[barkas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius Pick up the latest issue of Hi-Fi News and Reviews, there's an interesting test in there of cable break-in. To summarize, a fresh digital cable doesn't carry bits as consistently as a cable that's broken in. The fresh cable introduced more errors and variations in the bitstream than the burned-in cable.

Pray tell me the difference between a broken in cable and a new one.
Anyway most digital protocols make use of error correction (as CDs do), so that is in many cases irrelevant.

Regarding jitter in CDs: A CD uses a block codec that introduces redundancy on 2 levels to eliminate errors (and now that's afaik), making it necessary to read and cache those blocks before decoding, so that jitter is eliminated at this stage.
Plus thanks to the Nyquist theorem, the 44.1kHz can reproduce frequencies up to 22.05kHz ACCURATELY, meaning completely without loss of any kind.
That makes the analog vs digital debate more or less moot, unless someone likes the harmonics or whatever that vinyl introduces.

 

[Filburt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius Pick up the latest issue of Hi-Fi News and Reviews, there's an interesting test in there of cable break-in. To summarize, a fresh digital cable doesn't carry bits as consistently as a cable that's broken in. The fresh cable introduced more errors and variations in the bitstream than the burned-in cable.

Heh, can you scan it? I'd love to see what they think is 'breaking in' on the cable. I work for a company that builds precision stuff both in the analog and digital domains, and we don't have to do anything like cable 'break in' to get consistent, accurate performance.

 

[aerius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt Heh, can you scan it? I'd love to see what they think is 'breaking in' on the cable.

I should be able to in a month or so once the issue goes into general circulation at the local library. Right now it's still on the reference shelf and I can't take it out yet.

 

[Filburt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius I should be able to in a month or so once the issue goes into general circulation at the local library. Right now it's still on the reference shelf and I can't take it out yet.

Alright, let me know. I'll have a look at it...

 

[elrod-tom]

I find it interesting that some folks are stating AS FACT that digital is the superior medium. Is this not by and of itself a subjective judgment? After all, are we not attempting to recreate an analog signal?

I happen to be a big believer in digital, even down to the humble redbook CD. I will tell you, however, that the redbook CD has many failings. For one thing, the wave it generates is not a nice, rounded line...it has steps. If your goal in digital is to faithfully reproduce the original analog source, you're behind in the count already. While this may be interpolated away to some extent with oversampling/upsampling, it's still to some extent garbage in garbage out.

Same goes for the dynamic range of a recording. By this I mean the range in db over which one has variability. Listen to a CD of (for example) Beethoven's Pastorale...there is not nearly the transition from quiet passages to full orchestral passages that one finds even on a vinyl album (if one doesn't mind the occasional interfering pop).

I know that the vinyl album has its foibles. That said, some of the best and IMHO most faithful and involving reproduction has been when listening to a high-end vinyl rig, where the LP has been thoroughly and properly cleaned. Furthermore, if any of you ever have an opportunity to listen to a very good reel-to-reel recording, you will experience what analog gear is truly capable of...and you will be put in touch with the music in a way that is most difficult to accomplish with digital gear.

As I said, I'm still a big believer in digital. I believe that the convenience of the redbook CD outweighs the issues that come with analog media. I also believe that what's coming down the pipe (provided that format wars don't wreck it) has much promise. But digital is simply another attempt to faithfully reproduce an analog signal...which might prove to be more difficult than one might think when using a different medium.



I would also remind everyone that threads like this tend to bring out the worst true believers in both camps. True believers tend to have little respect for opposing opinions, which frequently leads to deleted posts and thread closure. I'm seeing a bit of the beginnings of this in this thread. Let's remember to respect the opinions of the other, and keep it civil please. Thanks...

 

[sgrossklass]

It is very, very hard to stay truly objective in this audio business. One has to be sufficiently critical to sort out the snake oil while not disregarding things too quickly when they don't fit in at first glance but actually a solid explanation exists.

Analog vs. digital is tricky and has many different aspects. Given sufficiently high effort, first-rate sound quality can be achieved either way, but most people will probably choose what is most economical for them as funds typically are not unlimited. (OK, vinyl may also be chosen for the fun factor, given that musical enjoyment is another matter altogether - listening to an AM station on a big old portable radio can be much fun, even though this is far from audiophile quality.) In that regard, digital has proven to be more versatile, practical and affordable IMHO. Hardly anyone would still bother with tapes these days, save for those with top-flight decks in good shape. (On the other hand, it is not clear whether CDs will survive 30, 40 and more years like LPs that have been well taken care of.) Incidentally, much of the sound quality of "digital" components (especially converters) has to do with analog paths anyway, so it's not like analog and digital would be totally orthogonal.

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom ...where the LP has been thoroughly and properly cleaned. Furthermore, if

Though I can definitely believe a LP can be truely magnificent, the above comment kinda sums it up for the digital camp!

With that said, redbook certainly has its flaws as you point out (though I think your comment was more generalized to current DAC techniques). In the end, I believe they both share a longterm fatal flaw - the media itself. I still predict eventually the overwhelming majority of people in the future will be listening to all of their music digitally. Media just stinks (both from a practical and technical perspective).

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Heh, can you scan it? I'd love to see what they think is 'breaking in' on the cable. I work for a company that builds precision stuff both in the analog and digital domains, and we don't have to do anything like cable 'break in' to get consistent, accurate performance.

Uh, yeah- not just you. There are a LOT of engineers who would be VERY interested to hear that the signal changes over some small amount of time (a few hundred hours or whatever) due to changes in the cable.

I can't wait to see what they butcher to try to back that one up.

If whoever is going to provide this can provide it in a downloadable format, or at least something that would allow me to pass it on, I'll get their feedback on it and post it here for anyone interested.

 

[amartignano]

That article show two things, separately or at the same time, who knows:

1) totally deaf/stupid/lier writer: if you say that a cable sounds equal to other cables there are three possibilites a) you are deaf b) you are stupid c) you are a lier
2) total ignorance of the most advanced findings in technical and measurements (but also some basics)

Similar ignorance (and not listening) about digital audio and analog audio is shown here and there...

 

[alfie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amartignano 1) totally deaf/stupid/lier writer: if you say that a cable sounds equal to other cables there are three possibilites a) you are deaf b) you are stupid c) you are a lier

He doesn't really say that. He just says "The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are theonly cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies." which means, in my opinion, that you can find peculiar properties you need from a cable in a very cheap one.

Quote:

Similar ignorance (and not listening) about digital audio and analog audio is shown here and there...

Again, he just says it is a matter of taste and that there is no proven superiority of the analog over the digital and I think that is very agreeable.

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amartignano That article show two things...

EDIT: I misread your post.

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amartignano 1) totally deaf/stupid/lier writer: if you say that a cable sounds equal to other cables there are three possibilites a) you are deaf b) you are stupid c) you are a lier

d) You studied a lot of EE

....seriously...as elrod-tom stated, articles like this one provoke both of the more compassionate sides of the various heated topics contained in the article. I can think of no other more controversial topic than audio cables. Everyone has their opinion (for the record alfie pretty much summed up my belief) but in the end its up to your ears. Whether the cable made an audible difference or not, if it sounds good, it sounds gooooooood!

 

[doctorjuggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom Same goes for the dynamic range of a recording. By this I mean the range in db over which one has variability. Listen to a CD of (for example) Beethoven's Pastorale...there is not nearly the transition from quiet passages to full orchestral passages that one finds even on a vinyl album (if one doesn't mind the occasional interfering pop).

I think this is mostly down to poor mixing/producing, because although vinyl has the full sound spectrum recorded on it and beats digital in terms of requency range, CD has a technically superior dynamic range capability and any failings in this regard are the fault of sound engineers rather than the medium itself.

My impression was that vinyl's dynamic range stretched across 75dB while CD covers 90dB.
Source: http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articl...nd-forever.htm

 

[carlcamper]

@Trogdor

You're correct, this guy is an EE, (and a very good one too, upon further research), so even if you belong to the other camp, its best not to totally dismiss what he has to say. I guess what some guy said is right, this article is aimed at people new to the audio world, and is not intended to change well established views already. At the very least, it makes newbies a bit more cautious in spending too much to get back little, and not to be easily swayed by other people's words without testing by yourself, and I guess that at least makes the article a good read.

 

[db597]

If he's an EE, then he should look at the spec sheets of the components. Nichicon capacitor spec sheet for example. They even tell you that the quoted characteristics and leakage etc are achieved after something like 1000 hours of operation at 85 degrees. Isn't that a burn in period?!