Does high quality digital cables matter?

2456729

Comments

  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,490
    edited April 2014
    tonyb wrote: »
    Your arguments are valid for simple computer data transfer, however....we don't listen to data on a screen. Simply stating once a cable meets spec....or does it's job, is the be all end all in what it sounds like simply means you have not listened to any other better cables.

    Exactly Tony. transferring and viewing computer data as 1's and 0's is "easier" for a cable than for the same cable to transmit music as 1's and 0's.

    As proof, I will offer up this: A couple years ago I bought some Belden solid copper core Cat 5e ethernet cable along with RJ45 ends to install onto the ends. I also bought some RJ45 crimpers costing $75.00 (NOT cheapies). I built the Ethernet cable and hooked it up to my router to transmit my online service to my compueter (I now use wireless). The cable worked fine. tranmitted data with no hiccups.

    I then hooked the same DIY ethernet cable up to my modified Denon DVD-1920 DVD/SACD player, which I installed an RJ45 output jack into and the other end hooked up to my (at the time newly built) DAC, also with an RJ45 input jack to transmit thepure DSD signalbetween the two.

    The result was that while the DIY ethernet cable worked between the my router and computer without hiccups, te same cable did not work between my modified DVD-1920 and DIY DAC. The data digital signal was not passed accurately enough between the Denon player and DAC (music). The digital data signal was passed between the router and computer with "seemingly" no problems.

    So, if they are just 1's and 0's and "just a digital data signal" why would one digital data signal work (between the router and computer, but not work between the Denon DVD-1920 and my DIY DAC?

    Answer: there's a lot more going on with 1's and 0's than what HabiMonk and other scoffers are admitting to and/or realise.

    Edit: I should point out that the same RJ45 jacks I initially installed in the Denon DVD-1920 and the DIY DAC are the same ones I used with a different ethernet cable and worked perfectly. Meaning the RJ45 jacks on the player/DAC were NOT the problem. It was the ethernet cable that was the problem and went away after switching to this cable: http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_cable.html

    Although I now use a modified Denon DVD-5910 as my DSD output player to my DAC.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • Habanero MonkHabanero Monk Posts: 716
    edited April 2014
    tonyb wrote: »
    Your arguments are valid for simple computer data transfer, however....we don't listen to data on a screen. Simply stating once a cable meets spec....or does it's job, is the be all end all in what it sounds like simply means you have not listened to any other better cables.

    Data is data. The question is the quality of the D/A. No one has been able to explain how a CAT5 cable or SATA or IEEE 1394a/b or USB makes the difference.

    Digital transfer is high frequency, data rate, ECC protocols on the line at the PHY layer. They are built to be very noise immune.

    Fortunately I am going to be able to offer to setup a well structured A/B SBT at any event with 100% confidence of zero participation.

    This is a clear example of you having no technical understanding about how Ethernet or these other digital systems work.
  • ZLTFULZLTFUL Posts: 5,489
    edited April 2014
    "I know how computers work. This make me an audio expert."

    Sounds just as asinine when you condense it into a much more succinct form.
    "Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."

    "Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip
  • northernwindnorthernwind Posts: 57
    edited April 2014
    Eck...Why do experience members troll so hard on this forum?You people act like 3 years old...Read my original post,nothing troll about it.It's funny,not like I even said anyone was wrong.As for tonyb,thanks for the pov,at least some maturity was shown regarding the discussion.Only forum in which everyone joins in and trolls just because people don't agree with a certain view.

    Txcostal-Grow up please,aren't you like 40?
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 32,488
    edited April 2014
    ZLTFUL wrote: »
    "I know how computers work. This make me an audio expert."
    .

    Bingo....his assertions work well for computers....not so much for sound. Which is my assertion....they are 2 different animals. I will also go as far to say if none of this made an audible difference, cable makers would be out of business pronto. I guess then millions of people would simply be experiencing the placebo effect.

    We have had these discussions soo many times, it gets old after the first few posts because you know where it's going. Whats the point anymore ? Either try some different stuff and speak from experience, or stay out of cable threads.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
  • mantismantis Posts: 15,979
    edited April 2014
    tonyb wrote: »
    I knew this would turn ugly as most cable threads do.

