Digital interconnects - all the same?

[Energize]

I think a lot of peoples misunderstandings on this subject is down to the lack of understanding of how an image is formed on a low level.

Images are sent and displayed at bitmaps, an rgb24 image for example has 24 bits per pixel, if we think of the image as an array of 3-byte elements we would get something that looks like this for a 16x16 pixel image.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Each element (pixel) in the array contains 24 bits containing information about it's colour, if any data in the signal is corrupted (after going through extensive error correction) then the pixel/s is/are clearly defective, there's no subtle picture differences between cables.

 

[cram]

Each element (pixel) in the array contains 24 bits containing information about it's colour, if any data in the signal is corrupted (after going through extensive error correction) then the pixel/s is/are clearly defective, there's no subtle picture differences between cables.

whats the extensive error correction you are referring to?

 

[oli collett]

this is the thing though, there will never be objective proof as it's all subjective. All i said was that a badly made up cable will not perform as well as a well made cable....nothing more.

OK - here's the thing i take issue with - that there will never be objective proof as it's all subjective. It's simply not true.

Take 2 widgets, connect them to a comparator which randomly assigns either of the widgets to "X". Ask the listener to switch between A, B and X and then compare the results. If the listener was able to identify X successfully to a point that the probability of chance is very very small, we can pretty much conclude that A and B are different. The listener is not working out which they prefer - that would be subjective. They are simply identifying one from the other.

Apply the same logic to audio and we have the A/B/X test. You can A/B/X test anything in audio apart from speakers (it's pretty much pointless doing so anyway as you can easily show the difference between speakers with some simple measurements). The tests have done time and time again against all sorts of hi-fi quackery and the results are always the same.

Anyway - I quite agree that we should be going for well made, robust cables, but it's important to point out that it does not mean spending the earth on them, no matter how expensive your hi-fi is.

The other thing i don't understand is that people who claim all cables are the same and that all digital devices (the bluray thread recently for instance) are suggesting that magazines who review the items and even the manufacturers who produce them are frauds. They all say there is a big difference between very cheap and very expensive equiptment, yet according to the gurus on here, they are full of BS.

I'm not a hi-fi/home cinema guru by any accounts. However, I don't take things on face value. It's easy to prove something works in the audio/visual world, if someone really did have a wonder product, or if indeed they think their cable makes a massive difference, they can go and take the James Randi challenge. Every time they've gone to take it, they've pulled out at the last minute, prime examples being John Atkinson and Pear audio. More info here.

I don't believe that many manufacturers are making fraudulent claims, however if the adverts were worded like a lot of the magazine reviews I would think that the ASA would soon step in, just like they did with Russ Andrews

can't be bothered with another argument over quality of sound/vision depending on the kit you use because it will go on forever. If someone watches/listens to some kit with x cable and they prefer it, who are a bunch of internet forum geeks to tell them otherwise?

I'm not telling them otherwise - I'm merely pointing out that there is no real evidence to support the claims that people make about not only digital cables but all sorts of other stuff. I believe that people who make claims about certain peices of kit should be able to back them up with evidence. At the end of the day, I think the blame lays entirely on the hi-fi media for perpetuating rubbish over decades without any proof which has laid the grounds for things like £200 HDMI cables, £100 optical interconnects and £2000 power chords. I don't care if Joe Bloggs from home cinema and widget magazine has 50 years experience in listening/viewing A/V kit, he isn't going to convince me that spending that kind of money on connections is worthwhile.

 

[Energize]

whats the extensive error correction you are referring to?

Whichever the particular system uses, may be none. I'm speaking about digital pictures generally here, not specifically blu-ray players and hdmi, it doesn't really make any difference though.

 

[Reality Bites]

I'd love to see any of the users on here who have the 'all cables and hifi kit give the same picture/sounds' go onto the likes of what hi-fi forum and state this 'fact' on there.

 

[james.miller]

I'd love to see any of the users on here who have the 'all cables and hifi kit give the same picture/sounds' go onto the likes of what hi-fi forum and state this 'fact' on there.

who said that?

 

[oli collett]

I'd love to see any of the users on here who have the 'all cables and hifi kit give the same picture/sounds' go onto the likes of what hi-fi forum and state this 'fact' on there.

