How very dare you!
They are writers who spend their entire lives, day in and day out, listening to hi-fi equipment and viewing home cinema gear, so I'd hope they'd have more ability than most to judge what's good and what's so-so.
They are emphatically not
– knowing our review crew as I do, I'd say they are, to a man (and woman), much more cynical and hard to please than most: it's very easy to get blasé when you spend so much time auditioning equipment.
Consulting Editor, What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision/whathifi.com Audio Editor, Gramophone
I regularly work with large financial institutions transferring billions of pounds a day across digital networks I support. If there was any chance, any science to support expensive digital cables providing more accuracy do you not think they would already have the best money could buy? £200 for a cable would pay for itself in minutes if it provided 0.001% greater accuracy than another. Or is this some secret only the hi-fi community know about? Get real.
Just to say Tonestar, this argument is used again and again - the way those transactions are completed uses a completely different protocol to the one used to transmit audio data in hifi. Those transactions have to be error free - there is no way there can be any errors as it would cause untold issues. So the communication protocol used guarantees data is transmitted error free - it's impossible. They can do this because, for this sort of data, it doesn't matter if data arrives out of order, and therefore data can be resent if it's been corrupted and sorted out later.
Audio data has to arrive in a certain order, but it's not crucial that data is absolutely error free - data can't be resent otherwise it wouldn't work. So a different protocol is used which will get things right most of the time, but it's not guaranteed. If you tried to use the same protocol to send your financial data over hundreds of miles, it just simply wouldn't work - simple as.
Funnily enough though, I do remember reading an article about how somewhere in Asia, a load of fibre optic cable had been replaced for a different kind in order to speed up the transactions. This was precisely for the reason you've stated above i.e. because the data effectively got there faster due to less errors (and therefore less data needing to be resent), it paid for itself very quickly when it came to these split second financial transactions. I'll see if I can track the article down.
No offence, but this is what I do for a living. Protocol is the language that each end of the connection uses to speak to one another, the language if you will, not the medium it's transferred across. If you run a fluke test on a length of standard CAT 6 cable it should provide minimum of 99.999% accuracy against the ones and zeros that are sent across it.
Ethernet protocol only retransmits if there is a checksum error or a collision. Collision is impossible on modern duplex nics and checksum errors are extremely unlikely.
An intercontinental MPLS or VPN link will come with an SLA of 1% or less packet loss. That’s the signal travelling across thousands of miles and hundreds of interconnects as well as numerous routers and switches along the path. To suggest similar errors are prevalent on one metre of pure medium is extremely unlikely.
Would be really interested to read the fibre article if you can find it. There’s a lot of money to be made in lowering latency, which as all mediums condauct at a standard rate 2x10*8 for leccy and 3x10*8 for light its done via transmission accuracy and processing power in the hops. That's how radianz made there money.
Here is a Verizons SLA’s for packet loss, if anyone cares J
Hey prof, The increase in speed in your article isn't due to better glass. It's due to smarter kit at each end.
But, that was soon remedied when your good self went on a little WHF shopping trip for a new BDP , when if I recall correctly (and my apologies in advance if I'm wrong), you demoed three players in three different shops on three different TVs before declaring that the PQ of the Marantz was much better. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good
At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.
I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...
CA StreamMagic 6 | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1i
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
Music streaming is time dependant for it to work. The packets of data used to transmit financial data across continents, or even to your printer are simply buffered and read when the device is ready. It's the time dependency that makes music reproduction a very different challenge.
Prof, no offence again, but you are completely missing the point. Digital signals cannot overtake one another on a wire. They have a constant speed discovered by einstien. It's the equipment at the end or intermediate hops along the signal path that cause things to arrive out of sync. On one section of glass or copper it's the performance of the sender or the receiver that causes this not the medium itself. If it's sent in order it arrives in order.
EDIT not for prof for Steve R.
That's not what I meant - of course the data packets cannot pass each other. The key difference is the timing of the data: the recieving device for a printer is not controlled or affected by the sending device clock, it merely needs the data in the right sequence, if it's late it simply waits until it arrives. An audio DAC can't wait until the correct data arrives, and so the timing (jitter) is critical.
I can see that transmission time losses can impact the time taken for a given packet to travel from A to B and how this is a benefit in data transmission, but audio files have a different demand surely.
JRiver MC17 -> Cambridge Audio DACmagic+ -> Roksan Caspian M2 -> ProAc D18
Those in glass houses...
JVC DLA-X30•Grandview Cyber Series (92")•LG 50PX990•Oppo BDP-93•Humax Foxsat HDR•Humax HDR-Fox T2•GiGaBlue Quad•WD TV Live•Onkyo TX-NR709•Mackie HR824 MK2•BK Monoliith DF
Chromebook Pixel•Fostex PC-100USB•Studiospares Seiwin 5A
Nexus 4 16GB•Nexus 7 32GB•SoundMAGIC PL11 & HP100
I think we are talking at crossed purposes here.
The point I am making is that the medium involved, glass or metal can have no effect on the timing or quality of the data whatsoever unless it’s made of seriously flawed materials. If the cables were of lower quality they would not show lesser blacks, poorer colour spectrum in the case of tv. In the case of audio they would not show poorer bass or a harsh top end. Digital cables are not capable of defining how a one or a zero relates to a high note or a low note, a black or a white. It’s a pulse of light or electricity. This is pure snake oil. How can one HDMI carry backs better than another? How can an optical cable carry high frequencies better than low? How would a piece of glass or metal transmit “ones” that are transmitting blacks better than “ones” that are transmitting red or blue? Or which “ones” are transmitting high notes as opposed to lower ones? It ridiculous these comparisons come into digital cable reviews.
I am not decrying good quality kit. It’s how well the source data is transmitted or how well the receiving device accepts that data that’s the key point. Half decent digital mediums will all carry ones and zeros at a rate where errors are insignificant, even to an audiophile.
Nope, it was definitely before. I'll dig out the articles when I get a free moment (actually still working at the mo), just to make sure my memory isn't fallible in this case.
Sorry Andrew but that's BS!
Firstly there is no connection between the amount of time spent doing something and the ability to do it. For example I could spend all year training at a running track and at the end of it I'd still take me ages to do 100m if I didn't have a heart attack first. If your "experts" are so great they would be willing to undertake double blind testing of their opinions and we know they aren't dont we!
Secondly, of course they are interested in preserving the hype! If the true situation is that there is no material difference between most of the kit then nobody would buy the magazine would they? They have an obvious and self-evident reason for making us all believe we should spend lots of money on hifi kit.
Thirdly, they are just journalists! A good parallel is the Top Gear team. Nobody with a brain cell would buy a car on the basis of the Top Gear recommendations, they reject cars on the basis that the boot is big enough to hold golf clubs. The only difference is that the Top Gear guys are amusing.
Your the prof, how can you be fallible?
Absolutely not! The best they can do is make your aware of options and opinions. Why are they so limited? Well not because they don't do blind tests, although the fact that they won't even consider them shows me that they know they they would fail were they to be subjected to them. I'm quite willing to listen to subjective opinions about things but I want to get those from people who actually have the kit in question not people who make a living out of inflating hype about products. I suppose the real problem is that I've read reviews here which don't match perceived reality and so I suspect the judgement of those writing the reviews. They are only journalists after all!
No I'd rather dredge information from the postings on this and other forums and if you work at it you can do that. There are many people posting here with firmly held opinions of things that I might not agree with but whose opinion is worth listening to because they have put a lot of work into forming it.
I think you need both sets of opinions. Owners are often heavily biassed and are unlikely to have heard enough comparable products with which to make a proper comparison.....or heard the component with as wide a variety of different kit.
Saying that, owners' insights can also be invaluable and as they can talk about the product as a long term proposition.
I agree with that and indeed you are one of the people I always read and take notice of although I disagree with most things you say lol.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing