How to get Home cinema sound on a TV?

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Ive seen a blind test run that put up a USB cable against a piece of wire and a bog standard usb cable. Fed into a hifi the people were blind tested. The point was to prove that not all digital cables sound exactly alike. They first put on the basic wire (Keeping the signal as short as possible ~ fewest errors). Then the basic USB cable was inserted in its place. EVERYONE commented how it lost detail.
Then the decent quality USB was tried out. EVERYONE commented that it sounded just like the 1st connection.

What does this mean? Not all digital cables are going to sound the same

Digital connections do not subjectively "lose detail" when they fail.

Do you have any understanding whatsoever how digital audio works?

I mean, think for a second what you're saying. Do you really believe that everything put together with cheap digital cables has errors in it? Aren't you terrified to go anywhere?

What you're alleging is that the digital transmission of data doesn't work. If it only works properly down expensive cables, then the entire idea behind digital data is deeply, and irrevocably, flawed.

aliEnRIK

Marty_J wrote: »

Digital connections do not subjectively "lose detail" when they fail.

Do you have any understanding whatsoever how digital audio works?

I mean, think for a second what you're saying. Do you really believe that everything put together with cheap digital cables has errors in it? Aren't you terrified to go anywhere?

What you're alleging is that the digital transmission of data doesn't work. If it only works properly down expensive cables, then the entire idea behind digital data is deeply, and irrevocably, flawed.

Marty, you know where I stand on this and ive posted a ton of links to back myself up.
Take into consideration that whilst it was a USB cable it WASNTa computer it was used on, it was hifi (Completely different way of working)
The differences were mostly (Or possibly completely) down to 'jitter' in this case. The cable never 'failed' at all
Im not getting into another debate with you over it. If you dont believe me thats fine, I really couldnt care less.........

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Marty, you know where I stand on this and ive posted a ton of links to back myself up.
Take into consideration that whilst it was a USB cable it WASNTa computer it was used on, it was hifi (Completely different way of working)
The differences were mostly (Or possibly completely) down to 'jitter' in this case. The cable never 'failed' at all
Im not getting into another debate with you over it. If you dont believe me thats fine, I really couldnt care less.........

Jitter is a timing error between two digital clocks, and its something all digital systems have to a certain degree. Bear in mind though, that for CD audio, each second of signal is composed of 44,100 samples, or one sample every 22.6 microseconds.

I'd be interested to know if we could perceive a sound that's 22.6 microseconds long, and if we could, if we could then differentiate between two sounds 22.6 microseconds apart.

A microsecond is a millionth of a second, so I'm guessing that it's unlikely.

aliEnRIK

Marty_J wrote: »

Jitter is a timing error between two digital clocks, and its something all digital systems have to a certain degree. Bear in mind though, that for CD audio, each second of signal is composed of 44,100 samples, or one sample every 22.6 microseconds.

I'd be interested to know if we could perceive a sound that's 22.6 microseconds long, and if we could, if we could then differentiate between two sounds 22.6 microseconds apart.

A microsecond is a millionth of a second, so I'm guessing that it's unlikely.

But of course the 'blind test' says otherwise (Not that im agreeing with anything youve said, im just quoting what the result of the blind test was)

Also, cd players sound quite different to one another when the ONLY measureable difference is jitter

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

But of course the 'blind test' says otherwise (Not that im agreeing with anything youve said, im just quoting what the result of the blind test was)

I know nothing about any blind test.

Also, cd players sound quite different to one another when the ONLY measureable difference is jitter

That's debatable.

This website has some very interesting reading.

aliEnRIK

Marty_J wrote: »

I know nothing about any blind test.



That's debatable.

This website has some very interesting reading.

A debate I dont wish to get into

Oneday77

Would I be right in saying that digital decoders at the end of any digital source have error correction in them. This pretty much being an algorithim that replaces the lost signal by 'guessing' what was missed. All lossy compression/decoding works this way. So by that definition would a inferior interconnect not add in a extra source of error that the system then has to compensate for. Therefore resulting in a more artificial result. At least in a computer network it has the chance to resend a packet if there is a failure to send it correctly. Not sure if an optical/digital co-ax/HDMI operate in this way.
I am not quoting any sources, just applying logic to what I know and understand.
There is certainly no debate over analogue inter connects providing increases in performance. I have an IXOS 801 Scart cable(£70 bought for £5) and it makes a huge difference.
Better Optical cables will have lesser imputities in the mix causing signal scatter/loss and will be better shielded to prevent excess bends that then destroy the theory behind internal reflection(can't rememeber the correct term, you know what I mean though)

Marty_J

Reed-Solomon error correction (the kind used in CDs) can reconstruct the original signal exactly. It's used by NASA for their space probes.

Oneday77

Marty_J wrote: »

Reed-Solomon error correction (the kind used in CDs) can reconstruct the original signal exactly. It's used by NASA for their space probes.

Ok I can kind of follow that as the CD signal is based on an analogue to digital sample that uses a fixed sample rate to create the digital signal. However it is the first stage of the digital ladder with no digital compression so to speak. However the majority of digital broadcasts are compressed to different rates and will result in lost information that isn't as predictable to reproduce surely?
BTW this is my 500th post be nice

Marty_J

Oneday77 wrote: »

However the majority of digital broadcasts are compressed to different rates and will result in lost information that isn't as predictable to reproduce surely?

That's true, but no cable will be able to reproduce the lost data if a lossy compression scheme has been used.

Error correction however, will be able to make sure the lossy data arrives as intended.

BTW this is my 500th post be nice

Congrats! :T