Computer geeks chime in on magic cables...

[Don Richard]

I recently heard a set of analog interconnect cables ($800) that a salesman in an audio store was pushing. He hooked them between an Audio Research amp and preamp and, to my surprise, I heard a distinct difference. The highs were rolled off compared to the original cables. Personally, I believe that any cable should be neutral in sound quality. The $800 cables were most likely of higher capacitance than the first cables, thus the effect that I observed. This cable could actually be of some sonic benefit in some cases, but so would $10 worth of caps soldered across any interconnect. I think that people who buy such interconnects are into having the costliest stuff available, for bragging rights. That's perfectly OK, it's a free country, nothing wrong with that. You spend your money, you make your choice.[8-)]

The issue concerning reflections in a digital interconnects are valid performance issues. There may well be significant improvement realized by going to a different HDMI cable, and as has been stated previously, this shows up most readily on video.

[seti]

[Mallette]

GOOD ONE, seti!

>There may well be significant improvement realized by going to a different HDMI cable, and as has been stated previously, this shows up most readily on video.

That may be true if the signal is analog. My years in video have seen significant differences in image quality amongst various analog video cables, as video is a fickle thing signal wise and all must remain very stable. OTOH, if the HDMI video signal is digital, I've yet to see any difference in any properly functioning (not damaged) digital video cable and I know of no reason why one would.

Dave

[fenderbender]

My Brother Got a $139.00 HDMI Monster cable from A Big Box store....And I almost S@#T a brick....I quickly drove over to his house with an extra $5.99 HDMI cable that I got on sale from Monoprice.com

I'll spare the boring details, it's a good thing most big box take items back.......

Digital is Digital....you never see any fine art photographers (well thats because they still use film) Buying $500 usb cables to upload photos from camera to PC.....

[Klipschfoot]

Current us weird. I don't doubt that different cable in different configurations may change something, but whether that something can be heard has to be proven. You wouldn't buy an expensive car unnecessarily unless you could observe it's value. Same is true with any audio component, even wire (interconnect$). IT guys help here: I know that finished network cabling has to be approved to meet standards for speed. Every time you turn or twist cable, you can change it's conductivity and the quality of wire counts in the effectiveness of data transfer. But how that plays into audio, analog vs. digital, well, if you can't hear it, how will you know?

[tigerwoodKhorns]

I recently heard a set of analog interconnect cables ($800) that a salesman in an audio store was pushing. He hooked them between an Audio Research amp and preamp and, to my surprise, I heard a distinct difference. The highs were rolled off compared to the original cables. Personally, I believe that any cable should be neutral in sound quality. The $800 cables were most likely of higher capacitance than the first cables, thus the effect that I observed. This cable could actually be of some sonic benefit in some cases, but so would $10 worth of caps soldered across any interconnect.

Don,

You made the exact ppoint that I was going to make. I have heard $2000 cables make the sound different on high resolution equipment, but not necessairily an improvement and definately not worth the money. I say that because Audiophiles will not use an EQ because the early ones had a bad rap, but an EQ will make a way bigger difference and improvement than trying to make very small adjustments with $2000 cables.

[Hifi jim]

It seems all the naysayers have an idea that all cables must be $500 and up. Differences can be heard among all price ranges of cables. Try it for yourself. Try some zip cord vs. 14/2 Romex vs. the infamous orange Home Depot HD extension cord vs. Cat5 DIY. Try one for a month as your speaker cable, then try another and so on. All will sound different, and one will emerge a favorite. To paint all cables with the same brush reminds me how just 40 years ago, many audiophiles argued if amplifiers should sound different. Their theory was that the amplifier should not be audible in the chain, if of quality build and properly functioning. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Those who dispute the role of cables, never seem to have any comparisons of their own, in their own systems, yet they know there is no difference. Very compelling position.

[Invidiosulus]

I do think that analog cables can cause a difference.

Digital cables...

maybe.

One thing that I have found slightly annoying within this thread is the comparison with Cat5 patch cables in a TCP/IP network scenario.

Network traffic using TCP/IP packets has the ability to resend lost packets with the packets each containing information about who is supposed to be before and after them in the transmission.

IIRC the digital output from a CD player or other such device is just a blind stream spewing bits at a high rate, if some of them get lost they are lost forever.

I had an interesting experience a few years ago when Iused a CD-ROM drive as a standalone player,

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/24820/205899.aspx#205899

The CD drive with my EL-cheapo cable sounded better then the PS2 which was using one of those cheap plastic toslink optical cables.

Or maybe the DAC setup in the reciever is weird.

I also tried some 12 gauge solid core house wiring as speaker cables and didn't care for the sound compared to 12g monster cable.

But to worry about the directionality of speaker wire still strikes me as odd.

-Josh

[rcarlton]

I think everyone will get a kick out of this link. The comments are priceless![]

Some examples:

"A caution to people buying these: if you do not follow the
"directional markings" on the cables, your music will play backwards.
Please check that before mentioning it in your reviews."


"If I could use a rusty boxcutter to carve a new orifice in my body
that's compatible with this link cable, I would already be doing it. I
can just imagine the pure musical goodness that would flow through this
cable into the wound and fill me completely -- like white, holy light."


"I went out for some tacos, and my dog chewed through the cable while I
was gone. When I got back, there was musics all over my floor! I was
like, "Hey Bosco, look what you did!" He felt bad, and it took a long
time to clean, but things are OK now.


I asked the vet if Bosco was going to be OK, and he said "yeah, but he'll be dropping Top 40 hits for a few days." No big."


"For years my music sounded plain. The strings did not shimmer. The
soundstage was narrow, confined, compressed. The music had an
analytical feel, perhaps because it's all digital, and digital is not
musical."


"The directional markings are the really salient feature. The
composition of the cables actually changes depending on how you plug it
in."

[Hifi jim]

I do think that analog cables can cause a difference.

Digital cables...

maybe.

One thing that I have found slightly annoying within this thread is the comparison with Cat5 patch cables in a TCP/IP  network scenario.

Network traffic using TCP/IP packets has the ability to resend lost packets with the packets each containing information about who is supposed to be before and after them in the transmission.

IIRC the digital output from a CD player or other such device is just a blind stream spewing bits at a high rate, if some of them get lost they are lost forever.

 

I had an interesting experience a few years ago when Iused a CD-ROM drive as a standalone player,

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/24820/205899.aspx#205899

The CD drive with my EL-cheapo cable sounded better then the PS2 which was using one of those cheap plastic toslink optical cables.

 Or maybe the DAC setup in the reciever is weird.

 

I also tried some 12 gauge solid core house wiring as speaker cables and didn't care for the sound compared to 12g monster cable.

 

But to worry about the directionality of speaker wire still strikes me as odd.

-Josh

Thanks for the real world comparisons. Interesting findings as I too did not care for solid 12 gauge wire, but I did not care for my Monster Cable either. I have some fairly old Monster wire that I thought sounded thick and muddy compared to some generic zip cord. Always interesting to compare.

[Mallette]

Why am I so skeptical about fancy cables, at least on a personal level?

See "An interesting morning listening experience..." in this forum. I won't repeat it here.

But I will note that this extraordinary imaging experience came via Rat Shack, came in the box, and whatever brand interconnects and zip cord.

I have to be disatisfied to throw money at a problem, as well as know precisely WHY.

Dave

PS - As I always say in these discussions, I just might be deaf.

[Groomlakearea51]

I think everyone will get a kick out of this link. The comments are priceless!

My personal favorite.... unfortunately this gives Faraday cages (new name for top sekret audiophile level man caves...[]) a bad name...

"I was disappointed. I consider myself an audiophile - I regularly spend over $1000 on cables to get the ultimate sound. I keep my music-listening room in a Faraday cage to prevent any interference that could alter my music-listening experience. Sending any signal down ordinary copper can degrade the signal considerably. While ordinary listeners might not notice, to somebody with even a rudimentary knowledge of sound, the artifacts are glaring. Denon should have used silver wiring (hermetically sealed inside the rubber sheath to prevent any tarnishing, of course), which has a significantly higher conductivity than copper. Furthermore, Denon needs to treat the wires they use in the cable with a polarity inductor to ensure minimal phase variance. Needless to say, I returned the cable and wrote an angry letter to the so-called engineers at Denon."

Boy, showed them at Denon now didn't he!!![6]

[Marvel]

What bothers me is that these folks are SERIOUS.

[Don Richard]

>There may well be significant improvement realized by going to a different HDMI cable, and as has been stated previously, this shows up most readily on video.

That may be true if the signal is analog. My years in video have seen significant differences in image quality amongst various analog video cables, as video is a fickle thing signal wise and all must remain very stable. OTOH, if the HDMI video signal is digital, I've yet to see any difference in any properly functioning (not damaged) digital video cable and I know of no reason why one would.

Dave

The HDMI standard is evolving. The older standard (HDMI 1.2?) passes a 75 Mhz bandwidth. The newer (HDMI 1.3?) passes a 340 Mhz bandwidth ,10.2 Ghz bitrate.This shows up when playing 1080p on a set capable of 1080p. All HDMI cables are built to a standard which, if the cables are properly made, provides proper operational bandwidth for that particular standard. In any event the audio bandwidth is less than either standard's maximum and should be relatively unaffected.

[Guest srobak]

Digital is Digital....you never see any fine art photographers buying $500 usb cables to upload photos from camera to PC.....

Bingo.

[Guest srobak]

One thing that I have found slightly annoying within this thread is the comparison with Cat5 patch cables in a TCP/IP network scenario. [...]IIRC the digital output from a CD player or other such device is just a blind stream spewing bits at a high rate, if some of them get lost they are lost forever.

Just a couple of points on this...

That is not a high bitrate. Not at all. The same DACs and cables will process a hundred fold that bandwidth when we get to 22.8 surround systems without even breaking a sweat.

Obviously a network scenario is different... first being - there is a network. In the home audio realm however - there is not. There is a source streaming one direction over an incredibly short distance to a slave. There are no switches. There are no junctions. There are no splits. There is no crosstalk, there is no priority queing, there are no collisions, there are no re-negotiations, there are no other sources with competing traffic. A 1 is sent, a 0, then a 1... they are sent in that order, they travel in that order down the copper, down the optical, down the paperclip, and they arrive in that order as a 1, a 0, and a 1. They do not change order, they do not change state. the slave end receives them in order, and processes them in order. Any time shift, jitter, or even occlusions in an optical cable are applied uniformly to every single bit - 1 or 0, in the exact order in which they are sent. If anything other than a 1 or a 0 is received due to any distortion in the optical cable, or a bend/break/noise on a copper cable - then it is discarded and you hear nothing. If the first bit went through a distorted optical cable - then the every bit after that will through the same distortion. You will either hear every single bit streamed in the order in which they were sent, transported, received, and processed, or you will hear silence. If the first bit goes through, so will every single bit thereafter unless something happens to the physical state of the cable - in which case it should be replaced, or if something happens to the DAC - in which case that is where you problem lies. It will have nothing to do with the cable in between.

As someone else eluded to - the quality of picture you extract from a digital camera - include pro level 10+ megapixel models - does not change so much as a single pixel if you transfer the image using a 99 cent USB cable, or a $500 one. In the digital realm - there is absolutely not difference between that image file, and the sound streamed from a CD player. it is all 1's and 0's. They either work or they don't.

[Don Richard]

As someone else eluded to - the quality of picture you extract from a digital camera - include pro level 10+ megapixel models - does not change so much as a single pixel if you transfer the image using a 99 cent USB cable, or a $500 one. In the digital realm - there is absolutely not difference between that image file, and the sound streamed from a CD player. it is all 1's and 0's. They either work or they don't.

The bitstream from a digital audio player is quite different from that of a digital still camera - it is happening at real time. The 1s and 0s may be exactly the same but with incorrect timing. This is called jitter, and is easily audible. The 1s and 0s from a still picture are timing-independent, and the only thing that is important is that they be there correctly. Note that the specific equipment involved, besides cabling, is at issue here. If the cable bandwidth is insufficient the square wave signal that carries the data may be rounded or distorted. Equipment with better buffering capabilities can correct jitter by clocking the data at the correct time into the A/D converter.

HDMI carries both video and audio signals. Part of the HDMI standards involve synchronizing the various video signals so that they work properly together, and that the audio is "lip synched" to the video. It is my understanding that this is done partly to compensate for cabling issues.

[fenderbender]

Does that mean something with in the system that would cause an undue amount of jitter be labeled a "Jitter Bug" ? [][][]

I'm sorry...I just crack myself up........How about something that doubled wattage......."Watt-two-zy" ??

Something that caused a Bose speaker to blow up "Bose-a-nova" OK I'll stop now!

[Mallette]

>This is called jitter, and is easily audible.

I've been hearing about this for years. I've no idea what it sounds like. Every ailment I've ever heard from a digital source was either DAC or analog related. I am not saying there is no such thing...somebody obviously hears it. But I do not think it is "easily audible." I will lay claim to be a hyper critical listener and I've yet to be stumped at identifying a playback problem in my own recordings or playback chain, and not once was it ever "jitter."

Of course, I might be deaf.

Dave

[Don Richard]

I've been hearing about this for years. I've no idea what it sounds like. Every ailment I've ever heard from a digital source was either DAC or analog related. I am not saying there is no such thing...somebody obviously hears it. But I do not think it is "easily audible." I will lay claim to be a hyper critical listener and I've yet to be stumped at identifying a playback problem in my own recordings or playback chain, and not once was it ever "jitter."

Jitter sounds like roughness or graininess, shows up most noticeably on female singers. It ocurs generally with separate transports and D/A converters on playback. Perhaps your D/A box is well buffered and doesn't have such problems. There was a website that demonstrated the difference, and it was plainly audible even thru computer speakers. I don't remember the site, but I will post it when the memories return.