Question:
I'm just beginning to build my home cinema.
Best audio cables?
- I have optical. Is that the one to get?
Best video cables?
- I have S-video. I heard that component video is better though. Is that true? And if so, just how much better is it?
Well we're both newbies, so in a funny sort of way I might be able to help you.
As far as connections from your DVD or whatever to the amp go, optical (digital) is the way to go for audio.
As for the video side of things, component out from your DVD or whatever is ideal, although not very many starter DVDs have component out, except that nice Tosh 330 at £79.99 from amazon.
Saying that I just bought a Compacks 4000 from Safeway which has progressive scan - one step up from component out - and performs miraculously well on my new AE100 projector!
Theres zero difference between Coaxial and Optical sound quality.
I favour Coaxial because it's less fragile.
Gary A
Where as i favour optical as IMHO it sounds better.
Co-Axial over Optical for me - the Co-Axial is a straight digital pulse to the amp, whereas the Optical converts the pulse into an optical signal and then the amp has to convert it back again - potential room for errors.
As for video signals, in order of bestness:
Component :luv: -> RGB SCART :luv: -> S-Vid :) -> Composite :gag:
I use box Co-Axel and Optical and i have to say i prefere co-axel as they seem better built.
Electrical dig. (co-ax) is preferred to optical for the reasons home_bas states. Mind you, the difference is likely to be non-existent unless you've got some expensive kit. I've used both and have no strong preference.
There's not really a great deal to choose between component, RGB and s-video. In theory s-video is the worse than RBG/ component but in practise it may well depend more on the quality of the TV input, source output and cabling.
The reason you tend to see component touted over the others is that component is required to use progressive scan. It's progressive scan that makes the real difference. This should come as no surprise given that component uses Red, Green and Blue cables whereas RGB (SCART) uses ... Red, Green and Blue cables! :)
I can hear no difference between optical and co-axial - so I choose co-axial for the reasons given above.
Originally posted by home_bas
Co-Axial over Optical for me - the Co-Axial is a straight digital pulse to the amp, whereas the Optical converts the pulse into an optical signal and then the amp has to convert it back again - potential room for errors.
I don't mean to attack you mate, but there is no logic in what you just said.
A digital output is digital whatever the transmission medium, a "1" in the optical cable would take place at the same place as a "1" in any other medium.
They are both digital and therefore the difference between them is entirely subjective.
There is an issue that applies equally which is the quality of the cable, but if you buy a decent (i.e. not ridiculously expensive) cable you won't tell the difference.
My point was that there is an extra modulation/demodulation step in creating/decoding the optical pulse, which isn't present in the Co-Axial signal. Therefore there is *technically* the potential for errors in the CODEC stage, and the co-axial signal is therefore *technically* purer.
But as someone else posted, the main difference can be caused by the quality of the connections themselves.
There's 2 schools of thought regarding digital cables. There's the "bits is bits" school, who logically think that as telephone wire is more than capable of networking computers at 100,000,000 bits per second a simple video or audio signal should present no problems, and there's those who think emotionally that their cable MUST be better 'cos they paid ££££ for it!
:D
Originally posted by home_bas
My point was that there is an extra modulation/demodulation step in creating/decoding the optical pulse, which isn't present in the Co-Axial signal. Therefore there is *technically* the potential for errors in the CODEC stage, and the co-axial signal is therefore *technically* purer.
But as someone else posted, the main difference can be caused by the quality of the connections themselves.
Not true mate, the coaxial signal is sinusoidal and therefore is more likely to encount problems with jitter across the wave than the optical transmission.
So in effect the coaxial signal has a greater potential for error, although we are talking at a level of picovolts that the human ear would be incapable of detecting anyway.
Both signals are modulated, just using different methods, neither of which is better or worse than the other for this application.
AndyWilson - you have a point. I'm not at the extreme end of using bell wire as there are solid arguments for the cable needing to be of sufficient quality to conduct the signal properly, but the difference between a £20 and £40 cable is all in the head.
Sure, you could possibly measure the difference on an oscilloscope but you'll never hear it.
You funny man, Roy. DVDF love you long time.
As for the cable thing ... I used to use a posh 1m Ixos coaxial cable but since I moved my AV kit into a cupboard I've swapped to a longer optical cable (it's orange and came from ardelectronics). I've noticed no difference in sound quality.
If you network computer A to computer B with standard CAT5 cable (basically telephone wire!) and play an MP3 from computer A's Hard disk on computer B, are you going to get an increase in quality from putting an nice fat OFC cable in instead of the CAT5 ??????????
Simple answer is no, however the CAT5 rating is also related to the conductance of the cable and it's consequent frequency response which is a function of its cross sectional area against conductance.
Christ I'm realy stretching my memory here, it's been about 8 years since I studied Electrical/Electronic Engineering!
As the MP3 is translated into packets and then transmitted and reconstituted at the other end, the only issue is can the cable transmit the network packets without inroducing so much error that they can't be reconstructed at the other end.
You're more constrained by the distance of the cable, the longer it is the higher level of errors you will get and so on.
So what would you guys recommend for a good RGB scart cable and co-axial cable in the £20-£30 price range?
I have a B-Tech RGB scart and a QED optical at the moment but I want a new co-ax cable to go from the DVD to sound system so that I can stop swapping the cable between my DVD player and my X-Box.
I would say a £20 cable will be more than adequate, Ixos do one for about that.
At the bottom of this (http://hificables.co.uk/acatalog/Cable_catalogue_Digital_cables_18.html) page.
Thor scarts are very good and about £30 and for the coax you might want to look at Ecosse as they are very good value and top quality.
Originally posted by EDDIEBATES
Thor scarts are very good and about £30 and for the coax you might want to look at Ecosse as they are very good value and top quality. I'd second that I have a Thor scart and it is excellent. I've not used IXOS though so cannot compare...
Originally posted by EDDIEBATES
Thor scarts are very good and about £30 and for the coax you might want to look at Ecosse as they are very good value and top quality.
Nostromo - I have a new 1.5M one you can have for £21 inc delivery if you like ;) surplus to requirements as I bought three recently.
As for the coax - go for the Profigold PD481 - look over at www.avforums.com for a post by king/kingy (not sure) - he is doing a special on 1m for £9.99 - he does it for £10.99 (rather than £19.99 anyway !) here http://www.cp-audiovisual.co.uk/products/PGD48series.htm
Newbies (and oldies too)...
For an authorative guide on video transmission have a look at Nics post http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=43445
Originally posted by Roy
Simple answer is no, however the CAT5 rating is also related to the conductance of the cable and it's consequent frequency response which is a function of its cross sectional area against conductance.
Christ I'm realy stretching my memory here, it's been about 8 years since I studied Electrical/Electronic Engineering!
As the MP3 is translated into packets and then transmitted and reconstituted at the other end, the only issue is can the cable transmit the network packets without inroducing so much error that they can't be reconstructed at the other end.
You're more constrained by the distance of the cable, the longer it is the higher level of errors you will get and so on.
Roy, you are truly a :dork:
:lol:
I use www.scorpioncables.com
Excellent quality.
Originally posted by Radiohead
Roy, you are truly a :dork:
:lol:
"Why not try a Seat Leon, all the quality of an Audi but for less money" :dork:
I prefer informed mate. Just for the record.
When you say informed I assume you mean overpriced?
No, I mean rich.
Originally posted by Uncle Eric
I use www.scorpioncables.com
Excellent quality.
I agree, have just bought one of their 1m coax cables and it is superb. I think there is still a discount deal for members of www.avtalk.co.uk forum, so go and have a gander.
B!
The audio/video cable industry is very profitable ;)
At the end of the day, it's as good as how much you pay and convince yourself it is (with the exception of signal types, e.g. component over RGB, over S-video, over composite, and digital over analogue).
Of course you can pay for robustness, but with digital audio think of it like this...
How many dirt cheap £1 phono cables can you get through that'll do the same job as an expensive dedicated "digital":rolleyes: coax or optical? The expensive one may last longer but I'm still on my first cheapy one and it sounds identical to the expensive one I'm using for another bit of kit.
Sure, you'll find a million sites around the net which can quote signal analysis and prove there is a difference... but can YOU see or hear the difference?
Don't rely on reviews, opinions, the price, name or how shiny the connectors are, try it yourself with a completely unbiased blind test (hardly anyone does). You don't want to know what cable you're using, not even it's price ;)
Originally posted by home_bas
As for video signals, in order of bestness:
Component :luv: -> RGB SCART :luv: -> S-Vid :) -> Composite :gag:
DVI -> VGA -> Component -> RGB SCART -> S-Vid -> Composite -> RF:gag:
;)
Thanks for the info guys.
I like the price of the co-ax cable from cp-audiovisual but I’m a little worried about the comment from lynx, is this king/kingy guy part of this company or was he just some bod mouthing off?
D J Fryer, thanks for the offer but it will be a little longer before I can justify actually buying these cable (I lost my job a few months back and I’m living on a shoe string budget at the moment) I’m just doing some research into what I can buy when I get my 1st pay cheque at the moment.
I am not sure what lynx meant by him being a spammer - I assume cpaudiovisual is his company BUT avforums does permit commercial advertising in their Hardware special offers so whether that makes his post less credible or not is another matter - I suppose you would just have to look at his checkout ordering system to see if you felt comfortable with his reliability or not, either that or post to see if anyone has ordered from them before.
Originally posted by DeadKenny
DVI -> VGA -> Component -> RGB SCART -> S-Vid -> Composite -> RF:gag:
Don't forget SDI ;)
Originally posted by DeadKenny
Of course you can pay for robustness, but with digital audio think of it like this...
How many dirt cheap £1 phono cables can you get through that'll do the same job as an expensive dedicated "digital":rolleyes: coax or optical? The expensive one may last longer but I'm still on my first cheapy one and it sounds identical to the expensive one I'm using for another bit of kit.
Kenny,
We're not talking about car tyres here. This business of something "lasting longer" simply does not apply to audio (or video) cables of any kind. They do not wear out. Degradation in other forms may creep in but there is no reason a cheapie cable will last less than an expensive cable.
Another point to mention is that many folks seem to think all digital coax will perform to more or less the same level. This is due to several misconceptions.
Here's an article written by my good friend and avtalk member Charlie W on the matter. Hope it helps.
"Most digital interfaces have a limited bandwidth. This is as true of the transmitter/receivers as the cable carrying the signal. This limited bandwidth has the effect of increasing the fall and rise times of our notional square wave of 0's and 1's zipping down the cable. So instead of nice vertical leading/trailing edges to pulses, what you actually get is a sloping line. Now, the detection of a 0 or 1, is dependent upon the receiver circuit recognising that the voltage has passed through some notional fixed value. If the pulses had vertical edges, then there would be no uncertainty in time when the transition occurs. However, due to the fact the line is sloping this introduces the theoretical possibility that the timing of that transition (and hence jitter since clock information is going to be retrieved from this signal) could be affected. All other things being equal, this sloping line should not make a difference, because provided the slope is equal for all pulses, the transition will occur at the same point and a uniform clock rate will result. BUT...
If the bandwidth of the link is sufficiently poor, then the pulse may not reach its maximum or minimum voltages before it is required to move back to its other state. In this situation, the content of the data (i.e., what bit values have gone immediately before) will affect the outcome. Logical 1's require more transitions than 0's.
Conversely, if the bandwidth of the link is too high, and the rise/fall times of the pulses are too fast, any impedance mismatches at the ends of the cables due to poor termination (RCA's are seldom anything like true 75 ohm) will cause reflections of part of the signal. This reflected information will wash back and forth between the transmitter and receiver ends and act as a background random noise. Again the presence of this varying voltage superimposed on our nice clean pulses, with their nice sloping edges, will have the effect of altering the time at which transitions are detected by the receiver. More jitter.
In a similar way, any signal induced into the cable due to poor screening will also affect the detector's ability to accurately detect the timing of transitions. Jitter again.
There is a trade-off to be had between all these variables. Different cables and plugs will have varying impedances and better or worse rejection of RFI."
To be honest, that is just as much technobabble as the very worst episode of Star Trek! To suggest that any half decent cable will have so little bandwidth it will affect the rise times of what is, in electrical terms, a pretty low frequency signal, is a pretty questionable theory, but following that with the suggestion that [b]too much bandwidth[b] will have an adverse affect is totally laughable!
