[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMan007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif even fewer, as in less than a handful, glass optical cable manufacturers.

O RLY?

SHIN KIN - GLASS TOSLINK CABLES

 

[gitf03]

BTW, anyone tested different ethernet cables? I tested some various and i found out that one of the more expensive ones gives me the most saturated colors on web pages.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gitf03 /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, anyone tested different ethernet cables? I tested some various and i found out that one of the more expensive ones gives me the most saturated colors on web pages.

good point! but I'm already using this fantastic Jena Labs products to improve my DVD colors: Jena Labs presents Esoteric 3D-X
Quote:

Esoteric 3D-X is very effective on DVDs, DVD-As, DVD-Rs, DVD-RWs, video CDs, and LaserDiscs®. Some things you'll notice: Blacker blacks More saturated colors Dramatically reduced “noise” Significantly improved sound

I'm afraid the gamut would become obese in the end? something like super-uber-wide? my Eye-One colorimeter would flip out fo sho

 

[gitf03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif good point! but I'm already using this fantastic Jena Labs products to improve my DVD colors: Jena Labs presents Esoteric 3D-X

Why does this site reminds me of a penis enlargement spam mail?

 

[rosgr63]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gitf03 /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, anyone tested different ethernet cables? I tested some various and i found out that one of the more expensive ones gives me the most saturated colors on web pages.

Can you give us some details & links please?

 

[Audio Jester]

Wow, the sarcasm around here is at a dangerously high level.

I personally have not tested different optical cables. That being said I will be soon so that I can hear the effects (if there are any) for myself. It is all good and well focusing on the basic scientific theories behind data transfer, but I feel that many people are very quick to assume limitations of the human ear. We can all agree that different materials have different properties, hence we use copper for heat sinks and not plastic, so why does this not apply to optical cables??

In other words, opinons are not facts. So don't get so upset when someone's opinion is different that yours.

 

[rosgr63]

Audio Jester, I wouldn't be surprised if a well made/terminated plastic cable performs as good as if not better than an expensive glass cable.

BTW sarcasm isn't as bad as insalting and been rude to people.

I have been at the receiving end in other threads when I mentioned I liked "Beresford" oops I did it again so sorry I mentioned the bad word!

 

[Audio Jester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rosgr63 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Audio Jester, I wouldn't be surprised if a well made/terminated plastic cable performs as good as if not better than an expensive glass cable.

Neither would I. Does not mean that it is not possible. I for one, am curious enough that I want to give a more expensive cable a try. Why not eh?

I do get a little sceptical though when people start saying that it has improved their system by 30% or something... But I have to test this for myself otherwise I am making crap up and that is not helpful around here.

relating to your dirty word problem... some people take things too seriously huh?

 

[rosgr63]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audio Jester /img/forum/go_quote.gif Neither would I. Does not mean that it is not possible. I for one, am curious enough that I want to give a more expensive cable a try. Why not eh? I do get a little sceptical though when people start saying that it has improved their system by 30% or something... But I have to test this for myself otherwise I am making crap up and that is not helpful around here. relating to your dirty word problem... some people take things too seriously huh?

Some people are biased I am afraid.
slim.a is on holiday now when he comes back he'll report about his optical cables tests, I am sure his findings will be very interesting.

 

[gitf03]

It wasn't my intention to offend anyone with my sarcastic post above, I just thought it could be a kind of eye opener and I feel my plan failed so I want to proceed with some facts to contribute something useful to this discussion.

The big improvement in digital over analog is that you have no quality loss in transmission, copying or archiving. I will explain why.

In analog and digital there are physical values like voltage sent over the wire and measured on the end. But there is an essential difference in digital and analog. In analog, the original values are sent directly to the receiver. So we have thousands of possible values that need to be measured on the end. Lets assume we have a 5V signal. Then the receiver must distinct between voltage 1.234 and 1.235 (I'm just simplifying). That means there is compared to digital a huge possibility in distortion of the signal. Different values will be measured than originally where sent.

In digital, the original values are coded in numbers, on the end based on a binary layer, with only two values (1 and 0, High and Low...). The receiver of the signal now only need to distinct between two values. So we define, that a voltage range of 0-0.8 means 0 and 2-5 means 1. Now the possibility of distortion is very small. In addition, because we deal with numbers, we can implement mathematical algorithms to proof the data we receive. Imagine, before the coded source data is sent, the sender sends some kind of summery data about the source data that will be send. So the receiver knows how many 0 and 1 he will get (again, this is a much simplified description) and is able to proof if he got the data correct.

The conclusion is, that the received information in digital is always the same. Either the information is there, or is not. But if it's there, it's always the same. Now the coded data will be again decoded in analog values (that is what a DAC is doing).

That means it is just not possible that there is a different sound or video or picture or whatever with different DIGITAL cables. Analog cables is something different and for sure something worth to debate. But it really isn't worth to debate about sound quality with different optical cables, because there is no difference in the information that is sent.

Of course, a digital cable must "work". The physical values like voltage (or light impulses in the case of optical cable) must be able to pass the wire. All the bandwidth discussion applies to that. More bandwidth than you need won't give you any improvements. Now how do you know if a cable is working? Easy, if you hear something, then it is working, if you hear nothing, it isn't. But there never will be a difference in sound.

As an example lets compare a big scratch on an analog vinyl and digital cd. On the vinyl, you will hear the scratch in form of crackling, hissing or whatever. But it will still play, it just plays the "lost information". The receiver of the signal is not able to tell if this information it got is intended to be like this or not. Only we know. On a CD, you will never here crackling or hissing, but only skipping. The receiver of this digital signal knows that information is missing and is not playing anything for the area where the scratch is. Small scratches can be recovered with the "summery system" I briefly mentioned above, but bigger one not.

If there would be a possibility for different sound, then it would also matter which hard drives it is save on, with which cables these are connected with, even which operating systems or programs the files are copied with. All these concerns applied to the analog world, but it doesn't matter in the digital. There is no loss of information. That is the big improvement over analog and the reason why we prefer to go digital in so many cases. Of course, it has also downsides, in a perfect condition you will have better audio quality in analog, but this is a different topic.

Now, why are some companies selling that expensive cables? Easy, because there are people buying it.

Of course, you can buy a more expensive cable for its build quality or its length (sometimes we need different cables for different length, because we must still assure, the signal will arrive). But paying money for a DIGITAL cable that is advertised as a sound enhancer is fraud of the companies selling these and ignorance of the buyer. That's why I did the comparison with the penis enlargement in the earlier post. It is the same. And they trust in the habit of customers that are used to the cable-discussions in analog world and their ignorance of the digital technic.

I think in a quality hifi forum this should be common sense. But sadly there are not few that bought expensive DIGITAL cables and are shouting out what great improvements they hear... that is only placebo. And it misleads newcomers and people leaking this knowledge to give their money to people that deserve nothing more than a kick in the ass ( i mean the sellers of such cables). No, I never compared digital cables for sound quality. But I also will never compare if the same sentences I write with different pens have a different meaning.

The discussion reminds me of one between an evolution-scientist and an calvinist. Facts against beliefs. Although I think the facts for our topic are even stronger since this is something we invented and not something we try to understand in reserve.

That are facts. Not an opinion. If you are interested further, just google about this topic, or read books or visit a course in the university. You will find plenty of information about it. I just simplified many things to make it clear.

I hope I helped someone to learn something new and kept him from headaches and silly money burning.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gitf03 /img/forum/go_quote.gif it could be a kind of eye opener [..] I hope I helped someone to learn something

wow, can't thank you enough! I'm done and I'll be using those in coax from now on: http://themagazine.info/56/Pictures/...hromeThree.jpg

 

[gitf03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif wow, can't thank you enough! I'm done and I'll be using those in coax from now on: http://themagazine.info/56/Pictures/...hromeThree.jpg

If you get them over 500$... why not?

 

[leeperry]

Canuck Audio Mart View topic - Quality GLASS TOSlink cable
Quote:

The difference is not loss of Data, but the corruption of the timing relationship between the Data and the 4 timing clocks in the S/PDIF Bitstream. This timing discrepancy is called jitter and for 16 bit data there can be no more than 100 picoseconds (1 picosecond =1/1,000,000,000,000th of a second) of jitter for full resolution whereas 24 bit Data can have no more than 0.5 picoseconds of jitter to maintain full resolution.

Low Jitter Clock
Quote:

By reducing the jitter error, you will hear clearer positioning, also details are further refined vocally and instrumentally. Sound stage and positioning will improve noticeably and that includes deeper sound stage and darker background. Some said it also improves the control on the bass.

About S/PDIF
Quote:

the poor quality optical fibre components often used can tend to introduce data-dependent jitter in the process of separating clock from data in the Manchester decoder at the receiver. This can cause a measureable degradation of the conversion back to analogue format

so you can measure it...but it's placebo, right? and you did try it for yourself? you're not talking about stuff you never tried, right?

 

[gitf03]

As I wrote, either your cable works or not. If it doesn't, you will hear it clearly, and if it works, it won't be better with an an expensive cable.

But hey, i'm not trying to play the pope. Buy whatever you want.

 

[leeperry]

yes, like HDMI cables, it's only a bunch of 0's and 1's after all

there's no attenuation taking place, skin effect, intra-pair skew, inter-pair skew, Far End Crosstalk(FEXT): http://www.head-fi.org/forums/6527983-post18.html

I bought a 10 meters cheapo HDMI cable and it's no workee too well...how come???