I'd love for the what hi-fi folk to prove otherwise. As i've said quite clearly, it's easy for them to prove that such things make a difference but they have not, whilst countless other reviews have done A/B/X tests to find that they don't. There isn't even any science to back up claims for digital cables!

WHF is a joke of a publication, as, sadly are most of the hi-fi magazines nowadays. Quite honestly how anyone thinks that their reviews are at all reliable is beyond me, does it not ever seem a bit odd that they never review products and say "actually, this product did nothing"?

Quite honestly they're about as useful as "What Medicine?" alternative medicine magazine.

 

[james.miller]

"amp xxx gets a 5 star award and wins this month's supadupa test"........oh, look what amp is advertised on the very next page

 

[oli collett]

Actually whilst we're on the magazine subject, there's some interesting reading here:

http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html

I don't agree with some of what the chap is saying, but there's some interesting stuff in there.

 

[Reality Bites]

who said that?

amongst many others you are one of them!

 

[Reality Bites]

I'd love for the what hi-fi folk to prove otherwise. As i've said quite clearly, it's easy for them to prove that such things make a difference but they have not, whilst countless other reviews have done A/B/X tests to find that they don't. There isn't even any science to back up claims for digital cables!

WHF is a joke of a publication, as, sadly are most of the hi-fi magazines nowadays. Quite honestly how anyone thinks that their reviews are at all reliable is beyond me, does it not ever seem a bit odd that they never review products and say "actually, this product did nothing"?

Quite honestly they're about as useful as "What Medicine?" alternative medicine magazine.

go for it then. What-Hifi forum is free to join. I think it would be good for you to start a thread on there to discuss your thoughts on the industry.

 

[Reality Bites]

Actually whilst we're on the magazine subject, there's some interesting reading here:

http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html

I don't agree with some of what the chap is saying, but there's some interesting stuff in there.

love the way people find these home made sites with people who claim to have compared a £100000000m amp to a 50p one and thing the 50p one is better. Of course, these people will always know better than world press. LMAO.

 

[oli collett]

go for it then. What-Hifi forum is free to join. I think it would be good for you to start a thread on there to discuss your thoughts on the industry.

Erm, it's utterly pointless. I've seen WHF threads in the past.

Let me ask you this - do you think this was a responsible peice of journalism?

Question - "The bloke at my local hi-fi shop has offered to burn my cables in for £50, is he trying to rip me off?"

Answer from lead consultant editor or whoever he is - "my advice is to pay the money, if it does not sound better then ask for your money back"

What exactly is the point of me posting on there and pointing out that "dear assistant editor or whatever you are of what hi-fi. I believe that you do not back any of your claims up with any objective proof and I am sceptical of your opinions. Why don't you provide A/B/X tests of equipment to dismiss sceptics like me so that we can be put to the grave for good?"

I'll happily post the above, but I know exactly what will follow:
1) people will ignore the fact that i am not asking for proof of A sounding better than B
2) people will point out that during double blind testing listeners are put under so much pressure that they can no longer make out the sonic differences they were originally finding.

Of course, I could point towards the various AES articles that are often contradicted by WHF. The numerous studies done under controlled conditions that are wiped away by a reviewers findings that, actually, what we thought was true for the last 20 years is actually not, and that actually all kinds of things do really make a difference. Except they won't be willing to prove such differences under controlled conditions, because.. no, because what exactly?

 

[oli collett]

love the way people find these home made sites with people who claim to have compared a £100000000m amp to a 50p one and thing the 50p one is better. Of course, these people will always know better than world press. LMAO.

I'm at a complete loss here. I don't know what you've read, but it isn't what i've posted.

As i said before - i didn't agree with a lot of this person's conclusions, and frankly there's a lot of conjecture, but what you have concluded there is so far from what I posted I simply cannot understand what you have read?

 

[Energize]

I think it would be good for you to start a thread on there to discuss your thoughts on the industry.

About as good as discussing atheism on a catholic faith forum I imagine.

 

[james.miller]

amongst many others you are one of them!

prove it, where did i say all cables sound the same with an analogue signal? where did i say all amps sound the same?

perhaps you should rethink that statement?

 

[Reality Bites]

prove it, where did i say all cables sound the same with an analogue signal? where did i say all amps sound the same?

perhaps you should rethink that statement?

no need. You were stating these 'facts' in the recent 'all bluray players are the same' thread

 

[Reality Bites]

About as good as discussing atheism on a catholic faith forum I imagine.

i take that as a no then

You all join up in the argument on a computer based forum yet wont state your argumentsa against a forum dedicated to the industry.....

 

[Reality Bites]

I'm at a complete loss here. I don't know what you've read, but it isn't what i've posted.

As i said before - i didn't agree with a lot of this person's conclusions, and frankly there's a lot of conjecture, but what you have concluded there is so far from what I posted I simply cannot understand what you have read?

you found yet another old internet site made by some guy in his bedroom who has posted subjective comments on a few things. Struggle to see how this is an arguement against world press.

Bored of this argument yet again. Almost pointless having this section of the forum. Just need a sticky to say if you're looking for cable, hardware or anything else AV just get the cheapest

 

[james.miller]

no need. You were stating these 'facts' in the recent 'all bluray players are the same' thread

you need to get your information straight. Here's what i actually said http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13579864&postcount=24

difficult one.

as the source quality increases, the baseline also increases. we arent talking about picking up an analogue recording on a vinyl, or any analogue recording so forget them. cd players have a whole host of different techniques available to them for reading a cd and creating an audio output - some of them oversample (by varying amounts), some of them dont over sample at all. by their very nature they WILL be different, and this is before they output anything. analogue outputs depend a great deal on the quality of the electronics used. the same can be said for any cable carrying an analogue signal. As far as video goes again, there are hundreds of different approaches to constructing an ouput from whats read on the disk. some are vastly better at deblocking than others, better colours ect ect.

when you move over to (much) higher bitrate sources, it becomes that much harder for premium players to set themselves apart. these days everything is digital - your bluray is read, decoded, doesnt need deblocking or any kind of noise-defeating techniques. it doesnt need anything, basically. the audio is lossless, doesnt need any manipulating when you can output the steam, totally untouched, to an av amp.

Now, apparently, there is a difference between letting say, the ps3 decode HD audio on a bluray and output that as lpcm to letting a bd35 output the native TrueHD/dts:ma track to an amplifier. i say apparently because i dont have the inclination to try a standalone with my setup - my ps3 more than suffices.

when you're transporting everything in digital, what it comes down to in the end is jitter. and thats just a bag of roflcopters from start to finish. ill give you an idea, ive had dosens of sound cards over the years and there has been bugger all difference in sound quality between any of them over spdif apart from the early cards which all had a bit of a problem with audio in general. im thinking of my old soundstorm-equipped abit nf7-s, here. the output was not perfect, be it spid or (especially) analogue. everything new ive tried has been damn near identical and i cant honestly tell the difference between realtek onboard, an xonar d2, my laptop or my htpc's hdmi outputs when it comes to 44.1khz, 24 bit audio. there's so little in it i honestly cant hear it.

video, also. both my laptop and my htpc are capable of playing a bluray, just like my ps3 is, and again there's nothing in the picture quality or the sound quality. Theorys are all well and good but the proof is in the testing and ive found it all a bit underwhelming tbh. to improve on any of them i think id need to be aiming for balanced 7.1 outputs to a full team of balanced amplifiers, but i just dont have £10k to spend and i wouldnt want to if i did lol.

yep, i DEFINATELY said all leads and kit are the same there.

you made the same damn accusation in that thread (post 32), and even had to have it spelled out for you there and you still didnt take it in.

So picture quality and audio quality are not affected by AV hardware then?

the differences are incredibly small from cheap player to a very expensive one. now why would a player dramatically alter the sound output when its bitstreaming to an amp, for example?

I would make the assumption that considering he's saying that all PQ from every BD player is the same and that all SQ is the same it would include all the hardware in an AV setup?...........

Do you honestly believe that all PQ and SQ from every BD player is the same.....?! It's beyond laughable.

its bloody close. please, feel free to prove otherwise and keep it friendly while we're at it, eh?

now, i forgave you for making assumptions in that thread, but do yourself a favour and actually read what people are saying to you. oh and stop throwing accusations around - all youve done so far is prove you cant hold a sensible debate.