The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tags:

Which cables do you used? Condenser Microphones
Old 5th October 2018
  #91
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpro View Post
Canare and Mogami fan here. With a bit of Belden and Sommer thrown in.
It sounds like the names of four Parisian models. What’s not to like?
Old 4 days ago
  #92
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
Personal opinion here, of course but I can not believe that we are actually having this discussion on a site populated with professional, working engineers.

I guess that I will admit that copper wire is better than nylon wire but after that. . . .

D.
Hi Tourtelot,

I appreciate your mentality here, but unfortunately there is no denying that different cables do sound differently... I hate that too and I would wish that they all sound the same because it would eliminate a good source of frustration, but alas, it is futile denying the difference in sound.

On one end of the spectre, you find people indulging in exploring this fact to the extreme, and businessmen making good use of it. That is where the voodoo and the extreme prices comes in and people with common sense get irritated.

On the other end you find people denying this fact and they declare that each cable sounds exactly the same. They think that science or common sense forbids any meaningful differences. Some extent this notion even to amplifiers…

Then there's the group that reluctantly admit that some of the theoretical aspects (like rf rejection etc.) might influence the sound, but they only accept deformation of the signal as an explanation for degraded sound. In their view a technically well build cable is all that is needed, all the rest is BS.

While I sympathy with the non-believers and distrust many believers I have come to terms with this issue by trying out well made and reasonably priced cables because that does in my opinion improve my sound, both in recording and in reproduction of it.

Tourtelot, I don’t know what mic cables you use yourself, but just do a simple test by comparing cheap mic cables with one of the better cables… It might surprise your ears.

It is however a slippery world and there is always the danger of sliding into the crazy audiophile abyss called cable-freaking… A ridiculous hobby that burns money that could have been better spend at other places in the recording or reproduction chain.

Best wishes,

Lucas
Old 4 days ago
  #93
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
While I do believe there can be differences in the sound of microphone cables, if it can't be measured in the scientific terms of impedance and reactance, I call BS. RF rejection is the third parameter, to make sure that nothing is 'added' to the signal. At higher voltages, ampacity is the determining factor; magic speaker cables and power cords are pure snake oil. Yes, I am in the firmly in the physics camp - if you can't measure or calculate it, it isn't real. YMMV
Old 4 days ago
  #94
Lives for gear
 
Richard Crowley's Avatar
 

The story is told that Sir George Martin was asked "What cables did you use to record the Beatles at Abbey Road?"
He responded with a laugh: "Why, whatever was hanging on the peg that day."

The "believers" can philosophize all day and night.
But they have yet to demonstrate that they can actually HEAR any difference using objective methods.
They do seem to have superior imaginations, however.
Old 4 days ago
  #95
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

You can imagine what you want, I have had everything in my studio. Even two stubborn civil engineers, who were blown away by the differences they should not be able to hear.

That they actually preferred the bad sounding cable even strengthens my point.

I also had some situations on location, where I changed an interconnect on the playback, between day one and two. Musicians who did not know at all that I did this, spontaniously commented that the sound was much more natural today.

I could go on, but you do not have to believe me.
Old 4 days ago
  #96
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
...Even two stubborn civil engineers, who were blown away by the differences they should not be able to hear...I also had some situations on location, where I changed an interconnect on the playback, between day one and two. Musicians who did not know at all that I did this, spontaneously commented that the sound was much more natural today.

I could go on, but you do not have to believe me.
I believe you and I believe there are differences in cables. Electrical engineers are able to measure the differences. That data and rigorous ABX listening comparisons will yield preferences. The impedance and reactance of low level signal cable used to interconnect transducers and amplifiers will always produce differing results, depending on the component's impedance, slew rate, etc, etc. - so, yes, the matching of cables and devices can be optimized scientifically. But when I see marketing copy such as: "XXX’s research embodies hi-tech metallurgy like G7 (Silver-Gold) and S8 (Mono Crystal Silver), advanced insulation technology and precision construction techniques", no electrical specifications given, and a five digit price tag, I marvel at the gullibility of people. By all means use star quad microphone cable for superior noise rejection, pay extra for flexible and robust cable jacket, or premium connectors. But save your money and forego the "cryogenic, mono-crystal, pure copper 10AWG virgin teflon insulated" IEC cables. Unicorn farts and pixie dust.

