Confused about recording + interconnects

[andrzejpw]

I'd like to pose a bit of a dilemma for you. First off, interconnects do make a difference. There's no doubt in my mind that my outlaws are a vast improvement over those thin apex dvd player box-ins I was using a year or so ago.

Now, if you've ever been in a pro-audio environment, you know that the cables used aren't of the highest quality. I've worked alongside some real pro-audio guys, and I've done some of my own work. Basically, its usually (though not always) some Shure SM58 betas, some misc XLR wire, and we go to town. I'd imagine that the the guys recording for chesky, telarc, etc, are using stuff that's vastly superior to the stuff I use most of the time. But then, I'd doubt that they're using valhalla cables for their runs.

So, why do cables make a difference? Does the mastering process help here? Is the shielding on more expensive, "audiophile" cables the main factor in improving sound quality?

-Andrzej

 

[chrono]

I once looked into getting some Studio quality 1/4" cables for my setup. The most expensive ones were about $50.00 CND for 3 feet, and were specifically designed as professional studio 1/4s.

Considering most audio work is done in stereo, you would need two of these for most applications. So $100 for 3 ft. Its a fair amount, but Im sure there are some audiophile cables that go for alot more.

When you hook up a synthesizer to a sound card, you definately want the best audio quality possible. You can get this buy having a really good soundcard, especially one with 24/96 processing and a very low S/N ratio. But then the cables transfering the audio signal would also need to be high quality, as to not loose any audio quality. This is where you'd find the best use for good cables, because it will be audible in your finished work, no matter where you listen to it.

If you get high quality cables to run from your soundcard to your amp, you are preserving the quality again, but it will have no effect on your recording. It will increase the playback quality slightly, and could make an impact on mastering. I dont think this impact would be very large though.

 

[fredpb]

1) Copper used.
2)Insulation material used.
3)Physical construction or layout of cabling.
4)Size (gage) of conductors.
5)Solder used.
6)Interconnect plugs.
7)Length of cables.

ABove in no particular order.

I think the most important items are #2 and #4.

If the insulation material is not proper, it could corrode the conductors, like the standard speaker wire peoplel use.
ALL PVC cables in my house have corroded the copper under it.
My original Monster cables were grotesque....speaker cables.
They were green and black when I threw them away.

I was given some Kimber PBJ's for Christmas. I just said "I would like a new set of cables".... Since I have been saying this for years with one particular brand I wanted (Straightwire Encore II)
I thought that is what I would get. Wrong. Got the Kimbers.
I DON'T like them. The Kimber PBJ's are not match for the Encore's. Oh well.


I have not tried the Outlaws.

 

[HD-5000]

Even if a recording is recorded with less than stellar cables, your upgraded cables will indeed make a positive difference in the end.

Lets say that a recording was made with $5 IC's.
Now, you use the same $5 IC's in your system.
Finally, switch to your Outlaws or Cardas or whatever. Their should be an obvious difference.

 

[Orpheus]

alright..... you brought it up.

if you have been in a real studio... like the big ones... you'll know they have literally MILES of cable. now think about it... if you have 5000+ ft of cable..... getting stuff like valhalla which is like $1000/ft.... welp, even bill gates wouldn't buy that stuff.

probably the most extravagant cable you'll ever find in a real studio is probably imported Mogami, which is like $0.80/ft max for star quad. and most won't pay 1/4 that!--probably normal 2-conductor Canare or Belden.

so, now you have a dilemma.....

the questions is, have you ever considered cables DO NOT make a difference?

most people at home don't run more than a couple meters of cable from your source to the preamp to the amp. now... consider this... even at my very modest home studio, i have the inserts hooked up to the patchbay. ....so, this is how it goes for an avergage piece of equipment:

1. 10ft of cable from source to mixing board
2. 10ft to patchbay
3. 10ft back from patchbay
4. ...signal passes through channel preamp on board and through equalizers and aux's
5. ...signal then passes through main section preamp
6. 10ft to patchbay again
7. signal passes through whatever's patched in, but in bypass mode during recording. -usually my BBE, EQ, and maybe a compressor... though bypassed, there is 10ft of cable to and from each piece of equipment.... so that would make 60ft for 3 pieces of patched in gear
8. 10ft back to board again
9. 10ft to recording system.

..........alright.... that's 120ft of cable for just one instrument!!! now, this is a very small studio. go to a big name one, and you can multiply that figure by 5-10x!--for ONE instrument. and remember, on an average recording, there will be 10-30 mics!

so.... if you still think that a couple meters of the $100-1000 cables makes a difference?

maybe they do. maybe. but logically, you cannot deny that such is extremely improbable. this is the case with any religion. illogical, but never can be proven for fact.

i'm not sure if people here realize how far a signal really travels in an average studio.... hope this makes things clearer.

 

[Orpheus]

oh ps... about shielding on expensive audiophile cables:

the original valhalla had NO shielding. new ones do.--but most of the Nordost line does NOT have shielding. the kimber kables have NO shielding. homegrown cables have NO shielding.

i think that answers that question.

