I'm using HDMI cables that cost me £2.99 and I get a great picture and sound, my mate uses cables that cost him 15 quid each and the quality of picture and sound is no different! for once more doesn't always mean better!!!!
Yes they did a test on 'The Gadget Show' between a cheap set of cables and an expensive set, and they couldnt tell the difference.
The Mk 1 Human Earhole is indeed a fine instrument and an essential part of any decent sound engineers toolbox. But is in no way perfect.
And you have obviously never used professional test gear if you query whether the test gear is good enough. I use test gear that can measure to an accuracy of under 0.1dB and fractions of a percent distortion. And noise virtually down to the theoretical limit of an electronic circuit.
Believe me a level change of 0.1dB is all but inaudible. So I would have to say that if you can hear it, you can measure it. Now whether or how these measurements relate directly to the quality of the listening experience is another matter.
Don't forget it is relatively easy to fool the ear/brain. it is after all the basis of perceptual coding techniques as used to encode an mp3 audio file for instance.
If you play two tones with closely spaced frequencies you only hear the louder of the two. The closer they are in frequency the smaller the gap in loudness can be to make the quieter one inaudible.
And if you think about it for a second. A CD track has a bitrate of 1,411,200 bits per second. A mp3 file may be just 128,000 bits per second. So in the encoding process some 1,283,200 bits per second are being discarded, very nearly 91% :eek: But an mp3 doesn't sound as bad as the raw figure would lead you to believe (still pretty crap though which is why I don't own an mp3 player! )
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the test instruments, but whether they are measuring the things that matter. There's more to music than dB levels and frequency response.
As an engineer (of sorts) myself, there's the temptation to assume that, if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Thing is, when you listen, rather than measure, you can hear the differences between parts of the system that shouldn't make a difference, like cables.
I did most of my subjective listening when vinyl was king. I was seduced into switching to CD by the lack of surface noise and ease of use. Too late, I realised that I didn't actually enjoy listening to music on CD. The emotion was gone.
Technically, CD probably measures better than vinyl, but it's lifeless, no soul.
Have you ever heard a track on the radio,in the car, or at a club and really liked it? You buy the CD, take it home and play it on a decent system. It leaves you cold.
Why's that? - it measures better at home on a quality system, so why don't you enjoy it more?
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the test instruments, but whether they are measuring the things that matter. There's more to music than dB levels and frequency response.
As an engineer (of sorts) myself, there's the temptation to assume that, if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Thing is, when you listen, rather than measure, you can hear the differences between parts of the system that shouldn't make a difference, like cables.
This chink in the objectivist armour (the possibility that we might be measuring the wrong thing) is filled by properly conducted double-blind ABX testing. Under those conditions, no audible or visual difference between adequately specified cables (of all types - power, speaker or signal) and "exotica" can be detected at a statistically significant level.
The rationalist therefore concludes that any apparent difference is a placebo effect, and that the only real difference is the size of the dent the cables make in your bank account.
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the test instruments, but whether they are measuring the things that matter. There's more to music than dB levels and frequency response.
As an engineer (of sorts) myself, there's the temptation to assume that, if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Thing is, when you listen, rather than measure, you can hear the differences between parts of the system that shouldn't make a difference, like cables.
I did most of my subjective listening when vinyl was king. I was seduced into switching to CD by the lack of surface noise and ease of use. Too late, I realised that I didn't actually enjoy listening to music on CD. The emotion was gone.
Technically, CD probably measures better than vinyl, but it's lifeless, no soul.
Have you ever heard a track on the radio,in the car, or at a club and really liked it? You buy the CD, take it home and play it on a decent system. It leaves you cold.
Why's that? - it measures better at home on a quality system, so why don't you enjoy it more?
You've grown up with the noise and distortions introduced by the equipment and they've become part of the music so your brain expects them and if they aren't there then your enjoyment is decreased. If you hadn't grown up with them then they would be a real pain now - nostalgia is wonderful.
However these distortions introduced by the old kit are easily measurable.
Have you ever heard a track on the radio,in the car, or at a club and really liked it? You buy the CD, take it home and play it on a decent system. It leaves you cold.
Why's that? - it measures better at home on a quality system, so why don't you enjoy it more?
A LONG time ago, there was a local record shop near here we used to frequent, and he had a topend demo system - Thorens deck, huge Goodmans speakers, Quad amp. You'd go there, listen to an album, sounded brilliant - take it home and it sounded rubbish!
CD is convenient and high quality, but some people seem to like poorer quality, like the mania for valve gear, far poorer quality, yet some people prefer the sound they give.
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the test instruments, but whether they are measuring the things that matter. There's more to music than dB levels and frequency response.
As an engineer (of sorts) myself, there's the temptation to assume that, if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Thing is, when you listen, rather than measure, you can hear the differences between parts of the system that shouldn't make a difference, like cables.
I did most of my subjective listening when vinyl was king. I was seduced into switching to CD by the lack of surface noise and ease of use. Too late, I realised that I didn't actually enjoy listening to music on CD. The emotion was gone.
Technically, CD probably measures better than vinyl, but it's lifeless, no soul.
Have you ever heard a track on the radio,in the car, or at a club and really liked it? You buy the CD, take it home and play it on a decent system. It leaves you cold.
Why's that? - it measures better at home on a quality system, so why don't you enjoy it more?
its because you havent consumed 25 pints and 20 shots of vodka!!
PS whats a decent system ??
my neighbour has Linn equipment and his vinyl sounds incredible
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the test instruments, but whether they are measuring the things that matter. There's more to music than dB levels and frequency response.
That debate has been going on as long as I have been reading HiFi mags (a very very long time ). Trouble is every time engineers come up with a new test the snake-oil peddlers keep moving the goalposts and insist the measurement has no relevance.
Measurements can give a guideline. For instance an amplifier with a 10dB dip in frequency response at 1kHz is going to sound pretty naff compared to one that is flat across the band. Same for other core measurements.
But the point is that people claim changing a component makes an audible difference. Since that must by definition mean differences in the air vibrations impacting the ear it follows that there must be differences in the electrical signals flowing through the kit making the noise.
If however the two signals prove to be identical then how can they possibly sound different? That defies all logic.
As an engineer (of sorts) myself, there's the temptation to assume that, if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Thing is, when you listen, rather than measure, you can hear the differences between parts of the system that shouldn't make a difference, like cables.
But cables can make a difference. they are complex networks of resistance, capacitance and inductance. Therefore they act like filters and can alter the signal passing through them. So it is entirely possible that cables alter the sound (analogue anyway).
As for it only exists if you measure it. Try talking to a quantum physicist about that Thing is you can analyse an electrical signal flowing through a wire to a high level of accuracy. Certainly enough I would hope to see differences that might explain the differences heard by the listener.
I did most of my subjective listening when vinyl was king. I was seduced into switching to CD by the lack of surface noise and ease of use. Too late, I realised that I didn't actually enjoy listening to music on CD. The emotion was gone.
Technically, CD probably measures better than vinyl, but it's lifeless, no soul.
Personally i would never go back to vinyl. I never did get this vinyl sounds better than CD thing. Different yes but better? Not so sure.
Have you ever heard a track on the radio,in the car, or at a club and really liked it? You buy the CD, take it home and play it on a decent system. It leaves you cold.
Why's that? - it measures better at home on a quality system, so why don't you enjoy it more?
If you want your home CD to sound the same as the radio you need a couple of things.
The first onverts the audio to a APT-X encoded bitstream to feed down a BT Kilostream line and the second is the (in)famous Otimod processor to mangle the sound.
And in a club the atmosphere probably plays its part. A few beverages and even the Birdie song sounds good:D
No one ever said that measurements told you how good something sounds. All they can tell you is how well the equipment conveys the information contained in the recording. How you perceive that information is an entirely different matter.
I know this much - I went looking for a pair of reasonably priced headphones many years ago. Went into a shop to compare various sets.
After careful listening of a single CD all sounded much the same. Except one - the Audio Technica ATH910's. These completely changed the entire mix of the CD. Instruments and detail not present on other sets were drawn out and the sound was much sweeter and detailed.
Whether the change was measurable or not I don't know. They all had similar frequency response range, and were all in approximately the same price range. But the ATH910s completely blew all the others away. I compared and swapped several times to make sure that what I was hearing was real and tangible. It was.
Bought them on the spot and haven't found anything that compares with them to this date. I've had them so long now that I've had to replace the outer pads and the inner speaker covers, which had rotted away. I must have had them for about 15 years now.
The ATH910s are still available, albeit in a more modern looking enclosure.
A lot of areas have been touched upon; vinyl vs CD, valves vs solid state, as well as the debate about digital cables.
FWIW I have heard analogue cables make a difference in the right system. The "right system" bit is important. Differences I can here at my local HiFi dealer's place don't necessarily translate to my system, but that doesn't mean they aren't there - it's just my system is balanced differently.
Similarly, the results I see with HDMI cables depend upon the system too.
The fact is that most peoples TVs are not set up correctly. So it's really no surprise that a £50 Monster cables make no appreciable difference. The display just isn't capable of showing any potential benefit.
I'll go further and say that on the short cable runs that most people use I'd be hard pushed to tell much of a difference between a £10 and a £50 HDMI even on a calibrated system unless the cheapie cable was really dreadful. But that's not the same as saying there is no difference.
So as far as the OP is concerned, Monster cables might be very good, but at short lengths in an uncalibrated system it's unlikely you'll see a difference.
A good tip for would be purchasers is to buy a budget HDMI lead and a copy of Digital Video Essentials (approx £14) and set up the user controls on their TV properly. It will have a much bigger impact for all their sources than a £50 HDMI.
To my ears valve sounds more pleasing. I'm aware that SS measures better, but there's a difference in the speed at which a valve allows electrons to flow that SS can never match. That translates in to what I and many others perceive to be a better and more musical sound.
A good halfway house is Class A solid state. Sugden do some fantastic Class A gear that I really like.
Unfortunately I can't have either valve or Class A in my system. But come the lottery win...:D
A lot of areas have been touched upon; vinyl vs CD, valves vs solid state, as well as the debate about digital cables.
FWIW I have heard analogue cables make a difference in the right system. The "right system" bit is important. Differences I can here at my local HiFi dealer's place don't necessarily translate to my system, but that doesn't mean they aren't there - it's just my system is balanced differently.
Similarly, the results I see with HDMI cables depend upon the system too.
The fact is that most peoples TVs are not set up correctly. So it's really no surprise that a £50 Monster cables make no appreciable difference. The display just isn't capable of showing any potential benefit.
I'll go further and say that on the short cable runs that most people use I'd be hard pushed to tell much of a difference between a £10 and a £50 HDMI even on a calibrated system unless the cheapie cable was really dreadful. But that's not the same as saying there is no difference.
So as far as the OP is concerned, Monster cables might be very good, but at short lengths in an uncalibrated system it's unlikely you'll see a difference.
A good tip for would be purchasers is to buy a budget HDMI lead and a copy of Digital Video Essentials (approx £14) and set up the user controls on their TV properly. It will have a much bigger impact for all their sources than a £50 HDMI.
Of course setting the TV up properly will have a big effect.
But swapping HDMI cables won't unless the cable is defective. The sole job of a HDMI cable is to deliver a string of ones and zeros from source to destination as accurately as possible. In other words without translating a one into a zero or vice versa and without dropping any ones or zeros.
If you get two cables that perform that job then the results as displayed on the TV panel will be the same. I fail to see how it can be otherwise.
How can 1000100111100011110001111 be any different to 1000100111100011110001111 fed into the signal processing circuit of the TV just because the first came over a 10p bit of damp string picked up at a car boot sale and the second came over some £10,000,000 cable hand crafted from a solid block of gold by 2000 virgins
It defies all logic as far as I can see.
And as others have pointed out why is ther not a similar market for exotic USB or network cables? After all what is the real difference between a bit of digital video/audio flowing up a HDMI lead and the bits of data flowing across an ethernet cable or USB?
Surely if some exotic cable material or construction can seriously enhance the picture quality of a TV signal then a similarly exotic USB cable between PC and printer will enhance the quality of your printouts?
So why isn't there a £10,000 USB cable out there, or am I just not looking hard enough?
...So why isn't there a £10,000 USB cable out there, or am I just not looking hard enough?
I'll sell you one for £10K if you like.:D
Interesting thought though, I've just thrown a couple of USB cables out that I don't need as they have no perceived resale value. I think HDMI cables will go that way eventually as you can already get decent ones for under £7.
CD is convenient and high quality, but some people seem to like poorer quality, like the mania for valve gear, far poorer quality, yet some people prefer the sound they give.
Valve amplifiers are quite high in even order harmonics which gives quite a pleasant sound whereas many transistor amplifiers (especially with push pull output stages and large negative feedback) tend to have very low even order harmonics but do have higher odd order harmonics (compared to the even order) and this does not sound so nice.
The above can mean valve amplifiers sounding better than many well specified solid state amplifiers though solid state can also use class A amplifiers (or even AB) with low negative feedback to achieve the same affect.
All of this though is perfectly measurable and so is not into the realms of mysticism like better quality pictures from digital cables is.
Isn't it nice when a thread like this produces such interesting replies ?! and doesn't turn into the usual slang-fest.
A couple of interesting comments made such as people liking vinyl vs CD due to the warmer sounds etc....and how it might well be due to growing up with vinyl and accepting the crackles as part of the experience.... I wonder if the youth of today will look back with fondness at the compressed raspy digitised sounds of poorly compressed MP3's?
I'm still amazed that MP3's are so popular, much like the sometimes terrible image quality of digital TV (SD) almost going back a step in quality compared to what it replaces......