    For the posters who claim no difference in 2 cables both meeting spec.....who's specs ? The manufacturers claims of meeting spec isn't necessarily true and there are no steps in place to verify such claims. So starting right off the bat you may or may not be comparing apples to apples. We have a few links from independent labs that did research on these spec claims and they found that alot were not up to spec.

    Assuming two different cables meeting spec, what else is there ? Quality of construction, metallurgy used...would you not say that can influence the sound ? How about the speed of the 1's and 0's ? Just a few suggestions that have something to do with the final sound. I do however still hold true to my thoughts that while sound differences in digital cables exist, they are not as profound as analog cables.
    I agree with you all these accounts but meeting spec with Digital coax cables means it's a true 75 ohm properly terminated cable that has the ability to pass the entire digital transfer at given length of given cable. Once this is achieved , you can't improve on it at all. This given cable has the ability to send the entire digital signal in it's original form from point source to the DAC. So at this point you can have better metal, better quality dielectric's , better anything and get no improvement. The reason is that the job is done , this is the goal now you can look down the chain to find other places of loss or interference that these locations with better materials etc will make a difference.
    I talked to many engineers over the years about digital cables and you can't improve on them once the goal is achieved.

    Now on another note , measurements of speaker response is a completely different topic. You can have 5 speakers all measure exactly the same but all sound completely different. What has been learned recently is the method's of measuring speaker response has flaws and isn't an exact science because if 5 different speakers measure exactly the same , they should by test results perform exactly the same.
    There is a dude from Germany who figured this out and is now helping some of the leading speaker manufactures in the world. His name is Wolfgang something I forget his last name now but he developed software and measuring equipment that really goes beyond what speaker companies have done in the past. I know 4 companies are already using these methods and have found so many flaws in design and response.
    Dan
    My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
  • mantismantis Posts: 15,979
    edited April 2014
    IEEE.ORG



    We used Wavetek 8600. All runs exceed CAT6 s



    Spec is spec. You aren't going to get a cable that measures or exceeds spec and it not do it's job. Speed of 1's and 0's? I do understand you believe what you are saying.

    Does anyone want to bet on a certified CAT6 cable vs any AQ Ethernet cable you care to pick?
    I got an idea, lets talk about spec or certification, what is it? Then from there we can talk about cable that meets these industry standards. We could go down the road about T568a standard vs T568b Standard. Which one is better and why?
    Then after we set that goal , we can talk about 2 cable types, one shielded one unshielded, whats the benefit of shielding? Then going even deeper when using Network standard cables like a certified Cat6 cable for Audio/ Video transfer like HDMI , using Balun devices that rely on a properly built Cable, lets talk about that for a minute. Then within that conversation why 2 certified cables used in this fashion one works without flaw and the other fails but both pass spec.
    Just so you know I have been building Cat 5 , Cat 5e , Cat 6 and now Cat 7 cables for over 15 years. Most guys in this forum have not. It would be nice if you would educate them instead of insulting them. If you know something they or even I do not , please share.
    I fully believe in Spec as I have been told over and over again about it in the industry from some of the very top Engineers. But there are some cases where spec isn't the be all end all and NO ONE can answer that question, I know I have asked as I'm pretty sick of Wire debates.
    Dan
    My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
  • pitdogg2pitdogg2 Posts: 17,322
    edited April 2014
    How soon we all forget.......

    Wasn't too long ago that the owner of bluejeans cable came in here and put up all sorts of good stuff about this very discussion...

    Yawn
  • DracoAmericanusDracoAmericanus Posts: 114
    edited May 2014
    I don't know why one poster was using cat5 for digital audio, i have never done that,( I dont have the balun) i use HDMI or Optical but here is my experience, not theory per-say.
    For field service i carry a very long (20 meter i think) cheap HDMI cable for testing set ups where i suspected a problem in the device under test, usually a TV, if it worked with that long cable then the HDMI section was working. on sets that had problems i would get audible audio drop outs, a pixilated picture or in most cases just nothing. I know it's not exact but it worked most of the time.

