Posted by Guest on 11/09/06 21:23

--
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.

> 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.

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.

>
>> 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.

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.

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...)
>

[Back to original message]