A Question About Reviews

[admin_exported]

Let me start by saying I don't want to start a war here. I'm just struggling to understand something.

The Mag tends to review equipment based on how it's percieved i.e. by looking at it or listening to it and to an extent by touching it and interacting with it. Fine no problem with this style at all.

Now the question - when it comes to cable and interconnect reviews I see words like opens up or brightens or adds depth and I struggle to make sense of it.

Would one not want what went in one end of a cable to be what came out of the other so to speak?

How can a cable add anything to an electronic signal unless it's distorting it or clipping it in some way?

I can see how a speaker cable can do this BTW depending on how its designed, given it's length as well, as you can clearly induce inductive and capacatitive effects. But these effects surely only serve to degrade the signal being transmitted? In which case would it not be the height of glowing praise to say that a cable leaves the signal unchanged?

I'm confused and given my poor quality ears, unable to hear many of these differences for myself. Please help.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm also interested in understanding if any objective measurements are taken when reviewing certain products i.e. Displays ?

A good example being colour performance i.e. inaccurate oversaturated colour performance presented as a benefit over more accurate colour performance. Perhaps including measurements such as the products colour gamut in the above example would help provide objectivity and a better indication of performance in this area.Also providing details of the setup i.e. source players, cable type used and if any calibration/settings is changed when comparing multiple displays would be useful. Even just knowing if the product is calibrated and to what standard of if it's just out of the box setting would also be useful .

Like the op I also struggle with your cable reviews esp HDMI from the Sep 08 issue. There's little detail about the HDMI spec the cable is designed to meet or what conformance testing at what length has been certified by an HDMI ATC. Again some objectivity would be of benefit in understanding the difference given the price range covered. It's possible to purchase a quality 5m 1.3a HDMI cable that is tested by an ATC to HDMI 1.3a(cts 1.3b1) category 2(<=25 ft) for under £50 and it's not clear what's different to a cables in your review. Any chance of including such info in future updates ?

Comments appreciated.

Here is some more "objective" background info about HDMI cables that may be of interest -

http://www.dvigear.com/documents/DVIGear_HDMI_1.3_Cables_-_A_Look_Under_the_Hood_v2.pdf

http://www.bluejeanscables.co.uk/articles/hdmi-cable-information.htm?hdmidept

 

[Anonymous]

welshboy:

I can see how a speaker cable can do this BTW depending on how its designed, given it's length as well, as you can clearly induce inductive and capacatitive effects. But these effects surely only serve to degrade the signal being transmitted? In which case would it not be the height of glowing praise to say that a cable leaves the signal unchanged?

Maybe. But in the real world you're looking at a combination of imperfect parts - source, interconnects, amplifier, speaker cable, and speakers (and room and listener). So you may well end up with a situation where an imperfect cable compensates better for defects in the rest of the system and so sounds better than the 'perfect' cable would. Which raises the question of whether you'd get different cable reviews if used with different amps/speakers, or whether the effect is largely independant of the rest of the system....

 

[Anonymous]

avi: Like the op I also struggle with your cable reviews esp HDMI from the Sep 08 issue. There's little detail about the HDMI spec the cable is designed to meet or what conformance testing at what length has been certified by an HDMI ATC.

Edited for house rules violations - Mods