DS Forums

 
 

monster HDMI leads from comet are they any good


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-10-2008, 18:12
clockworks999
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 2,014
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.
clockworks999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-10-2008, 18:13
clockworks999
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 2,014
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 guess it works both ways. Some music is mixed to sound good on the radio, some to sound good on a hifi.
clockworks999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 18:20
clockworks999
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 2,014
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
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.
clockworks999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 19:14
Deacon1972
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
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.
I have an old system in the loft - Linn amp with suede cover on the outer casing, Linn sandwich speakers and a Garrard turn table with SME tonearm built into a custom made deck which was made by SME.

Might be worth a little bit now.
Deacon1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 19:50
chrisjr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 27,896
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.
Can't see where you found the images you refer to but I suspect I have seen similar.

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
chrisjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 19:59
Deacon1972
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103

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 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. It's a zero error protocol.

I'm not that technically minded so I wouldn't know if this has any bearing on the matter or not.
Deacon1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 20:06
Chris Frost
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
Can't see where you found the images you refer to but I suspect I have seen similar.
Apologies, it looks like you need to click on "Monster Performance Testing" to see the image.

Chris Frost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 20:08
chrisjr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 27,896
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.
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?
chrisjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 20:08
StereRowe
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.
StereRowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 20:21
Deacon1972
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
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?
I'll have to take your word for it, I know very little about clocking and jitter that's associated with digital cables - I only use cheap digital cables and I can't see hear/see any errors when watching TV or listening to music. The picture looks ok to me and when someone's singing a song I know well there are no missing lyrics.

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.
Deacon1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 20:21
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718

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.
I use mains cable for speakers. It's very good because its thick and so has a low resistance - the reactive impedance doesn't matter so much a audio frequencies. Neither is shielding so important because the levels are relatively high.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 20:39
Chris Frost
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.
Chris Frost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 20:43
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
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.
Does it?, have there ever been any blind tests under controlled conditions that have proved expensive HDMI leads perform better than cheap ones?. I don't believe so, they just sprout rubbish to try and con the customer.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 20:50
Chris Frost
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.
Chris Frost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 07:38
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
Nigel, look there's no agenda here. I'm not flogging hyped up cables, so please don't derail this discussion. OK?
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.


What I'm trying to do is find out where the gap is in the accepted wisdom.
No gap, no problem.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 08:19
MAW
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.
MAW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 09:49
niall campbell
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
niall campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 10:18
njp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
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"?
I think the "cheapskate effect" is an entirely plausible explanation for such an outcome. Humans are prey to very complex, often subconscious, influences - which is why it is so important to eliminate them (the influences, not the humans!) from any rigorous system of testing. This has long been recognised in medical trials, and people really should question why magazines presenting glowing reviews of the latest "high end" HDMI cable / speaker cable / power cable etc never conduct this sort of testing.

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.
njp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 10:33
streekie
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 ?
streekie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 10:43
njp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
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 ?
The skin effect has no relevance at audio frequencies (although no doubt advocates of ultra tweeters would disagree!). The only thing that matters with speaker cable is that it has a suitably low impedance relative to that of the speaker. 2.5TE is more than adequate for any likely cable run.
njp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 11:42
MAW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,523
special audiophile varnish
That's the varnish made out of snake products then.
MAW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 11:46
Chris Frost
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
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.
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.
Chris Frost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 12:16
njp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
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.
But there's the rub. Demonstrating to your own satisfaction that there is something to be explained is not the same as demonstrating to everyone else's satisfaction that there is something to be explained.

Do not underestimate the power of the placebo.
njp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 13:02
dwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bigrigg
Posts: 260
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.
How have you conducted these experiments Chris? Did you do blind ABX testing, or did you swap the cables yourself, knowing at all times which cable you were looking at and then find a difference. Doing that unfortunatley can introduce bias because you are looking for a difference between the cables and so your brain finds one. Its known as the placebo effect.

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.
dwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-2008, 14:23
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
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.
Sorry to be rude, but I suspect you're probably mistaken - blind tests under controlled conditions is the only way to compare them - and no one has ever been able to prove or demonstrate a improvement.

Either you imagined a difference, or you have a faulty lead, and the difference was extreme.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:02.