professorhat
Well-known member
mrlizard13:We are talking packets of data
No we're not - computer data on a packet mode computer network is transmitted in packets. USB when used with a device such as transmitting digital sound data from computer to a DAC (for example) does not use a packet mode network.
mrlizard13:1's and 0's. They are either there, or they are not. A '1' doesn't become a '0.5' because it got degraded along the way.
Again, it's not actual 1s and 0s magically travelling along this wire. My understanding is it's a series of voltages in an analogue waveform representing the digital bits of 0 and 1. And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.
The process by which digital pictures are transferred to your PC via USB is very different - the main thing is, there is no real-time requirement for the transfer of the data, so it can be sent as many times as is necessary to ensure the data received on your PC is an exact copy of the data on your digital camera. For this reason, you can use any old cable for this process and it won't make any difference to the end result.
If interference and break-up of signal were impossible in digital cables, why do you think a USB cable has an absolute limit of 5m, even when used with a computer which has full error correction and no real-time necessity?
No we're not - computer data on a packet mode computer network is transmitted in packets. USB when used with a device such as transmitting digital sound data from computer to a DAC (for example) does not use a packet mode network.
mrlizard13:1's and 0's. They are either there, or they are not. A '1' doesn't become a '0.5' because it got degraded along the way.
Again, it's not actual 1s and 0s magically travelling along this wire. My understanding is it's a series of voltages in an analogue waveform representing the digital bits of 0 and 1. And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.
The process by which digital pictures are transferred to your PC via USB is very different - the main thing is, there is no real-time requirement for the transfer of the data, so it can be sent as many times as is necessary to ensure the data received on your PC is an exact copy of the data on your digital camera. For this reason, you can use any old cable for this process and it won't make any difference to the end result.
If interference and break-up of signal were impossible in digital cables, why do you think a USB cable has an absolute limit of 5m, even when used with a computer which has full error correction and no real-time necessity?
Messiah
Well-known member
professorhat:
And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.
Prof,
If a 1 is mis-interpreted as a zero how is this picked up? Is the error correction not then working anyway??
And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.
Prof,
If a 1 is mis-interpreted as a zero how is this picked up? Is the error correction not then working anyway??
mrlizard13:Yup, you know, the one that is based on sound fact.
But not on the sound.
mrlizard13:One of your guys on this thread (John_S) has suggested that a better quality cable degrades signal less. He's right! With analogue. Not so with digital. It's a bit worrying that the assistant production editor made a boob like that.
You're wrong! As you go on to show below. And anyway, it's his opinion. He's part of the production team, not a reviewer.
mrlizard13:We are talking packets of data. 1's and 0's. They are either there, or they are not. A '1' doesn't become a '0.5' because it got degraded
along the way.
No, we're not: neither packets nor 1s are being sent in this case. It's a bit worrying that you made a boob like that.
mrlizard13:Just saying it's what the test team heard isn't good enough for a mag of your standing. You should aim for better than that, your readers deserve it.
Read back - I have already offered one possible explanation.
mrlizard13: there's plenty of us that will continue to have a fairly suspect view of your test team.
Elected spokesman for this group you claim to represent, or self-appointed?
But not on the sound.
mrlizard13:One of your guys on this thread (John_S) has suggested that a better quality cable degrades signal less. He's right! With analogue. Not so with digital. It's a bit worrying that the assistant production editor made a boob like that.
You're wrong! As you go on to show below. And anyway, it's his opinion. He's part of the production team, not a reviewer.
mrlizard13:We are talking packets of data. 1's and 0's. They are either there, or they are not. A '1' doesn't become a '0.5' because it got degraded
along the way.
No, we're not: neither packets nor 1s are being sent in this case. It's a bit worrying that you made a boob like that.
mrlizard13:Just saying it's what the test team heard isn't good enough for a mag of your standing. You should aim for better than that, your readers deserve it.
Read back - I have already offered one possible explanation.
mrlizard13: there's plenty of us that will continue to have a fairly suspect view of your test team.
Elected spokesman for this group you claim to represent, or self-appointed?