Last edited by jimjazzdad; 4 days ago at 03:29 PM.. Reason: spelling corrected
Old 4 days ago
  #97
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas_G View Post
Hi Tourtelot,

I appreciate your mentality here, but unfortunately there is no denying that different cables do sound differently...
Oh, there's plenty of denying it. And for good, scientific reasons. As well as for logical, blind testing, which believers seem to go to great lengths to avoid.
Old 4 days ago
  #98
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Oh, there's plenty of denying it. And for good, scientific reasons. As well as for logical, blind testing, which believers seem to go to great lengths to avoid.
Hi Sounds Great,

Then I am curious to know whether you yourself have ever done a listening test with two different cables? Judged on your name, you must believe that some things sound great (and some sound a bit less great..?).
Old 4 days ago
  #99
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
While I do believe there can be differences in the sound of microphone cables, if it can't be measured in the scientific terms of impedance and reactance, I call BS. RF rejection is the third parameter, to make sure that nothing is 'added' to the signal. At higher voltages, ampacity is the determining factor; magic speaker cables and power cords are pure snake oil. Yes, I am in the firmly in the physics camp - if you can't measure or calculate it, it isn't real. YMMV
Yes, but have you ever considered the possibility that some scientific variables may not have been explored yet? Impedance and capacity are some well-established variables, but maybe there are a bunch of others that have not been so well explored?

There was a time when distortion measurement on sinus waves was considered conclusive evidence. Nowadays we know that complex waveforms can have all sorts of other distortion that wasn’t obvious in the measurements of the past.

Even the exchange of digital information, which may appear to be very straightforward with its ones and zeros, appears to have some not-so-simple aspects...

What is straightforward? What is scientific?
Old 4 days ago
  #100
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Crowley View Post
The story is told that Sir George Martin was asked "What cables did you use to record the Beatles at Abbey Road?"
He responded with a laugh: "Why, whatever was hanging on the peg that day."

The "believers" can philosophize all day and night.
But they have yet to demonstrate that they can actually HEAR any difference using objective methods.
They do seem to have superior imaginations, however.
Hi Richard,

That is a very sound attitude, but have you yourself ever done some private testing? I think that at least you would be perfectly able to hear differences. Whether one is better than the other is a different questiion, and yes, there is a lot of subjectivity involved, but for a person that deals with sound for a long time, it can be rewarding to give it a try, while at the same time avoiding the megabuck crap. Only a suggestion, of course!
Old 4 days ago
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas_G View Post
Yes, but have you ever considered the possibility that some scientific variables may not have been explored yet? Impedance and capacity are some well-established variables, but maybe there are a bunch of others that have not been so well explored?

There was a time when distortion measurement on sinus waves was considered conclusive evidence. Nowadays we know that complex waveforms can have all sorts of other distortion that wasn’t obvious in the measurements of the past.

Even the exchange of digital information, which may appear to be very straightforward with its ones and zeros, appears to have some not-so-simple aspects...

What is straightforward? What is scientific?
You realize that you're not making a lot of sense, and when you call it a "sinus" wave you decrease your credibility further?

As Jim said, there ARE electrical differences, and some of those differences ABSOLUTELY make a difference in what we hear. But the difference between ok-good-great is typically measured in cents per foot, MAYBE in single dollars per foot. It is not measured in tens or hundreds or thousands of dollars per foot.

And because we KNOW that the brain is easily fooled by factors not under test, the only way to do any sort of believable comparison - scientifically - is with blind testing.
Old 4 days ago
  #102
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
You can imagine what you want, I have had everything in my studio. Even two stubborn civil engineers, who were blown away by the differences they should not be able to hear.

That they actually preferred the bad sounding cable even strengthens my point.

