Best digital cable - Page 2

Sweeping the cable is really the best way to go.!! This way you know the performace of the wire and connector together, why can't these companies give you a sweep sheet of the component you buy..?? especially the big dollar one's.

All it would take is a signal generator with baseline levels recorded on analyzer and the same analyzer could record your end result with the piece of cable you purchased...

Now I am waiting for somebody who doesn't understand RF to tell us this doesn't work for SPDIF in the digital portion.

This is too damned funny..
Here at work,we use standard fibre cable to interconnect servers...at 10Gb/s.
Yes..you heard that right. 10 Gigabits per second. As in, almost 3x more bandwidth than raw, uncompressed HDMI. Such fibre cable costs around $1/ft. The exact same cable is used for fibre channel storage arrays at 2Gb...and the same cable will be used for upcoming 40Gb/s technology.

So for all those bull*#(* artists who try to claim that "copper is better for digital signals", or claim there are ANY differences in fibre cable..give it a rest.

What DOES make a huge difference is the transceiver technology..you know, that funny hole the cable plugs into? A quality 10Gb/s XFP transceiver runs around $500. The cable itself is fairly meaningless..

Dunno bout digital but speaker analog cables made a significant difference to my ear. Kinda embarassed to admit this..
I got used to listening to a certain cable (Au24) for a couple weeks then tried the new cable (purist audio). I could hear details that I didn't before. FWIW...

in all likelyhood... no you didnt.

I do not say that to be antagonistic. THe reality is that there is not one test anywhere anytime that has even moderate controls in place where anybody anywhere anytime EVER was able to reliably tell the difference (let alone preference) between two cables of sufficient construction.

Nobody seems to realize how strong their own bias is in clouding their ability to review a wire. For details, go to the thread where Monster cable speaker wire went against some horrendously expensive transparent wire. in the end, the testee was not able to reliable identify one or the other. (within the conditions of that test)

So while lots of people claim all manner of discoveries when comparing wires... nothing has ever been proven.

[quote=Dizzman;12512586]

Nobody seems to realize how strong their own bias is in clouding their ability to review a wire. QUOTE]

True. I do not understand why perfectly sane and seemingly smart people do not understand that.

You should kow better than most. When one sees some of the tricks at the shows on the strip, you see things that are amazing but since they are so amazing, you assume they cannot be real.

If somebody gives me something to try in my system and i plug it in and hear a change, then i have to assume the thing improved it.

It takes a lot of time to take the step to say "wow, that was amazing, i need to try a blind trial to ensure i am hearing what i thought i heard." IN most cases, if we hear something or see something, we accept it. this is human nature.

I love it. Now the accusation is that the more expensive the cable, the more likely it is to have poor quality control and sound different because, basically, it's broken.

Priceless. Let rational folks sit back and think about this statement for awhile. If they never come back here it's no wonder.

How do you figure?

What keeps being said is that once you get past a certain level of quality build and proper construction and materials (gauge etc,) there is no audible difference. and to this point in recorded history, nobody has ever shown in any test with even moderate controls in place that things are any different.

Actually, despite schticker's attempt to snark, his proposed argument is not without its merit. It's simply not that hard to make an accurate digital cable. Making the task harder than necessary, through a more complex physical design, drives up defect rates.

Of course, driving manufacturing costs down to dirt can do the same thing---hence the balancing point Dizzman is making.

And it will probably always be that way, since the ones that care about cable differences are less likely to DBT.

DBTs strike me as a way to constantly prove to a group of people they're right, which indicates a certain level of insecurity in their position. Experienced audiophiles need no such self-stroking to be confident in their choices.

You haven't been around here much lately, have you.

Ahahahaha! Love it!

Wow... that is the whole point of the debate. just because you THINK something is not better does not make it so. we can point to a zillion different examples of how nothing changed but people percieved it as far better.