Andrew Everard:
You're wrong! As you go on to show below. And anyway, it's his opinion. He's part of the production team, not a reviewer.
Why am I wrong? And how do I go on to show that I am wrong?
Andrew Everard:
No, we're not: neither packets nor 1s are being sent in this case. It's a bit worrying that you made a boob like that.
So what is being sent? If you know the answer, why do we have to wait for an edition of the mag that won't come out 'til the end of the year to find out?
Andrew Everard:
Read back - I have already offered one possible explanation.
Couldn't see your explanation. I saw you dismiss my "theory" that a USB cable carries data packets, but couldn't see your counter-theory.
Andrew Everard:
Elected spokesman for this group you claim to represent, or self-appointed?
Judging by your initial "here we go again/heard it all before" comment, there are plenty of us.
You're wrong! As you go on to show below. And anyway, it's his opinion. He's part of the production team, not a reviewer.
Why am I wrong? And how do I go on to show that I am wrong?
Andrew Everard:
No, we're not: neither packets nor 1s are being sent in this case. It's a bit worrying that you made a boob like that.
So what is being sent? If you know the answer, why do we have to wait for an edition of the mag that won't come out 'til the end of the year to find out?
Andrew Everard:
Read back - I have already offered one possible explanation.
Couldn't see your explanation. I saw you dismiss my "theory" that a USB cable carries data packets, but couldn't see your counter-theory.
Andrew Everard:
Elected spokesman for this group you claim to represent, or self-appointed?
Judging by your initial "here we go again/heard it all before" comment, there are plenty of us.
Absolutely no point in continuing this conversation if you're not going to bother reading the rest of the thread. Try reading what others write as well as your own 'flaming brands and assorted farm implements' ranting.
And for that reason, I'm out.
And for that reason, I'm out.
professorhat:
mrlizard13:We are talking packets of data
No we're not - computer data on a packet mode computer network is transmitted in packets. USB when used with a device such as transmitting digital sound data from computer to a DAC (for example) does not use a packet mode network.
mrlizard13:1's and 0's. They are either there, or they are not. A '1' doesn't become a '0.5' because it got degraded along the way.
Again, it's not actual 1s and 0s magically travelling along this wire. My understanding is it's a series of voltages in an analogue waveform representing the digital bits of 0 and 1. And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.
The process by which digital pictures are transferred to your PC via USB is very different - the main thing is, there is no real-time requirement for the transfer of the data, so it can be sent as many times as is necessary to ensure the data received on your PC is an exact copy of the data on your digital camera. For this reason, you can use any old cable for this process and it won't make any difference to the end result.
If interference and break-up of signal were impossible in digital cables, why do you think a USB cable has an absolute limit of 5m, even when used with a computer which has full error correction and no real-time necessity?
The 5m limit is not because of interference or break up of signal.
"The maximum length of a standard USB cable (for USB 2.0 or earlier) is 5.0 metres (16.4 ft). The primary reason for this limit is the maximum allowed round-trip delay of about 1,500 ns. If USB host commands are unanswered by the USB device within the allowed time, the host considers the command lost. When adding USB device response time, delays from the maximum number of hubs added to the delays from connecting cables, the maximum acceptable delay per cable amounts to be 26 ns. The USB 2.0 specification requires cable delay to be less than 5.2 ns per meter (192,000 km/s, which is close to the maximum achievable transmission speed for standard copper cable). This allows for a five metre cable"
1's and 0's are transmitted by toggling one of the data lines, not by using different voltages, so a 1 cannot be easily misinterpreted as a 0 as you suggest.
Of course, this does not prove that some USB cables cannot be better than others, but I remain sceptical.
mrlizard13:We are talking packets of data
No we're not - computer data on a packet mode computer network is transmitted in packets. USB when used with a device such as transmitting digital sound data from computer to a DAC (for example) does not use a packet mode network.
mrlizard13:1's and 0's. They are either there, or they are not. A '1' doesn't become a '0.5' because it got degraded along the way.
Again, it's not actual 1s and 0s magically travelling along this wire. My understanding is it's a series of voltages in an analogue waveform representing the digital bits of 0 and 1. And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.
