Coax Cable Ques...Can I use reg RCA type??

[fat500]

Can I use a high quality Rca Type Audio or Video cable as a digital coax.
If yes: Would the audio or the video cable be better? I have some of each.
Trying to save some $$$ will I notice any difference if I go buy the package that says Digital coaxial ? Thanks, fat

[L.J.]

Yeah you can use the yellow video cable. I do it all the time.

[pixelthis]

Or red or white audio cable.
There isnt any difference , although manufacturers claim that you "need" a 75 ohm cable,
you dont, really.
I bought an orange coax cable from the "shack" (dig coax plugs are orange) mainly so it would be easier to locate it. I swear it sounded worse than an old rca audio cable

[noddin0ff]

You don't need high end RCA. Far from it. I usually use my cheapest RCAs for the digital connection. I'm not joking.

[codecougar]

you can also get quality stuff like this for pretty darn cheap:

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10236&cs_id=1023602&p_id=2680&seq=1&format=2

[Smokey]

Or red or white audio cable.
There isnt any difference , although manufacturers claim that you "need" a 75 ohm cable, you dont, really.


Digital cables need to be 75 ohm. If not, the mismatch between the output/input and cable will cause too much signal loss and compromise the cable performance.

Digital cable require more bandwidth than video (composite) cables, and better cable shielding. So it is usually recommended to use the best cable you have for digital connection.

[markw]

Digital cables need to be 75 ohm. If not, the mismatch between the output/input and cable will cause too much signal loss and compromise the cable performance.

Digital cable require more bandwidth than video (composite) cables, and better cable shielding. So it is usually recommended to use the best cable you have for digital connection.Most likely any cable with RCA plugs will work within normal distances found in home theatre setups.

I used a 6' cracked, yellowed audio interconnect I've had since the early 60's when 75 ohms was unheard of for a test. Needle3ss to say it passed the digital audio without a problem.

And, odds are that today virtually any interconnect sold is 75 ohms.

[Smokey]

I used a 6' cracked, yellowed audio interconnect I've had since the early 60's when 75 ohms was unheard of for a test. Needle3ss to say it passed the digital audio without a problem.

I am sure it does passes the signal without a problem. The question is how does cables effect the integrity of signal.

Since the signal is digital and clock driven (synchronized), there is precise timing when signal changes polarity. Cheaper cables might round off the signal sharp corner edges where signal changes-so timing might shift slightly.

Whether the time shifting effect the sound is different matter, but it does effect the signal
clocking.

[markw]

I am sure it does passes the signal without a problem. The question is how does cables effect the integrity of signal.
...
Whether the time shifting effect the sound is different matter, but it does effect the signal
clocking.Well, considering that considerable error correction is being done in the receiver, and by the time the signal becomes analog any "distortion" or whatever you want to call it is inaudible, it's a moot point.

What you're complaining about is akin to saying that the sand between your toes when you leave the beach will erode the beach instantly. Out here, the ACE replenishes the beach every few years so the sand in your toes is virtually inconsequential.

As usual, I suggest anyone that's curious to find out for themselves by comparing the sound of a plain vanilla interconnect and a fancy digital cable. Many just might be surprised.

[bfalls]

You can use a 1/2" hose to put out a house fire, instead of a fire hose, you'll still get water, but it's not the best tool for the job. Ask anyone in California who used a garden hose to keep their roofs wet during the fires. BTW "rounding" of digital waveshapes ('I' values) is called jitter. High jitter does cause a difference in sound quality. It's relative to the quality of your gear and ears.

[markw]

You can use a 1/2" hose to put out a house fire, instead of a fire hose, you'll still get water, but it's not the best tool for the job. Ask anyone in California who used a garden hose to keep their roofs wet during the fires. BTW "rounding" of digital waveshapes ('I' values) is called jitter. High jitter does cause a difference in sound quality. It's relative to the quality of your gear and ears.The "best tool for the job" is the one that gets it done.

You're stating theory. I'm stating what I've done and heard in real world testing. ...as have others.

You're arguing wether to put on tires rated for 200 mph or 210 mph on a Hyundai Accent.

