New Monster Z200D Digital coax refferenc series cable..

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

If bits are lost, then you get complete audio dropouts, and/or clicking/popping depending on how your receiver handles lost bits. .

I use monster speaker wire and I get that when I watch stored episodes of all in the family ... lol but they are fine wires just not worth the mark up

[Popper]

Man!!! You guys are havin' way to much fun!

[joegs300]

Ahh leave him alone guys. If he's happy, let him be. It's like a guy saying he's happy with his Sony STR-DG720 and clowning him saying he should have gotten the Onkyo 606 or whatever. If he's happy, let him share.

[icyteddy]

Originally Posted by supersix4

I use monster speaker wire and I get that when I watch stored episodes of all in the family ... lol but they are fine wires just not worth the mark up

Agreed, monster cable are fine cable, but the highway robbery mark up is why I would never pay $50, $100..etc for thier cable. And they have some people believing thier research and suppose quality cable justified in marking thier price so high. Take out the monster brand and the cable just depreciated from $100 to $10 or less with the same quality as other cable. JMO.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

Are you serious? You contradict yourself with your own post. Perhaps you should read up a little more on the technology.

100% serious, and I believe it is you that needs to read up on both electricity and light.

Digital Coaxial = electricity = analog
Digital Optical = light = analog
HDMI = data = digital

The signal it is usually passing is a digital signal (CD, DVD, etc.) but it converts it to an analog form to pass it. I did not contradict myself with my own post, because "Digital Coaxial" is the name of the cable.

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

There will be ABSOLUTELY NO sound quality difference in monster cable versus any other brand of cable when used to transport digital data. With digital streams, you either get it or you don't. There is no "improvement" in one brand or type of cable over another. If bits are lost, then you get complete audio dropouts, and/or clicking/popping depending on how your receiver handles lost bits. If you are getting clear sound from a $1 cable, then there will be no improvement whatsoever in a $100 Monster cable.

That is correct, when referring to a digital cable like Firewire, DVI and HDMI.
It is NOT correct when referring to Digital Optical or Digital Coaxial cables, sorry.

[allstar780]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

100% serious, and I believe it is you that needs to read up on both electricity and light.

Digital Coaxial = electricity = analog
Digital Optical = light = analog
HDMI = data = digital

The signal it is usually passing is a digital signal (CD, DVD, etc.) but it converts it to an analog form to pass it. I did not contradict myself with my own post, because "Digital Coaxial" is the name of the cable.



That is correct, when referring to a digital cable like Firewire, DVI and HDMI.
It is NOT correct when referring to Digital Optical or Digital Coaxial cables, sorry.

Yup... thats why you need a shielded subwoofer cable (which is exactly the same as digital coax, or component, or composite) because it's a non-digital signal that is susceptible to EMI and RFI... and thats why there are fiber optic cables made with plastic and ones made with actual fiber optic glass, because the light WILL move faster through the clear glass (though the increase in speed would honestly not be noticeable on any commercial cable run)

[zedd_117]

Originally Posted by SellmeyourDVD

oh.... you better believe my 1's and 0's are way better than yours, well at least they cost about $100 more than yours.

So your just saying that your 1's are followed by a few more 0's than his!

Man, I'm even a Monster Fanboy and I couldn't resist.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

It is NOT correct when referring to Digital Optical or Digital Coaxial cables, sorry.

True, but you still don't need to buy Monster products in order to get a good quality optical or coax cable.

[Another_Dude]

So, um......Nickelback?

[zedd_117]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

True, but you still don't need to buy Monster products in order to get a good quality optical or coax cable.

Ahh, just like you don't have to buy a 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite to have a good quality Plasma. Some people just want the "best".
I'm actually a little jealous of his z-series purchase, having just upgraded all of my HDMIs to M-series (bought on ebay for $40 each). I'm in the process of doing the same with my Fiber Optic, Sub, and Component cables. You can try to talk me out of Monster, but my brain's been washed, I somehow started to believe the hype.

[allstar780]

Originally Posted by zedd_117

Ahh, just like you don't have to buy a 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite to have a good quality Plasma. Some people just want the "best".
I'm actually a little jealous of his z-series purchase, having just upgraded all of my HDMIs to M-series (bought on ebay for $40 each). I'm in the process of doing the same with my Fiber Optic, Sub, and Component cables. You can try to talk me out of Monster, but my brain's been washed, I somehow started to believe the hype.

Fair enough... you like Monster... but they are FAR from the best. There are many other lesser known brands out there selling a better product at a higher price.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by allstar780

There are many other lesser known brands out there selling a better product at a higher price.

lol so true, we saw two guys looking at bose stuff in bestbuy just like freaking out thinking it was the best thing ever, I gave him the number and address of the A/v store we use to buy our McIntosh stuff his response was "don't they make computers?" lmao.

Originally Posted by zedd_117

Ahh, just like you don't have to buy a 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite to have a good quality Plasma. Some people just want the "best".

Just because monster has the best marketing campaign of all the wire companies doesn't make it the "best", they are good wires and we have many of them but to say they are the best is an overstatement

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

100% serious, and I believe it is you that needs to read up on both electricity and light.

Digital Coaxial = electricity = analog
Digital Optical = light = analog
HDMI = data = digital

The signal it is usually passing is a digital signal (CD, DVD, etc.) but it converts it to an analog form to pass it. I did not contradict myself with my own post, because "Digital Coaxial" is the name of the cable.



That is correct, when referring to a digital cable like Firewire, DVI and HDMI.
It is NOT correct when referring to Digital Optical or Digital Coaxial cables, sorry.

So in your little world where the laws of physics don't seem to apply, how does that "data" on an HDMI connection get to it's destination?

Here on planet earth, even an HDMI connection uses electrical conductors to carry electrical impulses that correspond to the digital data stream. This is no different than a "digital coaxial" cable that uses electrical conductors to transmit electrical impulses that correspond to a digital data stream.

A digital cable is really a misnomer. It just indicates that the cable is intended to carry electrical impulses for an encoded digital data stream. You are correct in that the electrical impulses themselves are an analog transmission method. However, you overlook the fact that DVI, HDMI, "digital coaxial", USB, IEEE.1394, etc. all use this same method.

Therefore, a "digital coaxial" audio cable is every bit as much a digital connection method as an optical cable, or an HDMI cable.

[zedd_117]

I know that, like I said my brain has been washed.

I don't even know how it happened. I used to be a Monster hater. Now I just don't know...

[My_Two_Cents]

Arguing with dobyblue is never a good idea. Ought to be interesting...

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Arguing with dobyblue is never a good idea. Ought to be interesting...

lol like t.o. said "get cha' popcorn ready" lmao

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by allstar780

you need a shielded subwoofer cable (which is exactly the same as digital coax, or component, or composite) because it's a non-digital signal that is susceptible to EMI and RFI...

You are really comparing apples to oranges here. A shielded "subwoofer" cable is nothing more than a normal line level cable with male RCA connectors on each end. In most cases, the positive conductor will be a heavier gauge wire than a normal short "RCA" cable to compensate for the loss of electrical signal strength over longer distances.

However, in this case, the cable is actually carrying a waveform of the actual audio signal as electrical impulses and not a series of encoded digital bits. The shielding is more important in a cable carrying analog information because RF can infiltrate and become part of the waveform and then become amplified at the destination.

With cables carrying digital data streams, RF noise is a non-issue unless it becomes stronger than the signal strength of the digital stream. Introduced RF noise won't decode the data stream, interject itself into the decoded audio/video, and then re-encode the data stream.

In the case of cables carrying "analog" audio, the quality of the cables definitely does matter. But like with anything, there is a point of diminishing returns and Monster cable, while very good, is still overpriced.

Edited to add:

I completely agree with you about choosing glass cables over plastic cables for optical connections. I have seen too many plastic cables crack or degrade the signal to the point where it became unusable.

[allstar780]

http://www.audioholics.com/education...al-connections

Q: Between optical and coaxial, which connection is going to give the better sound quality, and why?
A: " Better" is relative. In a harsh environment, optical may have advantages. By "harsh" I mean:

Cable runs over 10ft
Cable runs in close proximity to video and power cords emanating RF noise
In most cases, the above conditions would result in negligible impacts on the signal quality since the signal being transmitted (PCM or bitstream) is sampled at low frequencies (44-48KHz) and thus are more immune to noise impairments.

However, using optical cables can minimize the potential of the above mentioned problems and thus may help to reduce common mode noise. The only negative about using optical cables is the connection is not always as secure as a coax one, and can sometimes be compromised easily by moving components frequently. In addition, optical cables are usually more expensive than coax ones.

Bottom Line: Using optical cables for your digital connections may help minimize susceptibility of coupling RF noise into the line and reduce loss for long runs (10 feet or more). However, optical cables tend to be more costly and sensitive to abrupt external forces, which may potentially weaken the connection over time. In any event, either connection method should yield excellent and comparable results in most cases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So basically digital coax, like any other RCA-type cable, is susceptible to RFI or EMI... meaning a better cable sometimes (but not always) will yield better results.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

So in your little world where the laws of physics don't seem to apply, how does that "data" on an HDMI connection get to it's destination?

That's irrelevant, it's still digital data, the digital coaxial cable is not.

Here on planet earth even an HDMI connection uses electrical conductors to carry electrical impulses that correspond to the digital data stream. This is no different than a "digital coaxial" cable that uses electrical conductors to transmit electrical impulses that correspond to a digital data stream.

Actually it's completely different. One is data, one is electricity, one is light. By definition one is digital, the others are analog.

A digital cable is really a misnomer. It just indicates that the cable is intended to carry electrical impulses for an encoded digital data stream. You are correct in that the electrical impulses themselves are an analog transmission method. However, you overlook the fact that DVI, HDMI, "digital coaxial", USB, IEEE.1394, etc. all use this same method.

Therefore, a "digital coaxial" audio cable is every bit as much a digital connection method as an optical cable, or an HDMI cable.

By that definition yes, but I would hope that the knowledge that data is electrical doesn't need to be stated. Everything in life is analog! Where the term digital is used refers to the packages that are being delivered. With HDMI, DVI and Firewire cables it is digital, with the others it is analog, hence digital coaxial and digital optical are analog cables, HDMI/DVI and Firewire are digital.

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

That's irrelevant, it's still digital data, the digital coaxial cable is not.

Actually it's completely different. One is data, one is electricity, one is light. By definition one is digital, the others are analog.

By that definition yes, but I would hope that the knowledge that data is electrical doesn't need to be stated. Where the term digital is used refers to the packages that are being delivered. With HDMI, DVI and Firewire cables it is digital, with the others it is analog, hence digital coaxial and digital optical are analog cables, HDMI/DVI and Firewire are digital. Arguing semantics makes you look arrogant.

I'm not trying to look arrogant or impose anything on anyone. I responded to the original poster to try to reduce the amount of misinformation that might be relayed to other readers of this thread. I never came here looking to start an argument. I apologize if you think I am trying to argue semantics.

However, I still have a hard time understanding what you are talking about. Your response above basically comes across to me that you think physics is irrelevant. I just don't see how you can make a statement like that and think that anyone will take any of your other information seriously.

Further, "data" is defined as "information." It is not a transport method. the "data" still has to be transported to a recipient by some method that follows the laws of physics. This is why I can't understand how you can compare "data" to electricity and light. The "data" still has to be transported by moving electrons in an electrical conductor or via pulses of light in an optical conductor.

Please help me understand what you mean when you say that the digital "data" streams are no longer digital data streams when using a coaxial or optical cable but yet they can still be digital data streams if they use an HDMI cable.