The process by which digital pictures are transferred to your PC via USB is very different - the main thing is, there is no real-time requirement for the transfer of the data, so it can be sent as many times as is necessary to ensure the data received on your PC is an exact copy of the data on your digital camera. For this reason, you can use any old cable for this process and it won't make any difference to the end result.
If interference and break-up of signal were impossible in digital cables, why do you think a USB cable has an absolute limit of 5m, even when used with a computer which has full error correction and no real-time necessity?
The 5m limit is not because of interference or break up of signal.
"The maximum length of a standard USB cable (for USB 2.0 or earlier) is 5.0 metres (16.4 ft). The primary reason for this limit is the maximum allowed round-trip delay of about 1,500 ns. If USB host commands are unanswered by the USB device within the allowed time, the host considers the command lost. When adding USB device response time, delays from the maximum number of hubs added to the delays from connecting cables, the maximum acceptable delay per cable amounts to be 26 ns. The USB 2.0 specification requires cable delay to be less than 5.2 ns per meter (192,000 km/s, which is close to the maximum achievable transmission speed for standard copper cable). This allows for a five metre cable"
1's and 0's are transmitted by toggling one of the data lines, not by using different voltages, so a 1 cannot be easily misinterpreted as a 0 as you suggest.
Of course, this does not prove that some USB cables cannot be better than others, but I remain sceptical.
bigboss:John_S:
You might not notice any difference at all comparing a bundled HDMI cable with a £200 one using a £300 telly. But you would definitely notice a difference on a £2500 TV.
Sorry, but I couldn't notice any difference between different HDMI cables on my 50-inch Kuro. TVs can't get better than that, can they?
Seconded. Once an HDMI cable works to specification, it works.. That might mean you have to buy a different one from that supplied for free ( although my free cables are fine) but spending £250 (or two good blu-ray players) on a cable is ridiculous. One only has to look back at the big question to find people preferring the picture of a free cable over a 5* £50 cable to see how unreliable this advice is.
You might not notice any difference at all comparing a bundled HDMI cable with a £200 one using a £300 telly. But you would definitely notice a difference on a £2500 TV.
Sorry, but I couldn't notice any difference between different HDMI cables on my 50-inch Kuro. TVs can't get better than that, can they?
Seconded. Once an HDMI cable works to specification, it works.. That might mean you have to buy a different one from that supplied for free ( although my free cables are fine) but spending £250 (or two good blu-ray players) on a cable is ridiculous. One only has to look back at the big question to find people preferring the picture of a free cable over a 5* £50 cable to see how unreliable this advice is.
hammill:bigboss:John_S:
You might not notice any difference at all comparing a bundled HDMI
cable with a £200 one using a £300 telly. But you would definitely
notice a difference on a £2500 TV.
Sorry, but I couldn't notice any difference between different HDMI
cables on my 50-inch Kuro. TVs can't get better than that, can they?
Seconded.
Once an HDMI cable works to specification, it works.. That might mean
you have to buy a different one from that supplied for free ( although
my free cables are fine) but spending £250 (or two good blu-ray
players) on a cable is ridiculous. One only has to look back at the big
question to find people preferring the picture of a free cable over a
5* £50 cable to see how unreliable this advice is.
It's his opinion and experience, not advice. Our primary advice is and always has been that you should try before you buy, regardless of the category of kit you're planning to purchase.
And what you haven't mentioned in your selective quoting of the Big Question piece is that the three readers could perceive differences for picture and sound (often the forgotten element in this equation, but often the most noticeable) in the various cables used....And they preferred the sound of the upgrade cables.
But the key point of the feature was to encourage people to listen and look for themselves, rather than rely solely on either our opinion or others.
You might not notice any difference at all comparing a bundled HDMI
cable with a £200 one using a £300 telly. But you would definitely
notice a difference on a £2500 TV.
Sorry, but I couldn't notice any difference between different HDMI
cables on my 50-inch Kuro. TVs can't get better than that, can they?
Seconded.
