Silver Digital Magic

**RisingPhoenix** · 26 June 2004, 23:58 Saturday

Hi Geoff, that review has opened my eyes also, what was the freight inclusive price here to Australia?

Maybe Bulk purchase ?

Steve

**Aussie Geoff** · 27 June 2004, 01:04 Sunday

Hi,

Lex sells them for US$ 140 each - my shipping for 2 cables was $US 20 (US Express Post). Contact him on doug@catcables.com and see.

Geoff

**Andrew Pratt** · 27 June 2004, 10:56 Sunday

I'm ordering some of Lex's Sliver analogue cables to see what they do

I love my SilverCats and you're right they are very special cables that will last a very long time in my system

**RisingPhoenix** · 27 June 2004, 22:22 Sunday

So are these just a analog interconnect being used for a digital interconnect?

Which actual Cable are they?

Steve

**Aussie Geoff** · 28 June 2004, 00:05 Monday

They are Special Digital Cables :-)

Steve,

These are special 75 Ohm pure silver coax cable with 75 Ohm Solid Silver Pin LOK RCA connectors. They are made for Digital Audio (and can also be used for Video) but the impedence is wrong for Analog work. They are not on Doug's www.catcables.com Web site - just available by special order...

Geoff

**RisingPhoenix** · 28 June 2004, 04:51 Monday

Geoff,

Thanks for clearing that up, i was losing my mind trying to find them on the website, thinking to myself, "Surely these wonderful cables ARE 75 Ohm and its just i cant find them on this site!"

I shouldve trusted my paranoid brain.. do i just email Doug and he knows what i am after? or is there a part code ?

Steve

**Aussie Geoff** · 28 June 2004, 08:16 Monday

Steve,

Yes - just Email Doug at doug@catcables.com and ask about the very special Pure Silver Coax's he sold Aussie Geoff (+ Chris D etc) and he will look after you....

Every one is made by hand by Doug to your required length and "cooked" in a cable cooker for 2 days to meet an order...

Geoff

**mattstacey** · 30 June 2004, 07:07 Wednesday

Guys

I went for a visit to Geoff's place to hear these "magic silver" cables and boy are they impressive. Geoff is not exaggerating one little bit when he says the difference is startling. I heard Geoff 1098 setup before he got the cables and for me it was like night and day. I kept thinking he had upgraded something major in his system.

I just ordered 2 cables for myself. The 2nd cable is for a CD player I don't even have yet.

If you have not considered an upgrade of your digital coax cable before now I urge you to do so. For the price they are an incredibility cheap way to improve you home theater experience. I would go so far as to say that Geoff's 1098 sound quality has improved by at least 50%.......
:T

**kneptune** · 30 June 2004, 11:43 Wednesday

Quote - "Previously the analogue input from my Rotel RCD-1072 was clearly superior to the digital. Now it is the other way round"

Geoff,

You mention above that you are using the digital OUT from your RCD-1072 into the RSP-1098 using the new silver coax. I want to make sure that I understood you - are you saying that the RCD-1072 to RSP-1098 digital connection and resulting DAC coversion in the 1098 is better sounding than the RCD-1072's analog output (very favourably reviewed in the current hi-fi circle) through the 1098's bypass?

I would think that the DAC conversion is better in the RCD-1072 than the results from upgrading/adding a digital cable into the RSP-1098 and using its arguably inferior DACs.

Can you reconfirm and/or re-elaborate on this?

Thanks,
Kevin

**Aussie Geoff** · 30 June 2004, 18:25 Wednesday

Kevin,

Are you saying that the RCD-1072 to RSP-1098 digital connection and resulting DAC conversion in the 1098 is better sounding than the RCD-1072's analog output (very favourably reviewed in the current hi-fi circle) through the 1098's bypass?

The short answer is "Yes"....

With the Silver Digital Cable the sound is substantially more detailed and enjoyable with the Digital input than the Analog input (The Analog is still very good though not as transparent). Now this too surprised me (and others who have listened). So I have put it down to the sonic benefits (however achieved) of the Silver Coax... I have ordered some of Doug’s www.catcables.com Silver Kingcat cables with silver Pins etc to replace my existing Van den Hul 102 III Hybrid Analog Cables to see if that will reverse the effect..

