Digital cable question

I have several component video cables ( red, green, blue ) which I no longer use. I know they are fine for use as analog audio interconnects but can they be used as a digital coax audio cable?

Simply put, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Simply put, yes.

---

How about technically :)

Component cable's green cable carry twice bandwith than either Red or blue color. So if cable is no name brand component cable, stick with green color code wire as manufacture might have cut corners with red or blue cable. Ofcourse that is hypothetically speaking :10:

thanks guys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

How about technically :)

Component cable's green cable carry twice bandwith than either Red or blue color. So if cable is no name brand component cable, stick with green color code wire as manufacture might have cut corners with red or blue cable. Ofcourse that is hypothetically speaking :10:

---

You really think they make the cable with the green connectors on the end differently than the other two cables? You really think others are stupid enough to buy your bull****?

Please prove to us beyond a shadow of doubt with scientific testing that green is the better of the cables. Ot's already been proven that digital is passed just fine by unbent coathangers.

As usual, you just talk to hear yourself talk.

Video cables should work fine for coaxial digital audio because they use the same impedance as cables specifically labeled for coax audio. The sales guys talk about jitter control and other purported benefits with dedicated coax digital audio cables, but I'm very skeptical of those claims.

I've been using a composite video cable for the digital audio output with my DVD players for 10 years now, and it works fine. Since most DVD audio output consists of buffered packet streams, any supposed benefit to wire-enabled jitter control goes for naught anyway. I connect my CD/SACD player's digital output the same way using an old video cable, but I rarely use that since I primarily listen to that player using the multichannel analog outputs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Ot's already been proven that digital is passed just fine by unbent coathangers.

---

Whomever proved it, don't know nothing about digital signal :)

Digital signal out of DVD/Bluray players are synchronize which mean the o'clock is embedded in the signal. So one really need high bandwidth coax cable as not to alter the precise time shifting of oclock signal.

Cheap coax cables that have low bandwidth tend to "bend" sharp signal corners. Which mean the precise timing where oclock changes polarity will be off slightly.

Quote:

---

Please prove to us beyond a shadow of doubt with scientific testing that green is the better of the cables.

---

As I said, it is hypothetically speaking. So have to take it with grain of salt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Whomever proved it, don't know nothing about digital signal :)

Digital signal out of DVD/Bluray players are synchronize which mean the o'clock is embedded in the signal. So one really need high bandwidth coax cable as not to alter the precise time shifting of oclock signal.

Cheap coax cables that have low bandwidth tend to "bend" sharp signal corners. Which mean the precise timing where oclock changes polarity will be off slightly.



As I said, it is hypothetically speaking. So have to take it with grain of salt.

---

You're full of $hit. You swallow gobs of crap on the internet without understanding what you read and then regurgitate bits and pieces and try to convince others you have some idea what you're talking about.

That doesn't alays work on everyone.Sometimes you get called on it.

Again, prove to me, or anyone for that matter, you can hear the diference or keep your mental masturbations to yourself. That, and taking a $hit, are two things better done in private.

Bloviating a$$holes like you give this hobby a bad name. Here's a little something to read the next time you're taking a "smokey".

Stick to copy ann pasting pretty pictures and lifting reviews from other sources and leave the tecnical stuff to others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Stick to copy ann pasting pretty pictures and lifting reviews from other sources and leave the tecnical stuff to others

---

If you want get technical, lets get technical.

Digital signal as oppose to analog signal contain sharp corners (where the signal changes polarity) which mean the signal contain high frequecy harmonics. Higher the hormonics, the sharper digital signal edges will be.

Now if you have a low bandwith (high capacitance) cable that tend to attenuate higher frequecy harmonics (which are much higher than digital frequecy it is carrying), the corners will not be as sharp. So you will have gradual polarity shifting rather than being instantaneous. And if change of polarity is not instantaneous where the oclocking occure, the digital signal timing will be off.

And I did not get above information from bit and pieces from internet to paste. It is from communication text book which I wish you read instead going around calling people names. Usually [rude] poeple who can't carry a conversation in an adult matter resort to name calling, and I'm giving you a reddy for sinking that low.

Quote:

---

Again, prove to me, or anyone for that matter, you can hear the diference or keep your mental masturbations to yourself.

---

Whether we can hear it or not is rrelevant. If your goals in cable is signal transparency, then you should strive to minimize cable's effect on the signal. It is electronic 101.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Whether we can hear it or not is irrelevant. If your goals in cable is signal transparency, then you should strive to minimize cable's effect on the signal. It is electronic 101.

---

You really have no clue how digital stuff works, do you? Two of us have pretty much laid it out for you and yet you continue to ignore the facts.

I don't waste time trying to communicate with pompous Internet a$$holes out to impress the unknowing with technobabble who, in reality, obviously haven't a clue about what they are discussing

You're just trying to justify your ignorance and arrogance. You simply should have been a good little blowhard and not tried to add your trademark bogus "factoids" into a simple question and answer session just to hear yourself talk. This isn't the first time I've had to come down on you for trying to pass off irrelevant old wives tales as fact and, with your need for attenion, it most likely won't be the last

Is life that boring for you that you have to try and justify your mundane existence by posting misleading bull$hit on this forum just to draw attention to yourself?

Your kind is the reason that people make fun of "audiophiles", and I can't really blame them.

Now, just go away, kid, You bother me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Two of us have pretty much laid it out for you and yet you continue to ignore the facts.

---

If your facts are that a metal coathanger is good enough, then be my guest and use one. Just make sure it's not rusty :D

Listen, child, I have no problem with people following up one of my posts with some information that might augment my answer to the benefit of the OP. That's where forums come in handy and are at their best.

But, when someone takes some random, unrelated, fact that has absolutely no bearing on the matter at hand, and is a lie to boot, and tries to smugly interject it into the conversation as if to appear to the unknowing that they know wha tthey ar etalking about, then that's their privilege.

But, when someone, or even more than one poster, points out they haven't a clue and then they try to BS their way into trying to justify it by throwing more unrelated snipets into the mix, then be prepared to be called on it.

You would do well to learn when to keep your mouth shut, or at least man up when you're shown to be wrong.

P.S. You might want to reflect on my sig line, which has been there for weeks. It would serve you well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

But, when someone, or even more than one poster, points out they haven't a clue and then they try to BS their way into trying to justify it by throwing more unrelated snipets into the mix, then be prepared to be called on it.

---

More information never hurt anybody. If we believe that cable should not matter as long as it is transparent, then we should also step up to the plate and make an effort to make it as transparent as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

More information never hurt anybody.

---

"We"??? "We" should make sure that the information we post is relevant, accurate and true. Your post was none of these.

Bad information does hurt, particularly in this hobby where so much propaganda and bull$hit is foisted on the newbies. You just added to it with your first post in this thread.

What's really ironic is that for one who claims to be so concerned about "data integrity", you obviously have no problem creating and passing corrupt data yourself.

Likewise, irrelevant information just serves to cloud the issues. Is that why you call yourself "smokey", because you intentionally work against clarity?

You took one little snippet of information that you maybe read somewhere on the internet that had absolutely no bearing on the question at hand and just "assumed", without any basis in fact, that component video cables were made of different materials. ...and you gleefully threw it in as an accepted fact that nobody else knew. Well, the reason nobody else knew it is because it isn't a fact: It's just a fairy tale you just made up in order to have something to say here and look cool.

...and you were called on it. .

And, As Wooch and I said, and many others have proven, and even more have discovered by experience, "transparancy" for a digital signal isn't all that difficuly to achieve.

...and you're still trying to defend your statement here. ...totally friggin' amazing

Tell me, are you proud that you're responsible for creating and passing made up, false, and incorrect information on this website? Like it's not dead enough already?

Like I said before, stick to posting pretty pictures and lifting entire blocks of text in their entirety, from other sites. Maybe that way you won't make up new fairy tales.

Now,man up and move on. Don't you have another poll with pictures to post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

And, As Wooch and I said, and many others have proven, and even more have discovered by experience, "transparancy" for a digital signal isn't all that difficuly to achieve.

---

If you use cheap video cables, then we might not achieve it. Maybe if I post a "pretty" picture will make it more clear.

Take a look at picture below:

http://media.soundonsound.com/sos/au...fig8910big.gif

As you can seee above, a 100 hz square wave have harmonics up to 20 khz. Now look at figure 9 and 10 where upper haromnics from 100hz signal are removed. As you can see, the sharp corner are not there anymore and precise timing where signal changes polarity has changed also. It is now gradual rather than being instantaneous.

Now if we apply the above scenario to digital signal where the oclock is also embeded in the signal, and you see why it is critical to keep timing of signal intact. If you use cheap video cables were its capacitance tend to attenuate higher [signal] haromnics, the sharp corners where precise oclock timing occure will not be anymore.

So change of polarity (where the oclocking occure) tend to be gradual rather than instantaneous. And signal timing will be off since signal voltage threshhold (where timing occure) have changed also. And the cable is not transparent anymore since it caused the signal timing to shift.

The bottom line is use high bandwidth cable for digital application and don't use any video cables that is laying around the house.

Well, real world experience has proven over and over that any RGB cable works just fine as digital interconnects.

But, if you really, really wanted to learn something, you would try it for yourself and see just how wrong you are instead of trying to make your case by posting snippets from other people's works on the internet that don't apply here. Quite the little plagirist, aren't you? ...and more than a bit disingenuous I'd say.

A perfect example of "."If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bulls#it in action

Whatever. If this obfuscation makes you feel better, go ahead.

But remember, everyone here can see your song and dance trying to cover your tracks.

Face it, kid. You blew it.

...and everyone here can see you're not man enough to admit it. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

But, if you really, really wanted to learn something, you would try it for yourself and see just how wrong you are....

---

Let me throw in little bit of reverse psychology here :)

Suppose I did try for myself and listen to few cables. Would you believe me if I say I hear jitter with cheaper cables?

If you say no, then it mean "listening" to cable is not best approach when seeking transprency. You will have much better result following few simple physics law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Let me throw in little bit of reverse psychology here :)

Suppose I did try for myself and listen to few cables. Would you believe me if I say I hear jitter with cheaper cables?

If you say no, then it mean "listening" to cable is not best approach when seeking transprency. You will have much better result following few simple physics law.

---

From your showing here you're not above prevarication. Besides, you have no problem calling Wooch and myself either liars or deaf.

Every one I've spoken to who tried it never heard a problem using fairly generic cables so It's highly unlikely you would. That would make you superhuman and that's laughable because, from your showing here, you barely qualify on the other end of the scale.

In any caes, you've pretty much admitted that you've never tried it and aren't speaking from past experience (like us) to begin with. Anything you say now on this subject would be subject to questio since you're obviously biased.

First off, what does jitter sound like? Quick, scurry to the internet to find an answer you can plagiarize without attribution that might fool someone into believing you actually know what you're talking about. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Tata, little boy.

This argument is quite entertaining. I'm going to have to side with markw on this one. Smokey's argument seems like the typical stuff that you hear at BestBuy when they try to sell you Monster cables.

I am no cable expert, but I don't think the capacitance of the cable comes into play here. I work with cables where capacitance is an issue for data transmission, but these cables are tens of thousands of feet long . . . It seems like shielding would be a much larger problem due to noise.

My two cents.