Once an HDMI cable works to specification, it works.. That might mean
you have to buy a different one from that supplied for free ( although
my free cables are fine) but spending £250 (or two good blu-ray
players) on a cable is ridiculous. One only has to look back at the big
question to find people preferring the picture of a free cable over a
5* £50 cable to see how unreliable this advice is.
It's his opinion and experience, not advice. Our primary advice is and always has been that you should try before you buy, regardless of the category of kit you're planning to purchase.
And what you haven't mentioned in your selective quoting of the Big Question piece is that the three readers could perceive differences for picture and sound (often the forgotten element in this equation, but often the most noticeable) in the various cables used....And they preferred the sound of the upgrade cables.
But the key point of the feature was to encourage people to listen and look for themselves, rather than rely solely on either our opinion or others.
Yes, and poncy anti-ageing moisturisers really can make you look 10 years younger.
Sheesh. I'm going to start an environmentally friendly audio/videophile cable company that only uses recycled rope. Now, if only I could come up with a witty slogan............
Sheesh. I'm going to start an environmentally friendly audio/videophile cable company that only uses recycled rope. Now, if only I could come up with a witty slogan............
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
"Buy! Just to try!"
(and throw away in 12-18 months becase we will come up with smth new and will think of a way of making you buy that one too).
(and throw away in 12-18 months becase we will come up with smth new and will think of a way of making you buy that one too).
bennyboy71:
Yes, and poncy anti-ageing moisturisers really can make you look 10 years younger.
Sheesh. I'm going to start an environmentally friendly audio/videophile cable company that only uses recycled rope. Now, if only I could come up with a witty slogan............
I'm a big fan of the super bold 'statement' slogans you see from time to time. Try ==> 'We Are Cables'.
I don't understand why everyone is getting so giddy about the whole usb argument. Some people tried a cable and thought it allowed the system to shine so they reported on it. It was there job to do such a thing in fact. IMHO if you try a cable and you think it makes your system sound great, who cares if its a placebo..... it sounds great.... isn't that what we're all ultimately aiming for?
I liked that QED article also, made a bit more sense of HDMI tech for me.
And let me just add that i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone your all welcome to your opinions.
Peace out
Yes, and poncy anti-ageing moisturisers really can make you look 10 years younger.
Sheesh. I'm going to start an environmentally friendly audio/videophile cable company that only uses recycled rope. Now, if only I could come up with a witty slogan............
I'm a big fan of the super bold 'statement' slogans you see from time to time. Try ==> 'We Are Cables'.
I don't understand why everyone is getting so giddy about the whole usb argument. Some people tried a cable and thought it allowed the system to shine so they reported on it. It was there job to do such a thing in fact. IMHO if you try a cable and you think it makes your system sound great, who cares if its a placebo..... it sounds great.... isn't that what we're all ultimately aiming for?
I liked that QED article also, made a bit more sense of HDMI tech for me.
And let me just add that i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone your all welcome to your opinions.
Peace out
The_Lhc
Well-known member
hammill:1's and 0's are transmitted by toggling one of the data lines, not by using different voltages,
I'm going to start by saying I know very little about USB as a standard, so I'll take no side in this argument but having said that:
What do you think is being "toggled" on the data line to represent 1s and 0s?
It's voltage. With the exception of optical cables all cables, analogue or digital, work by means of fluctuating voltages.
so a 1 cannot be easily misinterpreted as a 0 as you suggest.
Of course, this does not prove that some USB cables cannot be better than others, but I remain sceptical.
My initial standpoint was sceptical but then I realised it's a viewpoint based on no experience (I have no audio USB connections in use) and little firm knowledge of how the system works, so now I'm agnostic until I can find documentary evidence one way or the other but to be honest, I'm not really looking for it.
I'm going to start by saying I know very little about USB as a standard, so I'll take no side in this argument but having said that:
What do you think is being "toggled" on the data line to represent 1s and 0s?
It's voltage. With the exception of optical cables all cables, analogue or digital, work by means of fluctuating voltages.
so a 1 cannot be easily misinterpreted as a 0 as you suggest.
