



## Wild Bill

guitarman2 said:


> Its a known fact that most pro studios wire their studios with these high end cables. If wire is just wire I guess they must be stupid.


Nobody's calling anyone stupid, Terry. Someone can be wrong and still be smart.

As for pro studios, perhaps in many studios wired by musicians, I dunno. I CAN tell you that I sold connectors to professional BROADCAST studios at radio and TV stations for years. They use thousands of connectors. Nobody thinks gold plate makes a difference. They wire with professional cable like Belden 8410 and 8412. If we polled them I'm sure they would consider what's sold in the music market to be snake oil.

The idea that it matters which end you plug in to where would have a broadcast engineer laughing for days!

These are people who have a deep education in electronics. They understand how things work. They also have eyes and ears, the same as someone in a music studio.

I think that this argument is just going round and round. What we really need is to set up a jam night at some reasonably central watering hole. Maybe I can find something here in Hamilton. We could then pull from Kitchener, Toronto and Niagara. 

We could call it the 1st Annual Guitarscanada.com Jam Night! Some of the local guys could set up the stage. I'll even sponsor some of the amps I've built. We'd get as many of us as we can to come down, play and/or drink beer. It would be a great way to meet in person.

While we were there we could set up some blindfold tests for cables! If somebody can pass the test right in front of me then I would have to admit there's a difference!

No matter what, we'd have a lot of fun!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest

That'd be _"Worth The Drive to Acton"_ for me.


----------



## guitarman2

Wild Bill said:


> Nobody's calling anyone stupid, Terry. Someone can be wrong and still be smart.
> 
> As for pro studios, perhaps in many studios wired by musicians, I dunno. I CAN tell you that I sold connectors to professional BROADCAST studios at radio and TV stations for years. They use thousands of connectors. Nobody thinks gold plate makes a difference. They wire with professional cable like Belden 8410 and 8412. If we polled them I'm sure they would consider what's sold in the music market to be snake oil.
> 
> The idea that it matters which end you plug in to where would have a broadcast engineer laughing for days!
> 
> These are people who have a deep education in electronics. They understand how things work. They also have eyes and ears, the same as someone in a music studio.
> 
> I think that this argument is just going round and round. What we really need is to set up a jam night at some reasonably central watering hole. Maybe I can find something here in Hamilton. We could then pull from Kitchener, Toronto and Niagara.
> 
> We could call it the 1st Annual Guitarscanada.com Jam Night! Some of the local guys could set up the stage. I'll even sponsor some of the amps I've built. We'd get as many of us as we can to come down, play and/or drink beer. It would be a great way to meet in person.
> 
> While we were there we could set up some blindfold tests for cables! If somebody can pass the test right in front of me then I would have to admit there's a difference!
> 
> No matter what, we'd have a lot of fun!:smile:
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


Not sure an uncontrolled test at a watering hole would be a fair environment for a test. But nonetheless it'd be fun to get out for a jam.
As to your post you seem to pick and choose the things you want in order to debunk the whole concept of higher end cables. I agree with you about gold ends. I don't like them. Their purpose is for non-oxidation. But wear off after use. I prefer good quality well made non gold ends. I routinely go through my jacks with Deoxit or some kind of contact cleaner anyway.
As well the theory of directional cable isn't one I understand or agree with. I'll let the more knowledgable electrical gurus have that one.
Although there is snake oil involved here tell me one industry where there isn't. Where if you buy a certain car you'll get the woman of your dreams or you play a certain guitar it will make you play and sound just like Van halen cause he plays one. I think there are 2 major parts to a business. The ones that design the product that know exactly what it is and the marketing department that don't care what it is just want to sell it. And that is true of all consumer products. But regardless there is a reason we buy them. These products deliver something on a basic level that meet our needs. High end cables have too large of a consumer following to be completely with out benefit over cheap cables.
Whether they work for me I don't know. Maybe many of the claims of "Dramatic improvent", will really only be subtle insignificant improvement to me. 
But still maybe to me thats worth it. You have guys spending thousands to make a car go 5 MPH faster. Worth it to them but not me. When I have tried and done all I can to customize my rig to sound the best to me I will have felt it was worth it. Even if some of the changes resulted in no gain. Trust me I've already spent money to find no gain. NOS tubes is a perfect example. Many claim the different and improving tones from this NOS over that NOS or current production. I've got a fair stock pile of different EF86, 12AX7 and 6L6 tubes as well as some different rectifiers. To be honest the differences are pretty much neglible.


----------



## ronmac

I like to take the Daniel Lanois approach to topics such as this: everything between the fingers and the ears is an effect.

My interpretation of his philosophy is that every string, pick/fingernail, pickup, wood choice, cable, electronic box, amplifier, speaker, DAW interface, etc. is one long string of effects. It is up to us to find, place and manipulate all of these objects in a way that communicates our art to an audience, even if the only audience member is our own self.


----------



## greco

ronmac said:


> I like to take the Daniel Lanois approach to topics such as this: everything between the fingers and the ears is an effect.
> 
> My interpretation of his philosophy is that every string, pick/fingernail, pickup, wood choice, cable, electronic box, amplifier, speaker, DAW interface, etc. is one long string of effects. It is up to us to find, place and manipulate all of these objects in a way that communicates our art to an audience, even if the only audience member is our own self.


COOL...VERY COOL ....:bow:

Dave


----------



## WarrenG

guitarman2 said:


> And my quest for cable has nothing to do with modifying tone. I'm experimenting to see if there really is something that isn't reaching the speakers that should be.


I understand. I love these experiments. My problem has been determining which results are accurately representing the input signal.


----------



## Wild Bill

guitarman2 said:


> Not sure an uncontrolled test at a watering hole would be a fair environment for a test. But nonetheless it'd be fun to get out for a jam.
> 
> Although there is snake oil involved here tell me one industry where there isn't. Where if you buy a certain car you'll get the woman of your dreams or you play a certain guitar it will make you play and sound just like Van halen cause he plays one. I think there are 2 major parts to a business. The ones that design the product that know exactly what it is and the marketing department that don't care what it is just want to sell it. And that is true of all consumer products. But regardless there is a reason we buy them. These products deliver something on a basic level that meet our needs. High end cables have too large of a consumer following to be completely with out benefit over cheap cables.
> Whether they work for me I don't know. Maybe many of the claims of "Dramatic improvent", will really only be subtle insignificant improvement to me.


Well, I don't know why you assume the test would be 'uncontrolled'. We take a half a dozen different cables. We get one guy to hide behind a curtain and play some power chords and some leads, always with the same guitar. The person judging knows each cable only as "number 1" or whatever. He cannot see which cable is in use. The guitar stays the same, the amp stays the same and as much as possible the riffs played stay the same. The 'judge' fills out a score sheet with some notes for each cable test and then we read them out after we match the sheets to the cable that was tested. We repeat with a number of guys listening and look for common observations. What could be better than that?

As for a certain guitar making you sound like Van Halen, again I have to respectfully disagree, Terry. It doesn't matter what amp I use, what guitar I use, what cable I use or whatever...I sound like crap!:smile:

That's because I'm a crappy player! When I should have been practicing I snuck off to sniff solder fumes. Now I'm old and fat. It's too late for me to ever become like EVH. Still, I'm content. I've learned enough about amps that I can help GOOD players sound better!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## mhammer

Ah, but it's not too late for Eddie to become old and fat!:smile:


----------



## archaeic_bloke

IMHO the thicker the guage wire.. the better it is..

the objective is to avoid signal loss, and avoid noise gain.


----------



## Guest

archaeic_bloke said:


> IMHO the thicker the guage wire.. the better it is..


Why do you think that? My experience says wire gauge matters for power handling, not passing frequencies. The thicker the wire, the more power it can pass. And the power put out by a guitar is, to borrow from Wild Bill, mouse nuts. Passing through pedals on the way to an amplifier that signal goes through "wires" on ICs many times smaller than the cable from your guitar to the pedal board. I pass signals with GHz frequencies unfettered on wire thinner than human hairs -- works perfectly. I wouldn't want to try and pass those same signals on a big, thick wire -- at least not at the power they're currently being set at because...



> the objective is to avoid signal loss, and avoid noise gain.


You can avoid signal loss by choosing a low uF/F material for your wire, improving your shielding, converting your signal to low impedance, using differential signaling, etc. Picking a thicker wire actually makes you more susceptible to noise because the wire, acting as an antennae, now has a larger surface area on which to pick up extraneous noise. You don't actually want to send a low power signal down a big, thick wire because your SNR has potential to be very low if shielding isn't done well.


----------



## Pneumonic

hollowbody said:


> When I worked in high-end audio, I dealt with everything from Radio Shack cable to the kind of stuff that you'd have to take a second mortgage on your house to buy. I'll tell you this: every single cable sounds a little bit different. I've done blind tests, double-blind tests etc, etc. Every time a cable is changed in a system that has the kind of resolution to highlight small changes like that, you absolutely will hear a difference. However, whether you will _like_ that difference is another story entirely. Finally, whether that difference takes you close or further away from the truth of the original signal is anyone's guess. But, if you spend enough time with cables, you'll find one that suits your needs and tastes.
> 
> For me, that would be the Van den Hul Integration. My jaw dropped when I heard this cable in a system. It's by no means the most expensive cable I've heard, far from it in fact, but what it does to the musical signal is nothing sort of magical as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> Terry, more power to you in your search. If it's something that truly interests you, go for it! There's much worse things you can spend your money on, like debilitating drug dependencies, degenerative gambling tendencies, or some terrorist sleeper cell.


Indeed, on the cable front.

I wouldn't dare confess to how much money I have spent on the cables in my home audio setup other than to say many in here would be ready to comitt me to the looney bin if they found out. However, all of that would be very quickly erased if I had a chance to sit them down and demonstrate to them the differences that some of the very best, (re very costly) cables have on what they are hearing. I actually do this all the time to the many disbelievers who shake their head when I tell them all of the nuances and intricacies of my audio hobby. 

Now the reasons are many for the differences in sound that every cable projects but my experience is that a) not all systems resolve the differences in cables equally b) it is imperative that you match the type of cable that you buy with how your system sounds paying extra special attention to how the cable and amp/guitar interacts c) $ is NOT an indicator of whether or not a cable will work with your setup d) all cables sound different, though maybe not significantly enough to matter to many people e) the termination method/process of the cable should be heavily considered when buying cable in order to maintain maximum power transfer f) LCR (inductance, capacitance and resistance) numbers of the cables in question all factor in considerably into the equation and should be seriously considered when buying cables g) the type, and quality, of conductive material used in the cable makes a monumental difference in how a cable sounds. 

- Kerry


----------



## Pneumonic

hollowbody said:


> Yes, but quite a bit of what goes on in the human ear cannot be quantified. For instance, 20khz is the ceiling for the human hearing range. We can't hear anything above it, theoretically. However, when you listen to DVD-A, SACD or any other medium which goes beyond redbooks 44.1khz limit, there _is_ an audible difference. I've heard it myself, so I choose to take scientific studies with a grain of salt.
> 
> Go listen to the exact same recording of a performance on redbook at 44.1khz and SACD at 192khz and come back and tell me you didn't hear a difference. I dare you.
> 
> Though we can't really hear beyond 20khz, the argument is that there are transients and harmonics that extend well into the range beyond our hearing that we somehow sense. Whether it's actually heard, or whether they are implicitly sensed is beyond my ken, but there is definitely something going on in the higher frequency bands that humans can interpret. Similarly with bass, there's a lot of low frequency notes that we don't necessarily hear, but feel. In a more guttural sense, it shakes us and we hear the noise through the actual motion of the soundwave. Why would this not work for high frequencies as well.


Not wishing to further threadcap this post but you outta take a look at the various debates on this topic over at http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/. Do a search for me "Pneumonic" and you'll be able to read many of my posts which counter much of what you speak of above.

- Kerry


----------



## pattste

I have never heard of a single double-blind study that concluded that people could reliably hear the difference between cables. I have listened to clips from cable comparisons and could clearly hear differences, but they were not conducted scientifically. Often, the person would play "the same thing" through each cable. Differences in the playing, even subtle, are likely to be more noticeable than differences in the cable itself.

That being said, I certainly respect your decision to go for it. Also, I have read a few things over the years that convinced me that Mark at Lava is not only the premier cable maker in the business today but an absolutely great guy too. I'm glad that he got your business and he will get mine if and when I decide to spend serious money on cables.

Keep us posted.


----------



## Wild Bill

pattste said:


> I have never heard of a single double-blind study that concluded that people could reliably hear the difference between cables. I have listened to clips from cable comparisons and could clearly hear differences, but they were not conducted scientifically. Often, the person would play "the same thing" through each cable. Differences in the playing, even subtle, are likely to be more noticeable than differences in the cable itself.


Well, I'm starting to feel a bit guilty! This thread filled over a dozen pages in no time flat. Then I suggested we actually hold a real test and the new posts tapered off to a mere "dribble"!

I'm wondering if we could actually get enough guys willing to stand up and participate in a scientific test. I wanted to hold a night at a watering hole for guitarscanada.com members close enough to attend. If a cable test is going to scare everyone away maybe we should agree first not to do it!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## mhammer

Being one of the few psychologists in the gang, I might point out that while there are some reasonably standard standards for blind testing of audio gear, and of perceptual phenomena in general, there are many pitfalls that would need to be anticipated to be able to come to consensus that there is or isn't difference X or Y or Z.

Do make a point of agreeing beforehand on any methodology to be used, and make sure you provide yourself with a means to randomly present multiple comparisons within the sort of timeframe that allows for auditory memory to do its thing.


----------



## Wild Bill

mhammer said:


> Being one of the few psychologists in the gang, I might point out that while there are some reasonably standard standards for blind testing of audio gear, and of perceptual phenomena in general, there are many pitfalls that would need to be anticipated to be able to come to consensus that there is or isn't difference X or Y or Z.
> 
> Do make a point of agreeing beforehand on any methodology to be used, and make sure you provide yourself with a means to randomly present multiple comparisons within the sort of timeframe that allows for auditory memory to do its thing.


Agreed in principle, Mark. Still, we would have to be careful not to get so rule bound that things get so complicated that no one had any fun!

Remember, most of the claims here in favour of cables being a legitimate factor were of large, obvious and distinct differences. We're not talking subtle nuances here!

If that's truly the case, I would expect that with certain ears they would have no trouble passing a relatively simple blind test. After all, if they couldn't that would settle the question once and for all!

If they DID pass then it would be worth setting up a more vigorous test, to see if the results were actually valid or if they were true but not strong enough to include the general population.

However, as I said before, if the idea of being tested makes many uncomfortable then in the interests of good attendance I think we shouldn't bother.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## guitarman2

Wild Bill said:


> Agreed in principle, Mark. Still, we would have to be careful not to get so rule bound that things get so complicated that no one had any fun!
> 
> Remember, most of the claims here in favour of cables being a legitimate factor were of large, obvious and distinct differences. We're not talking subtle nuances here!
> 
> If that's truly the case, I would expect that with certain ears they would have no trouble passing a relatively simple blind test. After all, if they couldn't that would settle the question once and for all!
> 
> If they DID pass then it would be worth setting up a more vigorous test, to see if the results were actually valid or if they were true but not strong enough to include the general population.
> 
> However, as I said before, if the idea of being tested makes many uncomfortable then in the interests of good attendance I think we shouldn't bother.
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


I will, of course be holding my own tests. Thats the whole reason I ordered the cables. I have no problem submitting my Evidence Audio and Planet waves cables for a public test. But I would like others that have George L's and other high end cables like Van den huls and Vovox to participate as well.
Its not that this thread dribbled off because you suggested a test. The thread had gone quite a few pages by then and there wasn't much to be said. I can see it being tough to organize interest in a public test. Most of those that don't believe a cable makes much of a difference aren't that interested anyway. I've read where many have said even if it made a difference they wouldn't spend the money anyway. And those that believe there is a difference don't need a public test to prove it as they already believe it. Even though it seems I am a supporter of high end cables from this thread but remember nothing has been proven to me yet. I've only got reviews and one helluva big community of people that swear by them. That was good enough to warrant spending the money to find out for my self.


----------



## hollowbody

I'd be interested in a blind listening test, but it would have to depend where it's held.


----------



## mhammer

Wild Bill said:


> Agreed in principle, Mark. Still, we would have to be careful not to get so rule bound that things get so complicated that no one had any fun!
> 
> Remember, most of the claims here in favour of cables being a legitimate factor were of large, obvious and distinct differences. We're not talking subtle nuances here!
> 
> If that's truly the case, I would expect that with certain ears they would have no trouble passing a relatively simple blind test. After all, if they couldn't that would settle the question once and for all!
> 
> If they DID pass then it would be worth setting up a more vigorous test, to see if the results were actually valid or if they were true but not strong enough to include the general population.
> 
> However, as I said before, if the idea of being tested makes many uncomfortable then in the interests of good attendance I think we shouldn't bother.
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


In research, statisticians (whom I know you love) talk about "statistical power". That is, the ability/capacity/opportunity for a test to truly detect an effect/difference if there is one really there. I'm just looking for conditions that would allow folks to fairly agree that nothing of consequence was heard, or that something WAS heard. So, obviously, the transducer at the end of it should be able to reproduce things as flat as possible over as wide a bandwidth as possible. Similarly, if there are differences in efficiency, then the listening area should be as quiet as possible, with minimally reflective surfaces, and a quiet audience.

