[eye bro kit[_2_]]

I recently bought the Monster Ultra 1000 and the Ultra 600
for Dolby Digital. Not only am I not able to hear a
difference between the two cables, but I don't hear a
difference between them and a relatively generic optical
cable I had on hand from years back.
I'm using the PSB Image 5.1 setup, and an NAD surround
preamp and power amp, with LAT International interconnects
and speaker cable (pricey cables, but they were given to me
by a friend who tests equipment for a living). My sources
are a Dish Network 610 receiver and a Sony PS3 for Blu-Ray
movies.
If there are nothing but 0s and 1s going to the preamp, why
would I be able to here a difference between the optical
cables, to begin with? Of course, the salesman insists there
will be a huge difference, but couldn't really explain why.
I've got another 22 days to return them, but would love to
get some opinions nonetheless.
Thanks for any answers you offer. I apologize if this has
been discussed ad nauseum.

ebk

[jwvm]

On Apr 22, 10:56 am, eye bro kit wrote:
I recently bought the Monster Ultra 1000 and the Ultra 600
for Dolby Digital. Not only am I not able to hear a
difference between the two cables, but I don't hear a
difference between them and a relatively generic optical
cable I had on hand from years back.
I'm using the PSB Image 5.1 setup, and an NAD surround
preamp and power amp, with LAT International interconnects
and speaker cable (pricey cables, but they were given to me
by a friend who tests equipment for a living). My sources
are a Dish Network 610 receiver and a Sony PS3 for Blu-Ray
movies.
If there are nothing but 0s and 1s going to the preamp, why
would I be able to here a difference between the optical
cables, to begin with?

You are absolutely correct here. From an engineering standpoint, there
is no reason why high-end cables should sound any better than low-cost
competent cable. Digital signal transmission over short distances is
pretty hard to screw up.

Of course, the salesman insists there
will be a huge difference, but couldn't really explain why.
I've got another 22 days to return them, but would love to
get some opinions nonetheless.

Guess how much commission there is in high-end magic voodoo cables!
The salesman hopes that you think you hear a huge difference but the
actual difference is in the thickness of his wallet and the thinness
of your's.

Thanks for any answers you offer. I apologize if this has
been discussed ad nauseum.

No need to apologize! This kind of question can generate some really
interested threads. :-)

[Serge Auckland]

jwvm wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:56 am, eye bro kit wrote:
I recently bought the Monster Ultra 1000 and the Ultra 600
for Dolby Digital. Not only am I not able to hear a
difference between the two cables, but I don't hear a
difference between them and a relatively generic optical
cable I had on hand from years back.
I'm using the PSB Image 5.1 setup, and an NAD surround
preamp and power amp, with LAT International interconnects
and speaker cable (pricey cables, but they were given to me
by a friend who tests equipment for a living). My sources
are a Dish Network 610 receiver and a Sony PS3 for Blu-Ray
movies.
If there are nothing but 0s and 1s going to the preamp, why
would I be able to here a difference between the optical
cables, to begin with?

You are absolutely correct here. From an engineering standpoint, there
is no reason why high-end cables should sound any better than low-cost
competent cable. Digital signal transmission over short distances is
pretty hard to screw up.

Of course, the salesman insists there
will be a huge difference, but couldn't really explain why.
I've got another 22 days to return them, but would love to
get some opinions nonetheless.

Guess how much commission there is in high-end magic voodoo cables!
The salesman hopes that you think you hear a huge difference but the
actual difference is in the thickness of his wallet and the thinness
of your's.

Thanks for any answers you offer. I apologize if this has
been discussed ad nauseum.

No need to apologize! This kind of question can generate some really
interested threads. :-)

Indeed it can. I completely agree that for short domestic lengths, there
is NO difference in sound quality between digital cables, and even less
between optical cables. I have done several tests myself and seen others
done where digital signals were quite literally passed over a piece of
wet string, with no audible artefacts. I passed a digital audio signal
through my own body, and provided I wet my fingers, the audio got
through fine. Digital audio is *remarkably* rugged, so unless you are
sending signals through kilometres of fibre, the quality of the fibre is
irrelevant. Get your money back whilst you can.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[[email protected]]

On Apr 22, 1:05 pm, jwvm wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:56 am, eye bro kit wrote:
If there are nothing but 0s and 1s going to the preamp, why
would I be able to here a difference between the optical
cables, to begin with?

You are absolutely correct here. From an engineering
standpoint, there is no reason why high-end cables
should sound any better than low-cost competent cable.

I might modify this to say that from GOOD engineering
standpoint, there is no reasons.

Digital signal transmission over short distances is
pretty hard to screw up.

Yes, and, unfortunately, there's plenty of examples,
from Teac to Levinson, where they DID screw it up,
and screwed it up pretty badly.

The problem is that while there is no good engineering
reason why there should be a difference, the high-end
industry is a refuge of bad engineering. In this particulr
case, there are examples of supposed "high-end" digital
products with perfectly awful input receiver designs that
are SO sensitive to even minor differences in the signal
that there output is effected in both audible and measurable
ways. Some of these products have been lauded by some
high-end luminaries as being more "transparent: because
they alledgedly reveal the differences in cabels when, in
fact, they are simply bad designs.

[jbdarmo]

"eye bro kit" wrote in message
...
I recently bought the Monster Ultra 1000 and the Ultra 600 for Dolby
Digital. Not only am I not able to hear a difference between the two
cables, but I don't hear a difference between them and a relatively generic
optical cable I had on hand from years back.
I'm using the PSB Image 5.1 setup, and an NAD surround preamp and power
amp, with LAT International interconnects and speaker cable (pricey
cables, but they were given to me by a friend who tests equipment for a
living). My sources are a Dish Network 610 receiver and a Sony PS3 for
Blu-Ray movies.
If there are nothing but 0s and 1s going to the preamp, why would I be
able to here a difference between the optical cables, to begin with? Of
course, the salesman insists there will be a huge difference, but couldn't
really explain why.
I've got another 22 days to return them, but would love to get some
opinions nonetheless.
Thanks for any answers you offer. I apologize if this has been discussed
ad nauseum.

ebk

I AM an audio salesman. I think that you are right. I don't think that there
is much of a difference in toslink cables sound wise, since
most of them use plastic shells. Some use glass shells. This could make a
difference, but are BIG $$.
I DO think that some have better connectors than others. Some have a tighter
fit, some tend to be more sloppy. This could account
for something.

Joe

[Serge Auckland]

jbdarmo wrote:
"eye bro kit" wrote in message
...
I recently bought the Monster Ultra 1000 and the Ultra 600 for Dolby
Digital. Not only am I not able to hear a difference between the two
cables, but I don't hear a difference between them and a relatively generic
optical cable I had on hand from years back.
I'm using the PSB Image 5.1 setup, and an NAD surround preamp and power
amp, with LAT International interconnects and speaker cable (pricey
cables, but they were given to me by a friend who tests equipment for a
living). My sources are a Dish Network 610 receiver and a Sony PS3 for
Blu-Ray movies.
If there are nothing but 0s and 1s going to the preamp, why would I be
able to here a difference between the optical cables, to begin with? Of
course, the salesman insists there will be a huge difference, but couldn't
really explain why.
I've got another 22 days to return them, but would love to get some
opinions nonetheless.
Thanks for any answers you offer. I apologize if this has been discussed
ad nauseum.

ebk

I AM an audio salesman. I think that you are right. I don't think that there
is much of a difference in toslink cables sound wise, since
most of them use plastic shells. Some use glass shells. This could make a
difference, but are BIG $$.

It *could* make a difference, but doesn't! Not unless your cable lengths
are measured in kilometres.
I DO think that some have better connectors than others. Some have a tighter
fit, some tend to be more sloppy. This could account
for something.

Again it *could* but doesn't! Not unless your equipment is subject to
movement or vibration that could shake a connector out. Unlike copper
cables, fibre-optic cables do not rely on a physical contact between
the plug and socket, just that the fibre be close to the light-source.
Of course a sloppy connector will have greater losses than a
well-fitting one, but for normal domestic lengths, there is so much
headroom that data will still get through uncorrupted, and that's all
that matters for sound quality. I accept that an expensive cable with
fancy connectors may make you feel good about ownership, but it will
have zero effect on sound quality.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com