Is there really that big of a difference in the quality of OPTICAL cables. It's all 1's and 0's so i don't see where the extra 20-30 bucks goes when you purchase a Monster cable versus a RCA, Phillips or any cheaper cable. I have my DVD player connecting to my receiver via component. I'm in the market to upgrade to Optical (because superior audio quality over component), but i want to know before i make a purchase if there is that big of a difference in quality between the expensive (monster) and cheaper cables. Thanks for your help!!

General consensus is that you're throwing money away with Monster cables.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/

or

http://www.monoprice.com/

General consensus is that you're throwing money away with Monster cables.

Should just make this a sticky at the top to prevent these posts. :rolleyes:

Is there really that big of a difference in the quality of OPTICAL cables. It's all 1's and 0's so i don't see where the extra 20-30 bucks goes when you purchase a Monster cable versus a RCA, Phillips or any cheaper cable. I have my DVD player connecting to my receiver via component. I'm in the market to upgrade to Optical (because superior audio quality over component), but i want to know before i make a purchase if there is that big of a difference in quality between the expensive (monster) and cheaper cables. Thanks for your help!!


wick3eleven,
Your post is a little confusing. You're saying that you want to "upgrade to Optical (because superior audio quality over component)". Yet, no audio is passed over component. Only video. I think you're confusing something here or using wrong terminology.

Optical only passes audio and does not pass video. If you already have a coaxial connection for audio, then you're already passing the 1's and 0's to the receiver for audio and have no real need to change to an optical cable. Although, you will find some people who feel that they hear a difference between a coaxial and an optical cable. Don't know how and I never have...but...they claim to.

If you want to upgrade the video portion, then you need to have HDMI or DVI connections. Each one has their own issues at the time being and many older DVD players and TVs have no such connections.

Good sites for cables are monoprice or accessories4less. Both of those have the usual website beginning and ending. I just don't have enough posts to be able to put in URLs. You can often find great deals at either one. I actually use the AR PR101 Pro II video cables for all audio and video since they're
incredibly cheap, decent looking, triple shielded, and 75 ohm rated. $3.49 for a 6 ft. cable.

-pat


edit: spelling

wick3eleven,
Your post is a little confusing. You're saying that you want to "upgrade to Optical (because superior audio quality over component)". Yet, no audio is passed over component. Only video. I think you're confusing something here or using wrong terminology.

He probably means composite. The RCA left and right cables.

He probably means composite. The RCA left and right cables.

I just came back to edit my post and you beat me to it! That thought crossed my head about 30 seconds ago.

-pat

"Composite" is a reference to video.

Red/White audio cables are generally referred to as "analog audio cables". ;)

Yeah, but he mentioned component, so he probably meant composite, and then he probably meant analog audio. Clear as mud yet? :p


Regardless, I'd be willing to bet if we broke into his house and looked at his receiver, there would be a red and white audio cable there.

He probably means composite. The RCA left and right cables.

That's right, i do mean composite. Brain fart...you say one thing but mean the other. It was one of those days yesterday! I checked out monoprice and saw some great deals, definitely gonna make a purchase from there, just gotta wait till the item is in-stock. Thanks for all your help guys!!

Wick

:)

If Monoprice is out, check Blue Jeans Cable. (Link is up at the top in the alliance member banners.)

Buying Monster Cables is worse then eating little children....I was sucked into the whole Monster thing when I worked at Futureshop then I rebelled and woke up and started asking the staff and managers if its so good why don`t we hook all our displays up with it? No one had a answer! Ha! Then started reading and playing around on my own and saw that there was no difference. Do some research on Monster and see how evil they actually are....

That's right, i do mean composite.

I thouhgt you were talking about audio. There is no composite audio available to the consumer. Did you mean analog audio, which also uses cables with RCA connectors on them?

He is talking about analog audio.

It sometimes gets called "composite" as analog audio is sometimes bundled with a composite video into one cable. So the misnaming got attached.

I was sucked into the whole Monster thing when I worked at Futureshop

The only time I fell for it was with my combo Toslink/S-video cable (my old TV had S-video, and I still use the Toslink part today). It wasn't Monster, but some brand just slightly cheaper. Still kicking myself over that one. :( Monoprice supplies all my cables now (good thing I didn't buy some of those $70 HDMI ones.)


Anyone want to buy a $30 Toslink/Svid? :p

The analog audio is bundled with the composite video. I have my DVD connected to my AVR by that bundle. I'm either going to switch that for Optical cable and keep the composite video, or HDMI. The only thing is that the DVD upconverts to 1080i and so does my AVR, i'm wondering if it's really worth it to go with HDMI from DVD to AVR. My receiver is connected via HDMI to my TV too. I will be using optical from my 360 to the AVR, that is until MS releases a HDMI cable for the 360. What's your thoughts on the HDMI issue i'm faced with.

Wick :)

Wait, you have what kind of video cable from the DVD to the receiver? Just the yellow plug? Or is it component (red, green, blue)?

Buying Monster Cables is worse then eating little children....I was sucked into the whole Monster thing when I worked at Futureshop then I rebelled and woke up and started asking the staff and managers if its so good why don`t we hook all our displays up with it? No one had a answer! Ha! Then started reading and playing around on my own and saw that there was no difference. Do some research on Monster and see how evil they actually are....

Because it costs too much money to tie that up in unsellable inventory. That's a management issue though.

Floor n00b :rolleyes:

Buying Monster Cables is worse then eating little children
Michael Jackson would beg to differ.

Optical cables don't have to be expensive and still be of high quality. For example at lifatec.com you'll find just about any length you need at very competitive prices IMO and be fairly secure that they are using good quality fiber and paying attention to the ends.

While some people do not believe that cables can make a difference in sound quality, I disagree. Actually I know that they are wrong based on my system. Not only did I notice a difference but so did my wife and daughter, both of whom could care less when it comes to audio. I did an A/B with the following:

Denon DRA 685
klipsch RF-15'S
NAD C525bee cd player

I played an Eric Clapton track using basic Moster navajo white speaker wire and then I switched the wire out with DH Silver Sonic wire. HUGE difference, the highs opened up dramatically and the bass was much tighter. Again, to validate this I had 2 different people listen and they both validated my opinion.

Now with all that said, I really don't know at what point your returns will diminish. I think that if you have a $50K system, go with very expensive cable. For me, the $4.25 per foot for the Silver Sonic was a great investment.

Wait, you have what kind of video cable from the DVD to the receiver? Just the yellow plug? Or is it component (red, green, blue)?


It's just yellow RCA coupled with red and white audio RCA's. Sadly it was the only thing i had available. That's why i want to upgrade to optical (for the audio) or HDMI (for both audio and video). Thing is i'm not sure if upgrading to HDMI will make a difference in the video since both DVD and AVR upconvert.

What kind of receiver and player do you have? And how do you have them connected to the TV?

HDMI will give you a MUCH better picture than yellow composite in almost all instances.

Both are denon models, DVD is connected to AVR by the yellow red white RCA's. AVR is connect to HDTV via HDMI cable. XBOX 360 is connected to HDTV via the component cable provided for the 360. TV audio is connected to AVR via red/white RCA's (which i will be changing to Optical).

Based on you saying that you are using composite video (yellow RCA plug), the best your DVD player is sending is 480i. This is the maximum bandwidth that composite video can handle. In order to get the upconverted image out of it (1080i), almost all upconverting players require that you use HDMI because of copy protection laws. You claim your AVR is upconverting as well, but more than likely it is only de-interlacing the video to 480p. You have to spend quite a bit of money on an AVR to get one that actually upconverts, rather than just transcode or de-interlace. HDMI should be a pretty drastic image improvement over the coposite you have now, as will using the TOSLINK for 5.1 digital surround.

Steind

Yeah, just run the HDMI direct from the DVD player to the TV.

If you get another component that uses HDMI, you can run both through the receiver and switch them.

Should just make this a sticky at the top to prevent these posts. :rolleyes:


But then Monster may have a legal stand against the forum?

Regardless, I'd be willing to bet if we broke into his house and looked at his receiver, there would be a red and white audio cable there.


Why would we need to do this? Just ring the doorbell and tell him we are the audio police, we have a warrant to look at his setup, open up :D

While some people do not believe that cables can make a difference in sound quality, I disagree. Actually I know that they are wrong based on my system. Not only did I notice a difference but so did my wife and daughter, both of whom could care less when it comes to audio. I did an A/B with the following:

Denon DRA 685
klipsch RF-15'S
NAD C525bee cd player

I played an Eric Clapton track using basic Moster navajo white speaker wire and then I switched the wire out with DH Silver Sonic wire. HUGE difference, the highs opened up dramatically and the bass was much tighter. Again, to validate this I had 2 different people listen and they both validated my opinion.

Now with all that said, I really don't know at what point your returns will diminish. I think that if you have a $50K system, go with very expensive cable. For me, the $4.25 per foot for the Silver Sonic was a great investment.


Incredible. Awesome.

Michael Jackson would beg to differ.
.


Oh, you are killing me. LOL :D :D

He is coming back for seconds ;)

While some people do not believe that cables can make a difference in sound quality, I disagree. Actually I know that they are wrong based on my system. Not only did I notice a difference but so did my wife and daughter, both of whom could care less when it comes to audio. I did an A/B with the following:
.

Interesting story. Not the first to invoke uncaring family members hearing ability.
But, one needs to ask, how was bias controlled in the listening session? Or was it?

Idiot, moron

Was that directed at me for some reason?

Is there really that big of a difference in the quality of OPTICAL cables. It's all 1's and 0's so i don't see where the extra 20-30 bucks goes when you purchase a Monster cable versus a RCA, Phillips or any cheaper cable.

I've recently switched to optical from coaxial. For me it was an issue of convenience regarding maintenance. The system is installed in a vacation home, and sometimes 9 or 10 months passes before I return to the home. During that time moisture in the air can induce electrolytical corrosion between two disimilar metals, and I was using a Monster Cable gold plated coax cable so the metal on the cable did not match that of the Onkyo receiver. It MIGHT have been necessary for me to have pulled the receiver out of its mounting and remove/manipulate the coax connector if corrosion did in fact invade the connection. With optical, that's not a problem since it is not a metal-to-metal connection.

As for the security of the connection to the optical port, well, I do have a few different brand Toslink cables and I can attest to the fact that some of them do in fact "click" into the port on the receiver/DVD player much more securely. I don't know if that's an issue, but it's one less thing to worry about. For me, the issue isn't necessarily one of cost of the cable; it's more an issue of being able to walk into a house that hasn't had the HT sound system operated for 10 months and being able to rest assured it will sound good soon as I power it up.

I'm sure that there are inexpensive cables out there that will do just a good a job as the highly overpriced Moster equipment. After all, as you say, it's just 1's and 0's (or, in the case of optical, light or darkness).

Doug

I played an Eric Clapton track using basic Moster navajo white speaker wire and then I switched the wire out with DH Silver Sonic wire. HUGE difference, the highs opened up dramatically and the bass was much tighter.

Without even debating whether your family members were rolling their eyes as they agreed with you that it sounded better, how is this relevant to cheap vs expensive optical cables?

My family had no idea what they were listening to, so I had no influence on them at all. Before you pass judgement or make false assumptions you really should have a baseline of knowledge to begin with. Thank you for your useless post.

High quality optical cables will ALWAYS outperform lower quality cables. The sound from a high quality optic will give you a much fully, jitter free signal. If you have bottom end equipment you will not see much improvement but with higher quality gear the improvement will be substantial.

I say that cables DO make a difference to a certain point, you seem to feel that they don't. I will ask you to prove this with the same type of "scientific" data that you seek from those that have heard a difference.

I will ask you to prove this with the same type of "scientific" data that you seek from those that have heard a difference.


So you DO have scientific data that they do make a difference?Because to quote you"both validated my opinion"

MMM didnt know a opinion was now fact.

You were arguing that there are (unspecified at the time) differences in optical cables based on observed differences in speaker wire. You don't see a disconnect there?

How useless was my post to bring this up in comparison with your post that said that there are differences between oranges because I noticed huge differences between these two apples?

Thank you for your useless post.

Thanks for yours.

"my wife said cables make a difference, so all your science is bunk"

...is, just so convincing.

High quality optical cables will ALWAYS outperform lower quality cables. The sound from a high quality optic will give you a much fully, jitter free signal. If you have bottom end equipment you will not see much improvement but with higher quality gear the improvement will be substantial.

Clearly, you have no idea what you speak of.

Come on guys, show me your proof. Why can't you? Because it does not exist. Do you think that they use the same cabling on say, the space shuttle, 747's, helicopters, etc. as they do in your home? To save you from thinking too much I will tell you that they don't. There is a reason for this guys.

I would love to see your "science" that proves what I am saying is wrong. I don't believe it exists just as you don't believe that my opinion can be correct. How arrogant of you all to say that what 3 people hear is incorrect because you don't hear it! Again, show me YOUR scientific data that would conclusively dispute what I am saying. If you can't, it is all merely opinion and contrary to what you may think, mine is just as valid as yours.

Again...

You were arguing that there are (unspecified at the time) differences in optical cables based on observed differences in speaker wire. You don't see a disconnect there?

How useless was my post to bring this up in comparison with your post that said that there are differences between oranges because I noticed huge differences between these two apples?

Thanks for yours.

"my wife said cables make a difference, so all your science is bunk"

...is, just so convincing.

Have to admit, that's pretty funny. :D

Clearly, you have no idea what you speak of.

It's always tough to upgrade gear and cables at the same time, and attribute the change to the cabling, admittedly.

But then Monster may have a legal stand against the forum?

It depends on whether websites like this that encourage opinions are subject to defamation law. I suspect they are. I also suspect that Monster could own this website by Thursday if they really wanted to, either through lawsuit or becoming the biggest sponsor up top. ;)

Do you think that they use the same cabling on say, the space shuttle, 747's, helicopters, etc. as they do in your home?
I cant speak for the space shuttle, but I assume it is similar to aircraft. Which use the thinnest, lightest wire available. Generally with thin, teflon-type insulation. It's all about weight and bulk. The wire itself is nothing special. Virtually all connectors are crimp-on, either splices or to pins in larger connectors.
So basically except for being smaller gauge, and with fancier insulation than home speaker wire, there nothing overly special about the wire. There are a number of shielded wire on aircraft, but most is so much thinner than what you are used as shielded that you would not even realize it is shielded. (I have been an aircraft technician for over 25 years).
As to your "proof", simply do a search. There are many, many scientific tests using measurements that show zero difference in the performance of simple zip cord to ultra-expensive speaker cables. There are just as many on digital cables, optical cables.
The only tests I have ever seen that have shown improvements in cables are subjective ones based on questionable user-listening tests, and even most of those have a margin of error great enough to make any firm conclusion impossible.

As to your "proof", simply do a search. There are many, many scientific tests using measurements that show zero difference in the performance of simple zip cord to ultra-expensive speaker cables. There are just as many on digital cables, optical cables.


any link to the tests done?

Now wait, you guys tell me to scientifically prove that there is a difference and when asked the same question you say "do a search". Come on, show me your proof. I too am an A/P and I can tell you that FAA specs are very tight for a reason. Sometimes a little overboard but I wouldn't want my family flying on an aircraft that was wired with HD zip cable!

The jitter differences in optical cables is largely irrelevent from the point of audibility. Now, if one cable, for some unknown reason, transmits light very poorly that might cause some problems but then you're simply dealing with a broken cable.

Let's assume a 6' distance:

If one can perceive an "audible" difference between a cheap optical cable and an expensive optical cable, would there be an "audible" difference between using an RG59 and RG6 digital coax cable?

Copper clad steel center conductor and solid copper? Is quad sheild better for "audible" quality? ;)

I think not...

I too am an A/P and I can tell you that FAA specs are very tight for a reason. Sometimes a little overboard but I wouldn't want my family flying on an aircraft that was wired with HD zip cable!


Yes, the FAA, MIL, and AN specs (usually) are very tight for specific reasons - safety and reliability immediately come to mind. Those two factors are of considerably different levels of importance for home use of optical cables and speaker wire vs. aircraft cabling.

BTW- if "aircraft" cable is so good, why does in-flight audio sound so bad? ;)

Now wait, you guys tell me to scientifically prove that there is a difference and when asked the same question you say "do a search".

You are the one that cocked-off about some huge change. It's your burden of proof. Asking someone else to prove you didn't hear the change is a cop out. How does one prove something doesn't exist?

You guys are the ones claiming that scientific proof exists to back up your claims. I am simply asking that you provide that proof so that we can all be as intelligent as you are on this matter.

There is no burden of proof on my part, however I have provided you with the results of a triple blind test which backs up my opinion. We heard a difference, period, end of story. You say I didn't and that proof exists to refute my claims. Show me the proof. If you can't then maybe you should all just stop posting your opinions as facts and get back to what these forums are for, sharing opinions on A/V gear!

You all have enlightened me greatly with your arrogance and your ignorance. Your opinions will hold very little weight in my book. It is a good thing that courts of law do not operate under the same assumptions that you all hold, guilty under proven otherwise!

Wow! I started this post to get to the bottom of the difference in quality between expensive and inexpensive optical cables (if there is any at all). I did not think cyber butt-kicking would insue. I wanted to say thanks to all who helped clear up the murky water for me. I received alot of helpful information. :)

You guys are the ones claiming that scientific proof exists to back up your claims. I am simply asking that you provide that proof so that we can all be as intelligent as you are on this matter.

You're asking us tp prove a negative, which is illogical...but that's over your head...so just go with your wifes advice.

It is a good thing that courts of law do not operate under the same assumptions that you all hold, guilty under proven otherwise!

Lucky the courts haven't taken an interest in audio snake oil. Of course, when you sell a product and make only intangible claims of it's performance there can be no lawsuit. How convenient, don't you think?

Wow, insults and derogatory comments, your mother must be proud!

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/doeswirematter.htm

The sound from a high quality optic will give you a much fully, jitter free signal.

Having built these things in a past life at the pro level, I can assure you: with a digital connection, either you can recover the signal, or you can't. Once you can recover the signal, no further improvement is possible.

The jitter comes from your DAC, not from the signalling cable. Only if the DAC output clock was tied to the input clock of the digital cable would there be a possibility of the connection introducing jitter, and I've never worked on a design where that was the case. Sometimes, however, there will be an indirect connection, in that a PLL will slave off the input signal. However, because of the nature of the PLL, jitter in the input signal will not affect jitter on the output -- that's the whole point of a PLL.

Nobody debates that inductance and capacitance changes the electrical properties of the wires/cables. The problem is that the differences in these values in "normal" cables have negligible, if any, effect at audio frequencies.

Certainly, there are some cables designed and built using methods that cause them to have significantly higher values of L and C than do "normal" cables. Generally, these are not the subject of debate because their PURPOSE is to affect the sound.

Personally, I prefer cables that do not intentionally alter the sound - perhaps more precisely, alter the sound as little as possible. AFAIK, this means cables with the lowest L and C values.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/doeswirematter.htm


Did you even read this part it kind of blows your invalid tet out of the water. And if you did a real DBT test then you need to head over to the Randi site and learn how to claim your 1 million dollars.

"A well-insulated, well-shielded, physically durable, low-capacitance cable terminated with fully-shielded, impedance-matched connectors that make sound electrical contact with both the coax and the jack will outperform all comers--cheap or expensive--every time. Electrons don't know how much you spend on cable; they only know what your cable looks like inside."

Many cables, even RCA or Philips sold at various stores, meet the above criteria. I would though like to hear about a triple blind test Izoid. You do REALIZE that in a triple blind test no one knows the identity of the cables. Neither the participants, the tester, or the person who set up the test for the tester.

Yeah, I have to agree just letting your spouse listen to a few minutes to each cable is hardly conclusive evidence.

If you're satisfied with the more expensive stuff, so be it.

High quality optical cables will ALWAYS outperform lower quality cables. The sound from a high quality optic will give you a much fully, jitter free signal. If you have bottom end equipment you will not see much improvement but with higher quality gear the improvement will be substantial.

Izoid, I'd like you to think for a bit on what you wrote above because frankly, you have it backwards with your conclusion. Allow me to explain.

I'll simply focus on coax type cables but to relate it to optical cables is not that hard to do. Now, BJ makes a very decent cable. With respect to the transmission of digital signals, what is specified is that the cable should be 75 +/- 5 ohms. While it is nice to have a consistency, end to end, it's not a terrible thing to have a minor mismatch at the ends because the distance of that mismatch is quite short. Mismatches become more critical as the frequency of the signal goes up, but digital transmission is not particularly taxing since the frequencies are pretty short. Were it truly critical, you'd not see RCA connectors but 'N', BNC, or something else. You don't.
Your source, in this case a CDP, has a certain drive current capability. Now a cable has capacitance and that capacitance is cumulative over distance. What this means with respect to current drive capacity is that it cause a slight rounding of the signal. This makes the transition from 0 to 1 a little less clear. The capacitance of an RG6 or RG59 is pretty close but let's imagine a cable that's got a lots more capacitance. Say 10x. Maybe that comes from the type of cable. Maybe it's a result of distance.

Now some devices, call them destinations, have a particularly easy time dealing with this. They don't derive their clock from the irregularities, which are made more severe by the capacitance, and hence are robustly designed. You'll find this approach in consumer level receivers at various price points. OTOH, there are destinations that do derive their clock from the incoming data and when that data has transitions that are less precise, the DAC's slew all over the place with audible consequences. That's what you may find in high quality (read pricey, hi-end, limited distribuition, whatever) gear. Robustly designed gear will not show a difference because they cope. Gear that's not robustly designed has issues. Therefore, don't go searching for a cable to compensate for what a destination ought to have been able to do because frankly, it's a POS regardless of what anyone says. It is revealing only in the sense that it's revealing of design incompetence.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/doeswirematter.htm


I find that article interesting. A place that makes cables telling you that the cable you choose could possibly make a difference in your system performance. Go figure. Jim Jones will tell you how great his Kool-aid is if you ask him, wanna drink some?

You've got to read the BJ article very very carefully to know what he is saying and what he is not.

I find that article interesting. A place that makes cables telling you that the cable you choose could possibly make a difference in your system performance. Go figure. Jim Jones will tell you how great his Kool-aid is if you ask him, wanna drink some?


Well, a bunch of guys who don't think that cables can make a difference telling you that cables don't make a difference are real credible also. I am not the only person who has heard a difference in sound quality using high grade cables. You are not the only ones who don't hear that difference. So who is correct?

I have no idea what you did izoid and what you base your findings on. The triple blind test comment didn't have much gravitas.

So far you have given me nothing but your opinions. They are hardly convincing me that mine are wrong.

I cant speak for the space shuttle, but I assume it is similar to aircraft. Which use the thinnest, lightest wire available. Generally with thin, teflon-type insulation. It's all about weight and bulk. The wire itself is nothing special. Virtually all connectors are crimp-on, either splices or to pins in larger connectors.
So basically except for being smaller gauge, and with fancier insulation than home speaker wire, there nothing overly special about the wire. There are a number of shielded wire on aircraft, but most is so much thinner than what you are used as shielded that you would not even realize it is shielded. (I have been an aircraft technician for over 25 years).
As to your "proof", simply do a search. There are many, many scientific tests using measurements that show zero difference in the performance of simple zip cord to ultra-expensive speaker cables. There are just as many on digital cables, optical cables.
The only tests I have ever seen that have shown improvements in cables are subjective ones based on questionable user-listening tests, and even most of those have a margin of error great enough to make any firm conclusion impossible.
I agree 100% with you- My only comment is that throw-away cables that come with components have inferior connectors and minimal wire thickness. All you need is inexpensive gold connectors and inexpensive thick speaker wire-I use 12 gauge copper wire.
Richard

So far you have given me nothing but your opinions. They are hardly convincing me that mine are wrong.

Well, you did seem to be making testable claims, right? That cables are audibly different.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Usual sighted comparisons? Unreliable at best. DBT? Protocols?

What will you accept to convince you that you are wrong? Maybe nothing will, then we don't need to expend effort.

Well, a bunch of guys who don't think that cables can make a difference telling you that cables don't make a difference are real credible also. I am not the only person who has heard a difference in sound quality using high grade cables. You are not the only ones who don't hear that difference. So who is correct?

I tend to take the opinion of those who actually try to use science to explain why there is, is not, or could be a difference vs those who purely leave it to "it's true because my wife heard it" crowd.

As has been stated previously, differences in electrical properties of inductance and capacitance amongst "normal" cables are such that they represent minute (at best) differences in electrical performance at audio frequencies. These electrical differences are measurable with lab instruments but below generally recognized levels of audible perception.

So, now that I have explained at a very simplified 10,000-ft level why "normal" cables don't sound different, it's your turn to explain the properties of your cables and why/how those properties alter the sound quite obviously for the better vs. the previous cable you had.

BTW- if "aircraft" cable is so good, why does in-flight audio sound so bad? ;)


They didn't use 'golden ear' approved cabling. :D

Wow! I started this post to get to the bottom of the difference in quality between expensive and inexpensive optical cables (if there is any at all). I did not think cyber butt-kicking would insue. I wanted to say thanks to all who helped clear up the murky water for me. I received alot of helpful information. :)


Hey, you came to a hobby website for info :D This happens in other hobby websites that rely on human subjects as the arbiters of reality, can be tested, etc. :D
Certainly an art website is art and preferences. ;)

Music and the enjoyment of it is an art form, it is not science. Why does one amp create a wide, deep soundfield while another seems flat and one dimensional. Maybe it doesn't, after all, I can't scientifically prove that there is a difference. I will just continue to enjoy my system with my new wire whille you enjoy your old lamp cord.

An alternative consideration
If you have an accessory, which is not based on sound physical principles and has no scientific basis and is worthless but it incrementally increases a person's enjoyment of his music and equipment, it should be included in his system even if it degrades the sound and he is the only one that can hear an improvement. Remember it's what the owner of the system enjoys and not what we enjoy. Sound is scientific for some and an art for others.
Richard

Music and the enjoyment of it is an art form, it is not science.

Sure. Music is art, the enjoyment may be an art although it may not be.

However, we are talking about sending an electrical signal down a piece of wire, not composing a symphony piece or playing the instruments therein.

And yes, I do thoroughly enjoy my speaker wire - AKA low voltage landscape lighting cable.

when you look at a van gogh painting some can feel the striking effects while others may comment on the high price against the costs of canvas and oil used

music and sound effects are two different things too

. Why does one amp create a wide, deep soundfield while another seems flat and one dimensional. Maybe it doesn't, after all, I can't scientifically prove that there is a difference.

Actually, if you could measure the system without affecting it (Heisenberg may make this harder than it should be), you probably COULD see the difference. Phase response. Slew rate. Impedance matching to speakers. Ringing. Filtering. There could be lots of reasons why the amplifiers are actually different.

Music and the enjoyment of it is an art form, it is not science.

Yes, it is. Recording it, reproducing it is science. Frightening, isn't it.

Why does one amp create a wide, deep soundfield while another seems flat and one dimensional. Maybe it doesn't, after all, I can't scientifically prove that there is a difference. I will just continue to enjoy my system with my new wire whille you enjoy your old lamp cord.

Sure you can. conduct a DBT comparison between it and another and see if your speculation is correct, or not.
If not correct, not much to investigate. If it is, then, we can investigate what exactly is the cause.

And, just a small secret between you and me, we don't listen to old lamp cord. We listen to the music and only the music and enjoy it immensely. :D

if recording and reproducing music is science, how come there are so many crappy recordings around? be the media is LP, cd, sacd, dvd-a or even multi channel format of movies

remixing soundtracks is an art. just ask any remix engineers. similarly not everyone who can hold a brush can be a good painter

Because many of the recordings are geared towards being played back on radio while you're listening to it in a car?

Because a lot of stuff just sucks?

Incompetence?

remixing soundtracks is an art. just ask any remix engineers. similarly not everyone who can hold a brush can be a good painter
Certainly. Depends on where that art is going to be shown though, don't you think?

Well, a bunch of guys who don't think that cables can make a difference telling you that cables don't make a difference are real credible also. I am not the only person who has heard a difference in sound quality using high grade cables. You are not the only ones who don't hear that difference. So who is correct?
Here is a method you may want to try yourself. I am going to give it a go in the next few weeks.

http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

Here is a method you may want to try yourself. I am going to give it a go in the next few weeks.

http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm


Sorry, that will not show audible difference. It will show that an amp can amplify very small differences that are not audible for many reasons.

Sorry, that will not show audible difference. It will show that an amp can amplify very small differences that are not audible for many reasons.I imagine it depends on what you are testing. There is a nice thread over on Madisound about using it for lots of things other than testing cable audibility etc. (not that I think that it will change people's minds one way or the other) but people should do the work rather than talking about it.

I'm playing with it too.

Note: when using Audio DiffMaker, do more than one take of each source (pre- and post-change), because there may be sub-sample phase differences in the recordings that will show through. Then do all the diffs (NxM) and consider them all.

Most certainly. Taking a single point is always fraught with danger.