|
|
Posted by JerrySmith'sTightEnd on 11/10/06 04:32
"Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:l%M4h.86$Gp3.80@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> --
> This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com
>
> http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013
> "dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1163100006.148100.324690@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.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.
>>> The
>>
>> Hi, Guest. This is probably a lost cause, but if you learn a little
>> about digital
>> data (audio data or otherwise), you'll learn that the kinds of changes
>> you
>> are describing just aren't possible. For an *analogue* mechanism,
>> perhaps.
>
> Even with analog you are skeptical? You and these others must only use
> one brand of cable or just believe in spending the least amount of money
> for things.
What he and most of us have said is that with analog it may make a
difference, but generally doesn't. The capacitance in a short cable is not
going to cause significant roll-off in a short cable, but longer cable runs
with low-level signals can cause trouble with a poorly designed and made
cable. Similarly, runinng significant power signals through a light gauge
cable can be an issue to speakers can be an issue...but it always kills me
when I see the audiofools who claim to hear differences on a 20-100 watt
signal through a 10' length of 14 gauge zip cord vs. a 14 gauge boutique
cable.
>
>> But for digital, no. It just simply doesn't work that way. Any cable
>> that is
>> good enough to carry the signal without corrupting data *must* produce
>> exactly the same output.
>
> That is apparently the theory, but something is either hold back some
> data( a type of unwarrented compression?) in the Monster and goes all out
> with the AR.
You don't even begin to understand the technical concept of compression,
whether digital or analog.
>
> There is no other option in the digital
>> world. If
>> one of the cables is so poor that significant corruption crops up, it
>> will
>> produce effects that even a totally untrained eye or ear can recognize.
>> It will not be a difference in volume, detail, kick, bass, brightness,
>> spaciousness, headroom, or any other subjective term. Because it
>> just... doesn't... work... that... way.
>
> To say that without testing for yourself just does not work that way. Get
> an AR, Radio Shack or whatever optical cable and play 2-channel music.
> Then get one of those very thin black generic ones and tell you don't hear
> a difference.
Never heard a difference unless the cable was bad.
>
>>
>>> AR sounded like I expect digital audio to sound . The Monster sounded
>>> like
>>> it was on a cheap system (at the time, it was tested on a Sony ES
>>> receiver
>>> and stand alone ES CD player. Both, second from the top models). Given
>>> the
>>> monster cable's higher price tag, I expected better.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, the AR was also shielded a little better and looks as if it is
>>> of a
>>> higher quality. I still have them today.
>>
>> Did you just say that the AR *optical* cables were "shielded a little
>> better"?
>> Seriously, are you joking? Shielding is to prevent electro-magnetic
>> interference
>> with *electrical* signals.
>
> It may also help keep that light tighter also.
Electro magnetic shielding has no effect on optical signals. And you
obviously have no idea how light from a coherent source propagates down a
glass fiber.
>
> One of the beauties of optical transport is
>> that no
>> such interferences are possible. Hence there is no need for
>> "shielding".
>>
>> Now, I know you didn't mention it, but I've seen optical cables that
>> were
>> "superior" because they had "gold connectors".
>
> You know what. Now that you mention it, the thin black one has a plastic
> connector and th AR was gold. I think the monster was plasticv also.
> See, maybe it does have osmething to do with it.
Gold REALLY effects light!
>
> Please don't fall for
>> such
>> complete hornswaggle. While gold might be desirable for its electrical
>> properties (under some conditions), these are *optical* connections.
>> The
>> metal has nothing to do with it.
>> ...
>>
>> If one set of your cables carrying digital video is so poor that you
>> can see
>> artifacts, it will most certainly be of the "macroblocking" or "frozen
>> picture
>> portion" variety.
>
> Not digital video artifacts, film artifacts, which I assume is a good
> thing.
>
>>
>> Dan (Woj...)
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|