Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
nuke
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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. BRBR


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.
  #2   Report Post  
Justin Ulysses Morse
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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

  #3   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

"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.



  #4   Report Post  
Garthrr
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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
  #5   Report Post  
Justin Ulysses Morse
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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


  #6   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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."
  #8   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

"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'.



  #9   Report Post  
Bob Olhsson
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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!
  #10   Report Post  
Kurt Albershardt
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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.





  #11   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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."
  #15   Report Post  
Kalman Rubinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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


  #16   Report Post  
Hans van Dongen
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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."

  #17   Report Post  
22Busy
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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


  #18   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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."
  #20   Report Post  
Justin Ulysses Morse
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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


  #21   Report Post  
Monte P McGuire
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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

  #22   Report Post  
22Busy
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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

  #24   Report Post  
David Morgan \(MAMS\)
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?


"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



  #25   Report Post  
Justin Ulysses Morse
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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


  #26   Report Post  
Monte P McGuire
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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


  #27   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

"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!


  #28   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

"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.



  #29   Report Post  
22Busy
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

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.



  #30   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default big differences in S/PDIF cables?

"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.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ALL amps are equal?? Pug Fugley Car Audio 60 August 17th 04 03:33 AM
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!! lcw999 High End Audio 405 April 29th 04 01:27 AM
Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> SHRED© Car Audio 57 December 13th 03 11:24 AM
Ears vs. Instruments Dick Pierce High End Audio 183 August 17th 03 10:43 PM
Speaker cables Justin Ulysses Morse Pro Audio 16 July 24th 03 07:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"