And why is that Andy? :)
Originally posted by Uncle Eric
Kenny,
We're not talking about car tyres here. This business of something "lasting longer" simply does not apply to audio (or video) cables of any kind. They do not wear out. Degradation in other forms may creep in but there is no reason a cheapie cable will last less than an expensive cable.
I agree to an extent. The reason I made the argument was because the usual argument you get from people talking about expensive cables is because they last longer, so I just counter with the fact you can buy dozens of cheap cables for the same price if you had to. In actual fact, as you point out, they don't really wear out (I'm still on my £1 cheapy cable which isn't even a digital cable, just a plain old audio phono cable, and it's as perfect as ever :D). That said, to say cables don't wear out is not true and paying extra will give you some robustness for cables that are frequently moved, plugged and unplugged. Also cables can corrode. I've never had it on sealed phono cables, but I've had speaker cable "rot" before.
Which is why I said .....
Originally posted by Uncle Eric
Degradation in other forms may creep in
My scepticism is based on the simple fact that, for instance, a PCM signal from a DVD is 48KHz with 16bit sampling (correct me if I'm wrong) which after a quick poke around on a calculator is 768kbs. Considering the average thin bit of wire in the average office network seems to have sufficient bandwidth to carry 100,000kbs without having problems "the pulse may not reach its maximum or minimum voltages before it is required to move back to its other state" I just can't see how it would be a problem with even the cheapest digital cable.
..and how on earth are impedance-reflections more of a problem if the cable has "too much" bandwidth???
I've heard all the arguements about jitter and timing 100s of times, but in the end bits is bits and that isn't based on any "misconceptions" - just a reasonable knowlege of analogue and digital electronics.
Originally posted by AndyWilson
My scepticism is based on the simple fact that, for instance, a PCM signal from a DVD is 48KHz with 16bit sampling (correct me if I'm wrong) which after a quick poke around on a calculator is 768kbs. Considering the average thin bit of wire in the average office network seems to have sufficient bandwidth to carry 100,000kbs without having problems "the pulse may not reach its maximum or minimum voltages before it is required to move back to its other state" I just can't see how it would be a problem with even the cheapest digital cable.
Trust me, people can come up with all kinds of analysis with wave-forms proving there is a theoretical difference. The, "if it's good enough for 100Mbps ethernet, then surely it's good enough for digital audio" argument has many well prepared arguments to counter it that have enough technobable to make it difficult to disprove or prove. I think "jitter" is the usual one we'd hear next :rolleyes:.
All that matters is whether you can tell a difference, not your mates, your wallet or the so called "unbiased" reviews like in What Hi-Fi that are biased towards whatever is expensive or pays them enough ;). The only real test you can do is a true blind test, and very few people actually do a completely unbiased true blind test where they have absolutely no idea which cable is being used. i.e. what I'm saying is a lot of it's in the mind ;)
Besides I overheard someone who is in the business of manufacturing audio cables joke at the fact he can sell the same cheap industrial electronics cable used in a non-audio part of his business for a fortune in the audio business ;)
I think you're right to sceptical AndyWilson, the requirement for home audio (and franky for most other audio) is that you need a cable that is good enough.
I would say that if you buy a decent quality cable, and by that I mean solid connectors, good construction to make good contacts. Not to be confused with gold braided, 99.999999% OFC £200 a metre stuff.
Probably most £10 to £20 cables are absolutely fine, I very much doubt anyone can tell the difference between a £20 and £40 cable, as it would mean they would have hearing that operates on the same scale as scientific instruments :nuts:
From my slightly dim memory of Electronics from when I studied it, there is no basis in science for a cable with too much bandwidth affecting the switching speed of the signal, because that would imply that the cable is doing something more than just acting as a conduit for the signal.
The switching speed is done by the kit, not the cable.
To be accurate, the main consideration is the frequency response of the cable, if this is too low it will restrict the speed at which the current can vary, but if it is too high the current can switch between states as controlled by the kit so no worries.
So in essence, buy a half decent reasonably priced cable and enjoy your films. :thumbs:
Best audio cables?
- I have optical. Is that the one to get?
Best video cables?
- I have S-video. I heard that component video is better though. Is that true? And if so, just how much better is it?
Answers:
Well we're both newbies, so in a funny sort of way I might be able to help you.