Actually, what would be great would be some means of digitally recording the signal at the end of the cable so that finer grained analysis could be engaged in by interested parties. It is the case that people can hear things that they find hard to describe, and one shuldn't be hamstrung in any reasonable test by comments like "I dunno, it just sounded...._different_....ya know?". That "different" might have concrete properties that are measurable.

It also bears noting that a lot of the folks interested in this (including myself) have far too many years of high-decibel listening behind them, so one wants a means for comparison that might supercede any single pair of ears. Hence the suggestion to record.


----------



## Wild Bill

A 'lurking source who wishes to remain anonymous sent me this most excellent link:

http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables

Folks might find it interesting.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## guitarman2

Wild Bill said:


> A 'lurking source who wishes to remain anonymous sent me this most excellent link:
> 
> http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables
> 
> Folks might find it interesting.
> 
> :food-smiley-004:



I'm not sure how digital audio figures in to this. How can you compare that to this? Its like the difference between the old way we watched cable where there was varying degrees of picture quality from snowy to pretty good. And now with HD where its either on or its off. In this regard, yes. I didn't spend much on an HDMI cable because there is no such thing really as interference. It either works or it doesn't. 
Is that the same thing with my equipment though. I have not one digital pedal between my guitar and amp. Or when I'm plugged directly in? just my guitar and amp. So is that what cable experts say. That it is the same as the digital audiophiles?
If its exactly the same thing then you have a point. But if its completely different then why bring apples to compare with oranges?


----------



## hollowbody

Wild Bill said:


> A 'lurking source who wishes to remain anonymous sent me this most excellent link:
> 
> http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables
> 
> Folks might find it interesting.
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


I've seen that floating around for a long time. All I can say is this: while they tell you about the Martin Logan SL-3s they're using (which aren't bad speakers, but also aren't very conventional either), there's no mention made of what the ancillary components are.

Much like we agonize over every component on our pedalboard and what tubes and amps we're using, audiophiles do the same with their gear. The differences between cables are harder and harder to pick out when the system's resolution is handicapped. It's like playing an R9 through a Peavey Rage 158 and expecting it to sound glorious. It won't. And it won't sound much different than a Standard or Epi LP.

My experience with cables and they audible differences they can make all stems from using, selling, setting up and trouble-shooting extremely high end gear. All I can say is that my ears have heard the difference that cables can make time and time again. I'm sure if you tried that same experiment with a high resolution system, the results wouldn't be the same.


----------



## hollowbody

guitarman2 said:


> I'm not sure how digital audio figures in to this. How can you compare that to this? Its like the difference between the old way we watched cable where there was varying degrees of picture quality from snowy to pretty good. And now with HD where its either on or its off. In this regard, yes. I didn't spend much on an HDMI cable because there is no such thing really as interference. It either works or it doesn't.
> Is that the same thing with my equipment though. I have not one digital pedal between my guitar and amp. Or when I'm plugged directly in? just my guitar and amp. So is that what cable experts say. That it is the same as the digital audiophiles?
> If its exactly the same thing then you have a point. But if its completely different then why bring apples to compare with oranges?


Terry, it applies because at the end of the day, what you are hearing is analogue, and the test is using speaker cables not interconnects. The picture is confusing, because it shows a pair of interconnects. Regardless of the digital aspect, the signal is converted to analogue before it hits the amplifier. 

However, while it applies, there are pretty significant problems with this, as I mentioned in the above post.


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> I'm not sure how digital audio figures in to this. How can you compare that to this?


That link talks about coat hangers vs. Monster Cable connecting a power amplifier to speakers. That's an _analog_ signal, not digital.



> Is that the same thing with my equipment though. I have not one digital pedal between my guitar and amp. Or when I'm plugged directly in? just my guitar and amp. So is that what cable experts say. That it is the same as the digital audiophiles?


You may not have one digital pedal, but you've got lots of pedals that use lots of very, very, very small wires. None of the wires in those pedals were agonized over like the cable connecting your guitar to them was. And, unwound, those wires through your pedals are probably many, many feet long.



> If its exactly the same thing then you have a point. But if its completely different then why bring apples to compare with oranges?


I'll say the only thing with the coat hanger vs. monster cable article is that it's a _high power_ signal. Not a lower power signal like your guitar produces. A similar experiment, with the coat hanger replacing cable between the audio source and the amplifier would be a reasonable test that you could extrapolate to your guitar cable setup.


----------



## Guest

hollowbody said:


> I've seen that floating around for a long time. All I can say is this: while they tell you about the Martin Logan SL-3s they're using (which aren't bad speakers, but also aren't very conventional either), there's no mention made of what the ancillary components are.


But for the sake of their test though: it doesn't matter. All that matters is there was only one variable in the test: the connection between the power amplifier and the speakers. Everything else was a constant so it's not important.



> I'm sure if you tried that same experiment with a high resolution system, the results wouldn't be the same.


I'm not sure what you're arguing here: that a low resolution system won't show cable differences, or that a high resolution system won't show cable differences? Either way: as long as the rest is constant, it shouldn't matter. If there's a difference it should be audible regardless of the source and sink its connecting. The argument that "you didn't spend enough on your guitar and your amp so an expensive cable isn't getting you anything" is a cover through and through.


----------



## hollowbody

iaresee said:


> You may not have one digital pedal, but you've got lots of pedals that use lots of very, very, very small wires. None of the wires in those pedals were agonized over like the cable connecting your guitar to them was. And, unwound, those wires through your pedals are probably many, many feet long.


Some pedal makers do mention using specific wiring within their pedals, or using silver instead of copper wire. Fulltone mentions having a custom 22 gauge wire made special for them.


----------



## guitarman2

hollowbody said:


> Terry, it applies because at the end of the day, what you are hearing is analogue,


I'm not so sure. Are you saying you hear no difference between music on a CD and music on an old vinyl record?
No difference between a solid state amp and a tube amp?


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> I'm not so sure. Are you saying you hear no difference between music on a CD and music on an old vinyl record?
> No difference between a solid state amp and a tube amp?


No: we're saying comparing CDs to records is not the same as comparing an audio source played through different cables. The source doesn't matter. the CD is turned into an analog signal, then sent down the cable. As long as its only the cable being changed, the experiment is valid. You could repeat it with a record as the source, but it's an unimportant change.

The SS vs. tube amp comparison is a similar invalid comparison. As long as the amp (the sink) is the same for both cables the experiment is valid.


----------



## Guest

hollowbody said:


> Some pedal makers do mention using specific wiring within their pedals, or using silver instead of copper wire. Fulltone mentions having a custom 22 gauge wire made special for them.


Marketing vs. engineering. As long as there are PCBs and ICs and third party components they can agonize away on the connection wire -- in the end they're sending it through some low grade material that was chosen because it was cheap and easy to ablate with an etching process. In the same breath they tout the use of old stock transistors and capacitors -- none of those are using wire that's "high grade" by today's material engineering standards.


----------



## hollowbody

guitarman2 said:


> I'm not so sure. Are you saying you hear no difference between music on a CD and music on an old vinyl record?
> No difference between a solid state amp and a tube amp?


No Terry, that's not it at all. What I'm saying is that when you put a CD in, you're not _hearing_ digital. Digital is the source. What you're actually hearing is analogue. Sound is never reproduced digitally. It can be recorded and stored digitally, but in order to hear it, it has to be converted to analogue first.

This is why some people argue that vinyl is better, because it's performed, recorded, stored and played back in analogue. Some argue that converting it to digital and then back to analogue introduces an unnecessary step in between which can lead to the introduction of digital artifacts and things like dither.



iaresee said:


> But for the sake of their test though: it doesn't matter. All that matters is there was only one variable in the test: the connection between the power amplifier and the speakers. Everything else was a constant so it's not important.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're arguing here: that a low resolution system won't show cable differences, or that a high resolution system won't show cable differences? Either way: as long as the rest is constant, it shouldn't matter. If there's a difference it should be audible regardless of the source and sink its connecting. The argument that "you didn't spend enough on your guitar and your amp so an expensive cable isn't getting you anything" is a cover through and through.


Ian, what I'm saying is that people might have a hard time hearing a difference because the system just doesn't have what it takes to really replicate what's on disc.

I'm positing that a higher resolution system makes it much easier to hear the differences between a single component change than a lower resolution system. I think if you were to try that same test with a much higher-end system, the audible difference would be pretty obvious.

I'll tell a little story here. Back when I was working for an audio boutique, there was one disc I would use quite often to demo a system. It was a recording of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D op.35 that was recorded live using an absolutely staggering amount of super high end mics and preamps, etc. I liked using this recording because there were HUGE dynamic swings that really showed off how capable a system would be at both loud and quiet passages, as well as things like the amp's damping factor, etc.

Anywho, at one point in the recording, someone in the audience coughs, and I would always use that as a point of levity in my sales pitch, saying something about inconsiderate audience members or about how life-like the system can reproduce something like a cough. 

One day, we got in a bunch of new gear. We're talking extremely high end (well into 6 figures). After setting up this system, I had an appointment with a well-known client, so I decided to show off the new gear. When the time for the cough came up, my jaw dropped. It was the first time I'd ever been able to tell that it was a woman who was coughing. It was blatantly obvious. So I made a comment to the client that if the system were any more accurate, it would have given us her phone number as well.

I know it sounds ludicrous, but I swear it happened.

Anyway, my point is that some audio system are capable of things that others aren't. Just like a really good tube amp will be more touch sensitive than an inexpensive one. At the end of the day, it's important to take into consideration every part of the chain when tests are being conducted. It's hard to appreciate the findings when a lot of what happened isn't related to us.


----------



## Pneumonic

I've done a ton of AB testing over the years and the single most important element to ensuring a proper test is to make sure that all listened too signals are of the same voltage reading. So, make sure you get your meter out prior to listening to every sample and take voltage readings at the speaker outputs and raise/lower as necessary in order to properly match. If you don't do this you might as well not bother taking the test.

BTW, it may be more important to get superior digital cable than analog ones. Especially if you are using SPDIF/AES/EBU interfaces with those digital connections. Cable reflections and jitter can be a HUGE problem with digital cables if the termination impedance is mismatched.

- Kerry


----------



## Pneumonic

Hey, Hollow. I have experienced similar jawdropping moments myself.

BTW, what audio shop did you work at ..... I may know you as I was a regular at most all of the GTA shops.

- Kerry


----------



## guitarman2

It seems one common theme here is that there are those that do not believe because science tells them not practical experience and there are those that believe due to having heard the results.
If its all a scam then maybe...

...we never walked on the moon Elvis aint dead we aint goin crazy its all in our heads....:smile:


----------



## Pneumonic

guitarman2 said:


> ...we never walked on the moon Elvis aint dead we aint goin crazy its all in our heads....:smile:


I can vouch for Elvis not being dead ..... I saw him at the 7/11 in Vegas last fall largetongue


----------



## guitarman2

Wild Bill said:


> Remember, most of the claims here in favor of cables being a legitimate factor were of large, obvious and distinct differences. We're not talking subtle nuances here!


What is large and obvious to you may not be so to someone else. Remember we are talking about musicians. Many of whom swear that the glendale compensated saddles or cold rolled vintage bridge transformed their guitars tone dramatically.
Or that one 12AX7 over another sounds significantly sweeter. Those examples I find fairly subtle. Changing speakers however, to me, make a big difference.
When I plug a 20" planet waves cable in to my amp direct as opposed to a 10' cable in through all my pedals. I hear a significant difference. When I added the Axxess buffer pedal to my board I heard a significant difference that made me glad I added it. The differences in these cases were a little more high end and a fuller punchier sound. Maybe even slightly more head room.
These are some things I will be looking for in the new cables. I mean if they are truly better and lower capacitance per foot is what they say then it should put my tone in the direction of the tone I was getting when I plugged my guitar in direct with the 20" cable. I'm not asking for it to perform miracles on my amp. And even if its only a minor improvement well then so be it. After you done everything you can as far as selecting the right guitar the right amp with the right speakers and tubes and what you place in between the guitar and amp I don't expect the cables to make as much difference as those components. But I do expect something.


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> It seems one common theme here is that there are those that do not believe because science tells them not practical experience and there are those that believe due to having heard the results.


Not at all. If some scientific method was applied to the reported results: I'd believe them. There are those that believe in scientific methods and there are those that are happy to believe in uncontrolled experiences.

To hollowbody: The R9/Peavey test isn't invalidated because a Peavey was used. At least: not until another test with another amplifier shows the axiom is wrong. So it isn't that I don't think your prediction is untrue, just that it's untested. All I can say is: maybe you need to have an amplifier with very particular characteristics to appreciate cable changes. Now we need to test that. That's the empirical method: you create an axiom, use it to make a prediction about the outcome of an experiment, perform the experiment and see how well your prediction did. If your predicition was correct, the axiom is correct insomuch as it predicts the outcome of all the experiments you've performed to date. The more tests, the more valid it becomes. So if the source for the test (the Peavey) is in question the only solution is to switch it for something else, and repeat the process. Over time you build up enough tests, and you refine the axiom to the point where it's well trusted and it gets elevated to the status of a law.

I don't think that your experiences in the high fidelity world of stereos isn't unbelievable. It's wonderfully easy to run tests there: you've got a consistent source and swapping one component is simple. And you're working with system that are intended to reproduce a broad range of frequencies, well. Guitar systems: not so high fidelity, all of them. From the Bruno to the Dumble to the Peavey to a Marshall -- they're all working with limited frequency output components on purpose.

But hey, we can test all of this, like Wild Bill says. We can make the rubber meet the road and find out what the real deal here is.

Here's my suggested test harness for figuring out what the skinny is on cables. Easy enough to build and deploy -- we could use it at a meet up.

The setup is:

Guitar --> short reference cable --> switch box that chooses random cables-under-test --> short reference cable --> amplifier input

The reference cables at either end should be of industry standard make. Lets go with Belden -- that's pretty much prevasive in all professional audio applications. And short. 3 feet. 4 tops. Less at the amplifier end. So it has very little impact on the test.

The selector box can use a rotary switch like this: http://www.smallbearelec.com/Detail.bok?no=117 -- that lets us test 6 different cables in one go.

The input on the selector box gets the tip signal wired to the common for pole 1 on the switch. Each selectable output on pole 1 goes to a tip jack on the box. These jacks feed 6 different cables. The return jacks for the cables have tips all tied to the tip on the output of the box. Common ground. The second pole on the switch can be used for an indicator LED to show which cable you're using. The LED needs to be defeatable so it's turned off.

When wiring the switch care should be taken: the switch shouldn't select outputs in series. It should be pseudo-random. Position 1 should get you cable 1, 2 --> cable 2 and so on. Now, with the LED turned off, someone playing the setup shouldn't be able to predict where the switch is taking them when the turn it. It should be labeled only A, B, C, D, E, F -- but which label goes to which output should not be clear. Users then select the cable they like best based on the letter, and the LED can be turned on to reveal the correlation to cable-under-test.

Pnuemonic brought up something that I think is important and should be addressed (although I disagree with a piece of what he said): you need to make sure the signals on the test harness are the same. He said you should measure the signal at the speaker. I disagree for our test purposes. I think you need to make sure the source signal is the same. Any differences at the output in our setup would be attributed to cable differences and that's exactly what we're trying to study. So: how do you make sure you play precisely the same guitar riff, with precisely the same attack every single time through? Easy: you sample it. So our source for this test needs to be a looper. An RC-2 or some such thing. But argh...this presents a problem. While the looper will take a lick and play it back faithfully, over and over, while we cycle through the cables. It, unfortunately, plays it back on a low impedance output. And that's where I'm not sure what we can do...because that output isn't like your guitar's output.

I'm looking forward to this get together!


----------



## Pneumonic

iaresee said:


> Pnuemonic brought up something that I think is important and should be addressed (although I disagree with a piece of what he said): you need to make sure the signals on the test harness are the same. He said you should measure the signal at the speaker. I disagree for our test purposes. I think you need to make sure the source signal is the same. Any differences at the output in our setup would be attributed to cable differences and that's exactly what we're trying to study. So: how do you make sure you play precisely the same guitar riff, with precisely the same attack every single time through? Easy: you sample it. So our source for this test needs to be a looper. An RC-2 or some such thing. But argh...this presents a problem. While the looper will take a lick and play it back faithfully, over and over, while we cycle through the cables. It, unfortunately, plays it back on a low impedance output. And that's where I'm not sure what we can do...because that output isn't like your guitar's output.
> 
> I'm looking forward to this get together!


Just keep in mind that the louder signal will ALWAYS be the one that the listener will focus on most. It will take priority over the others. So, if you are testing for personal preference ..... not level matching is a waste of time.

However, if all you are testing for is differences in cabling then going the sample route may work.


- Kerry


----------



## mhammer

keep in mind that if the key test is listening, then the penultimate step in the pathway is what provides something TO hear: a speaker. There, it starts to turn into evaluating one colour TV being shown to you on another. If the demonstrat*ing* TV is fabulous, then the demonstrat*ed* TV can be evaluated validly.


