Post #13 simply shows that quad doesn't even start to affect audible high frequencies until lengths reach over 100 meters.

definitely 100% wrong. look man when it comes to the audio weeds there are certain things that just aren't quantifiable at this current time but to say it doesn't start to affect things is obviously not true.

I was simply explaining what the graph in that post is showing;
believe Canare or not. It just sounded like the OP wasn't clear what that graph was about.

right but the graph is just based on a finite system of data collection, and there's a lot of research that shows that human hearing is sensitive beyond even our most sensitive measuring devices. if you care for research at all. personally i don't really go based off of research, more off vibes. if something shows loss at 100 feet, why wouldn't i just get the one that doesn't do that for my most sensitive use cases

I've no idea what you mean by that. Actually, that graph appears to be an artist's rendering of an AC-coupled frequency sweep, probably done on an old pen plotter.

HF roll-off in an audio cable can be modeled as a single pole RC LPF. You don't even need to look at the graph, if you understand what the two capacitance values quote represent and how Canare measures them. By analyzing the appropriate "half-circuit" and assuming a secondary winding resistance of 200 ohms (100 per leg), I get pretty much the same corner frequency that's shown in the illustration. The -3 dB corner works out to be about 40 kHz, which means the cable response will be about -1 dB at 20 kHz. The main thing to understand is that the corner frequency goes up as the cable length goes down: using a 10 meter cable instead of a 100 meter cable will move the corner frequency from 40 kHz to 400 kHz.

Yes it's pretty clear that you're a "vibes" guy, not a research guy: There's NO research proving what you claim. We can measure objective phenomena way below the experimentally demonstrated limits of human detection. Where we still have huge gaps is in understanding how various objective bench measurements impact subjective human perception of the kind of subjective sound descriptions used by audio professionals and their customers.

There's a point at which your attention is better directed to other matters that will have a much greater impact on the project. A perceptive engineer or producer may decide that a -1 dB adjustment is actually a good thing, from a musical standpoint. If they decide that it's a bad thing, it's very easy to correct with a first-order shelving filter. Usually, however, we simply move or re-aim the microphone.

As I recall, you believe a U87 is "best mic on earth" or some words to that effect. So, just to keep things in perspective, examine its response at 20 kHz.



Still worried about a cable deviation of 1 dB or less at 20 kHz?

Personally I’m a perfectionist. I get everything as right as possible every single time. And what I mean is that there are values for which measurements are inadequate. Audio is a science as much as it is a magic. It’s important not to get mentally bogged down by facts and figures and to do what feels true to you. In this case, it’s very obvious to me that choosing the cable with the least amount of roll-off is preferable, regardless of whether the loss would be deemed “imperceptible” at a given length for different cable.

David I respect your diligence and dedication to audio as a science but it’s so much more than that

I'm actually arguing that there eventually comes a time to put science aside and make art. Some of my worst gigs ever were times when I got overly obsessed about some minor technical concern and failed to keep the session on track and the performers happy. Prepare as carefully and completely as possible but, once the clients arrive, keep your eye on the clock and your ear on the music.

Even before anyone else arrives at the studio, your time is limited. Focus on the most important stuff first; avoid going down some rabbit hole that will run out the clock without yielding a meaningful improvement.

This idea applies even when planning a remote recording session several weeks in advance. Yes, bringing a bigger rig with more channels will give you more options in post, but it will take longer to load in, longer to hook up and check out, and you'll end up with less time to optimize the position of each microphone. Fewer microphones in better places beat extra microphones in random places.

David

I’m all about efficiency as well, which is a part of perfectionism. Beauty is in simplicity. Having the correct components is part of being prepared. My standard is Gotham cables for analog, Grimm tpr for aes, neumann mics and sturdy k&m accessories. Everything falls into place after that.

Cleanliness is beauty. Everything ties together. Being lazy or inefficient in one area has metastasizing effects. It’s always possible to maximize what you have.

You're right, the OP was (still is) very confused by the graph and most of the second half of this thread! I think I go down a rabbit warren every time I come on here. (But hopefully become somewhat enlightened.)
Anyway it sounds as though for me purposes any difference is happily (hopefully) negligible so I should be fine with the non-quad.