    For shorter cables i never noticed a difference in picture or audio quality, it was the length of the cable when i started noticing problems and high quality cables matter more at that point. It's been my experience that cheaper HDMI/OPTICAL cables work fine at short distances, loss in the cable will make it's self known at longer distance.
    for better built cables the only problem i have seen is if the cable is too stiff or heavy at the connectors to cause damage like ripping off the hdmi jack and that is very hard to replace and of course the real cheap ones fall apart from the package lol.
    Ethernet is a different type of differential twisted pair style and i an not covering that type, just HDMI and OPTICAL.
    I know jitter (from another poster) can be a problem from the master clock in cd/dvd players but for the life of me i cant tell a difference from a better one to a cheap one, i know jitter is important for the DAC
    my final thoughts is i cant tell the difference from my system if it's a cheap cable or a better one, including my service cable(when it's not in my car)

    side question, can any one suggest a balun for cat5e to send what would be from an hdmi feed over 100 feet of cable? or an HDMI that long that does not break my bank? lol
    There is no cure....
    Luxman M117, SDA SRS 2.3, rear monitor 10, back rear bose 4.2, valodyne sub and 2 Onkyo m-504 amps Onkyo TX-NR709
    8mm, 7.62x39mm
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 32,488
    edited May 2014
    Depends on many factors, your definition of a "better cable" for one, your system being revealing enough and your ears healthy enough to hear those differences.

    That said, if you can't hear the differences, don't sweat it and be happy with what you have.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 32,488
    edited May 2014
    pitdogg2 wrote: »
    How soon we all forget.......

    Wasn't too long ago that the owner of bluejeans cable came in here and put up all sorts of good stuff about this very discussion...

    Yawn

    True, some good info Kurt from BJC provided. Even I learned a thing or 2. But....your glaring omission is that Kurt himself noted his limitations on his own hearing, and claimed he knew of no sound differences in metallurgy. That could explain a few things, no ?
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
  • WilliamM2WilliamM2 Posts: 4,703
    edited May 2014
    tonyb wrote: »
    True, some good info Kurt from BJC provided. Even I learned a thing or 2. But....your glaring omission is that Kurt himself noted his limitations on his own hearing, and claimed he knew of no sound differences in metallurgy. That could explain a few things, no ?

    You are the one omitting part of what he said:
    I do spend a fair bit of time listening. But I'm also acutely aware of my limitations in that area. It's unbelievable how different a passage can sound on two separate listenings, with no change in equipment whatsoever. Psychoacoustics is a strange field. It has always to be remembered that listening is a highly subjective experience, while sound reproduction happens in a purely objective realm. To validate what we experience subjectively we've got to be able to reproduce it experimentally under controlled conditions, and then comes the problem of working out just what the phenomenon is that we've isolated.

    And:
    I do not know of any evidence that metallurgy results in different sounds.

    And you sure didn't provide any.
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 32,488
    edited May 2014
    I didn't omit that part on purpose...because I agree with the man there. He makes a valid observation and one I have experienced myself. But that doesn't define the whole subject on it's own.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
  • WilliamM2WilliamM2 Posts: 4,703
    edited May 2014
    tonyb wrote: »
    I didn't omit that part on purpose...because I agree with the man there. He makes a valid observation and one I have experienced myself. But that doesn't define the whole subject on it's own.

    You didn't agree with him at all:
    tonyb wrote: »
    You know I love ya Kurt...but I have to call you on this one. Are you saying, that gold, copper, brass, steel, silver....have no sound differences ? Metallurgy doesn't contribute to the sound ? Then why are you using copper ? Use something cheaper. If that's the case for you my friend, your hearing must be compromised to some greater degree than you previously thought. No offense meant.

    Unless I read that wrong or out of context, but seriously Kurt ? C'mon man, tell me I read that wrong.

    :rolleyes:
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 32,488
    edited May 2014
    Your equating 2 different things chief.

    One...."It's unbelievable how different a passage can sound on two separate listenings, with no change in equipment whatsoever."

    Which I agree with....

    TWO...."I do not know of any evidence that metallurgy results in different sounds."

    Which I don't agree with. One has zero to do with the other.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
  • WilliamM2WilliamM2 Posts: 4,703
    edited May 2014
    tonyb wrote: »
    Your equating 2 different things chief.

    One...."It's unbelievable how different a passage can sound on two separate listenings, with no change in equipment whatsoever."

    Which I agree with....

    TWO...."I do not know of any evidence that metallurgy results in different sounds."

    Which I don't agree with. One has zero to do with the other.

    So you do have evidence that metallurgy results in different sounds? I mean, you disagreed and "called him out".
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 32,488
    edited May 2014
    WilliamM2 wrote: »
    So you do have evidence that metallurgy results in different sounds? I mean, you disagreed and "called him out".

    Yes, I did. He is a cable maker, correct ? It would make sense for him to hear for himself if he made exact copies of IC'S each with a single proprietary metal....silver-copper-gold alloy- steel- brass- tin. The proof lies in your ears, granted with some degree of subjectivity. If you can't discern the sound between those metals, I would suggest your hearing is compromised to a substantial degree.

    Simple request is it not ? Especially for someone who makes cables for a living ? Who knows, he may very well do just that and come back and say he could not tell any differences. Which wouldn't change my opinion one iota, and may reaffirm his. So frickin' what. Hearing is a subjective subject, to make cast in stone comments is simply silly.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 13,820
    edited May 2014
    tonyb wrote: »
    True, some good info Kurt from BJC provided. Even I learned a thing or 2. But....your glaring omission is that Kurt himself noted his limitations on his own hearing, and claimed he knew of no sound differences in metallurgy. That could explain a few things, no ?

    Where is this post from BJC? I would like to read it.
    Bud - Silicon Valley

    Lumin X1 file player
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on preamp, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 32,488
    edited May 2014
    http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?154058-Blue-Jeans-Cat6A-Data-Cables

    Just as a FYI for our friend William, if you read any of my posts you'll notice a recurring theme. Experiment...try different things....judge with your ears...and if you like the cables your using, even if coat hangers....cool rock on. Not everyone can discern the differences for whatever reason but as long as your happy, who am I to tell you your not.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 13,820
    edited May 2014
    Thank you.
    Bud - Silicon Valley

    Lumin X1 file player
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on preamp, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 32,488
    edited May 2014
    Another FYI William, I respect Kurt, actually like the guy too. He's very informative, makes his point, and is respectful to the other members here. Regardless of whether I personally agree with the man on particular points, I still respect his opinions. Plus the man makes a good product, won't take that away from him.

    That said, his product is based on a certain price point aimed at a certain segment of the audio community. Just like POLK speakers are. NO ?? If you never heard another speaker, then Polk is your end game. Works for cables too. It makes no sense for Kurt, a maker of a fine cable at a certain price point to come here and admit he digs MIT cables. That would be taking money out of his pocket.

    My main thing is and always will be to venture out and explore different things, biases aside, charts and graphs and engineering aside, and simply listen. The hows and whys those changes occur are irrelevant....if you simply listen without biases.

    I will continue to suggest Kurts cables to anyone looking for a solid well built good sounding cable that won't break the wallet. I believe in his product, but it is not the only product out there.

    Damn...these cable threads piss me off. lol
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
  • pitdogg2pitdogg2 Posts: 17,322
    edited May 2014
    GO TAKE YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICINE Tony:mrgreen:

    love ya pal
  • kuntasenseikuntasensei Posts: 3,270
    edited May 2014
    It's good to see that this argument is still "Here's detailed technical reasons why the 1s and 0s can't sound sweeter given two cables that pass them intact" versus "I can't explain scientifically why it's a thing, but it totally is!"

    I don't even recognize that pulpy mass on the ground... but I believe it may well be the remains of a beaten horse! Heh...
    Equipment list:
    Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
    Emotiva XPA-3 amp
    Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
    SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
    Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
    DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
    Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
    Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 45,071
    edited May 2014
    WilliamM2 wrote: »
    So you do have evidence that metallurgy results in different sounds?

    Research elastic constants of metal.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • Habanero MonkHabanero Monk Posts: 716
    edited May 2014
    mantis wrote: »
    I got an idea, lets talk about spec or certification, what is it? Then from there we can talk about cable that meets these industry standards. We could go down the road about T568a standard vs T568b Standard. Which one is better and why?
    Then after we set that goal , we can talk about 2 cable types, one shielded one unshielded, whats the benefit of shielding? Then going even deeper when using Network standard cables like a certified Cat6 cable for Audio/ Video transfer like HDMI , using Balun devices that rely on a properly built Cable, lets talk about that for a minute. Then within that conversation why 2 certified cables used in this fashion one works without flaw and the other fails but both pass spec.
    Just so you know I have been building Cat 5 , Cat 5e , Cat 6 and now Cat 7 cables for over 15 years. Most guys in this forum have not. It would be nice if you would educate them instead of insulting them. If you know something they or even I do not , please share.
    I fully believe in Spec as I have been told over and over again about it in the industry from some of the very top Engineers. But there are some cases where spec isn't the be all end all and NO ONE can answer that question, I know I have asked as I'm pretty sick of Wire debates.


    There is only a physical pin out difference of A vs B. Want a cross over cable (handy about 15 years ago when nothing was MDI)? Wire one side A and one side B. Performance is exactly the same.

    I started installing Ethernet when it was RG59 with vampire taps. Appletalk also. DECnet, configured Banyan Vines etc... We are talking late 80's here.

    Shielding is obvious: When you are potentially running in areas prone to very strong EMI/RFI that can swamp the transceivers ability to CMNR. In bank installations shielded cable was a requirement for security reasons. Did you also know that DEC, Intel, 3com all had transceivers that were good for 380 feet vs the 328ft spec?

    I just wired an 8 screen cinema with dual shielded CAT 6 runs. Really slick. The movies arrive on a secure hard drive cage. They even have 'an app for that' (iPhone and Android) for monitoring the PJ's.

    I would say in your Balun situation you had a cable that didn't meet spec (even though believe it did). I've never had a cable that met spec not work. Not once. I have an extender at home for HDMI. We have them at the hospital in all the public areas that have a TV for visitors and ER wait room. I think it's 18 displays in all. Can't wait for HDBaseT.

    As an aside to all of this: What do you think of Meridian Audio?
  • txcoastal1txcoastal1 Posts: 11,492
    edited May 2014
    Baluns suck, I don't care if it's Niles, Gefen, Atlona or monoprice they are all quirky some time or another, and way to many variables that can effect them. We started using Net media devices via IP, cheaper and more reliable.
    2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
    Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
    Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
    Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC

    erat interfectorem cesar et **** dictatorem dicere a
  • Habanero MonkHabanero Monk Posts: 716
    edited May 2014
    tonyb wrote: »
    Your equating 2 different things chief.

    One...."It's unbelievable how different a passage can sound on two separate listenings, with no change in equipment whatsoever."

    Which I agree with....

    TWO...."I do not know of any evidence that metallurgy results in different sounds."
    .

    If we are talking Blue Jeans Cat6A Data Cables (or any Ethernet cable that meets or exceeds spec) then it meets or exceeds spec regardless of solid copper, stranded copper, or copper clad aluminum, silver, gold or any other metal with conductive properties that are appropriate for signal propagation.
  • Habanero MonkHabanero Monk Posts: 716
    edited May 2014
    txcoastal1 wrote: »
    Baluns suck, I don't care if it's Niles, Gefen, Atlona or monoprice they are all quirky some time or another, and way to many variables that can effect them. We started using Net media devices via IP, cheaper and more reliable.

    Unfortunately sometimes you have to please the bean counters. We have a tough time and battle against the 'if it plays it stays' mentality of the great budgetary overlords.

    We had some NEC commercial displays that didn't want to work with Extron for some reason (but our Panasonic panels were fine).
  • txcoastal1txcoastal1 Posts: 11,492
    edited May 2014
    Unfortunately sometimes you have to please the bean counters. We have a tough time and battle against the 'if it plays it stays' mentality of the great budgetary overlords.

    Baluns are quirky and the good ones are to expensive and quirky too....not about bean counting it's about reliability
    2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
    Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
    Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
    Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC

    erat interfectorem cesar et **** dictatorem dicere a
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!