As far as connections from your DVD or whatever to the amp go, optical (digital) is the way to go for audio.
As for the video side of things, component out from your DVD or whatever is ideal, although not very many starter DVDs have component out, except that nice Tosh 330 at £79.99 from amazon.
Saying that I just bought a Compacks 4000 from Safeway which has progressive scan - one step up from component out - and performs miraculously well on my new AE100 projector!
Answers:
Theres zero difference between Coaxial and Optical sound quality.
I favour Coaxial because it's less fragile.
Gary A
Answers:
Where as i favour optical as IMHO it sounds better.
Answers:
Co-Axial over Optical for me - the Co-Axial is a straight digital pulse to the amp, whereas the Optical converts the pulse into an optical signal and then the amp has to convert it back again - potential room for errors.
As for video signals, in order of bestness:
Component :luv: -> RGB SCART :luv: -> S-Vid :) -> Composite :gag:
Answers:
I use box Co-Axel and Optical and i have to say i prefere co-axel as they seem better built.
Answers:
Electrical dig. (co-ax) is preferred to optical for the reasons home_bas states. Mind you, the difference is likely to be non-existent unless you've got some expensive kit. I've used both and have no strong preference.
There's not really a great deal to choose between component, RGB and s-video. In theory s-video is the worse than RBG/ component but in practise it may well depend more on the quality of the TV input, source output and cabling.
The reason you tend to see component touted over the others is that component is required to use progressive scan. It's progressive scan that makes the real difference. This should come as no surprise given that component uses Red, Green and Blue cables whereas RGB (SCART) uses ... Red, Green and Blue cables! :)
Answers:
I can hear no difference between optical and co-axial - so I choose co-axial for the reasons given above.
Answers:
Originally posted by home_bas
Co-Axial over Optical for me - the Co-Axial is a straight digital pulse to the amp, whereas the Optical converts the pulse into an optical signal and then the amp has to convert it back again - potential room for errors.
I don't mean to attack you mate, but there is no logic in what you just said.
A digital output is digital whatever the transmission medium, a "1" in the optical cable would take place at the same place as a "1" in any other medium.
They are both digital and therefore the difference between them is entirely subjective.
There is an issue that applies equally which is the quality of the cable, but if you buy a decent (i.e. not ridiculously expensive) cable you won't tell the difference.
Answers:
My point was that there is an extra modulation/demodulation step in creating/decoding the optical pulse, which isn't present in the Co-Axial signal. Therefore there is *technically* the potential for errors in the CODEC stage, and the co-axial signal is therefore *technically* purer.
But as someone else posted, the main difference can be caused by the quality of the connections themselves.
Answers:
There's 2 schools of thought regarding digital cables. There's the "bits is bits" school, who logically think that as telephone wire is more than capable of networking computers at 100,000,000 bits per second a simple video or audio signal should present no problems, and there's those who think emotionally that their cable MUST be better 'cos they paid ££££ for it!
:D
Answers:
Originally posted by home_bas
My point was that there is an extra modulation/demodulation step in creating/decoding the optical pulse, which isn't present in the Co-Axial signal. Therefore there is *technically* the potential for errors in the CODEC stage, and the co-axial signal is therefore *technically* purer.
But as someone else posted, the main difference can be caused by the quality of the connections themselves.
Not true mate, the coaxial signal is sinusoidal and therefore is more likely to encount problems with jitter across the wave than the optical transmission.
So in effect the coaxial signal has a greater potential for error, although we are talking at a level of picovolts that the human ear would be incapable of detecting anyway.
Both signals are modulated, just using different methods, neither of which is better or worse than the other for this application.
AndyWilson - you have a point. I'm not at the extreme end of using bell wire as there are solid arguments for the cable needing to be of sufficient quality to conduct the signal properly, but the difference between a £20 and £40 cable is all in the head.
Sure, you could possibly measure the difference on an oscilloscope but you'll never hear it.
Answers:
You funny man, Roy. DVDF love you long time.
As for the cable thing ... I used to use a posh 1m Ixos coaxial cable but since I moved my AV kit into a cupboard I've swapped to a longer optical cable (it's orange and came from ardelectronics). I've noticed no difference in sound quality.