I also had some situations on location, where I changed an interconnect on the playback, between day one and two. Musicians who did not know at all that I did this, spontaniously commented that the sound was much more natural today.

I could go on, but you do not have to believe me.
Yes, of course I believe you, because I didn't shy away of testing things myself, but I can easily understand the reluctance of many engineers to accept this, given the idiocy of the consumer, megabuck audiophile world with all their excess and voodoo talk. That kind of superstition will shy away a lot of people, I think. Personally I feel more at home with the non-believers than the believers, because the beleivers can be so megalomaniac and arrogant.
Old 4 days ago
  #103
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
You realize that you're not making a lot of sense, and when you call it a "sinus" wave you decrease your credibility further?

As Jim said, there ARE electrical differences, and some of those differences ABSOLUTELY make a difference in what we hear. But the difference between ok-good-great is typically measured in cents per foot, MAYBE in single dollars per foot. It is not measured in tens or hundreds or thousands of dollars per foot.

And because we KNOW that the brain is easily fooled by factors not under test, the only way to do any sort of believable comparison - scientifically - is with blind testing.
Hi Tim,

Although I am not too concerned about my credibility here (no stakes in audio products) and English is not my native tongue, I am wondering what the problem was with the word sinus? Should I have said periodical waves?

Blind testing and double blind testing have their own shortcomings, but I agree that they are better than some afternoon impression. A real noticeable difference should be repeatable on several occasions and on several days.
Old 4 days ago
  #104
Lives for gear
 
Richard Crowley's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas_G View Post
Hi Richard,

That is a very sound attitude, but have you yourself ever done some private testing? I think that at least you would be perfectly able to hear differences. Whether one is better than the other is a different questiion, and yes, there is a lot of subjectivity involved, but for a person that deals with sound for a long time, it can be rewarding to give it a try, while at the same time avoiding the megabuck crap. Only a suggestion, of course!
Frankly, I don't care. The difference between a $5 cable and a $5000 cable are no greater than using a different microphone, or moving the same microphone 6 inches. I would have MUCH more interest in various microphones and how they perform for various situations. Cable is a prosaic, commodity item. I would much rather spend my $$$ on microphones than cable. I would much rather spend my time playing with microphones than with cable.

Over the years (and to this day) I have cables by Belden, Mogami, Canare, and no-name generic stuff. I have never been able to discern any practical difference between them. They are interchangeable as far as I am concerned.

But I understand that people obsess over cables. There are people who obsess all sorts of things. There is no accounting for taste.

Last edited by Richard Crowley; 4 days ago at 06:39 PM..
Old 4 days ago
  #105
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Crowley View Post
Frankly, I don't care. The difference between a $5 cable and a $5000 cable are no greater than using a different microphone, or moving the same microphone 6 inches. I would have MUCH more interest in various microphones and how they perform for various situations. Cable is a prosaic, commodity item. I would much rather spend my $$$ on microphones than cable. I would much rather spend my time playing with microphones than with cable.

Over the years (and to this day) I have cables by Belden, Mogami, Canare, and no-name generic stuff. I have never been able to discern any practical difference between them. They are interchangeable as far as I am concerned.

But I understand that people obsess over cables. There are people who obsess all sorts of things. There is no accounting for taste.
I fully agree! Spending more money on cables than on mics is plain stupid. I would never spend a fortune on cables. Better to invest more in mics, preamps, ADDA etc.
However after you've upgraded all that stuff, upgrading your cables to a better quality at still modest prices can be the icing on the cake.
Old 4 days ago
  #106
Lives for gear
 
Richard Crowley's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas_G View Post
However after you've upgraded all that stuff, upgrading your cables to a better quality at still modest prices can be the icing on the cake.
What does "upgrading your cables" mean?
What does "better quality" mean?

If you mean cable that is more supple and lays flat on the floor so it isn't a trip hazard, then I agree.
If you mean connectors that don't break if you step on them, then I agree.

If you mean a cable that may "sound" subtly "different", then what's the point?

Are you going to have three or four different alternate cables and say,
"Wait, don't start yet, I want to try out this third different kind of cable."
People will think you are a kook. And they may be right.

The people that recorded probably the top 100 most popular recordings of all time probably had no clue (and didn't care) what kind of cable they used.
Old 4 days ago
  #107
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Oddly, cable discussions always end up the same way.
ABX testing etc.

I wonder how many here can pass (and I mean 95% confidence) a ABX test where A is 24bit 44.1 KHz, and B is 24bit 192 KHz.

But here on Gearslutz, that difference is night and day. And the difference between two cables is not.

The strangest thing is, I cannot hear the difference between 44.1K and 192K even if my life depended on it. On a really good DAC of course.

Yet I can very clearly hear a difference between Gotham Ultrapro and eg. Grimm TPR. It is not subtle.
Old 4 days ago
  #108
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Crowley View Post
What does "upgrading your cables" mean?
What does "better quality" mean?

If you mean cable that is more supple and lays flat on the floor so it isn't a trip hazard, then I agree.
If you mean connectors that don't break if you step on them, then I agree.

If you mean a cable that may "sound" subtly "different", then what's the point?

Are you going to have three or four different alternate cables and say,
"Wait, don't start yet, I want to try out this third different kind of cable."
People will think you are a kook. And they may be right.

The people that recorded probably the top 100 most popular recordings of all time probably had no clue (and didn't care) what kind of cable they used.
I have got a wide range of cables and according to my experience they do exhibit different sound signatures. The carbon cables have a very smooth character (and are not my favorites). The Vovox cables have a very full and lifelike character. They make a DPA2006 very real without sounding harsh. Then I have also got one pair of ridiculously expensive cables made by a renowned audiophile factory. They were given to me as a present after I did some work for them. They have a lot of presence, and I rarely use them because they are very unwieldy and I find their character a bit over the top. However on percussion instrument in renaissance music for instance they do have their place.

You'll probably find these characterizations nonsense, and you might argue that applying eq or choosing a different mic might be a wiser choice, but there is something to be said when a lot of factors (mics, converters, cabling) come together. That can give a thrilling sound. Don’t know whether you have experienced such a thing yourself.

It is true that a lot of recordings were made with cheap cabling, and a lot of them sound fine. It is not true however that no one cares. A lot of my colleagues do care and use better than of the mill cables, because they hear differences themselves. Their recordings also win prizes, so your assumption that only kooks pay attention to cabling is somewhat beyond reality.
Old 4 days ago
  #109
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Oddly, cable discussions always end up the same way.
ABX testing etc.

I wonder how many here can pass (and I mean 95% confidence) a ABX test where A is 24bit 44.1 KHz, and B is 24bit 192 KHz.

But here on Gearslutz, that difference is night and day. And the difference between two cables is not.

The strangest thing is, I cannot hear the difference between 44.1K and 192K even if my life depended on it. On a really good DAC of course.

Yet I can very clearly hear a difference between Gotham Ultrapro and eg. Grimm TPR. It is not subtle.
Agreed.

Problem is they are all multivariate problems but people want to attribute it to one factor only (sometimes the wrong one) to simplify/generalise for expedience.

Some ADC/DAC sound better or worse at different sample rates, is it the rate or filters or SRC or power supply or noise/dither/quantisation distortion? But people latch onto sample rate as the issue.

Same with DSD sounding better than PCM, again, at what source sample rates, SRC, alias filters, slopes, common modulators, power supply noise, ultrasonic noise causing in-band distortion?

Same with cables. Output or input impedance of connecting equipment, cable significant or independent of driving/driven circuits, shield and ground implementation, capacitance, age, corrosion, connector integrity.
Old 4 days ago
  #110
Here for the gear
 

