ive tried both older red an white rca cables and monster digital coax cables from my dvd coax output to reciever coax input....i still get 5.1 with bothe cables and i cant hear a differance in sound quality and im playing the same movie and chapter 'the matrix revolutions' the big fight scene with alot of agent smiths.....that scene has alot of sound effects yet bothe cables do fine there to my ears at least....since i wach movies with freinds an family i wanna make sure they get good sound too....i dont know if its just my ears that doesnt hear any differance....so my ? is have any of u tried these bothe type of cables and wat were your results....was ther any differance to any of you......please help
Yes. But the differences were subtle and very much depended on the cable. There was an audible difference between Kimber cable and those made by XLO, for example. I found it easier to determine the differences in audio applications than when listening to and viewing high energy video. In the end, however, what is really important is whether you can tell a difference. If you hear no diference, why bother with the expensive stuff just because someone else might hear a difference?
you will never get true surround sound using rca cables unless you use the 5.1 analog outputs. you reciever will do some fudging to make it sound like surround. if you use coax the reciever is getting a digital signal meaning the reciever can do the sorting out of what sounds go where giving you better surround effects. i highly doubt you were really getting 5.1 with just two rca plugs, that is only left and right channels.
yea probably. if you are happy with the effects from the rca then you dont have to, but you are not getting the real surround effect that was intended. if anything, you should use 5.1 analog but not many of the lower end dvd players sound good using that. if your dvd player isnt that good, use the reciever's dac.
jay, a DAC is digital to analog converter. it converts the digital data of cds and dvds to analog since a speaker really only understands an analog signal. at some point in order to get the electrical impulses that turn to sound there has to be a conversion. using analog interconnects automatically uses the player's dac. using some digital interconnect allows the reciever or the what ever is on the other side to do all the appropriate conversions. if you have a $500 reciever and a $50 dvd player, i would go with digital interconnects. better dvd players use better components so it wouldnt hurt. if your reciever supports analog 5.1/6.1 inputs and you have a dvd player with 5.1/6.1 analog outputs then you are more than welcome to try them out.
I'm using a Denon 3803 and a cheap JVC DVD player for the moment. BUT, I've got a Denon 2200 that's supposed to show up tomorrow. So, it sounds like I should be using coaxial or analog, what's your recommendation with the above setup?
The Denon is powering 5.1 channel with Ascend CBM-170s and an Ascend 340C center. I'm thinking that the RCAs, and the cheap JVC, may be the reason that the surround doesn't really provide proper imaging, am I correct? Thanks, Dave.
most likely. my dad had a really old reciever that was meant to turn the common stereo system to a HT by adding the center and surround channels to an existing stereo system. i think the combo of no real surround signal from using only regular rca cables with a bad dvd player the surround effects were pretty bad. when i gave him a marantz sr4400 my mom jumped when she heard the surround effects much more clearly, partly due to use of coax digital. so thats my long answer.
sbs8
Unregistered guest
Posted on
After reading a number of reviews on coax vs. rca cables, I took the cheap route of using an rca cable to connect my pc's soundcard to my stereo via the coax jack. However, every 15min or so my sound pauses for a half-second. Is this related to the cable or this a separate issue?