Answers:
If you network computer A to computer B with standard CAT5 cable (basically telephone wire!) and play an MP3 from computer A's Hard disk on computer B, are you going to get an increase in quality from putting an nice fat OFC cable in instead of the CAT5 ??????????
Answers:
Simple answer is no, however the CAT5 rating is also related to the conductance of the cable and it's consequent frequency response which is a function of its cross sectional area against conductance.
Christ I'm realy stretching my memory here, it's been about 8 years since I studied Electrical/Electronic Engineering!
As the MP3 is translated into packets and then transmitted and reconstituted at the other end, the only issue is can the cable transmit the network packets without inroducing so much error that they can't be reconstructed at the other end.
You're more constrained by the distance of the cable, the longer it is the higher level of errors you will get and so on.
Answers:
So what would you guys recommend for a good RGB scart cable and co-axial cable in the £20-£30 price range?
I have a B-Tech RGB scart and a QED optical at the moment but I want a new co-ax cable to go from the DVD to sound system so that I can stop swapping the cable between my DVD player and my X-Box.
Answers:
I would say a £20 cable will be more than adequate, Ixos do one for about that.
At the bottom of this (http://hificables.co.uk/acatalog/Cable_catalogue_Digital_cables_18.html) page.
Answers:
Thor scarts are very good and about £30 and for the coax you might want to look at Ecosse as they are very good value and top quality.
Answers:
Originally posted by EDDIEBATES
Thor scarts are very good and about £30 and for the coax you might want to look at Ecosse as they are very good value and top quality. I'd second that I have a Thor scart and it is excellent. I've not used IXOS though so cannot compare...
Answers:
Originally posted by EDDIEBATES
Thor scarts are very good and about £30 and for the coax you might want to look at Ecosse as they are very good value and top quality.
Nostromo - I have a new 1.5M one you can have for £21 inc delivery if you like ;) surplus to requirements as I bought three recently.
As for the coax - go for the Profigold PD481 - look over at www.avforums.com for a post by king/kingy (not sure) - he is doing a special on 1m for £9.99 - he does it for £10.99 (rather than £19.99 anyway !) here http://www.cp-audiovisual.co.uk/products/PGD48series.htm
Answers:
Newbies (and oldies too)...
For an authorative guide on video transmission have a look at Nics post http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=43445
Answers:
Originally posted by Roy
Simple answer is no, however the CAT5 rating is also related to the conductance of the cable and it's consequent frequency response which is a function of its cross sectional area against conductance.
Christ I'm realy stretching my memory here, it's been about 8 years since I studied Electrical/Electronic Engineering!
As the MP3 is translated into packets and then transmitted and reconstituted at the other end, the only issue is can the cable transmit the network packets without inroducing so much error that they can't be reconstructed at the other end.
You're more constrained by the distance of the cable, the longer it is the higher level of errors you will get and so on.
Roy, you are truly a :dork:
:lol:
Answers:
I use www.scorpioncables.com
Excellent quality.
Answers:
Originally posted by Radiohead
Roy, you are truly a :dork:
:lol:
"Why not try a Seat Leon, all the quality of an Audi but for less money" :dork:
I prefer informed mate. Just for the record.
Answers:
When you say informed I assume you mean overpriced?
Answers:
No, I mean rich.
Answers:
Originally posted by Uncle Eric
I use www.scorpioncables.com
Excellent quality.
I agree, have just bought one of their 1m coax cables and it is superb. I think there is still a discount deal for members of www.avtalk.co.uk forum, so go and have a gander.
B!
Answers:
The audio/video cable industry is very profitable ;)
At the end of the day, it's as good as how much you pay and convince yourself it is (with the exception of signal types, e.g. component over RGB, over S-video, over composite, and digital over analogue).
Of course you can pay for robustness, but with digital audio think of it like this...
How many dirt cheap £1 phono cables can you get through that'll do the same job as an expensive dedicated "digital":rolleyes: coax or optical? The expensive one may last longer but I'm still on my first cheapy one and it sounds identical to the expensive one I'm using for another bit of kit.
Sure, you'll find a million sites around the net which can quote signal analysis and prove there is a difference... but can YOU see or hear the difference?
Don't rely on reviews, opinions, the price, name or how shiny the connectors are, try it yourself with a completely unbiased blind test (hardly anyone does). You don't want to know what cable you're using, not even it's price ;)
Answers:
Originally posted by home_bas
As for video signals, in order of bestness:
Component :luv: -> RGB SCART :luv: -> S-Vid :) -> Composite :gag:
DVI -> VGA -> Component -> RGB SCART -> S-Vid -> Composite -> RF:gag:
;)
Answers:
Thanks for the info guys.
I like the price of the co-ax cable from cp-audiovisual but I’m a little worried about the comment from lynx, is this king/kingy guy part of this company or was he just some bod mouthing off?
D J Fryer, thanks for the offer but it will be a little longer before I can justify actually buying these cable (I lost my job a few months back and I’m living on a shoe string budget at the moment) I’m just doing some research into what I can buy when I get my 1st pay cheque at the moment.
Answers:
I am not sure what lynx meant by him being a spammer - I assume cpaudiovisual is his company BUT avforums does permit commercial advertising in their Hardware special offers so whether that makes his post less credible or not is another matter - I suppose you would just have to look at his checkout ordering system to see if you felt comfortable with his reliability or not, either that or post to see if anyone has ordered from them before.
Answers:
Originally posted by DeadKenny
DVI -> VGA -> Component -> RGB SCART -> S-Vid -> Composite -> RF:gag:
Don't forget SDI ;)
Answers:
Originally posted by DeadKenny
Of course you can pay for robustness, but with digital audio think of it like this...
How many dirt cheap £1 phono cables can you get through that'll do the same job as an expensive dedicated "digital":rolleyes: coax or optical? The expensive one may last longer but I'm still on my first cheapy one and it sounds identical to the expensive one I'm using for another bit of kit.
Kenny,
We're not talking about car tyres here. This business of something "lasting longer" simply does not apply to audio (or video) cables of any kind. They do not wear out. Degradation in other forms may creep in but there is no reason a cheapie cable will last less than an expensive cable.
Another point to mention is that many folks seem to think all digital coax will perform to more or less the same level. This is due to several misconceptions.
Here's an article written by my good friend and avtalk member Charlie W on the matter. Hope it helps.
"Most digital interfaces have a limited bandwidth. This is as true of the transmitter/receivers as the cable carrying the signal. This limited bandwidth has the effect of increasing the fall and rise times of our notional square wave of 0's and 1's zipping down the cable. So instead of nice vertical leading/trailing edges to pulses, what you actually get is a sloping line. Now, the detection of a 0 or 1, is dependent upon the receiver circuit recognising that the voltage has passed through some notional fixed value. If the pulses had vertical edges, then there would be no uncertainty in time when the transition occurs. However, due to the fact the line is sloping this introduces the theoretical possibility that the timing of that transition (and hence jitter since clock information is going to be retrieved from this signal) could be affected. All other things being equal, this sloping line should not make a difference, because provided the slope is equal for all pulses, the transition will occur at the same point and a uniform clock rate will result. BUT...
If the bandwidth of the link is sufficiently poor, then the pulse may not reach its maximum or minimum voltages before it is required to move back to its other state. In this situation, the content of the data (i.e., what bit values have gone immediately before) will affect the outcome. Logical 1's require more transitions than 0's.
Conversely, if the bandwidth of the link is too high, and the rise/fall times of the pulses are too fast, any impedance mismatches at the ends of the cables due to poor termination (RCA's are seldom anything like true 75 ohm) will cause reflections of part of the signal. This reflected information will wash back and forth between the transmitter and receiver ends and act as a background random noise. Again the presence of this varying voltage superimposed on our nice clean pulses, with their nice sloping edges, will have the effect of altering the time at which transitions are detected by the receiver. More jitter.
In a similar way, any signal induced into the cable due to poor screening will also affect the detector's ability to accurately detect the timing of transitions. Jitter again.
There is a trade-off to be had between all these variables. Different cables and plugs will have varying impedances and better or worse rejection of RFI."
Answers:
To be honest, that is just as much technobabble as the very worst episode of Star Trek! To suggest that any half decent cable will have so little bandwidth it will affect the rise times of what is, in electrical terms, a pretty low frequency signal, is a pretty questionable theory, but following that with the suggestion that [b]too much bandwidth[b] will have an adverse affect is totally laughable!
Answers:
And why is that Andy? :)
Answers:
Originally posted by Uncle Eric
Kenny,
We're not talking about car tyres here. This business of something "lasting longer" simply does not apply to audio (or video) cables of any kind. They do not wear out. Degradation in other forms may creep in but there is no reason a cheapie cable will last less than an expensive cable.
I agree to an extent. The reason I made the argument was because the usual argument you get from people talking about expensive cables is because they last longer, so I just counter with the fact you can buy dozens of cheap cables for the same price if you had to. In actual fact, as you point out, they don't really wear out (I'm still on my £1 cheapy cable which isn't even a digital cable, just a plain old audio phono cable, and it's as perfect as ever :D). That said, to say cables don't wear out is not true and paying extra will give you some robustness for cables that are frequently moved, plugged and unplugged. Also cables can corrode. I've never had it on sealed phono cables, but I've had speaker cable "rot" before.
Answers:
Which is why I said .....
Originally posted by Uncle Eric
Degradation in other forms may creep in
Answers:
My scepticism is based on the simple fact that, for instance, a PCM signal from a DVD is 48KHz with 16bit sampling (correct me if I'm wrong) which after a quick poke around on a calculator is 768kbs. Considering the average thin bit of wire in the average office network seems to have sufficient bandwidth to carry 100,000kbs without having problems "the pulse may not reach its maximum or minimum voltages before it is required to move back to its other state" I just can't see how it would be a problem with even the cheapest digital cable.
..and how on earth are impedance-reflections more of a problem if the cable has "too much" bandwidth???
I've heard all the arguements about jitter and timing 100s of times, but in the end bits is bits and that isn't based on any "misconceptions" - just a reasonable knowlege of analogue and digital electronics.
Answers:
Originally posted by AndyWilson
My scepticism is based on the simple fact that, for instance, a PCM signal from a DVD is 48KHz with 16bit sampling (correct me if I'm wrong) which after a quick poke around on a calculator is 768kbs. Considering the average thin bit of wire in the average office network seems to have sufficient bandwidth to carry 100,000kbs without having problems "the pulse may not reach its maximum or minimum voltages before it is required to move back to its other state" I just can't see how it would be a problem with even the cheapest digital cable.
Trust me, people can come up with all kinds of analysis with wave-forms proving there is a theoretical difference. The, "if it's good enough for 100Mbps ethernet, then surely it's good enough for digital audio" argument has many well prepared arguments to counter it that have enough technobable to make it difficult to disprove or prove. I think "jitter" is the usual one we'd hear next :rolleyes:.
All that matters is whether you can tell a difference, not your mates, your wallet or the so called "unbiased" reviews like in What Hi-Fi that are biased towards whatever is expensive or pays them enough ;). The only real test you can do is a true blind test, and very few people actually do a completely unbiased true blind test where they have absolutely no idea which cable is being used. i.e. what I'm saying is a lot of it's in the mind ;)
Besides I overheard someone who is in the business of manufacturing audio cables joke at the fact he can sell the same cheap industrial electronics cable used in a non-audio part of his business for a fortune in the audio business ;)
Answers:
I think you're right to sceptical AndyWilson, the requirement for home audio (and franky for most other audio) is that you need a cable that is good enough.
I would say that if you buy a decent quality cable, and by that I mean solid connectors, good construction to make good contacts. Not to be confused with gold braided, 99.999999% OFC £200 a metre stuff.
Probably most £10 to £20 cables are absolutely fine, I very much doubt anyone can tell the difference between a £20 and £40 cable, as it would mean they would have hearing that operates on the same scale as scientific instruments :nuts:
From my slightly dim memory of Electronics from when I studied it, there is no basis in science for a cable with too much bandwidth affecting the switching speed of the signal, because that would imply that the cable is doing something more than just acting as a conduit for the signal.
The switching speed is done by the kit, not the cable.
To be accurate, the main consideration is the frequency response of the cable, if this is too low it will restrict the speed at which the current can vary, but if it is too high the current can switch between states as controlled by the kit so no worries.
So in essence, buy a half decent reasonably priced cable and enjoy your films. :thumbs:
1 2