Are quad cables really shockingly better?

I got this from the new StudioMasters web site:

"
5. Quad cables. looks just like a mike cable, except more expensive. These have two wires twisted together for each signal, instead of one. The benefit is much lower noise, greater rf rejection, (you don't record any where near a computer, dimmer light switches, or florescent lights do you ?), and much more highs in your signal. I found the difference shocking. Right now the best deal going is a kiwi cable from blue, for about 40 bucks (That's US Dollars). (20')
"

Can anyone verify the 'shocking' difference reported here?

I have not A/B'd my quad cables with others, but I have 10 of them.

I bought 250' of Canare quad cable and 20 Switchcraft XLR connectors from FullCompass.  I made 10 cables

2@35'
6@25'
2@15'

Cost me about $120.  That included an assortment of colored heat shrink I used to color-code the ends of each cable.  At that price, why not use the good stuff?

In reality, I would not expect to hear much of a difference except in bad conditions that put the improve rejection to the test.

At risk of repeating myself from another context, the chances of a client saying to you, "this would have been a much better recording if you'd used quad cables" are minimal.  As long as you are using good quality cables (and the quality includes handling characteristics as well as audio characteristics), that's the main thing.

Having said that, my main stereo pair always goes down a single quad cable with five pin connectors, but that's chiefly to avoid having to lay out two cables every time.  I never have interference problems but then the way I'm using it probably negates the claimed advantages in that respect.

We used star-quads for data cabling years ago. The issue then was that terminating the cable to the connector disturbs the quad soo much that separate pairs were better. This was a lot higher in frequency...

My day job involves design and project management of TV facilities.  For those installations I'd often specify star quad cable where there are going to be long runs in electrically noisy environments.  In those circumstances they off a bit more insurance.

However, I'd say this is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  If you are working without any interference/noise floor problems now, then I doubt you'd notice any difference changing to star quad.  If you DO have problems, then this could be a way to fix them.

Bob

However, I'd say this is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  If you are working without any interference/noise floor problems now, then I doubt you'd notice any difference changing to star quad.  If you DO have problems, then this could be a way to fix them.

I think I'd agree with that completely. The only real advantage ever claimed was in interference terms, not any other. The noise floor issue shouldn't arise - the defining resistance of the source is (well, it should be!) much higher than the cable resistance... The capacitance alters as well, but with a normal mic impedance of 150-200 ohms this is only going to have a marginal effect at audio frequencies, and only on a really long run, I would expect.

If somebody really found a 'shocking difference', I'd be very suspicious of the previous cabling arragngements!