----------



## hollowbody

iaresee said:


> To hollowbody: The R9/Peavey test isn't invalidated because a Peavey was used. At least: not until another test with another amplifier shows the axiom is wrong. So it isn't that I don't think your prediction is untrue, just that it's untested. All I can say is: maybe you need to have an amplifier with very particular characteristics to appreciate cable changes. Now we need to test that. That's the empirical method: you create an axiom, use it to make a prediction about the outcome of an experiment, perform the experiment and see how well your prediction did. If your predicition was correct, the axiom is correct insomuch as it predicts the outcome of all the experiments you've performed to date. The more tests, the more valid it becomes. So if the source for the test (the Peavey) is in question the only solution is to switch it for something else, and repeat the process. Over time you build up enough tests, and you refine the axiom to the point where it's well trusted and it gets elevated to the status of a law.
> 
> I don't think that your experiences in the high fidelity world of stereos isn't unbelievable. It's wonderfully easy to run tests there: you've got a consistent source and swapping one component is simple. And you're working with system that are intended to reproduce a broad range of frequencies, well. Guitar systems: not so high fidelity, all of them. From the Bruno to the Dumble to the Peavey to a Marshall -- they're all working with limited frequency output components on purpose.


You're right about the frequency response on a guitar amp. It might very well turn out that the high end cables just aren't demonstrably better in this situation because of the frequency range a guitar amp is designed to reproduce.

Maybe we can use your Axe FX unit through a PA??? :smile:


----------



## guitarman2

hollowbody said:


> You're right about the frequency response on a guitar amp. It might very well turn out that the high end cables just aren't demonstrably better in this situation because of the frequency range a guitar amp is designed to reproduce.


If this were true then their would be a lot of musicians even from the pro side that would look like fools. I mean if it is this obvious of a scam why would someone like David Gilmour use them? And don't give me the tired "He gets paid to use and endorse them". Does he need the money that much to perpetuate an obvious scam?


----------



## Wild Bill

iaresee said:


> The input on the selector box gets the tip signal wired to the common for pole 1 on the switch. Each selectable output on pole 1 goes to a tip jack on the box. These jacks feed 6 different cables. The return jacks for the cables have tips all tied to the tip on the output of the box. Common ground.


Not sure about having the return jacks tips all tied together. Would that not allow the capacitance of all the unselected cables to load down the one selected at the input?


Also, I think part of the confusion we're hearing from some of the guys about better materials, digital signal sources and such is that they may not understand that within the amplifier/guitar/cable system we are not dealing with acoustic waves. We are dealing with electricity! The original sound was converted into an electrical signal. What affects electricity are things completely different than what affects accoustics. At the end of the process the electricity is converted back to acoustic sound waves.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## hollowbody

guitarman2 said:


> If this were true then their would be a lot of musicians even from the pro side that would look like fools. I mean if it is this obvious of a scam why would someone like David Gilmour use them? And don't give me the tired "He gets paid to use and endorse them". Does he need the money that much to perpetuate an obvious scam?


I don't know. I'm not David Gilmour, nor do I use super expensive cables. I like using George Ls because I do hear a difference between them and a cheapie cable. But, the fact is that guitar amps don't do 20hz-20khz.

Just like in the world of high-end audio, I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns in the guitar world where you _can_ get a demonstrable performance difference, but only in return for a huge financial investment.

I'm glad you volunteered to be the forum's guinea pig for this! :smile:


----------



## jimihendrix

the truth about guitar cables...

http://www.lavacable.com/TheTruthAboutGuitarCable.pdf

cable 101...

http://www.lavacable.com/cable101.html

interesting...but one must consider the source of this info...

as for celeb endorsements...WHY does a celeb endorse a product...???...

a) they want to appear with the latest/greatest cutting edge space age technology to show how "trendy" and "current" they are...even though they've been out of the spotlight for some years (personally...the wall was the last greatest pink floyd effort)...gilmour uses a fuzzface...but i don't see him endorsing one these days...perhaps the hendrix association has stolen david's fire...or it's cold war technology...even though he still uses one today...

b) celebs endorse products to get their name/pic back in the public eye...they like to pop up now and again..."hey...i'm here...i'm alive...i'm still relevant"...this helps promote their latest release...and stimulates a resurgeant interest in their back catalogue...which could lead to increased media sales...

c) celebs endorse products because they believe in their merit...and actually use the product...i read that jim marshall has never offered a celebrity endorsement...artists choose to use his gear...he doesn't care if you suck or are a virtuoso...as long as you choose marshall...he does not want to deal with "debutante" endorsees...


----------



## Guest

guitarman2 said:


> If this were true then their would be a lot of musicians even from the pro side that would look like fools. I mean if it is this obvious of a scam why would someone like David Gilmour use them? And don't give me the tired "He gets paid to use and endorse them". Does he need the money that much to perpetuate an obvious scam?


I don't think it's a scam. People buy things for all kinds of reasons. People like things for all kinds of reasons. Because I'm a human producing the electrical signal, what makes me play and sound better might not be the wire in the cable but the _experience_ of the cable itself.

When I hold a cable in my hands, when I feel its jack slide securly into the the plug, the heft of it weighing down my guitar a bit -- all of that visceral stuff might make me feel more connected to everything at the end of that cable. And in turn I might feel like my fingers are pushing some very good feelings through that cable and out the amp.

None of that can be discounted.

I said it before: I love the way those cables you bought look. They look killer. I'd feel good plugging one of them in. If that makes you play better, sound better, on that alone they could be priceless.

It's not so much a scam as it is: difficult to measure precisely what it is about the cables that changes people's playing.

We could the blind A/B and find out that you can tell the difference between cables when a sample is playing down them. Then you could plug in and all the feelings of that cable will flood into you and unleash some hell furry of playing. So, for you, that's a better cable. On a level that we're not measuring with the A/B test.


----------



## Guest

Wild Bill said:


> Not sure about having the return jacks tips all tied together. Would that not allow the capacitance of all the unselected cables to load down the one selected at the input?


I thought about that. Definitely possible that having them all tied to the output could be a problem -- but it'd be an equal problem in all cases. Definitely a 3P rotary would be better, but I only did a quick search on Small Bear -- not sure how hard a 3P rotary is to get a hold of.




> Also, I think part of the confusion we're hearing from some of the guys about better materials, digital signal sources and such is that they may not understand that within the amplifier/guitar/cable system we are not dealing with acoustic waves. We are dealing with electricity! The original sound was converted into an electrical signal. What affects electricity are things completely different than what affects accoustics. At the end of the process the electricity is converted back to acoustic sound waves.
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


Now there's a thought Bill! What if we just put a scope on the end of the cables and a function generator on the other end? No doubt that's done in the factory, but it could be revealing to do it ourselves. Throw 'em in a test harness, run a low power sweep through them and A/B the input and output waveforms for each cable. I can bring a fancy pants Tektronic scope that'll let us capture it all on the computer -- overlay the sweep and the different cable responses.


----------



## Guest

hollowbody said:


> You're right about the frequency response on a guitar amp. It might very well turn out that the high end cables just aren't demonstrably better in this situation because of the frequency range a guitar amp is designed to reproduce.
> 
> Maybe we can use your Axe FX unit through a PA??? :smile:


I just wanted to clear up my sentence in that quote of made of my post. I re-read it and it was confusing: I think your experience in hi-fi audio was _valid_. I shouldn't try and talk fancy. I screw it up.


----------



## Diablo

Wild Bill said:


> Well, I don't know why you assume the test would be 'uncontrolled'. We take a half a dozen different cables. We get one guy to hide behind a curtain and play some power chords and some leads, always with the same guitar. The person judging knows each cable only as "number 1" or whatever. He cannot see which cable is in use. The guitar stays the same, the amp stays the same and as much as possible the riffs played stay the same. The 'judge' fills out a score sheet with some notes for each cable test and then we read them out after we match the sheets to the cable that was tested. We repeat with a number of guys listening and look for common observations. What could be better than that?
> 
> As for a certain guitar making you sound like Van Halen, again I have to respectfully disagree, Terry. It doesn't matter what amp I use, what guitar I use, what cable I use or whatever...I sound like crap!:smile:
> 
> That's because I'm a crappy player! When I should have been practicing I snuck off to sniff solder fumes. Now I'm old and fat. It's too late for me to ever become like EVH. Still, I'm content. I've learned enough about amps that I can help GOOD players sound better!
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


I like this idea. As someone who studied and worked in a scientific research lab throughout university, I'd say it can be better controlled however.
First it should be double blind in that the guitarist playing, or the person announcing Cable 1 or Cable 2 etc should not know either which cables are which, as thye could have subtle inadvertent influences on the test.
Ideally, you would want the cables hooked up to something fairly consistent like a cd player to fully remove any introduction of bias or inconsistency (better playing the second time around for instance).
You would then want a large enough sample size of judges, record their votes and apply statistical analysis to the results. In addition to which cable is better, you'd want to also establish a ranking, say out of 10 on how much each cable was preferred/disliked to see if the results are statistically significant.
There may also be a diference in venues (something that sounds good in a club might not sound as good in a studio and vice versa), so that should be considered as well.
just some tips.

For the record I doubt I could discern the difference. My sense of hearing isnt that acute, and my preferred type of music makes it even less so.


----------



## ronmac

It is almost 30 years since I witnessed my first debate on the merits of different cables. Since then I have seen the number of manufacturers, models and variations grow exponentially. Each new wave of marketing claims adds another layer of wax paper to the camera lens focus on reality...

The debate rages on. Grown, intelligent humans discuss ways of conclusively settling the arguments that support their predetermined conclusions. To think that you lot will be successful where others have failed is a bit naive,and perhaps even arrogant.

Forget about this and move on.

Do as I have. Become completely frustrated with the whole lot and get yourself a nice acoustic, or twenty. That way you can discover the world of sitka vs. cedar; rosewood vs. mahogany; Elixir vs. D'Addario (the list goes on).

Me, I prefer to play my acoustic unplugged, and only in the upper floor rooms of my home ('cause everyone knows that the less dense air at that altitude offers less free air resistance to the notes as they propel, in perfect phase, from the hand tuned top). 

Of course I need 20 different acoustics because each of the instruments reacts in a distinct, and easily defined way to the always changing ambient temperature and humidity. 

But wait, I can control that. 

Or can I?


----------



## mhammer

Every reason to eschew the world of pedals and effects and go acoustic. But here's the kicker: even acoustic players have to run their recorded sound through something. Doesn't matter if its a piezo pickup, a rare earth mag pickup at the soundhole or a Neumann tube mic 2 feet in front of them; the sound has to go from the guitar to somewhere else for recording purposes, so a cable will still matter if one wishes to presrve acoustic music for later.

Dang!! Just when you thought you were out, they keep PULLING you back in.:smile:


----------



## WarrenG

ronmac said:


> Of course I need 20 different acoustics because each of the instruments reacts in a distinct, and easily defined way to the always changing ambient temperature and humidity.
> 
> But wait, I can control that.
> 
> Or can I?


Remember how certain you were of the conditions in your room... until you added that SECOND hygrometer.


----------



## jimihendrix

ronmac said:


> It is almost 30 years since I witnessed my first debate on the merits of different cables. Since then I have seen the number of manufacturers, models and variations grow exponentially. Each new wave of marketing claims adds another layer of wax paper to the camera lens focus on reality...
> 
> The debate rages on. Grown, intelligent humans discuss ways of conclusively settling the arguments that support their predetermined conclusions. To think that you lot will be successful where others have failed is a bit naive,and perhaps even arrogant.
> 
> Forget about this and move on.
> 
> Do as I have. Become completely frustrated with the whole lot and get yourself a nice acoustic, or twenty. That way you can discover the world of sitka vs. cedar; rosewood vs. mahogany; Elixir vs. D'Addario (the list goes on).
> 
> Me, I prefer to play my acoustic unplugged, and only in the upper floor rooms of my home ('cause everyone knows that the less dense air at that altitude offers less free air resistance to the notes as they propel, in perfect phase, from the hand tuned top).
> 
> Of course I need 20 different acoustics because each of the instruments reacts in a distinct, and easily defined way to the always changing ambient temperature and humidity.
> 
> But wait, I can control that.
> 
> Or can I?


couldn't have said it better myself...this echoes my sentiments exactly...verbatim...just the right amount of sarcasm to drive home how incredibly inane this tonequest/cable test really is...everyone knows that true tone comes from magic pixie dust sprinkled on the sleeping guitarist between the spring equinox and summer solstice during a full moon...d'uh...!!!...

musicians used to have to worry about getting their guitars/amps stolen during a gig...these days the thieves specifically target high end cables...in epidemic proportions...what has the world come to...???...

and...now we have to add a clause in our last will and testaments...not only who gets to inherit our guitars and amps...but now cables...!!!...they've become the preferred asset to be used as collateral toward house and car loans...

we are collectively at a moral dilemna...feed the world's hungry...or opt for boutique cable...hmm..."what would JESUS do...???"...

as for controlling ambient temp/humidity...it can be done...a la Ted DeVita...aka...the boy in the plastic bubble...

atmospheric pressure is easily controlled via hyperbaric chamber... 

http://www.patmcnees.com/the_boy_in_the_plastic_bubble_36542.htm


----------



## guitarman2

jimihendrix said:


> couldn't have said it better myself...this echoes my sentiments exactly...verbatim...just the right amount of sarcasm to drive home how incredibly inane this tonequest/cable test really is...everyone knows that true tone comes from magic fairy dust sprinkled on the sleeping guitarist between the spring equinox and summer solstice during a full moon...d'uh...!!!...
> 
> musicians used to have to worry about getting their guitars/amps stolen during a gig...these days the thieves specifically target high end cables...in epidemic proportions...what has the world come to...???...
> 
> and...now we have to add a clause in our last will and testaments...not only who gets to inherit our guitars and amps...but now cables...!!!...they've become the preferred asset to be used as collateral toward house and car loans...
> 
> we are collectively at a moral dilemna...feed the world's hungry...or opt for boutique cable...hmm..."what would JESUS do...???"...
> 
> as for controlling ambient temp/humidity...it can be done...a la Ted DeVita...aka...the boy in the plastic bubble...
> 
> atmospheric pressure is easily controlled via hyperbaric chamber...
> 
> http://www.patmcnees.com/the_boy_in_the_plastic_bubble_36542.htm


Gimme a farken break. As if thieves would know the difference between a high end cable and low end simply by looking at them quickly before stealing. Oh yeah we have cable thieves visiting bars now do we? Nothing you've said in this thread has any intellectual relevance that leads me to believe you are anything more than a guy who knows nothing about this subject and choose to ignore any potential merits based on "Because you say so". 
I respect the people in here who are skeptical and give plausible evidence as to why. You basically just clutter up the thread.


----------



## Pneumonic

Quick reference:

Human hearing is most sensitive to sounds in the 1 kHz to 5kHz range with 4 kHz being about the most sensitive frequency point. 

So long as frequencies in this range are being reproduced by the gear in question then you won't have any troubles hearing them ..... in all of their splendor. 

Any properly functioning guitar amp will produce frequencies in this range (and much more). From a hearing perspective the limiting factor is not going to be the amp used but rather the speaker employed. The usable range for your typical guitar speaker is 75 Hz to 5 kHz (greenback for example is 75Hz to 5kHz) so there will be no problems getting the frequencies reproduced that the human ear is most sensitive too. 

As mentioned previously, however, loudness is your culprit with ANY such type of test as the shape of humans hearing response is based on dB range. So the louder the sample the more responsive/sensitive a persons' ear will be to the sound. This loudness difference should be avoided with any test done if the goal is to seek out a preferred sound.

- Kerry


----------



## Diablo

guitarman2 said:


> Gimme a farken break. As if thieves would know the difference between a high end cable and low end simply by looking at them quickly before stealing. Oh yeah we have cable thieves visiting bars now do we?* Nothing you've said in this thread has any intellectual relevance that leads me to believe you are anything more than a guy who knows nothing about this subject and choose to ignore *any potential merits based on "Because you say so".
> I respect the people in here who are skeptical and give plausible evidence as to why. *You basically just clutter up the thread.*


is it really necessary to be this hostile to a fellow member in a post about cables?

In fairness, although mixed in with a *ton* of verbage, all you have said in a nutshell is "I've spent a lot of money on cables because the value of the rest of my equipment warrants it, I enjoy splurging on my hobby, and I think I can hear the difference regardless if others can or can't". Thats fine, we get it. no need to justify your purchase so fiercely. Even those who dont think they can hear a difference between cables probably dont think less of you for saying you do.

But although your guitars tone may be pristine, your postings tone leaves something to be desired.

The above posters point about the value is a valid one. even if thieves arent singling out cables as something to steal, gear does frequently go missing, and they arent likely to leave the cables behind, so whether they know the value of them or not, you're out quite a few bucks if you have expensive cables. That can be a consideration for some.


----------



## guitarman2

Diablo said:


> is it really necessary to be this hostile to a fellow member in a post about cables?


I think I had quite a bit of patience ignoring his sarcasm and useless posts through out this thread. Sure I probably should have continued ignoring him.



