Best Jack Lead For Electric Guitar?

sovietchimp

Hi!
Getting a new amp and just wondering what jack leads do you guys use and which would you recommend? I play mostly rock and metal
Thanks.

Fingers Mcginty

This crowd are good you let them know what length you need and what type of plugs you need. I got meself one right angled as I have a 335 type guitar and 1 straight for the amp connection.

rcaz

I used to always buy Planet Waves cables because of all the bull**** marketing speak they put on their packaging - stuff about the gold-plated jacks, oxygen-free cable, etc, etc. Buzzwords and the like. A lot of it is techniques tested and proven in the hifi industry which are then blindly transferred to guitar cables in order to justify high prices. It doesn't hold true for guitar cables because of different signal strengths and frequencies and the like.

Also, the Planet Waves cables said they would never break, or you get a replacement. They always broke, through absolutely normal wear and tear! (....And I always lost my receipt, so I couldn't get a replacement :mad:).

In my opinion, it doesn't matter too much. DON'T get the cheapest cable you can, but don't spend silly money on it. I got a Bespeco cable in Music Maker in Dublin for €16 or something, and it plugs my guitar into my pedals just fine. And it's bright green, so I think it looks cool. It does everything I want it to and more. Also, it's one of the cables where the cover around the jack screws off, so if it breaks, you can open it up and have a go at fixing it, or keep the plugs and put them onto some new bulk cable - which is much cheaper. Actually, if you can solder and fancy going to a little extra trouble, you can get much higher-quality cable for much less money. Look at Mogami or Canare cable and Neutrik jacks.

As for "playing rock and metal", I don't think any cable would particularly suit any type of music.

D0nners

I would also stay away from the planet waves leads. They seem to only last a few weeks.

And remember, the shorter the lead, the better the sound quality.

Seziertisch

If any of you are following the Audio Warehouse Roadshow thread on the MP board, you will have seen that there is a cable shoot out in the offing. There are a number of candidates of varying prices.

The test will involve reamping a prerecorded guitar signal with the only variation being the cable used between the reamp box and the guitar amp. Otherwise the performance, levels, recording signal chain etc. will be exactly the same. These clips will be posted (hopefully) sometime shortly after.

I could recommend some cables that I have found to be excellent, but which are not at the most pocket friendly prices. Inevitably somebody who has never tried them or indeed any "high end" cable would respond that cables are all the same and that "copper is copper" etc. When the clips are posted you can decide for yourselves.

rcaz

Seziertisch wrote: »

Inevitably somebody who has never tried them or indeed any "high end" cable would respond that cables are all the same and that "copper is copper" etc.

Yeah, but it's easy to end up listening to your equipment and not your music. 90% of your tone is in your fingers.

tubedude

Will be interested in that cable shootout for sure,
but regards the OP, I think you should get the best you can afford, especially for live work. With some lower quality cables, they say that some of the detail can be lost, like the highest frequencies, and overtones,however subtle.
There's a few posts saying stay away from planet waves, which is funny coz they're one of the best quality. I would say they are people resentful of the price tag. I only use them now after using cheaper ones. They don't just die after a month, none of mine have died and I've been using em over a year. And if they do, lifetime guarantee.

Also, if you take care of your gear, it will last you, some people just wreck their cables no matter what....

68 lost souls

El Pr0n wrote: »

Also, the Planet Waves cables said they would never break, or you get a replacement. They always broke, through absolutely normal wear and tear! (....And I always lost my receipt, so I couldn't get a replacement :mad:).

Surely thats not the leads fault that you cant keep a receipt?

rcaz

68 lost souls wrote: »

Surely thats not the leads fault that you cant keep a receipt?

Haha, I don't think I ever said it was, did I? :rolleyes:

But I don't see why a cable company would make that claim when every one of those cables I owned (four) broke through normal use.

68 lost souls

Was just messing with ya :P

Which series did you have. I know that there was an issue with older planet waves, they had a pruttruding bend in the jack to make it harder for them to become unplugged but this is where many of them got damaged. They have no changed the jack design to remove this and it has improved them a lot. I find the custom pro series or even the custom series very good.

The circuit breakers come in handy sometimes too. Little push button that kills the sound so no unexpected peaks when you plug your guitar.

mattfender

I never have problems with the klotz cables really.

fish-head

The trouble with Planet Waves is that they're the jacks aren't easily accessible to repair them yourselves. I've lost my faith in them.

My new favourite cable is my Vox curly cable!

ball ox

not another one of these bloody threads, someone make a sticky lads

Seziertisch

El Pr0n wrote: »

Yeah, but it's easy to end up listening to your equipment and not your music. 90% of your tone is in your fingers.

