Digital Coaxial Cable

[Platypus]

Anyone know if this is (basically) the same as a bog-standard "phono" lead ?

[miffy]

Anyone know if this is (basically) the same as a bog-standard "phono" lead ?

Indeed it is.

[Platypus]

Indeed it is.

So any reason why I should use a "digital" one versus a standard one? I have no desire to spend £10+ on a fancy cable if a regular cable will do the job!

[crack_ho]

Anyone know if this is (basically) the same as a bog-standard "phono" lead ?

No, they have different resisitance.
Digital is 75ohms and normal phono is 50ohms or something.
But as normal with hifi it is probably a marketing scam and makes no difference.

[scooterscot]

Depends what you're going to use it for.

The difference between the two can be down to the quality of the dielectric, which is what carries the information.

If it's audio well who cares unless you've got ears on you that can detect those small imperfections.

If it's bulk data you pushing down some low quality cable then expect errors to be more frequent, although saying that this used to by the case in analogue systems.

[ctdctd]

For a digital signal the cable quality makes no difference.
So use the cheapest cable that works - and any old phono to phono cable has always worked fine for me.

[Platypus]

For a digital signal the cable quality makes no difference.
So use the cheapest cable that works - and any old phono to phono cable has always worked fine for me.

Thanks

[expat]

Depends what you're going to use it for.

The difference between the two can be down to the quality of the dielectric, which is what carries the information.

Whoa, well, no, not unless you're going down to Maxwell's equations.

In everyday electrical terms, the dielectric is the insulator between the conductors, and the conductorus are what carriy the information.

True, though, the quality of the dielectric and its construction will afect the transmission, as of course will matching the cable's impedance to that of the equipment on either end.

Digital? Digital what?

[scooterscot]

Whoa, well, no, not unless you're going down to Maxwell's equations.

In everyday electrical terms, the dielectric is the insulator between the conductors, and the conductorus are what carriy the information.

True, though, the quality of the dielectric and its construction will afect the transmission, as of course will matching the cable's impedance to that of the equipment on either end.

Digital? Digital what?

Well unfortunately signal transmission is not all about the electrical, sure if it were only to power the table lamp then nothing else need be considered.

The purpose of the dielectric is to maintain the field integrity, without this, information would be lost, especially at high frequency. The outer layer conductor is more of a shield than a conductor. Maxwell himself showed that the field propagated through the void of the dielectric, electromagnetism he called it - proved a big hit in the 19th century...

Top end cables have a minimum recommended bend radius designed to protect the quality of the dielectric after installation. I've seen signal degradation increase/bit error rate occur when this has been exceeded despite the conductors remaining perfectly intact.

If the dielectric were the only the insulator, do you not think they would have gone along with insulator instead of dielectric?

[expat]

Well unfortunately signal transmission is not all about the electrical, sure if it were only to power the table lamp then nothing else need be considered.

The purpose of the dielectric is to maintain the field integrity, without this, information would be lost, especially at high frequency. The outer layer conductor is more of a shield than a conductor. Maxwell himself showed that the field propagated through the void of the dielectric, electromagnetism he called it - proved a big hit in the 19th century...

Top end cables have a minimum recommended bend radius designed to protect the quality of the dielectric after installation. I've seen signal degradation increase/bit error rate occur when this has been exceeded despite the conductors remaining perfectly intact.

If the dielectric were the only the insulator, do you not think they would have gone along with insulator instead of dielectric?

Like, what I said. If you think only electrical, it's carried in conductors. If you think electromagnetic field, it's carried in the space between the conductors (though that's a bit of an electrician's view, it's really present in the conductors and their arrangement in space-time. "Really" meaning in Newtonian and imminent post-Newtonian* physics). Then it becomes a bit like bricklaying (does the mortar hold the bricks together or hold them apart?) but the EM field is never carried by the dielectric, though you could say it is carried by the space between the conductors, whose (the space's) characteristics are modified by the dielectric. dielectric = the stuff between the conductors = the insulator, you just usually call it dielectric when you're talking about alternating EM fields, insulator when you're merely bothered about keeping potentials apart. Things like bend, radius not to mention consistency of dielectric thickness with and without external pressure, do of course affect the spacing of the conductors (I should say the 4-space configuration) and therefore the characteristics of the field.

* I say imminent post-Newtonian physis because there is really no dividing line between Newtonian and non-Newtonian. The premises inherent in Newtonian physics themselves lead to post-Newtonian physics, which is why Einstein could develop Relativity by what he unfortunately called "thought experiments", not experiments at all but ways of deducing what unexpected results were implicitly lurking already in Newtonian physics. So, unlike Capitalism, Newtonian physics does contain the seeds of its own destruction. But perhaps I digress from the question of what kind of cable would be sufficient.....