Hello,
About audible differences between cables, I just wanted to say this: as a professional for more than 32 years, when speaking about sound I only believe what I hear, but certainly not the audiophile marketing .
And what I hear a very clear difference between cables .
As an example, at this time, I am mainly using Sommer Cable The Source and Mogami 3106 for A-B stereo recordings, and these cables have a very different "sound" : the Sommercable has a very neutral, airy and smooth sound, but also a little cold . With the Mogami 3106, the frequency extremes are attenuated, the sound is slightly dryer, but also warmer and with better transients than with the Sommercable .
This is just an example of differences I could hear and verify between cables, but I could speak about other cables I have used and report the same .
Probably some people will say I am stupid because these differences can't really be measured, and as a consequence can't be real . But I don't care, because I consider that as professionals we have to work with our ears and sometimes forget about our technical and scientific background, who sometimes tells us that what we hear can't exist because its "unscientific" ...
Old 4 days ago
  #111
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Oddly, cable discussions always end up the same way.
ABX testing etc.

I wonder how many here can pass (and I mean 95% confidence) a ABX test where A is 24bit 44.1 KHz, and B is 24bit 192 KHz.

But here on Gearslutz, that difference is night and day. And the difference between two cables is not.

The strangest thing is, I cannot hear the difference between 44.1K and 192K even if my life depended on it. On a really good DAC of course.

Yet I can very clearly hear a difference between Gotham Ultrapro and eg. Grimm TPR. It is not subtle.
Yannick, I agree with your statement, although it depends very much on where the sweet spot is of the converter. Many converters simply sound better at 96 kHz than at 192 kHz. Don't know why, but that is my experience. My impression is that 96 kHz can bring a bit of improvement over 44.1 kHz, but you’re right; it isn’t so huge. Different cables can make more difference IMHO.

I myself have done quite a bit of speaker design, and similar discussions occur when choosing crossover parts. Nowadays most people accept that there are rather strong differences in sound signature with parts like capacitors. What is not universally accepted is the differences between resistors... For many a resistor is simply a resistor with a certain impedance; no more, no less. However the differences in sound with resistors turn out to be just as substantial as with capacitors. And the good news is that improvements are not expensive at all (some of the expensive ones sound awful!). It takes just a little bit of experimentation and your open ears can bring you a lot further. If one can hear it repeatedly in blind testing, I’Il consider it is just a good way forward. For many people however it cannot be anything else than autosuggestion and they are so sure of it that they won’t even bother to try it.

Well, there’s no use in trying to convert them; to each one his own philosophy…
Old 4 days ago
  #112
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric D View Post
Hello,
About audible differences between cables, I just wanted to say this: as a professional for more than 32 years, when speaking about sound I only believe what I hear, but certainly not the audiophile marketing .
And what I hear a very clear difference between cables .
As an example, at this time, I am mainly using Sommer Cable The Source and Mogami 3106 for A-B stereo recordings, and these cables have a very different "sound" : the Sommercable has a very neutral, airy and smooth sound, but also a little cold . With the Mogami 3106, the frequency extremes are attenuated, the sound is slightly dryer, but also warmer and with better transients than with the Sommercable .
This is just an example of differences I could hear and verify between cables, but I could speak about other cables I have used and report the same .
Probably some people will say I am stupid because these differences can't really be measured, and as a consequence can't be real . But I don't care, because I consider that as professionals we have to work with our ears and sometimes forget about our technical and scientific background, who sometimes tells us that what we hear can't exist because its "unscientific" ...
Hi Eric,

I think your attitude is just very healthy. Why not try for ourselves, unbiased by price, packaging and marketing? In my opinion, the whole idea of (re-)creating sound is to be curious and experimental! If we stick to dogma's we will never improve our skills and our achievements. I once started a discussion with the title "Why are some people so pedantic about their ORTF setup" just to make people aware that experimenting and using your own ears can improve things substantially, but to many a reader it was a sacrilege to question such holy standards. My motto is; experiment without breaking the bank!
Old 4 days ago
  #113
Here for the gear
 