 

[fredpb]

As far as studio cabling goes. You assume studios have great sound. 99% of my cd's suck. Studios have no idea what real audiophile sound is. No idea at all. Some do. Reference Recordings does. The old Mercury Living Presence label did. Some London FFRR did. Mapleshade Recordings does. But your average studio? With rows of electronics and miles of wires.
No way. Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs?

Look at the truly magnificent recordings, soundwise, and you will find they usually have unique sound recording setups. Not the run of the mill garbage that is out there.

 

[fredpb]

Quote:

Originally posted by HD-5000 Even if a recording is recorded with less than stellar cables, your upgraded cables will indeed make a positive difference in the end. Lets say that a recording was made with $5 IC's. Now, you use the same $5 IC's in your system. Finally, switch to your Outlaws or Cardas or whatever. Their should be an obvious difference.

Recordings are only as good as their weakest link. If you record with $5 IC's, $100 IC's will not improve the sound. They may keep it from sounding like two $5 IC's, but not $100 IC's.

 

[Orpheus]

well, i do believe that you're telling the truth... that you do not like 99% of the professional recordings out there. that's fine. people have many tastes.

here's the deal.... in the world of professional recording, it's the person behind the mixing board that dictates the sound of the recording, NOT THE EQUIPMENT. any person "in the biz" will tell you that. doesn't matter if you record in the $5 million Sony studios.... if i'm behind the mix, you ain't gonna get a good sounding record! now.... if you put Sir George (is that the guy that was the Beatle's engineer?--sorry, forgot his name) behind the mix, in my home studio!, well, you got a recording there that would easily beat many "professional" recordings out there.

perhaps your "audiophile" recordings do sound better. i cannot say that they do not, as i have not heard many of them. but i will tell you this.... in Stereophile's list of must have CDs... i don't think there is a single "reference" recording in there, besides one made by the editor himself (is his name atkinson or something? sorry i forget names easily).... and you can guess why that CD was in the list.

yes, equipment does influence the sound.... but there are many other varibles there. you see all those knobs on compressors? on the mixing boards? on the parametric equalizers? on the reverbs? this stuff is complicated!--if i gave you $100 million in equipment, i can guarantee you will not make a better recording than Sir George on a all-in-one studio and a couple AKG mics ($2000) in equipment.

do you realize there are other things that affect sound more than cables (assuming they do make a difference?) ...one TINY TINY TINY millimeter of movement in a knob on a equalizer would change the sound more than any cable you could possibly buy! or how about one little push on that mixing fader? or perhaps the movement of a microphone by as little as an inch can affect the sound enormously.

don't get caught up in your equipment too much man. listen to the music, not the list of fancy cables they used.

anyway.............. you believe what you will.

but that still does not change the fact that in a $2 million dollar studio, you still have MILES of cables.

 

[fredpb]

Thou art not the sole user of recording studios.

Go to Mapleshade website and look into their "studio".

Do some research into Mercury Living Presence record techniques.

The very fact that there is a mixing console as you describe in the signal path nullifies the quality of the audio.

Stereophile is not the end all of all publications.

Many records will sound ok to studio techs because they have not heard the "audiophile sound", and can't control it anyway.
Most of today's "groups" will sound ok because their equipment is mainly electronic..... bass, guitars, etc. And mikes.

Recording the nuances of a string quartet or even a symphony is quite a bit different than a studio hip hop recording.

Face it. Cables can make a difference, if the source is adequate.

Of course, many tech or engineering types don't believe this.
I did not. Until I went on a quest to hear the difference about 4 or 5 years ago. And even my old ears can tell the difference.
My discovery was very expensive.

 

[Orpheus]

well, i couldn't find pictures on the mapleshade website, but from their article, i can tell you that what they say is very impressive. not that i think it can actually produce good results..... but the fact that the dude can work without EQs, compressors, and mixing boards is a huge feat! i can't imagine the work that must go into his recordings. (he has to use some type of mixer though... unless if he records everything from one microphone... maybe not a conventional one, but still a mixer.)

actually, i would like to hear a sample of their work someday. it sounds interesting.

but anyway.... it's still a fact... the sound of a recording is not the result of the equipment used, but the taste of the engineer.

using a mixer does not mean that the signal is degraded in any way... or at least not any different from using the preamps he uses. a mixer is simply a big board with routing functions, and many preamps. go out and buy 30-50 $4000 preamps, and combine them together, and you got one of the nicer consoles out there. nothing wrong with that.

and yes, you are right.... recording a live string section does mean different recording techniques than a hip-hop group.... but so what?... i'd like to see him try to record such music with his setup.... i doubt it would be even listenable.

in general, most engineers do try to capture the dynamic range of a live orchestra, so as you probably noticed, classical CDs are very quiet compared to pop music. when you listen to a pop song though, you want the drums to kick... the snares to snap, the voice to rise above the mix..... and that sort of sound would be next to impossible with his setup to create.

but that is not to say his recordings cannot sound good. ....i'm sure he only chooses types of music that he thinks he can reproduce okay with his equipment. i doubt anyone would ever want to hear N'Sync recorded in his studio.

but here's MY POINT:

you listen to all the conventional CDs out there... and some sound great, some sound worse. well, it's the same thing with using mapleshade's techniques... the engineer makes the sound. not the equipment.

that is why no popular musician records in their studios. believe me, if his techniques were awesome, pros would use them!!!.... these recording engineers are just like you audiophiles. they nick-pick over little details... discuss sound.... argue and present different points... just like us. it's just that mapleshade techniques are not practical, nor can they be used for most music. and more importantly, most people do not like the sound.

