|
||||||||
monster HDMI leads from comet are they any good |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 2,014
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 2,014
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 2,014
|
Quote:
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 Amp was Musical Fidelity MVT pre-amp, Naim 110 power amp. IIRC, the speakers were Heybrook HB3s. I think that lot cost me about £3500, 25 years ago. About 6 months salary at the time. Was replaced with a Linn CD system and amps. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
My final vinyl system was a Linn LP12, Ittok arm, Troika cartridge.
Amp was Musical Fidelity MVT pre-amp, Naim 110 power amp. IIRC, the speakers were Heybrook HB3s. I think that lot cost me about £3500, 25 years ago. About 6 months salary at the time. Was replaced with a Linn CD system and amps. Might be worth a little bit now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 27,896
|
Quote:
Thank you.
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 have no problem with the cable or any other part of the system introducing distortions of the waveform. That is inevitable in the real world. But you have to ask the question, how much effect does the distortion have? I know it is tempting to look at two waveforms side by side and assume the one that most closely resembles a squarewave is the best. On one level it is obviously since the whole idea is to transport data from A to B as accurately as possible. But on another level it may not be as problematic as it first appears if there is a level of corruption on the waveform. And this is where we get back to the ones and zeros again. All the waveform represents is a series of ones and zeros. Provided that you can, with a high level of certainty, distinguish between the part of the waveform representing a one and the part representing a zero you can reconstruct a clean version. So up to a point you can get away with a degree of mangling in the cable. I mean at a very crude level you could take the signal and (electronically) say any signal above x volts is a one and any signal below y volts is a zero. That could clean up a lot of signal corruption. And the result is a nice clean squarewave again. Similarly it is not hugely difficult to correct timing errors. Stuff the data into a buffer at any old random rate and clock it out at the correct rate. Add in any error correction on offer and you can recreate a pretty near perfect copy of the source data. Fairly obviously there will come a point where the degredation of the signal overwhelms the ability of the TV to recreate the data stream accurately. And somewhere in between it may make the wrong choice of a one or zero. But I would argue that randomly changing bits in a data stream will not have subtle effects like a minor alteration of the shade of a pixel. It may, but equally it could turn what is supposed to be jet black to pure white! And as I posted earlier why no ten grand USB leads claiming to improve the quality of my printouts? It's all just ones and zeros after all. The cable could care less that it is a TV picture or a snotty letter to the bank.
Last edited by chrisjr : 17-10-2008 at 19:51. Reason: opening bracket went AWOL in the quote |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
And as I posted earlier why no ten grand USB leads claiming to improve the quality of my printouts? It's all just ones and zeros after all. The cable could care less that it is a TV picture or a snotty letter to the bank. ![]() I'm not that technically minded so I wouldn't know if this has any bearing on the matter or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
Quote:
Can't see where you found the images you refer to but I suspect I have seen similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 27,896
|
Quote:
I read somewhere, on an AV forum I think, where one poster used USB as an example in just the same way, another member replied saying that USB can't be compared with digital cables such as HDMI/optical/coaxial as it has error correction and buffering on both sides.
I'm not that technical so I wouldn't know if this has any bearing on the matter or not. But the point still stands that if the data gets from A to B in a sufficiently accurate manner then it matters not one iota what the cable in between cost or is made from. All buffering and error correction does is add a layer of security to that data transfer. So if a DVD player sends 10010011111100001111100 to the telly and the telly receives 10010011111100001111100 how can the result possibly look different just because the cable was different? |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Leicester
Posts: 1,273
|
Can I just throw-in my tuppence worth?
Whilst fundermentally agreeing with many of the points made regarding digital signal transfer and the very questionable 'improvements' there-in of expensive cables over cheap ones, we have been looking at the electrical characteristics. Don't forget the mechanical side of the equation. Whilst the induction of interference into a poorly screened cable may not effect the famous 1s & 0s neither would the the earlier dedregation of the contacts (that's debatable though), you may be forgiven for expecting 'higher-end' cables to be more robust however. I've seen cables exit the rear of its connector body at right angles because it is up against a wall or some other obstical and fail as a consequence. Several longer cables have been trodden on, or otherwise flattened, and damaged. Having said that - I would still avoid 'Monster' cables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
To an extent yes. Obviously robust error correction helps a great deal. Plus in a pure data application it doesn't really matter if the receiver asks for a bit of data to be re-sent because it was too badly mangled.
But the point still stands that if the data gets from A to B in a sufficiently accurate manner then it matters not one iota what the cable in between cost or is made from. All buffering and error correction does is add a layer of security to that data transfer. So if a DVD player sends 10010011111100001111100 to the telly and the telly receives 10010011111100001111100 how can the result possibly look different just because the cable was different? ![]() To be honest I can't see what difference there would be if a 0 or a 1 went missing or was to be transferred the wrong way round, I've no idea what I would need to be looking for or listening out for. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
As I've tried to say before, I see and appreciate the logic of the 0's and 1's argument. But experimentation produces an effect that the theory says can't possibly happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
As I've tried to say before, I see and appreciate the logic of the 0's and 1's argument. But experimentation produces an effect that the theory says can't possibly happen.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
Nigel, look there's no agenda here. I'm not flogging hyped up cables, so please don't derail this discussion. OK?
