Digital Interconnects

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Alec said:
MUSICRAFT said:
Thompsonuxb said:
MUSICRAFT said:
Thompsonuxb said:
BenLaw said:
Thompsonuxb said:
Digital interconnects make more difference than anolog by the nature of the digital signal. Its more precise and less splashy at the top end
I don't really know what that means, but can you provide a link in support?
Provide a link, what for......lol.

If you have access to a digital reciever connect your CD player to it directly with digital/optical coax, compare them to Anolog interconnects and agianst each other and then hand on heart report back and tell the truth......provide a link......indeed.
Hi Thompsonuxb

I use a basic (single) interconnect to transfer digital data between a Yamaha BD-S1900 Blu Ray player (coaxial digital out) > Chord Electronics DSP8000 AV processor.

Btw, for optical connection i use a basic fibre optic cable which i bought at the local market for a £1.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft
I know, you keep saying you do......I don't know if you're just cheap or you really don't have that set up...er...set up to really listen to your music.... you have a shop Rick ? lets all go to Ricks shop to do this test.
Hi Thompsonuxb

If i was cheap do you really think i'd buy a DSP8000 at £13k or the matching SPM3005 multichannel power amplifier at £15k :? If i wanted to i could have 'blinged' up these and other components such as a Plinius Hiato, Krell FPB600, etc. with after market cables.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft
Wave it in our face why don't you.

But seriously, the minimum you should be spending on even just the mains cable for that little lot is £500, easy.
lol.......

its a bit like that Harry Enfield gag, "my house is considerebly larger than yows....."

I get it Rick, but its like a man who cleans and polishes his car every Sunday but never puts in any oil, lubricants, air in the tires........to each his own.....er....kind regards.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
this was an interesting thread, I wish there were more like it, and less I'm above this. this is what hi fi is about. eeking out the best out of your music and hi fi........ 8)
 

Craig M.

New member
Mar 20, 2008
127
0
0
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha deep breath ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. hoooo, cheers! oh no, it's starting again. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. i'm going, i can't take anymore. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
 
T

the record spot

Guest
Thompsonuxb said:
I get it Rick, but its like a man who cleans and polishes his car every Sunday but never puts in any oil, lubricants, air in the tires........to each his own.....er....kind regards.
Ah, no, if you did, you would see how your analogy is wrong. All of that stuff is relevant - you don't put in oil, your engine is screwed, you don't put air in the tyres, your wheel's screwed. You're using the wrong analogy.

If, however, you'd said the windscreen water bottle needed 2l of Pelligrini, then you'd be on the page. Your screen still gets washed, but the quality of the water makes next to no difference to what you see out the window.
 

BenLaw

Well-known member
Nov 21, 2010
475
7
18,895
the record spot said:
Thompsonuxb said:
I get it Rick, but its like a man who cleans and polishes his car every Sunday but never puts in any oil, lubricants, air in the tires........to each his own.....er....kind regards.
Ah, no, if you did, you would see how your analogy is wrong. All of that stuff is relevant - you don't put in oil, your engine is screwed, you don't put air in the tyres, your wheel's screwed. You're using the wrong analogy.

If, however, you'd said the windscreen water bottle needed 2l of Pelligrini, then you'd be on the page. Your screen still gets washed, but the quality of the water makes next to no difference to what you see out the window.
:)
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
the record spot said:
Thompsonuxb said:
I get it Rick, but its like a man who cleans and polishes his car every Sunday but never puts in any oil, lubricants, air in the tires........to each his own.....er....kind regards.
Ah, no, if you did, you would see how your analogy is wrong. All of that stuff is relevant - you don't put in oil, your engine is screwed, you don't put air in the tyres, your wheel's screwed. You're using the wrong analogy.

If, however, you'd said the windscreen water bottle needed 2l of Pelligrini, then you'd be on the page. Your screen still gets washed, but the quality of the water makes next to no difference to what you see out the window.
wrong.... I do believe you just shot yourself in the foot.

windscreen wash...... the difference between a good one and a cheap one which could leave streaks and smears.

I wish I had more time to hang out hear.......goodnight ..... :wave:
 
T

the record spot

Guest
No foot shooting from me mate, you put up the analogy in the first place. I think I made my point well enough given as I was talking about the water content. Night night.
 

Ambrose

New member
Feb 19, 2008
53
0
0
OK.... New thread was on same topic but I thought it was a different slant.

I am not interested in trolling ,whatever the hell that means.

All I am saying is that the staff at WHF seem to have an opinion on digital interconnects and some being better than others or recommended over others that they have reviewed them and people use these as guideance on what to shortlist when buying Hi Fi, as I do, so doesn't this lend credit to the arguement?

Thread was for genuine advice to help improve my system. FACT.

Thats the last from me on this subject.

When I do decide on digital interconnects I will keep opinions to myself
 

idc

Well-known member
Jan 2, 2008
1,113
67
19,270
Thompsonuxb said:
idc said:
Thompsonuxb said:
Cables do make a difference.

Note those who will claim they don't, appear to be the most reluctant to do a simple test such as the one I propose. A controlled enviroment a fixed set of parameters only the cables/interconnects will be changed and we listen. its not even a which one is better test.

And why don't some of you trust what you hear, I mean believing your mind is playing tricks on you if you hear a difference......whats that about?

Regards digital interconnects - fibre optic, copper or silver. the more expensive the cable the purer it will be. Its like diamonds to a degree. why do two stones, same size same weight have different value. considering they are both diamonds. Could it be that one is clearer, purer than the other.

If you can understand that then why is it so hard to believe this will have an affect on an electrical signal passing through it. I am confident in a test such as this you will hear the differnces in cables, both digital and anolog, confident enough to put good money on it....my car tax is due and It could do with a service too.

I'm not desperately looking for friends, but c'mon lets do this settle the argument....I dare you.
I agree cables make a difference. I do not see the point in saying anything else. The real issue is why do they make a difference, with some people, some of the time, in different hifis? Also, why is the reported difference not consistent?

Is your simple test sighted, blind comparison or ABX?

Your analogy with diamonds is a fail because you need to show a link between purety and sound quality. That is where all cable makers fail as whilst many make appeals to their build quality and components, none can show a link between that and sound quality. All they can do is suggest a link, as you have done. That is the rejection of science that I do not like about the way cable companies and cable believers behave.

Why will your test settle the argument? What about all the other sighted, blind comparison and ABX tests that have already been done? Why have they not settled the argument?
The test would have been any how they wanted, eyes open or closed, makes no odds, differences would be heard.

......
The evidence so far shows sighted and blind compariosn find different results (so what out performs another sighted may not do so in a blind comparison test and vice versa. ABX finds no reliable differences at all.

What conclusion do you take from that evidence?
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
Ambrose said:
Digital Interconnects - Why are there reviews by WHF?
In my opinion WHF's digital cable reviews are a total waste of time because all digital cables sound the same.

WHF aren't even willing to do an ABX or blind AB test to prove that they can really hear any difference between digital cables. Yet they are still willing to recomend buying ridiculously expensive cables that are of no benefit.
 

Lee H

New member
Oct 7, 2010
336
0
0
steve_1979 said:
Ambrose said:
Digital Interconnects - Why are there reviews by WHF?
In my opinion WHF's digital cable reviews are a total waste of time because all digital cables sound the same.

WHF aren't even willing to do an ABX or blind AB test to prove that they can really hear any difference between digital cables. Yet they are still willing to recomend buying ridiculously expensive cables that are of no benefit.
Really? Heavens above, that's new news! Oh no, wait, it's not is it. This has all been gone through before. This is now in fact the groundhog thread.
 

Lee H

New member
Oct 7, 2010
336
0
0
Watched that at school. Much titilation at the swearing. Still don't get the reference though.
 

idc

Well-known member
Jan 2, 2008
1,113
67
19,270
steve_1979 said:
Ambrose said:
Digital Interconnects - Why are there reviews by WHF?
In my opinion WHF's digital cable reviews are a total waste of time because all digital cables sound the same.

WHF aren't even willing to do an ABX or blind AB test to prove that they can really hear any difference between digital cables. Yet they are still willing to recomend buying ridiculously expensive cables that are of no benefit.
WHF have done a number of blind comparison tests, including HDMI cables. From my blog

14 - What Hifi, Blind Test of HDMI cables, July 2010

Another What Hifi test of three forum members who are unaware that the change being made is with three HDMI cables. As far as they know equipment could be being changed. The cables are a freebie, a Chord costing £75 and a QED costing £150. Throughout the test all three struggle to find any difference, but are more confident that there is a difference in the sound rather than the picture. They preferred the freebie cable over the Chord one and found it to be as good as the most expensive QED. That result is common in blind testing and really differenentiates it from ABX tests.

The result is also different from the sighted test where the QED got the most stars and best review. I think that information is iseful and accurate and shows how under different conditions cables sound different. So as everyone says, try before you buy.
 

plastic penguin

Well-known member
John Duncan said:
"We shall fight them on the school field, we shall fight them in the sandpit, we shall fight them in the gymnasium and dormitories; and we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for one moment believe, this school should succumb to inedible mashed potatoes..."
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
idc said:
WHF have done a number of blind comparison tests, including HDMI cables. From my blog

14 - What Hifi, Blind Test of HDMI cables, July 2010

Another What Hifi test of three forum members who are unaware that the change being made is with three HDMI cables. As far as they know equipment could be being changed. The cables are a freebie, a Chord costing £75 and a QED costing £150. Throughout the test all three struggle to find any difference, but are more confident that there is a difference in the sound rather than the picture. They preferred the freebie cable over the Chord one and found it to be as good as the most expensive QED. That result is common in blind testing and really differenentiates it from ABX tests.

The result is also different from the sighted test where the QED got the most stars and best review. I think that information is iseful and accurate and shows how under different conditions cables sound different. So as everyone says, try before you buy.
So, on one of the rare occasions when WHF run an unbiased blind ABX test they 'struggle to find any difference'. But whenever they do a biased sighted review they claim to be able to see/hear big differences between cables.

Could somebody remind me again why they never do any blind tests on digital cables when they review them?
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
991
21
18,895
steve_1979 said:
idc said:
WHF have done a number of blind comparison tests, including HDMI cables. From my blog

14 - What Hifi, Blind Test of HDMI cables, July 2010

Another What Hifi test of three forum members who are unaware that the change being made is with three HDMI cables. As far as they know equipment could be being changed. The cables are a freebie, a Chord costing £75 and a QED costing £150. Throughout the test all three struggle to find any difference, but are more confident that there is a difference in the sound rather than the picture. They preferred the freebie cable over the Chord one and found it to be as good as the most expensive QED. That result is common in blind testing and really differenentiates it from ABX tests.

The result is also different from the sighted test where the QED got the most stars and best review. I think that information is iseful and accurate and shows how under different conditions cables sound different. So as everyone says, try before you buy.
So, on one of the rare occasions when WHF run an unbiased blind ABX test they 'struggle to find any difference'. But whenever they do a biased sighted review they claim to be able to see/hear big differences between cables.
Except that the test was completed by WHF readers / forum members, not by the WHF reviewers themselves.

steve_1979 said:
Could somebody remind me again why they never do any blind tests on digital cables when they review them?
My understanding was that they did - clicky.
 

chebby

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,245
12
19,195
steve_1979 said:
Could somebody remind me again why they never do any blind tests on digital cables when they review them?
I think the answer might be somewhere in the too boring to find, too boring to read, interminable list of boringly similar threads that infest the forum archives like dead rats. The ones where no-one has ever changed anyone's mind despite the pleas and sermons and insults and bannings and lockings and arguments and the appeals to science/Darwin/God/Richard Dawkins/the PCC/WHF? reviewers/uncle Tom Cobley and Clare.

Could we please have a week, or even a weekend, without a b####y digital cable thread?

There is a danger that - if I read any more of this over-repeated garbage - I am going to buy another turntable, sling the iPhone, get an 8 watt mono valve amp, some bell wire, a lifetime supply of Horlicks and a Tannoy corner monitor (made from the mdf 'pelts' of many ADM9s) then go and live in a crumbling gothic mansion and hurl rocks at anyone I suspect of having an MP3 player on their person.

I know there is a difference in HDMI cables and it cost me a total of £7.10 to find this out. So I had my cakes (well, two cables worth £70 each two years ago for £3.55 each) and I ate them. (Burp!) A battalion of blind scientists can come to my living-room and ABX the living #### out of each other (with as many £1 market-bought cables as they want) and my mind will not be changed.

Have a peaceful Easter.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts