Digital Cables
 

There was talk on another group about credulity and hugely expensive
cables. I was just wondering if *anybody* was prepared to say that they
believe the claims for a cable like this, for example:

http://www.russandrews.com/product.asp?pf_id=2565

"£797.00: KIMBER Select KS-2120 Digital Balanced

"KS-2120 not only uses the highest purity silver, it incorporates
KIMBER's latest discoveries in the nature of digital signals. The
result? Even more detail and even more music. You have to hear this
cable between your CD transport and DAC to appreciate the massive
improvements it can bring."

--
Dave Farrance

Digital Cables
 

Dave Farrance wrote:
There was talk on another group about credulity and hugely expensive
cables. I was just wondering if *anybody* was prepared to say that they
believe the claims for a cable like this, for example:

http://www.russandrews.com/product.asp?pf_id=2565

"£797.00: KIMBER Select KS-2120 Digital Balanced

"KS-2120 not only uses the highest purity silver, it incorporates
KIMBER's latest discoveries in the nature of digital signals. The
result? Even more detail and even more music. You have to hear this
cable between your CD transport and DAC to appreciate the massive
improvements it can bring."


I don't think that anybody that knows how digital audio is transmitted
would believe that *any* digital cable will make a difference. AES-EBU
and SP-DIF signals are incredibly rugged, and provided the cable is of
75 ohms impedance, what it's made of and how constructed will have *no*
effect on the signal transmitted.

Balanced AES-EBU signals are even more immune to jitter caused by
50-60Hz hum and are the preferred choice for long cable runs.

I just don't know how Russ Andrews has the gall to sell this stuff.......

S.

Digital Cables
 

Serge Auckland wrote:

Dave Farrance wrote:

There was talk on another group about credulity and hugely expensive
cables. I was just wondering if *anybody* was prepared to say that they
believe the claims for a cable like this, for example:

http://www.russandrews.com/product.asp?pf_id=2565

"£797.00: KIMBER Select KS-2120 Digital Balanced
"KS-2120 not only uses the highest purity silver, it incorporates
KIMBER's latest discoveries in the nature of digital signals. The
result? Even more detail and even more music. You have to hear this
cable between your CD transport and DAC to appreciate the massive
improvements it can bring."


I don't think that anybody that knows how digital audio is transmitted
would believe that *any* digital cable will make a difference.

Haven't heard from Glenn Richards recently.

--
Eiron.

Digital Cables
 

In article , Dave Farrance
writes
There was talk on another group about credulity and hugely expensive
cables. I was just wondering if *anybody* was prepared to say that they
believe the claims for a cable like this, for example:

http://www.russandrews.com/product.asp?pf_id=2565

"£797.00: KIMBER Select KS-2120 Digital Balanced

"KS-2120 not only uses the highest purity silver, it incorporates
KIMBER's latest discoveries in the nature of digital signals. The
result? Even more detail and even more music. You have to hear this
cable between your CD transport and DAC to appreciate the massive
improvements it can bring."


Can't help but think its time he had a run in with the trading standards
authority?..

But perhaps they must think anyone who believes all that bull**** must
need sectioning anyway!....
--
Tony Sayer

Digital Cables
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:34:37 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

There was talk on another group about credulity and hugely expensive
cables. I was just wondering if *anybody* was prepared to say that they
believe the claims for a cable like this, for example:


"What Hi-Fi" December issue has a page reporting a testing session for
skeptics. See:
www.laurencepayne.co.uk/cables.html

They report the session fairly accurately, if selectively.

Throughout the magazine they continue to rave over magic cables. But,
to give due credit, several times they add "but see p.121 for another
opinion". I wonder if this qualification will persist in future
issues?

Digital Cables
 

"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message ...
:
: I don't think that anybody that knows how digital audio is
transmitted
: would believe that *any* digital cable will make a
difference. AES-EBU
: and SP-DIF signals are incredibly rugged, and provided the
cable is of
: 75 ohms impedance, what it's made of and how constructed
will have *no*
: effect on the signal transmitted.
:
: Balanced AES-EBU signals are even more immune to jitter
caused by
: 50-60Hz hum and are the preferred choice for long cable
runs.
:
:
: S.
:

Isn't AES/EBU digital cable 110Ohm?

Regards TT

Digital Cables
 

In article , TT TTencerNOmorespam@westnet.
com.au writes

"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message ...
:
: I don't think that anybody that knows how digital audio is
transmitted
: would believe that *any* digital cable will make a
difference. AES-EBU
: and SP-DIF signals are incredibly rugged, and provided the
cable is of
: 75 ohms impedance, what it's made of and how constructed
will have *no*
: effect on the signal transmitted.
:
: Balanced AES-EBU signals are even more immune to jitter
caused by
: 50-60Hz hum and are the preferred choice for long cable
runs.
:
:
: S.
:

Isn't AES/EBU digital cable 110Ohm?