Of course, this does not prove that some USB cables cannot be better than others, but I remain sceptical.
My initial standpoint was sceptical but then I realised it's a viewpoint based on no experience (I have no audio USB connections in use) and little firm knowledge of how the system works, so now I'm agnostic until I can find documentary evidence one way or the other but to be honest, I'm not really looking for it.
Clare Newsome:
hammill:bigboss:John_S:
You might not notice any difference at all comparing a bundled HDMI cable with a £200 one using a £300 telly. But you would definitely notice a difference on a £2500 TV.
Sorry, but I couldn't notice any difference between different HDMI cables on my 50-inch Kuro. TVs can't get better than that, can they?
Seconded. Once an HDMI cable works to specification, it works.. That might mean you have to buy a different one from that supplied for free ( although my free cables are fine) but spending £250 (or two good blu-ray players) on a cable is ridiculous. One only has to look back at the big question to find people preferring the picture of a free cable over a 5* £50 cable to see how unreliable this advice is.
It's his opinion and experience, not advice. Our primary advice is and always has been that you should try before you buy, regardless of the category of kit you're planning to purchase.
And what you haven't mentioned in your selective quoting of the Big Question piece is that the three readers could perceive differences for picture and sound (often the forgotten element in this equation, but often the most noticeable) in the various cables used....And they preferred the sound of the upgrade cables.
But the key point of the feature was to encourage people to listen and look for themselves, rather than rely solely on either our opinion or others.
Selective quoting?
Comparing against system 1 (5* chord)
Fahran "With sound as well I felt system 2 (free cable) was a bit clearer"
Simon " The dialogue was more pronounced on system 2 compared with the rest of the soundtrack, not a huge difference though"
If you add up the responses of the various panel members, you simply cannot claim that they preferred the sounds of the chord to the free cable and the picture of the free cable was perceived to be better than the chord(not that there was much in it).
Furthermore, John S recommended an expensive cable to connect to the TV ( you would definitely be able to tell the difference apparently), not the amplifier when your own test showed that the picture was virtually identical between the three cables.
If three people trying really hard to tell the difference between 3 cables can hardly manage to do so, who would ever notice the difference in normal viewing?
hammill:bigboss:John_S:
You might not notice any difference at all comparing a bundled HDMI cable with a £200 one using a £300 telly. But you would definitely notice a difference on a £2500 TV.
Sorry, but I couldn't notice any difference between different HDMI cables on my 50-inch Kuro. TVs can't get better than that, can they?
Seconded. Once an HDMI cable works to specification, it works.. That might mean you have to buy a different one from that supplied for free ( although my free cables are fine) but spending £250 (or two good blu-ray players) on a cable is ridiculous. One only has to look back at the big question to find people preferring the picture of a free cable over a 5* £50 cable to see how unreliable this advice is.
It's his opinion and experience, not advice. Our primary advice is and always has been that you should try before you buy, regardless of the category of kit you're planning to purchase.
And what you haven't mentioned in your selective quoting of the Big Question piece is that the three readers could perceive differences for picture and sound (often the forgotten element in this equation, but often the most noticeable) in the various cables used....And they preferred the sound of the upgrade cables.
But the key point of the feature was to encourage people to listen and look for themselves, rather than rely solely on either our opinion or others.
Selective quoting?
Comparing against system 1 (5* chord)
Fahran "With sound as well I felt system 2 (free cable) was a bit clearer"
Simon " The dialogue was more pronounced on system 2 compared with the rest of the soundtrack, not a huge difference though"
If you add up the responses of the various panel members, you simply cannot claim that they preferred the sounds of the chord to the free cable and the picture of the free cable was perceived to be better than the chord(not that there was much in it).
Furthermore, John S recommended an expensive cable to connect to the TV ( you would definitely be able to tell the difference apparently), not the amplifier when your own test showed that the picture was virtually identical between the three cables.
If three people trying really hard to tell the difference between 3 cables can hardly manage to do so, who would ever notice the difference in normal viewing?
Peter Foate:bennyboy71:
Yes, and poncy anti-ageing moisturisers really can make you look 10 years younger.
