Posted by Guest on 11/10/06 16:02

--
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:uhT4h.689$Gw4.131@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:l%M4h.86$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.

I know, only you have such knowledge.

>
>>
>> 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.

Did even have different cables and testes them? Or are you just wanting to
not be wrong?

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.

Who said 'elector-magnetic' shielding? Are tints on cars the same?

>
>>
>> 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!

I don't know the fine details of the cable, but the AR cable is doing
something right. I can tell that you never tested these cabes as you never
admitted it, you just assumed that it is what it is. I once thought as you
do. However, I am not one to dismiss anything without trying it for myself
first. You keep telling me no, but you never tested anything. Such
arrogance.

>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>

[Back to original message]