Community Newsletter: Q&A: Home audio and video: Premium vs. generic cables
- 6/15/07 6:51 AM
lamp cord
by cappyx - 6/14/07 11:09 PM In reply to: Lamp Chord by tbcasscheap lamp cord is actually 16ga speaker wire, imagine that:)
Start at the beginning. . .
by pc4me - 6/9/07 10:56 AM In reply to: Home audio and video: Premium vs. generic cables by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Derek,
Your question is another Pandora's box amongst audiophiles and other so called experts. Are you an electrical engineer? No offense intended but we average Joe's are truly only playing russian roulette with cables.
I've always believed in the motto of "you get what you pay for" and having started in 2001 with my first HDTV ready Toshiba 40" theatre wide I have learned much.
The source of your A/V is the MOST important. If you have a poor incoming source then your cables are worthless! A certain cable company was touting HD signal in my area but my picture was horrible. After several inspections the foreman came to my place and simply told me that my 2 year old Toshiba had better technology than the cable company! Then he admitted he had satellite in his home.
Again, the source is MOST important LOL!
So I'm quite content with my now 6yr old HDTV ready Toshiba running component cables for my video and optical digital audio. Yes there are a few monsters in there but also an independent contractor who sold home made component cable on ebay for a song and it's superbly made with zero difference to the monsters. I made sure I spent the most money I could on the individual components (tv, a/v receiver, progressive scan dvd player all 6yrs old and superb) and then simply matched the best input/output source to the cable. Easier said than done right? Only if you want to drive yourself crazy with researching the BEST cables.
Today it's so much easier with HDMI and so I'm happy for my 71yr old dad. He purchased a very nice 37" Panasonic plasma and my shopping for him was a no brainer. HDMI monster to hook up his satellite and I was done! Beautiful picture with a strong sound coming direct from the tv speakers end of story.
So remember, START AT THE BEGINNING! Best of luck!
How can I measure the difference?
by gsmollin - 6/9/07 1:25 PM In reply to: Home audio and video: Premium vs. generic cables by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
This is the question you need to ask, and you need to get a good answer. I have read descriptions of $$$$$$ audio cables that go on and on with a pile of pseudo-science and adjective-soup, that were clearly written with a thesaurus at the reviewer's elbow, and never once claim a measurable metric of improvement. For my money, if I can see it on a meter, I can believe it. If not, it's just good BS. It doesn't have to be some electrical or audio either. For instance, if the $20 cable fails after its bent 100 times, and the $100 cable fails after its bent 10,000 times, the $100 cable is the right one for heavy duty service, and the $10 cable may be fine in light duty service. That would be a good claim, but it's one I have never seen.
OBTW, gold cable connectors are worthless if they are not connected to gold equipment connectors. In fact, gold and tin should not be mixed across an electrical interface.
Measurements, gold contacts, wire construction, etc.
by agb100 - 6/9/07 5:57 PM In reply to: How can I measure the difference? by gsmollinConsider. If many of you can HEAR "unmeasurable" differences in audio cables using your ears, what makes some of you believe that there are NO differences between video cables as well, just because some of them are digital, and just because some of you cannot see differences?
Consider. If many of you purchased first generation CD players (remember Sony-Phillips' "Perfect Sound Forever" advertisements when CDs first appeared?), why, since those heady days, are we in the seventh to ninth generation of CD players?
Question: How do you improve on perfection? And if we had achieved perfection in the early eighties, why are manufacturers spending millions improving what is already perfect?
Is the BMW "The Ultimate Driving Machine?"
Consider: If HDMI cables stop working properly after a certain run length, what makes some of you believe that HDMI cables are best, or even good....or even acceptable? If there are NO differences between HDMI cables, how do you explain:
http://www.vizionware.com/
and other competitors with different solutions THAT CAN BE MEASURED?
The answer to all of these questions can be found in my earlier posts.
But before we go there, consider: What are you measuring in audio anyway, since most of us CAN hear differences that their designers CANNOT measure -- and will admit that they cannot measure everything?
What do YOU believe you are measuring? Do you believe that we know everything there is to know about cables...or anything for that matter?
Ayn Rand proposed in her stunning if tiny book on epistemology, that there are only two kinds of knowledge:
a. That which we know
b. And that which we will discover.
The bottom line: not only do cables, analogue, sound different, one from the other; but digital cables too, sound, and transmit signals in a different fashion, one from the other. Price is only one of the factors in a cable's performance and promotion, not all of them.
We know some things about the performance of cables. How many things we do not know...we do not know.
Not only are differences measurable in some cases, but the measurements can be proved. So those who believe that measurements will tell you everything you need to know are deluding themselves. There are measurements and details that the manufacturers do not post, or disclose. As they do with amplifiers...and automobiles...and houses....and puppies.
But since we do not know everything about what makes some cables, configurations, conductors and dielectrics sound or "view" differently from other similar types, the end is not in sight. Research goes on, as it does in all areas of technology, until perfect sound...and perfect video technology...can be achieved. The research has been ongoing in both audio and video technology for over 100 years.
Whom among you can state with certainty that the research has no reason to proceed? That we have achieved perfection? Or that the HDMI standard is "Perfect Viewing Forever?"
Let me describe for those who have not really considered the implications of what I am saying about what perfection is:
Perfection is sound and video that is indistinguishable from reality.
I propose that we are very far from achieving that result.
I agree but there's some other point
by batman823 - 6/11/07 10:38 AM In reply to: Measurements, gold contacts, wire construction, etc. by agb100While you did reference some good stuff and bring up a good point. The subject was really something else. The statement "I only believe it if I can measure it" can be interpreted in many different ways.
A person could measure with their eyes and ears. They could measure the decibal level or some means of picture quality. Simply let it be. If a person knows what they're doing, they'll do the proper research on the machines and buy the appropriate cables. You will not find a meter in best buy that shows you sound quality or picture quality. Other people have said before, it's the machine that counts and as long as it's digital, the connectors really don't matter. The ease of connecting and the satisfaction are the consumers interest and they should not get wrapped up in what's "best" or what other people say they need.
You are correct that we are still a very long way off from perfect entertainment. In fact, that's not achievable. We are already past the point of visual difference. On most TVs, the human eye can't see the difference between 720,960, or 1080 lines of resolution. There will always be preferences in color deepness and sound quality. Most of that can be taken care of by slight adjustments on the output of whatever device you're using or on the input to the machine.
I agree....but I don't....
by agb100 - 6/11/07 1:48 PM In reply to: I agree but there's some other point by batman823The human eye can clearly see the difference between 720 and 1080 beyond 32" displays. The integrity of connections and conductivity do matter, digits are not digits once they are transmitted through any media, all CD players do not sound the same (proof), satisfaction and user convenience are important issues that do not negate issues of performance. Performance first, user convenience second. Unless your values are different from mine. In which case, issues of which is better are moot.
The question originating this chat room was concern over which is better, not which is the most convenient.
There's a little more than that.
by batman823 - 6/12/07 6:15 AM In reply to: I agree....but I don't.... by agb100Convenience as well as asthetics are pert of what most people consider 'better'. Just as much as price vs quality. Not just convenience of connection, but of maintenance and operability as well. Performanc is, as you said, a big part of satisfaction as well.
As far as the connectors are concerned. A digital signal does not degrade because of the quality of connectors when used in low-voltage and low-current systems, as long as they're in good condition. Analog can degrade for those reasons because it's a flow of current, not a pulse of voltage like digital.
The difference in quality comes from the input and output machines, as well as the medium and controls. Once the digital signal is converted to analog for sound and video, that's where the difference is made. I do agree that the cheapest cable is not necessarily the best one for speed and connectivity, but the proper cable does not need to cost alot or even be fancy.
Most people that own a TV have 37" or smaller, especially when it comes to HDTV's. That's why I say most people cannot tell the difference. There are difference in the default settings between a/v sources and TV's such as brightness, clarity, deepness of color, and other aspects of the asthetically pleasing stuff.
We are in a special community, a lot of the people on here have more money than the average american. That's how we know about some of this stuff. But for those of us, like me, who are on a budget, we need not sweat the small stuff about what's the best. That's what my post was about. I have a lot of experience with digital equipment. It's been part of my job in the Navy for the last 5 years.
But I do agree with what you're saying about bigger and better screens. When you get to 37" and bigger, the difference is quite noticeable. I should have been more specific.
There sure is more than that
by agb100 - 6/12/07 6:43 AM In reply to: There's a little more than that. by batman823You made some good points, however digital signals are just as prone to degradation during transmission as audio cables. Music is very complex data. Any phase shift at any frequency, due to timing errors such as jitter and the induced, such as oversampling, interlacing, etc, will change the output from the input. For common radio signals, even those from satellites, digital is good enough. Ditto for telephone calls...and don't we know how lousy different cell technologies are...not one is acceptable...regardless of what their proponents say.
You are right however when some may attribute convenience issues with quality...or "better."
I just don't. User convenience makes absolutely no difference to measurements (if we accept that we can measure everything, and we know everything about sound or video reproduction. A bad assumption.
We know little, and likely can measure little. We know more each day, justifying my proposition elsewhere on this post, meaning that today's technology is hardly "perfect" -- digital cables, as digital anything, is hardly perfect. For radios and information technology used by the armed forces and commercial purposes (cell phones, XMSR and such), digital is adequate. Ditto for HDTV.
As much as you may be impressed with HDTV, you must recognize that we are already in the third and fourth generation of HDTVs and there have been significant leaps in video processing technology in the last five years, vide Vidikron, Faroudja and others. What is most impressive is that the technology has become dramatically cheaper. And in some cases, better.
But the end of the road has not been reached. There will be new standards, new kind of cable technologies and what you think is perfect today will be abandoned by what you will think to be perfect tomorrow. You will see perfection perfected ad infinitum.
The only question I have is how one can improve on perfection?
perfection is subject to the user's opinion.
by batman823 - 6/12/07 9:25 AM In reply to: There sure is more than that by agb100A person may spend $2k on the tv, $600 on the hddvd/bluray player, $500 on the XBOX 360 elite, another $250 on the appropriate cables and then say "ahhhh, now I have the perfect setup."
But in reality, that very same person is going to find other things to add and better things to upgrade. As far as sitting on the couch and being mindlessly entertained, we will never reach 'perfection'. To me, perfection in home entertainment would be entertaining a group of people with applewook smoked pork and beef while smoking cigars and playing loud music and having interesting conversations. Until the electronic entertainment can make me smell, taste, and feel all of those REAL experiances, it will not be perfect.
It is true that digital signals are subject to EMI and other forms of degradation but much less than analog. Since any coaxial cable you buy off the shelf has adequate shielding, it's really not an issue unless you've zip-tied your power cords and all the cables into one bundle. Or if your video cable happens to overlap the magnetic field from one of the larger speakers in your entertainment center.
I have taken care to separate those cables and have no issues. I have a Monster HDMI cable for the dvd player, and I know it was more money than I needed to spend. The rest of my cables are medium grade, with the exception of the VGA cable I use for my 360 connection to the TV. I use that so I can match the resolution instead of outputting 720p, which is less than the resolution than my TV or giving it 1080i, which is higher than my TV. The picture quality is much better because the TV doesn't have to convert any signal, it gets a perfect match under a great connection.
I don't consider ease of connection as a real issue either. I have 2 ruptured discs so things are very painful and difficult to disconnect and move around, but it is not intillectually challenging. For some it may be. The HDMI cable takes care of it all while providing an excellent connection. For some, who might get confused by all the different cables for each device, it makes it easier to figure out and connect.
I've read a couple of your retorts to other people's statements and thouroughly enjoyed them. Although one was especially long. You know what you're talking about when it comes to AV machines and connections. Like I said, it's my job as an electronics technician to know these things as well. It's primarily under a different interface using a different I/O technology for Naval Reactors. But it's pretty much the same as far as theory.
As far as quality goes, it is the source and display machines that matter the most. You must use the proper connections to get the most out of what you paid for. But if you buy a full 1080p TV and are using a VCR or an early gen dvd player, it doesn't matter how good your connections are or how perfectly you match metal alloys, or input vs output impedance for that matter.
But the original question was really what's necessary for cables. People have made suggestions on what types to use and how high you need to go on quality.
My stance on that is spend the money on the machines, find out what interface(HDMI, component, etc) the machine best uses, and buy the appropriate cable. I don't believe the cable need be top of the line, as most of them are a rip-off. But I don't think that the cheap-o's are a good way to go either. I'm in with the majority who claim the mid-range are your best bet.
For the measurement issue. There's no realistic way for the average joe to measure anything coming out of the entertainment sytem, save one. That is thier overall satisfaction with the setup they have. That's really the important thing anyway. If you care about something, you should do what you can to make it pleasureable to you.
The snob, or yuppie if you prefer, will simply go out and buy everything that costs the most in the assumption that they will have the best of the best.
The educated will go out and do some research and decide what they can afford.
The moron will listen to the sales rep and take everything he/she has to say as truth. The moron may be the same person as the snob/yuppie.
But we all are a mix of the three. Why? Because as you said, we don't know everything. But collectively, on forums like this, people can easily become more educated on what to go for and what to avoid.
Premium Cables DO make a difference in my opinion.
by greenbmk - 6/9/07 8:38 PM In reply to: Home audio and video: Premium vs. generic cables by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Very simply, here is how I've come to this conclusion.
I have two of the exact same TV's. Sony 36" HD TV's. I have a DVD player that has multiple outputs. I connected the TV on the right with an HDMI cable, the TV on the left with regular analog RCA cables. The picture settings are the same on both TV's. The picture on the right is sharper. The blacks are blacker, the lines are crisper.
When I used an HDMI and used the component out, I could barely tell the difference.
Now when I used the supplied component video cables, not the Monster component video cables, I DID notice a difference. The blacks were blacker, the lines were crisper, the images were sharper when I used the Monster cables.
Now whether or not "Monster" cables are that much better than the next best premium cables that are $20 or more dollars less, I'd say that is a toss up. I think my connections that I've used premium cables (not Monster brand) are just as good as the over-priced Monster brand.
I generally go with the Premium over the cheap, but who wants to pay the Monster prices. Panasonic makes some quality cables that are much less then what Monster charges.
It's all in your head!
by mikemanuel57 - 6/10/07 12:33 AM In reply to: Home audio and video: Premium vs. generic cables by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
If you spend bug bucks for anything, you're going to convince yourself that it made things better. All you're really doing is just paying attention to details you've missed before because it didn't really matter at the time. Think about it. If you go and buy $100/ft 'whatever' cable and install it, you're going to expect $100/ft return on investment. And you subconsciously force yourself to believe it was worth it. The opposite is also obvious. Classic case of PSYCHOACOUSTICS. Now, say you were to set up an ABX (randomized A/B switch) blind test. Could you really tell the difference between the cheap cable and the exotic cable? Most likely not. Chances are 50/50. If you go somewhere (friend's house, movie theater, concert at a club or stadium, for example) for the sole purpose of listening to music or watching a movie, do you even think about what kind of cable is being used? Much less INDENTIFY the brand and model??? Absolutely not. You're there just to get to that "Temporary Suspension of Disbelief" or immerse yourself into the emotion of a song. I say FORGET ABOUT IT and just enjoy the music or movie. Just buy whatever cable makes you happy, but don't let it affect your experience.
This is entire topic is like not being able to enjoy a good book because the ink used to print the letters is cheap. --> Stop focusing on the wrong things!
Peace,
Mike
Sorry Mike
by agb100 - 6/10/07 4:25 AM In reply to: It's all in your head! by mikemanuel57Sorry Mike, you are invested in the cheap, and therefore you will never hear or see any difference, AB tests or otherwise. It is the same for those invested in the very high priced. They will ALWAYS perceive differences. But differences alone are unimportant. Determining which is better is important.