Try it and see for youself. Use your ears. If you can't hear the difference, there is none. QED

[JSE]

Barring defects, bad connections, and color coded convenience, etc......... There is no difference between the red/yellow/white/orange other than the description on the box. I use a standard Rat Shack Gold Series RCA patch cable for my digital audio connections. The only reason I use the Gold Series is I found them on clearance one day and bought a few of them. If someone tells you they can hear a difference, it's in their head or one of the cable they have tested is faulty.

JSE

[GMichael]

How does it work in reverse? I have 2 of the video component cable sets doing the work of analog 5.1 in from an SACD player. It seems to sound fine.

[Rich-n-Texas]

How does it work in reverse? I have 2 of the video component cable sets doing the work of analog 5.1 in from an SACD player. It seems to sound fine.
Ya know, I never thought about that. I was getting ready to buy a dedicated 6 channel analog out to analog in interconnect cable from my DVD changer to the receiver, but I might have two component video sets laying around. GM, are both sets equal length? I think there could be issues if they aren't.

The "best tool for the job" is the one that gets it done.

You're stating theory. I'm stating what I've done and heard in real world testing. ...as have others.

You're arguing wether to put on tires rated for 200 mph or 210 mph on a Hyundai Accent.

Try it and see for youself. Use your ears. If you can't hear the difference, there is none. QED
I'm missing ResidentLoser less & less every day! :biggrin5:

[Smokey]

As usual, I suggest anyone that's curious to find out for themselves by comparing the sound of a plain vanilla interconnect and a fancy digital cable.

I thought we were discussing plain vanilla interconnect vs quailty cables, not fancy cables. There is a difference :D

[pixelthis]

How does it work in reverse? I have 2 of the video component cable sets doing the work of analog 5.1 in from an SACD player. It seems to sound fine.

The only difference is that componet cables ARE 75 ohm, which makes no diff in audio.
THEY ARE PROBABLY BETTER since they are built to handle highq video.
I have an abundance of these, going from three componet connections to one,,thanks to hdmi, and find that they sound great no matter what they are used for:1:

[GMichael]

Ya know, I never thought about that. I was getting ready to buy a dedicated 6 channel analog out to analog in interconnect cable from my DVD changer to the receiver, but I might have two component video sets laying around. GM, are both sets equal length? I think there could be issues if they aren't.

I'm missing ResidentLoser less & less every day! :biggrin5:

Both sets are 12" each. Keeps things neat. They are Dayton Audio cables. Not crazy with pricing but quite nice.

I still miss RL. But yeah, Mark is a funny guy too. You should have seen them team up on people (who deserved it I may add).

[bobsticks]

floobydust (floo-be-dust/)--the microbial remnants of Magic Pixie Snot

[pixelthis]

Just remember, no matter what "color" cable you use, red, white, yellow,
dont take the BLUE pill!:1:

[bfalls]

The "best tool for the job" is the one that gets it done.

You're stating theory. I'm stating what I've done and heard in real world testing. ...as have others.

You're arguing wether to put on tires rated for 200 mph or 210 mph on a Hyundai Accent.

Try it and see for youself. Use your ears. If you can't hear the difference, there is none. QED

"Real World Testing" eh. "If you can't hear the difference then there is none" to you. I work in the DVD encoding/mastering "real world". In the past year I've installed copy-control based encoding and mastering systems for Cinram, Videolar, Sonopress, Digital Moon, Technicolor, Crest National and other Sony sites around the world. I've performed troubleshooting on system where a 75 ohm cable was mistakenly put in place instead of a 50 ohm cable. The difference is obvious using a digital scope. Not as much audibly, but it's there. Jitter is always an issue with replication. We have to certify every plant including physical/electrical parameters and A/B audio testing. My comparisons are with reference standard materials. If my calibrations are off it could result in trashing hundreds of thousands of discs. Jitter is real and can be heard. Just because you're unable to hear the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't listen with your ears. And your "real world" experience is....

[markw]

The difference is obvious using a digital scope Not as much audibly, but it's there.Think about that. You're saying need a scope to SEE the difference? Thanks, I'll keep this in mind when I start listening with a scope instead of my ears. Is that on the analog waveform after error correction or on hte digital signal before?

Besides, virtually all interconnects today are 75 ohms.

Face it, when we pass that digital signal all 6' from the source to the receiver's DAC and into error correction, we're counting on an unpollluted source. If the source is grossly polluted, no amount of "perfect" cable will undo a gross error ad it's unlikely the error correcton will either. Production control should always be more stringent than on the consumer end. It sounds like it's your job to assure an unpollluted source. If you do your job well, it shouldn't matter what type of interconnect anyone uses on the playback end.

And, from the posts here in this thread, it seems the industry is keeping on top of things.


Just because you're unable to hear the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Well, yeah, for all intents and purposes for this discussion it kinda does. We ingest trace amounts of fecal matter and lethal poisons each time we take a drink of water or ingest food but that doesn't mean we taste it or have an adverse reaction to it. We can't even tell we are doing that. That's the "real world" I'm talking about.

So, I'd say that the jittter introduced by that short interconnect falls into that same category of inconsequential, except pethaps for when monitoring the digital waveform on a scope, which not many of us do. Evem so, I'd like to see the comparson from the reconstructed analog POV.

So., let's put this another way. You're saying that all of us that have tried this and failed to detect a difference have defective/inadequate hearing and/or defective/inadequate equipment? Should we all put scopes and monitor the ditigal waveform to prove your point?

So, which tires would you like for your Accent, sir?

[bfalls]

[QUOTE] markw Think about that. You're saying need a scope to SEE the difference? Thanks, I'll keep this in mind when I start listening with a scope instead of my ears. Is that on the analog waveform after error correction or on hte digital signal before?

Actually a digital scope is the only way to SEE the difference. You pick and choose only parts you want to address. I also said jitter can be HEARD. You left that out. One of the main complaints by audiophiles when CDs first came out was the "harshness introduced by jitter".

Besides, virtually all interconnects today are 75 ohms.
Talking in generalities blurs the truth and doesn't support your case.

Face it, when we pass that digital signal all 6' from the source to the receiver's DAC and into error correction, we're counting on an unpollluted source. If the source is grossly polluted, no amount of "perfect" cable will undo a gross error ad it's unlikely the error correcton will either. Production control should always be more stringent than on the consumer end. It sounds like it's your job to assure an unpollluted source. If you do your job well, it shouldn't matter what type of interconnect anyone uses on the playback end.

And, from the posts here in this thread, it seems the industry is keeping on top of things.

Every component, cable and connection add some "flavor" good or bad to the mix. Even our specifications for jitter fall between 4%-7%max not zero. Too many variables. There is no perfection. BTW thank you, I don't speak for the entire industry, but from my experience the industry tries.

Well, yeah, for all intents and purposes for this discussion it kinda does. We ingest trace amounts of fecal matter and lethal poisons each time we take a drink of water or ingest food but that doesn't mean we taste it or have an adverse reaction to it. We can't even tell we are doing that. That's the "real world" I'm talking about.
That's the real world experience you bring to the table, fecal matter and lethal poisons? Fecal matter sounds appropriate. I apologize, you opened the door, I couldn't resist.

So, I'd say that the jittter introduced by that short interconnect falls into that same category of inconsequential, except pethaps for when monitoring the digital waveform on a scope, which not many of us do. Evem so, I'd like to see the comparson from the reconstructed analog POV.

Inconsequential to you, consequential enough to keep the Audioquests, Monster and Tara Labs interconnect companies in business.

So., let's put this another way. You're saying that all of us that have tried this and failed to detect a difference have defective/inadequate hearing and/or defective/inadequate equipment? Should we all put scopes and monitor the ditigal waveform to prove your point?

Actually what I'm saying is it's all relative. Define inadequate, defective hearing/equipment. It's like saying all people see blue exactly the same. Some don't give a flying $%^&, thus the popularity of MP3 players. There are many who can hear the difference. I have countless customers who send test samples for evaluation because their A/B tests didn't "sound right". Approximately 85% of the claims are supported by a scope or specialized equipment and further testing, yet initially it was heard. Equipment can fall out of specs, materials vary in quality,thus the importance of monitoring.


So, which tires would you like for your Accent, sir?

Tires, fecal matter, lethal poisons.What was the discussion again? I've said enough already. This comment doesn't deserve a response.

[pixelthis]

This is an argument that has gone on in the audio world FOREVER.
One camp thinks cables dont matter a whit,
Another cant wait for the next gimmick to waste their money on, be it "power conditioners"
"special" cables, and the latest stupidity, POWER CORDS
I like to think I am in a third camp, in that you do need a certain minimum
quality for gear. Monster is probably the best compromise FOR ME.
All I have ever heard from high line cables, etc is the sound of a ton of cash blowing outta the window.
I have probably two grand in Cables, a lot of which are in the "pergutory box".
One camp thinks I am missing audio blis because I didnt sell a kidney for a gimmick cable
when I know darn good and well they are a silly way to spend money.
ANOTHER camp thinks I wasted my money on the cables I got, their cables came from WALMART, BIG LOTS, and home depot, THEY never saw a lenght of lamp cord they didnt like.
Both extremist camps will die knowing they are "right", I will enjoy my current setup,
and constantly try different things, to see if they improve anything.
But basically, all you need in a cable is gold plate, good insulation, oxy free copper so they dont rust as fast, and a decent guage and materials.
Thats it. basically:1:

[markw]

Actually a digital scope is the only way to SEE the difference. You pick and choose only parts you want to address. I also said jitter can be HEARD. You left that out. One of the main complaints by audiophiles when CDs first came out was the "harshness introduced by jitter".Interestingly enough, a lot of these were one piece units. Early cars had problems too but future generations of technical refinement seem to have obviated most of them. Are you saying that DAC's haven't evolved in the last 25 years?


Besides, virtually all interconnects today are 75 ohms.


Talking in generalities blurs the truth and doesn't support your case.not really. It directly responds to one of your earlier statements about an impedance mismatch causing problems.


Face it, when we pass that digital signal all 6' from the source to the receiver's DAC and into error correction, we're counting on an unpollluted source. If the source is grossly polluted, no amount of "perfect" cable will undo a gross error ad it's unlikely the error correcton will either. Production control should always be more stringent than on the consumer end. It sounds like it's your job to assure an unpollluted source. If you do your job well, it shouldn't matter what type of interconnect anyone uses on the playback end.

And, from the posts here in this thread, it seems the industry is keeping on top of things.


Every component, cable and connection add some "flavor" good or bad to the mix. Even our specifications for jitter fall between 4%-7%max not zero. Too many variables. There is no perfection. BTW thank you, I don't speak for the entire industry, but from my experience the industry tries.Then what's the point of having a digital source if not to correct for imprefections?


Well, yeah, for all intents and purposes for this discussion it kinda does. We ingest trace amounts of fecal matter and lethal poisons each time we take a drink of water or ingest food but that doesn't mean we taste it or have an adverse reaction to it. We can't even tell we are doing that. That's the "real world" I'm talking about.


That's the real world experience you bring to the table, fecal matter and lethal poisons? Fecal matter sounds appropriate. I apologize, you opened the door, I couldn't resist.No, that's an analogy, and a valid one at that. It's too bad you can't seethat either.


So, I'd say that the jittter introduced by that short interconnect falls into that same category of inconsequential, except pethaps for when monitoring the digital waveform on a scope, which not many of us do. Evem so, I'd like to see the comparson from the reconstructed analog POV.


Inconsequential to you, consequential enough to keep the Audioquests, Monster and Tara Labs interconnect companies in business.Not to mention companies like this :http://www.machinadynamica.com/ There's a lot of stuff sold in this hobby that depends more on blind faith and fear than what's real. Monster cables, anyone?


So., let's put this another way. You're saying that all of us that have tried this and failed to detect a difference have defective/inadequate hearing and/or defective/inadequate equipment? Should we all put scopes and monitor the ditigal waveform to prove your point?


Actually what I'm saying is it's all relative. Define inadequate, defective hearing/equipment. It's like saying all people see blue exactly the same. Some don't give a flying $%^&, thus the popularity of MP3 players. There are many who can hear the difference. I have countless customers who send test samples for evaluation because their A/B tests didn't "sound right". Approximately 85% of the claims are supported by a scope or specialized equipment and further testing, yet initially it was heard. Equipment can fall out of specs, materials vary in quality,thus the importance of monitoring.You talk of equipment falling out of spec. How many interconnects fall out of spec?



So, which tires would you like for your Accent, sir?


Tires, fecal matter, lethal poisons.What was the discussion again? I've said enough already. This comment doesn't deserve a response.Funny. That's another analogy. Look that word up.

How about this?

OK. have you tried interconnects for this purpose? If not, you're just pushing dogma on us here without basis in fact. I'm stating my experience. So are others here. You're just talking theory without any basis for your bold statements that they WILL make an audiable difference. I'd really like some proof from an independent source.

I'd like to see some testing done comparing the analog outputs of some of the family of interconnects mentioned here for the lengths under discisussion here compared to an "official" digital coax interconnect when using a decent quality HTR. Without that. you're simply spouting dogma without substantiation.

You're just arguing textbook theory and, as any experienced persons know, there's a lot in the real world that isn't explained in the textbook. It ain't all black and white or, should I say, ones and zeroes?

[Smokey]

Think about that. You're saying need a scope to SEE the difference? Thanks, I'll keep this in mind when I start listening with a scope instead of my ears.

As you are well aware, listening is not a good way to judge a cable. There are too many uncontrollable [human] variables that can cloud the results. For example, if we use a coat hanger instead of a digital cable and it sound OK to you, would that satisfy you??

There are certain specifications that a cable need to fulfill to be use for specific applications, and using an electronic instrument is the only way to address those specifications.

Have you ever take one of those cheap tiny interconnect apart? All you will see is couple of strand of wires for center conductor, and for shielding few strand of wires that wrap around it. Would that qualify it as a quality IC?

Beside, I don’t think anybody talking about using a fancy cable here. All we are saying is to use a good quality cables, which are not too expensive. RG-59 cables from Radiosahack or Bestbuy (AR cables) does an outstanding job in digital applications and they are not too expensive.


But basically, all you need in a cable is gold plate, good insulation, oxy free copper so they dont rust as fast, and a decent guage and materials. Thats it. basically

I would add a good shielding to that list also, and we are there :6:

[markw]

As you are well aware, listening is not a good way to judge a cable. There are too many uncontrollable [human] variables that can cloud the results. For example, if we use a coat hanger instead of a digital cable and it sound OK to you, would that satisfy you??Uh, aside from the cosmetic issues, yeah. But I'd have a rough time running it behind the equipment rack.


There are certain specifications that a cable need to fulfill to be use for specific applications, and using an electronic instrument is the only way to address those specifications.And, when things don't work as anticipated one always needs a standard for fall back upon. And, as for passing digital audio from one component to another, it's fairlly common knowledge here that virtually any interconnect does the job quite well.


Have you ever take one of those cheap tiny interconnect apart? All you will see is couple of strand of wires for center conductor, and for shielding few strand of wires that wrap around it. Would that qualify it as a quality IC?What do you think? You'e trying to change the subject here but odds are that it would still pass a digital audio signal quite well. Try it and get back to us.


Beside, I don’t think anybody talking about using a fancy cable here. All we are saying is to use a good quality cables, which are not too expensive. RG-59 cables from Radiosahack or Bestbuy (AR cables) does an outstanding job in digital applications and they are not too expensive.In your first entry in this thread you were the first to imply he couldn't successfully use his cables die to tjhe bandwidth, remember? Now you're back tracking your original statement?

FWIW, I view any cable that's marked for "digital coax" and costs more than other coax as somewhat subject to scrutiny. That's "fancy cable" in my book.


I would add a good shielding to that list also, and we are there :6:Well, duh. Where was that ever argued? That's a given for any interconnect, isn't it?

FWIW. I've traveled this road long before you did, but, honestly, I expected more from you than this.

Since you brought up coathangers: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2124.html

[Smokey]

In your first entry in this thread you were the first to imply he couldn't successfully use his cables due to the bandwidth, remember? Now you're back tracking your original statement?

I don't see any back tracking. My first entry was response to Pixelthis who said there aren't any differences between red, yellow and white cables and digital cables don't have to be 75 ohm.
RG-59 is 75 ohm and have enough bandwidth for digital and component video cable applications.


Well, duh. Where was that ever argued? That's a given (good shielding) for any interconnect, isn't it?

Not those tiny IC one would find at Walmart or Homedepot, or those that one find boxed in with new DVD players. Best shield are mesh shield, not few strand of wire wraped around a conductor.

Also read your link, and there is an error in mtrycrafts post. He said in digital signals there are no harmonics, which is not correct. A square wave has harmonics at odd multiples of the fundamental frequency. The more odd hamonics, the more sharp the signal edges would be.

That is why digital cables need to have good bandwidth in order to pass the harmonics as well as the fundamental frequency.

http://www.slack.net/~ant/bl-synth/images/sum_sines.gif

[bfalls]

Interestingly enough, a lot of these were one piece units. Early cars had problems too but future generations of technical refinement seem to have obviated most of them. Are you saying that DAC's haven't evolved in the last 25 years?



not really. It directly responds to one of your earlier statements about an impedance mismatch causing problems.



Then what's the point of having a digital source if not to correct for imprefections?



No, that's an analogy, and a valid one at that. It's too bad you can't seethat either.



Not to mention companies like this :http://www.machinadynamica.com/ There's a lot of stuff sold in this hobby that depends more on blind faith and fear than what's real. Monster cables, anyone?



You talk of equipment falling out of spec. How many interconnects fall out of spec?




Funny. That's another analogy. Look that word up.

How about this?

OK. have you tried interconnects for this purpose? If not, you're just pushing dogma on us here without basis in fact. I'm stating my experience. So are others here. You're just talking theory without any basis for your bold statements that they WILL make an audiable difference. I'd really like some proof from an independent source.

I'd like to see some testing done comparing the analog outputs of some of the family of interconnects mentioned here for the lengths under discisussion here compared to an "official" digital coax interconnect when using a decent quality HTR. Without that. you're simply spouting dogma without substantiation.

You're just arguing textbook theory and, as any experienced persons know, there's a lot in the real world that isn't explained in the textbook. It ain't all black and white or, should I say, ones and zeroes?


It's not my nature to be argumentative. It wasn't until you attacked my "real world" knowledge that I responded in like. I have no desire to continue this "difference of opinion". It's counter productive and unsportsmanlike. It's akin to shooting an unarmed man in the back. Believe what you want, ignorance is blind.

Since no one appears to be coming to your rescue/support, you may want to take the hint. It seems the only thing lately keeping this site alive is back and forth bantering between posters. I hate to see it since it's always been my favorite site for practical knowledge (not theory) and access to new equipment and technIcal information. You're obviously part of the problem and not the solution. Go back to your "semi-pro" church gig, it's more your realm. Hail King Markw! Before you latch on and run with it, I'm not against church or religion. I just refuse to sensationalize a subjective topic.

Bose Sucks! All cables and amplifiers sound the same! LCD/Plasma is better than Plamsa/LCD. Blu-ray/HD-DVD is better than HD-DVD/Blu-ray. There run with that, should keep you busy and out of someone else's hair for awhile. Eh Smokey?

[markw]

Since no one appears to be coming to your rescue/support, you may want to take the hint.Sniff.. sniff.. You hurt my feelings.

Obviously you didn't read the posts prior to your and Smokey's entrance. I guess LJ. pixlethis, JSE and noddingoff posting virtually the same things I said don't count, do they?

Just because they don't enjoy exposing pedantic blowhards for what they are like I do doesn't necessarially mean they disagree with me. I don't see them jumping to your defense, either. All I see pumping you up is Smokey, another pedantic buffoon who doesn't understand what he posts and merely parrots bits and pieces of what he picks up.

After all, all he wanted to do was pick apart my test with an old interconnect (which worked fine, BTW) and you both ran with it and transposed it to modern interconnects.

And, if you'll notice, even though he disputes it, it's clear that even Smokey back-pedaled on his initial statement. That leaves you alone.


It's not my nature to be argumentative.Now, I don't care who you are, that's funny! Read on...


It wasn't until you attacked my "real world" knowledge that I responded in like. I have no desire to continue this "difference of opinion".Short term memory loss? You're the one that jumped in here guns blazing, first with that silly fire hose analogy and ended with an attack on my/our hearing ability and equipmemt.


I just refuse to sensationalize a subjective topic.Really now! Your dogmatic input here shows that to be untrue. After all, you're both calling my (our) "subjective" testing of these interconnects worthless based on yer book larnin'. I guess y'all never tried them, have you? Of course not. the book says it won't work!

We have two different approaches to this hobby. I take the pragmatic approach while you're more of the dogmatic school.

But, to your credit, I've long since retired that ancient interconnect and am currently using a video cable with no apparant problems either. It was too utt bugly and I couldn't stand the looks of it. That, and it successfully withstood a "subjective" comparison to an "official orange plug digital coax" cable which was the only reason I tried it.

So, will you be kind enough to be a man and answer the OPs' question with a simple Yes or No answer as others have. I'll repeat it here:


Can I use a high quality Rca Type Audio or Video cable as a digital coax.
If yes: Would the audio or the video cable be better? I have some of each.From your post's here, I have to asume it would be "no".

Enjoy your Hyundai Accent with 210 mph tires.

[pixelthis]

As you are well aware, listening is not a good way to judge a cable. There are too many uncontrollable [human] variables that can cloud the results. For example, if we use a coat hanger instead of a digital cable and it sound OK to you, would that satisfy you??

There are certain specifications that a cable need to fulfill to be use for specific applications, and using an electronic instrument is the only way to address those specifications.

Have you ever take one of those cheap tiny interconnect apart? All you will see is couple of strand of wires for center conductor, and for shielding few strand of wires that wrap around it. Would that qualify it as a quality IC?

Beside, I don’t think anybody talking about using a fancy cable here. All we are saying is to use a good quality cables, which are not too expensive. RG-59 cables from Radiosahack or Bestbuy (AR cables) does an outstanding job in digital applications and they are not too expensive.



I would add a good shielding to that list also, and we are there :6:

Sorry I left that out.
I shouldn't have, one advantage when I switched my entire system to monster was the disapearence of artifacts, video and audio got a lot "cleaner", probably due to
the better insulation on Monster cables

[bfalls]

Sniff.. sniff.. You hurt my feelings.

Obviously you didn't read the posts prior to your and Smokey's entrance. I guess LJ. pixlethis, JSE and noddingoff posting virtually the same things I said don't count, do they?

Just because they don't enjoy exposing pedantic blowhards for what they are like I do doesn't necessarially mean they disagree with me. I don't see them jumping to your defense, either. All I see pumping you up is Smokey, another pedantic buffoon who doesn't understand what he posts and merely parrots bits and pieces of what he picks up.

After all, all he wanted to do was pick apart my test with an old interconnect (which worked fine, BTW) and you both ran with it and transposed it to modern interconnects.

And, if you'll notice, even though he disputes it, it's clear that even Smokey back-pedaled on his initial statement. That leaves you alone.

Now, I don't care who you are, that's funny! Read on...

Short term memory loss? You're the one that jumped in here guns blazing, first with that silly fire hose analogy and ended with an attack on my/our hearing ability and equipmemt.

Really now! Your dogmatic input here shows that to be untrue. After all, you're both calling my (our) "subjective" testing of these interconnects worthless based on yer book larnin'. I guess y'all never tried them, have you? Of course not. the book says it won't work!

We have two different approaches to this hobby. I take the pragmatic approach while you're more of the dogmatic school.

But, to your credit, I've long since retired that ancient interconnect and am currently using a video cable with no apparant problems either. It was too utt bugly and I couldn't stand the looks of it. That, and it successfully withstood a "subjective" comparison to an "official orange plug digital coax" cable which was the only reason I tried it.

So, will you be kind enough to be a man and answer the OPs' question with a simple Yes or No answer as others have. I'll repeat it here:

From your post's here, I have to asume it would be "no".

Enjoy your Hyundai Accent with 210 mph tires.

What's this fixation on the Hyundai Accent? I don't have one, but my car does have speed-rated tires.:eek: How stupid of me to use tires recommended for my car. I suppose your car runs on "donut" spares (also "speed rated"), because they still work and your &ss can't tell the difference. But "whatever does the job", right?

I've done the test, at home and in our audio suite at work. I can HEAR a difference. I don't need to SEE it. There were others in the room. Some could tell a difference some couldn't. It wasn't double-blind, does that make it invalid?

I can also tell a difference between coax and optical, which is surprising because "bits is bits" according to my book larnin'. Where does this leave us? You going to call me a liar? Make me prove I can hear a difference? Compare hardware? I've been trained to listen for "artifacts" and differences between source and replicated media, it's part of my job. I then have to support it with tests. This is my "Real World".

Does this mean I'm more of a man now that I've answered the question? Please-----give it a rest! He's had time enough to try it himself. If he likes what he hears. Fine. But if he's on a quest for "audio Nirvana" your path won't get him there it runs parallel.

[GMichael]

(Mike pokes head in) Hey guys, how's it..... (ducks as a tomato flies by and splatters on the wall behind him) OK......... See ya!
(Slips back out the way he came)

[noddin0ff]

bits are bits. you're hearing down stream differences. I always find it interesting that nobody ever describes the differences they hear. Or if they do, they don't make sense for digital artifacts.

[markw]

What's this fixation on the Hyundai Accent? I don't have one, but my car does have speed-rated tires.:eek: How stupid of me to use tires recommended for my car. I suppose your car runs on "donut" spares (also "speed rated"), because they still work and your &ss can't tell the difference. But "whatever does the job", right?

I've done the test, at home and in our audio suite at work. I can HEAR a difference. I don't need to SEE it. There were others in the room. Some could tell a difference some couldn't. It wasn't double-blind, does that make it invalid?

I can also tell a difference between coax and optical, which is surprising because "bits is bits" according to my book larnin'. Where does this leave us? You going to call me a liar? Make me prove I can hear a difference? Compare hardware? I've been trained to listen for "artifacts" and differences between source and replicated media, it's part of my job. I then have to support it with tests. This is my "Real World".

Does this mean I'm more of a man now that I've answered the question? Please-----give it a rest! He's had time enough to try it himself. If he likes what he hears. Fine. But if he's on a quest for "audio Nirvana" your path won't get him there it runs parallel.I'm not gonna make you prove anything. You can believe what you want. It's a free country.

Actually, it looks like you're calling me a liar. It's amazing how you two took such offense that I said that my scuzzy ole interconnect passed a good sounding digital feed. That really stuck in your craw, didn't it? You're the one trying to prove me wrong.

People here have their own ears and can (and have) come to their own conclusions as to what works for a digital coax, so your input is not really needed, but it's humorous to watch you disentangle yourself from your panties. ;).

FWIW, you still didn't answer the OP's question. Nice cop-out to avoid answering a direct question. A real man would have taken a stand and answered it before picking on my tired ole interconnect.

I see you still don't grasp the concept of analogies, do you?

[bfalls]

FWIW, you still didn't answer the OP's question.

I'm not gonna make you prove anything. You can believe what you want. It's a free country.

Actually, it looks like you're calling me a liar. It's amazing how you two took such offense that I said that my scuzzy ole interconnect passed a good sounding digital feed. That really stuck in your craw, didn't it? You're the one trying to prove me wrong.

People here have their own ears and can (and have) come to their own conclusions as to what works for a digital coax, so your input is not really needed, but it's humorous to watch you disentangle yourself from your panties. ;).

You still don't grasp the concept of analogies, do you?


Blah, blah, blah....blah, blah, blah. Uncle! You win!

[markw]

Blah, blah, blah....blah, blah, blah. Uncle! You win!Ya wanna talk about coathangers next? :)

[GMichael]

(Mike stops in again)
(The fighting seems to have stopped. Everyone has come to an agreement. But, they've agreed that the chairs look better upside down)

Hey guys! I know that you can fit more people on the chairs this way, but, uh,.... Doesn't THAT hurt?

[pixelthis]

(Mike stops in again)
(The fighting seems to have stopped. Everyone has come to an agreement. But, they've agreed that the chairs look better upside down)

Hey guys! I know that you can fit more people on the chairs this way, but, uh,.... Doesn't THAT hurt?


Who said anything about chairs?
You been listening to DSOTM again?
And its the same old argument, A digital signal with untold redunancies, and basically just 1's and 0's, is somehow affected by the cable it runs through.
SOME PEOPLE JUST LIKE TO COMPLICATE THE HELL OUTTA THINGS.
They have a hard time figuring out that the audio frontier is closed, no more messy analog to try and "tweak" to decency.
So they hook up a 300$ cable to the ten cent connector on the back of their 1,000$
CD PLAYER with the Sony drive that is the same that goes into a boom box...:1: