|   Digital Coaxial Cable... | misfit13b
Apr 11, 2001 1:08 PM | | ...is special how?
I just entered the realm of HT this week with a new JVC 8000VBX. I have 2 front JVC speakers and a JBL N-Center, with a AR sub coming later this week. (I'm so psyched!) It's a small room I'm dealing with now, and since I'm on a budget, rears will come much later.
As I was making the connections between my DVD player and the receiver last night, I noticed that I had two options:
1.) Connect the "DVD Multi" lines in, a total of 6, so that each speaker had it's own RCA cable. (I did this one for the time being.)
2.) Some "Digital Coaxial" cable port, which looked like it was supposed to do the job of all 6 of those other wires.
So, as I have it now, I had enough RCA cables to connect 4 of the 6, as I don't need the rears yet. But, could I just use one of those yellow, red and white cables and attach the "Digital" port? From what I've seen online, these cables resemble my present RCA cables, except in price.
Please forgive my ignorance, and if I do need a new cable for the digital port, recommendations are most welcome.
Thanks! |
| re: Digital Coaxial Cable... | Rockwell
Apr 11, 2001 1:26 PM | | You can use the yellow video cable. Give it a try. |
| re: Digital Coaxial Cable... | misfit13b
Apr 11, 2001 1:35 PM | | Ok, I'll give it a shot.
Am I right in thinking that it's only one wire because it's the receiver that will decode the input at it's end, as opposed to the 6 wire of already decoded output from the DVD player? |
| re: Digital Coaxial Cable... | Rockwell
Apr 11, 2001 1:48 PM | | Yes, you are correct. |
| re: Digital Coaxial Cable... | Jason Monette
Apr 11, 2001 2:13 PM | | Ok it sounds like your DVD player has a built in decoder for Dolby digital, you probably don't want to use this because you won't get any DTS sound with DTS discs (make sure you go in the dvd players options and turn the DTS and Dolby Digital to bitstream).
You will only 2 cables, you have three different options:
1) A composite video, and a Digital Audio cable
2) A s-video and a digital audio cable
3) a component video and a digital audio cable
As what cables to use for each, as long as you stick with cables that are 75 ohms, you should be ok. You can use composite video cables for everything except the s-video. But don't use audio interconnects for the video or the digital out unless you are sure that they are 75 ohms cables.
Check out www.KustomKables.com for a better description of each cable.
Hope this helps. |
| re: Digital Coaxial Cable... | Joey
Apr 11, 2001 3:14 PM | | Use any yellow 75 ohm video cable of decent quality. Also, you definitely need rear speakers for the hole surround experience. Get some el cheepo's at least for now. KLH or some indoor/ outdoor speakers for under $50/pr should work. If you have to, use some old car stereo speakers and build a box for them. I can't imagine home theater without the rears....... |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | Jon Risch
Apr 11, 2001 5:20 PM | | This boils down to use of the DAC within the DVD player, or the use of the DAC within the receiver. Not only that, but whether or not you are using good quality analog cable,s or a good quality digital interconnect. All thse things will cause the results to vary.
Even ifthe DAC in the receiver is 'better' than the one in the DVD player, digital dfat a trans mission is NOT a done deal. there are issues with the transmission of digital data, and even DVD players, wiuth their digital data packet structure, may have cable performance issues.
See:
http://members.nbci.com/Jon_Risch/jitter.html
There are some who think that as long as a cable is 75 ohms cahratewristic impedance, it can be used for digital audio data transmission without any penalties. This is just not the case. I have gotten feedback from quite few people that find that RS video cables are terrible digital interconnects.
For more info on audio cables, see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/19902.html
Jon Risch |
| Drop the "l" at the end of http://members.nbci.com/Jon_Risch/jit | Jason Monette
Apr 11, 2001 7:16 PM | | here is the link that works
http://members.nbci.com/Jon_Risch/jitter.htm |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | mtrycrafts
Apr 11, 2001 8:57 PM | | >>>I have gotten feedback from quite few people that find that RS video cables are terrible digital interconnects. <<<<
Wow, feedback. Must be credible, right? Must have been based on reliable personal experiences, right? Is htis what you base youe audiblity issues on? Feedback of unknown quality and reliablity? Oh, yes, they can all be wrong and you have not the credible data to support any of those claims, do you, or you would have posted them by now. No, Jon, just more unsubstabtiated hype and mythology.
I don' suppose any of your links have credible support behind them, do they |
| by the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 11, 2001 8:59 PM | | you still have not posted any credible listening to support your jitter audibility, right? |
| by the way | EH
Apr 11, 2001 11:16 PM | | You don't think jitter is audible? Do you even own an audio system? |
| by the way | GCM
Apr 12, 2001 4:57 AM | | Do you have meaningful evidence to support jitter's audibility, or is the best you can do cast aspersions on Mtrycraft's character? |
| by the way | EH
Apr 12, 2001 11:20 AM | | Yes I do. And by the way you can get test CD's that demonstrate it. |
| by the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 12, 2001 11:35 AM | | Which one, please reference it? I know of one that does, but it is exaggerated so you can hear it, not real world levels of jitter. Or is this information was not explained to you? |
| by the way | GCM
Apr 12, 2001 12:36 PM | | Care to share it with the class? |
| by the way | EH
Apr 13, 2001 1:21 AM | | It's on Chesky. I can get the name on Saturday. |
| by the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 13, 2001 8:59 PM | | Ask them for the level of the jitter that was recorded and what amount that corresponds to and which recording can it be heard that can be demonstrated, other than this test disc. |
| Saturday came and went | GCM
Apr 16, 2001 7:00 AM | | Still waiting... |
| by the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 12, 2001 11:39 AM | | What I think is irrelevant. What you or anyone can demonstrate and support the testable claim is.
As to me having an audio system, that is also irrelevant. |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | GCM
Apr 12, 2001 4:56 AM | | "I have gotten feedback from quite few people that find that RS video cables are terrible digital interconnects. "
There's feedback right now at the asylum from people who feel that sound changes as the wood in your equipment rack ages. Some people provide feedback that removing the cover from your amp provides a more "open" sound. NASA receives feedback that people are abducted by aliens regularly. There's meaninless anecdotal evidence to support any position. |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | dank
Apr 12, 2001 10:26 AM | | And I've always found that placing a dictionary on top of your CD player improves definition, or playing your music in Switzerland improving neutrality, or that looking in a mirror while playing music improves imaging.
I've not heard the two anecdotes about wood racks or removing the amp's cover before. Wouldn't a wood rack create a warmer sound while a metal rack might sound more (chuckle) metallic??? |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | mtrycrafts
Apr 12, 2001 11:40 AM | | >>>while a metal rack might sound more (chuckle) metallic<<<
Or vibrant:-) |
| LOL | GCM
Apr 12, 2001 12:39 PM | | The wood rack's going on the the general section as we speak. The opening the cover goes back six months or so. There's no limit to what these guys will convince themselves of.
I like the dictionary particularly. |
| LOL | dank
Apr 12, 2001 2:33 PM | | It also works with a thesaurus :)
I can't believe the wooden rack thing. Sheesh! I certainly don't think that all audio is voodoo but there certainly is a lot of it out there. Everytime I hear about the Bedini Ultra Clarifier, I hang my head in shame as a former owner :) |
| Bedini Ultra Clarifier | Rupert
Apr 12, 2001 6:05 PM | | Wow, someone who owned one! So, how did it work? If you can't sleep one night, check out Patent #5,487,057 on the US Patent Office's web site; "Apparatus and method for reducing electronic relaxation noise present information recording medium" makes for an interesting read. |
| Bedini Ultra Clarifier | dank
Apr 12, 2001 7:28 PM | | How did it work? Well, the demagnetizing effect made the CD's sound...well... less metallic! More dynamagnetic. Ahh... they sort of attracted less... um... er... well, sort of exactly like they did prior to Bedini-izing. Gotta hand it to the fella, though - he sure sold a lot of 'em! |
| Bedini Ultra Clarifier | mtrycrafts
Apr 12, 2001 9:14 PM | | >>>he sure sold a lot of 'em!<<<
No wonder he didn't try to win the $10k prize offered at RAO some time back. He made his money already selling a bunch. :-) |
| Bedini Ultra Clarifier | dank
Apr 13, 2001 6:21 AM | | Actually, I think he made his money as an escape artist. Or was that Houdini? Is there much difference?
BTW, I think Bedini is coming out with a new version that will accept different power cords. I just thought you might like to try that out :) |
| Bedini Ultra Clarifier | mtrycrafts
Apr 13, 2001 9:00 PM | | Gee, thanks for the heads up on it. I will rush and reseve one :-) |
| LOL | mtrycrafts
Apr 12, 2001 9:11 PM | | >>>I certainly don't think that all audio is voodoo but there <<<
Me neither. It works well and engineers design it, not speculate about it. :-) |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | Jon Risch
Apr 13, 2001 2:19 PM | | [ There's meaninless anecdotal evidence to support any position. ]
You mean like the nay-sayer 'evidence' against cable sonics? How well you should know.
Since I have heard this about the RS video cables from some folks whose auditory capabilities I respect, as well as from more than just a few random e-mails from strangers, it seemed to be worth passing along.
Jon Risch |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | Mid-fi Lemming
Apr 13, 2001 3:27 PM | | Perhaps he's talking about the guy who posted a year or so ago saying that he had run blind tests with statistically significant results PROVING cable differences. That same guy has left posts in recent months claiming that there is absolutely NO proof one way or the other. Now it seems to me that this guy either has the proof he claimed to have a year ago, or he's a liar who can't be trusted. Which do you suppose it is Jon? Of course you DO know who made the old false claims which they now deny... don't you?
Mtry and Eye remember who it was. Perhaps it was someone else using your name and MO?
As Mark Twain would say, "Liars need perfect memories."
Almost noo one has a perfect memory, so liars are almost always caught eventually, usually by their own big mouths.
http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
CB |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | Jon Risch
Apr 15, 2001 1:03 PM | | In all those posts, the distinction is made between gold standard proof, that is, peer-reviewed, professional journal published papers, and anecdotal accounts.
Since I never published my test results, they are, by definition, anecdotal to others. Strictly speaking, there are no gold standard test results for audio cables, none either way, hence my stance that:
Either there can be considered to be no scientifically acceptable evidence for or against cable sonics, OR we have positives if we accept anecdotal evidence.
I personally know what I did, and what the results were concerning my own listening tests, but they were not published, and hence, to others, they are in the category of an anecdote. This does not make them any less real or valid for me, but by the strict standards of scientific validity, they would not qualify as valid evidence of cable differences for others who were not present, or did not experience the tests results themselves.
No more than your own listening tests at Innersound would be considered scientifically valid evidence to others not present, since they were not published in a peer-reviewed, professional journal setting. This does not make you or Mr. Sanders liars, any more than it makes me a lair. The gold standard is the requirement, and this does not change what we did, or the results of our listening test's validity to US.
You still have a serious reading comprehension problem, and are still focussing on what you want to see, rather than what was intended to be said.
Jon Risch |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | Mid-fi Lemming
Apr 21, 2001 1:02 PM | | Jon,
The idea that publication and peer review proves something is one of the cornerstones of every major pseudoscience. It's literally a warning sign. Here's another link from the same site as the previous one.
http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html
Here's the central point I'd like you to recognize, reprinted with permission (it's the first paragraph on the Web page):
"A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific. A theory is scientific if and only if it explains a range of empirical phenomena and can be empirically tested in some meaningful way. Scientific testing usually involves deducing empirical predictions from the theory. To be meaningful, such predictions must, at least in theory, be possible to be false. This quality of scientific theories was called falsifiability by Karl Popper. A pseudoscientific theory claims to be scientific, i.e., be falsifiable, but either the theory is not really falsifiable or it has been falsified but its adherents refuse to accept that the theory has been refuted."
That's the whole paragraph, but what I'd really like you to notice is the following statement. "A theory is scientific if and only if it explains a range of empirical phenomena and can be empirically tested in some meaningful way."
The expression "if and only if" has a very specific meaning in both the scientific and engineering community, that being that the stated condition, when met, is what is called "necessary and sufficient." That is, A if and only if B means that if A is true then B is true and if A is false B is false (not true). Our condition, A, in this case, is "it explains a range of empirical phenomena and can be empirically tested in some meaningful way." B in this case is "a theory is scientific." So what this means is that a theory is scientific if it meets the condition and it is not scientific otherwise. We could call it pseudoscience, anecdotal evidance, or whatever you like. Publication and peer review has nothing to do with the issue.
Consider the fact that there are "professional" journals published by the community of paranormal researchers wherein we find a published pseudoscience being reviewed by "peers" in the same field. By your gold standard we have to accept this as proof that, for example, some people communicate with the dead. Scientists must have a higher standard of proof for obvious reasons. A theory is only published (by the reputable scientist) AFTER it's been proven scientific, and that's proven by it's meeting the condition stated above. Thinking otherwise leaves one open to being taken in by anything that makes it into print and one can end up believing in almost anything. We see this in UFO abduction research, ET research, in much advertising, and in the field of audio.
The work I do with InnerSound involves much more than mere casual subjective tests, as does any serious development effort. And the information we collect is far more than anecdotal. We make predictions based on theory, we build products, we test in many ways, both subjective and objective, and we don't stop until we understand the corrolation between the subjective and the objective. The theory is verified by the empirical tests and therefore meets the condition science demands before accepting a theory. The fact that we keep many of the results close to the vest does not detract one bit from the results we achieve. Most science is done under the cover of either government or corporate security and is only published for peer review years after the fact. And that peer review isn't what makes it a science. It's what makes it public. And that's all publication ever does.
Consider for example the waterfall plot I sent to you a year or so ago. This is what is meant by an empirical test. The test is the result of the application of well konwn ESL theory, lots of research, prototyping, and testing, and until |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | Jon Risch
Apr 25, 2001 9:22 PM | | Mid-Fi,
You are deliberately taking what I have posted, and tried to turn it into something else. Just like many other things remain unsaid or implied, I did not belabor the ENTIRE list of conditions.
You _should_ know what I am talking about.
For audio or audibility issues, the AES and the ASA are the two most prominent and relevant professional organizations. An article published in a popular press magazine, say "Sound & Vision", is not going to be taken as seriously as one published in the JAES, or JASA.
Therer is a reason for this.
Your trivial examples of what are commonly called fringe sciences, diverts and confuses the real issues that are involved with my posts on what constitutes valid scientific evidence.
My tests at home, conducted on a personal basis, not having been published in the JAES or JASA, have to be considered anecdotal. Very few would consider them as being valid scientific evidence TO OTHERS for this very reason, JUST AS YOUR LISTENING TESTS AT INNERSOUND WOULD NOT, FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS.
[ The work I do with InnerSound involves much more than mere casual subjective tests, ]
So did mine.
We have only your word for this, there is no documentation, there is no published data for your listening tests, there is no record of your methodology or procedures, there is nothing to go on at all. This is what is known as an anecdotal account.
[ And the information we collect is far more than anecdotal. ]
Just a claim. Where is the data, the methods, the procedures, the whole ball of wax? It is, therefore an anecdotal account.
[ We make predictions based on theory, we build products, we test in many ways, both subjective and objective, and we don't stop until we understand the corrolation between the subjective and the objective. ]
And? Your tests MAY be some of the best on the planet, but until there are details, numbers, published peer-reviewed publically accessable information, it is still just an interesting story from you. Hey, my tests were done up pretty tightly too, every possible detail attended to, no potentially degrading procedures incorporated, only the highest level's of test sensitivity. Yet, my test results are also an anecdotal account, no less or more believable than yours.
[ The theory is verified by the empirical tests and therefore meets the condition science demands before accepting a theory. ]
Once again, this is a claim with only your word as to the actual results. Who has determined what level of performance WITHOUT ANY DOUBT OR DISAGREEMENT constitutes a suitably inaudible measurement? There is still no widespread agreement on this, not ALL engineers, or those technically involved in audio, agree that below a certain set of measurement criteria, no one can hear things. That is what listening tests are for.
So it seems that your argument is a circular one, your subjective results are verified by your objective measurements, which must be verified by you subjective results, which.....
[ The fact that we keep many of the results close to the vest does not detract one bit from the results we achieve. ]
Trade secret. Quite understandable. Yet not admissable as 'secret' and unknown evidence, no matter the reasons. Since these listening test results have not been made known in the least of the details or ANY of the details, they are a total unknown. No one could say if they were done well, no one can say if they were done to accepted scientific procdures or standards.
Just because YOU use the results from these tests, does not make them suddenly blessed with scientific credibility. I take your point, and yes, Innersound has customers that enjoy and like the products. This does not somehow work to scientifically verify your listening tests as such.
I 'use' the results from my tests, and post the DIY cable recipes on the internet. Many people have built the cables, and are quite satisfied and happy wit |
| Reply, Part 2 | Jon Risch
Apr 25, 2001 9:24 PM | | Part 2:
I 'use' the results from my tests, and post the DIY cable recipes on the internet. Many people have built the cables, and are quite satisfied and happy with the performance. This includes engineers from HP, Intel, and Microsoft, academicians at major universities and colleges, and technical people from a lot of different disciplines. They don't seem to think that these DIY projects are a waste of time or money, and in the vast majority of cases, they feel that there time and money were well spent, and that they acheived the sonic performance of much more costly retail cables, at a fraction of the price. A similar kind of 'customer' satisfaction if you will.
One important point about this.
Based on the few descriptions and posts made about some of these tests, it seems that what has been done in some cases, is to use the results of listening tests that came up empty, that is, they were unable to disprove the null hypothesis. Of course, these would have no other real meaning, and yet, if you took them to mean that there was an equivalency, or that there were no sonic differences to be had in these particular tests, then that would be a very personal and unscientific way of interpreting the results. Of course, one can choose to make any interpretation one wishes, and since we have no data, no methods, no details, we have no way of knowing just exactly how sensitive these listening tests were.
Were there ever any attempts to see, within any given set of test runs, exactly WHAT the test setup and listening personel COULD have heard, that is, was the basic sensitivity of these tests determined scientifically? You know, tests for small ampitude changes, FR deviations, levels of distortion? ANYTHING?
If this was not done, then no matter the procedures, no matter the methods, no matter the level of test sophistication otherwise, we have no way, and you have no way, of knowing if these listening tests could have detected some very large and simple differences. The test setup and methods may have been inherently incapable of detecting 3% THD, amplitude changes of 1 or 2 dB, and so on, while the widely accepted limits of these things are much lower. But we don't know, no one can know if these basic checks were not performed. In these instances, when the result of the listening tests came up empty, then that is all they were: no results. Period.
You wish to attach some sort of magic significance to your tests, despite not being published or disclosed, despite anyone else having the first details about them, just because YOU did them.
I don't deny that I tend to feel the same way. I do know how well I did my tests, and how much to trust the results, but I do not insist that everyone else treat them as anything more than anecdotal evidence in so far as they are concerned, and I have been doing so for years. If someone wants to take me at my word, then fine, they have some amount of history and perhaps they have even tried one of my DIY projects or tweaks, and found that they work exactly as promised. That is their choice. I also reserve the right to know that my tests were as valid as could be FOR ME. I do not insist that they are for everyone else.
They could also choose to believe your test results as well, for whatever reasons. But it would not be based on scientific validity, or the commonly accepted criteria that the scientific audio community would use to decide if something was valid evidence or not. It would not be based on what I have been calling the gold standard of scientific evidence: peer-reviewed, professional journal publication.
This does imply a number of things, amoung them: someone else has either verified the results independantly, and has also published same, OR enough previous work points in this direction, and the newly presented work is not a very big step from what has already been accepted as reasonable results.
[ Consider for example the waterfall |
| DAC in DVD or DAC in Receiver Issue | mtrycrafts
Apr 13, 2001 9:07 PM | | >>>[ There's meaninless anecdotal evidence to support any position. ]
You mean like the nay-sayer 'evidence' against cable sonics? How well you should know. <<<
Old age, isn't it, Jon. You keep forgetting who has what burden. Will it ever sink in?
Once more, you have the burden of proof, including this BS you are spreading around, regardless how well you respect their hearing which is saying absolutely nothing without them proving their ability, not boasting about it and not able to demonstrate it as you are so fond of doing.
I suppose your memory loss as your hearing loss is irreversible. |
| I think what it is mrtycrfts | KeithR
Apr 16, 2001 9:08 AM | | is that by saying RS cables are as good as others, you are making a counterclaim that must be justified the same as his original claim. if you don't recommend anything, then you have no burden of proof...
am i right? :) |
| No, you're not | GCM
Apr 16, 2001 9:59 AM | | This has been discussed over and over, and Mtrycrafts mentions the burden of proof in the thread above. I don't really want to rehash the whole topic again, but the basic gist when creating a test is you create two hypothesis. The null hypothesis says there are no audible differences, the alternate sats there are. The goal of the test is to disprove the null. The null is assumed true untill disproven. This is where most of the confusion seems to come in. You don't prove the null, you disprove it. Because you don't prove the null, Mtrycrafts and others such as myself need not try to offer it. By saying RS cables are as good as anything else, we are simply stating the null hypothesis. We are assuming, rightly or wrongly, that it is correct as it has yet to be disproven. As Mtrycrafts alluded to, the burden of proof is upon those trying to disprove the null, that is those trying to establish a difference.
Like it or not, we "naysayers" didn't establish this testing methodology, but we know it, have studied and at least in my case, will abide by its rules. |
| re: Digital Coaxial Cable... | misfit13b
Apr 16, 2001 9:32 AM | | just so ya know, i changed over to the single rca cable for the digital audio, and am very pleased with the results thus far.
and i just ordered some rears, they should be in by this weekend! :^D
thanks again! |
| |
