Very cool!


Im glad they aren't welding their XLR and TRS connectors or id be a little envious.

Ghost Analog is a smart, yet simple design manufactured using very high end materials.

"100% cotton threads prevent stretching and twisting of the inner conductors"...are the inner conductors in Ghost analog twisted or laid flat?

The conductors are gently twisting with 8 rotations per foot. The cotton fillers help maintain twist consistency.

tellurium ? ghosted

"Remarkably sounding cables"?

BS. Sorry, not sorry. Another snake oil seller. Or do you have double blind tests? No? I thought so.

lol local jokers flock to this like moths to light.

Is that what they mine in Telluride, Colorado ?

I am curious about this cable. Now I am not qualified to talk the talk about cables (seriously, the physics calculations in "Handbook for Sound Engineers" are already over my head), but improved transient response sounds like something I would appreciate.

However, I would expect that some physics equations exist for calculating even miniscule transient response differences? Could such calculations be used for obtaining mathematical proof that there actually is a measurable difference in "speed" when it comes to these cables vs others? I mean, if boffins know how to create CAT6 digital cables (and can demonstrate their diffs via optical readouts like that fisheye thing), surely lowly analog cables working such "low rez" data as monophonic audio in the audible spectrum shouldn't have any secrets left to uncover? Or am I oversimplifying matters?

Look I’m as skeptical as the next guy, but there are two reasons for buying premium cabling. The first is reliability, you don’t have to worry about them which is a big deal if you’ve ever gone crazy hunting down noise coming from a bad cable or connection. The second is clean transmission that especially in the case of mics and instruments, impact sound. Good shielding is crucial to maintaining a pristine noise floor. That’s basic engineering....

I don’t like name calling in any context, but these cables aren’t really expensive. A well made cable from Redco or another good cable supplier is probably close or on par.

There are people who care about differences in tubes and transformers, clocking, monitor isolation, etc. I don’t have the ears to hear all that but respect that they can. That’s how they make their living.

Equipment is not where studios spend their money compared to salaries and rent. On a high level, clients spend a lot of money to be in a session and there’s a reason studios spend money on bulletproof solutions.
Good cabling is pretty basic, and $75-100 for a well made one, with premium connectors doesn’t fit my definition of “snake oil”.

I don't often contribute to cable discussions anymore because the two camps have become so far apart that the screams are unheard on both sides, but I'll say good luck to you and I hope find success. I have favorites that I've stuck with for several years (Evidence in the studio and Transparent at home) but I think there's room for another brand if they have strong ambitions to fabricate reliable and transparent wires. The pitchforks and torches will never leave the cable conversation, and you know that there have been many companies whose over-the-top marketing simply spoiled the fun for everyone so the category is tainted, but stick with it and focus on the fans, not the flames. Many of us do have the equipment capable of revealing the differences you've described, and a cost-conscious audiophile option will always be welcomed. No doubt your products will be scrutinized -- it's a tough, analytical bunch.

I wonder how they compare to Evidence Audio, Lyric HG? My favorite. No difference on active instruments (like my basses) but huge on passive if used to go direct, to the pre / recording. I've heard lower capacitance cable, Zaolla, & Zero Cap (proudly the lowest) and cables can let too much through in that case. Tony Farinella tuned the Evidence by ear, finding the capacitance and inductance he liked. Solid core copper, no tizzy silver. Not flexible but in the studio it matters little. David Gilmour started using that, eventually having all his pedalboard wired by Tony, eventually his whole band later using it live. Mike Joly of Oktava mods started using it in his mic mods after I'd suggested it and continued right up until he closed shop. It lead to Cascade using it on one he built for them, and they still use it on other mics they sell as a premium option. I started a lot of shit with that, I guess.

I’ve often wondered about internal wiring. Jolymodded my Oktava 2500, sounds great, but man what a rats nest was in those mics lol! Super nice guy and miss him. I hope his new venture is going well. Wiring and his mods certainly made a difference. I’m a firm believer in lots of small moves add up.

I’d put cabling, tube rolling and electronic upgrades like capacitors, transformers etc, on that list. By themselves, not that impressive perhaps but does add up.
You’re asking a lot of a Mylar diaphragm magnetic pickup or a paper cone to transduce mechanical/electric energy into music.... quite amazing really....

28 years ago I worked in a high end home stereo shop to help finance my nascent recording enterprise. At the grand opening we demonstrated our cable comparison setup: two stereo pairs of RCAs into which two pairs of interconnects could plugged for comparison purposes. There was a simple switch setup to allow an instant comparison.
A customer made interconnects out of 6 nines pure silver, possibly long crystal; I forget. What I do remember though is that the difference between those cables and relatively good Monster cables or any other copper cable was so obvious that all listeners swore the setup was rigged, and these were sceptical, experienced pros from competing hi fi shops. Fortunately, the installation panel was easily removed to show the entire circuitry and that it was legitimate.
A big lesson for all of us who heard this, and one that stays with me to this day.

Can you provide measurements for the difference in transient response?

There is a difference between recognizing differences in cable and claims such as directionality or that the differences cannot be measured and quantified other than via the use of ears.

I can accept that there may be things we haven’t figured out how to measure and quantify. I don’t accept that it is impossible to measure and quantify any differences.

From my perspective, it’s a quality product at a reasonable price (compared to alternatives). Why would there be any need for any other marketing points of the more dubious category?

As soon as someone offers proof that burning in a cable or swapping a cable’s direction makes a difference I’ll gladly accept it.

I can’t tell if you’re being serious or snarky. Or if you think this is science or pseudo-science. But if you're serious then you can absolutely test for transient response using a step function / square wave. You would need a pretty high quality oscilloscope to make the reading meaningful.

Maybe someone could do that test amongst us gearspacers but it is potentially beyond the remit or budget of cable manufacturers to be able to feasibly provide those results. It would be interesting to see the results though, especially if the aforementioned solid core cables or vovox for example were thrown into the mix too.

Further reading:

https://radionerds.com/images/a/a8/TM_11-669_1951.pdf

Well, isn't this something Ghost should test? If they could obtain figures backing up their claim of improved transient response vs other cables, how would that diminish their product's value in any way? There are all sorts of 3rd party laboratories for hire who could be commissioned to perform such tests

What would you expect/not expect to see from such a test?

Edit: Let me rephrase that. What differentiates a “better” cable from another may not be very clear cut. I don’t disagree that it would be very impressive if a company went to such means to attempt to show those types of test data, but it may be inconclusive in regards to “better”.

I agree. This looks like a quality cable. With the right tests basically everything can be measured in regards to differences in cable design: conductor diameter, material, solid vs multi strand, dielectric material, distance consistency of conductor to
insulator… etc. These things and many more can be measured. That’s not the question. The question is, can they be perceived by us, and that’s more complex.

As a mastering engineer, I’m used to listening intently to the “envelope” of music. It’s hard to describe but that is where all the differences are for me, sometimes with cables, with analog vs digital, compressor topologies, digital EQs, even dithers (really). That’s a more difficult thing to demonstrate though in my opinion. An envelope is such a complex interaction of factors, especially on certain types of program material. It could be that differences that appear above the range of human perception in a lab setting are in fact more perceptible than we think in a studio setting when we’re using enharmonic program material with harmonic series co-dependency and rhythmic groove. That would make sense to me. Basically a more subtle version of group delay. Just a thought.

However I’ve never seen a compelling case for directionality in cables. Surely electrons don’t care..? Right?? The changes apparently imparted by “burning in” cables puts this into the domain of material scientists / metallurgists though, so a whole different scientific domain. If someone could provide evidence of directionality, then I’m all ears, but until then I have to say I’m sceptical.

I was being serious, transient response measurements would certainly help sell the product. I don’t see why it would be above budget for them to run these tests themselves but whoever does them i’d be interested to see the results! I agree throw the vovox and something popular like mogami in there.

"Better" is all subjective IMO. Lets take analogue tape as an example, on paper it is way inferior to present day digital converters. Effectively, when we record to tape, we are reducing audio fidelity. Yet, this practice of degrading audio can be highly desirable in the right context.

Nonetheless, I like numbers and spec sheets. So lets see the numbers and then see what we think about it all, combined with our sensory experiences. Both together, hand in hand, isn't that what engineering is about?

I admit feeling romantical about the bygone years when engineers wore lab coats and a pocket calculator was their best friend. I grew up on ProTools and never learned the practical side, and feel its neglected in today's landscape.. Youtube influencers being more influencial than scientists who earn their living learning about the same stuff.. sorry I'm rambling, carry on gents

Transparent I believe would be better in this case, but I’m curious if different cables exhibited different results when passing thru an impulse

When we add definition to a signal that we are already familiar with, one of three things can happen:

1) it goes unnoticed - due to poor monitoring, poor hearing or an overactive mind (because we can only hear as well as our minds allow). I got to watch Doug Sax before he passed and the man had a switch in his head that allowed his ear to fall into a sound freakishly deep. Most of us (myself included) aren't born with such a gift so we must develop it at some point in our lives and then maintain it with practice. Doug inspired me in my 20s to develop my own 'switch' which I still use today in my late 40s.

2) it is appreciated - either as improved clarity, improved tonality, improved depth, or improved transient presentation. Something is improved and the ear is pulled further into the music as a result. For me personally, when definition is added, my ear goes straight to the transients that are suddenly presented with added precision, regardless if they were improved or not in amplitude.

3) it is not appreciated - if your ear is already used to a certain musicality, adding definition can be distracting and therefore unwanted. This has been most apparent for guitar players who are used to a certain cable (between a specific guitar and amp) and then switch to Ghost and the definition is too much. Their ear is now distracted away from the music which is obviously not a good thing. Maybe revisiting the amp settings can bring them back into the tone, or maybe the definition will remain too much, and a duller or slower cable is preferred.

If the left elephant has been your tone all along, suddenly switching to the right elephant might be too much:

Sharpness is to a photo, what articulation is to sound.

IMO there is one place where you want the most definition and that is your monitor path. For better or worse, you've gotta hear what's there in order to do your best work.

