Question for Sylvia: Splitting AV output

[DavidW]

Dear Sylvia,

Let's say I have a video device that has an AV output (3-socket RCA, for video,
L & R). Can I connect it to the AV inputs of two other video devices (say a TV
and something else) without loss of quality or blowing anything up? The
connection would be done by having effectively two AV cables (with 3 plugs each)
in parallel connected to said AV output.

[Brad]

Can I chip in here?
Yes it will work, but perhaps not perfectly. It will depend on the
performance of the equipment. The Video portion of the AV signal is
1Vp-p across 75 ohms. Put two devices on that and you will see 0.5Vp-p
across 37 ohms. The weaker signal may cause sync problems (less likely
with modern equipment) and poorer brightness. The audio may similarly
be lower, but you can turn the volume up to compensate. AV switch
boxes are available cheaply, to prevent these signal losses.

[DavidW]

Brad wrote:
> On May 10, 9:51 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Dear Sylvia,
>>
>> Let's say I have a video device that has an AV output (3-socket RCA,
>> for video, L & R). Can I connect it to the AV inputs of two other
>> video devices (say a TV and something else) without loss of quality
>> or blowing anything up? The connection would be done by having
>> effectively two AV cables (with 3 plugs each) in parallel connected
>> to said AV output.
>
> Can I chip in here?

Certainly.

> Yes it will work, but perhaps not perfectly. It will depend on the
> performance of the equipment. The Video portion of the AV signal is
> 1Vp-p across 75 ohms. Put two devices on that and you will see 0.5Vp-p
> across 37 ohms. The weaker signal may cause sync problems (less likely
> with modern equipment) and poorer brightness. The audio may similarly
> be lower, but you can turn the volume up to compensate. AV switch
> boxes are available cheaply, to prevent these signal losses.

Thanks. I thought it was probably a bit dodgy. I assume that a switch box (would
splitter be a better description?) would require its own power supply, with
transformer. I was hoping to avoid that.

[Sylvia Else]

Brad has summerised the issues, and I agree with him, except as far as
the audio is concerned. In my experience, audio inputs have a relatively
high impedance, and I would not expect the same problem.

Beware of creating ground loops.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Probably better to ditch it altogether. For example, I don't want to have to
adjust brightness between the split source and other sources. It all sounds too
dodgy.

[Brad]

A switch box and a splitter are not the same thing. A switch box
selects a different input or output, one at a time. A passive splitter
will reduce the output. An active splitter contains an amplifier, so
full output, but requires a power source.

[DavidW]

I misunderstood then. I thought you were suggesting a "switch" that would solve
the signal-loss problem while maintaining the two simultaneous connections. A
passive switch was my first thought and what I'll probably go with, but parallel
connections would be better for my purpose so I thought I'd ask.

[Peter Bowditch]

I bought a cheap plasticy switch on eBay so The World's Finest
Grandson can connect his Wii when he visits without having to climb
behind the furniture. Seems to work without any problems.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Blog at http://peterbowditch.com/wp/
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

[Bob Milutinovic]

"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kmhs29$tos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

As Brad and Sylvia have said, you'll have issues with the video signal - not
enough to prevent you from seeing it on both outputs, but more than enough
to drag the video quality into the mud (remember making copies of copies of
VHS tapes, and how good the resulting recording was?).

If you have $47 to spare, grab this; it'll do the job properly for both
audio and video, and has four outputs rather than just two;
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121073559070

If you want to save a bit of money and have a 12V power supply of reasonable
grunt laying around (1A output should suffice), this one does just the video
for $14; http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/261190349984

Audio isn't a problem unless you're wanting genuinely high fidelity (which I
suspect you're not); as Sylvia points out, most amplifiers have a
comparatively high input impedance (generally several tens of kiloohms or
higher), so there won't be any noticable signal degradation.

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom

[Coach]

Very interesting topic. I have done exactly as the original poster has
done and not noticed any loss of quality. But then again, I could
never see what people were going on about HD tv because I could never
really see the difference unless it was on a very large TV set. I
would have thought that high def tv would mean we'd buy smaller TV's
and sit closer to them, not buy bigger sets, Nobody seems to get
that.

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/05/2013 8:47 PM, Coach wrote:

> Very interesting topic. I have done exactly as the original poster has
> done and not noticed any loss of quality.

Some equipment has an automatic gain control on the video input, which
would obviate most of the adverse effects. But it's not part of the
spec, so trying it in a particular instance is the only way to know
whether it'll work.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Bob Milutinovic wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>

>> I misunderstood then. I thought you were suggesting a "switch" that
>> would solve the signal-loss problem while maintaining the two
>> simultaneous connections. A passive switch was my first thought and
>> what I'll probably go with, but parallel connections would be better
>> for my purpose so I thought I'd ask.
>
> As Brad and Sylvia have said, you'll have issues with the video
> signal - not enough to prevent you from seeing it on both outputs,
> but more than enough to drag the video quality into the mud (remember
> making copies of copies of VHS tapes, and how good the resulting
> recording was?).
>
> If you have $47 to spare, grab this; it'll do the job properly for
> both audio and video, and has four outputs rather than just two;
> http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121073559070
>
> If you want to save a bit of money and have a 12V power supply of
> reasonable grunt laying around (1A output should suffice), this one
> does just the video for $14; http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/261190349984
>
> Audio isn't a problem unless you're wanting genuinely high fidelity
> (which I suspect you're not); as Sylvia points out, most amplifiers
> have a comparatively high input impedance (generally several tens of
> kiloohms or higher), so there won't be any noticable signal
> degradation.

As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have the option
of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and high-quality speakers for
those movies/shows that are worthwhile having hi-fi sound). One of the reasons
for my connection complications is that I prefer the convenience of the plain
TV sound to watch the news or Biggest Loser, but it's not good enough for
Raiders of the Lost Ark. (There are other issues too, such as whether I need a
source to go to recording equpment.)

Thanks for your suggestions. I hoped to avoid another powered device, but I'll
consider it along with a plain switch.

[Jasen Betts]

it's an analogue signal therefore there will be some loss of quality.
You won't blow anything up that wasn't already broken.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Coach]

On May 11, 9:02 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> Bob Milutinovic wrote:
> > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> >> I misunderstood then. I thought you were suggesting a "switch" that
> >> would solve the signal-loss problem while maintaining the two
> >> simultaneous connections. A passive switch was my first thought and
> >> what I'll probably go with, but parallel connections would be better
> >> for my purpose so I thought I'd ask.
>
> > As Brad and Sylvia have said, you'll have issues with the video
> > signal - not enough to prevent you from seeing it on both outputs,
> > but more than enough to drag the video quality into the mud (remember
> > making copies of copies of VHS tapes, and how good the resulting
> > recording was?).
>
> > If you have $47 to spare, grab this; it'll do the job properly for
> > both audio and video, and has four outputs rather than just two;
> >http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121073559070
>
> > If you want to save a bit of money and have a 12V power supply of
> > reasonable grunt laying around (1A output should suffice), this one
> > does just the video for $14;http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/261190349984
>
> > Audio isn't a problem unless you're wanting genuinely high fidelity
> > (which I suspect you're not); as Sylvia points out, most amplifiers
> > have a comparatively high input impedance (generally several tens of
> > kiloohms or higher), so there won't be any noticable signal
> > degradation.
>

> As an audiophile I do want <snipped the rest>

I always suspected you were one. My 6th sense is rarely wrong. Stay
away from primary schools you sicko.

[felix_unger]

In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.

> One of the reasons
> for my connection complications is that I prefer the convenience of the plain
> TV sound to watch the news or Biggest Loser, but it's not good enough for
> Raiders of the Lost Ark. (There are other issues too, such as whether I need a
> source to go to recording equpment.)
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. I hoped to avoid another powered device, but I'll
> consider it along with a plain switch.
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:

>
> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.

True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
faithful reproduction.

Sylvia.

[felix_unger]

That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
reproduction. However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround
sound 5.1, 6.1, 7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound
quality, if only for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.

>
> Sylvia.

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avardc...@mid.individual.net...

True idiots you mean, those that actually have a clue (perhaps not such a
big percentage admittedly) know that after adding dither and a
reconstruction filter, there is no quantitisation remaining, only a FAR more
accurate signal than can be obtained by ANY analog recording method
available.

Trevor.

[Sylvia Else]

Of course, but you should never smarten up a chump.

Audiophiles in the UK used to cite the BBC's Radio 3 (a classical music
channel) FM service as the gold standard for analogue purity, blissfully
unaware that the BBC was using digital technology to get the signal from
its studios to the transmitters.

Sylvia.

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:avb7mc...@mid.individual.net...

> Audiophiles in the UK used to cite the BBC's Radio 3 (a classical music
> channel) FM service as the gold standard for analogue purity, blissfully
> unaware that the BBC was using digital technology to get the signal from
> its studios to the transmitters.

Nothing new there. Audiophiles in the early 70's used certain viny records
for demonstration purposes. Some were direct disk analog recordings, but
some were digital recordings using vastly inferior equipment than what we
have these days :-)

I still have a heavy weight, virgin vinyl, 45RPM, 12" "audiophile" disk of
the day, recorded digitally at 14 bits using a VCR and converter. Still
better than one using a tape recorder of course :-)

Trevor.

[Frank Slootweg]

True audiophiles use vinyl and tubes!


But for *me*, 4BH at 32 Kbps (WMP format) is just fine! :-)

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/05/2013 2:05 PM, Trevor wrote:

**Unless the sampling rate is specified, you cannot state such a thing.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[DavidW]

felix_unger wrote:
> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>> having hi-fi sound).
>
> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.

"Good quality" audio leads are a crock, like gold-plated connectors. Plain
copper wires do a perfectly good job.

[DavidW]

If the quantised approximation is close enough, you cannot hear the difference,
and it does have the advantage of perfect copyability and identical repeat
playings.

[felix_unger]

On 14-May-2013 8:28 AM, DavidW wrote:

> felix_unger wrote:
>> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>>> having hi-fi sound).
>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.
> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock,

That shows how much you know then

> like gold-plated connectors. Plain
> copper wires do a perfectly good job.
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
Sept 14th. is National Rubbish Collection day.. ausnet.info/pics/rubbish_collection.jpg

[DavidW]

felix_unger wrote:
> On 14-May-2013 8:28 AM, DavidW wrote:
>
>> felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>>>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>>>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>>>> having hi-fi sound).
>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.
>> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock,
>
> That shows how much you know then

I thought all you needed was low resistance. You can get that with plain copper
wire of reasonable thickness and as short as possible. In the end, can you hear
the difference?

[Sylvia Else]

The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection. I've had enough
trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the benefit of that. If
course, better still is a screw clamped connector.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

I think it can be taken as read in context that the sampling rate (and
number of bits sampled) will be high enough that the will be nothing
left of the quantisation noise that is capable of being heard by the
ear. The ear itself is not an analogue device.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Yes, gold plating is very useful in electronics to ensure that good contact is
maintained, but you don't need it for speakers. I think my speakers have
gold-plated screw clamps. Looks nice, but the gold is unnecessary.

[Trevor Wilson]

**I take NOTHING as read. Unless the precise specs of the digital system
are specified, there can be no blanket claim that the effects of that
digital system are inaudible.

For instance: There is abundant evidence to prove that a (say) 24/96
digital audio system is preferred by some listeners (in a blind test)
over a 16/44 (CD quality) in a suitably high resolution system, using
otherwise identical material. I would also add that there is
considerable evidence to suggest that many listeners can easily pick the
difference between DACs (Digital to Analogue Converters). In fact, some
of the best DACs are considered to be those manufactured by Philips back
in the late 1980s.

The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape
(15ips, played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and
vinyl, through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred
over the vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further
testing revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).

FWIW: I have not purchased a (new) vinyl recording since 1988. Recording
companies lst interest in manufacturing quality LPs long ago.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily
very tin and provides a poor choice for speaker connectors. Silver,
which can be plated far more thickly, is a far better choice. It's
superior conductivity is also a bonus.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2013 10:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/05/2013 10:15 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 14/05/2013 8:28 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>> felix_unger wrote:
>>>>> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>>>>>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>>>>>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>>>>>> having hi-fi sound).
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.
>>>>
>>>> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock, like gold-plated connectors.
>>>> Plain copper wires do a perfectly good job.
>>>
>>> The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
>>> oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection. I've had enough
>>> trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the benefit of that.
>>> If course, better still is a screw clamped connector.
>>
>> Yes, gold plating is very useful in electronics to ensure that good
>> contact is
>> maintained, but you don't need it for speakers. I think my speakers have
>> gold-plated screw clamps. Looks nice, but the gold is unnecessary.
>>
>>
>
> **Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily
> very tin

**That would be: "....very THIN..."


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Bollocks.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[felix_unger]

I guess it depends on what equipment you have. I tested various leads on
my audio system years ago and could hear differences between leads. I
even tried household electrical cable, and that can work well as a cheap
alternative. It also depends on the length, as you say. You might not
notice the/much difference between leads if they are very short. Even if
there's no difference in audio quality there can be tonal differences,
which can decide a users preference. I must confess however that I
missed that you were referring specifically to audio leads, since the
discussion was originally about A/V equipment. In the case of quality vs
cheap video leads the difference is very noticeable. I can even see the
difference between the various grades of Monster cable that I use. And
It comes down a lot to experimentation also, and compatibilities due to
differing specifications between various brands- assuming you have a
mixture from different makers as many ppl do. For example I get the best
picture with Monster cable level 1 leads with my Foxtel IQ box. If I use
higher grade the picture is actually worse, because the signal level
becomes too high.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Oh no!! we're out of chocolate!"