Sheesh. I'm going to start an environmentally friendly audio/videophile cable company that only uses recycled rope. Now, if only I could come up with a witty slogan............
I'm a big fan of the super bold 'statement' slogans you see from time to time. Try ==> 'We Are Cables'.
I don't understand why everyone is getting so giddy about the whole usb argument. Some people tried a cable and thought it allowed the system to shine so they reported on it. It was there job to do such a thing in fact. IMHO if you try a cable and you think it makes your system sound great, who cares if its a placebo..... it sounds great.... isn't that what we're all ultimately aiming for?
I liked that QED article also, made a bit more sense of HDMI tech for me.
And let me just add that i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone your all welcome to your opinions.
Peace out
I was thinking more of "MONEY FOR OLD ROPE!!"
Next up: tin cans and string for the retro mobile crowd.
These fancy cables with all their promises of sonic nirvana make me laugh. The reviews are even funnier. Do WHF journos lie awake at night wondering if the curtains should be upgraded to ones that produce better black details?
Yes, and poncy anti-ageing moisturisers really can make you look 10 years younger.
Sheesh. I'm going to start an environmentally friendly audio/videophile cable company that only uses recycled rope. Now, if only I could come up with a witty slogan............
I'm a big fan of the super bold 'statement' slogans you see from time to time. Try ==> 'We Are Cables'.
I don't understand why everyone is getting so giddy about the whole usb argument. Some people tried a cable and thought it allowed the system to shine so they reported on it. It was there job to do such a thing in fact. IMHO if you try a cable and you think it makes your system sound great, who cares if its a placebo..... it sounds great.... isn't that what we're all ultimately aiming for?
I liked that QED article also, made a bit more sense of HDMI tech for me.
And let me just add that i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone your all welcome to your opinions.
Peace out
I was thinking more of "MONEY FOR OLD ROPE!!"
Next up: tin cans and string for the retro mobile crowd.
These fancy cables with all their promises of sonic nirvana make me laugh. The reviews are even funnier. Do WHF journos lie awake at night wondering if the curtains should be upgraded to ones that produce better black details?
John Duncan
Well-known member
bennyboy71:Yes, and poncy anti-ageing moisturisers really can make you look 10 years younger.
Cool. Can you recommend any?
Cool. Can you recommend any?
AlmaataKZ:"Buy! Just to try!"
No, Clare said that if possible one should try before buying. And as mentioned before, some cable companies do offer money-back guarantees if not satisfied.
No, Clare said that if possible one should try before buying. And as mentioned before, some cable companies do offer money-back guarantees if not satisfied.
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
professorhat:
mrlizard13:We are talking packets of data
No we're not - computer data on a packet mode computer network is transmitted in packets. USB when used with a device such as transmitting digital sound data from computer to a DAC (for example) does not use a packet mode network.
mrlizard13:1's and 0's. They are either there, or they are not. A '1' doesn't become a '0.5' because it got degraded along the way.
Again, it's not actual 1s and 0s magically travelling along this wire. My understanding is it's a series of voltages in an analogue waveform representing the digital bits of 0 and 1. And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.
The process by which digital pictures are transferred to your PC via USB is very different - the main thing is, there is no real-time requirement for the transfer of the data, so it can be sent as many times as is necessary to ensure the data received on your PC is an exact copy of the data on your digital camera. For this reason, you can use any old cable for this process and it won't make any difference to the end result.
If interference and break-up of signal were impossible in digital cables, why do you think a USB cable has an absolute limit of 5m, even when used with a computer which has full error correction and no real-time necessity?
Agreed. There is a difference between copying a file over (such as a picture on your camera) to streaming data.
Here is a simple example that most of us have probably experienced.
Streaming is on the fly and so there is a time constraint. When you watch a film or tv programme using the bbc iplayer on your phone you'll notice that if you have a poor signal that from time to time you can get some weird images such as big green blocks and parts of the screen freezing while the rest continues to play on (among many other odd things). This is becuase there is information missing in the data but has not been corrected by the error correction as it is streaming the picture where the emphasis is to display the frame and move on to the next.
