A while ago a few of us debated the topic of interconnect and speaker cables (http://www.avforums.co.za/index.php/topic,33519.msg430497.html#msg430497 and onwards). The pertinent issues were whether and to what degree the quality or spec of the actual cable would affect the sound quality. We were discussing speaker cables and whether there is any merit in higher quality cables for rear speakers, but then the issue of interconnects also came to the fore.
I made the point that cables per se cannot improve audio quality; they can only mitigate audio (and video?) losses (therefore the less distance & connections in an audio or video stream, the better). Furthermore, not all interconnect cables are equal and that although the audible differences between various types of RCA (analogue) interconnects may be more noticeable, there are even audible differences between the various kinds of digital interconnects. My statement in this regard was questioned, which is often the case as there is a very-well supported school of thought that a digital signal cannot differ in quality. The bits are either being transferred or not.
In support of my stance on this matter, I have done a little research and I have found that I am not alone in arguing that digital audio connections are not all created equal. First of all, here are two links to articles that describe the differences between coaxial and fibre optic audio connections:
http://stereos.about.com/od/accessoriesheadphones/a/digaudiocables.htm
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5527321_digital-fiber-optic-audio-cable.html
Both seem to share my view that coaxial cable is the preferred option between these two. What about the quality thereof then? Any reasons why there may be better coaxial cables than others? Read this:
http://coaxial-cable-review.toptenreviews.com/
As for HDMI, the following:
The convenience of being able to transfer both HD video as well as 5.1 HD audio via one cable is a huge positive. That being said, HDMI connections can be problematic both in terms of the integrity of the connection as well as being receptive to heat from the AV set-up. The length of the cable in relation to the quality of the cable also plays a role. Here are some links and quotes on this subject:
http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/high-definition/common-hdmi-problems-and-solutions-923327
"A cable of about 5 meters (16 ft) can be manufactured to Category 1 specifications easily and inexpensively by using 28 AWG (0.081 mm?) conductors. With better quality construction and materials, including 24 AWG (0.205 mm?) conductors, an HDMI cable can reach lengths of up to 15 meters (49 ft). Many HDMI cables under 5 meters of length that were made before the HDMI 1.3 specification can work as Category 2 cables, but only Category 2-tested cables are guaranteed to work for Category 2 purposes." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI)
http://www.hdmi.org/installers/longcablelengths.aspx
As I stated in the original debate, I have experimented with all kinds of connections and I have found that different equipment often yield different results (an opinion that is also being supported and explained in some of the articles that I have read). Personally, with my set-up, I prefer proper analogue RCA connections for stereo CD as well as for the 5.1 surround HD audio formats like SACD and DVD-A (which may simply imply that the DAC on the player sounds better than those on the receiver, or it may be due to the fact that analogue interconnects just sound more natural?), while I use coaxial between my HD PVR and my receiver for the surround audio and HDMI for the video connection (directly with the monitor). I also use HDMI for DVD-V via the receiver to the monitor, but in this case it was probably more a convenience driven motivation than anything else.
I am looking forward to read forum members' comments on this subject.
I made the point that cables per se cannot improve audio quality; they can only mitigate audio (and video?) losses (therefore the less distance & connections in an audio or video stream, the better). Furthermore, not all interconnect cables are equal and that although the audible differences between various types of RCA (analogue) interconnects may be more noticeable, there are even audible differences between the various kinds of digital interconnects. My statement in this regard was questioned, which is often the case as there is a very-well supported school of thought that a digital signal cannot differ in quality. The bits are either being transferred or not.
In support of my stance on this matter, I have done a little research and I have found that I am not alone in arguing that digital audio connections are not all created equal. First of all, here are two links to articles that describe the differences between coaxial and fibre optic audio connections:
http://stereos.about.com/od/accessoriesheadphones/a/digaudiocables.htm
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5527321_digital-fiber-optic-audio-cable.html
Both seem to share my view that coaxial cable is the preferred option between these two. What about the quality thereof then? Any reasons why there may be better coaxial cables than others? Read this:
http://coaxial-cable-review.toptenreviews.com/
As for HDMI, the following:
The convenience of being able to transfer both HD video as well as 5.1 HD audio via one cable is a huge positive. That being said, HDMI connections can be problematic both in terms of the integrity of the connection as well as being receptive to heat from the AV set-up. The length of the cable in relation to the quality of the cable also plays a role. Here are some links and quotes on this subject:
http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/high-definition/common-hdmi-problems-and-solutions-923327
"A cable of about 5 meters (16 ft) can be manufactured to Category 1 specifications easily and inexpensively by using 28 AWG (0.081 mm?) conductors. With better quality construction and materials, including 24 AWG (0.205 mm?) conductors, an HDMI cable can reach lengths of up to 15 meters (49 ft). Many HDMI cables under 5 meters of length that were made before the HDMI 1.3 specification can work as Category 2 cables, but only Category 2-tested cables are guaranteed to work for Category 2 purposes." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI)
http://www.hdmi.org/installers/longcablelengths.aspx
As I stated in the original debate, I have experimented with all kinds of connections and I have found that different equipment often yield different results (an opinion that is also being supported and explained in some of the articles that I have read). Personally, with my set-up, I prefer proper analogue RCA connections for stereo CD as well as for the 5.1 surround HD audio formats like SACD and DVD-A (which may simply imply that the DAC on the player sounds better than those on the receiver, or it may be due to the fact that analogue interconnects just sound more natural?), while I use coaxial between my HD PVR and my receiver for the surround audio and HDMI for the video connection (directly with the monitor). I also use HDMI for DVD-V via the receiver to the monitor, but in this case it was probably more a convenience driven motivation than anything else.
I am looking forward to read forum members' comments on this subject.