Really? So a stummed open G played by a an "average" guitarist and a "great" guitarist through the same rig will sound completely different? And in the event of any tonal shortcomings, the "great" guitarist will somehow be able to alleviate these with their greatness?

The reality is that all the great guitarists I can think of use great gear. There was a recent discussion about who has good tone on here, not one single guitarist got mentioned that didn't have a signature rig. AFAIK, there are very few if any recordings of these guitarists playing just any old gear so to say what percentage is in the fingers is a little tough.

It is also the case that if you ask anyone working in a studio about recording great guitar sounds they will tell you that great gear (not recording gear) is an absolute prerequisite. It might be a good performance or whatever, but if the highs are strident, the bass muddy or the mids closed, no amount of greatness is going to sort this (bar the greatness of extreme eq).

I also think that your response if fairly typical. If someone asked about changing pickups, say, as a way to improve tone, nobody would respond that they shouldn't bother as 90% of their tone is in their fingers. Cables are a different story.

rcaz

Seziertisch wrote: »

Really? So a stummed open G played by a an "average" guitarist and a "great" guitarist through the same rig will sound completely different? And in the event of any tonal shortcomings, the "great" guitarist will somehow be able to alleviate these with their greatness?

The reality is that all the great guitarists I can think of use great gear. There was a recent discussion about who has good tone on here, not one single guitarist got mentioned that didn't have a signature rig. AFAIK, there are very few if any recordings of these guitarists playing just any old gear so to say what percentage is in the fingers is a little tough.

It is also the case that if you ask anyone working in a studio about recording great guitar sounds they will tell you that great gear (not recording gear) is an absolute prerequisite. It might be a good performance or whatever, but if the highs are strident, the bass muddy or the mids closed, no amount of greatness is going to sort this (bar the greatness of extreme eq).

I also think that your response if fairly typical. If someone asked about changing pickups, say, as a way to improve tone, nobody would respond that they shouldn't bother as 90% of their tone is in their fingers. Cables are a different story.

I never said your tone comes from your experience, I said it comes from your fingers. As for your open G string scenario, there are innumerable different ways to strike the string. Close to the bridge/close to the neck, with the plectrum flat, angled toward the bridge, angled toward the neck, pointing slightly downwards, pointing slightly upwards, or you could use your fingers - do you use the fleshy part, or your fingernail? How do you cut your fingernail, and what kind of shape do you cut into it? Do you pull the string straight up or down, or do you pull it out like Bartok pizzicato? etc etc etc. All these decisions would impact your tone a lot more than your cable-buying decision.

You're also assuming that cheap gear always sounds 'bad'. Like when I play through my ten watt solid state practise amp, and I turn it all the way up and put a distortion pedal on so that the amp is way overloaded and it's all one fuzzy horrible mess with no dynamics - who's to say it sounds 'bad' other than me? If it suits the song, it's perfect.

One of my friends was playing my Jazzmaster right after I got it, and his complaint was thathe couldn't get it to sound 'metal' after trying some metallica riffs. I told him to play really aggressively and really dig into the strings and make an angry face and grunt like James Hetfield, and bingo, the guitar sounded a lot more suited to the music. Try this yourself - if you play weak, you sound weak.

And your last point confuses me. You're right, nobody would reply like I did to a pickup question. Pickups play the most important job in the electric guitar - if you pickup the signal badly, you'll have a bad signal regardless how good your cable/pedals/amp are. Cables just carry that signal to the amp. So yes, cables are a different story. What's your point?

darrenw5094

D0nners wrote: »

I would also stay away from the planet waves leads. They seem to only last a few weeks.

And remember, the shorter the lead, the better the sound quality.

My 'Planet Waves' leads are not lasting to long these days.

They give a lifetime guarantee with their leads.............muppets.

Seziertisch

El Pr0n wrote: »

I never said your tone comes from your experience, I said it comes from your fingers. As for your open G string scenario, there are innumerable different ways to strike the string. Close to the bridge/close to the neck, with the plectrum flat, angled toward the bridge, angled toward the neck, pointing slightly downwards, pointing slightly upwards, or you could use your fingers - do you use the fleshy part, or your fingernail? How do you cut your fingernail, and what kind of shape do you cut into it? Do you pull the string straight up or down, or do you pull it out like Bartok pizzicato? etc etc etc. All these decisions would impact your tone a lot more than your cable-buying decision.

The same is true for every other piece of gear. For example, Jimi Hendrix's playing would still be recognisable as such regardless of what gear he used. Different pickups, picks, strings, tubes, amps, speakers, guitars even and he would still be him. The same is true of all the other great instrumentalists (in the sense of having a distinct voice). Then there is stuff like My Bloody Valentine and Sigur Ros,which is as much (if not more so) about the sound than the players ability. I have seen a couple of bands attempt the bowed guitar thing without the right gear and it just plain sucked in some cases and even when it went alright it was still fairly underwhelming.

In my experience recording, no amount of altered fingerwork or picking position or whatever will change the fundamental sound of the the signal chain. A guitar cable will (in my experience). I am not saying it is a replacement for the other stuff. Like any piece of gear it won't make somebody a better player. I can understand people being sceptical about this, hence we are doing the cable shoot out.

El Pr0n wrote: »

You're also assuming that cheap gear always sounds 'bad'. Like when I play through my ten watt solid state practise amp, and I turn it all the way up and put a distortion pedal on so that the amp is way overloaded and it's all one fuzzy horrible mess with no dynamics - who's to say it sounds 'bad' other than me? If it suits the song, it's perfect.

Not always, if you want it to sound like it was played on cheap gear then it is perfect. Cheap stuff can be also cool when using as it was not intended (as you said) but is largely uninspiring (in my experience) when trying to achieve more conventional sounds. Great gear on the other hand will sound great no matter what you do with it, whether sending the sound over the edge using a number of fuzz pedals or trying to get a full, pristine detailed clean sound, it will say stop when you say so.

In terms of sounding "bad", you should ask some professional mixers what their experiences have been. It might sound fine and dandy at the time of recording, trying to get it to fit/sit satisfactorily in a mix is a different thing. What makes a lot of extreme/unusual sounding recordings so great is the amount of work that has gone in to get them sounding exactly the way they do. Taking Loveless as an example, what makes the fuzz textures so great is that they are very controlled at the same time as sounding quite out of control. This is not an easy thing to do. They do their thing within a specific range, there is no buzz saw high end or swamping of the frequency ranges intended for other elements. The sounds all occupy their own space. This isn't just down to good mixing, but also good recording and, what I would argue as being not coincidental, using great gear.

El Pr0n wrote: »

One of my friends was playing my Jazzmaster right after I got it, and his complaint was thathe couldn't get it to sound 'metal' after trying some metallica riffs. I told him to play really aggressively and really dig into the strings and make an angry face and grunt like James Hetfield, and bingo, the guitar sounded a lot more suited to the music. Try this yourself - if you play weak, you sound weak.

I don't see how this is of any relevance to what I was saying. I hadn't said or suggest otherwise.

El Pr0n wrote: »

And your last point confuses me. You're right, nobody would reply like I did to a pickup question. Pickups play the most important job in the electric guitar - if you pickup the signal badly, you'll have a bad signal regardless how good your cable/pedals/amp are. Cables just carry that signal to the amp. So yes, cables are a different story. What's your point?

My point is that cables don't just carry the signal to the amp, but have a significant tonal impact. And I think, based on my own experiences with them, this will be obvious when listening to the cable shoot out files. As I said before I have no interest in arguing with anybody before these files are available as informed discussions are so much more productive.

darrenw5094

A wise man once said....'Your sound is only as good as it's weakest link'

mattfender

I do use the half pick/half nail alot...

rcaz

Seziertisch;

You make a lot of interesting points, but we're probably going way off topic.

As for the cables and their tonal impact, I thought a cable should have NO tonal impact? (And here comes my hypocrisy )

As for all the MBV/Sigur Ros stuff, I think it sounds great because it's original. Nobody had heard music like that before Kevin Shields came along, right? Their gear wasn't that great. They played Jazzmasters and Jaguards because they were cheap, and figured out you could do a lot more with the vibrato system in them than was intended by Leo.

As for the 'not always' bit re my cheap practise amp, all of this is opinion! I like how my stuff sounds that way, who else can say otherwise? And all that stuff about MBV using stuff so that frequency ranges don't get muddles and whatnot; That's all about the studio end. Not guitar gear.

My play weak/sound weak bit was just reinforcing the 90%-of-tone-in-fingers point, I wasn't having a go at something you said.

Seziertisch

El Pr0n wrote: »

Seziertisch;

You make a lot of interesting points, but we're probably going way off topic.

