Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Monster Cables- The World should know!

<< < (5/15) > >>

CWuestefeld:
First In First Out (FIFO) is *NOT* to be taken literally! FIFO is First In ALMOST First Out - the teqnique brings distortion, and distortion is not "perfect". ...-Curt (March 22, 2008, 06:28 PM)
--- End quote ---
No disrespect intended, Curt -- we've had many constructive conversations in the past. But your argument here is nothing but FUD, typical of audiophiles.

From the perspective of pure physics, I think I can understand what you're getting at with your timing objections. However, it can't possibly be relevant to this question. If there's any difference in timing, it's due to differences in the speed with which the signals are propagated electrically through the cable. But for the length of cable that we're talking about, it's quite impossible for the impurities to add up sufficiently to make even a nanosecond of difference.

And even if there were a difference, digital systems generally include a clock; while I must admit that I don't know specifically, since what is being transmitted is digital values of discrete entities (e.g., each pixel in turn). Just as the binary digital signals quantize to yield a 1 or 0 from actual values that are just "1-ish" or "0-ish", so too can clocking quantize the actual arrival time of a signal: a little early or a little late, so long as it's there when the clock ticks, everything is OK.

But none of this matters. We've shown ample evidence that there is no difference. We've shown theoretical evidence of why there can be no difference (within specs). Most importantly, it's been pointed out that due to its digital nature, these claimed problems are readily testable.

Given all this, it's clear to me that the burden of proof lies with Monster and the audiophiles. If there's any problem with off-the-shelf cables, conduct a test and show the result.

Lashiec:
Hehe, if this was Hydrogenaudio, Curt would have been issued a TOS#8 warning long ago ;D. So I say we should rename the page: "DonationAudiophile.com: For true audio connoisseurs!", and buy Cody some headphones :D

Given all this, it's clear to me that the burden of proof lies with Monster and the audiophiles. If there's any problem with off-the-shelf cables, conduct a test and show the result.
-CWuestefeld (March 23, 2008, 10:05 AM)
--- End quote ---

This is true, the best way to find out if what you affirm is to conduct a blind-listening test, it shouldn't be very difficult, although of course, you'll need some person assembling the cables and all that.

f0dder:
Why do a subjective blind-listening test when you can do an object bit-correctness test?

Lashiec:
Er, because it's easier for everyone and provides definitive answers, as audiophiles tend to base their ideas on audio quality on what they "hear" (and they spend and read and... well, you get the point), setting aside any possible technical explanation.

Cuffy:
This is all very interesting!
And to think all because I said "Caveat Emptor"..........

Boy, I'll never say that again!  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page