[Trevor Wilson]

**Like most over-simplifications, that is wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[felix_unger]

On 14-May-2013 10:03 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 14/05/2013 8:28 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>>>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>>>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>>>> having hi-fi sound).
>>>
>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.
>>
>> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock, like gold-plated connectors.
>> Plain
>> copper wires do a perfectly good job.
>>
>>
>
> The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
> oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection.

With audio sockets on the rear panel of amplifiers it's totally
unnecessary since the connection is so tight when the cable is connected
there's no air space for oxidation to occur.

> I've had enough trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the
> benefit of that. If course, better still is a screw clamped connector.
>
> Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/05/2013 10:41 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
> system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
> analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

I didn't say that the ear was digital, but the processing by the ear
involves the generation of nerve pulses by hair cells with the frequency
being encoded into which nerves are triggered, and amplitude by the the
pulse rate. What the brain gets is hardly analogue.

Sylvia

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

That's self-contradictory, David. You're essentially saying that
loudspeakers aren't electronic devices.

[DavidW]

felix_unger wrote:
> On 14-May-2013 9:35 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> I thought all you needed was low resistance. You can get that with
>> plain copper wire of reasonable thickness and as short as possible.
>> In the end, can you hear the difference?
>>
>
> I guess it depends on what equipment you have. I tested various leads
> on my audio system years ago and could hear differences between
> leads. I even tried household electrical cable, and that can work
> well as a cheap alternative. It also depends on the length, as you
> say. You might not notice the/much difference between leads if they
> are very short. Even if there's no difference in audio quality there
> can be tonal differences, which can decide a users preference. I must
> confess however that I missed that you were referring specifically to
> audio leads, since the discussion was originally about A/V equipment.
> In the case of quality vs cheap video leads the difference is very
> noticeable. I can even see the difference between the various grades
> of Monster cable that I use. And It comes down a lot to
> experimentation also, and compatibilities due to differing
> specifications between various brands- assuming you have a mixture
> from different makers as many ppl do.

Okay, but others have not heard the difference.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2849/do-expensive-premium-speaker-cables-actually-make-a-difference
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

[DavidW]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily
>> very tin
>
> **That would be: "....very THIN..."

Just as well you corrected that. I wondered what tin had to do with this.

[DavidW]

Not at all. You should have learnt by now not to go after me in the area of
expression and comprehension.

> You're essentially saying that loudspeakers aren't electronic devices.

Nope. I did not say that gold plating is very useful for _all_ connections in
_all_ electronic devices. I said that gold plating is very useful in
electronics, but I did not say to what extent.

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On May 14, 10:33 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
> > On May 14, 8:15 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> Yes, gold plating is very useful in electronics to ensure that good
> >> contact is maintained, but you don't need it for speakers. I think
> >> my speakers have gold-plated screw clamps. Looks nice, but the gold
> >> is unnecessary.
>
> > That's self-contradictory, David.
>
> Not at all. You should have learnt by now not to go after me in the area of
> expression and comprehension.

I'm not interested in "going after" you or anyone else, David. The
problem with your mode of expression is that it inhibits
comprehension. You're more interested in showing what a dickhead you
can be than in expressing yourself clearly. What I should have learnt
by now is not to bother reading anything you post, since you're just a
deliberately time-wasting cunt.

[DavidW]

Well, that touched a nerve, didn't it?

As for inhibiting comprehension, I would have thought that the very exclusion of
speakers indicated that by "very useful in electronics" I did not mean for _all_
connections. FPGAs are very useful in electronics too, but that doesn't mean
that every circuit should have one.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avd62a...@mid.individual.net...

Oh we are in for one of those "I can hear above 22kHz" arguments "but I
don't need to prove it even to myself of course!" :-)
OK, there are higher sampling rate options just for you! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:avdfii...@mid.individual.net...

