Current recording engineers - what cables used?

mok, charlienyc, and buckhorn_cortez, thanks for your contributions. Great to get perspective from the folks who are recording the music that we try so hard to reproduce faithfully.  Some comments based on your input:

1. There are a lot more variables in recording than playback, and how those variables are addressed in the studio have  much greater consequences than in playback because they’re essentially permanent.

2. Cost is a constant overidding factor in decisions about what gear to get and where to invest limited resources in a studio, and cables are a consideration, but not the first consideration for any contributors here.

3. That said, quality cables are recognized as valuable.

4. It is interesting that the musicians and the microphones are listed as especially critical parts of the recording chain, paralleling the “source first” philosophy in some hifi playback quarters.

5. The relative importance of ADC’s parallels the focus of some in the playback side on good DACs.

Thanks again, appreciate all input here.

@douglas_schroeder 

Thanks for the props on the thread.  Trying hard to cast more light than heat on these issues.

kn

Shadorne,
In my experience, Blue Jean is incorrect that a digital cable doesn't make any sonic difference as long as it works. I believe it may be in their best interest to make a statement such as that but I've achieved a real sonic improvement when changing from the audioquest cinnamon coax cable to the VH Audio silver coax cable. Just my experience.   

@knownothing
I agree with all of your points. On one hand I'm lucky enough to have a fully digital system. It starts with the shortest runs possible to digitally-controlled mic pres around stage. From there it is converted with excellent ADCs to 24/96k and stays that way straight through the entire production chain. The only time it goes down to 16/44.1k is for radio production deliverables, but that's with careful utilization of dither via an excellent SRC. That it goes out for distribution to radio stations which each use their own flavors of equalization and compression is disturbing. In my market however, these are minimal, and the end product isn't too incredibly different from how it sounded upon capture.

But I digress! I mentioned on one hand I'm lucky to have a fully digital system. My predecessors had tools I drool over every time I think of them: tube and ribbon mics everywhere, tape machines, huge audiences (I primarily record live performances) and better hall acoustics. While it's debatable whether the talent was better now or in the 50s, 60s and 70s, the attitude towards recording certainly was better then. Orchestras spent large sums of money to capture recordings well, conductors cared what their product sounded like, and musicians lived to play their parts with conviction and heart. Would I trade what I have for what they had? That's a tough one! 

Sorry I got a bit off-topic. I think of any crowds, though, this one would forgive me.