#1928984 - 04/18/08 10:48 AM
CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANCY TEST
|
Neil Slade
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 8
Loc: Denver
|
Offline
|
|
My letter to the editor (Guitar Player):
I just looked at your cable article ONLINE and then in the printed MAGAZINE.
I noted all the tests you did, and the individual cable quality ratings- shimmer, girth, punch, noise, vibe.
I THEN looked at your WINNER'S CIRCLE ONLINE, which is the only thing presented online in regards to test results. I also see that these are the recommended cables in the magazine, with accompanied big colorful photos.
I THEN compared your recommended winners with the actual specific test results.
Is this a test to see if I am really paying attention?
Or is it a demonstration that your test results are at least partially erroneous and irrelevant?
One would assume that you would universally recommend the cables that fare the best in your test results.
Instead, your "Winner's Circle" recommends cables that do relatively poorly in the tests, or in two cases, cables that you do not even test at all, i.e.:
1) George L's .225------ not tested, yet recommended (You tested the inexpensive ..155, that tested extremely well at $36, but it's not recommended)-- I called George L's, and they told me there is NO DIFFERENCE in sound between the .115 and .225, and Guitar Player is guilty of a typo here.
2) Reverend Armour Gold-------- nowhere on the test whatsoever.
3) Spectraflex Fatso Flex------ a mediocre test result that doesn't even test as well as their cheaper Original Series-- and yet you recommend it
over their Original which is $15 cheaper.
4) Pete Cornish Silver Signature--- a number of cheaper cables did equivalent or better overall than this noisy cable, yet you recommend over others.
Is this because you get a thumbs up when you give a Guitar Player interview? (Pedal Boards).
I sure would like to see an explanation of these inconsistencies---- were you unable to proofread before your publishing, or is something else at work-- or not at work here?
With all due respect, and a good amount of necessary skepticism,
Thanks
Neil Slade
The AMAZING Brain Music Adventure
Easy Paint Your Car
InkJet Helper - Printer and Ink Tests
My Own Publishing- Publish Yourself
Paint Guitars and More
Edited by Neil Slade (04/18/08 11:38 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1929010 - 04/18/08 11:27 AM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Dr. Ellwood]
|
Neil Slade
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 8
Loc: Denver
|
|
Offline
|
|
I did now.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1929122 - 04/18/08 03:12 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: miroslav]
|
Neil Slade
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 8
Loc: Denver
|
|
Offline
|
|
Well, I just purchased some George L cable MATERIAL and plugs, to make my own, and a very nice cost saving, since this cable was ranked nearly as high as the highest ranked cable, and because it is one of the "winner's circle".
Given that, we shall now conduct PROPER and REAL SCIENTIFIC testing of this cable.
It would have been easy enough for Guitar Player to do this, but they didn't.
What is required in a real scientific test?
Easy enough:
1) Do the testing double blinded- this means that the cables are set up with letter/numbers for identification where the test givers and listeners do not know either the cost or name of the product, and so the evaluation is done "blind".
This would have been easy enough for GP to do-- but they didn't, and really shows a very amateur method of judging materials and results.
2) Do a simple frequency or spectral analysis of signals passing through the cables. This would have easily and totally objectively shown the actual effect of the cables on the sound- if there was any.
****
Either one of these procedures would have been infinitely more productive, honest, and convincing of any differences in cable performance, which I am not yet totally convinced exists.
As for endorsements--- Eric Johnson uses George L's cable, at under $1 per foot plus two plugs at $14 (make it yourself in 5 minutes) Prebuilt is roughly twice the cost. If that ain't a good enough example that $$$$$$$$ doesn't equate to quality-- I don't know what does.
It is VERY easy to fool one's self into believing you can hear things-- science has shown that people truly BELIEVE more expensive wines taste better than less expensive wines--- only to be proven that in blind taste tests, THEY CAN'T.
The same thing is true with music gear-- We have repeatedly tested equipment blind and found it is impossible to tell the difference in equipment.
Example: Years ago when the Yamaha MD8 recorders were issued we tested the ability of the MD8 and its compressed signal recording to reproduce uncompressed source signals. We got it right 50% of the time, and wrong the other 50%. Pure chance.
I am sure this type of thing extends into all kinds of boutique and high priced equipment.
I'm not saying we won't be able to detect a change in quality between George L cable and cheap stuff-- and frankly, I hope we CAN. (Cause I just spent a lot of money finding out)
But I am also reminded of a classic Frank Zappa song extolling the virtues of "Cheapness" and it's quantum relationship to sheer enjoyment.
Further, another test came to mind, and this was done by another company wiring up very high cost stereophonic equipment. Their conclusion about wiring? The thinnest possible wiring, and if possible without any insulation-- provided the best sound to the speakers. The problem is, nobody will pay much for single strand hair-thin uninsulated wire-- it makes a crummy sales pitch. No profit-- no product.
Impossible? Anyone hear of a guy who also bucked conventional wisdom named Tesla? Your house is full of his discoveries that everyone said was impossible back in his day.
The AMAZING Brain Music Adventure
Easy Paint Your Car
InkJet Helper - Printer and Ink Tests
My Own Publishing- Publish Yourself
Paint Guitars and More
[/b]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1929248 - 04/18/08 10:26 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Neil Slade]
|
Editor Boy
Senior Member
Registered: 05/14/01
Posts: 255
Loc: San Mateo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
I'll have Art Thompson and Matt Blackett post up here and answer all queries.
Thanks for the comments.
Best,
Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1929544 - 04/19/08 07:47 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Editor Boy]
|
fantasticsound
10k Club
Registered: 04/07/01
Posts: 16403
Loc: Madison,TN, UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
For the record, the first time I was introduced to George L cables I was asked to come hear something in the guitar dept. when I worked Pro Audio at MARS Music in Nashville. I was listening with a group to someone play an electric when they switched the cables (out of my view). The difference was immediate and I thought they were demonstrating different amps. Low capacitance is not a trick. George L's uses low capacitance rf cable and it makes a huge difference. Other cables similarly can be "heard" when compared in double blind tests. I know. I've done the tests myself.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1929669 - 04/20/08 10:03 AM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Dr. Ellwood]
|
teched
Member
Registered: 04/19/08
Posts: 1
|
|
Offline
|
|
Looks like we're off to typo camp this summer... The George L’s we tested was indeed the .155 (which you’ll see if you look at the chart in the magazine). It was mislabled as a .255 in the winner’s circle.
Ditto for the Armor Gold, which Reverend asked us to list it as a StringDog product. (Again, correct on the chart, but incorrectly labeled in the winner’s circle).
The Fatso Flex was chosen because of its sonic performance and outstanding ruggedness (several I know of, in fact, are still going strong after more than 12 years of use). The Cornish Silver Signature is by no means a noisy cable and it puts more emphasis on RF rejection. It's built like a tank and we dug its sound--and that's why we picked it as a winner. Art Thompson
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1929825 - 04/20/08 06:31 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Neil Slade]
|
mikesr1963
Senior Member
Registered: 08/20/06
Posts: 34
Loc: East Coast
|
|
Offline
|
|
In the same mag in the article about pedal boards the experts basically said that cables without sordered ends are crap and will not perform as good sordered cables. Specifically were talking about kits such as George L's.
Edited by mikesr1963 (04/20/08 06:37 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1929905 - 04/20/08 10:07 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Neil Slade]
|
Chipotle
Senior Member
Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 365
Loc: San Francisco,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Well, I just purchased some George L cable MATERIAL and plugs, to make my own, and a very nice cost saving, since this cable was ranked nearly as high as the highest ranked cable, and because it is one of the "winner's circle".
Given that, we shall now conduct PROPER and REAL SCIENTIFIC testing of this cable.
It would have been easy enough for Guitar Player to do this, but they didn't.
What is required in a real scientific test?
Easy enough:
1) Do the testing double blinded- this means that the cables are set up with letter/numbers for identification where the test givers and listeners do not know either the cost or name of the product, and so the evaluation is done "blind".
This would have been easy enough for GP to do-- but they didn't, and really shows a very amateur method of judging materials and results.
2) Do a simple frequency or spectral analysis of signals passing through the cables. This would have easily and totally objectively shown the actual effect of the cables on the sound- if there was any.
****
Either one of these procedures would have been infinitely more productive, honest, and convincing of any differences in cable performance, which I am not yet totally convinced exists.
Guitar Player is not a science magazine. I don't think I've ever read about a blind test of amps, guitars, strings, pedals, or any other products in guitar player. It's pretty much the opinion of the reviewer. Why the need to start with cables? Just because you are not "totally convinced" does not mean the magazine is obligated to prove anything to you.
However, from the most basic interpretation of cable properties, the cable and the electronics of a guitar form a low pass filter. It is a fact. So, saying you are not "totally convinced" that there are differences in cable performance is similar to saying you're not convinced that the tone knob on a guitar matters or that you're not totally convinced the bass knob on an amplifier really does anything. Should GP have to prove these basic tenets before reviewing a piece of gear? Of course not.
I think it was a great article and handled the right way by GP.
Edited by Chipotle (04/20/08 11:04 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1930389 - 04/21/08 07:23 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Chipotle]
|
Matt Blackett
Member
Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 25
|
|
Offline
|
|
I can really only echo Art's comments here but I will also add a bit of what I experienced during this cable testing process. First off, it is highly subjective. We tried to come up with categories that spoke to what we were hearing (punch, girth, etc) but anyone else might very well come up with other descriptives that are important to them.
Secondly, I would recommend to anyone that has never done a test like this to try it, because it is fascinating. Cables do all sound different and you will definitely like some better than others, even if you can't articulate precisely why. This goes directly to Neil Slade's comments about cables that seemed to score poorly but still made it into the winner's circle. Some cables are just more inspiring, even if they don't have as much bottom end or volume or whatever. You know it when you hear it and you know it when you feel it.
I look at it like this: There are lots of guitars that are "better" than a Strat, but how come I still grab my Strat nine times out of ten? For me, this is all part of the magic and the fun of music. The fact that others see it differently isn't a bad thing, it's a beautiful thing and I love debating this stuff. All we're trying to do here is shed some light on this but we fully expect everyone else to dig into the subject matter and shed some light of their own. We tried to be fair and we tried to be reasonably scientific (although we're guitarists and not scientists). I stand behind our conclusions but everyone is free to disagree. But seriously, do some cable testing of your own. It's enlightening and it's a blast.
Respectfully,
Matt Blackett
_________________________
Matt Blackett
Associate Editor
Guitar Player Magazine
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1930972 - 04/23/08 12:01 AM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Matt Blackett]
|
Editor Boy
Senior Member
Registered: 05/14/01
Posts: 255
Loc: San Mateo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hi all...
I posted this response to Neil's comments in the EQ Forum (he posted here, in the main GP Forum, AND in the EQ Editors' Office -- whew!).
After you read it, please post if you'd advocate more scientific, double-blind sonic tests on all roundups (or other multi-product reviews) of guitars, amps, pedals, etc.
Neil --
A double-blind test would be difficult, as part of the test was documenting how the cables reproduced dynamics and attack, which meant we could not use a third party performer behind a curtain playing riffs while the staff listened. We felt it was important that the testers "feel" the responsiveness, as well as evaluate the tone, and that meant the jacks had to be plugged into the guitar. Unless we covered a good length of the cable and jack in tape for all 49 cables, some testers would be able to identify many of the cables by their jack design and/or cable labeling or materials. As this was never meant to be a scientific test, but rather a real-world assessment (hey, if you plugged this cable into your amp at a gig or recording session how would you feel about it?), we opted not to slaughter the cables with tape windings.
In fact, NONE of our reviews are scientific, and neither are 99.9 percent of all guitar gear reviews in 99.9 percent of the world's guitar magazines. We are simply a "panel of experts" that you can choose to trust (or not) based on whether you feel the editors have provided fair and accurate evaluations in the past. I've always advocated the "tell it like it is, as you would to a peer musician at a gig who asked you how product X performs for you." That subjective approach is really all we can promise. We don't have the rigorous means, tools, or the time to be extremely scientific, but I believe our readers know this, as we have never represented our product reviews as anything more than "our" opinion. If readers trust us at all, it's because they want to hear what Art, Matt, Barry, Jude, and our other staffers have to say about a particular piece of gear.
I do appreciate your criticism, however, as comments from the readers are taken seriously, and they always help us evolve and improve the content in GP. I just don't see us taking on scientific, double-blind testing in the near future unless the reader community demands that we go that route. We do, after all, serve YOU.
Cheers,
Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1932042 - 04/24/08 10:07 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Editor Boy]
|
Neil Slade
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 8
Loc: Denver
|
|
Offline
|
|
Editor Boy, um, I hate to remind you-- but "scientific testing" was something you, the writers said they were trying to achieve-- I quote from the article:
"To keep the audio comparisons as scientific as possible, we played the same lick—a strummed open-position E chord followed by a seventh-fret E chord, and an E chord at the 12th fret—for every cable."
Single blind testing is totally easy to do, you have one guy play a guitar and another guy listening who rates the sound. The guy listening doesn't know what brand he is listening to. Is this rocket science? Gosh.
Not to take even this simplest of measures is a total blunder in regards to reviewing and comparing products, and leaves room for all kinds of subjective errors, not to mention absence of all objectivity.
"To keep the audio comparisons as scientific as possible.." is a ridiculous notion-- you are not even close to being scientific here. I think anyone who takes more than a second to think about your methodology, would see how blatantly open it would be to the "expensive wine tastes better" syndrome. See;
http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/why-expensive-wine-tastes-better.htm
If one is claiming to present responsible journalism where comparative testing is the entire premise of the article, then it is indeed crucial to do such a test with at least some care taken to eliminate brand/expense prejudice-- otherwise it's not a fair test at all.
*********
My Opinion:
I have been playing, writing, and recording music all of my 54 year life- (save the first 10 years) and I do not show any hearing loss, and I do in fact make my living from music, and have done so my entire working life-- perhaps a few people would like to hear from another expert on this subject...
I bought a nice supply of George L's cable (one of the Winner's Circle winners) and have now done about an hours worth of testing, against inexpensive Guitar Center cable- their cheapest stuff.
I used an 8 foot George L .155 versus a 10 foot cheapo Guitar Center Cable. This length difference should make any sonic difference even more pronounced. Well...
What did I discover?
1) When making a 32 bit recording, differences of the two cables are completely inaudible, both on Sony studio monitor headphones, and on a very nice pair of KRK studio monitors through an Alesis reference amplifier.
2) Live, yes, you can tell the difference. But it ain't much. I used both a Vox solid state, and a pristine Fender Blackface Champ.
The difference, when it can be heard, at most is the difference between brand new strings, and strings you've played for a little while. Certainly not old strings. Perhaps a bit more high end audible on the George L's. A bit, like if you clean off your glasses when you get a little dirt on 'em.
If someone in the same room sneezes, or if the wind blows hard outside, either one of these will mask any sonic differences between brands.
I couldn't tell ANY difference using my Strat with new strings. I could tell the difference (as above) with my ES 335 with broken in strings.
I repeated the test using two connected lengths of cable totaling about 20 feet of each, and utilizing an A/B box which allowed me to instantly switch between cable brands- where there would be no passage of time to easily blur my memory- again, something which GP testers could have easily done, but didn't take the small trouble to do. Naughty.
In my personal opinion, and if the highly rated George L cable is any indication of the difference between designer cable and plain cable, after shelling out a considerable sum for this test, cables are absolutely the least important variable in determining the quality of your sound, and in many cases given environment, other equipment being used-- it won't make any difference at all.
If one has $100 or more to spend on music equipment, now having done a hands on test here between expensive and inexpensive cable, I can think of a lot more things I would rather spend that money on that would actually make a significant difference in my music perception.
If one has already spent all the money one can imagine on the perfect gear setup, and one has bottomless pockets, and needs to find one more thing to splurge on-- well I guess there's always boutique cable.
Neil Slade
The AMAZING Brain Music Adventure
Easy Paint Your Car
InkJet Helper - Printer and Ink Tests
My Own Publishing- Publish Yourself
Paint Guitars and More
[/b]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1932044 - 04/24/08 10:21 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Neil Slade]
|
Neil Slade
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 8
Loc: Denver
|
|
Offline
|
|
PS: I will say one thing about George L's cable-- if you build your own from bulk cable and their solderless plugs, making a cable is nearly effortless, and takes about a minute. Quite convenient. The cost for 40 feet of cable, and enough plugs for 3 long cables, and 6 small connector cords (right angle plugs) was $180. Could have been worse, could have been better. I bought 6 cheapo 6" pedal cables for $10 on ebay, and I'll be damned if they sound any different at all, even if I use several all together.
Okay, so that's my non-blind subjective opinion. Tomorrow about ten of us (professional musicians) are getting together to watch John McLaughlin's new DVD (yes, nice coverage in GP- thanks, like I said, lots of good stuff in the mag...). It will be easy enough for me to play for the group, switch cords, and see what they hear without telling them what they're listening to. A fair an unbiased test that should truly revel what is perceptual differences. We'll even use 20 feet of each cord. What I might call a "brain neutral" look. Really guys, this is so simple, a fourth grader would be capable of more than this in a science fair exhibit.
Otherwise, at this point I'll chalk this one up to "curiosity killed my wallet" and the ever so slight feeling that I have the best guitar cable money can buy (or close enough), and that I was smart enough not to have spent the most money possible on wire.
Unfortunately, I also have this nagging feeling that I might possibly have better spent two hours playing ball with my dogs than to have spent it comparing the sonic qualities of competing guitar cords that were less different than Erfie and Chloe (see avitar photo).
Ah well, as Frank Zappa has said, "Woof".
:-)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1933932 - 04/29/08 12:39 AM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Neil Slade]
|
Editor Boy
Senior Member
Registered: 05/14/01
Posts: 255
Loc: San Mateo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Well, Neil, we did what we did, and you don't agree with the results or the process. That's fine with us. In fact, we're jazzed that you were inspired to do your own tests, because, ultimately, the end user has to be happy with his or her gear choices. We can only recommend viable options based on our experience. That YOU found little difference in the cables you evaluated is a conclusion that we'll respect, as it's based on your perceptions. However, as you well know, there are also a lot of pros out there who swear by esoteric cables and other audio juju. I'm not going to say who is right, and who is wrong, or whether real-world or scientific double-blind tests would change any personal perceptions of value and audio quality. Different opinions abound in life, and we try to celebrate all realities. That's one reason why we absolutely respect your comments, but still stand behind our tests.
Cheers,
Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1934377 - 04/29/08 04:42 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Editor Boy]
|
TheGrooveking
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 24
Loc: Earth, just visiting...
|
|
Offline
|
|
I am going to throw my opinion in here, as a reference I have been playing for 32 years and probably have more gear than almost 15 to 20 other players combined. First off Guitar Player is trying to inform people of what products are out there and they do a damn good job of it. They were the first place I found out about GeorgeL's cables and now have over 500 connectors and hundreds of feet of cable, I have over 250 Spectraflex cables. Many of these cables have seen hundreds of gigs and have lasted very well, short of straight up abuse.
As to the sonic difference, downplaying it with comments like it's not different than a new set of strings tells me your on the attack and not being objective. Any guitarist worth his salt can hear the difference a new set of strings make and same with high quality cables with great sonic qualities. I realize everyone hears things differently, but asking them to go to extremes sometimes is a little out there, why not ask them to do elemental analysis and run them through Atomic Absorption Spectrometers and Electron Microscopes?
I have found over the years that Guitar Player Pick Awarded products are definitely worth checking out, and I own a boat load of them, just look in my signature. I think they did a good job of picking cables for review that are in the price range of the widest group of readers. There are cables out there that cost hundreds for a 20' cable, and I have found that for each % of tonal improvement you buy, you spend 10 - 50% more.
If my response here is out of place, then mods please delete it. Oh and by the way I have every Guitar Player magazine since Jan. 1976 sitting on my shelves and reference them daily. I think the turn around GP has made in recent years is outstanding, great magazine.
TheGrooveking
Edited by TheGrooveking (04/29/08 04:45 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1943294 - 05/17/08 02:31 AM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Editor Boy]
|
Guitar Slinger
Senior Member
Registered: 05/14/08
Posts: 52
|
|
Offline
|
|
... However, as you well know, there are also a lot of pros out there who swear by esoteric cables and other audio juju.
When I read articles in GP about Eric Johnson and he says he spends hours listening to cables just to pick the one with his "Proper Sonic Qualities" it does make me wonder if cables really do affect my tone. I don't have the resources to go out and test 30 different cables and honestly the cables I'm using sound great to me.
I thought GP did as well as could be expected in a big cable comparison like that. I really appreciate the time and resources that GP put into the cable test since I don't have that kind of time or resources. It really helped me out.
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1943461 - 05/17/08 12:30 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS IRRELEVANT
[Re: Guitar Slinger]
|
Editor Boy
Senior Member
Registered: 05/14/01
Posts: 255
Loc: San Mateo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Thanks, Guitar Slinger.
In a way, I wish GP -- or any other guitar mag, for that matter -- had the resources to do "Consumer Reports"-style testing, but it's amazing what all the magazines do with the deadline and resource limitations of today's niche-publishing business. This is why, as I tried to explain to Neil, the GP editors attempt "real-world" tests, and then only endeavor to offer their INDIVIDUAL views on the gear being tested. We're happy that many readers appreciate our efforts.
Best,
Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Editor Boy, Jude Gold, D. Fox, Art Thompson, Barry Cleveland
|
|
|