Hi Lucas,
I fully agree with you !
At the beginning of my career, I was more dogmatic and believed that scientific knowledge, theory and measurements were of great importance in audio .
Of course they are necessary, and you need them to guide you, but experience learned me that a lot of things that we can hear are not explained in the books, learned at school, confirmed by measurements or by scientific experiences .
The audible differences between cables are a perfect example of this . 30 years ago, I couldn't believe that cables could make a significant difference in the sound, and was convinced that it was pure marketing or audiophile dream .
Then, one day I decided to do my own tests with various cables, and to my great surprise there were significant differences between them .
Since this day, I decided to be more humble and to work with a more open mind and more open ears, and this attitude has been very beneficial, allowed me to gain more experience and to do interesting discoveries ...
Old 4 days ago
  #114
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
I would not disagree that in low level signal applications - microphones, phono cartridges, even line level - different cables can have quantifiably different sounds. That is to say that they sound subtly different to our ears and, if the appropriate test equipment is available, it is possible to measure differences in the cables and how they interact with the devices they connect. When it comes to wires driving conventional speakers or to those supplying mains power to devices, as long as there is adequate ampacity, I believe there is no perceptible difference. With mic cable, I generally choose quality over cheap price for reasons of reliability and longevity rather than their sound - there is very little worthwhile sound difference IMHO. But maybe I am as deaf as a post.
Old 4 days ago
  #115
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas_G View Post
Hi Sounds Great,

Then I am curious to know whether you yourself have ever done a listening test with two different cables? Judged on your name, you must believe that some things sound great (and some sound a bit less great..?).
This always comes up. The problem is that I am not about to spend that kind of money on "magic" cables to do such a test myself. And nobody with such cables ever seems to have the time to do a proper test.
Old 4 days ago
  #116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas_G View Post
Hi Tim,

Although I am not too concerned about my credibility here (no stakes in audio products) and English is not my native tongue, I am wondering what the problem was with the word sinus? Should I have said periodical waves?

Blind testing and double blind testing have their own shortcomings, but I agree that they are better than some afternoon impression. A real noticeable difference should be repeatable on several occasions and on several days.
Sine or sinusoidal would be the proper English words. Sinus refers to the cavities in the skull.
Old 4 days ago
  #117
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

The purpose of the cable is to carry the signal from one to the other without messing with that signal in any way. Any good cable should do this. Whether it cost 25 bucks or 8 thousand.

It has never been explained in any serious way how a very expensive cable would do this better than a cheap cable.

Unless this expensive cable some how CHANGES or colors that signal. Or on the flip side, would color that signal LESS than the cheaper cable.

Of course I've never seen Bigfoot, but that doesn't prove he doesn't exist.
Old 3 days ago
  #118
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
The purpose of the cable is to carry the signal from one to the other without messing with that signal in any way. Any good cable should do this. Whether it cost 25 bucks or 8 thousand.

It has never been explained in any serious way how a very expensive cable would do this better than a cheap cable.

Unless this expensive cable some how CHANGES or colors that signal. Or on the flip side, would color that signal LESS than the cheaper cable.

Of course I've never seen Bigfoot, but that doesn't prove he doesn't exist.
Hello Sounds Great,
why are you speaking about very expensive cable against cheap cables ?
My personnal experience with different cables "sounding" different is about standard microphones cables like Sommercable, Canare, Klotz, or Mogami, just standard models of standard brands . Even different "standard" cables from the same manufacturer can make a difference in the sound .
Example : the Sommercable Goblin has a different character than the Sommercable The Source . And this difference is not so subtle ...
I understand that a lot of audio professionals are making fun of audiophiles, but why do they also have suspicion about real experiences made by other audio professionals having a solid technical background ?
Old 3 days ago
  #119
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Fear
Old 3 days ago
  #120
Lives for gear
 

i'm having the habit of using cables which work... :-)

often setup time is fairly limited so the thing of least interest to me usually are the cables: either they work or they don't.

even if i do get some more time, i certainly will not swap cables (i'm using a mix of cables from different manufacturers, some cables being very old, others were just recently configured) trying to find out to which degree they might affect sound - mostly they don't.

there are dozens of other factors which i consider to be much more important. but cables to me are about function, not about sound.
plus: did anyone ever hear a difference when using different kind of fiber optical cables?!
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Jason West / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
Jason West / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
2
heisleyamor / So much gear, so little time
0
limey222 / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump