HDMI cable? and upscaling dvd

aliEnRIK

superscaper wrote: »

Cables: make sure there's a good connection and good conductivity and good shielding, that's all you really need. That can be achieved with pretty cheap cables. I've needed to measure things in picoamps and attofarads. Do you think you really need expensive cables? I spent more of my budget on simply getting right connectors than the actual cabling (mostly bog standard coax and triax) which made little difference at THAT scale on molecular devices so to say that you'll get any improvement on something that's a far less refined resolution just simply isn't true. The error in signal between differently priced cables just isn't quantitatively large enough to make the slightest difference, and in the case of any digital signals they certainly aren't enough for low/high conditions to be reversed or aliasing etc. The only circumstances for that are basically a faulty cable. With analogue, either you get really rubbish cabling or decent enough and anything better goes way beyond human perception anyway which is quite a specifically known sampling rate range.

I dont think you 'need' expensive cables no. I think that SOME cables outperform others and wether you want better looking and sounding equipment is upto the individual.
I really dont care about the scientific principles behind them. If you dont believe they make a difference then thats upto you. Im just sharing what I have personally found through experimentation and not what ive read in a magazine or on the net.

superscaper

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I really dont care about the scientific principles behind them. If you dont believe they make a difference then thats upto you. Im just sharing what I have personally found through experimentation and not what ive read in a magazine or on the net.

When I said measuring down to picoamps and attofarads I'm talking about my own actual real experiments on molecular devices I've actually made. To call what you've done as "experimentation" is hardly appropriate though. It's ironic you talk about belief because actual real experimentation isn't about belief but the facts measured and interpretation based on logic. Everything you've mentioned as a personal example has been nothing BUT baseless belief. I've got hard data and numbers on the cables I've used, and there's nothing that contravenes "scientific principles" or as it's also known "reality".

weegie.geek

aliEnRIK wrote: »

My dad uses firewire between his dvd and av amp. We tried the cheap freebie cable against the one that qed makes. The qed one sounded better. Thats all im saying on that subject.
Dacs do make quite a difference yes but lets stay on subject ~ cables

Please provide quantifiable proof.

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I think youll find I was talking about HIFI. A firewire and usb leads are all about COMPUTERS. Computers are NOT hifi. They are designed to take information from one place and place it to another (transfer information). Of COURE they work as the information has no way of just dissapearing. Im talking about minute details that can get lost in a signal(Nothing WHATSOEVER to do with ANY computer files of ANY kind)

There are no "minute details" in a digital signal. Every 1 and 0 is the same as every other.

Its quite obvious at this point that you have no idea and are really not willing to listen to reason of any kind and therfore I shall no longer be communicating with you. If you wish to carry this on then please create your own thread to do so. Goodbye

Oh dear!

I won't accept your wild theories without some kind of evidence so you get your panties in a twist.

I dont think you 'need' expensive cables no. I think that SOME cables outperform others and wether you want better looking and sounding equipment is upto the individual.
I really dont care about the scientific principles behind them. If you dont believe they make a difference then thats upto you. Im just sharing what I have personally found through experimentation and not what ive read in a magazine or on the net.

Which is exactly your problem.

Anyhow, you've already stated that your listening room isn't acoustically treated, so even if there was a difference (which there isn't), your findings wouldn't translate to anywhere else. All you could say would be that a particular piece of music sounded better in that particular room, which isn't really helpful.

The fact that you don't think acoustic treatment would make as much difference as a new cable is quite simply astounding. Such an admission really damages any credibility you have as to your ability to make any sort of comparison. Anyone who has ever removed all the furniture from a room knows the massive impact the room's acoustics have.

[Deleted User]

I tried my power conditioner unit that I have for my guitar amplifier on my tv a while ago, I saw no difference at all. Everything looked the same to me. In terms of audio, I have no comparison because I can't compare the simple electrics of a house at a reasonable volume nor the complexity and poor condition of a lot of venues electric systems.

aliEnRIK

superscaper wrote: »

When I said measuring down to picoamps and attofarads I'm talking about my own actual real experiments on molecular devices I've actually made. To call what you've done as "experimentation" is hardly appropriate though. It's ironic you talk about belief because actual real experimentation isn't about belief but the facts measured and interpretation based on logic. Everything you've mentioned as a personal example has been nothing BUT baseless belief. I've got hard data and numbers on the cables I've used, and there's nothing that contravenes "scientific principles" or as it's also known "reality".

I dont know why your attacking me like you are. I truly believe what you say is true. But I know my cables etc have made a difference to my equipment.

Where do you get a 'baseless belief' from?
If I was to say, measure how fast 2 cars can get to 60 miles an hour from standstill Id use the same fuel and tyres and compare the times taken.
In my case I compared what I had before to what I had after I was happy the cables had settled (or whatever I was doing at the time)
In the case of my friends tv he'd had his samsung 2 years or more before I went round. We both agreed it looked cr*p. I lent him a conditioner and some cables and told him to leave them for a month so we can see what (if any) differences there are. There was no doubt a positive result in his picture (especially freeview) after just 1 month. He bought some of his own which are still burning in to this day and hes a very happy customer. Now tell me...whats wrong with that?

aliEnRIK

anewhope wrote: »

I tried my power conditioner unit that I have for my guitar amplifier on my tv a while ago, I saw no difference at all. Everything looked the same to me. In terms of audio, I have no comparison because I can't compare the simple electrics of a house at a reasonable volume nor the complexity and poor condition of a lot of venues electric systems.

Fair play mate but (just a suggestion), leave it connected a month or so before thinking theyre useless as tvs change with the signal over time.
On the other hand the conditioner you have might not be upto scratch (Some manufactures conditioners/cables etc are just rubbish)

[Deleted User]

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Fair play mate but (just a suggestion), leave it connected a month or so before thinking theyre useless as tvs change with the signal over time.
On the other hand the conditioner you have might not be upto scratch (Some manufactures conditioners/cables etc are just rubbish)

I changed my name from "be_alright" so you've seen the conditioner I've got

weegie.geek

Nothing's wrong with it at all. It looked better to you two, so that's great. It wouldn't be measurably better though.

It looked better purely because you expected it to. It's the placebo effect.

You're unable to provide any evidence or technical reason why using expensive cable to transport digital data makes the outputted media "better", and that speaks volumes.

aliEnRIK

weegie.geek wrote: »

Nothing's wrong with it at all. It looked better to you two, so that's great. It wouldn't be measurably better though.

It looked better purely because you expected it to. It's the placebo effect.

You're unable to provide any evidence or technical reason why using expensive cable to transport digital data makes the outputted media "better", and that speaks volumes.

My friend certainly didnt expect it to look better. I had to proper push to just lend him the cables ~ haha

But since then he keeps tellin me how 'this' and 'that' looked better.oooo ~ and that some freeview still looks c*ap (Cant help him with that one I dont think)