What I'm trying to do is find out where the gap is in the accepted wisdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
Nigel, look there's no agenda here. I'm not flogging hyped up cables, so please don't derail this discussion. OK?
Quote:
What I'm trying to do is find out where the gap is in the accepted wisdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,523
|
I agree with Nigel, the best cable is the cheapest one that works. Obviously if it's a 10M run you are planning on plastering into your ceiling for a 1080p projector, then 'insurance' might be a good thing. But system interconnects where you can swap them easily, I've tried them all, and never seen a difference, and I deal with some high end kit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Aberfeldy
Posts: 7,035
|
if your plastering a wall then HDMI 1.3 cable for mr. That extra bandwith must be at some point used up, or superceded so trunking plastered into wall may help and you can just feed wires through
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
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"?
Note that I make no distinction between analogue and digital signals here. The only difference is that the absurdity of what is being claimed is more starkly revealed in the case of digital signals, because we can state very precisely what it would mean for an HDMI cable to produce (for example) deeper blacks, and point out that this would entail an extraordinary amount of processing within the metal strands of the cable in order to selectively modify the appropriate bits. Perhaps poor cables have more processing power, and so selectively degrade the right bits, whereas high end cables just pass them on unchanged! For analogue cables, the situation is more complex of course. But even if some measurable difference in electrical characteristics between two cables can be demonstrated (and lets face it, that's probably true for any two dissimilar cables), that is a very long way from showing that this makes any difference at all (not merely a "subtle" one) to a listener or viewer. Consider just how absurd this "high end" world is: we have cables that are (through some unspecified physical mechanism) "directional". We have cables that need "breaking in" to achieve their full potential (for the lazy audiophile, there are "cable cookers" that will perform this onerous task for you). There are speaker cables so exotic that they must be supported on custom made stands coated in special audiophile varnish. There's no end to the madness. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Watford,UK
Posts: 253
|
So many issues here but as far as i can see...
HDMI just good enough to provide a perfectly reliable interconnect is good enough, you would hope the extra money gives more robust connectors not just pretty cables as most want to hide the cables ! As deacon1972 says if you think of the system as a whole there are a myriad of things you can do to improve your set up before what flavour HDMI cable you are using becomes a factor , oh and before you needed to rewire the house using pure silver mains cable ! If i were plastering a cable into a wall i would use trunking to allow cable replacement if required, use the best you can justifiably afford is likely to give better screening and better quality interconnects ?, gold plated like on the QED cables are not going to corrode like a maplin cheapo job after 5 years methinks (but only if replacement isnt a 5min job). Having said that if you wished buy 2 cheapos and lay them both in the wall and 1 is there for redundancy should the other fail which is unlikely. With regard to the mains 2.5TE speaker cable it will give great bass reproduction, but i thought the purist argument was that multi strand gave a higher copper surface area which should improve treble response, maybe a combo is the way to go for biamped systems ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
With regard to the mains 2.5TE speaker cable it will give great bass reproduction, but i thought the purist argument was that multi strand gave a higher copper surface area which should improve treble response, maybe a combo is the way to go for biamped systems ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,523
|
Quote:
special audiophile varnish
That's the varnish made out of snake products then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
Quote:
Sorry, in what way was I 'derailing the discussion'?, you said "But experimentation produces an effect that the theory says can't possibly happen" - I pointed out that it doesn't.
There isn't an agenda. I'm genuinely curious why a budget & midrange cable gave similar (probably indistinguishable) results, but a higher end and longer(!) cable gave demonstrably better results when all the theory says it shouldn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
There isn't an agenda. I'm genuinely curious why a budget & midrange cable gave similar (probably indistinguishable) results, but a higher end and longer(!) cable gave demonstrably better results when all the theory says it shouldn't.
Do not underestimate the power of the placebo. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bigrigg
Posts: 260
|
Quote:
Nigel, we might have crossed lines. In my experiments I've seen differences. OK?
There isn't an agenda. I'm genuinely curious why a budget & midrange cable gave similar (probably indistinguishable) results, but a higher end and longer(!) cable gave demonstrably better results when all the theory says it shouldn't. Doing ABX testing will eliminate this as you at no time are aware of which cable is installed. EDIT: Also is it only the cable you are swapping? Or are you switching between inputs on a TV for example, with different sources. All these could be calibrated differently and could explain the difference you are seeing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
Nigel, we might have crossed lines. In my experiments I've seen differences. OK?
There isn't an agenda. I'm genuinely curious why a budget & midrange cable gave similar (probably indistinguishable) results, but a higher end and longer(!) cable gave demonstrably better results when all the theory says it shouldn't. Either you imagined a difference, or you have a faulty lead, and the difference was extreme. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:02.





***