June issue of What HiFi: Optical cable group test

[Anonymous]

Let's not lose sight of the main issue here. WHF are claiming to hear differences in digital optical cables which, given the nature of the technology, need to be justified on technical grounds. If they cannot, then it raises serious questions about the credibility of these and many other tests they perform.

I note with sadness the failure by WHF to address the issue so far.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Catcher:
I am not calling into question the integrity of any one person or claiming to have hard evidence of shady deals.

Every journalist of every kind will claim that are are operating in an
atmosphere of objectivity oblivious to the concerns of advertisers and
proprietors.The facts fly in the face of this claim despite journalists
pleas to the contrary.

Sorry, but you made exactly that claim, and now you have moved the goalposts signficantly to try to justify your fallacious arguments and outrageous and unfounded claims.

Again you are talking about 'facts' that outweigh 'pleas to the contrary'. Are you now saying those running the company are manipulating the content of the magazine in some way of which the editorial team is not aware? And that I and my fellow editorial staff members are naive to think otherwise, when you know 'the facts'?

If so, there seems to be little point continuing to respond to you when you choose to believe in 'facts' you are totally unable, or unwilling, to substantiate.

Oh and...

Catcher:It is not a "subtle" insinuation towards Andrew at all.

At last something on which we can agree: your insinuation was anything but subtle.

 

[Andrew Everard]

the_lhc:I don't think the OP was actually expecting an answer, it was rhetorical...

I think most of the OP's posts are rhetorical.

 

[matthewpiano]

Eddie Pound:
Surely it is as simple as measuring the data stream at the optical output of the CD player, and again at the end of the cable.

If What HiFi do not have this basic test equipment, or access to it via a third party, then they are not providing a valuable service to readers.

Wrong again. The most valuable measurement of all is how it actually sounds. WHFS&V has always focused on subjective reviews with a strong dose of advice for readers to make final choices by auditioning for themselves.

If you need clinical measurements and graphs there are other magazines which provide this. It is my opinion that WHFS&V is informative, readable, and focused on what matters to most people - the way things sound.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Eddie Pound:then they are not providing a valuable service to readers.

However, we are clearly providing a valuable service to you, in the form of a forum for you to continually attack the magazine.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew, I don't think the intent of most of us is to attack the magazine per se. The magazine has made claims about optical digital cables which are highly questionable given the nature of them and what they carry, and surely it is the right of anybody to challenge findings which seem to go against the technical side of things. Remember we are talking about digital signals here.ÿ

I'm actually surprised (and I haven't read the article) that there wasn't some sort of disclaimer on the lines of ".. although theoretically impossible, our testers did identify differences in the cables we tested .." ÿfollowed by some figures to show why. ÿ

 

[Andrew Everard]

Tarquinh:The magazine has made claims about optical digital cables which are highly questionable...

[snip]

I'm actually surprised (and I haven't read the article)

So you are making a judgement based on someone else's reading of the article?

 

[Anonymous]

No, being honest, that's all. I make no judgements - you'll see I had already mentioned that I hadn't read the article.

Is it true that the test shows differences in the optical cables?ÿ

 

[Andrew Everard]

How about you buy the magazine, on sale today, read the article, and decide for yourself?

 

[Anonymous]

As I said before, I can't buy the magazine as it's not available (if there is one in the country) where I am now.

Is it possible to email me a copy of the article?ÿ

 

[Andrew Everard]

Tarquinh:Is it possible to email me a copy of the article?

No.

You'll find the magazine's international subscriptions service here

 

[Mr Steve]

and bring on the the wine.

WHF - what wine do you serve when doing the group tests, careful with the answer you might end up with many, many volunteers

 

[Anonymous]

I stand corrected. Evidently some manufactures do make such claims. I will study Cambridge Audio's web site further to see if the back up these claims with empirical evidence. I concede that if the claim was demonstrably false then the Advertising Standards Authority might have something so say about it, probably.

 

[chebby]

Chord Co. only make modest 'claims' for their Optichord.... "Metal bodied plug engineered to ensure positive connectionHighly polished cable ends50 MHz bandwidth cable specificationAvailable in 1, 3, 5 and 7 metre lengthsAvailable fitted with mini-jack optical connector"I will still not be buying any though.

I will also not be replacing the John Lewis HDMI and USB cables that cost about £8.99 each. (Reduced from £20 each I think.)

Too long working in IT to believe that anything more is required for data than a product that meets internationally agreed standards (especially over a metre or two).

 

[Anonymous]

All we're looking to find out is how differences could be heard. As its a digital signal, distortion or loss of signal would occur, the characteristics of sound should not change.

 

[Ketan Bharadia]

Hello all,
Just wanted to clarify how we test optical cables. They'll be put into a reference system usually between a CD player and DAC, though a suitably talented DVD player and AV amp will also work, and we simply listen to them. While the differences aren't of the 'night and day' variety they are clear and consistent.
We often hear the arguments about cables not making a difference because digital is just noughts and ones. That's a simplistic way of looking atÿ it: the data stream is incredibly complex and error correction isn't necessarily perfect. Things such as cable construction and optic quality can have a significant influence.
We have no interest in reporting differences when there are none.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:Catcher:
I am not calling into question the integrity of any one person or claiming to have hard evidence of shady deals.

Every journalist of every kind will claim that are are operating in an
atmosphere of objectivity oblivious to the concerns of advertisers and
proprietors.The facts fly in the face of this claim despite journalists
pleas to the contrary.

Sorry, but you made exactly that claim, and now you have moved the goalposts signficantly to try to justify your fallacious arguments and outrageous and unfounded claims.

Again you are talking about 'facts' that outweigh 'pleas to the contrary'. Are you now saying those running the company are manipulating the content of the magazine in some way of which the editorial team is not aware? And that I and my fellow editorial staff members are naive to think otherwise, when you know 'the facts'?

If so, there seems to be little point continuing to respond to you when you choose to believe in 'facts' you are totally unable, or unwilling, to substantiate.

Oh and...

Catcher:It is not a "subtle" insinuation towards Andrew at all.

At last something on which we can agree: your insinuation was anything but subtle.

Ok Andrew, if you choose to accuse me in the manner you are doing so be it. I'm not sure you even took the time to read my replies.

Could you please post a link when What Hi Fi does a piece on the inaccuracies of claims by manufacturers that advertise with What Hi Fi.

I choose to believe that most main stream media outlets are, unconsciously or otherwise, compromised by market forces and the demands of advertising revenue. It is not a novel proposition, hundreds of books and articles havebeen published on the subject and there are websites dediated to the idea. I suggest you google medialens or walk in a bookshop and look up cultural theory for people who have more time to explain it than I do.

 

[Anonymous]

Ketan Bharadia:Hello all,
Just wanted to clarify how we test optical cables. They'll be put into a reference system usually between a CD player and DAC, though a suitably talented DVD player and AV amp will also work, and we simply listen to them. While the differences aren't of the 'night and day' variety they are clear and consistent.
We often hear the arguments about cables not making a difference because digital is just noughts and ones. That's a simplistic way of looking atÿ it: the data stream is incredibly complex and error correction isn't necessarily perfect. Things such as cable construction and optic quality can have a significant influence.
We have no interest in reporting differences when there are none.

Katan, we're talking about short lengths of optical cable here, not vast runs. Yes, over long runs cable construction and optical quality can have a significant influence on data loss and the consequent need for error correction, which is why there are standards, but on the short runs of a hifi optical cable?? I note that you don't say that the significant influence is on the sound of a cable, which leaves the question of why you heard those differences to begin with unanswered.ÿ

 

[The_Lhc]

Tarquinh:Ketan Bharadia:Hello all,
Just wanted to clarify how we test optical cables. They'll be put into a reference system usually between a CD player and DAC, though a suitably talented DVD player and AV amp will also work, and we simply listen to them. While the differences aren't of the 'night and day' variety they are clear and consistent.
We often hear the arguments about cables not making a difference because digital is just noughts and ones. That's a simplistic way of looking at it: the data stream is incredibly complex and error correction isn't necessarily perfect. Things such as cable construction and optic quality can have a significant influence.
We have no interest in reporting differences when there are none.

Katan,

Ketan...

I note that you don't say that the significant influence is on the sound of a cable,

Given that we're talking about an audio cable I'd say that's kind of implied really...

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:Tarquinh:Ketan Bharadia:Hello all,
Just wanted to clarify how we test optical cables. They'll be put into a reference system usually between a CD player and DAC, though a suitably talented DVD player and AV amp will also work, and we simply listen to them. While the differences aren't of the 'night and day' variety they are clear and consistent.
We often hear the arguments about cables not making a difference because digital is just noughts and ones. That's a simplistic way of looking atÿ it: the data stream is incredibly complex and error correction isn't necessarily perfect. Things such as cable construction and optic quality can have a significant influence.
We have no interest in reporting differences when there are none.

Katan,

Ketan...

I note that you don't say that the significant influence is on the sound of a cable,

Given that we're talking about an audio cable I'd say that's kind of implied really...

I wouldn't say so, it's a very careful, non-technical reply. But anyway, there's no point flogging this - given you're in the same field as I am, if memory serves me well, ÿyou know the answer just as I do.

 

[Trefor Patten]

Over the past few weeks there have been many, many posts ÿon cables. What, exactly, is everyone getting so heated about? Several posters seem to be on a mission to convince us all that cables cannot and do not make a difference. When they make these pronouncements others ÿseek to dismiss them with equal passion. ÿFor the record, I am of the camp that believes that cables make a considerable difference to the sound of a system and have spend something around £300 on cables over the years. I have done so, because in my system these cables have made an improvement to my listening enjoyment which was worth more than that amount of money in the sense that the same money spent on Amp, CDP etc would not have brought about as big an improvement and I know this because I listened before I bought.

ÿ

My point is this: While there are plenty of unscrupulous people out there selling 'snake oil' and some of the claims made for some products seem a little dubious the solution is clear. If you cannot try before you buy or, alternatively, return for a refund if you do not like what you hear, then don't buy. Simple as that.

ÿ

To put it even simpler: WHAT IS ALL THIS ANGUISH ABOUT?

There is a right slanging match going on here with fundamentalists in both camps flinging insults left right and centre and it is pointless. I find it incredible that someone can claim that cables make no difference. When I listen, the difference is clear. Whether some megabucks cables are worth the changes they bring is another matter. ÿI have listened to cables costing a few quid which have made an all-in-one Denon system costing £300 pounds more enjoyable and engaging than a collection of seperates costing three times as much. Without the cable, the Denon did not sound as good. So spending £50 on this cable seemed like a bargain.ÿ

ÿ

If the naysayers think I am fooling myself, that is fine. I enjoy my music as well as the adulation of visitors who cannot believe how good my cheap hi-fi sounds.

If you are happy with what you have, great. If not try some new cables and if they do not have the desired effect, try something else. If you really think that none of this makes any difference, why are you reading the forum in the first place?ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

Trefor, we're talking optical cables here, and that's the problem. It's unfortunately not a matter of faith, it's one of credibility.

However, I agree that this subject should be left alone now. ÿ

 

[The_Lhc]

Tarquinh: But anyway, there's no point flogging this - given you're in the same field as I am, if memory serves me well, you know the answer just as I do.

You have a better memory than me then I'm afraid but in this instance yes I don't hold a lot of store in the differences between optical cables.

I used to splice communications grade optical fibre for a former employer, that doesn't half give you a headache. And a nosebleed on one occasion I seem to recall, only time I've ever had one.

 

[Anonymous]

I find it really hard to believe that an optical cable over a 1m run can make any difference. However, I was doing some testing of the 7520 Beresford DAC last week against the Cyrus DAC-XP.

At first I thought ... night and day difference. The sound through the 7520 being fed an optical signal was a little crackly. I then noticed that the cable going into the DAC was under a bit of stress and as a result the connection that it was making with the DAC was poor. This manifested itself in a slightly crackly sound. The DAC still played, there was no break in the music - it just sounded quite poor. I fixed the connection and it sounded great and almost as good as the DAC-XP (as I've posted in my comparison).

The conclusion that I have come to is therefore that any difference in the sound quality through an optical lead will be due to a poor connection or not a perfect connection. On the whole the DAC will still play but will not be getting 100% of the information.

I don't think that I would be able to hear a difference between different cables so will not waste my cash in that way but I can at least see a possible reason for why there would be a difference (to me it would mostly boil down to the quality of the connection).

 

[8009514]

Grimaldi:The conclusion that I have come to is therefore that any difference in the sound quality through an optical lead will be due to a poor connection or not a perfect connection. On the whole the DAC will still play but will not be getting 100% of the information. I don't think that I would be able to hear a difference between different cables so will not waste my cash in that way but I can at least see a possible reason for why there would be a difference (to me it would mostly boil down to the quality of the connection).

Possibly THE most important thing when it comes to fibre chords. A lot of my world revolves around lasers and fibre optics, albeit in the RF domain with data and analogue/digital TV signals. Connector cleanliness is of absolute paramount importance, we have microscopes to inspect connector ends to ensure this. Specks of dirt, and I'm talking 'microns' here can have a very detrimental effect on the performance of a fibre link.

However, one of the problems with connector cleanliness is how to reach and clean the connector which is inside the equipment. That sometimes causes a problem especially as dirt can transfer from one connector to another when coupled together.