New Monster Z200D Digital coax refferenc series cable..

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

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.

The audio data remains in the digital realm when using HDMI or Firewire, it is that simple. It is why a $5 HDMI cable will perform identically to a $500 HDMI cable, yet doesn't hold true when comparing "analog" cables.

[mustang-gt-2002]

no more monster cables for me. what I have is it. but I still love the name MONSTER

[mdabb]

It still amazes me that a thread about an optical cable quickly gets turned into a thread about HDMI cables, Why ???

If you don't think there is any quality differences between optical cables, please live on in ignorance.

I know for a "fact" that these cables (toslink) can be crappy and effect sound quality. Whether it's a manufacturing issue or not. I purchased a Philips cable locally some years back and it was late at night and I told myself it will do. I didn't know the cable was crappy until I replaced it with you guessed it a Monster one that I bought locally again. The jump in performance was unbelievable. If you don't believe, I could care less and offer at anyone's expense to try out the Philips. I have it still, pay for shipping and I'll send it to you so you can hear for yourself how repressed the sound is. I don't dispute it could be just a manufacturer defect, but looking at it that doesn't appear to be the case.

I no longer use Monster cables and the optical cables I use currently are all from Blue Jeans Cable. No problem there and they don't cost a lot, still they do to some.


I do own some optical cables from Monoprice and while the the SQ is perfectly fine their connectors are the pits. Even the Fancy connector ones, loose as a goose.............. It's been a while since I have bought any optical cables or any cables for that matter from Monoprice but they still look the same to me.

I also don't get why some people seem to care why people buy expensive cables and then have to point out to that person: "how much they are a fool for wasting their money". How would you like it if someone called you a cheap bastard ??? Who really cares ?????????????

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by mdabb

It still amazes me that a thread about an optical cable quickly gets turned into a thread about HDMI cables, Why ???

Actually, it was digital coax...

[mdabb]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Actually, it was digital coax...

OK I'm a tard but it still relates !!!

For the most part...............

Especially this whole HDMI love affair we have here. Every HDMI cable is a crap cable.

[fronn]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

...

I have to agree with Jeff92k7 on this one. I don't think you're making much sense. You're either just wrong, or using some weird definition of what is digital and what isn't - one not recognized in the world of audio/HT.

Also @allstar780: Jeff92k7 is right. These are two different cases. The signal to the sub is going to be analog, where when used on a digital coax line it won't.

Jeff saved me much trouble in responding

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by fronn

I have to agree with Jeff92k7 on this one. I don't think you're making much sense. You're either just wrong, or using some weird definition of what is digital and what isn't - one not recognized in the world of audio/HT.

Also @allstar780: Jeff92k7 is right. These are two different cases. The signal to the sub is going to be analog, where when used on a digital coax line it won't.

Jeff saved me much trouble in responding

Actually I'm using the only definition used in audio/HT.

Analog signals:
Digital Coaxial, Digital Optical, Coaxial, RCA, Component, S-Video, Composite

Digital signals:
HDMI, DVI, Firewire

If you think that Digital Coaxial is a digital signal then you also think that component video is a digital signal...and it is not.

[allstar780]

One positive note about Monster HDMI cables... they have a lot better strain relief than most cheap cables... that pretty looking connector does serve some purpose... but on the higher priced ones, (M series) they don't.

Also should add that BlueJeans uses good strain relief

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

The audio data remains in the digital realm when using HDMI or Firewire, it is that simple. It is why a $5 HDMI cable will perform identically to a $500 HDMI cable, yet doesn't hold true when comparing "analog" cables.

We completely agree on that point. We're good so far, but...

How come you think that a "digital" coaxial cable doesn't carry a digital data stream?

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Actually I'm using the only definition used in audio/HT.

Analog signals:
Digital Coaxial, Digital Optical, Coaxial, RCA, Component, S-Video, Composite

Digital signals:
HDMI, DVI, Firewire

To correct you:

Analog signals:
RCA, Component, S-Video, Composite

Digital signals:
HDMI, DVI, Firewire, Digital Coaxial, Digital Optical,

I'm not sure what you are referring to by just "coaxial" so I left that off. I assume that would be an analog RF signal transported by an RG-6, RG-58, or RG-59 cable with screw on connectors but I'm not sure that's what you meant so we'll just put that to the side for now.

Originally Posted by dobyblue

If you think that Digital Coaxial is a digital signal then you also think that component video is a digital signal...and it is not.

Those are two different technologies. "Component" cables transport a high-bandwidth analog signal, "digital" coaxial cables carry a limited bandwidth digital data stream.

[zedd_117]

holy freakin crap this is still going on?! let it rest guys!

Some people like Monster, others don't. Digital coax is, apparently, not digital at all. HDMI is the mother of all cables. Where you buy them from is your own personal preference. Geesh.

Actually this has been an entertaining read today, so go ahead and keep it going, just felt the need to throw in my 2 cents.

[Nathan P]

Originally Posted by supersix4

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

Get the Get the and possibly some This is going to run and run, oh and probably get out of hand

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

To correct you:

Allow me to correct myself:

Analog cables:
RCA, Component, S-Video, Composite, Digital Coaxial, Digital Optical

Digital cables:
HDMI, DVI, Firewire

Digital coaxial and digital optical carry a "digital signal", that is to say the signal doesn't pass through a DAC.

But the cable is analog, HDMI is digital. Hence there is "0" difference between HDMI cables unless you're looking at runs of 60ft or more and exceeding usual bandwidth specifications.

With optical and coaxial you can have differing results even at 6ft.

[zedd_117]

Round 2....FIGHT!

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Digital coaxial and digital optical carry a "digital signal",

Thank you. This we agree on.

Originally Posted by dobyblue

But the cable is analog, HDMI is digital.

So then what makes up a "digital" cable? When I cut them open, they look like copper electron conducting wires just like a coaxial cable.

Edited to add:
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articl...s.htm?hdmiinfo
Please read number 4 on that page. The same degradation also applies to digital coaxial cables and is probably why some people here have had differing results with different brands of cables. However, if you read it closely, you'll see that it backs up what I said about poor cable causing dropouts and not an altered sound (or video) quality. If the signal is reconstituted properly, it will be identical to the source signal.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

So then what makes up a "digital" cable? When I cut them open, they look like copper electron conducting wires just like a coaxial cable.

...and does the optical cable also look like copper electron conducting wires when you cut it open?

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

...and does the optical cable also look like copper electron conducting wires when you cut it open?

Of course not. I never said it did. An optical cable contains a thin thread of glass fiber (or plastic fiber in cheap cables) that carries light from one end to the other. Cut one open and the fiber will appear to be whatever color the light is at the other end.


More good reading....
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articl...-with-hdmi.htm

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

Of course not. I never said it did. An optical cable contains a thin thread of glass fiber (or plastic fiber in cheap cables) that carries light from one end to the other. Cut one open and the fiber will appear to be whatever color the light is at the other end.


More good reading....
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articl...-with-hdmi.htm

Yet you state that optical is a fully digital transmission format, which it isn't because it uses light. There is a conversion there, it's an analog cable. Perhaps you are correct about digital coax cable, I was always under the assumption that it was an analog cable carrying a digital signal, the way optical clearly is, in that digital coax uses a real measurable electrical current as opposed to the tiny amount that a digital signal needs to be carried like a computer does with data (1's and 0's for a word document, .mp3 or .xls document) and hence only those three I've mentioned allow for a fully digital transmission of audio or video.

I'm familiar with all the HDMI articles on Blue Jeans, their cables and their most excellent dealings with Monster Cable. I'm not sure how anything you're posting rebuts anything here, so I'll presume you're just posting good reading for our forum members and advise anyone who hasn't read it to take a good read through.

As for the 50ft though, DVIGear just announced their new device for long-run HDMI connections which they state will allow for 330ft runs (for implementations like drive thru order display units)

http://www.digitalsignageexpo.net/Ho...e/Default.aspx

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Yet you state that optical is a fully digital transmission format, which it isn't because it uses light. There is a conversion there, it's an analog cable. Perhaps you are correct about digital coax cable, I was always under the assumption that it was an analog cable carrying a digital signal, the way optical clearly is, in that digital coax uses a real measurable electrical current as opposed to the tiny amount that a digital signal needs to be carried like a computer does with data (1's and 0's for a word document, .mp3 or .xls document) and hence only those three I've mentioned allow for a fully digital transmission of audio or video.

Okay...now we're getting somewhere and, to use your earlier comment, I think we're getting hung up in the semantics of this. First of all, I never stated that light was digital - only that light is used to carry digital pulses. Light is definitely an analog medium, just as copper is.

My argument is that regardless of the transport medium (what the cable is actually made out of), the content the cable carries is a digital data stream (or in the case of HDMI, multiple data streams across the different copper pairs). Whether it is in electrical pulses or pulses of light. In this case, HDMI is no different than digital coaxial. They both carry electrical pulses. Those pulses correspond to the digital data stream. Regardless of the voltage level, they both work exactly the same way.

And yes, those articles are good reading for anyone getting confused by our "discussion."

[fronn]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Yet you state that optical is a fully digital transmission format, which it isn't because it uses light. There is a conversion there, it's an analog cable. Perhaps you are correct about digital coax cable, I was always under the assumption that it was an analog cable carrying a digital signal, the way optical clearly is, in that digital coax uses a real measurable electrical current as opposed to the tiny amount that a digital signal needs to be carried like a computer does with data (1's and 0's for a word document, .mp3 or .xls document) and hence only those three I've mentioned allow for a fully digital transmission of audio or video.

Originally Posted by dobyblue

...and does the optical cable also look like copper electron conducting wires when you cut it open?

It seems you're theory of how things works is based on the idea that you think different coax cables will provide different experiences, even after the point where bit corruption is gone. The reality of the situation is that a bitstream either works or it doesn't (counting drop outs and pops as "it doesn't").

By your logic, if the HDMI cable is low quality a DTS-HDMA stream will sound like a Dolby Digital 5.1 at 448kbps because the cable isn't good enough (not talking about drop outs either). A digital coax cable is transporting the same type of data as an HDMI cable - from the cable's perspective it's simply applied voltage changes.

In an optical cable, the light on/offs simply replace the peaks and valleys in the voltage. It's absolutely digital, even more blatantly - the optical cable does not care about intensity (up to a certain point - there's a certain intensity needed for it to count it as a "1", but up to that it's assumed to be a "0").

Digital and analog are qualities of the start and end points of the transport path - a cable is no more analog or digital than it is happy or sad. It's simply easier to refer to cable being digital or analog rather than saying the path is. A digital coax path is digital because the send and receive interpret the voltage on the cable as 1s and 0s. Likewise with an HDMI cable. An optical cable is digital because it interprets the light as 1s and 0s, not 0 to 16 million degrees of brightness or something similar. A component cable, compositie, etc. are interpreting the waveform and because the waveform allows for almost no built in fault protection, RF and other interference cause warping of that form (thus, the final signal quality differs).