|
|
Posted by JerrySmith'sTightEnd on 11/09/06 03:58
"Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Hyw4h.2919$IR4.33@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> --
> 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.
If you got suckered into monster cables you were already playing with less
than a full deck.
>
> 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.
An "HD audio format"???
>
> 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?
Analog is a different animal, although I know far too many audio and video
fools who claim differences which are total bullshit. They often experience
(and write and tell about) nonsense that doesn't exist...it helps justify
blowing money on accessories that have no added value but cost a metric
buttload. It's a combo of placebo effect and the emperor's new clothes
syndrome.
Sure, there can be and is signal degradation in all cables. BUT, those
principles don't work anywhere near the same for digital. Compare OTA
digital vs. analog television. The digital looks great, unless signal
strength and noise cause bit loss...a little gives obvious picture problems,
and just a little more loses the picture entirely. The analog gets noise
and reflections (i.e. multipath and ghosting), incremental erors which get
greater and greater and cause increased distortions.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
Now we're back to video...but you're again talking about analog sources.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
No need to. Perhaps a double blind test would work beter for you, since
you're positive there's a diference.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
You'll get dropouts, not differences in "kick" or "detail."
>
> with a digital signal, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
>>
>
> In theory.
It's reality, not bullshit.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|