Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater High-end interconnect and speaker cable ?

Unfortunatly...I must disagree. Like I stated earlier...three cables...three sounds...ALL DIGITAL COAX. And yes...digital optical sounded different yet. I just returned one because it had great highs/lows but a big fat hairy dip in the midrange. How do you explain it? I don't know? Then my friend has a coax with the midrange being bloated and harsh highs. Now I have a new cable..and love it. As linear as can be with a touch of warmth.

There...I said it. But remember...I actually tried all of these cables and heard the differences. It is possible people who don't hear the differences haven't tried it, don't have that great a hearing, or don't have equipment transperent enough to hear the difference. IMHO of course.

Gentlemen, I'm ready to take your questions now

Let me begin by stating that I don't think you're crazy. I just want to know how does one "harshen" a 1 or a 0?

That's like asking me why the sky is blue. Someone knows...I don't. I understand totally where your coming from. I said to my friend the exact same thing. "It doesn't makes sense...it's supposed to be just 1s and 0s." So...I hear you. But...that still doesn't change anything on the reality side. What else can I say. Someone knows what they're doing.

Is there any one who can speak with authority whether different digital cables sound different or not? Alan?

They cannot sound different while passing the same digital bitstream. The only way to change the sound is change the bits.

If certain cables change the bits, that's data corruption. Also it wouldn't be unique to audio. It would be happening with firewire, USB, etc. You'd see certain digital cables that corrupt your computer data and other cables that don't. You don't generally see that.

Exactly. This is one area where I can speak with authority of knowledge. Modern digital optical cables will either work or will not work. There is no middle ground. There is absolutely no chance of outside forces changing this. There is no measurable inductance, capacitance, interference, or other forces involved. An expensive quartz cable will NOT increase your listening pleasure either literally of figuratively. ALL modern D/O cables have the bandwidth capacity to pass ALL data without a problem. You can test this. You can run MD5 cheksums against the data. I GUARANTEE my $17.95 Impact Acoustics Velocity Toslink cable will be as clean as any Toslink cable you put up against it or I will BUY your cable.

A short addendum: Being copper, some outside forces can be applied to digital coax. But they can ONLY either interfere with the bitstream or not. Such interference will be read as an error and either be discarded or show up as a "clip," so to speak. Such is the nature of digital interconnects. One has only to look at the sinewave of a digital signal to understand this. Flat up, flat down. On, off. 0,1. Those who prefer analog connections are hearing whatever "distortions" are added by the copper and the circuitry. I happen to be conflicted by the two. I do tend to think the analog connections can sound more "musical."

That's good to know because I got my 6ft radio shack optical cable at clearance for $8.99 (I am a very cheap guy). Whenever I see the $79.99 2m Monster optical cable at my local BB, I'd go: WTF???

Here's how that cable is described:


Monster Cable 2m Digital Fiber-Optic Cable
Model: ILS200-2M

This 2-meter higher-technology fiber-optic cable delivers accurate bitstream transfer for clear, smooth sound from CD, MiniDisc and DVD players, as well as outboard DACs and digital satellite receivers. The Monster-designed pressure connection keeps fiber in alignment with components. Rugged metal-shell connector cable offers maximum durability. Graded index optical fiber greatly reduces jitter for enhanced clarity and definition. Spring-loaded connector keeps fiber in optical alignment for maximum data transfer.


If digital cables necessarily "sound" the same, the above statement would qualify as one of the biggest marketing BS. Look at the adjectives: accurate, smooth, clear, enhanced clarity and definition, maximum data transfer. All I am interested in is: Do I get my 1s and 0s or not?.

I think Monster even has a THX-certified but shorter version of this optical cable that costs about the same. Because of this reason, THX certification would never ever mean a thing to me.

If we consumers do not stand up and shoot down this kind of marketing BS, other less informed customers will continue to be pick-pocketed everyday in every BB and CC.

Sorry for the rhetoric, but my despise of Monster cables is immense. Need a cold beer, now.

>>If digital cables necessarily "sound" the same, the above statement would qualify as one of the biggest marketing BS. Look at the adjectives: accurate, smooth, clear, enhanced clarity and definition, maximum data transfer.

With the possible (probable) exception of "Graded index optical fiber greatly reduces jitter for enhanced clarity and definition" the rest of the blurb is technically true albeit misleading.

>>delivers accurate bitstream transfer for clear, smooth sound from CD, MiniDisc and DVD players

Yep, it does deliver accurate bitstream transfer and you do get clear smooth sound from CD, MiniDisk and DVD players. You get the same with any cable, but the statement is not incorrect.

>>The Monster-designed pressure connection keeps fiber in alignment with components. Rugged metal-shell connector cable offers maximum durability.

Probably all true. Again, nothing out of the ordinary but nothing incorrect here.

>>Spring-loaded connector keeps fiber in optical alignment for maximum data transfer

Um... I think that is part of the TOSLINK standard

>>Graded index optical fiber greatly reduces jitter for enhanced clarity and definition

This one makes the BS light go on. Doesn't seem to be any real world evidence to support the contention that jitter below the level of "mucking up the signal completely" affects clarity or definition.

Some companies pay their engineers more than their ad copy writers. Some companies don't. I would rather see my money go to the engineers

I just don't know what to think sometimes. I ran my cd player through my soundcard switching between the optical and coax inputs. Recorded "Time" by Pink Floyd and "Take Five" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. All parm's were the same. When finished I ran a diff between the two and they are EXACTLY the same. So far, things are looking as they should.
Next, borrowed a friends cd player as mine has only Toslink. Played the same songs as above with the same discs and sure enough, they sounded different. OK then. Yanked a BJC cable from the SACD cable bundle and tried it. The other was an Impact Acoustics Velocity. Both 3'. Again, sounds different. It makes NO sense. No sense at all. Is the circuitry between the cd transport and the dig. outs somehow different? Between the dig. ins and the dacs? From the dacs through to the power output stages? The first 2 SHOULD make no difference. Is this a case of me hearing things that don't really exist? I mean, it is just plain strange. I need to get a couple of people over here for a DBT.

Some of the things I read here do raise my eyebrows at times. Assertions that all receivers are equally transparent especially set off alarms in my head. If you think about it, they really couldn't possibly unless they used the exact same circuit designs, the same amount AND exact same make/part number of transistors, resistors, capacitors, transformers, etc... Any change in the formula could easily change the sound. This whole thing reminds me of the story of John Warnock at Xerox PARC before the founded Adobe systems. He was fascinated by the quality of type achieved by old-fashioned typesetting and equally appalled at computer printer type. So he went and spent months developing a page description language (eventually to become Postscript) that would create the beautiful type achived the old-fashioned way. Problem was, even the best printers of the day couldn't recreate what the PDL was directing it to print. It looked horrible. But he didn't notice. All he saw was the perfectly produced type his program was producing in theory. The PDL was working perfectly, ergo the type was perfect. I think I'm susceptible to this same phenomenon as well as many others here.