Everyone gets an opinion which proves nothing about absolute performance,
only their personal auditory/brain connections.

> The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
> system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
> analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

And can be done so quite well, with performance FAR above any purely analog
system despite your spurious claims.

> For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
> using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape (15ips,
> played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
> through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
> vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
> revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
> contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).

Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of a
recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is the
mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
distortion, noise etc. over another.
Preferences are like assholes, everybody has one, and those who think theirs
is the only one that counts are the latter.


> FWIW: <snip>

Bugger all! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:avdita...@mid.individual.net...

Dead right, but then they have no idea what analog is. An "analog" tape
recorder using high frequency bias can be modelled as a sampled system, just
the same as a digital sampled system, but without the binary encoding. Both
use filtering to reconstruct as analog signals in the usual definition of
the word long before they ever reach the speakers, and then the auditory
system changes it all completely once again before it is interpreted by the
brain.
The weakest link of course is the auditory/brain interface, something the
golden ears claim they alone are immune from, as long as they don't ever
have to prove it! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:avdaof...@mid.individual.net...

>> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock,
>
> That shows how much you know then

Right, poor quality ones are often mechanically unreliable. Of course good
quality ones are not as expensive as the "magic smoke and mirror" ones :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kms6uc$7pl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> felix_unger wrote:
>> I guess it depends on what equipment you have. I tested various leads
>> on my audio system years ago and could hear differences between
>> leads. I even tried household electrical cable, and that can work
>> well as a cheap alternative. It also depends on the length, as you
>> say. You might not notice the/much difference between leads if they
>> are very short. Even if there's no difference in audio quality there
>> can be tonal differences, which can decide a users preference. I must
>> confess however that I missed that you were referring specifically to
>> audio leads, since the discussion was originally about A/V equipment.
>> In the case of quality vs cheap video leads the difference is very
>> noticeable. I can even see the difference between the various grades
>> of Monster cable that I use. And It comes down a lot to
>> experimentation also, and compatibilities due to differing
>> specifications between various brands- assuming you have a mixture
>> from different makers as many ppl do.
>
> Okay, but others have not heard the difference.
> http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2849/do-expensive-premium-speaker-cables-actually-make-a-difference
> http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

That's the beauty of uncontrolled tests conducted by themselves with
significant time gaps and all. You can delude yourself into any result you
like, but as long as you are happy, all is fine. When they claim their self
biased *opinion* to the world as fact though, they look like the idiots that
they are.
However there *are* differences in cables of course, using long lengths of
bell wire with giant amps is silly, and some interconnects have significant
inductance or capacitance that can cause problems in some cases. But the
biggest difference is usually the mechanical qualities.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:avddau...@mid.individual.net...

> The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
> oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection. I've had enough
> trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the benefit of that. If
> course, better still is a screw clamped connector.

Not necessarily, metal creep under pressure means screw clamps often loosen
over time.

Trevor.

[Trevor Wilson]

**_I_ don't claim to be able to hear past 22kHz. I don't doubt that some
can, however. Back in the 1970s, I worked for a medium sized importer of
hi fi equipment. I was asked to pop down to the new warehouse that the
company had leased. I walked in the door and immediately walked back
out. I found something intolerable about the place. I glanced around and
spotted some ultrasonic burglar alarm sensors. I located the power
supply and shut it off. I was then able to complete my job. I returned a
few days later with a micrphone, preamp, CRO and frequency counter. I
switched the system on and off and was able to see, very clearly, a high
level of 25kHz signal throughout much of the warehouse. Given that I had
already measured my own hearing and found that I could not reliably hear
past 19kHz, I was surprised. However, it is a common fallacy to assume
that human hearing 'cuts off' at 20kHz. It does not. It is severely
attenuated.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:avdfn1...@mid.individual.net...

> **Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily very
> tin and provides a poor choice for speaker connectors. Silver, which can
> be plated far more thickly, is a far better choice. It's superior
> conductivity is also a bonus.

But needs to be kept clean as the tarnish film that can form is not such a
good conductor.

Trevor.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Of course. Up until a few months ago, I might had disregarded the
opinions as nonsense. When a client dropped a 23 year old Marantz CD
player in for service, I took the time to carefully listen to it,
compared to my late model Harman Kardon. My heart sank, within a few
seconds of listening to the Marantz. The HK was not in the same league.
I assumed, as you do, that the printed specs tell me all I need to know.

>
>
>> The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
>> system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
>> analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.
>
> And can be done so quite well, with performance FAR above any purely analog
> system despite your spurious claims.

**And again, SOME digital systems are capable of exceptionally fine
performance. It depends on the system.

>
>
>> For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
>> using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape (15ips,
>> played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
>> through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
>> vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
>> revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
>> contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).
>
> Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of a
> recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is the
> mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
> distortion, noise etc. over another.

**Perhaps you failed to read what I wrote.

I had access to the same tapes that the vinyl and the CD was made from.
The music was Neil Diamond's Hot August Night. It was recorded on
analogue tape. The tape I used was a second generation master, stored by
EMI in their vaults. It was the same tape used to manufacture CDs.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor]

"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message

news:kmrpmm$42j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>
>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
>>> 'true' audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I
>>> would suggest.
>>
>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
>> to the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task
>> of faithful reproduction.
>

> If the quantised approximation is close enough, you cannot hear the
> difference, and it does have the advantage of perfect copyability and
> identical repeat playings.


And an "analog" tape recording is only "quantised" to the magentic particle
size anyway, and "sampled" at the high frequency bias rate! :-)
Not that an audiophool would understand that irony.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave475...@mid.individual.net...
<snip>

>However, it is a common fallacy to assume that human hearing 'cuts off' at
>20kHz. It does not. It is severely attenuated.

As are any remaining HF signals on vinyl and tape. Fortunately we now have
high sample rate digital if you really want to record those ultrasonic
alarms.

Trevor.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Typical bias frequencies lie about 110kHz for most tape systems. A
frequency which is well in excess of a 16/44 digital system. According
to Nyquist, that tells us a theoretical maximum frequency response in
excess of 50kHz. Well past 16/44 digital.




--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Silver easily forms a silver sulphide, which is highly conductive.
Silver oxide does not form easily. In any case, the reason for using
silver lies with it's ability to be thickly and robustly plated on high
current connectors. Something RF engineers have known for decades.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave4li...@mid.individual.net...

>> Everyone gets an opinion which proves nothing about absolute performance,
>> only their personal auditory/brain connections.
>
> **Of course. Up until a few months ago, I might had disregarded the
> opinions as nonsense. When a client dropped a 23 year old Marantz CD
> player in for service, I took the time to carefully listen to it, compared
> to my late model Harman Kardon. My heart sank, within a few seconds of
> listening to the Marantz. The HK was not in the same league. I assumed, as
> you do, that the printed specs tell me all I need to know.

Nope, never assume that. I never assume it is easy to audibly compare items
by simply swapping one for the other without carefully controlled test
conditions either.

> **And again, SOME digital systems are capable of exceptionally fine
> performance. It depends on the system.

Of course. The real benefit for most people is even a cheap CD player will
outperform a turntable costing many mutiples of it's price, and while some
CD's are badly mastered, finding vinyl that is *not* badly manufactured is a
far harder ask :-(

>>> For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
>>> using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape
>>> (15ips,
>>> played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
>>> through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
>>> vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
>>> revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
>>> contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).
>>
>> Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of
>> a
>> recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is
>> the
>> mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
>> distortion, noise etc. over another.
>
> **Perhaps you failed to read what I wrote.

No, the CD cannot be better than an analog master tape it came from, BUT it
can easily be better than a vinyl copy (or worse if the mastering is bad
enough), AND it can be far better if properly recorded digitally in the
first place.
Your test proved nothing other than your opinion of the different samples
you used for comparison.

> I had access to the same tapes that the vinyl and the CD was made from.

Which were all different after mastering for the different mediums as I
said.

> The music was Neil Diamond's Hot August Night. It was recorded on analogue
> tape. The tape I used was a second generation master, stored by EMI in
> their vaults. It was the same tape used to manufacture CDs.

So you don't understand that there are different processes involved in
getting a tape to vinyl or CD? The differences are easily measured, no need
for aural guessing games other than to establish personal preference of the
changes induced.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave7e2...@mid.individual.net...

>
> **Typical bias frequencies lie about 110kHz for most tape systems. A
> frequency which is well in excess of a 16/44 digital system. According to
> Nyquist, that tells us a theoretical maximum frequency response in excess
> of 50kHz. Well past 16/44 digital.

The original argument was sampling and quantisation didn't exist in analog
recording, not that the sample rate may be higher, or in fact lower than the
24/192 systems readily availble these days.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave7jb...@mid.individual.net...

Exactly, they are far better for RF use than audio, so that's where you
usually find them.

Trevor.