Geoff

**Dr C** · 30 June 2004, 20:54 Wednesday

Previously the sound from my CD player was significantly better than my DVD player. This is due to the fact that the CD player uses 192kHz upsampling as compared to the made in China DVD player (quite ok but sonically was not a match - was waiting to see how the multichannel formats + blue laser thingy + DVDRW + DVD HDisk would take off before plunking good money down). The sound of the DVD was dark (digital out and processed by my RSP1066) compared to the analog brightness of te CD player.

Well I recently purchased an AC power conditioner which gave better bass (specifically I think added more mid bass) which affected the total balance and darkened the overall sound. I then decided to get silver cables to open up the system (and was seeking to upgrade my cables after mulling around for half a year) and decided to use CatCables for my analog connections as well as the DVD digital cable. Discussed with Doug/Lex and finally settled on SilverCats and the new digital silver cable.

Well the cables arrived last nite and i plugged 'em in. The SilverCats improved the sound (not dramatically as I was also using good cables) and I'm very satisfied with them. I now hear better sibilence and a generally sweeter sound. Anyways its early days yet and I have to do several more days of tests.

The surprising thing for me was the digital silver coax. After replacing the former Ecosse coax, things just sounded ... better

Based on a short A-B last nite, it had the effect of transforming the China made DVD many levels above. sound is now very very close to the SilverCat equipped CD player :B

I am quite the sceptic and try to be as objective as I can but ... if you need to change your digital coax, go for Doug's silver ones. I can honestly say you won't regret it :T

Don't forget the SilverCats !

**Aussie Geoff** · 01 July 2004, 07:27 Thursday

Dr C,

Interesting - and great to hear that someone else had a similar experience... (inexplicable as it may all be.

)

I'd be curious to hear how you go with trying the Silver Coax in the CD player - and seeing what effect that has for CD playing - if it's like my system - and takes the CD digital on the same 'several levels up" journey in quality to a level well above the DVD player, then you are in for something special... Though you've got the 192Kz up sampling in your CD player, which with the Silver Analogue cables may (should?) keep the CD analogue best of all...

Either way you (like me) are well ahead...

Geoff

**Dr C** · 01 July 2004, 22:23 Thursday

Hi Geoff

Unfortunately couldn't use the digital silver coax on my CD player as the digital connection is BNC. didn't feel a need to do this early on as I compared this BNC digital connection to the (non CatCables at that time) analog connection and the analog was clearly better. Now that the sound quality of the cheaper DVD player (using the RSP1066's decoding) is very close to the dedicated CD player, I might just put down some moolah and get a high end DVD player (donations most welcome

)

As for the other folks reading this ...

Day 2 of my testing the new silver cable. Popped in the Hell Freezes Over DVD that Geoff used and I was astounded ! Quite evident in the L/C/R speakers but spectacularly more in the surround. I heard percussion sounds i never heard before from the rear speakers. Sound was also louder - haven't checked my calibration yet - but even if it was a calibration issue, then the silver cable certainly let in more signal ... which cannot be a bad thing. The guitar plaiyng in Hotel california sounded more crisp and the bass drum was less boomy. I stand by my ears that there is extra info and I hurridly played other DVDs to compare. The sound on Linkin Park's Live in Texas DVD was jaw dropping awesome :E .

Go get one now :T

**mattstacey** · 19 July 2004, 08:06 Monday

Just spent the first weekend with my new Silver cat cable. Now I need to make sure I don't too excited when I write this.

I have tried the cable on both my LG DVD player and my RCD-1072 CD player and the results with both were immediate, obvious and simply startling.

Firstly DVD. The first thing you notice is the clarity. It's almost too clean (notice I said almost.......

). It makes the surround effect much more realistic and dynamic. The step up was like going from a receiver to seperates. DD tracks start to sound like DTS ES tracks in regard to the overall surround effect. I think it comes down to the additional clarity which gives you the sense of more realistic sound.

Now admittedly I went from a Monster standard coax to the silver cat. Not there is anything wrong with the monster cable but I would hardly say this was a high-end cable. I have always been told with digital cables (optical and coax and very much so with coax) not to spend too much money just get a decent low cost cable and that you would be hard pressed to hear the difference with top end cables. Now I know this to be wrong advice given the more than reasonable price of the Cat cable.

