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

[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

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...hp/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.

[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

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. 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. 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...