....but i'll go ahead and buy a CD and check it out myself, before i bash them.

which CD do you recommend me to buy?--to listen for "sound quality?"

after i listen, i'll post my opinions.

thanks.

 

[tanfenton]

But, Orpheus, what about those of us who would do anything but listen to the music being played these days, most music? And what to say about popular music--why can it not sound good recorded minimalistically, and why would simplicity, since most of it is so unsophisticated, not be a good mode for it? And this would beg the questions, some of which may be beyond the scope of this discussion, of why that music is popular, what merit it has, and furthermore why its unpenned canon has it sounding the way it does.

NGF

 

[Orpheus]

i'm sorry... i dunno if i understood your questions....

but here's the deal, like freepb pointed out, different types of music needs to be mixed in different ways. and it also depends on the target audience.

let's take N'Sync for instance. (just for your record... i think the music itself is very well thoughout, but the singers are AWEFUL!!!) but anyway.... listen to it carefully. you hear how all the voices sound like they are at the same volume, even when you can tell they are shouting at the top of their lungs, AND when they are just whispering? not only that.... since the singers are so DAMN AWEFUL, you really think they can all sing at a constant volume through the whole song? no.... they cannot. you know how they do it?--they use something called a compressor.

now, a compressor is very useful for many instruments too. like drums..... does an average drummer hit the drum at a constant volume? no.... depending on the skill of the drummer, his drumming will have variance in volume...

now, these variances in volume can be very big. perhaps you mix in the drums at half the dynamic range of your recording........ one bad hit can send the signal into clipping/distortion.

so.... they use a compressor to "compress" the dynamic range. it makes singers sound more skillful. it makes drums sound louder. it can be used to "pull" sounds out of a mix. many different uses.

now.... how 'bout instruments? ....sometimes instruments have tonal similarities to other instruments. so.... what if you recorded say a clarinet and french horn for the same song? sometimes you won't be able to really hear them very well in the final mix cause they sound very similar. and some instruments have the same pitch range too. so what do you do?--you apply EQ to make different sounds stand out.

so that's what they do in a N'Sync album. ....singers are compressed and EQ'd to sound more professional, and to add definition. ...drums are compressed and EQ'd to ROCK the subwoofers. everything in the middle is EQ'd to make them not interfere with the singers.

...that's the general principle.

so, you're question: why can't you use minimalistic recording techniques for pop bands like this?--cause they would sound darn aweful recorded this way. no teenager would ever listen to such a record! it would have less snap, less boom, and more yucky Justin Timberlake!

get the idea?

but i'm still curious how these mapleshade records sound. if someone could recommend me one to buy...... i'd gladly let you know what i think afterwards. truthfully too.

orpheus

 

[tanfenton]

Then would you agree, generally, that popular music engineers are in the business of making poor musicians passable? And in the case of people who can actually play, sing, what have you--why do they need someone covering for them? It's all part of the show. I'm not listening to be lied to.

Oh, recordings: The Windmill Saxophone Quartet's A Touch of Evil and Midnight Blue's Inner City Blues.

NGF

 

[Orpheus]

i wouldn't say that...

how 'bout this.... good engineers can make bad performers sound better. but good engineers can make good performers sound their best.

....i was only talking about N'Sync to give an extreme example. how 'bout band like U2?--they're very talented. but it's very hard to control the dynamics of such a type of band. drums.... guitars.... vocals... they all need their "space." so, EQ's are used to make the instruments "sit" better in the mix. compressors help bring out the snap in the drums. that sort of thing.

most engineers would not dream of doing a whole record without any compression or EQ at all. some like to use less of course.... maybe waiting 'till the end of the processing chain to do their thing.... but mapleshade (IF they are truly telling the truth) is VERY unusual.

that is why i want to hear some of their records before i judge them more.

but one thing is true: the more you do to the sound, the more you are distorting the truth. but the problem is, sound that is recorded straight just doesn't sound good. you know why?--because recording to a CD, or any medium for that matter is a compromise. using a microphone is a compromise. and them having it all barfed out of a speaker is a MAJOR compromise. that is why when you record, you are changing the sound so that i sounds better after going through the mic, and going all the way to the speakers.

the moment you use a mic to record a sound, you have already transformed the pure acoustical energy into electricity. ....all the processing we do is an attempt to make a sound that sounds better through speakers.... not necessarily what is closest to the original performance.

but i understand your argument. ...but you must understand... all recording are a "lie." they are a distorted representation of the truth. it's just a matter of how you want this "lie" to sound.

kinda off topic aren't we?

welp, i've ordered those CDs..... i'll let you know.

orpheus