Next comes the RCD-1072. The biggest difference is in the clarity of the vocals. It makes the sound so clear that the slightest blemish in the recording becomes obvious (might annoy some). With good recordings like, Norah Jones the clarity of the vocals and individual instruments is amazing. Almost like a speaker upgrade....(those B&W 802's can wait a little longer).
Another interesting improvement is in the quality of the bass. It seems tighter and with music this makes a big difference. The bass does not linger in the slightest which I found was the case with the monster coax.

On the whole I would say this is the best bang for the buck upgrade I have ever done. Do yourself a favor and order one. Your won't regret it, I promise. :T

**kneptune** · 19 July 2004, 10:23 Monday

Matt,

In regard to your 2-channel observations -- so you are saying that you prefer the digital output of your RCD-1072 via the SilverCat coax into the RSP1066's D/A converters (and resultant output) over the RCD-1072's analog output through the 1066’s bypass mode?

The RCD-1072's analog output is currently pretty well acclaimed.

Just wanted to clarify here, as the D/A converters in the RCD-1072 are arguably better than the 1066's.

So I take it that you recommend buying two cables, one for your DVD player and a second for the 1072?

Thanks,
Kevin

**pciav** · 19 July 2004, 13:29 Monday

I need help understanding the phenomena here.

I am at a crossroad right now. I recently upgraded from a Yamaha RX-Z1 Receiver to a Rotel RT-1080 Tuner, RSP-1068 SSP, and an ATI 1806 AMP. I have in place what I feel are well made and excellent performing cables and my system sounds great, yet I have myself looking at upgrading to Silvercats from the Pre-Amp to AMP and inquiring about the Silver Digital Coax.

I believe in using quality cables and have contacted Doug about Silvercats and the Silver Digital Coax. I currently run Blue Jeans Cable for Digital Coax and Component Video and Rhino Cable’s (R.I.P.) for Analog Interconnects from the Pre-Amp to the Amp.

I understand how a quality Analog Interconnect or should I say lack of a quality Analog Interconnect can have an affect on a system, but a Digital Cable?? Be it Optical or Coax, unless there is something wrong with the cable, the transmitter, or the receiver, the cable should have no bearing on the sound. If cable A sends 110001011000 and cable B sends 110001011000, then it is impossible for it to sound different, isn’t it? The digital signal is decoded and managed in the processor; the same 110001011000 should not sound different regardless of the cable used.

I am not doubting any of the opinions given here, just trying to understand. Can anyone explain it? Thanks in advance.

Phil C.

**Aussie Geoff** · 20 July 2004, 02:42 Tuesday

Well - since you asked...

Phil C,

I understand your dilemma - it has driven me mad trying to understand it to. In the end I have decided to "go with the flow" and trust my ears. Basically if it sounds better, I am happy with it... For what it is worth this has lead me down the path of trying more "black magic" such as better speaker cable, bi-wiring and power conditioners, and for each component, while many haven't worked - I have been able to find some that made very worthwhile improvements... So I'm happier than ever.

That aside, let me summarise what I've managed to find out about the physics of the issue.

The SPDIF Signal (see HERE and HERE for more information) when sent over coax is an analogue signal carrying an encoded digital source. The signal occupies a bandwidth from 100kHz up to 6Mhz with a varying carrier frequency depending on the underlying digital clock rate. For example: 2.8Mhz (Fs=44.1kHz), 2Mhz (Fs=32kHz), 3.1Mhz (Fs=48kHz) and 6.2Mhz (Fs=96KHz). Message: The cable is carrying a high frequency analogue signal and is this susceptible to the same issues as other analogue signals.

SPDIF does not have the fancy multi-bit error correction that the source CD or DVD does, just a basic parity bit to detect single bit errors in the signal. Message: Many errors in the signal will not be corrected and could therefore degrade the sound

The digital clock in the signal (e.g. 44.1 KHz for CD PCM) is derived from the transmitted signal by the receiving device. Small errors in the timing of the signal (known as Jitter) can affect the clock rate and create measurable distortion in the received signal (try THIS link) or do a GOOGLE search… Message: Jitter introduced by a cable (or any source) is known to create distortion

Some high end DACs (separate Digital to Analogue converters) and high end HT Processors incorporate phase lock loop clock recovery regenerators to retime the received signal and eliminate introduced jitter… I haven’t yet been able to find one of these to try the cable on…

For some really in depth explanations I highly recommend THIS source including THIS article on the Perceptual Encoding scheme used by Dolby Digital and (varied) by DTS.

