The Chronicals
Disruptor
A tidy house is a tidy mind Steve!
Balanced v Unbalanced
- Thread starter SteveG
- Start date
A tidy house is a tidy mind Steve!
SteveG
pfm Member
We're still suffering from the fallout from going from living out of two houses to just the one, and my study is one of the dumping grounds for spare stuff!
The Chronicals
Disruptor
Actually, there are a range of engineers that do choose to use specific cables when studio recording. Many don't, many do. One engineer I use to work with always used Belden 8402 in balanced configuration for recording because of the very specific sound it gave out. I borrowed some from him and tried it in my Hifi and wasn't a fan.
Also, with the processers and systems available on tap in a studio, you can pretty much make anything you want to sound like anything you want, so fine tuning a natural sound through a cable isn't really needed. Most Hifi setups are no where near the standard of a studio, no matter what the owner says it cost, hence why traction isn't made in pro setups.
cooky1257
pfm Member
I'd argue it's because it's more than good enough and bypasses all the BS, your Belden 8402 anecdote made me laugh-does he use 8402 throughout, is the 'sound' cumulative, if yes then how can he control the finished product as the sound will change as the project size increases(bounces/drop ins , overdubs etc), if no then why not just use it in the final bounce to master? etc etc.
The Chronicals
Disruptor
You could argue that, which you tried and failed. The Belden sounds very very different to say Mogami or Van Damme of the same calibre , which are both also 'good enough to bypass all the BS', but they sound inherently different. So you've kinda argued your own point there.
The Belden is actually an old fashioned cable used in the 60's, as manufacturing and materials have changed over the years, its probably why it has a different signature as they have tried to keep it the same as it was built in the 60's. Therefore, fully supporting that cables sound different, however it is that they achieve that (material, dialect, configuration etc).
His sound is created by whatever methods he chooses, he may prefer it raw, and use the cables attributes as the sound signature. I have my own setup for my own personal sound for recording, many studio artists do, and these are the ones that merge through as 'someone' who other artists want on their record as they have a certain sound, and sometimes cables will have a small part of that.
cooky1257
pfm Member
Funny, really funny. "sorry man, my sesh was off today, I left my belden 8402 guitar lead at home..." It's fascinating how nondescript, non foo cables don't prevent 'clients' hearing the cable magic and the foo fairy dust they sprinkle over your stuff.....
Last edited:
The Chronicals
Disruptor
You've much experience?
Which ones did you go for? I tried the 2354 and the 2549 Quad.
I found the 2354 to be a lot darker sounding, more compressed.
The 2349 was more neutral, so I settled for that one for my mine 6m run. But I did DCT it and my Mogami 3104 speaker cables which was a GREAT decision.
The Chronicals
Disruptor
Cool, personally I thought it was the better cable over the 2354 and cheaper. Although I do use the Quad 3104 as speaker cable which I felt was better than the Neglex version.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
A snag if comparing balanced and unbalanced with given kit is to ensure the overall output level isn't changed. Otherwise you can hear an 'improvement' due to the change in the sound level and assume it is due to the choice of transfer method.
SteveG
pfm Member
I mentioned in an earlier post that I have a sound level meter so will have a quick check with that if I do hear a difference, to confirm if it is just a higher output level.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
TBH Given how often the output from studio/recording 'engineers' tends to be excessively level compressed, clipped, etc, I can't say I tend to regard them as *all* being a reliable judge of sound quality. So I'd tend to be picky about which ones out of a 'range' I might trust.
That said, yes, I'd expect that some cables may do a better job of keeping down interference, etc, than others. How much that matters in a home setup with short connections in a much simpler setup than a studio, though, is an open question.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
Because they are not idiots like many tin foil hat wearing audiophools and they know all cables sound the same.
cooky1257
pfm Member
I'm experienced enough to know the bands I've been involved with down the years would kick your arse so far down the path if you came out with crap like that...;-)
The Chronicals
Disruptor
So a no then.
cooky1257
pfm Member
Are you 7? Please elaborate, what is this 'experience' you deem to have that I don't?
In what way does this experience and ahem, cable knowledge you claim set you apart?
The Chronicals
Disruptor
I asked you your experience, you didn't really respond other than a strange comment about kicking a persons arse.
Have you also read this thread? or just joined in the tail end plastic scouse style?
cooky1257
pfm Member
You asked if I had experience........I can only assume 'experience of musicians selecting other musicians based on their 'sound' and the effect magic cables played in that sound' and you got your answer to such a load of pretentious bull.
FWIW I've commissioned music for hundreds of TV commercials and seen the inside of more top studios than you could ever hope to.
The other crap kind of answers my age related question.
Sorry NO that is incorrect, on shity kit maybe. I thought like you did but some 30+yrs ago I tried Monster and home made cable using Ag Litz and guess what, Monster was garbage so was QED and Naim and Linn compared to it .
Get some nice kit and try again like Matt Lynch and other did whilst slagging of the designs I have done for TQ, OK now there is better much better without paying for glitter and expensive tastes of the con man owner. Oh and pretty boxes that are throw away.
Borrow some and listen no steam up just listen.