"Audiophile" digital cables are here mainly because someone asked himself how to trasfer a digital signal from one point to another with the least interference possible. This man is "Chris Sommovigo, the first one to manufacture a specially-designed digital cable.
Why not let him explain how the whole thing came out? Mr. Sommovigo, after my request, has written the following interesting article (exclusively for TNT-Audio) that will explain his views on the topic."
© Copyright 2002 Lucio Cadeddu -
http://www.tnt-audio.com "Digital Cables. Those two words when thrown together can spark a raging, vein-popping screaming debate between two otherwise friendly nuns ... not to mention what they do to audiophiles, especially audiophiles enamored of communication over internet news groups. Just point your reader to rec.audio.opinion and pose the question: "Do digital cables make a difference?" ? and then brace yourself for a brutal battle.
It will usually begin with a touch of eloquence, manners, even rather articulate examinations of the topic. It soon degrades into a lumpy-lipped drooling rage. Why?
It seems that some high-minded and educated individuals believe that the cable connecting a CD transport to a DAC cannot possibly have an effect upon the translation of the digital information that it carries. The argument "bits is bits, and them are bits" usually shows up in one form or another, soon to be followed by a usually incomplete examination of digital theory, error correction, noise shaping, Fletcher-Munson curves, Phase Locked Loops. Wielding this information like a priest might wield a crucifix against a particularly nasty vampire, the denizens of this philosophical camp are usually disappointed when the intended victim of their diatribe doesn't readily disappear in a puff of green smoke. Instead, the scurrilous heathen simply fire back from their "subjectivist" viewpoint that, regardless of what the theory may have to say about the audibility of variations in digital cables, there is an impressively large group of people who have for many years observed and appreciated the audible differences between digital cables.
This is just another layer heaped on top of the whole "audiophile cable" debate that has raged for at least two decades. While Dilbert after Dilbert launches theoretical stone after theoretical stone at the audiophile analog and digital cable world from their own flat-earth, terra-centric universe, the fact remains that over the last 20 years the industry has grown to accept and appreciate the sonic contributions that audiophile cables have made. However, there was a bit of splintering back in the day when digital cables first showed up on the scene ? some fence-riders accepted the ability of analog cables contributing to the overall sonic presentation of the hi-fi system, but couldn't reconcile that a digital cable could have a similar effect. Their understanding of the digital equation, based largely on incomplete marketing materials, disallowed the digital cable phenomenon. A short-lived victory for the flat-earthers, because the high-end specialized digital cable had quickly become accepted as another important piece of the audio-rig, a component in and of itself.
The initial rise in popularity of separate digital components must be directly credited to Audio Alchemy. Indirectly, one might also credit them with the rise in awareness about the digital cable debate and digital cables in general. The reason is fairly simple: Audio Alchemy was the first to make a truly inexpensive outboard digital to analog converter, the DDE. When the DDE was released it sold like crazy. For the first time regular Joes, audiophiles on a budget, enjoyed the luxury of an outboard DAC and took advantage of that mysterious single RCA jack on the back of their CD players. Thousands upon thousands of DDE's sold around the world to people who suddenly were in need of, you guessed it, digital cables.
Much of the industry initially responded with an unfortunate supply of "digital" cables that were essentially just the analog interconnect cables that they had already been selling, one length broken out of a pair and repackaged for the purpose. The standards for S/PDIF interface (Sony/Philips Digital InterFace) were either largely misunderstood or largely ignored. That's when I jumped in with my first product, the DataStream Reference digital cable. It was a true 75 Ohm semirigid cable, stiff as virgin on prom night, and sported two huge, bulbous connectors that could have been equally at home on the business-end of a hookah. They were shaped that way so that they could extend the 75 Ohm impedance characteristic as far as possible before terminating into the RCA jack on the target DAC. The Illuminati DataStream Reference had the world's very first 75 Ohm RCA plugs. THAT got enough attention from a few of the right people that I was able to actually get the ugly thing listened to. It was actually the first cable to break The $ensible $ound barrier with a fantastic reception by Gerald Burt. A couple of more decent reviews later and the news would be out: digital cables matter, and the proof was the DataStream Reference.
Why did it make a difference? The upshot of the theory was that it provided a correct impedance match for what was essentially an RF interface, and as such allowed for an appropriate bandwidth and didn't allow for as many signal reflections as competitive products did. The important part was that it was probably the first truly proper cable for this relatively new interface, and it was being appreciated.
Over the following couple of years I developed a flexible version of that cable, marketed as the model D-60 and also as the DataFlex Studio. The D-60 was to the digital cable world what the DDE was to the DAC world, and soon the D-60 was the ubiquitous reference digital cable. Good timing, great product, lots of luck and no complaints. The D-60 remains unchanged, still marketed worldwide and still used in both home and professional audio systems.
What made that cable so different from its competition was the attention to the needs of the interface and the standard imposed by the interface. This was my brand of design, my philosophy for getting the most out of the potential of the interface. But it would be short-sighted and unfair of me not to mention that there were plenty of people who didn't prefer the D-60 in their systems and that actually chose cables that did not necessarily adhere to the standards of the interface. While my formula for success was based upon the certain technical requirements of the interface standard, others have enjoyed success with wholly different approaches to the problem. Even today you will find a variety of design approaches in digital cable products, and a variety of adherents to each and every one of them.
As an audiophile and music lover I appreciate the efforts that have been put forth by others in this industry trying to solve the digital cable conundrum. It's at the very least an incredibly interesting subject to participate in and also very satisfying to explore experientially. That is what our beloved editor has embarked upon in this shootout: an exploration of the experience of listening to different digital cables without regard for the technology or philosophy governing their construction ? just an appreciation for their effect on the music as noted by pure observation.
If repetition and replication can be said to be the mother of scientific method, then observation must necessarily be its father. That is what the babbling, lumpy-lipped flat-earthers fail to appreciate when they scream raging Papisms from the Audio Vatican. Good science is founded upon observation, bad science is trapped on paper. What's it mean? It means that no one can choose a girl or a digital cable for you. Trust your own observations."
Courtesy by © 2002 Chris Sommovigo exclusively for TNT-Audio
Just my little contribution in stiring the $#!T!!
Everyone have a Happy 4th of July!!!
Previous Topic
Index