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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas

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).

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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?

[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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Besides, virtually all interconnects today are 75 ohms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

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: