[imitchellg5]

That's awesome. Growing up, I used to listen to a lot of audiobooks (?) on a very similar gramophone at my grandparent's house. Great memories

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001 

True, as long as there is continuity across the cable.

which is where cable quality comes in.

Inferior connections - and cables that are too short - will cause "reflections" that bounce around within the cable and mess up the clock timing for the device latching onto the digital stream.

Messed up timing in a domain that's pretty much entirely frequency-dependent (audio) results in very audible signal deterioration.

Jitter in a nutshell.

[tooki]

I think it's fair to say that the quality of a digital cable does matter — there are scientifically measurable effects. If it didn't matter, you could use cheap phone wire for gigabit ethernet and it'd work at any distance. In fact, it won't.

That said, most of the audiophile cables sold are of high quality, but not of quality measurably higher than a product costing 5% as much.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by tooki 

That said, most of the audiophile cables sold are of high quality, but not of quality measurably higher than a product costing 5% as much.

Actually, they often are, but not 20X higher.

I learned this first hand with long HDMI cables. With HDMI cables > 15 feet, it's was actually quite easy to find cables that induced visual artifacts, on multiple machines, when using them at 1080p.

For example, everyone always disses Monster cable. Well, it turns out in formal testing, average Monster cables are actually usually better than average cables. The main problem is that cost several times too much, and it's not hard being better than average when the average is so low quality. OTOH, it is true they're often measureably worse than the highest end audiophile cables.

Similarly, even though the cable specs for USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 officially are the same, it's quite easy to find USB 1.1 cables that don't work for USB 2.0. Presumably it's because many early manufacturers of USB 1.1 products underspec'd their cables for USB 1.1 devices, because it didn't matter. If you then try to use those same cables on modern USB 2.0 devices, you run into serious problems even with very short lengths.

And in a very simple example, my local cable company just replaced a 140 foot run of RG6 outside my house with RG11. It has made a measurable difference in my signal levels, and more importantly, a significant difference in my image reliability. No more artifacting.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

A one and zero is a one and zero.

Well done.

[Spheric Harlot]

I don't think we need another discussion of analog cables.

People whose judgement of less ultra-high-end equipment I share entirely and can verify SWEAR that they can tell the difference between their previous $4,000 and their new $6,000 monitor leads in a blind test. (I'm talking about audio professionals who make a living out of providing the best quality they can - mastering engineers -, not home-high-end audiophile wankers.)

While it's obviously fair fame to question their judgement, they've been right about everything I've been able to verify, so…

The specific argument with Rob that I was alluding to is here:

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...ghlight=jitter

ending on the next page with a soundonsound quote from Sherwin.

[Eug]

Well, if you're going to use that sort of anecdotal "evidence"... I know a composer who writes soundtracks for movies and television shows and has his own personal recording studio who says such cables are a sign of gullibility.

[Spheric Harlot]

I doubt anybody who's had even the slightest experience in studio work would dispute that cables make a HUGE difference to sound quality - be it due to connectors, shielding, length, or bore. Not even your friend.

Ask him whether he buys the cheap 30¢ wires or the 10$ shielded cables. He wouldn't be that gullible, would he?

Which is to say:

If most people can hear the difference between a 30¢ cable and a 10$ cable, why is it ridiculous that *some* people might hear the difference between a $4000 and a $6000 cable? Especially people whose entire livelihood is BUILT around hearing the most minute differences in sound that most others never realize are there?



AAAAAAAANYWAY, this is kind of off-topic.

I merely mentioned jitter, which is a digital audio phenomenon that most definitely IS affected by cable quality, to point out that Rob has a history of complete ignorance in audio matters that he compensates by rude and obnoxious bullshit posts (he did the exact same thing in the jitter thread I linked to, right in this post).

That's all.

I *really* didn't want to start another analog cable war.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, they often are, but not 20X higher.

I learned this first hand with long HDMI cables. With HDMI cables > 15 feet, it's was actually quite easy to find cables that induced visual artifacts, on multiple machines, when using them at 1080p.

For example, everyone always disses Monster cable. Well, it turns out in formal testing, average Monster cables are actually usually better than average cables. The main problem is that cost several times too much, and it's not hard being better than average when the average is so low quality.

From the same site, results at the HDMI 1.3/1.4 maximum bitrate:
$10 1.8m Monoprice: Pass
$16 4.6m Monoprice: Pass
$41 7.6m Monoprice: Pass
Cheapest 2m Monster to pass: $70
Cheapest 4m Monster to pass: $120 (the $100 FAILED)
Cheapest >7.5m Monster to pass: $400 10m (the $250 10m FAILED)

So even at 6x markup you're getting failures from Monster. It takes a 7x-10x markup to get passes from Monster. That's why everyone disses Monster. Even with the inflated prices you can't reliably say "buy Monster and you'll be OK."

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I doubt anybody who's had even the slightest experience in studio work would dispute that cables make a HUGE difference to sound quality - be it due to connectors, shielding, length, or bore. Not even your friend.

Well, as my example illustrates, you'll have to talk to more studio people then, if you're claiming studio people won't say that just "decent" cables are good enough. No need to spend thousands upon thousands for a single short cable.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If most people can hear the difference between a 30¢ cable and a 10$ cable, why is it ridiculous that *some* people might hear the difference between a $4000 and a $6000 cable? Especially people whose entire livelihood is BUILT around hearing the most minute differences in sound that most others never realize are there?

Money alone (as mduell illustrates) doesn't determine quality. So, it's quite possible a $6000 cable is significantly better than a $4000 cable. However, the reverse is also true. It's possible a $6000 cable is hocus pocus crap, and a $4000 cable is a well-built behemoth. The point though is once you reach a certain level of performance, going beyond that is not going to help, no matter how much you want to believe it.

Sure, a 30¢ cable will suck, but a $4000 or $6000 cable might not be any better in the real world than a $200 cable.

Originally Posted by mduell 

From the same site, results at the HDMI 1.3/1.4 maximum bitrate:
$10 1.8m Monoprice: Pass
$16 4.6m Monoprice: Pass
$41 7.6m Monoprice: Pass
Cheapest 2m Monster to pass: $70
Cheapest 4m Monster to pass: $120 (the $100 FAILED)
Cheapest >7.5m Monster to pass: $400 10m (the $250 10m FAILED)

So even at 6x markup you're getting failures from Monster. It takes a 7x-10x markup to get passes from Monster. That's why everyone disses Monster. Even with the inflated prices you can't reliably say "buy Monster and you'll be OK."

I agree. I don't buy Monster either. However, as I said before, average Monster cables do better than average cables. However, that's because the average is not very good. The point being, you can't just buy a $10 cable and expect it to work, even if it's a digital signal.

Also, you should note this from the test: "Every cable over 10 meters failed to pass 1080p, even at 8-bit"

BTW, I'm using Blue Jeans Series-1 for my 25' run, for 1080p 8-bit. For my 15' runs, I'm using some of Monoprice's higher end cables.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, as my example illustrates, you'll have to talk to more studio people then, if you're claiming studio people won't say that just "decent" cables are good enough. No need to spend thousands upon thousands for a single short cable.

Ah, but that's a completely different argument!

"Good enough" is dictated by a whole slew of factors, including, not the least, budget.

I have $2000 in cables in the studio, and much of that's (unfortunately) pretty low-grade cable. This is a small studio, with about 300 patch points (cables).

A couple of instruments have much higher-grade cable, depending on signal level, distance from the patchbay, and how desirable a certain "grunge-factor" is.

However, the cabling is the first thing to get upgraded once the spare budget is there.

A TV composer who's primarily using sample libraries from within the computer isn't going to worry about cabling, much.

If this were a mastering studio, with maybe 50 patch points and priority on the absolute most controllable/transparent environment possible, the equation would look different, and the limits of "good enough" would lie very differently.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Money alone (as mduell illustrates) doesn't determine quality. So, it's quite possible a $6000 cable is significantly better than a $4000 cable. However, the reverse is also true. It's possible a $6000 cable is hocus pocus crap, and a $4000 cable is a well-built behemoth. The point though is once you reach a certain level of performance, going beyond that is not going to help, no matter how much you want to believe it.

Obviously you can sometimes buy expensive shit, and sometimes get great stuff at a bargain price.

But it's also possible that the more expensive stuff is actually worth the premium - not to you, but to somebody whose $10,000-a-month business DEPENDS upon the most transparent listening environment possible, maybe.

It's completely arbitrary - and rather arrogant - to assume that YOU are the one to determine where exactly that "certain level of performance" lies, isn't it?

Especially since you're making assumptions about other people's hearing.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I agree. I don't buy Monster either. However, as I said before, average Monster cables do better than average cables. However, that's because the average is not very good. The point being, you can't just buy a $10 cable and expect it to work, even if it's a digital signal.

Also, you should note this from the test: "Every cable over 10 meters failed to pass 1080p, even at 8-bit"

BTW, I'm using Blue Jeans Series-1 for my 25' run, for 1080p 8-bit. For my 15' runs, I'm using some of Monoprice's higher end cables.

See, and this is where it gets weird, because we all know that "a one and a zero is a one and a zero", as per audio guru Rob.

Kudos on buying Blue Jeans Cable, btw - their clobbering of Monster Cable is well worth the read, and well worth supporting the company for:
Monster Cable Correspondence

[downinflames68]

Spheric, I understood your point the first time, and I'm no longer disagreeing with you, I just felt like giving you a hard time.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

See, and this is where it gets weird, because we all know that "a one and a zero is a one and a zero", as per audio guru Rob.

Kudos on buying Blue Jeans Cable, btw - their clobbering of Monster Cable is well worth the read, and well worth supporting the company for:
Monster Cable Correspondence

Monster cable also likes to go around suing or threatening to sue any business that uses the word monster in it's name or any of it's products. Even obscure local companies in completely unrelated fields. Monster Cable is purely about getting as much money as they can any way they can.

As for the 1's and 0's. Any cable is going to have distortion. The longer it is the more there is. You get enough distortion the 1's and 0's can't always be easily sorted out at the receiving end. Which is why many digital standards such ethernet and USB specify maximum cable lengths. If you exceed that length you're pretty much relying on luck for things to work. You're usually wasting money in those cases by paying more for "better" cables. It either meets the spec or not.

The problem with HDMI is that it does not specify a maximum length. It easy to make a cheap, reliable, and short HDMI cables. When you get to longer lengths the quality of the wire and connectors and care in properly terminating the connectors becomes critical. On the other hand HDMI was never intended to be used for long runs.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Spheric, I understood your point the first time, and I'm no longer disagreeing with you, I just felt like giving you a hard time.

Alright, I'm a sucker.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58 

As for the 1's and 0's. Any cable is going to have distortion. The longer it is the more there is. You get enough distortion the 1's and 0's can't always be easily sorted out at the receiving end. Which is why many digital standards such ethernet and USB specify maximum cable lengths. If you exceed that length you're pretty much relying on luck for things to work. You're usually wasting money in those cases by paying more for "better" cables. It either meets the spec or not.

This is not true for timing-critical applications, especially where the receiving end gleans its clock from the incoming signal.

See the second post up on this page for an explanation of jitter.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

This is not true for timing-critical applications, especially where the receiving end gleans its clock from the incoming signal.

See the second post up on this page for an explanation of jitter.

Dude, I was agreeing with you (notice the use of usually vs. always). I understand jitter. But it is not a real important factor now in consumer applications anyways. The signal is most likely going to get reclocked by a processor at the receiving end if you a sending a PCM audio signal. Either that or you're going to be sending a compressed signal where timing is not an issue.

[Spheric Harlot]

AFAIK, S/PDIF is generally not reclocked, especially in consumer boxes.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have $2000 in cables in the studio, and much of that's (unfortunately) pretty low-grade cable. This is a small studio, with about 300 patch points (cables).

A couple of instruments have much higher-grade cable, depending on signal level, distance from the patchbay, and how desirable a certain "grunge-factor" is.

However, the cabling is the first thing to get upgraded once the spare budget is there.

A TV composer who's primarily using sample libraries from within the computer isn't going to worry about cabling, much.

If this were a mastering studio, with maybe 50 patch points and priority on the absolute most controllable/transparent environment possible, the equation would look different, and the limits of "good enough" would lie very differently.

Why can't you just accept that some pros might disagree with you?

Anyways, "$2000 in cables" is obviously quite a different thing than a single $6000 cable. $2000 for what you describe seems rather low cost IMO. OTOH $1.8 million in that context for cables OTOH would probably fit his "idiocy" definition.

Originally Posted by Montezuma58 

On the other hand HDMI was never intended to be used for long runs.

Lack of foresight then. It seems rather foolish not to have a viable option for 25-50 foot runs right from the outset. > 25 foot lengths are reasonably common even for a subset of home use.

As I mentioned before, I have a 25 foot run for my home theatre, and that's just because the projector is in the middle of the room, not at the back.

[imitchellg5]

I guess this means my 6" HDMI cable is the best.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I guess this means my 6" HDMI cable is the best.

I had a 3 foot HDMI cable that sucked donkey testicles. But yeah, my 1-foot HDMI adapter is great. I've also come across a few terrible 6 foot cables too.

I then replaced one with a super thick 22 AWG ultra shielded cable, with heavy duty construction. It was almost worse, because the thing was just too damn stiff. Put a fair amount of strain on the HDMI port, if I didn't place the components in the exact correct positions. That brings me to another point. HDMI connections suck. I much prefer lockable DVI, at least in implementation. Same goes for even lockable parallel printer cables for that matter, if big heavy cables are needed. If not, then go light, like Toslink. I wonder when some lightpeakish like standard will be mainstream for audio/video.

Back on topic: When I had DVD Audio, the only way I could play the music was with 6-channel analogue audio. That's another reason DVD Audio failed IMO. It was just too damn inconvenient. If you wanted full rez surround, you may have needed upgrades to all your other equipment too. And IMO, two-channel super high rez music like promoted by SACD was basically pointless for the home market. Nobody cared. At least with multi-channel audio, there was a chance of noticeable improvement for even the mainstream, since the comparison was against stuff like Dolby Digital.

And indeed, multi-channel uncompressed audio… as a part of movies at least… has now gained some acceptance.

[Doofy]

OK, weighing in on the analogue cables thing...
Recording and mastering are two different arts with two different approaches, thus it's probably wise to accept that cable purchasing tactics for the two regimes are going to be different.

In the recording studio, as long as the cable is adequately German (I'm running around $3,000 for ~60 cables), nobody gives a toss. Everything upstream from the desk channel fader is essentially part of the instrument. If a cable imparts a certain sound because it wasn't manufactured in perfect conditions in the international space station, then it imparts a sound. Likewise, if a pre-amp imparts a certain sound then it imparts a certain sound. The listener won't notice, since he doesn't know whether it's a slightly cheaper pre-fader chain or the artiste turning the filter down by 0.000001%.
Obviously there's a level of gear which is unacceptable, but once past the acceptable mark it's all much of a muchness.
If you head on over to Gear Slutz then there's a big bunch of people getting chubbies over Crane Song pre-amps and the like... Which is basically the pro-audio equivalent of the hi-fi geeks. But can the end user tell whether I recorded my Marshall through a Crane Song or a Focusrite ISA? No, he can't.

Too much focussing on gear can be detrimental. I know a dude who's had his recording rig set up for about two years now. Songs written and recorded? Zero... Because he's spent so much time "tweaking" his guitar sounds that he's not had time for anything else. I think this is probably some form of mental illness in his case, but you get the drift. Comes a time when you've got to stop tuning the engine, get in, turn the key and drive somewhere.

Meanwhile, over at the mastering rig it's essential to have the best cables possible, since you're at a point where you don't want to be putting any coloration into the sound.
This is why quality recording equalisers can be had for <$1,000 while quality mastering equalisers are north of $20,000.

Consumer cable? Insane. If you're spending more on cable than we spent on speakers when we were recording the material, then there's something wrong in your head. Possibly caused by lack of boobies in yer face.

[downinflames68]

AHahahahhahaha.

Doof= truth.