That is what wine and perfume experts can discern...regularly. The good ones, that is. And good ears can discern differences between interconnects EASILY. Provided....
They have an adequately good microscope. Meaning, a good enough audio system...or with video, a good enough video system, and in some, though not all cases, that has been calibrated by a certified ISF technician. An expert will not only measure some differences, using the proper equipment and test DVDs, but can sometimes see things you will not.
There are indeed differences betweeen video displays. Some of you can go right now to your local big box video store and check a SONY 32", which SONY produces in at least three models at three price levels.
It is easy to see qualitative improvements as one goes up the price level with the SONYs and one does not even have to bother with other brands...though one can easily see differences between them too. Of course, some of these differences are due to settings and other technical reasons.
However, no matter what you do, you cannot make the lower priced SONY perform as well, or better, than the higher priced Bravia. And here we are speaking of 720p, not 1080! With 1080 you will see even more differences.
What I am saying is that most of the technical specs for all these displays are the same, refresh rate, gamut of colors, contrast ratio, etc. Some may differ, but most can be measured and SONY discloses certain specs.
It is the specs they do not disclose that may be interesting. And the specs they do not even know about, or cannot measure, but only know what engineering technique works better and cannot explain it adequately. These kinds of design situations exist in audio too.
They certainly exist with cables.
They do not always exist between ALL cables. They DO exist between some good cables and certainly between the really good -- let's say NORDOST -- and the cheaper, even what some of you may call, "premium", brands. NORDOST is far more expensive than most MONSTER cables. For those who can only afford Monster, Nordost is "expensive. Or in relation to Nordost, Monster is "cheap." So again, we are back not at value, but values, opinions, issues of affordability, biases,and emotional investment into preconceptions. Some of you just don't get it, some of you have.
MONSTER is the brand I always see on these posts. MONSTER is the brand that is sold in most big box stores and is likely the world's biggest selling cable. Arguably, it is neither the best, the better, or even expensive.
"Expensive" is a value judgment. Cheap is not. Cheap is something that is common, nominal, most people won't even argue about.
Let's try an example...and it is merely MY opinion.
A Hyundai auto is cheap and is synonymous with cheap. A Ferrari is expensive, but so is a Bentley, both are synonymous with expensive. To many, a Mercedes or Infiniti are "expensive" -- and guess which of the two is the better auto? You're right, it is NOT the Merc. (We are talking about the same price class. I am not comparing a $120,000 Mercedes to a $55,000 Infiniti....in fact what we're doing with interconnects: comparing cheap to expensive.)
And for those who might have pondered it, the BMW is NOT "The Ultimate Driving Machine" if you have driven far better autos. In fact, the Japanese regularly produce higher performance autos for less money because they are no longer copying, but innovating, their parts have far better quality control and sourcing, and they aim for zero failure rates as a norm. And then you tack on the exchange rate, the Yen is at an all time low against the dollar, while the Euro is at an all time high.
Unfortunately for the Germans, it's a lose-lose situation. They cannot produce cars at the Japanese quality level for the same price no matter what they do, because they source their parts in Eastern Europe where quality control is almost unknown, test a small percentage of the batch, quality control less during assembly, and worry about the consequences at the dealer level.
I am just pointing out autos as an example to relate to cables, and to prices, which have some things to do with performance, but not everything.
People are invested into their biases no matter what I or anyone says, and no matter what evidence they are presented with. Those who think German autos are the ultimate driving machines have likely never owned a Lexus or Infiniti, both significantly better (measurably and for other reasons) AT THE PRICE. One can suggest, as I have in a discussion with the sales manager for both brands at a local dealer, that feature for feature, the Infiniti FX35 and FX45 are far superior AND A BETTER VALUE to the BMW X3 and X5 respectively.
Afterwards I told him that it seems that the Beemer is $10,000 overpriced, and the Infiniti is $10,000 underpriced for what they provide. (An aside, I am an appraiser by profession...and an ex-audio reviewer.) He agreed.
Oh, yes, unlike those on this post who are certain that cheap is just as good as the expensive (without providing evidence other than their assertions), and have never owned the truly better interconnects, or autos, or even close to the better, I have owned both auto brands and the interconnects mentioned here. People will argue about issues such as the ones I've raised about cars as they will about interconnects.
Remember, none of these issues are really serious. Cars and interconnects affect our lives at the margins. A Ford will get you there too. So will a Radio Shack or Monster cable. But an Infiniti, Ferrari, or a Nordost Cable, will get you there not only in more style, but with far more enjoyment....that you can see AND feel.
The better auto (on a long trip) and the better cable (over a long period of viewing) will make a lasting impression. Once experienced, you cannot go back to driving a Hyundai or the cheap cable.
The Bottom Line: You won't know it until you've experienced it. Otherwise you are talking out of the planet Uranus.
Audio reviewers
by nmonro - 6/11/07 3:41 AM In reply to: Sorry Mike by agb100Before I let rip, let me just say I sincerely hope you weren't one of the types of reviewers I'm about to describe…
I really do appreciate that authors are paid to write. And if I buy a magazine then to some extent I’m supporting their opinions. But reviewers who claim that an equipment rack can make a difference to sound quality?
Nonsense. Arrant nonsense, in fact. Show me those reviewers, I’ll put them in a room and blindfold them, then challenge them to tell me the difference between mounting hifi on a five thousand dollar rack or some cinder blocks.
Incidentally the same magazine claimed huge differences in cables.
These reasons are why I don’t buy that magazine any longer.
Whenever I have bought an equipment rack my choice has been based on looks. Given that the thing is sturdy and has decent cable management, the rest is completely aesthetic.
Similarly cabling. Decent, heavy-gauge speaker cable for a few dollars a metre. I’ll buy that. What I won’t buy into is a digital cable making any difference at all other than the dubious satisfaction of a placebo effect.
Buy cables that look reasonably sturdy and won’t fall apart if you need to plug & unplug a few times. The rest is smoke & mirrors.
Based on Looks?
by agb100 - 6/12/07 8:07 AM In reply to: Audio reviewers by nmonronmunro says:
"Whenever I have bought an equipment rack my choice has been based on looks."
I see. You believe that turntables and CD players are immune to acoustic, mechanical, and airborne feedback and vibration?
Pssst, keep it a secret. They are not immune to any kind of disturbance.
Do you also buy cars based on looks?
Would you also marry a woman based on looks? OK, I'll take the last back, maybe that is the only reason good enough.
In matters of audio and video, buying based on looks will get you second, or third, of fiftieth down the list from the best.
Today many high end goods perform well and they look good too. But looks have nothing to do with performance (except if "looks" are needed for geometric or design considerations, such as diffraction lenses for speakers.)
Look (no pun intended), if you're happy with looks, happy to ignore the real world, and believe, as many would on this post because of denial of reality that there are no free lunches, or you harbor resentment having to pay more for higher performance because "digital is digital" and all interconnects sound the same regardless their cost, be my guest.
Reality however can prove that all digital video cables are not the same, and will not perform in the same manner....mostly because THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES and your cheap cable has a single important attribute (performance is not one of them). The single important attribute of cheap cables is that they are cheap.
Moreover, because technology does not stand still, what you accept as perfect today will prove to be far from, and if your psychology is such that if you accept imperfection today, you will also accept imperfection tomorrow when today's "perfect" will have been improved upon and today's great will have been discarded into the circular file.
However, if you buy the $20 digital cable you will not have lost anything.
Nor will you have gained anything.
Loss vs. gain [sic]
by nmonro - 6/14/07 3:16 AM In reply to: Based on Looks? by agb100Um. You omitted my point about sturdiness.
In other words, if the equipment rack or cable is fit for purpose, is solid and doesn't wobble when I walk across the floor or the plugs don't fall off after a couple of re-insertions, then that's fine by me. Add in looks consideration afterwards and that defines my choice.
Many years of listening, sometimes costly mistakes, sometimes costly benefits, I spend money where I know I get results. I've proven to myself that I get no tangible benefit from vastly expensive cables. No gain or gain 
So. I won't lose money to companies like Monster.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