Amazing that a 128kbps MP3 music file is enjoyed as much as a 44.1kHz CD track.
Amazing that a 128kbps MP3 music file is enjoyed as much as a 44.1kHz CD track.
Even more amazing when the mp3 in question had been ripped from CD to an iPod. Lifted of the iPod converted to WMA then burnt back to CD, ripped again to an iPod then finally converted from the iPod to mp3
Even more amazing when the mp3 in question had been ripped from CD to an iPod. Lifted of the iPod converted to WMA then burnt back to CD, ripped again to an iPod then finally converted from the iPod to mp3
I have vinyl, and an LP12 to listen to it on. I don't do MP3, cos it sounds crap to me, but the lead that connects my music server to my amp cost £5. All my CDs and my vinyl is ripped to the server, but not compressed, it's 400Gb, and I don't have 600CDs yet. I can clearly hear the difference between even a 320Kb/s rip and the original on my system, it being made in Salisbury, but cannot hear the difference between a £5 digital coax and a £50 digital coax.
For stereo reproduction you can make the sound of a system sound better/worse just by moving the speakers regardless of cables.
Incorrectly positioned and you will lose the stereo effect. Having them around 2m apart and towed in slightly to the listening position will reward the listener.
Moving speakers closer/further from boundary walls also has an effect on the overall sound. Bass can sound woolly/boomy when placed to close, begin pulling them out and the bass starts to sound more punchy and tight.
Speaker design has an affect on where there sound best too. Rear ported speakers are best positioned away from walls, whereas front ported speakers have more tolerance when they are placed closer.
Furnishings and floor coverings affect sound too. A carpeted/soft furnished room will often sound warmer than one that has wooden floors and little soft furnishings.
All go hand in hand - a reasonable budget for such a system - reasonable budget for cables (bin the supplied cables) - take care when setting up and position speakers. Same applies for multichannel audio too.
A good stereo system is not to hard to implement in an average front room, but the system can start to take over when you go multichannel, not everyone (wife/partner) wants 5/6/7 speakers and a sub kicking about in the front room, this is where the compromises come into force and where the sound can suffer.
But swapping HDMI cables won't unless the cable is defective.The sole job of a HDMI cable is to deliver a string of ones and zeros from source to destination as accurately as possible. In other words without translating a one into a zero or vice versa and without dropping any ones or zeros.
If you get two cables that perform that job then the results as displayed on the TV panel will be the same. I fail to see how it can be otherwise.
How can 1000100111100011110001111 be any different to 1000100111100011110001111 ...
The 0's and 1's argument is used a lot, and on the face of it it's hard to refute the logic, but IMO it does oversimplify the process and ignores the potential for errors as I understand it.
***I really want this next section to be an exchange of ideas and proof, and to be discussed in laymans terms. Please, no pissing contests or petty point scoring ***
We know that the amount of data flowing through a cable increases with signal resolution. Is it safe to assume that the speed of transmission is fixed, or does anyone have proof that it also increases with resolution?
If the speed remains constant then either the duration of the pulses or the gaps between bits of data must shrink as resolution increases. Does this then mean that the transistors responsible for generating the 0's and 1's have to work at a faster rate? It's known that transistors take a short period of time to switch from low to high, and vice versa. There's also an additional period of time where the transistor high output fluctuates until it settles. These are both possible causes of data corruption. The same thing could also be affecting the timing signals too.
Now if we look at the signal itself - as I see it the 0's and 1's argument kind of glosses over the fact that there are millions of pixels worth of data being transfered for every 50th of a seconds worth of image. Is it possible (however improbable it might be) that not all of that data arrives intact? Despite error correction there still might be some degradation in the signal enough that perhaps changes the shade of an individual pixel? The display might still be happy; after all, it thinks it has a valid description for that pixel so it is still a viable dot of light; it's just not quite the same colour of dot that the source intended. Could that sort of corruption be described as noise?
Now let's look at the conductors. Unless anyone knows differently can we take it that we are dealing with some form of metal, - probably copper?
I know that cables can be made with different specifications affecting their transparency to a signal. This is measured and expressed as a bandwidth (MHz, GHz etc) and attenuation over distance (dB/100m at specific frequencies). Whether the signal is a sine wave representing an analogue signal or a square wave representing 0's & 1's it is still a voltage. How much of that voltage gets through is governed by the attenuation. How much distortion there is in the waveform is governed by the bandwidth. The result could be a signal that started as a square wave but by the time it has gone through the cable its verticals become sloped and its height is reduced. Again, the same distortions could be happening with the timing signals.
I check to see what claims Monster made for their cables and came across an interesting image of the square waves through two cables. Link here
[Please, no sarky remarks about snake oil etc. I don't sell Monster cables, and I don't waste my customers money on premium cables where something more affordable will do the job just as well. ]
What struck me most about the two images is how much distortion there is in the right hand one. They don't say how these images were derived so we have to take it with a pinch of salt, but I wouldn't discount the idea that digital signals can be corrupted.
Now, just for the record again, I don't sell Monster, and I don't waste my customers money on expensive cables when something more affordable will work just as well. I'm perfectly sure that short budget cables will work fine for most customers.
What I'm interested in doing is looking at 0's and 1's theory in closer detail.
Thank you.
What I'm interested in doing is looking at 0's and 1's theory in closer detail.
I think a lot of your points are good ones. A few observations though...
(1) The bit-rate does have to increase as the resolution increases, HDMI is a digital signal but it is timed fairly much like an analogue video signal
(2) There isn't any real error detection/correction in the video of HDMI.
(3) You could indeed get errors introduced into the video signal. However, I suspect that the kind of errors you would get wouldn't look like what people might expect between a "good" and a "bad" connection. Randomly distributed single bit errors could land at any bit of a pixel's data. So I'd say its is highly likely that if you were getting errors at all, Some of those errors would be affecting significant bits, and you'd be seeing really obviously incorrect pixels (ie sparklies).
(4) As I mentioned on another thread, it is all complicated further by HDCP. To get any of these type of errors on an HDCP encrypted stream, you'd need to have an error level in the range that could be corrected by the portions of the data carrying the HDCP protocol (so that the video could have errors but HDCP was still "OK"). I imagine this might be possible, but I've no idea of the level of error correction possible
(5) Related to (4), there are other bits of the signal that if they were receiving bit errors (presuming that these things are evenly distributed over video and non-video data) that I imagine could cause you to have more serious issues that might make you consider your cable "broken"
So really I just find it quite hard to believe that you could have errors in the signal that would make you think that the picture was just not not as good as an expensive lead. It seems much more likely to me that if it wasn't working, it would be not working in quite an obvious fashion.
If the speed remains constant then either the duration of the pulses or the gaps between bits of data must shrink as resolution increases. Does this then mean that the transistors responsible for generating the 0's and 1's have to work at a faster rate? It's known that transistors take a short period of time to switch from low to high, and vice versa. There's also an additional period of time where the transistor high output fluctuates until it settles. These are both possible causes of data corruption. The same thing could also be affecting the timing signals too.
That is correct but in a fully digital system the clock will be regenerated at the output probably using a phase lock loop with a very narrow loop band so there is no jitter in the next stage. The final stage is a TV panel and then all the pixels are loaded in one go so any jitter would be irrelevant anyway.
If the higher rates mean that the signal gets corrupted (either by inter-symbol interference or single bit errors) then the result will be pixels or sparkies, much worse and the errors are horrible. What you do not get are subtle changes - that is not possible.
Think of it as copying a computer text file, if you copy the characters exactly then the resulting file is identical to the first - any errors will result in incorrect characters.
This chink in the objectivist armour (the possibility that we might be measuring the wrong thing) is filled by properly conducted double-blind ABX testing. Under those conditions, no audible or visual difference between adequately specified cables (of all types - power, speaker or signal) and "exotica" can be detected at a statistically significant level.
The rationalist therefore concludes that any apparent difference is a placebo effect, and that the only real difference is the size of the dent the cables make in your bank account.
I'm sure that the placebo effect, or justifying to oneself the cost of a component, can happen, but that wouldn't explain why some people prefer the cheaper option some of the time. Maybe the "cheapskate effect"?
As an example, when I was using a vinyl system, I was buying a new pre/power amp from a top quality London dealer. he could've sold me an expensive interconnect, but he advised listening to one made from PTFE solid core "wire wrap" wire, the stuff used on old-style computer backplanes and for modifying PCBs.
With that particular combo, it sounded wonderful, better than a fancy shielded cable. Bought it for the cost of the plugs. No charge for the wire or labour.
I made similar interconnects for other components.
It also got me thinking about solid core speaker cables. To this day, I use 1.5mm or 2.5mm T&E mains cable for some speakers. Again, remarkably cheap.
You've grown up with the noise and distortions introduced by the equipment and they've become part of the music so your brain expects them and if they aren't there then your enjoyment is decreased. If you hadn't grown up with them then they would be a real pain now - nostalgia is wonderful.
However these distortions introduced by the old kit are easily measurable.
Absolutely. The distortion inherent in all pickup cartridges, tonearm wires and RIAA Eq stages. The warmth and spaciousness they can add to the music, when properly controlled, was what vinyl reproduction was all about.
Comments
Yes they did a test on 'The Gadget Show' between a cheap set of cables and an expensive set, and they couldnt tell the difference.
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the test instruments, but whether they are measuring the things that matter. There's more to music than dB levels and frequency response.
As an engineer (of sorts) myself, there's the temptation to assume that, if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Thing is, when you listen, rather than measure, you can hear the differences between parts of the system that shouldn't make a difference, like cables.
I did most of my subjective listening when vinyl was king. I was seduced into switching to CD by the lack of surface noise and ease of use. Too late, I realised that I didn't actually enjoy listening to music on CD. The emotion was gone.
Technically, CD probably measures better than vinyl, but it's lifeless, no soul.
Have you ever heard a track on the radio,in the car, or at a club and really liked it? You buy the CD, take it home and play it on a decent system. It leaves you cold.
Why's that? - it measures better at home on a quality system, so why don't you enjoy it more?
The rationalist therefore concludes that any apparent difference is a placebo effect, and that the only real difference is the size of the dent the cables make in your bank account.
However these distortions introduced by the old kit are easily measurable.
A LONG time ago, there was a local record shop near here we used to frequent, and he had a topend demo system - Thorens deck, huge Goodmans speakers, Quad amp. You'd go there, listen to an album, sounded brilliant - take it home and it sounded rubbish!
CD is convenient and high quality, but some people seem to like poorer quality, like the mania for valve gear, far poorer quality, yet some people prefer the sound they give.
its because you havent consumed 25 pints and 20 shots of vodka!!
PS whats a decent system ??
my neighbour has Linn equipment and his vinyl sounds incredible
Measurements can give a guideline. For instance an amplifier with a 10dB dip in frequency response at 1kHz is going to sound pretty naff compared to one that is flat across the band. Same for other core measurements.
But the point is that people claim changing a component makes an audible difference. Since that must by definition mean differences in the air vibrations impacting the ear it follows that there must be differences in the electrical signals flowing through the kit making the noise.
If however the two signals prove to be identical then how can they possibly sound different? That defies all logic.
But cables can make a difference. they are complex networks of resistance, capacitance and inductance. Therefore they act like filters and can alter the signal passing through them. So it is entirely possible that cables alter the sound (analogue anyway).
As for it only exists if you measure it. Try talking to a quantum physicist about that
Personally i would never go back to vinyl. I never did get this vinyl sounds better than CD thing. Different yes but better? Not so sure.
If you want your home CD to sound the same as the radio you need a couple of things.
A pair of these to connect CD to amplifier
http://www.aptx.com/content.asp?page=92
And one of these to process the s*** out of it.
http://www.orban.com/products/radio/fm/8500/
The first onverts the audio to a APT-X encoded bitstream to feed down a BT Kilostream line and the second is the (in)famous Otimod processor to mangle the sound.
And in a club the atmosphere probably plays its part. A few beverages and even the Birdie song sounds good:D
No one ever said that measurements told you how good something sounds. All they can tell you is how well the equipment conveys the information contained in the recording. How you perceive that information is an entirely different matter.
After careful listening of a single CD all sounded much the same. Except one - the Audio Technica ATH910's. These completely changed the entire mix of the CD. Instruments and detail not present on other sets were drawn out and the sound was much sweeter and detailed.
Whether the change was measurable or not I don't know. They all had similar frequency response range, and were all in approximately the same price range. But the ATH910s completely blew all the others away. I compared and swapped several times to make sure that what I was hearing was real and tangible. It was.
Bought them on the spot and haven't found anything that compares with them to this date. I've had them so long now that I've had to replace the outer pads and the inner speaker covers, which had rotted away. I must have had them for about 15 years now.
The ATH910s are still available, albeit in a more modern looking enclosure.
A lot of areas have been touched upon; vinyl vs CD, valves vs solid state, as well as the debate about digital cables.
FWIW I have heard analogue cables make a difference in the right system. The "right system" bit is important. Differences I can here at my local HiFi dealer's place don't necessarily translate to my system, but that doesn't mean they aren't there - it's just my system is balanced differently.
Similarly, the results I see with HDMI cables depend upon the system too.
The fact is that most peoples TVs are not set up correctly. So it's really no surprise that a £50 Monster cables make no appreciable difference. The display just isn't capable of showing any potential benefit.
I'll go further and say that on the short cable runs that most people use I'd be hard pushed to tell much of a difference between a £10 and a £50 HDMI even on a calibrated system unless the cheapie cable was really dreadful. But that's not the same as saying there is no difference.
So as far as the OP is concerned, Monster cables might be very good, but at short lengths in an uncalibrated system it's unlikely you'll see a difference.
A good tip for would be purchasers is to buy a budget HDMI lead and a copy of Digital Video Essentials (approx £14) and set up the user controls on their TV properly. It will have a much bigger impact for all their sources than a £50 HDMI.
To my ears valve sounds more pleasing. I'm aware that SS measures better, but there's a difference in the speed at which a valve allows electrons to flow that SS can never match. That translates in to what I and many others perceive to be a better and more musical sound.
A good halfway house is Class A solid state. Sugden do some fantastic Class A gear that I really like.
Unfortunately I can't have either valve or Class A in my system. But come the lottery win...:D
But swapping HDMI cables won't unless the cable is defective. The sole job of a HDMI cable is to deliver a string of ones and zeros from source to destination as accurately as possible. In other words without translating a one into a zero or vice versa and without dropping any ones or zeros.
If you get two cables that perform that job then the results as displayed on the TV panel will be the same. I fail to see how it can be otherwise.
How can 1000100111100011110001111 be any different to 1000100111100011110001111 fed into the signal processing circuit of the TV just because the first came over a 10p bit of damp string picked up at a car boot sale and the second came over some £10,000,000 cable hand crafted from a solid block of gold by 2000 virgins
It defies all logic as far as I can see.
And as others have pointed out why is ther not a similar market for exotic USB or network cables? After all what is the real difference between a bit of digital video/audio flowing up a HDMI lead and the bits of data flowing across an ethernet cable or USB?
Surely if some exotic cable material or construction can seriously enhance the picture quality of a TV signal then a similarly exotic USB cable between PC and printer will enhance the quality of your printouts?
So why isn't there a £10,000 USB cable out there, or am I just not looking hard enough?
Interesting thought though, I've just thrown a couple of USB cables out that I don't need as they have no perceived resale value. I think HDMI cables will go that way eventually as you can already get decent ones for under £7.
Valve amplifiers are quite high in even order harmonics which gives quite a pleasant sound whereas many transistor amplifiers (especially with push pull output stages and large negative feedback) tend to have very low even order harmonics but do have higher odd order harmonics (compared to the even order) and this does not sound so nice.
The above can mean valve amplifiers sounding better than many well specified solid state amplifiers though solid state can also use class A amplifiers (or even AB) with low negative feedback to achieve the same affect.
All of this though is perfectly measurable and so is not into the realms of mysticism like better quality pictures from digital cables is.
A couple of interesting comments made such as people liking vinyl vs CD due to the warmer sounds etc....and how it might well be due to growing up with vinyl and accepting the crackles as part of the experience.... I wonder if the youth of today will look back with fondness at the compressed raspy digitised sounds of poorly compressed MP3's?
I'm still amazed that MP3's are so popular, much like the sometimes terrible image quality of digital TV (SD) almost going back a step in quality compared to what it replaces......
Amazing that a 128kbps MP3 music file is enjoyed as much as a 44.1kHz CD track.
Incorrectly positioned and you will lose the stereo effect. Having them around 2m apart and towed in slightly to the listening position will reward the listener.
Moving speakers closer/further from boundary walls also has an effect on the overall sound. Bass can sound woolly/boomy when placed to close, begin pulling them out and the bass starts to sound more punchy and tight.
Speaker design has an affect on where there sound best too. Rear ported speakers are best positioned away from walls, whereas front ported speakers have more tolerance when they are placed closer.
Furnishings and floor coverings affect sound too. A carpeted/soft furnished room will often sound warmer than one that has wooden floors and little soft furnishings.
All go hand in hand - a reasonable budget for such a system - reasonable budget for cables (bin the supplied cables) - take care when setting up and position speakers. Same applies for multichannel audio too.
A good stereo system is not to hard to implement in an average front room, but the system can start to take over when you go multichannel, not everyone (wife/partner) wants 5/6/7 speakers and a sub kicking about in the front room, this is where the compromises come into force and where the sound can suffer.
The 0's and 1's argument is used a lot, and on the face of it it's hard to refute the logic, but IMO it does oversimplify the process and ignores the potential for errors as I understand it.
***I really want this next section to be an exchange of ideas and proof, and to be discussed in laymans terms. Please, no pissing contests or petty point scoring
We know that the amount of data flowing through a cable increases with signal resolution. Is it safe to assume that the speed of transmission is fixed, or does anyone have proof that it also increases with resolution?
If the speed remains constant then either the duration of the pulses or the gaps between bits of data must shrink as resolution increases. Does this then mean that the transistors responsible for generating the 0's and 1's have to work at a faster rate? It's known that transistors take a short period of time to switch from low to high, and vice versa. There's also an additional period of time where the transistor high output fluctuates until it settles. These are both possible causes of data corruption. The same thing could also be affecting the timing signals too.
Now if we look at the signal itself - as I see it the 0's and 1's argument kind of glosses over the fact that there are millions of pixels worth of data being transfered for every 50th of a seconds worth of image. Is it possible (however improbable it might be) that not all of that data arrives intact? Despite error correction there still might be some degradation in the signal enough that perhaps changes the shade of an individual pixel? The display might still be happy; after all, it thinks it has a valid description for that pixel so it is still a viable dot of light; it's just not quite the same colour of dot that the source intended. Could that sort of corruption be described as noise?
Now let's look at the conductors. Unless anyone knows differently can we take it that we are dealing with some form of metal, - probably copper?
I know that cables can be made with different specifications affecting their transparency to a signal. This is measured and expressed as a bandwidth (MHz, GHz etc) and attenuation over distance (dB/100m at specific frequencies). Whether the signal is a sine wave representing an analogue signal or a square wave representing 0's & 1's it is still a voltage. How much of that voltage gets through is governed by the attenuation. How much distortion there is in the waveform is governed by the bandwidth. The result could be a signal that started as a square wave but by the time it has gone through the cable its verticals become sloped and its height is reduced. Again, the same distortions could be happening with the timing signals.
I check to see what claims Monster made for their cables and came across an interesting image of the square waves through two cables. Link here
[Please, no sarky remarks about snake oil etc. I don't sell Monster cables, and I don't waste my customers money on premium cables where something more affordable will do the job just as well.
What struck me most about the two images is how much distortion there is in the right hand one. They don't say how these images were derived so we have to take it with a pinch of salt, but I wouldn't discount the idea that digital signals can be corrupted.
Now, just for the record again, I don't sell Monster, and I don't waste my customers money on expensive cables when something more affordable will work just as well. I'm perfectly sure that short budget cables will work fine for most customers.
What I'm interested in doing is looking at 0's and 1's theory in closer detail.
I think a lot of your points are good ones. A few observations though...
(1) The bit-rate does have to increase as the resolution increases, HDMI is a digital signal but it is timed fairly much like an analogue video signal
(2) There isn't any real error detection/correction in the video of HDMI.
(3) You could indeed get errors introduced into the video signal. However, I suspect that the kind of errors you would get wouldn't look like what people might expect between a "good" and a "bad" connection. Randomly distributed single bit errors could land at any bit of a pixel's data. So I'd say its is highly likely that if you were getting errors at all, Some of those errors would be affecting significant bits, and you'd be seeing really obviously incorrect pixels (ie sparklies).
(4) As I mentioned on another thread, it is all complicated further by HDCP. To get any of these type of errors on an HDCP encrypted stream, you'd need to have an error level in the range that could be corrected by the portions of the data carrying the HDCP protocol (so that the video could have errors but HDCP was still "OK"). I imagine this might be possible, but I've no idea of the level of error correction possible
(5) Related to (4), there are other bits of the signal that if they were receiving bit errors (presuming that these things are evenly distributed over video and non-video data) that I imagine could cause you to have more serious issues that might make you consider your cable "broken"
So really I just find it quite hard to believe that you could have errors in the signal that would make you think that the picture was just not not as good as an expensive lead. It seems much more likely to me that if it wasn't working, it would be not working in quite an obvious fashion.
Richard.
If the higher rates mean that the signal gets corrupted (either by inter-symbol interference or single bit errors) then the result will be pixels or sparkies, much worse and the errors are horrible. What you do not get are subtle changes - that is not possible.
Think of it as copying a computer text file, if you copy the characters exactly then the resulting file is identical to the first - any errors will result in incorrect characters.
I'm sure that the placebo effect, or justifying to oneself the cost of a component, can happen, but that wouldn't explain why some people prefer the cheaper option some of the time. Maybe the "cheapskate effect"?
As an example, when I was using a vinyl system, I was buying a new pre/power amp from a top quality London dealer. he could've sold me an expensive interconnect, but he advised listening to one made from PTFE solid core "wire wrap" wire, the stuff used on old-style computer backplanes and for modifying PCBs.
With that particular combo, it sounded wonderful, better than a fancy shielded cable. Bought it for the cost of the plugs. No charge for the wire or labour.
I made similar interconnects for other components.
It also got me thinking about solid core speaker cables. To this day, I use 1.5mm or 2.5mm T&E mains cable for some speakers. Again, remarkably cheap.
Absolutely. The distortion inherent in all pickup cartridges, tonearm wires and RIAA Eq stages. The warmth and spaciousness they can add to the music, when properly controlled, was what vinyl reproduction was all about.