|
|
Posted by Guest on 11/09/06 02:40
--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com
http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013
"JerrySmith'sTightEnd" <jhgfjh@hjhg.com> wrote in message
news:3_v4h.1537$6t.410@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:11s4h.1084$GS2.1008@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> JerrySmith'sTightEnd wrote:
>>> You are absolutely, positively full of shit.
>>
>> Name calling is not needed.
>
> Jeez, I'm not name calling. If I was doing that, I'd call you a
> pretentious fool. Instead, I merely (and correctly) pointed out that you
> are full of shit.
>
>
>>Go buy some and experiment. You should find the same results. I like AR
>>cables as their cables seem to have the right balance from the start. You
>>tell me that I am full of shit, but yet you have no evidence to support
>>this. I think you are going by paper specs and not real world tests.
>>Mine was real world. I am glad that I made the move.
>
> Yours is a subjective test colored by your preference for AR cables.
After those tests, I do prefer AR cables now. I used to buy Monster. I
still have a pair of analog Monster cables that were designed for "CD
players." Those were accurate.
I'm
> going by that simple thing called "science." Unless you are losing bits,
> different digital cables make ZERO difference.
Again, that is the theory and the 'on-paper' result, but the real world
results are much different. Now dude, using the optical as an example, can
they pass an HD audio format, bit accurate? Answer that then get back to me
about your theory.
A cable does not actively
> process or alter the signal.
>
In analog they do. At least the materials they are made from. The same
principles(some at least) must work for digital. Why would I write this is
I did not experience it?
>>
>> If you are not used to dealing with high resolution video in it's purist
>> form and only came aboard recently, then your eye for spotting
>> resolutions and details may not be as sharp as others. I have been
>> dealing with high-res video since 1990. I had the Laserdisc, S-VHS VCR,
>> various DVD players and HD. I know what the deal is.
>
> Now you're comparing apples and oranges if you're talking about hi res
> 90's era video, since the signal was analog and subject to nuances due to
> reflection, filtering and other factors.
I was letting you know that you must be used to seeing different resolution
sources to effectivly compare differences.
>
>>
>> I am one of few who pointed out that the origianl Bruce Lee collection
>> from 20th Century Fox was a Laserdisc transfer(You can see my review on
>> Amazon) as they cannot pull one over on me. If you are one of those
>> fools who had a SD Sony TV thinking that they were getting true high-res,
>> then we can end it right here. You do realize that SOny never disclosed
>> their lines of resolution right? They were the only brand that I could
>> think of who actually lied about what the TV could do.
>
>
> Whoop de fucking dooo. Now I will go out on a limb and say you're a
> pretentious fool.
lol. You are too black and white for me. Conduct a real world test on your
own. You do not have to assume that I am full of shit until you do it. Use
a generic and a Monster. It does not have to be AR.
>>
>> My point in going there is, I know what I am taking about and I know what
>> I am seeing. If I did not see it, I would be thinking about what to do
>> with this cable. Get one a look a few films you have seen so many times
>> that you know where everything is and what it all looks like. If you
>> notice something else, you know it is better. I just tried it on old
>> films from the 70's and early 90's, but I did not stick in Revenge of the
>> Sith yet. I will do that see what's up. There is no need for me to lie.
>> I am a skeptic as you are.
>
> Once again, you fucking idiot, as long as you're not losing bits (or
> distorting the signal so much it effectively causes the decoder to lose
> bits)
What? Is this a possibity to my claim? What about a generic cable losing
bits and a better quality cable not losing bits? Maybe that is what I am
seeing.
with a digital signal, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
>
In theory.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|