As for the cables and their tonal impact, I thought a cable should have NO tonal impact? (And here comes my hypocrisy )

As for all the MBV/Sigur Ros stuff, I think it sounds great because it's original. Nobody had heard music like that before Kevin Shields came along, right? Their gear wasn't that great. They played Jazzmasters and Jaguards because they were cheap, and figured out you could do a lot more with the vibrato system in them than was intended by Leo.

As for the 'not always' bit re my cheap practise amp, all of this is opinion! I like how my stuff sounds that way, who else can say otherwise? And all that stuff about MBV using stuff so that frequency ranges don't get muddles and whatnot; That's all about the studio end. Not guitar gear.

My play weak/sound weak bit was just reinforcing the 90%-of-tone-in-fingers point, I wasn't having a go at something you said.

As for MBVs gear, it might have been cheap (as in affordable) at the time second hand, but it most definitely wasn't cheap first day. Nowadays, to replicate their set up of vintage guitars, pedals and amps you would need a fair few quid.

In terms of recording guitars, great guitar gear in whatever guise is an absolute necessity if you are after great sounds. No amount of fancy studio stuff will compensate for deficiencies before the mic. Period.

Anyways, we'll try and get the cable shoot out up asap.

tubedude

El Pr0n wrote: »

Seziertisch;

As for the cables and their tonal impact, I thought a cable should have NO tonal impact? (And here comes my hypocrisy )
.

You're right, but the thing is only a good quality cable will have no tonal impact, it will carry the signal accurately as it was produced, but cheaper ones can affect the tone, by dropping frequencies, losing definition, and picking up interference.

rcaz

Seziertisch wrote: »

In terms of recording guitars, great guitar gear in whatever guise is an absolute necessity if you are after great sounds. No amount of fancy studio stuff will compensate for deficiencies before the mic. Period.

I know this. It's common sense. Garbage in -> garbage out.

I just think that "great gear" is subjective. An Ibanez Jem might be considered a "great" guitar, but there are things it excels at and things it doesn't, the same goes for every piece of gear, surely.

Seziertisch

El Pr0n wrote: »

I know this. It's common sense. Garbage in -> garbage out.

I just think that "great gear" is subjective. An Ibanez Jem might be considered a "great" guitar, but there are things it excels at and things it doesn't, the same goes for every piece of gear, surely.

With great gear, while it might not always be the best in a given situation and might not be the sound you are after, it will always give reasonable, usable results. On the fundamental level of guitar tone, the one thing every mix engineer craves is a solid mid-range presence, after that the tighter the low end and the more controlled the highs the better.

Since you mentioned the Jem (and its obvious metal connotations), you could probably use one on an indie record and into the right amp it would be definitely usable. I saw Yann Tiersen doing an electric set a few years ago. At least one (if not both) of the guitarists was playing a EVH Wolfgang (not sure if it was Peavey or EB). The sounds coming off stage had more in common with Sonic Youth than Van Halen.

rcaz

Seziertisch wrote: »

With great gear, while it might not always be the best in a given situation and might not be the sound you are after, it will always give reasonable, usable results. On the fundamental level of guitar tone, the one thing every mix engineer craves is a solid mid-range presence, after that the tighter the low end and the more controlled the highs the better.

We weren't talking about 'reasonable' or 'usable' results though, you said the only way to get great results was to use great gear. I thought that was far too generalised.

And who cares what mix engineers crave? The studio staff aren't the ones making the music, are they? And I know there are thousands of very sensible and tried-and-true retorts to that point, but I'm not talking about making a record.

pistonsvox

Mid range tone is handy for mixing alirght, but sometimes its just too much ie. too muddy and just annoying. White Lies' engineers does something great with the overall EQ of the rig and gets a crisp and not that 'middy' a tone off ur mans guitar yet it doesnt get lost in the mix.

Seziertisch

El Pr0n wrote: »

We weren't talking about 'reasonable' or 'usable' results though, you said the only way to get great results was to use great gear. I thought that was far too generalised.

And who cares what mix engineers crave? The studio staff aren't the ones making the music, are they? And I know there are thousands of very sensible and tried-and-true retorts to that point, but I'm not talking about making a record.

Great gear won't always be the best in a given situation but it will always deliver. I gave the example of a "metal" guitar delivering the goods in a non-metal situation. Average gear won't. It will only take you so far and then no further.

As for what mix engineers crave, I'm not just talking about studio but also live. I have friends that do quite a bit of live stuff and they do battle with the sound for bands with crappy equipment all the time. They bring up the fader and start doing radical eq boosts to try and fill it out a bit but with not much success because you can't boost what isn't there in the first place.

As for not making a record, that's fine, but in my experience micing up a guitar rig is the acid test of how good it actually sounds. Considering the Fletcher Munson curve and the fact that how we experience sound is quite different from what a mic picks up, in terms of fine tuning a sound micing up an amp is the way to go. On top of that, most peoples ideas of tone come from microphone recordings. The closest most people get to hearing how Xs rig sounds is live and even then that is through a PA.

A7X

I had a planet waves cable for around 2 years and recently it started being faulty. Happened during a gig too. Had to put the faulty end in my guitars jack and get it into a position where there was a connection and didnt move till the gig was over.

Like someone said the most annoying thing about them is that they arent easily accesible to fix so you have to buy a new one.

Someone mentioned curly guitar leads and I always wondered if they had a small adverse effect on the tone or the signal as it is basically a small air core inductor in series with your setup. Unless someone can correct me on that, its how its always appeared in my mind.

Seziertisch

Unfortunately, the recording of the cable shoot out didn't happen due to time restraints. That said, there was a listening test in the room. I think 4 of those in attendance ending up taking a Vovox Sonorus cable. At least 2 of them were professional musicians/studio owners here in Ireland and one of them was Wolsey White (Hard Fi's producer).

The cables tested were Planet Waves, Cordial, Monster Cable Performer Rock Performer 500, Vovox, Vovox Sonorus and Evidence Audio Lyric HG. The favourite was the Vovox Sonorus with the original Vovox and the Evidence Audio viaing for second place. Next in line was the Planet Waves which sounded alright but paled compared to the top 3. There was no love for either the Monster Cable or the Cordial. All cables were around the 3.5/4 m mark, although a 10 m Vovox Sonorus was also tested and even though it was over twice as long as the Monster Cable, Planet Waves and Cordial it still sounded remarkably better.

The test rig was a PRS and a Hiwatt Custom 50, the main live rig of one of the attendees (who also bought a Vovox Sonorus). He commented that the Sonorus improved the interactivity of the guitar and amp and felt that the clarity and string definition it provided made it easier to play in so far as he could hear what he was doing.

Wolsey White commented that incomparison to the top 3 swapping in the others made it sound as if something was broken on the guitar. He also said that if he hadn't been there to see with his own eyes that there was nothing other than the cable being changed he wouldn't have believed what he was hearing and thought it was some sort of hoax/scam.

Even though the samples didn't happen this time round, I hope to get some done myself very soon.

For anyone who is interested Audio Warehouse is the Vovox dealer in Ireland and provides demos of them as well. So if you are interested you can borrow one from them (no obligation to purchase) and test it in the comfort of your own home/studio/rehearsal space. Should your findings differ from ours or you don't think it is worth the price then you can return it to them.

Eoin Madsen

sovietchimp wrote: »

Hi!
Getting a new amp and just wondering what jack leads do you guys use and which would you recommend? I play mostly rock and metal
Thanks.

For rock and metal you should definitely get a black lead. :pac:

There's not a lot to worry about with guitar leads. Avoid anything too cheap. Avoid cables that are very thin. Avoid those spiral cables or any cable which is much more than about 6 metres long. Ideally, also avoid cables with moulded plastic around the jack (they can't be repaired and tend to be less durable). Don't waste your money on cables claiming to contain special metals (silver, gold etc.). Gold-plated connectors are really for installations, not leads that get plugged in and out all the time - so don't worry about that one way or the other.

I make my own leads from Cordial cable and Neutrik connectors. When feeling lazy or for complex cables, I would order from http://www.redco.com/. They make nice leads. The longest cable I would use would be about 4.5m, but I try to keep to 3m. That has more to do with not having cable coiled up all over the place than any audible effect on tone.

Eoin Madsen

Seziertisch wrote: »

At least 2 of them were professional musicians/studio owners here in Ireland

I haven't really followed the argument but I just noticed this line and it made me laugh. I've worked in a few of the "professional" studios in this country and found the quality of cables to be absolutely appalling. I mean, we're talking 600 euros a day and this stuff made the cable I use to tie up my curtain at home look good. And that cable doesn't even have ends on it.

Seziertisch

Eoin Madsen wrote: »

I haven't really followed the argument but I just noticed this line and it made me laugh. I've worked in a few of the "professional" studios in this country and found the quality of cables to be absolutely appalling. I mean, we're talking 600 euros a day and this stuff made the cable I use to tie up my curtain at home look good. And that cable doesn't even have ends on it.

Yeah, you're right, a lot of studios in Ireland tend to be rooms with gear in them as opposed to actual studios in the sense of space intended for recording music with everything optimised for that purpose. There were probably a fair share of those studios you were in that had quite expensive gear that didn't work properly (channels 23, 25 and 30 have a buzz on them, mics that you plug in and find to be dead, cables that aren't passing any signal etc.)

That said, at least one of them has his entire studio wired up with Vovox (mic cables, D-subs etc.) and has everything in full working order. Increasingly, he hires it out to producers coming from and bringing bands from abroad.

SirLemonhead

Eoin Madsen wrote: »

I make my own leads from Cordial cable and Neutrik connectors. When feeling lazy or for complex cables, I would order from http://www.redco.com/. They make nice leads. The longest cable I would use would be about 4.5m, but I try to keep to 3m. That has more to do with not having cable coiled up all over the place than any audible effect on tone.

Where do you buy your Cordial cable and connectors from? need to make up some cables myself soon

Eoin Madsen

SirLemonhead wrote: »

Where do you buy your Cordial cable and connectors from? need to make up some cables myself soon

I usually just get it from Thomann whenever I'm ordering something else. If you only need a couple, you can usually get a few of the more common types of neutrik connectors in Maplin, though they're a bit overpriced. I wouldn't be too mad on their guitar type cable either.

NeMiSiS

I use Mogami cables.. i like them a lot.

corpcleg

i have recently got an album with robert johnson on,and although it wasnt the best sound in the world it did the job, i wonder what cables he used?
its just my poinion but many players obsese over equipment nowadays
unless your setup is of the poorest std you should be gettin a decent sound.at the moment i usin a 250euro guitar with a pickup mod a zoom g7 £200 and cubase le i got for free with zoom and it sounds great and if dave gilmour decides to drop around for a jam it would suffice
get the music right 1st n let the engineers worry about what there job is!!
you could have wrote 3or 4 good riffs in the time you spend disscusin cables??
the world is full of great soundin players n little or no good tunes
its the musician job to attempt to make music

brendansmith

corpcleg wrote: »

you could have wrote 3or 4 good riffs in the time you spend disscusin cables??
the world is full of great soundin players n little or no good tunes
its the musician job to attempt to make music

This is the instruments forum, you are looking for the songwriters forum.:D

Seziertisch

corpcleg wrote: »

i have recently got an album with robert johnson on,and although it wasnt the best sound in the world it did the job, i wonder what cables he used?
its just my poinion but many players obsese over equipment nowadays
unless your setup is of the poorest std you should be gettin a decent sound.at the moment i usin a 250euro guitar with a pickup mod a zoom g7 £200 and cubase le i got for free with zoom and it sounds great and if dave gilmour decides to drop around for a jam it would suffice
get the music right 1st n let the engineers worry about what there job is!!
you could have wrote 3or 4 good riffs in the time you spend disscusin cables??
the world is full of great soundin players n little or no good tunes
its the musician job to attempt to make music

Robert Johnson didn't use a lead because he played acoustic guitar. As for Dave Gilmour and his choice of gear you might find this interesting.

http://www.davidgilmour.com/press/2005/march/TapeOp_March05.pdf

corpcleg

im well aware r johnsoon played acoustic guitar. you are missing my point
his acoustic guitar was recorded with the most primative equip yet it sounds fine to me?
the point i was makin about d gilmour was to state that if he or any of the great players were to record with the same equipment that i use it would sound great also
the world is full of guitarist with a great sound n little or no good music IMO
the beatles early stuff was recorded with very minimal equip and its done the job dont you think? what cables did they use?
as i stated i just find that too many players are obsesed with the equipment than the music
no point soundin great if youve nothin 2 play!!!!!

Seziertisch

corpcleg wrote: »

im well aware r johnsoon played acoustic guitar. you are missing my point

You understand why someone might mistakenly think you weren't aware of this fact considering you asked what cables he used.

corpcleg wrote: »

his acoustic guitar was recorded with the most primative equip yet it sounds fine to me?... the beatles early stuff was recorded with very minimal equip and its done the job dont you think? what cables did they use?

The equipment used for recording the Beatles (at least, if not Robert Johnson also) was head and shoulders above what you would find in most recording studios nowadays. There might have been limited track counts etc. but this was expensive, precision engineered equipment which was only viable in a commercial facility. This equipment still fetches quite large sums on the second hand market. It is still used in top end studios around the world. In fact demand for it is so high that a number of companies have started offering recreations of this gear at prices which reflect the labour and expense involved in production. One particular example is the Neumann U47 mic. On top of that those Beatles recordings were made in a studio that is acoustically regarded as one of the great recording spaces. Also, guitar gear like the Beatles played (similar to their recording gear) goes for big money on the second hand market. Part of this is down to people liking to collect old things, but as anyone who has even played a proper vintage instrument will tell you, there is a level of quality to most vintage instruments and amps which you would be hard pushed to find in newer equipment. So in answer to your question about why these early recordings sounded good; they were using great sounding instruments and amps recorded in a great sounding studio using amazing recording gear. This is most definitely not a case of the greatness of The Beatles musicianship overcoming the limits of a pod and an m-box or whatever (even though I don't think there was any equivalent of the or the m-box back in the day)

corpcleg wrote: »

the point i was makin about d gilmour was to state that if he or any of the great players were to record with the same equipment that i use it would sound great also
the world is full of guitarist with a great sound n little or no good music IMO

His playing would still be great but as to whether it sounded great that is another question. I think what makes recordings of Dave Gilmour great is the fact that it is Dave Gilmour playing great gear recorded in great studios using great equipment. People don't just appreciate his great technique or the great songs, the sonic quality/listening pleasure is also a factor.

corpcleg wrote: »

as i stated i just find that too many players are obsesed with the equipment than the music
no point soundin great if youve nothin 2 play!!!!!

This is true, but if you were to limit the ownership of expensive/high-quality equipment to only great players then the music instrument industry would cease to exist. In fact, the obsession with gear and the desire to create new sounds/recreate old sounds has in recent years lead to the whole boutique phenomenon. On one hand it is indulgent putting the tools of the gods into the hands of mortals (or in this case not so great players), on the other these boutique manafacturers (in many cases one man industries) have kept the flame alive and have contributed to the preservation of a legacy (which the Beatles gear is part of) which had largely being forgotten. 20 years ago you would have been hard pushed to find a new amp which delivered the same sonic excellence that a vintage amp did. This is no longer the case. Even recently a company in Britain (TubeTech) have started offering a recreation of the 12ax7 which, if reports are to be believed, meets the standards of the old ones. None of this would be economically viable without hobby players of varying abilities.

corpcleg

A
me question as to what cables r johnson used was rhethorical,if not mildly sarcastic! i assumed that you wud assume i knew the difference btween an acoustic and an electric r i would be wasten my time postin on this thread
b
i do believe that the beatles eq used on their EARLY records was rudimentry and it was the skill of the pioneering engineers who got great use out of it.the fact that some of this eq is being reissued is no great revelation people will always itch for a certain sound and have preferences
ie the great CD vsVINYL debate etc.certainly some of the eq used in thoose days is bein reissued but overall the eq in modern studios pisses on wat the beatles r johnson used FACT. otherwise abbey rd would look the same as i did 40years ago?
c
the point about gilmour i made,and this is the crux of the point i am/was tryin to make is that although i am aware he like all the greats will use fx n production techniques(pink floyd ffs) to better the sound of his guitar,your point about people likin it because it was played on great eq in the best studios is bull**** no one ever sold an album on production quality,most of floyds stuff was writen while waters was strumn an acoustic in his back yard.this is the point i was tryn to make about players obsesin over eq
you would never have heard about the beatles or ANYONE else for that matter if the music wasnt there
d
i buy guitar mags the odd time and note that they are jam packed full of expensive gadgetry that will make you sound like anything you want
most of it is very expensive but i can think of a lot worse things to spend
yourmoney on and its good to know that people hav the choices that they never had before but is music any better for it me thinks not!!
back 2 the original point again
stop obsessin bout guitar cables its what your PLAYIN that matters
PHEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seziertisch

corpcleg wrote: »

b
i do believe that the beatles eq used on their EARLY records was rudimentry and it was the skill of the pioneering engineers who got great use out of it.the fact that some of this eq is being reissued is no great revelation people will always itch for a certain sound and have preferences
ie the great CD vsVINYL debate etc.certainly some of the eq used in thoose days is bein reissued but overall the eq in modern studios pisses on wat the beatles r johnson used FACT. otherwise abbey rd would look the same as i did 40years ago?
c
the point about gilmour i made,and this is the crux of the point i am/was tryin to make is that although i am aware he like all the greats will use fx n production techniques(pink floyd ffs) to better the sound of his guitar,your point about people likin it because it was played on great eq in the best studios is bull**** no one ever sold an album on production quality,most of floyds stuff was writen while waters was strumn an acoustic in his back yard.this is the point i was tryn to make about players obsesin over eq
you would never have heard about the beatles or ANYONE else for that matter if the music wasnt there

I don't quite follow you. I didn't mention EQ, I gave the example of a microphone (the most important part in the recording chain). As for the eq in modern studios pissing on what was used back in the 60s, they didn't have parametric eq, but in terms of musicality those designs are still the standard today.