Diablo said:


> In fairness, although mixed in with a *ton* of verbage, all you have said in a nutshell is "I've spent a lot of money on cables because the value of the rest of my equipment warrants it, I enjoy splurging on my hobby, and I think I can hear the difference regardless if others can or can't". Thats fine, we get it. no need to justify your purchase so fiercely. Even those who dont think they can hear a difference between cables probably dont think less of you for saying you do.
> 
> But although your guitars tone may be pristine, your postings tone leaves something to be desired.
> 
> The above posters point about the value is a valid one. even if thieves arent singling out cables as something to steal, gear does frequently go missing, and they arent likely to leave the cables behind, so whether they know the value of them or not, you're out quite a few bucks if you have expensive cables. That can be a consideration for some.



If this is what you think then either your reading comprehension is bad or you didn't read and therefore you speak without knowing what your talking about. I don't defend what I have yet to prove to my self yet. I am listening to many views on this subject based on scientific knowledge and practical experience. This thread for me, has been very informative. This thread may spawn a public test.
I thank Wildbill, jarsee, pneumonic, mhammer, hollowbody and some others for their contributions and helping to educate me. 
I may well be back in this thread after testing the cables, when the arrive, posting that I could not hear a difference and the nay sayers were right. Of course if I do hear an improved difference then I guess I'll have to agonize over why, based on supposed scientific information given here, states it should not.
As far as cables going missing, my pedal board goes with me at the end of the night as well my guitar cables go away. The only cable that might stay is the cable to the amp. Its usually not a concern any way as 90% of my gigs are one nighters. Any 2 nighters or more and I sometimes even take my amp heads out at the end of the night.


----------



## mhammer

I just wanted to draw attention to part of guitarman2's original post: "So I'm trying to do as much research as possible so that hopefully I can select the right cables for me first time."

I like that attitude. In the intervening 180-odd posts, I think we may have lost that sense of curiosity in the original post, and maybe mistakenly assumed the gist was "I think THIS cable is the be-all and end-all". There has been no such assertion, and I see every sign that guitarman2 would likely be the first one to admit that there may well be no audible difference between one cable and another costing 6 times as much with 20x as much sworn testimony form experts.

Differences in cable quality DO exist. The key questions have been, and remain:

1) what sorts of complimentary relationships might exist between cables and sources?

2) where are the points of diminishing returns?

3) what are the design features that might consistently be found to deliver "better" (more faithful) sound?


----------



## keeperofthegood

kqoct I have read 1/4 of the posts. Long thread is long kqoct

I think (my 2 cents, just being logical) a lot of the questions are moot, because wire is only 'wire' for a short time, then it is something else and the reason I say that follows:

1) What I am unaware of is any wire that is what it was when bought inside of a few months, or manufactured for that matter, due to atmospheric environment. As it cools off the machinery, before it is encased it is being degraded by its environment. I have never seen a guitar or audio wire with ISO certified gaseous or moisture barrier qualities in it's insulation. I have seen that kind of insulation on double shielded communications cable and that stuff is tough, hard, and pretty inflexible and also rather annealed to the wire itself, when you strip that wire it does not just slide off like butter, there is some definet pull needed. By comparison, the highly flexible audio wire is like loose taffy. So whatever the quality of the originating metal, there are so many points in time that quality can be rapidly lost, and continue to be lost even as it sits sealed in store packages.

"Wire is wire" is a truth, but there is a truth that comes before that, and that is "wire is metal". 

2) Metal is variously reactive to varying degrees, and more reactive to some compounds than to others. Copper is reactive to CO2, forming carbonates. Hot copper is reactive to O2 forming red or black oxides. Copper as a metal also has a crystalline structure. This structure is lost by hammering and die pulling, but is enhanced by bending. The reason you don't 90 degree leads on components is because of this crystal nature. Bending forms high resistances, and are also more likely to break mechanically because crystals are less mechanically strong. 

So, I think that that: Bending, folding, rolling, stepping on, running equipment over, all bend or hammer the teeny weeny tiny copper strands inside the cables, causing various conditions of crystal to exist in that wire. I think that compared to what you bought; in a week of walking around with it, slapping it this or that way, stepping on it, rolling it up, unrolling it, etc it is now different, and in a few months probably nowhere near, electrical signal wise, what it started out as. I say PROBABLY because I have not seen a "0 months of service, 1 month, 10 months' etc comparison.

So as much as I think Mark Hammer has raised good points about using good quality (you really dont want to put your jack in and have it fall right back out for instance and yea, Ive had that with a 2 dollar cable) I also think that guitar cables are a wear item same as picks and should be seen as something that should be replaced somewhat regularly.


----------



## guitarman2

This morning before I left for work a white van pulls up and delivers my cables. Of course I don't have time to do anything this morning but I couldn't resist pulling out the guitar cable and plugging in quickly I quickly.
I plug in directly and play a few quick notes, then plug in my planet waves and play a few notes. I didn't really hear any difference but its hardly a fair test as I'm running a bit late for work and in a hurry. But it tells me that more than likely the results won't be jaw dropping. Of course I've almost always heard that expression in relation to the Van den hul cables that cost about twice as much.Hopefully this weekend I'll get a chance to run a fair test of these cables. Possibly it will make much more of a difference running through the whole rig as the cable run will be much longer.


----------



## pattste

guitarman2 said:


> Possibly it will make much more of a difference running through the whole rig as the cable run will be much longer.


I'm sure that I'm not the only one interested in the full report. Although you're not the first one to upgrade your guitar cables, your situation is interesting for a few reasons.

You are starting from a good quality cable (not junk) and upgrading to what's universally recognized as a very high-end cable.

You have an open mind on the subject; you're willing to admit that it may make no difference or could make a difference but don't expect that it will be "like taking a blanket off my amp" or such stupid hyperbole.

I'd be curious to know how much cable you're actually using (i.e. the breakdown) from guitar to pedal board, between pedals (how many pedals) and between pedalboard and amp, anything going to an effect loop?


----------



## guitarman2

A bit of an update:

First off I'm using 10' from guitar to pedal board; Pedal board is 7 devices consisting of a Sonic research turbo tuner an axxes buffer pedal and 5 effects pedals. Pedals and tuner are true bypass. Then a 15' cable from pedal board to reverb. and 6' cable from reverb to amp. I replaced the 6 foot Planet waves speaker cable from amp to cabinet (6' being the shortest I could get) with a 2' Evidence Audio speaker cable. If anything at least its a little neater back there.
Cable for cable one on one with the planet waves. Plugging the 10' Evidence audio cable in direct to amp then plugging planet waves in direct I had to struggle to hear any difference. I was using my Circuit breaker Planet waves. I have a Nuetrik silent plug on the evidence audio cable which is more convenient then the circuit breaker. With the circuit breaker you have to manually engage it. Sometimes it can get engaged when you don't mean it to. The Nuetrik silent plug engages it self when you unplug the cable.
As I said there was very little difference between cables. Certainly not a "one is better scenario." I did like the tone of the Evidence Audio as the Planet waves had a slightly harsher mid. The Evidence Audio was smoother in this respect and the highs seemed less spikey. But this doesn't come down to improvement but rather preference. Someone else might have liked the harder mids and spikey highs. On a different rig it could even be a different result. 
Now testing the whole rig with the Evidence audio cable there was a problem that made it so I was unable to truly evaluate. At first it seemed like the planet waves cable was slightly fuller and more powerful sounding. Then I realized I was getting some volume drops. At first I thought it was my outboard Dr Z Zverb as I've had some issues with that. I ended up taking it all apart cleaning it and swapping tubes to no avail. It seemed like it was the reverb as I would lose almost all power if I turned the mix knob on even a little bit. But then I decided to try each cable directly in to the amp to see if I could isolate it to a cable. I had to run through each cable twice but finally found a fault in the 6' cable. It didn't seem bad but there was a buzz in the cable. When I touched the end of the cable while plugged in to the guitar it stopped buzzing. Is this a ground problem? Was the soldering done on the ends faulty? Maybe some of the more technical can answer those problems. When I moved the cable around it made some noise and crackling as well.
So at any rate when I replaced the faulty cable with the planet waves the rig sounded normal again. So rather than mix cables, for now I continued some testing with out the reverb. Still though Planet waves versus Evidence Audio there was nothing jaw dropping. However where the cable did excel is when I took the axess buffer of the board. Plugging the planet waves cables in minus the buffer quickly reminded me why I bought the buffer. When I used the evidence audio in place of the planet waves it did however regain what the planet waves lost. These differences didn't make as much difference when going through the buffer. This is an interesting test to me. It shows me that the buffer was doing its job. However The buffer does color the sound. I felt I got a more transparent sound with the evidence audio cable with out the buffer. In my case I like the tone color of the buffer though For me it accentuates the bell like voxy chime that my amp was designed after and the Celestion Blues excel at. So the buffer will be staying. 
Most likely so will the Evidence audio. It is a slightly different smoother tone than the Planet waves. And even saying this I need to test further when I recieve the replacement cable that Mark from lava cables has already sent out.
Hopefully this gives you a general idea of where I'm at. I havent really been wowed at all. And I'm not likely to be. There may be some small improvements that are guaranteed to be lost on a live stage. Even at home you'd need critical listening. I don't expect a 6' cable to make a world of difference. Although one of the other claims about these high end cables is that they need a break in period where they start sounding better. Who knows.
I never really noticed speaker break in until I had my celestion blues and noticed a big difference after they broke in. But cable break in? Hmm, Yeah I'm suspicious.
Well sorry for the rambling and hope at least some of this makes sense. It wasn't an easy straight forward night for testing as I'd hoped.


----------



## Guest

Terry, what a fascinating read. Thanks for taking the time to post that.

It does indeed sound like the sheild on your 6' cable isn't soldered to the sleeve of the jack.

Excellent to hear the buffer does its job and very interesting to hear it colours the sound. I wonder if its an impedance difference between the buffer's input and the amp's input? Not sure what else would make it colour the sound. Certainly points to how the system as a whole has to be considered when evaluating stuff.

Keep us posted on how they work live. The mechanics of them.


----------



## ronmac

That was a great post. Removing the emotional attachment from reviewing a new toy(s) is not an easy thing to do. You did good.

I commend you on your commitment and struggle to improve your rig and elevate the quality of your art. It isn't all about the WOW! moments, but rather a steady march towards the beat of your own drum. If you continue, I am sure that you will be rewarded.

Terry, you should also be thanked and congratulated for keeping your perspective intact, especially considering the very public way you have laid out your quest, and the number of responses that ranged from skepticism to "what, are you out of your mind?!". It takes a mature and insightful mind to come back to us with your true findings and feelings, and not try to defend a predetermined or biased position. 

Thanks!


----------



## greco

ronmac said:


> Terry, you should also be thanked and congratulated for keeping your perspective intact, especially considering the very public way you have laid out your quest, and the number of responses that ranged from skepticism to "what, are you out of your mind?!". It takes a mature and insightful mind to come back to us with your true findings and feelings, and not try to defend a predetermined or biased position.
> 
> Thanks!


Ronmac stated this better than I would ever be able to.

Terry, thanks for all the (ongoing) time and energy you have put into this thread.

With my utmost admiration and respect, 

Dave


----------



## whammybar

guitarman2 said:


> But this doesn't come down to improvement but rather preference. Someone else might have liked the harder mids and spikey highs. On a different rig it could even be a different result.


To me this simple statement is the basis for all choices of all gear period. We start out with some gear, hear something that works with our ear we like better and we make a change.

In my personal experience with cables, or any piece of gear for that matter, the longer you ues it the longer you milk the tone out of it and it becomes your tone. For example you pick up a strat for the first time and go 'yuc' how does anybody play this thing? Then you slowly find sweet spots, the tone knobs, the 2 and 4 position etc. So it is, at least with me, with cables (perhaps my financial situation as had something to do with it). I plug in with the cable I've got or the place I'm in has got, and after a bit of tweaking with knobs and playing I find my sweet spots, maybe in slightly different places than with other gear, and I just start to sound like me. It doesn't really matter what I'm using.

I'm glad to read about all the testing don't get me wrong, but in the end whether you spend the money or not, you'll find the sweetness in the gear you're using and that becomes your tone, your number 1.


----------



## guitarman2

I got the replacement cable from lavacable friday but didn't really do much critical listening as I've been preoccupied with my new purchase a 61 reissue SG. I couldn't really judge any improvement in tone with the SG as its a completely new guitar for me. It sounds great through my amp though even though I haven't even changed the strings. They are pretty dead.
But lastnight I plugged my CS Nocaster in for the first time this weekend and it did sound like it had more punch especially in the high end. To me it sounded like an improvement but who knows as it could be the fact that I haven't had my tele plugged in since I got the SG last week. Not good to have too many purchases all at once when you're trying to determine if something is an improvement.


----------



## tojoe

I like George L's, simplicity and a small diameter cable..


----------



## guitarman2

Just an ending post to this thread to let everyone know my final opinion. 
Tone wise I think there was a difference but after many, many listening tests and comparisons it is miniscule. 
To address the Evidence Audio cables directly I have found them very unreliable. One cable came to me defective and the guitar cable with the silent plug didn't last the first night of the first gig I used it on. 
I will be sending it back for hopefully, a refund. I'll likely keep the remaining working cables and hope they last. 
In my opinion I think that high end cables can be important and that most likely for what George L's cost or even maybe Marks Lavacable would be fine for anyone. You don't spend too much and you still get a good low capacitance cable. I'll most likely pickup a couple of George L's for my guitar cables.


----------



## dan_

Thanks for the follow-up on this...was looking forward to the update!


----------



## hollowbody

I wonder if the point of diminishing returns happens earlier in guitar cables because of the nature of the signal passing through it? According to some googling, an electric guitar puts out sound in the range of 82hz to 1050hz, which is a small fraction of the 20hz-20khz that is regarded as full frequency spectrum in home audio reproduction. 

Maybe if the cable is being taxed with really low bass fundamentals and high harmonics, it's easier for it to reproduce the fairly narrow range of a guitar?


----------



## Guest

Terry, thanks for the final update. That sucks they didn't work out. As I said before: they sure look nice and I like nice looking things.  Were these soldered at the Evidence factory or are they made by the cable builder you bought them from? That's disappointing the quality was so poor for such an expensive cord.


----------



## guitarman2

iaresee said:


> Terry, thanks for the final update. That sucks they didn't work out. As I said before: they sure look nice and I like nice looking things.  Were these soldered at the Evidence factory or are they made by the cable builder you bought them from? That's disappointing the quality was so poor for such an expensive cord.


I'm thinking that Mark makes them at Lavacables. Which is disturbing since he has a great reputation. I could be wrong though. Maybe they were made at E.A.
When the guitar cable died I resorted to my Planet Waves Circuit Breaker guitar cable and the tone did not change one bit that I could tell. I do notice a difference in tone between all planet waves and all Evidence Audio. Planet Waves are darker sounding with not quite as articulate on the mids
The E.A. cables are very bright, and smooth articulate mids. Just changing the guitar cable didn't change this. But I had read that out of all the Planet waves cables the circuit breakers are the lowest capacitance. When I used Planet waves I used only the circuit breaker for the guitar cable then a different model planet waves for the rest.
I'll not likely go back to the planet waves as I like the brighter, clearer sound of E.A. I'll likely end up with George L's or another cable that gives me the brighter sound. Due to the reliability issue I'm having with Evidence Audio and the fact they are very expensive, it doesn't look like I'll be using them long.


----------



## mhammer

You know, at the end of what has been a rather tortuous and occasionally heated thread, I really have to commend you on:

a) putting your money where your mouth is,
b) keeping an open mind,
c) providing a balanced report,
d) being the kind of realist and pragmatist that all of us here should strive to be.

Kudos, buddy.:bow::bow:


----------



## Budda

I only read the last page, great information in there!

Thanks, Terry!


----------



## ronmac

mhammer said:


> You know, at the end of what has been a rather tortuous and occasionally heated thread, I really have to commend you on:
> 
> a) putting your money where your mouth is,
> b) keeping an open mind,
> c) providing a balanced report,
> d) being the kind of realist and pragmatist that all of us here should strive to be.
> 
> Kudos, buddy.:bow::bow:


+1

Balanced and respectful reviews are always a joy to read.


----------



## guitarman2

I have to add just one more thing that speaks to the quality of service from the Cable manufacturer. 
I sent the defective guitar cable back to Mark at Lavacable and was originally going to ask for a refund but have decided to just let Mark fix it and send it back.
Mean while Tony at Evidence Audio has offerred to send me a 12' Forte guitar cable which is a new offering that isn't officially released yet. Its basically the same as his top of the line Lyric HG but with much more flexibility. The Lyric is a pretty stiff cable. So at least now I'll have a back up.
So in spite of the fact that the cables aren't what I'd call "knock your socks off" improvement, there is better clarity to a degree that i can hear. I had to turn my cut knob (too bright) down to half of what it normally is.
But the service and willingness for Mark at Lavacable and Tony at Evidence Audio to go out of their way to provide great service. If you're trying to tweak everything you can out of your equipment high end cables like this could be a good way to do it. They are guaranteed for life
On the other hand I think that 90% of the players are going to be happy with Planet Waves. as they are a very good cable and definitely near enough to the high end offerings for most applications and are also gauranteed for life. I recommend getting the Planet waves from Long&Mquade though as I've heard stories of other music stores giving customers a hard time with returning without the receipt, etc. I've never had a single problem with L&M. They take it back with no reciept and give me a new one.
Even with these high end cables my planet waves will be staying with me as well. With the cables I have, theoretically I shouldn't have to buy another cable in my life and I'll have plenty of back ups.


----------

