Posted by dmaster on 11/09/06 19:20

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.
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. 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.

> 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. 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". 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.

Dan (Woj...)

[Back to original message]