As for Abbey Road looking the same, it largely does, as far as I know. Their gear list includes a lot of the same stuff that they had back in the day. There have been updates to cater to the expectations that people have of a modern studio and the fact that 50 or so years of wear and tear is bound to take its toll on gear in a working studio.

In terms of production quality having no bearing on the success or failure of a musical recording, I think you are well off the mark. In modern record production budgets have been cut back across the board, except when it comes to mixing. The best in the business can command 6 figure sums for mixing a record. The reason they can do that is that record companies know that the right mix at the right time can be the difference between something selling alright and it being a smash (Nevermind by Nirvana comes to mind). Moving into more mainstream pop production this is even more the case. Also, a friend of mine was talking recently with someone working in programming at a quite an influential "indie" radio station and asked about their policy regarding playing new, unsigned music; the response was that they would like to play more but that the vast majority of recordings that people submitted weren't fit for public consumption. I think regardless of how Roger Waters wrote the songs, Pink Floyd they didn't go on to sell millions of records based on ropy home demos of him strumming a guitar in his kitchen. Who knows, maybe the music is there on some of those recordings people are submitting to that radio station, maybe it isn't, either way it isn't getting played.

corpcleg wrote: »

d
i buy guitar mags the odd time and note that they are jam packed full of expensive gadgetry that will make you sound like anything you want
most of it is very expensive but i can think of a lot worse things to spend
yourmoney on and its good to know that people hav the choices that they never had before but is music any better for it me thinks not!!
back 2 the original point again
stop obsessin bout guitar cables its what your PLAYIN that matters
PHEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This forum is called "Instruments", people come on here to discuss gear. You could just as easily say stop obsessing about amps or guitars or whatever, because they by your definition have nothing to do with playing either. In terms of better gear making the music any better, as I said before it isn't going to improve someones technique or song ideas etc. but in terms of how they can present their music, better gear opens up worlds of possibility. There are expectations for certain genres that require very specific gear; a Telecaster and a smallish, fairly clean sounding amp might be great for country but if you are looking for a solid metal chug then it ain't going to deliver the good. It might not sound bad per say but it won't sound like a Les Paul into a Marshall stack or whatever.

corpcleg

i can see that you dont get the point i am tryn to make
maybe EQ was an abreiviation for the word EQUIPMENT?

you can talk bout mixen till your blue in the face mate
without good music to mix it is futile



stop obsesin bout cables etc and tryn better yourself as a musician

its a smsll piece of advice you can take or leave it

gud luck

darrenw5094

corpcleg wrote: »

you can talk bout mixen till your blue in the face mate
without good music to mix it is futile

You are asking people to concentrate 100% on playing and to disregard cables and all other musical equipment.

The original topic was about the best cables......so we are way off topic with this.

GAS is taking over us..................Resistance is futile...........

Seziertisch

corpcleg wrote: »

i can see that you dont get the point i am tryn to make
maybe EQ was an abreiviation for the word EQUIPMENT?

you can talk bout mixen till your blue in the face mate
without good music to mix it is futile

I do get your point, I just think that it really has any place in this particular thread.

As to whether you meant EQ as an abbreviation for "EQUIPMENT" how would I know? How would I know why someone would use the abbreviation commonly (and exclusively, I had thought) used for equalizer/equalization for something else?

As for your point about mixing, you don't get mine; you can be writing great songs and playing great, but without the right recording the chances of your music reaching its full potential are greatly impaired. It might even be impaired to the point that your recording doesn't get played on a radio station (the example I gave in my previous post), it might be the case that it doesn't grab the A&R persons attention the way it should and could, it could well be the difference between success and failure.

Also, you won't find many great guitarists that don't care about their "tone" (Dave Gilmour being the case in point). The reason for this is that they want their music to have maximum impact. What does it say about somebody if they don't take every step (either themselves or with the assistence of others) to make their music sound at its best and to achieve the sound they have in their head?

corpcleg wrote: »

stop obsesin bout cables etc and tryn better yourself as a musician

its a smsll piece of advice you can take or leave it

gud luck

Again this is a gear forum, people use it to talk about gear. As for your advice, I'm sure you mean well with it, but considering you know nothing about me or indeed the vast majority of the other posters here it is a bit much to be presuming that you know what our "obsessions" are gear related or otherwise. My advice is that you should probably check out the songwriting forum, it is probably a better match for what you are looking for.