When somebody rants and raves about how a plate of gravel sitting on their CD player impoved the depth of their soundstage and helped bring them to Eargasm much quicker... then somebody has to say... Really. lets let you listen when you do not know if the plate is there or not to see if the eargasm happens just as quickly.

And the big thing here is that IF there is something to all this, imagine how well sales would do for a company that showed some evidence that it actually did something.

It is not like those on the other side of the aisle are sitting here ridiculing any component over 500$. lots of folks here have really expensive stuff. BUT, when we hear of a new component or widget that promises magical properties that seem to be outside of the physical universe... we think... Hmmm... i wonder if it does anything? then we listen and are amazed as well at its improvements. then we do a basic blind test to see if it really is or if it is out perception playing tricks... and guess what. Usually it is.

I would say that those who do not try to do some basic form of blind testing to see if an improvement is real are the ones who are irrational. Testing is not done to provide ammo for when one is sitting on ones high horse... it is done to make sure that one is hearing what they THINK they are hearing.

If you just blindly trust your perceptions, then lets have madame cleo build the system.

Well of course. We can point to a zillion more where an expected improvement falls well short. Is that test more or less valid?


Let's be cautious not to roll fringe practices in with simple cable swaps. The two issues are completely different, with different types of people taking heed to one over the other.


I challenge you to point to a well-known cable company that's having trouble making money my friend.


I think if you actually knew any of these people you would see that instead of wackjobs attempting to pull minor subtleties out of the differences in cabling, you would instead see that only when a change is really obvious do the raves come in. Sometimes perception is adequate when the difference is substantial.

I have used this analogy many times before:

I work in the television and feature film mastering business specifically in systems engineering - have done so for 25 years. We don't use any of these esoteric cable products. We mainly use Belden and Canare cable stock.

Now the audiophile and videophile community comes back and says "figures, the media industry is a bunch of cut throat for profits and could care less about sound or image quality".

Well then why do we spend $40,000 for a 32in monitor. $80,000 for a VCR? Studio HDTV cameras at $100,000+? Film to tape transfer machines at $1,000,000, that's right a million! Now if a $1500 power cord or a $500 BNC cable would offer any improvement don't you think we would spend that paultry amount relation to the base product if it made even a slight difference?

P.S. Don't bother posting links to Britney Spears or other pop stars home recording studio using esoteric cable products! Who do you think paid for those home studios?

When you seemingly defy the laws of physics... you are on the fringe. there is not an exotic out there that can point to any science that improves performance in or near to the audible band. Not to be putting somethign out htere that might be out of context, but Mike L was swearing up and down that he could tel lthe differences between his exotics and Monster. when sighted he sure could, as could others in the room. When sight was removed from the test... then suddently we were at the same odds as chance.


I have never claimed that they are not making money hand over fist. hell if i was looking for a business to start, one where you can charge whatever you want and you need provide no proof whatsoever of its benefits and any science can be made up by monkeys at a typewriter seems to be a good one.

I said that IF they could show that they actually did something and could be solidly identified in a real test as superior... look at how much they COULD make.


What you blindly fail to understand is that

THis is a red herring. in almost EVERY SINGLE CASE, when these same improvements are subjected to a test where bias is removed... they dissapear. argue all you want, but your statement is purely opinion. Mine is fact. And please, if i am wrong, point to a test with even moderate to mild controls in place where somebody ANYBODY identified something exotic.

If you cannot, then we are back to the argument about how no blind test is needed because it is so obvious a deaf man could identify it. And that one, is flat out wrong.

To carry on what GLimmie said, why doesn't morbius (who works at Lawrence Livermore national labs doing VERY high end government research) use exotic anything if it improves things.


And Glimmie, i thought a transfer system was much more than a million by now. the last time i recall us selling one (at a previous company we were a rank dealer) was about 13 years ago and it was a million then!

Well that's correct. The telecine machine alone is $1m. But you need a few more things to make a system like a $400K color corrector, monitor, HD VCR, plus lot's of other little $5k-$10K boxes.

All plugged into ordinary wiremold power strips (IG of course) with $2.10* Belden power cords.

* Just picked up another box of 25 last week.

Now we do have a 250kva plant UPS system. But that's to protect from power hits and surges. It's doesn't improve the image or sound quality a bit.

Well of course. So how do you know what constitutes sufficiently substantial? You know it when you see it? er, I mean, hear it? (or do I mean that?)

Oh yeah, and if you stick to this idea then what's the point anyway? If the material you buy and play on your "reference" system is so flawed, why spend thousands on the last mile so to speak? Seems a bit pointless doesn't it?

Same here Glim. I have been a live and recording engineer for 20 years now. It is what I do for a living not my hobby. Yet all the audiophilles would rather listen to the market hype VS facts. I have banged my head against this wall alot. Not giving up though. They will just tell you that we are outdated that physics and science has not discovered why the snake oil salesmen can make magic. They will tell you that physics and science no longer kas a place in cables.

Same reason the government spends ten grand for a toilet seat.

I wonder if you could point to the reasons why those devices cost what they do, correct?

I jest because I'm aware of these things. But it would be an interesting study. I suspect you will come back with "it costs so much because of the requirements and demands, and of course durability." Then, you'll question the motives of an audiophile when he spends a little more for a cable or CD player I guarantee the price delta is far higher on your end.

Here is a point that is being missed but said over and over, Televsion broadcast be it local or major, i.e. HBO,Showtime,ESPN, etc, all use similar cables in their studio's and broadcast rooms to get their signal out. But some High-End tech person will swear they can squeeze out a better picture than what they putting out; via their 6'-$1,000 cable..

How do you people figure..? Like Gimmie said do you own a $32,000 monitor to see the difference..? or what about sitting in their audio production rooms to know what it should sound like..?

These questions not too many people can say they have seen or heard on this forum, but people do say they know how it should sound..? How..?

Next someone will say how they can tell the difference between Gig-e video transport and satellite ..?

I compare the audio tweaks to tricked out cars. It's a proven fact that a massive spoiler on the back of a Honda Civic isn't going to do anything until 200 MPH, and none of these street legal cars will/can do 200 MPH, but that doesn't prevent the ^%*^&*^$* (insert your own expletive there!) from buying them like crazy. The spoiler companies make money just like the cable companies. That doesn't mean they do any good.

This shows how little you understand the purpose of ABX tests, especially among professional engineers (unlike the self described types). The blind tests merely serve to ensure the differences they thought they heard are real. Also, it helps them determine if there is a difference in quality between to seemingly similar parts.

Again, you seem to misunderstand the dynamic. It is the so called "experienced audiophles" who like to have their ego stroked and why so often they are unwilling to have any objective test done against their presumptions. Ironically the argument is that the blind tests cannot tell minor differences (which they can; e.g. if you don't level match to .1 db, differences may be heard), yet they are claiming dramatic differences, like your quote suggests.

Cables make no difference, it has been proven 1000 times with analog and 1000 times with digital.

It is time to give it a break.

If I didn't know better I'd think bluray_1080p was back

To my mind, if you want the best digital cable, find one that's got the lowest capacitance and pay accordingly.

Now that's an insult.

But most aftermarket spoiler companies, are not claiming any performance from these spoilers. Now aftermarket exhaust, intakes, lowering kit etc will give you proven performance increases. The spoilers are just part of the overall look of the Car. I have come to believe that several of the aftermarket cable companies are basically doing the same thing. They are making audiophile jewelry. Slap a big box on the cable, wrap it up with a nice mesh shield, and charge $20,000. Then have somebody review it, and claim it made them get up and dance. If you pay the absurd prices that the cable companines are charging, anybody should be able to hear the differences, not just the golden ears, that have had time to practice listening with these cables in place.