Regards TT



Yes. As robust as it is it don't like longish lumps of twin mic cable of
the wrong sort...
--
Tony Sayer

Digital Cables
 

In article , Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:34:37 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

There was talk on another group about credulity and hugely expensive
cables. I was just wondering if *anybody* was prepared to say that they
believe the claims for a cable like this, for example:


"What Hi-Fi" December issue has a page reporting a testing session for
skeptics. See: www.laurencepayne.co.uk/cables.html

They report the session fairly accurately, if selectively.

Throughout the magazine they continue to rave over magic cables. But,
to give due credit, several times they add "but see p.121 for another
opinion". I wonder if this qualification will persist in future issues?


Interesting that it is presented as "another opinion". i.e. Not presented
on the basis that actual evidence either fails to support, or contradicts
much of what they print. Or that they have no idea how to run a comparison
that might give reliable results. :-)

If you want a stark example of what Russ Andrews says, have a look at his
new 'column' sigh in 'Hi Fi News' this month. Given that he sells these
things I must confess I find it puzzling that he is now has such a column
which appears as *editorial* matter, not advertising, in such a magazine.
My reaction is that there is a conflict of interest, here.

BTW Dave, if you want to see a wider range of the kinds of views and
reactions people have to 'cables', then try a search back on this
group and some of the others. IIRC It has been a few weeks since we had
a 'local' argument about this. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Digital Cables
 

TT wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message ...
:
: I don't think that anybody that knows how digital audio is
transmitted
: would believe that *any* digital cable will make a
difference. AES-EBU
: and SP-DIF signals are incredibly rugged, and provided the
cable is of
: 75 ohms impedance, what it's made of and how constructed
will have *no*
: effect on the signal transmitted.
:
: Balanced AES-EBU signals are even more immune to jitter
caused by
: 50-60Hz hum and are the preferred choice for long cable
runs.
:
:
: S.
:

Isn't AES/EBU digital cable 110Ohm?

Regards TT


AES-EBU or AES-3 as the standard is known can be either 110 ohms
balanced or 75 ohms unbalanced. The signal format is identical, and is
also interchangeable with SP-DIF. The differences are in the settings of
one or more data bits which identify the signal, and in the nominal
signal level. SP-DIF is 0.5v and AES-EBU is 1V,if I remember correctly.
Connectors are normally XLR for balanced AES-EBU, BNC for unbalanced
AES-EBU and phono for SP-DIF

One benefit of using 75 ohm unbalanced AES-EBU is that in a mixed
audio-video facility, all cables are 75 ohms on BNCs, so the same cable
can be used for audio and video.

In an audio-only facility it is better to use all balanced 110 ohm cable
for analogue and digital so again, any balanced cable can be used for
either. The danger comes in older facilities which still have a lot of
balanced non-110 ohm cable, and that gets used for digital audio. As
rugged as AES-EBU is, it doesn't take kindly to long lengths of the
wrong impedance cable.

S.

Digital Cables
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:34:37 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

There was talk on another group about credulity and hugely expensive
cables. I was just wondering if *anybody* was prepared to say that they
believe the claims for a cable like this, for example:


"What Hi-Fi" December issue has a page reporting a testing session for
skeptics. See: www.laurencepayne.co.uk/cables.html

They report the session fairly accurately, if selectively.

Throughout the magazine they continue to rave over magic cables. But,
to give due credit, several times they add "but see p.121 for another
opinion". I wonder if this qualification will persist in future issues?


Interesting that it is presented as "another opinion". i.e. Not presented
on the basis that actual evidence either fails to support, or contradicts
much of what they print. Or that they have no idea how to run a comparison
that might give reliable results. :-)

If you want a stark example of what Russ Andrews says, have a look at his
new 'column' sigh in 'Hi Fi News' this month. Given that he sells these
things I must confess I find it puzzling that he is now has such a column
which appears as *editorial* matter, not advertising, in such a magazine.
My reaction is that there is a conflict of interest, here.

I have been a monthly reader of Hi-Fi News since it had a yellow border,
and its current incarnation may well see me not renewing my
subscription. Apart from the occasional sensible article (a recent one
by a certain Mr Lesurf included), they now run so-called articles by
Russ Andrews promoting fairy-dust, have dropped John Crabbe's column,
have long since dropped a regular Radio article, have the ridiculous
Hi-Fi Doctor dispensing plain wrong advice and their new tabloid style
with colour splashes everywhere and wacky picture positioning makes me
feel seasick. Even the outrageous Ken Kessler has gone. I seldom agreed
with Kessler's writings, but at least he *can* write, and was amusing.
The only saving grace is that they have Janine Elliot now writing for
them, but in a lightweight column. Janine would brighten my day on my
visits to BH, and definitely knows about audio.

Rant over.

S.