June issue of What HiFi: Optical cable group test

[admin_exported]

In the June issue of the magazine clear subjective difference were identified between optical cables, with each appearing to have their own character.

Did WHF speak with the manufacturers in an attempt to find out why this was?

Were some cables simply "throwing away" certain data?

 

[Anonymous]

I have two optical cables, one £20 one from Maplins, it was the most expensive one and has gold connectors, the other is the cheapest one in the world, came free with a Sharp MD recorder like 10 years ago, there is absolutely no difference.

 

[professorhat]

Pmaninit:the other is the cheapest one in the world

Wow, that's pretty cheap

 

[chebby]

I bought one for £7.99 from the Beresford site when I ordered the DAC. (Saved on seperate postage.)

I don't know who makes it but It works fine.

Thousands of miles of this stuff is sitting around the ocean floor carrying vast quantities of critical commercial data around the globe and works fine unless some idiot oil tanker master mooring off Alexandria decides to drag an anchor through three cables at once! (An almost annual event now.)

I don't think the global Telcos who manage this stuff insist on Chord or Monster or whoever. Probably made by the cheapest bidder and yet everything seems to arrive bit perfect whenever required. (Anchors and earthquakes allowing)

 

[professorhat]

chebby:I don't think the global Telcos who manage this stuff insist on Chord or Monster or whoever. Probably made by the cheapest bidder and yet everything seems to arrive bit perfect whenever required. (Anchors and earthquakes allowing)

But then telecoms companies will be using protocols with large amounts of error control to ensure bit perfect transmission over these large distances - something which doesn't lend itself well to an application which demands instantaneous results like music and video playing. Same with internet connections which, generally, use TCP/IP which has huge amounts of error control built into it (it was actually designed by the US military for communications after WW3!). Hence why when you start a video over a web browser, it always has to start a buffer session and download a section before it starts playing to allow for the extra time for lost packets of data to be resent and downloaded.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't have access to WHF magazine at the moment - is it being claimed there are audible sonic differences between the cables? If it is, then you'd want to see the test data for each cable.

 

[Anonymous]

I've tried numerous optical cables and can't tell the difference in sound quality between them, I am now using the cambridge audio one that was reviewed which is of perfectly acceptable build yet the review did not sound that promising (mind you I paid a very small amount compared to £20 rrp) so quess they bear that in mind. As for stereo interconnets the difference can be night and day, but many say digital is a very minor difference if at all because of the 1's and 0's etc. I can't see how the optical cables can differ enough to bother reviewing them, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

The review described the differences in great detail. It was like a wine-tasting session.

Sadly I do not have the magazine to hand.

 

[chebby]

professorhat:...(it was actually designed by the US military for communications after WW3!).

Yes ARPANET.

However, WW3 notwithstanding, a metre or two of optical cable is not going to present anything like the 'hash' present on the infrastructure that the internet traverses. It does not need to go through countless routers and switches and RAMBO's and DSLAM's and miles of 1950s vintage copper bell wire that BT have not bothered to replace yet!

 

[professorhat]

No, indeed not and I don't want to get drawn into whether there is a difference between the optical cables reviewed or not because life is too short frankly, but just thought I'd point out thatÿcomparisonsÿbetween cables used in hi-fi and home entertainment and those used along the sea bed aren't really valid as the nature and application of that data is very different.

ÿ

 

[chebby]

Eddie Pound:
The review described the differences in great detail. It was like a wine-tasting session.

Sounds a very familiar simile. Eddie.

 

[Alec]

Oops, wrong thread.

 

[chebby]

al7478:


Oops, wrong thread.

No, the right thread if ever there was!

 

[Alec]

chebby:al7478:



Oops, wrong thread.

No, the right thread if ever there was!

If ever a Wiz! there was.
If ever oh ever a Wiz! there was The Wizard of Oz is one because,
Because, because, because, because, because.
Because of the wonderful things he does.

 

[John Duncan]

(cue flying monkey heebie jeebies)

 

[Anonymous]

I'm waiting for WHF's technical staff.

 

[The_Lhc]

why, do you need a lift home?

 

[Anonymous]

Eddie Pound:
The review described the differences in great detail. It was like a wine-tasting session.

Sadly I do not have the magazine to hand.

Does WHF publicise the methodology used to produce these test results? I must admit that when I read test descriptions of equipment racks, which were similar in style to what you describe above, I started scratching my head a little...

 

[Alec]

the_lhc:why, do you need a lift home?

LOL! FOFL!

Etc...!!!

JD, some cinemas let them in, you know.

 

[Big Chris]

No Chord Optichord either..........

 

[Anonymous]

Shocking really if there are describing differences in character of sound. Its 1's and 0's as we all know. The data either arrives correctly or it doesnt. Even a slight bit of jitter will not cause a cable to be "warm", "pacy", or have more bass, etc. If anything a split second of sound would be lost or distorted.

I really enjoy reading WHFSV and like using the reviews to make informed descisions on products. However reviews and comparisons like this really break my trust with the reviews, like I've been told many times: good reviews are awarded to the companies who advertise the most.

 

[Alec]

jazzy639: like I've been told many times: good reviews are awarded to the companies who advertise the most.

You will probably end up regretting this statement.

My response, however, would simply be "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..."

 

[Anonymous]

al7478:
jazzy639:ÿÿlike I've been told many times: good reviews are awarded to the companies who advertise the most.ÿ

You will probably end up regretting this statement.

My response, however,ÿwould simply be "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..."

I don't agree with the statement either, AL7478, but make no mistake, there's a lot of credibility at stake here, and it's up to WHF to prove their findings. jazzy639 is right, it's 0s and 1s, and to find differences is to fly in the face of the technology.

 

[professorhat]

What would quantify as proof though?

ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:
What would quantify as proof though?

Ask RA....he should have the answers.......