 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Better Cables posted by dgs on May 15, 2002 at 18:09:43:
I get to ask:Where's the proof for the hugely better picture from "voodoo-science" interconnects?
While video signals are in the megahertz range , and a really cheap/non-shielded IC might look bad, spending that kind of money is ridiculous.
Try a Radio Shack "Gold Series" IC or even an Acoustic Research brand video cable--I and two friends did and couldn't see a difference between those ($32-$40) and a $90 set of Audioquest's on my 27" Philips.
Beware of the "hi-end" cable company's marketing bullshit--it is totally out of control nowadays. And little, to no, solid scientific proof of their product's "adavantages" over common-sense products.
Video (and audio) can be a really fun hobby--don't let this weird "I think-I-see/hear-it-but-have-no-real-proof" stuff ruin it.
Follow Ups:
You said:
"And little, to no, solid scientific proof of their product's "adavantages" over common-sense products."Actually, it's been demonstrated many times there can be vivid difference in video quality as a result of the cables. As to scientific proof, you don't need it. You can SEE the difference. Silver tends to be better for video, or at least oxygen free copper with teflon dielectric. These are the things you usually DON'T get with budget video interconnects. This holds for S-video and component video. The right materials produce better image quality, color saturation, and 3D like imagery. Sorry, no silver at Rat Shack. Yes, they make a good budget interconnect. But if your searching for the best picture possible, you are going to have to spend more. The fact is, even in bulk, the best video cable costs considerably. Even for a giant like Radio Shack, it's wouldn't be cheap. If your buying a cheaply priced interconnect, you do the math.
Lex
NT
Let's put it this way - do you use a Magic-Fairy-Dust (patent pending) cable for your hi-res computer monitor? No? Then why would you use one for the infinitely less demanding task of displaying fuzzy images on a fuzzy TV screen?
could it be because my monitor is about 4 feet from my computer? Like my previous post said, if you see/hear no difference in a Radio Shack cable and a higher-end cable then you should be happy with radio-shack... this is NOT meant as a diss, but for some people they do not see/hear the difference or frankly don't care. I'm not one of them.BTW, not all monitors and cables for monitors are alike, try to get the same res from a cheaper cable from an SGI machine.
Sam Marsh
Software Engineer
VERY BADLY designed cables might make a difference (no shielding, wildly insufficient gauge, etc.) but even those cables they give you with your VCR or $150 CD player don't have that.I find it curious that during the last decade or so, this audio voodoo stuff has appeared, coinciding with the fact ("fact": yes, that's my opinion ) that a pair of "mid-fi" Boston Acoustics speakers can sound as good as a 70s/early 80s era pair of hi-end speakers. Or a well-designed receiver from Denon or Yamaha can reproduce sound as accurately as from an over-built Mark Levinson amp (notice I did not say "sounds the same"--different amps do have subtly different sonic characters, AND depending on what/who's speakers they are driving).
To me, many manufacturers of hi-end equipment and accessories know that audio technology is hitting the point of diminishing returns, where a "hi-end" system sounds barely better than a system one quarter the price. And so are using their advertising dollars to try to convince people there are all these electronic "boogey men" that scientific instruments can't detect, but of course!, their latest electronic widget/circuit design/whatever can eliminate. Ever notice the most cable companys never give you any technical info or graphs? Instead, a lot of flowery and mush-minded language is employed, blanketing the cable-issue in metaphysical nonsense, and using the "guilt card" sometimes: "If you REALLY love music, you'll spend $XXX on our Super Excellento interconnect. Anything less would be an insult to your favorite artist!"
Phooey.
Electrical theory is now extremely advanced, and while I freely admit science can't--and probably never will--explain EVERYTHING, there are some things that us two-legged creatures DO know about in fine detail. And wires just aren't that complicated for us now, especially in consumer-equipment frequency regions. This isn't the 1920s anymore.
And magazines certainly wouldn't test a Gold Series IC against whatever high end cable was the flavor-of-the-day: what if they found no difference? Now what? Print those results and guess what that high end cable manufacturer would do with his advertising dollars, those $$$ being the life-blood of a magazine? He's GONE!! And anyway, magazines never seem to do proper scientific testing, testing that takes into account KNOWN AND PROVEN psychological factors that can seriously alter & contaminate a listening test. So I wouldn't believe such a test either.
So........nothing gets properly tested, or tested at all, and these weird audio rumors grow unchecked. And with the Internet here now, they can grow exponentially.
Human senses are limited, some of the worst in the mammalian animal world and our awesomely complicated brains can play tricks on us--ever been to a carnival with one of those funhouses with the tilted floors? Psychologists know (and I have personal experience with this) that just knowing something MIGHT exist can cause one to think in a delicate or difficult-to-perceive situation that it does exist.
And when someone tells me I have to spend $150 to get a good picture when there are cables available using the same technology for $40, you are damn right I am going to question such a statement!!!
So if our senses are so limited, why can we tell such a difference between a live acoustic performance and what we can hear coming from a set of speakers. 20hz-20Khz is enough of a range we can perceive that we SHOULD be able to mimic live performances perfectly if that were the only factor in the reproduction of music. It's to bad you have not had the pleasure to hear/see otherwise, just don't knock the rest of us who can tell the difference.Our senses may be limited, but we are not senseless.
Sam Marsh
Software Engineer,
Biochemist and Cell Biologist,
Classical Guitar player,
Oh yeah, i like to listen to music and view some movies sometimes also.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
