I’m a convert after years of digital cable improvement denial

and FWIW, those are just my interpretations of the challenges these items are trying to address. I can say that with just some basic ethernet converters (copper to fiber and back) on an Amazon Warehouse deal for $30/pair, a $10 fiber cable, and decent power supplies I had hanging around - I don't hate the change. I'd stop short of saying it made an audible improvement but I do sense a reduction in noise and better solidity in the soundstage.

 

I think I posted something on that either ... but ... that's why real audiophiles doesn't have accounts in audio forums ... It's all a waste of time.

Everyone's stuck with his / her ideas.

 

What's a "real audiophile?"

I'm wondering what definition I have missed ;-)

I wonder why you post in an forum that you think is a "waste of time."

Enthusiasts love to congregate with other enthusiasts and hash things out. What's a "waste" about that?

 

Real audiophiles enjoy what they have, only believe in what works for them based on science, experience, whatever ...

The waste of time is read over and over about basic digital data transmission theory, when audio / video are applications over that. There's much more than bits are bits and data reception.

You can say mp3 320 have no difference with cd quality, and it's ok, but cd quality have 4 times more data information. If that it's audible for you / your system ... i don't know. In a blind test you can find no difference ... and what's the thesis? mp3 320 have the same quality than cd?

And think about other thing ... there're many wrong mastering work that makes the cd 1400 kbps worthless to 320kbps. And what you say? mp3 is the same quality?

Wrong hipothesis ... wrong thesis ... not complete arguments ... basic science theory ...

I don't know much about it, but at least I know this stuff it's more complicated than "yes/no", "right/wrong"

 

Spot on. The two local guys I converse with steer clear of the Internet entirely. And those are the best conversations - either in person or in text. No one is trying to convert one another or make them "see the light."

Audio conversations online these days are no different than people who think they're going to "convert" someone from atheist to Christian, or R to D. It's *never* going to happen using the Internet as the forum upon which those arguments play out.

But around and around we go.

And even with all that, people who are "staunch objectivists" don't even hold themselves to those standards always - only everyone else. Is what it is.

 

Then there are those things that defy science and measurements

 

That says to us we need to expand our knowledge, not deny based on incomplete information. The first point of view it's science ... other thing it's pseudoscience. Say we use science looking for automatic approval, even we don't know we're using it wrong or partially.

I invite you to read the Max Planck principle (if you don't know it already, of course)

 

the thesis would be that the design of the mp3 algorithm does a good job of identifying frequencies that are masked and less likely to be heard and removes those frequencies only so that relative quality isn't that badly degraded despite all the audio data that's discarded?
i've never heard ANYone claim that mp3's and CD's have the same amount of information on 'em or are the same quality. saying that people can't hear the difference between them is a totally different thing.
I struggle to identify high bitrate aac vs cd, but I can usually identify mp3 pretty easily. . . .and if the bitrate is below 256 I can catch them almost 100%.

 

Designers of the Lockheed F-117:
Hold my beer.

 

lol... having flown several times in the CH-46 Sea Knight, I know exactly what the author of the bumble bee quote means. Every trip felt like we were beating the sky into submission.

 

Hmm...that's a new one on me I guess. I'm not one for trying to tell anyone else what they ought to enjoy, or decide who is being "real" or not. It seems to me any way anyone enjoys this hobby is perfectly valid (including anyone who likes to buy expensive HDMI cables!). We all find our bliss different ways.

That said, it seems your description would fit plenty of us here on the forum. We enjoy what we have, based on experience, perhaps the engineering aspects, or some mix. So I'm not sure who really wouldn't be a "real" audiophile even given your definition.

Hardly a waste of time! It's a source of confusion and misinformation. Clearing up anything about the technology is always useful.

Those are just the type of details that can come out in such discussions. So...what's the problem?

Well..."yes" and "no."

;-)

Not EVERYTHING is more complicated than, essentially, yes and no. It all depends on what question is being asked. Ask the question with one framing and "it's complicated."
Ask it another way, being specific, and you can get essentially "yes" and "no" answers.

For instance, if you simply ask "Is a more expensive HDMI cable better than a cheaper one?"

The answer is going to be more complicated than just "yes" or "no" because of the generalization and ambiguity inherent in that question. A more expensive 4K spec'd HDMI cable may be more expensive than a cheaper non-4K-rated HDMI cable, and it will be "better" if you want to watch 4K sources. If you have long runs for HDMI a "better" cable will be constructed to work over those long runs (like I have) and it will be the more expensive cable, etc. On the other hand, a cheaper shorter 4K rated cable will be "better" than a more expensive HDMI cable that is only spec'd for 108op at it's cable length. So, yeah, asking "Is a more expensive HDMI cable better than a cheaper one?" needs to be unpacked.

That's exactly why we got so much more specific in this thread, to untangle those issues! If you get more specific with the right qualifiers, then you DO get "yes" or "no" answers.
That was why I posted the links I did, as well as the quote from the HDMI specs guy, Jeff Park: “Whether you have a $100 cable or a $5 cable, if they meet the same specification requirements there should be no difference,” says Jeff. “From a technical point of view they are exactly the same.”

“In terms of picture quality there’s no difference,” explains Jeff Park, Senior Technical Manager for HDMI Licensing, LLC. “It’s digital, so it’s all or nothing.”

That's a firm "no" there isn't a difference, once it's clear what is being compared. That's how we learn more, instead of wallowing in ambiguities and unanswered questions.

One problem is that some people mistake their own lack of knowledge on a subject for there actually being ambiguity on the matter. Simply being suspicious of
a technical expert's explanation doesn't entail there is actual squishy ambiguity.

 

"It’s digital, so it’s all or nothing."

Let me say you don't understand a thing what I posted before, and repeat over and over the same arguments without thinking a second on what others points of view are posted (not only my opinion).

That's a waste of time. A deaf talk.

Ok, i think I talked too much already, i like to get this stuff more profoundly, but i think it will be other cats cage

 

Anecdotally, I lived in an area where my power from the power company voltage fluctuated a lot, so I bought a voltage stabilizer. It was a beast of a thing weighing 50+ lbs. One early morning, I put it into the power supply stream for my Elite Projection TV; a Pro610HD. I put it into a cabinet in another room and put a hole through the wall to supply all of the audio/video gear I use. I was in the room with the regulator cleaning up from the project and vacuuming when my 12 year old daughter came into the room and said "Wow Dad. What did you do to the TV?" "What do you mean honey" "did you do something to it because looks super good. I've never seen it like that before"

I'd really not had a chance to look at it, so I went it an looked at what she was seeing and she was right, it was a remarkably better picture. She had no idea WTH I was doing in the other room and I certainly didn't explain to my kids what I was doing at 5:30 AM Saturday. Power matters and this was the most vivid example I've run across where a kid, who knew nothing, saw it.

Clean power matters.

 

Your replies don't exactly raise the level of conversation. Why seem more intent on producing the type of posts you complain about, when there could be substantive conversation?
Do you not agree that ambiguous, generalized questions tend to lead to complicated (non yes/no) answers? Where zeroing in on specific, qualified questions can remove ambiguity to a useful degree...as I said?

You'd said that that "this stuff" is "more complicated than "yes/no", "right/wrong"

And: "The waste of time is read over and over about basic digital data transmission theory, when audio / video are applications over that. There's much more than bits are bits and data reception."

The subject is HDMI cable quality and the possible effects on sound and images, where I've been mostly concentrating on the image side. How does your claim above relate to the ways a more expensive "higher quality" HDMI cable can change an image? If what I've written and quoted and linked to in support of the position that a high priced HDMI cable can't make
the type of image changes cited by the OP (vs a cheaper properly spec'd HDMI cable)...and if Jeff Park is wrong...how? How does your claim "audio/video are applications over that" and "there's much more than bits are bits and data" actually entail that what I've written and the experts I've quoted are wrong?

It shouldn't be hard to recognize these as completely reasonable, valid questions in a thread about this very subject.

 

This has morphed into a "recreational arguing" thread. In the end we all seem to get what we crave out of this forum.

 

But the bumblebee isn't one of them. Even a rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics is perfectly capable of measuring and explaining how it is able to fly.

 

Many thanks - I will investigate over the weekend!

 

Lol; Then with "rudimentary understanding" you must know that was a meme I posted.

 

I was just thinking about this HDMI upgrades make for better picture and sound and I think I might have a smoking gun to quiet those who don’t believe cables matter at all.

This posters question made me realize that if I were using cables that were out of spec, that would also explain the difference. Because I didn’t have cables in-spec, that’s what prompted me a while back to buy my first cable. Even now, if I put in a cable that’s below spec, it works, but the picture isn’t very good.

Therefore, it’s indisputable that two different cables will give two different results, hence, cables matter. If cables don’t matter, then cable specs don’t matter. After all, even some cheap cables, out of spec, will work, they just don’t work as well.

I’m finding it hard to take seriously anyone who takes this position.

 

Have you tried a Furman Power Conditioner on your TV???

I tried Power Conditioners between $500-$3000 in my systems, I never liked what any of them did to the sound.
BUT OMG what a difference it made to the TV's!
I have an older Panasonic 50" Plasma (Commercial model that cost about $3000 10+ years ago) where it made the biggest difference.
But I also have a couple of Sony Bravia's (HD and 4K LCD) that also show a difference although smaller.

And then there are Power Cords! Another unexplainable Audio/Video difference.

And you know some of the best sounding Speakers have the WORST specs.

 

No, I haven't tried anything but this "Monster Voltage Stabilizer" that I bought many years ago and still works. I can hear it click in when the refrigerator kicks on in my apartment, so I know it's doing something. Since I own it, I've always had it hooked up to the good TV and audio gear so I don't really know what, if anything, would be different if I didn't use this or if I used something else. But, with a 12 year old, naive to any technical specs or even what her dad was doing with the TV saw such a big difference that she came to me unprompted to ask me how I made it look so good and that it is audibly doing something when there are voltage drops in my apartment is enough for me to keep using it. If it stopped working I may look at something else, but not while it's working. I haven't tried power cords at all. But, after this latest finding with HDMI cables and my experience with the Voltage Stabilizer, I'm not as big of a skeptic about these tweaks as I once was, so if I could get one cheaply, I might try one.

With power cables though, I cannot figure out how putting high quality cable from the receptacle to the device would make up for whatever garbage power comes out of the wall, so I don't think I'd buy one for that application since house wiring anymore is mostly the cheapest Romex available stapled to the studs, rafters and joists without any thought to interference. I'm not stating unequivocally that it doesn't matter, I'm just saying I can't see any way it could. But, perhaps from a power conditioner to a device would prevent any degradation and could make a difference.

 

Several people have pointed out the variation in HDMI specs in several posts. Even the general "anti fancy cable" people, as far as I can see, have accepted that cables need to meet the desired specification in order to work properly. In that sense, pretty much everyone will agree that HDMI cables matter. Due to the massive increase in bandwidth carried via HDMI as the interface has evolved over the years, the old cable that worked fine on your SD DVD player won't work fine when you try to use it to carry 4K.

However, once the cable meets the specification though, there should be no differences between HDMI cables.

I don't think anybody can reasonably extrapolate what happens with HDMI [very high bandwidth, evolving standards over many years] to what might happen with other analogue or digital connection standards.

 

I suppose you're right about entrenched positions. I posted this because I thought I'd share my conversion and perhaps others might open their minds a bit. I'm not claiming to be an "audiophile" and that's not why I'm on here. I'm mostly here to share information about music and hardware. I had my ideas, that were pretty firm, that "digital is digital" and cables are "snake oil", but my position has now changed because I can see it for myself. And, because of all the discussion, I had an epiphany that I should have been open to the idea all along since there are differently spec'd HDMI cables for more bandwidth which proves that all HDMI cables aren't the same.

 

if your voltage drops a lot these can come in handy! it's basically a true sine wave UPS without the battery backup.

 

But, it's reasonable to think that the same attributes that bring something into specification might make even further improvements. Again, when I put the better cable in, I was expecting to see nothing, yet I see a big improvement. Specifications are usually ranges or tolerances and some items are said to be "in-spec" because testing of a design shows that they are within acceptable variation from ideal. I don't know what the tests are, but It's likely that the specification allows for some error as nothing is ever perfect. Perhaps the better cables reduce the variance from ideal. This seems like a plausible explanation for the improvement I observed while being pre-disposed to see no improvement