Posted by JerrySmith'sTightEnd on 11/10/06 16:50

"Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:ao15h.6606$yl4.2287@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
SNIP

>>>
>>>> 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.

Many of us have that knowledge. Many more don't, but they have the good
sense not to pretend they know it. You lack any form of logic or technical
knowledge, yet you fancy yourself an expert based on your experience as a
user of mid-grade consumer electroincs for the last 15-20 years.

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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?

I've used many cables in different situations and have encountered bad and
or damaged ones. Now as for "testes", I don't rub the cables up against my
sack. Once again, you seem to have a real thing for sexual contact with
men, but that's your deal.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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?

You're the one who brought up shielding. And no, you fucking moron, tinted
windows are not 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, go test gravity from a great height. After all, it's only the
scientists who say you'll splatter all over the pavement. What the hell do
they know!?

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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]