HDMI Cable Qualities...

Art Landy wrote:
What a spicy thread! Can't resist putting in my two cents. The arguments
seems to be the ususal "Subjectivists vs the Objectivists" type and both
tend to adhere strongly to their positions. It is hard to convince a
subjectivist that their experience is valid but flawed in the resulting
conclusions. And itis hard to convince an Objectivists that the
subjectivists aren't full of crap!

I wish that were true. The single "subjectivist" here doesn't seem to be able
to support his position at all.

I could easily quote you many of the arguments of the subjectivists, even though
I certainly fall more into the objectivist camp. The problem here is that the
original poster can't even put together a coherent discussion of the topic. It
appears that we are (as the saying goes) "engaging in a battle of wits with an
unarmed man".

In article ,
"Guest" wrote:

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:55:53 -0500, "Guest"
wrote:

You have a serious problem. Just do some testing for yourself.

I hope you don't seriously think what you have done can be called
"testing", do you? That's one of the funniest parts of your posts!

It is real world testing. I am not giving a magazine review man. I had one
HDMI cable and bought another. I see the difference and my test is
complete. I like the results of the non-pack in cable.

Your visual acuity is not the issue here, it's your absurd assertion
that any difference you might detect can be attributed to the "quality"
of the HDMI cable linking the source to the destination.

Your position that digital data reproduction and transmission suffers
from all the same problems as analog techniques makes as much sense as a
proposal for putting a satellite in polar geosynchronous orbit.

You can continue to portray the village idiot to the amusement of those
of us willing to invest the time, or you can admit (at least to
yourself) that you don't know jack-**** about digital technology and do
something to correct that deficiency.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
...

How audible is it? That is a whole dissertation unto its own.

According to test I did years ago when I had access to the proper
equipment the jitter induced sidebands on an impaired cable were 85dB
below the program material (CD test tones). One golden eared guy
duplicated my results with similar equipment, but he claimed he could hear
85dB below the program material, so the jitter was audible to him.

Chuckle...

Leonard


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 16978 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"Karyudo" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:19:52 GMT, "Gary C"
wrote:

Maybe like speakers, [there's science behind them too]
one pair of speakers sound shrill to me, but warm to you.

Speakers are mechanical devices, driven by continuously-variable
analog voltages. *Of course* there are differences!

And the analogy here is closer to trying to argue that a given pair of
speakers sounds shrill using one set of speaker wires of a given
length and gauge, but sounds warm to the *same person* using a second
set of speaker wires of the same length and gauge. Huh?? I pretty much
call bull****. And even then there is the chance of more real,
measurable variation, since the signals are analog.

*HE* sees a difference, in his _OPINION_.

But what all of the rational people in this post are pointing out is
that he is *not* seeing a difference! He's *imagining* a difference.
His opinion is irrelevant; numbers is numbers.

That complete irrationality is the frustrating part of reading his
posts.

Same here. You don't even know me name or what I look like, but you want to
tell me what I am imagining? You are a physcopath.


The funny part of his posts is where he talks down to people, advising
them to "do some testing" to see for themselves. HAHAHAHAHA! Maybe I'm
a small, petty person, but I'm enjoying this idiotic thread no end...

--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"Tom Stiller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Guest" wrote:

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:55:53 -0500, "Guest"
wrote:

You have a serious problem. Just do some testing for yourself.

I hope you don't seriously think what you have done can be called
"testing", do you? That's one of the funniest parts of your posts!

It is real world testing. I am not giving a magazine review man. I had
one
HDMI cable and bought another. I see the difference and my test is
complete. I like the results of the non-pack in cable.

Your visual acuity is not the issue here, it's your absurd assertion
that any difference you might detect can be attributed to the "quality"
of the HDMI cable linking the source to the destination.

Your position that digital data reproduction and transmission suffers
from all the same problems as analog techniques makes as much sense as a
proposal for putting a satellite in polar geosynchronous orbit.

Uh - that's not my position.


You can continue to portray the village idiot to the amusement of those
of us willing to invest the time, or you can admit (at least to
yourself) that you don't know jack-**** about digital technology and do
something to correct that deficiency.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Art Landy wrote:
What a spicy thread! Can't resist putting in my two cents. The arguments
seems to be the ususal "Subjectivists vs the Objectivists" type and both
tend to adhere strongly to their positions. It is hard to convince a
subjectivist that their experience is valid but flawed in the resulting
conclusions. And itis hard to convince an Objectivists that the
subjectivists aren't full of crap!

I wish that were true. The single "subjectivist" here doesn't seem to be
able to support his position at all.

I could easily quote you many of the arguments of the subjectivists, even
though I certainly fall more into the objectivist camp. The problem here
is that the original poster can't even put together a coherent discussion
of the topic. It appears that we are (as the saying goes) "engaging in a
battle of wits with an unarmed man".

What is amazing is that so much effort has been devoted to this thread.

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 16978 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

"Tom Stiller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Guest" wrote:

--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"Tom Stiller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Art Landy" wrote:

"Guest" wrote in message
...


--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com


http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"David" wrote in message
. ..
"Guest" wrote The AR outperformed the
Monster
to
a very larger degree.


As brilliant and renowned engineer Henry Kloss, et al, turn over
in
their grave . . .


Ahh ****.

What a spicy thread! Can't resist putting in my two cents. The
arguments
seems to be the ususal "Subjectivists vs the Objectivists" type and
both
tend to adhere strongly to their positions. It is hard to convince a
subjectivist that their experience is valid but flawed in the
resulting
conclusions. And itis hard to convince an Objectivists that the
subjectivists aren't full of crap!

No, the argument is about lack of understanding about digital
representation of analog signals and their subsequent over bit-serial
pathways. One side thinks that minor degradation of the digital
signal
will be reflected in the reconstructed analog waveform (which his
sharp
eyes and eyes can detect). The other side understands digital signal
processing, error correcting codes, and transmission lines.


The other side only understands what they have been told can only be
done.
Do you think that these cable companies(way over-priced ones and lower
priced ones) just happen to make digital cables at a higher quality just
for
the hell of it? Do you think they just decided to make them without
research and development? Get real.

No, I think they established a reputation with cables carrying analog
signals and are trying to transfer that expertise to the digital world
where it doesn't apply. They also stand to make a pot of money from the
unwitting dupes that will pay the price.

It is funy when you say this Tom. I immediately think of the HDTV and "HD"
antenna advertisement. The manufacture bring in gob of money using this
tactic. Unfortunately still many folks fall for it.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"JerrySmith'sTightEnd" wrote in message
. ..

"Guest" wrote in message
...


--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"dmaster" wrote in message
oups.com...

Guest wrote:
Jim Gilliland wrote:
Guest wrote:

I have read over the last few years about HDMI/DVI cables being all
the same regardless of build quality because "ones and zeros are
ones and zeros. It either works or it does not." This type of
reasoning makes sense on it's face, but then I recalled having a
Monster Cable optical cable and then an Acoustic Research optical
cable and I noticed a very big difference in sound quality. The AR
outperformed the Monster to a very larger degree.

Really? Can you describe the difference between the sound of the two
cables?

Yes. The Monster sounded flat (some people may love that) and lower in
volume. It lacked detail, kick and bass. The AR had kick, clarity,
bass
and it was louder. It gave the music and surround sound true impact.
The

Hi, Guest. This is probably a lost cause, but if you learn a little
about digital
data (audio data or otherwise), you'll learn that the kinds of changes
you
are describing just aren't possible. For an *analogue* mechanism,
perhaps.

Even with analog you are skeptical? You and these others must only use
one brand of cable or just believe in spending the least amount of money
for things.

What he and most of us have said is that with analog it may make a
difference, but generally doesn't. The capacitance in a short cable is
not going to cause significant roll-off in a short cable, but longer cable
runs with low-level signals can cause trouble with a poorly designed and
made cable. Similarly, runinng significant power signals through a light
gauge cable can be an issue to speakers can be an issue...but it always
kills me when I see the audiofools who claim to hear differences on a
20-100 watt signal through a 10' length of 14 gauge zip cord vs. a 14
gauge boutique cable.

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.



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?




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?



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 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.

--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"JerrySmith'sTightEnd" wrote in message
. ..

"Guest" wrote in message
...


--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"JerrySmith'sTightEnd" wrote in message
.. .

"Guest" wrote in message
. ..


--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"JerrySmith'sTightEnd" wrote in message
om...


You really are an ignorant little twit. That's obvious from your
"sponsored" posts for your lame business (do the makers of that
software allow you to sell those programs without retail packaging?
Maybe MS will let you know son!). Do you think your ads are enticing
any of us to deal with you?

That is not my **** dude.

You're just so poor you rely on sponsored nonsensical newsgroup posts
for income?



Your disdain for education is the mark of the uneducated. Luckily
there are some technical folks out here, since you wouldn't be using
any of that equipment otherwise. You are an expert only in your own
myopic eyes...ever consider, even just a little bit, that others out
here might be correct?

I said on paper, they are.

It's real life science. Science...the thing that brought us computers,
airplanes and televisions.


Through trial and error I might add. Science only means that it can be
proven - by others. So don't talk to me about science when you are not
even using any.

Damn, why oh why did I spend all those years in college?!? I should have
just ponied up for mid-range consumer electroincs gear at Best Buy,
watched movies and played video games, and become a REAL WORLD EXPERT!!!


****, your college education is lacking. You must have taken Zoology.

--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com

http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/...oldrefid=20013
"Karyudo" wrote in message
...
Science...the thing that brought us computers,
airplanes and televisions.

Actually, science brought us semiconductors, manometers, and cathode
rays. Yawn.

It's *engineering* that brought us computers, airplanes, and
televisions.

Tell em!