Re: big differences in S/PDIF cables?

[nuke]

<< I was told the other day by a mastering engineer in LA that spending the
money
for a Kimber or other similarly expensive spdif cable would make a significant
and audible improvement over a more modestly priced cable such as Canare. I'm
talking about a fairly short cable run, maybe 15' over which mixes would be
transferred from one machine to another. >><BR><BR>


Any competently constructed cable should be fine. You're moving data from
machine to machine, I'm assuming from storage device to storage device.
Sometimes digital jitter can affect what you hear, but that's pretty much only
the case with D/A converters that recover the clock from the signal on the
SPDIF input.

15' is rather long, but a decent quality coax of the proper impedance should be
fine. It doesn't matter what metal the cable is made of, copper is fine. Just
look for something of reasonable quality that is intended to be an SPDIF cable.
75 ohm video cable works fine too.

If you want to be sure, you can compare the data in the file after transfering
it.

Coax is generally thought of as better than optical TOS-Link. But either can
get the job done.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Quality of digital connections can be a go-or-no-go situation, where
the data fails to get through, resulting in either no audio or in
errors in the data path. In that case the bits you get (if you get
any) will not match what was sent. That would be a problem and you'd
have to fix it. Any other cable quality issue would manifest itself as
jitter and as such is only able to cause an audible effect if the
jitter enters the DAC.
For transfers between machines, this is COMPLETELY irrelevant so long
as you're not getting data errors. If you're listening to the audio
and making decisions about processing it, then you can worry about the
SPDIF cable if you want to. But if you're moving data to another place
where it will be stored and then re-transmitted to a DAC later, then
the clocking of that initial transmission is abandoned and the data is
re-clocked when played into the DAC.

ulysses


In article >, Garthrr
> wrote:

> I was told the other day by a mastering engineer in LA that spending the money
> for a Kimber or other similarly expensive spdif cable would make a significant
> and audible improvement over a more modestly priced cable such as Canare. I'm
> talking about a fairly short cable run, maybe 15' over which mixes would be
> transferred from one machine to another.
> I know there is much disagreement about the effect cables have on the sound of
> signals but I was under the impression that this issue was more or less
> confined to analog signals.
> This guy I was talking to said that reflections or lack thereof and other
> problems were some of the reasons the more expensive cables sound better. I
> know that reflections are an issue for digital signals but how can they be
> dealt with aside from using only short lengths? Is there some strategy for
> dealing with this which necessetates using costly metals or something?
>
> Assuming that the cables in question are all working properly and are of at
> least decent quality can it make a big enough difference to spend big bucks
> for
> a spdif cable? If so, what are the brands to consider?
> Oh, also I was told that coaxial SPDIF is better than optical. True?
>
> Thanks,
> Garth~
>
>
> "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
> Ed Cherney

[Arny Krueger]

"Garthrr" > wrote in message


> I was told the other day by a mastering engineer in LA that spending
> the money for a Kimber or other similarly expensive spdif cable would
> make a significant and audible improvement over a more modestly
> priced cable such as Canare.

Get him drunk enough and he'll probably tell you lots of amusing things...

;-)

>I'm talking about a fairly short cable
> run, maybe 15' over which mixes would be transferred from one machine
> to another.

IME, that would be mid-length. Short digital cables are 3-6 feet.

>I know there is much disagreement about the effect cables
> have on the sound of signals but I was under the impression that this
> issue was more or less confined to analog signals.

When passing between pieces of equipment digital music is an analog signal.
If the level is wrong, or there is interference, or there is high frequency
loss, there can be audible effects. However, these effects don't have the
usual direct audible effects - high frequency loss in a digital cable won't
cause high frequency music to be lost in the usual sense.

Ideally, a good piece of digital equipment will *look* at the signal it
receives and produce one of two outcomes - either it will perfectly
reproduce the music was put into the cable, or it will mute and produce no
output at all. I've actually seen some digital equipment that works this
way, but unfortunately I've seen others. The most common effect is loss of
chunks of music, ranging from tiny snippets, to larger chunks that are
commonly audible as tics and pops, to full-fledged periods of muting or no
audible signal at all, ever. People have an amazing number of different ways
of perceiving and reporting these kinds of problems.

> This guy I was talking to said that reflections or lack thereof and
> other problems were some of the reasons the more expensive cables
> sound better.

If a cable has the proper characteristic impedance, there will be negligible
reflections. 15 feet differs from 3 feet in that really bad reflections at
15' could possibly cause problems. However, no digital cable ranging from
$0.20 per foot commodity RG-59 $30 per from RG-6 to Canare to Kimber can be
observed causing reflections of this magnitude if properly and typically
used. OTOH, if a connector is not properly mating or attached loosely, or a
conductor is broken, or there are some really bad kinks, who can tell for
sure? But, that applies to all cables, commodity or exotic.

>I know that reflections are an issue for digital
> signals but how can they be dealt with aside from using only short
> lengths?

Use impedance-matched cables which is pretty easy. IME you don't have to hit
the required impedance within 1% to have acceptably low reflections (also
known as SWR in analog communications). I've seen 110 ohm cable used in 75
ohm applications with acceptably low amounts of reflections over lengths of
20-30 feet. Troublesome reflections in cables usually come from opens,
shorts, or something like them.

>Is there some strategy for dealing with this which
> necessitates using costly metals or something?

No such thing. However, when obtaining coax for digital audio, if your
lengths are appreciable, it makes sense to avoid the kind of coax that the
cable TV guys sometimes use, which has aluminum or other base metal
conductors with a thin plating of copper and/or silver. Instead, stick with
cable that has a solid copper center conductor and a copper drain wire if
not copper braid.

> Assuming that the cables in question are all working properly and
> are of at least decent quality can it make a big enough difference to
> spend big bucks for a spdif cable?

No, not at all. People have all kinds of experiences and they sometimes
mistakenly assign causality to the wrong factor. Many wire sound quality
anecdotes seem to have this kind of situation as their root cause.
Invariably, if one tries to control all relevant variables, it comes down to
the fact that decent quality, properly-specified wire is what you need, not
expensive exotica. Aside from aesthetics even commodity cable sources are
generally very adequate, if the cable is actually properly specified in
terms of traditional engineering criteria.

> If so, what are the brands to
> consider? Oh, also I was told that coaxial SPDIF is better than
> optical. True?

The significant problems with SPDIF optical, AKA Toslink, are that the
technology is limited to about 30 feet, the *cable* is stiff, and the
connectors are fragile for production use that involves frequent cabling
changes. When used as intended for home audio it is more than good enough,
and has the highly significant advantage of avoiding the creation of ground
loops. It also neither generates nor picks up EMI or RFI. Most applications
are someplace in-between.

[Garthrr]

In article >, "Arny Krueger"
> writes:

>Get him drunk enough and he'll probably tell you lots of amusing things...
>
>;-)

Arny,
Thanks for your knowlegable response to my question. I am aware that any sort
of damaged cable and/or cable of improper spec will degrade the signal.
Do I correctly infer from your answer that, assuming good condition, identical
length and proper use, a Canare and Kimber cable should produce exactly the
same data stream and therefore sound identical? In other words this mastering
guy in LA is flat-out wrong when he says the Kimber sounds better, right?

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Hans van Dongen > wrote:

> Like Ulysses says, if it's just from one digital storage
> medium to another it won't make any difference as long as
> all the bits are transferred (i.e. competent cable)

yeah, I said that.

> If it's going to a d/a copnverter it's another story

But I didn't speculate on that and I'm not going to.

> The difference was not subtle. No, it wasn't a double blind
> test. And it wasn't wishful thinking either. there was a
> pace to the music, an airiness an..(ok, I'll stop now, this
> isn't Stereophile )

Was it as though a veil had been lifted? Was there a blacker, more
liquid soundstage? And even your wife could tell the difference?

> The difference might have been caused by the fact that the
> BNC's on the homemade cable were not 75 ohm (guy I bought
> them from assured me there are only BNC plugs, not 50 or 75
> ohm ones...)
>
> bottom line: the closer to true 75 Ohm the _whole_ transfer
> (including PCB traces, connectors, cable) the better.

I'm not even going to comment.

ulysses

[Scott Dorsey]

Garthrr > wrote:
>I was told the other day by a mastering engineer in LA that spending the money
>for a Kimber or other similarly expensive spdif cable would make a significant
>and audible improvement over a more modestly priced cable such as Canare. I'm
>talking about a fairly short cable run, maybe 15' over which mixes would be
>transferred from one machine to another.

IF this is the case, then there is something horribly wrong with the
receiver on the other end. (And there are a lot of horribly wrong things
with a lot of D/A boxes out there, it's true).

>I know there is much disagreement about the effect cables have on the sound of
>signals but I was under the impression that this issue was more or less
>confined to analog signals.

It should be. There are sonic differences in digital cables going into
some D/A boxes, which are the result of phase errors and clock problems
going into the converter. The solutions for this include external word
clock and using a decent D/A that reclocks properly and doesn't have this
problem.

>This guy I was talking to said that reflections or lack thereof and other
>problems were some of the reasons the more expensive cables sound better. I
>know that reflections are an issue for digital signals but how can they be
>dealt with aside from using only short lengths? Is there some strategy for
>dealing with this which necessetates using costly metals or something?

Better quality cables have tighter impedance specifications, and therefore
fewer reflection problems... but even with the cheapest West Penn junk,
those RCA connectors are far worse impedance discontinuities than anything
in the cable. If there -is- a difference in the cable, it will be swamped
by the major reflection problems of the RCA connectors.

> Assuming that the cables in question are all working properly and are of at
>least decent quality can it make a big enough difference to spend big bucks for
>a spdif cable? If so, what are the brands to consider?

If you are worried about this, get the cable with the tightest impedance
specs. Belden makes plenty of nice stuff and you can believe the numbers
in the catalogue. But before you even think about cabling, make sure you
have good clean clocks, that you have reclocking converters, and that you
have replaced all those horrible RCA connectors in the path with proper
75 ohm BNCs. (No, not the usual 50 ohm BNCs but the special 75 ohm ones).

>Oh, also I was told that coaxial SPDIF is better than optical. True?

Usually. Measured jitter on the optical stuff is usually pretty high.
All of these things are easily measured and most of them can be seen
qualitatively with a good oscilloscope, even.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[DrBoom]

(Garthrr) wrote in message >...
> I was told the other day by a mastering engineer in LA that spending the money
> for a Kimber or other similarly expensive spdif cable would make a significant
> and audible improvement over a more modestly priced cable such as Canare.

[...]

Why not ask your friendly local high end stereo dealer if they have some cables
you can try out in your system? (The proper hi-fi sales word is "audition", of
course, but I hate that term.)

A few years ago I would have laughed off the whole idea that over-specified
cables could make a meaningful difference, but an experience with speaker
wire changed my attitude. YMMV.

-DrBoom

[Arny Krueger]

"Garthrr" > wrote in message


> In article >, "Arny Krueger"
> > writes:
>
>> Get him drunk enough and he'll probably tell you lots of amusing
>> things...
>>
>> ;-)

> Arny,

> Thanks for your knowlegable response to my question. I am aware that
> any sort of damaged cable and/or cable of improper spec will degrade
> the signal.

Well then we are happily on the same page here.

> Do I correctly infer from your answer that, assuming good
> condition, identical length and proper use, a Canare and Kimber cable
> should produce exactly the same data stream and therefore sound
> identical?

Yes.

> In other words this mastering guy in LA is flat-out wrong
> when he says the Kimber sounds better, right?

"Flat out wrong" would be very strong. I can't judge what he has personally
experienced. I think I have a well-informed idea of the audible differences
that everybody would hear were they to do a fair comparison as you
suggested, of Canare and Kimber cable: Nuttin'.

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, Scott Dorsey
> wrote:

>IF this is the case, then there is something horribly wrong with the
>receiver on the other end. (And there are a lot of horribly wrong things
>with a lot of D/A boxes out there, it's true).

There probably WAS something horribly wrong with the most common spdif
receivers because the newest generation cleans things up A LOT.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Kurt Albershardt]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> If you are worried about this, get the cable with the tightest impedance
> specs. Belden makes plenty of nice stuff and you can believe the numbers
> in the catalogue.

And at the lengths used in typical studio setups, almost anything will
work. Many S/PDIF transmitters put out higher levels, and good
receivers will tolerate an amazing range of inputs.



> But before you even think about cabling, make sure you
> have good clean clocks, that you have reclocking converters, and that you
> have replaced all those horrible RCA connectors in the path with proper
> 75 ohm BNCs. (No, not the usual 50 ohm BNCs but the special 75 ohm ones).

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! BNC's are cheap and reliable. I often wonder
why they aren't used on more of the pro and prosumer gear.

[Scott Dorsey]

Kurt Albershardt > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> If you are worried about this, get the cable with the tightest impedance
>> specs. Belden makes plenty of nice stuff and you can believe the numbers
>> in the catalogue.
>
>And at the lengths used in typical studio setups, almost anything will
>work. Many S/PDIF transmitters put out higher levels, and good
>receivers will tolerate an amazing range of inputs.

Unfortunately there are a lot of bad receivers out there, even on some
fairly expensive products in current manufacture. I mean really, really
bad receivers.

And the reason you hear people talking about audible differences in digital
cabling is because they really do hear it, because their receiver designs
really stink. MANY of them cannot derive an accurate clock. I'm not
mentioning any names but vendor P is a big offender.

>> But before you even think about cabling, make sure you
>> have good clean clocks, that you have reclocking converters, and that you
>> have replaced all those horrible RCA connectors in the path with proper
>> 75 ohm BNCs. (No, not the usual 50 ohm BNCs but the special 75 ohm ones).
>
>Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! BNC's are cheap and reliable. I often wonder
>why they aren't used on more of the pro and prosumer gear.

Because they actually cost a dollar or so each, rather than the pennies
that stamped RCAs cost.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Garthrr]

In article >, (Scott Dorsey)
writes:

>If you are worried about this, get the cable with the tightest >impedance
specs.

Well that was sort of my question--"should I be worried about this?". I wasn't
in the least worried because I was under the apparently somewhat false
impression that with digital cables you either got nothing at all or you got a
perfect signal. I was not aware of the potential jitter problems, especially
with optical cables.

I just wanted to bounce what this guy in LA said off of you guys because I dont
know him and I do know you. Sounds to me like spending $300 or whatever these
cables cost that he was recommending is not a priority for me at present.
Thanks,
Garth~





Belden makes plenty of nice stuff and you can believe the numbers
>in the catalogue. But before you even think about cabling, make sure you
>have good clean clocks, that you have reclocking converters, and that you
>have replaced all those horrible RCA connectors in the path with proper
>75 ohm BNCs. (No, not the usual 50 ohm BNCs but the special 75 ohm ones).




"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Scott Dorsey]

Garthrr > wrote:
>In article >, (Scott Dorsey)
>writes:
>
>>>Oh, also I was told that coaxial SPDIF is better than optical. True?
>>
>>Usually. Measured jitter on the optical stuff is usually pretty high.
>>All of these things are easily measured and most of them can be seen
>>qualitatively with a good oscilloscope, even.
>
>So how about AES cables? Are they better in this respect than S/PDIF?

No, they are about the same, although XLR connectors are closer to 110 ohms
than RCA connectors are to 75.

It really shouldn't be a problem and you shoudln't have to worry about
it. The fact that it is a problem is strictly the result of poorly designed
equipment.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jay Kadis]

In article > (Scott Dorsey)
writes:
> Kurt Albershardt > wrote:
> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >> If you are worried about this, get the cable with the tightest impedance
> >> specs. Belden makes plenty of nice stuff and you can believe the numbers
> >> in the catalogue.
> >
> >And at the lengths used in typical studio setups, almost anything will
> >work. Many S/PDIF transmitters put out higher levels, and good
> >receivers will tolerate an amazing range of inputs.
>
> Unfortunately there are a lot of bad receivers out there, even on some
> fairly expensive products in current manufacture. I mean really, really
> bad receivers.
>
> And the reason you hear people talking about audible differences in digital
> cabling is because they really do hear it, because their receiver designs
> really stink. MANY of them cannot derive an accurate clock. I'm not
> mentioning any names but vendor P is a big offender.

We ended up hanging a Scientific Conversion, Inc. transformer (SC916-01) on the
input and that cleaned them right up.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:52:40 +0000 (UTC), (Jay
Kadis) wrote:

>We ended up hanging a Scientific Conversion, Inc. transformer (SC916-01) on the
>input and that cleaned them right up.

Nothing like having the correct termination to make the transmission
work!

Kal

[Hans van Dongen]

> Hans van Dongen > wrote:

>>The difference was not subtle. No, it wasn't a double blind
>>test. And it wasn't wishful thinking either. there was a
>>pace to the music, an airiness an..(ok, I'll stop now, this
>>isn't Stereophile )
>
Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
>
> Was it as though a veil had been lifted? Was there a blacker, more
> liquid soundstage? And even your wife could tell the difference?
>

Yeah! that's it. How did you know? (except my spouse said
something like "yeah it sounds good, I guess. is it different?")

I should have made clear that I'm still very much a sceptic
at heart. And a bottom feeder. The stereophile-speak was
supposed to come off as mildly ironic or even sarcastic.
I did hear a difference, though. But I would have been much
happier if I had found a generic cable like something
surplus for 10 Euros a dozen that did what the expensive one
did (which was a present, BTW, I would never have paid
retail for that stuff)


>>bottom line: the closer to true 75 Ohm the _whole_ transfer
>>(including PCB traces, connectors, cable) the better.
>
>
> I'm not even going to comment.

Hmm. Now you make it sound like I'm some kind of loony
audiophile. I believe this 75 ohm stuff is pretty standard
physics (which I admittedly know only a little about)
I'm sorry if you feel I misrepresented you or quoted you out
of context. I just wanted to "share with the group" that I
did hear a difference in sp/dif cabling with a signal fed to
a DAC.


Hans
--




--
===========================

"This is a non-profit organisation
We didn't plan it that way, but it is."

[22Busy]

Garth,

About a month ago we did some evaluations of 4 types of SPDIF cable
and noticed SIGNIFICANT differences driving a Benchmark DAC-1.

All cables were less than 6 feet long. We compared two types of
Belden (1695a & 1508a) with 75 ohm Canare connectors, Canare LV-615
also with Canare 75 ohm connectors, and Radio Shack digital coax with
a BNC on one end and a cheap plastic RS RCA installed on the other.

The Benchmark has BNC input so for all cables except the RS we had to
use a RCA to BNC connector. I don't know what negative effect the
RCA-BNC converter had but I'm sure it didn't help the impedance
matching any.

RESULTS:

Belden 1695a - Clear and clean but a little too much so. Sound was a
little too thin.

Belden 1508a - Fuller and more natural sounding than 1695a.

Canare - too dull.

Radio Shack - The winner. Full, natural and musical. Quite a bit
better than Canare or 1695a. Slightly more natural than 1508a.

I'd be interested to see if the results change with optimal
connectors.

Bruce

[Scott Dorsey]

Jay Kadis > wrote:
>>
>> And the reason you hear people talking about audible differences in digital
>> cabling is because they really do hear it, because their receiver designs
>> really stink. MANY of them cannot derive an accurate clock. I'm not
>> mentioning any names but vendor P is a big offender.
>
>We ended up hanging a Scientific Conversion, Inc. transformer (SC916-01) on the
>input and that cleaned them right up.

The spec says that it has to be transformer isolated already. So, how many
products actually FOLLOW that spec? Not very many. Certainly not most of
them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! BNC's are cheap and reliable. I often wonder
> why they aren't used on more of the pro and prosumer gear.

Manufacturer's experience with their customers. The users can't find
BNC-BNC cables, or worse BNC-RCA cables where needed. They're not that
hard to find, but if it's not on the rack at Guitar Center, an hour
later you'll see a "where's a web sight [sic] where I can by [sic] a
cable with I think its a BNC on the end?" posting.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

> Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
>
> > I'm not even going to comment.

Hans van Dongen > wrote:
> Hmm. Now you make it sound like I'm some kind of loony
> audiophile. I believe this 75 ohm stuff is pretty standard
> physics (which I admittedly know only a little about)
> I'm sorry if you feel I misrepresented you or quoted you out
> of context. I just wanted to "share with the group" that I
> did hear a difference in sp/dif cabling with a signal fed to
> a DAC.

What? I didn't even comment! I didn't say anything! I didn't judge!
I kept my mouth shut! What part of "no comment" is accusatory? Maybe
it's your own gullible (just kidding!) conscience putting words in my
mouth. Or fingers.

Okay, seriously though. How do you control the characteristic
impedance of circuitboard traces? Inquiring (but non-commenting) minds
wanna freakin' know.

ulysses

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Garthrr > wrote:
>In other words this mastering guy in LA is flat-out wrong when he
>says the Kimber sounds better, right?

Careful, that's not quite what you were asking. You originally put
this into the context of 'data transfer' making a clone dub between
machines where no monitoring or other audio decisions were involved.
In that situation, then any competent 75 ohm cable should work pretty
well. If you get any data loss, I would be surprised.

Now, whether an S/PDIF link 'sounds' good is another issue. Besides
the data in an S/PDIF stream, there is also an embedded clock, and if
your gear extracts that to create the reconstruction clock, then the
nature of the link could affect what you hear and thus affect what you
decide to do to your audio.

The quality of the shielding, the impedance of the cable, the losses
at extreme frequencies and any number of other things might change how
the clock is extracted by the receiving circuit, and that could change
how the audio monitored from that machine sounds.

My approach is to just get the tech stuff right and use competent,
high grade precision video cable and the appropriate connectors. I'm
partial to Belden 8281 with BNC connectors for 10-50' runs, as it's
well made, has good shielding, the connectors actually work well and
it has relatively low losses. The newer foam core cables might be
even better. I don't know much about the Kimber stuff - it may be
competent too.

But, from what you originally described, you're not mixing through
this link, merely doing dubs, so I wouldn't worry about anything but
how low loss of a cable you have and how good the connectors and
shielding are. The Canare cable should work just fine.


Best of luck,

Monte McGuire

[22Busy]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:24:15 -0500, Justin Ulysses Morse
> wrote:

>I thought the DAC-1 was supposed to be practically immune to jitter?

So did I.


>What were you using for a source? Maybe your adapters were junk? If
>the DAC that's supposed to be as jitter-resistant as they come caused
>the listening results you report, something must be up. No offense, I
>don't know you, but I suspect your test methodology.>
>ulysses

No offense taken, but why would you suspect my test methodology?
Don't believe or disbelive me. Check it out for yourself. I'm just
reporting my results and I believe I already noted the possibility the
RCA to BNC adapter could have adversely affected the impedance and
thus the results.

The chain:

Carver CD player SPDIF RCA type outputs --->

previously described SPDIF cables --->

Radio shack RCA to BNC adapter ---->

Benchmark DAC-1

Bryston 4BST

Dunlavy speakers




Bruce

[Garthrr]

In article >, (Monte P McGuire)
writes:

>In article >,
>Garthrr > wrote:
>>In other words this mastering guy in LA is flat-out wrong when he
>>says the Kimber sounds better, right?
>
>Careful, that's not quite what you were asking. You originally put
>this into the context of 'data transfer' making a clone dub between
>machines where no monitoring or other audio decisions were involved.

Yes, that was and still is the context of the question. The mastering engineer
was speaking in that context as well when he said that a more expensive cable
such as the Kimber would be worth getting and would sound better than a more
modest cable. He and I were just talking about copying mixes digitally from one
machine to another.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Monte P McGuire" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> Justin Ulysses Morse > wrote:
> >Okay, seriously though. How do you control the characteristic
> >impedance of circuitboard traces? Inquiring (but non-commenting) minds
> >wanna freakin' know.
>
> Geometry! Over a ground plane with a board using a specific
> dielectric, you can make a trace of whatever characteristic you want
> by changing its width. The wider the trace is, the less series
> inductance and the more shunt capacitance you get, and this results in
> a lower characteristic impedance. Make it narrower and you get a
> higher characteristic impedance.

Hey Monte,

Does this characteristic impedance really vary that dramatically? As in,
could you really take the impedance of traces up or down by dozens of
ohms by width alone?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Garthrr > wrote:

> Yes, that was and still is the context of the question. The mastering
> engineer was speaking in that context as well when he said that a
> more expensive cable such as the Kimber would be worth getting and
> would sound better than a more modest cable. He and I were just
> talking about copying mixes digitally from one machine to another.

Even in the event cables do have a "sound" their effect will be
discarded when you store the data on physical media at the destination
end of said cable.

ulysses

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
David Morgan \(MAMS\) > wrote:
>Does this characteristic impedance really vary that dramatically? As in,
>could you really take the impedance of traces up or down by dozens of
>ohms by width alone?

Yes. This is how microwave circuits are made to work on printed
circuit boards. They make 50 ohm traces and run terminated lines to
and from the components. I seem to remember that with a pretty common
thickness of double sided board, .1" trace width gives you about 50
ohms.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Arny Krueger]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message


> I thought the DAC-1 was supposed to be practically immune to jitter?
> What were you using for a source? Maybe your adapters were junk? If
> the DAC that's supposed to be as jitter-resistant as they come caused
> the listening results you report, something must be up. No offense, I
> don't know you, but I suspect your test methodology.

It's simpler than that.

Sighted evaluation
No time synchronization

Two strikes against these so-called tests!

[Arny Krueger]

"22Busy" > wrote in message


> Arny, you seem to take pride in being a scientist who apparently
> believes in making conclusions based upon facts.

So present some facts. Let's start with notarized statements from two
independent witnesses.

> Where in the "facts"
> did you find it stated or inferred the evaluation was "sighted"? I
> was there, and you are wrong.

Who is to say that this story doesn't change everytime I write another post
about it?

> Unfortunately, one strike against Arny!!!!!!!

Not really.

[22Busy]

Arny, an intelligent person knows how to pick his/her fights and
frankly I would have expected better from you.

You've made a claim that the test was sighted, a claim which you can't
possibly support because you weren't there and you have absolutely no
knowledge of the facts.

Talk is cheap and you seem to have found a bargain basement supplier.
I suggest you put your money where your mouth is. You tell me what
you'd like to wager and we'll both submit evidence to back up our
claims as to whether this was a sighted test or not.

How about it? Or do you just like to make unsupported accusations?

I'll tell you what, you don't even have to put up any money. If I
can produce two notarized affidavits confirming the test was not
sighted, will you agree to issue an apology and to post here that you
are an ignorant loudmouth?

I'll agree that if I can't produce the affidavits, I'll do so.






On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:17:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"22Busy" > wrote in message

>
>> Arny, you seem to take pride in being a scientist who apparently
>> believes in making conclusions based upon facts.
>
>So present some facts. Let's start with notarized statements from two
>independent witnesses.
>
>> Where in the "facts"
>> did you find it stated or inferred the evaluation was "sighted"? I
>> was there, and you are wrong.
>
>Who is to say that this story doesn't change everytime I write another post
>about it?
>
>> Unfortunately, one strike against Arny!!!!!!!
>
>Not really.
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"22Busy" > wrote in message


> Arny, an intelligent person knows how to pick his/her fights and
> frankly I would have expected better from you.

Bite me.

> You've made a claim that the test was sighted, a claim which you can't
> possibly support because you weren't there and you have absolutely no
> knowledge of the facts.

Quit hiding behind your own poor efforts at documentation of what you did.

> Talk is cheap

I don't think you've said anything truer.

End of discussion.