And in analog mastering, where the entire mix is dependent on two lines of cable strung between a series of boxes, I want all the definition as I can get no matter how sobering it may be upon playback. This is especially true now as ITB mastering is starting to compete with analog thanks to improved plugin quality as of late. The new Sontec plugin is giving my HW Sontec a run for its money, but I still very much value the sound of my chain and Ghost is playing big role in keeping it competitive with digital. (this is all in my opinion and according to my ear)

In November of 2015 I bought a 500ft spool of Lyric HG directly from Tony and made 30 mic and instrument cables of varying lengths. I also made 4 stereo pairs of interconnects for use in a mastering chain. I know this cable very well, and I still use it often in the production room for certain mic and instrument applications for its unique sound, particularly when wanting to regulate upper mid articulation in relation to the low mid power. Myself and the 2 engineers at Satellite Studio (in San Diego) agree that the Lyric and Ghost mic cables compliment each other so well that no other cable is needed in the studio.

The solid core copper sound is very distinct to me and I can clearly hear similarities between Evidence and Vovox (which I can expand on in a future post). As to whether solid core or stranded is more source transparent will forever be debatable, but my cable preference became sealed in late 2016 after a series of comparative masters were done using a variety of cable (Grimm TPR, Belden 1800f, Evidence Lyric, Vovox Sonorus and Ghost Beta) all thru the same analog chain. I still keep 6 foot pairs of Vovox and Lyric in my mastering room because I sometimes like kicking the chain off from the transfer DAC with a pair of solid core cables on certain mix tonalities. I can expand more on why later.

EDIT: I didn't talk about active vs passive pickups and how they relate to cabling, but I agree with your observation about passive offering far greater audible changes from cable swaps than active. However, I can still hear changes in tonality with active pickups and of course with active balanced/unbalanced circuity.

As ive stated before, I was skeptical for over 20 years about directionality and break in.

I don't know the science so I stay away from trying to explain what I now hear as concrete. It is to the point where I won't ship a Ghost+ cable without 3 days on the cooker because I don't want it losing any shootouts!

It may come to the point where I start cooking the 500m spools in a single pop so that both Ghost and Ghost+ leave here fully burned in.

Regarding directionality I have had it explained to me a few different times, but it never satisfies. There has to be some present or future science to support what my ears are hearing.

Here is Evidence Audio's explanation:

40 hours? Try 200+

When attaching a shield to one end it is directional. The environment has a large play in whether you have actually added additional shielding or created an antenna.

I’ll have to side with physics until *proof* is offered on that topic.

Makes one wonder why folks aren’t burning in their low voltage cabling to improve what they’ve got.

You seem an agreeable human and I certainly wish you the best with your product!

For me, sometimes even scientific proof feels like an assumption until it can be backed up with direct experience.

And for you (I think?), experience feels like an assumption until it can be backed up with scientific proof.

This is a perfectly acceptable place to disagree. Don't you agree?

Thank you. As far as im concerned you are the ideal representative of opposition here. You make me wish I had more scientific data in support of the experiences i'm conveying. Maybe there's a materials scientist somewhere that could explain this phenomena, but until such evidence emerges I understand your skepticism.

It's a good point. I recently heard a pair of Klipsch KG4 speakers which I had when I was about 20. I loved them then, but I've since moved on to speakers and other equipment which is far more accurate and revealing. I consider the new equipment a major upgrade, however, I LOVED listening to those KG4s. Everything sounded exciting. They, along with the receiver which was powering them, might have been distorted as hell, but although my brain didn't like the idea of so much inaccuracy, my ears were thrilled.

We make these decisions in mixing, too, adding character on tracks and master faders. Intentionally moving away from purity as an effect to please the ears somehow.

The same goes for video, as you said. Shooting 35mm with old film stock brings a warmth and nostalgia that can invoke a certain emotion.

But when we're talking about cables, as with converters, I'd rather not have anything added or taken away, as much as possible. That's something to be done elsewhere, not in the monitoring chain, imo.

Hearing something outside a controlled double blind test is not really proof of anything concerning objective properties of an object such as cables. Human perception is physiologically and phenomenologically interdependent and holistic and there are about three trillion factors influencing what you are hearing at any given moment. When talking about minute differentiae especially, the treshhold for perception biases to take over is pretty low.

But at the same, think about those guys hearing differences in DAW summing that has been objectively proven to null. It would be wrong to say that they are imagining these differences since they are hearing something. We hear what we hear, we don't hear "objective" and "subjective" sources separately. So if different cables make someone feel like they're hearing better I don't think there's really anything wrong with that. I just wish engineers were more aware/open about how much of what we do happens at this treshhold of indeterminacy. A lot of what we do probably wouldn't pass a scientific double blind and that's fine. Music is about feel, after all. I just dislike the common "I hear something, so it must be objectively true, and science has measured wrong" ego tripping in this industry. I recall even Greg Wells saying something like "I don't know if this actually does something but I like how it makes me feel, so I leave it on" in an MWTM episode. It's fine to admit you don't really know.

Anyways, my two gearslut-with-philosophy-background cents.