Now...if you were to simply copy this file directly to your device you will probably find that the picture is just fine. You can't currently copy files from the bbc iplayer, but there are plenty of websites where you can chose to stream or download a trailer for a film, where this can be seen, if you have a bad signal.
Now I ASSUME, that this is the same when steaming video across a cable. Obviously the errors are going to be smaller so you will not see the same level of issues, however it could be argued that small errors here are going through the same process.
Above is my understanding of it, and I'm 100% open to correction if I have misunderstood. Please note that I actually have NO strong opinions one way or the other and think that cheep (well built) cables do a very good job. However I did notice an improvement when I upgraded my HDMI leads to van de hul the flat (which I got free from whf) from my cheapies. It just seemed cleaner. Would I have paid the asking price for them? Probably not as the difference was very small.
mrlizard13:We are talking packets of data
No we're not - computer data on a packet mode computer network is transmitted in packets. USB when used with a device such as transmitting digital sound data from computer to a DAC (for example) does not use a packet mode network.
mrlizard13:1's and 0's. They are either there, or they are not. A '1' doesn't become a '0.5' because it got degraded along the way.
Again, it's not actual 1s and 0s magically travelling along this wire. My understanding is it's a series of voltages in an analogue waveform representing the digital bits of 0 and 1. And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.
The process by which digital pictures are transferred to your PC via USB is very different - the main thing is, there is no real-time requirement for the transfer of the data, so it can be sent as many times as is necessary to ensure the data received on your PC is an exact copy of the data on your digital camera. For this reason, you can use any old cable for this process and it won't make any difference to the end result.
If interference and break-up of signal were impossible in digital cables, why do you think a USB cable has an absolute limit of 5m, even when used with a computer which has full error correction and no real-time necessity?
Agreed. There is a difference between copying a file over (such as a picture on your camera) to streaming data.
Here is a simple example that most of us have probably experienced.
Streaming is on the fly and so there is a time constraint. When you watch a film or tv programme using the bbc iplayer on your phone you'll notice that if you have a poor signal that from time to time you can get some weird images such as big green blocks and parts of the screen freezing while the rest continues to play on (among many other odd things). This is becuase there is information missing in the data but has not been corrected by the error correction as it is streaming the picture where the emphasis is to display the frame and move on to the next.
Now...if you were to simply copy this file directly to your device you will probably find that the picture is just fine. You can't currently copy files from the bbc iplayer, but there are plenty of websites where you can chose to stream or download a trailer for a film, where this can be seen, if you have a bad signal.
Now I ASSUME, that this is the same when steaming video across a cable. Obviously the errors are going to be smaller so you will not see the same level of issues, however it could be argued that small errors here are going through the same process.
Above is my understanding of it, and I'm 100% open to correction if I have misunderstood. Please note that I actually have NO strong opinions one way or the other and think that cheep (well built) cables do a very good job. However I did notice an improvement when I upgraded my HDMI leads to van de hul the flat (which I got free from whf) from my cheapies. It just seemed cleaner. Would I have paid the asking price for them? Probably not as the difference was very small.
JohnDuncan:bennyboy71:Yes, and poncy anti-ageing moisturisers really can make you look 10 years younger. Cool. Can you recommend any?
Yes. I use this one. I was very skeptical initially until I tried it myself and I now use it a lot. Even other people say it works!
Yes. I use this one. I was very skeptical initially until I tried it myself and I now use it a lot. Even other people say it works!
AndrewH13
Well-known member
Sceptical of exaggerated claims for stands, digital cables etc ..... then I went on a WHF listening test...... and their wooden equipment stand changed the whole voicing of the systems we were listening to, so much so that other higher-priced equipment sounded lesser (to all 3 of us) on a 'better' table. Pays to be open-minded .... even on USB cables I think.
AlmaataKZ:Even other people say it works!
Yes, it does - you've made yourself look just like a polar explorer/serial killer...
Yes, it does - you've made yourself look just like a polar explorer/serial killer...
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apple HomePod Mini 2: release date rumours, price predictions and 4 things we want to see- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram