|
|
Posted by Guest on 11/09/06 00:36
--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com
http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013
"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:45524fd2$0$17708$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Guest wrote:
>> Jim Gilliland wrote:
>>> Guest wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have read over the last few years about HDMI/DVI cables being all
>>>> the same regardless of build quality because "ones and zeros are
>>>> ones and zeros. It either works or it does not." This type of
>>>> reasoning makes sense on it's face, but then I recalled having a
>>>> Monster Cable optical cable and then an Acoustic Research optical
>>>> cable and I noticed a very big difference in sound quality. The AR
>>>> outperformed the Monster to a very larger degree.
>
>>> Really? Can you describe the difference between the sound of the two
>>> cables?
>>
>> Yes. The Monster sounded flat (some people may love that) and lower in
>> volume. It lacked detail, kick and bass. The AR had kick, clarity, bass
>> and it was louder. It gave the music and surround sound true impact.
>
> And to what do you attribute this difference in sound? How do you suppose
> the cable altered the bit stream to cause the audible difference that you
> believe you heard?
>
> I'm not sure how to interpret words like "kick" and "impact", but words
> like "louder" and "bass" have a fairly specific meaning. In order to
> impact the volume of a digital signal, some fairly simple arithmetic needs
> to take place. In order to impact just the low frequency portion of the
> signal, some rather more sophisticated arithmetic must take place.
>
> Apparently, one (or perhaps both!) of your cables is able to do some
> fairly sophisticated digital processing - changing the bitstream in such a
> way that the values carried by each 16-bit word were modified to create
> more or less bass.
>
> Changing the bass characteristics of the music would require that your
> cable change each successive 16-bit word in exactly the right direction
> (some values increased, some decreased, some left unchanged) in exactly
> the right sequence over an extended period of time. And it would have to
> do all that without losing any of the signal bits (pre-emphasis and so
> on), nor mixing up any of the interleaved samples for the right and left
> channels.
>
> I think this is an amazing discovery! You shouldn't be telling us about
> it here - you should be documenting your discovery and sending it to the
> Patent Office! Imagine that a simple piece of fiber can do processing that
> we thought required a sophisticated DSP integrated circuit. What a
> wonderful world we live in!
Maybe you don't test out cables. Make all of the jokes that you want, but
it is true. To add to my argument, I bought a mini-surround system that
came with a pack-in (very generic) optical cable. That one is weaker than
the Monster. The two are similar, but this is very weak. It is one of
those very thin black cables. I use that for HDTV sound since HDTV sound is
not the greatest.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|