So, that’s some possible reasons that are comforting: However undeniably there is also “weirdness” happening here. For example:

How the cable could consistently create tighter bass, more detailed highs and a more transparent sound? The digitally encoded sound waves are 1s and 0s and they don’t know the difference between bass and treble – its just numbers representing a waveform
How the improvement can apply to signals encoded using quite different standards such as PCM (CDs) Dolby Digital, DTS and MPEG (Stereo DVD sound)? Here we have very different patterns of 1s and zeros representing the same sound. Indeed for DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 we have 6 channels of sound all interleaved – how can a cable make a difference to the treble of those signals?
Why Silver cable should have a (seemingly valid) reputation for detailed highs and transparency for both analogue and digital? Nothing could be more different that a digital representation of analogue and the original analogue signal – indeed, encoded at 3Mz all the digital signal (even bass) is like the ultimate high frequency analogue…
How we hear minor changes in amplifier or cable distortion through speakers that typically have distortions of 0.5 to 1.0% or more ?

One thing I do know is that digital sound, especially Dolby and DTS is very complex, so there’s a lot to go wrong (or right). Try this for a “simplified” explanation of Dolby Digital encoding from the reference link above:

The encoder first uses an analysis filter bank to transform the time domain LPCM samples into frequency domain coefficients. Blocks of 512 samples are collected and analysed with a band pass filter to detect transients. Transients demand special attention, such as more precise time-domain resolution, so that the encoder will not introduce quantization noise. Blocks are windowed and processed with an adaptive filter bank. A mathematical transform is employed to convert the time-based signal into frequency domain coefficients. The input to the transform is 512 time-domain points while the output is 256 frequency domain coefficients. There are a total of 50 bands between 0 and 24kHz, and the bandwidths vary between 3/4 and 1/4 of critical band values, giving a good approximation to the ear's response.

Each coefficient is represented in binary exponential notation as a binary exponent (0 to 16 bits) and binary mantissa (5 bits). Sets of exponents, referred to as the spectral envelope, are encoded into a coarse representation of the signal spectrum. The spectral envelopes are used by the bit allocation routine to determine the number of bits needed to code each mantissa. The spectral envelope and quantized mantissas for 6 audio blocks (1536 audio samples) is formatted into a frame for transmission. Somewhat uniquely, Dolby Digital uses hybrid backward/forward adaptive bit allocation in which an adaptive allocation routine operates in both the encoder and decoder.

The model defines the spectral envelope that is encoded in the bit stream. The encoder contains a core psychoacoustic model, but can employ a different model and compare results. If desired, the encoder can use the data syntax to code parameter variations in the core model, or convey explicit bit allocation information, to improve results.

So in the end – it could be normal science (as above). It could be weird science (Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Theory), I don’t think is it mass delusion – since so many people can hear it. It may even be “magic” – but it sure sounds great…

Geoff

**pciav** · 20 July 2004, 06:45 Tuesday

Thanks Geoff. Great stuff there. I will do more than skim through it. I will probably just take the plunge and take a stab at ordering the cables and trying them out in my system. The worst thing that could happen is that I do not hear a difference and return the cables.

Thanks again for the response and all the great Rotel info you have provided.

Phil

**mattstacey** · 20 July 2004, 06:46 Tuesday

Originally posted by kneptune

Matt,

In regard to your 2-channel observations -- so you are saying that you prefer the digital output of your RCD-1072 via the SilverCat coax into the RSP1066's D/A converters (and resultant output) over the RCD-1072's analog output through the 1066’s bypass mode?

The RCD-1072's analog output is currently pretty well acclaimed.

Just wanted to clarify here, as the D/A converters in the RCD-1072 are arguably better than the 1066's.

So I take it that you recommend buying two cables, one for your DVD player and a second for the 1072?

Thanks,
Kevin

Kevin, I can confirm at this early stage in my listening comparisons that the digital output via the silvercat cable sounds superior to the analogue outputs of the RCD-1072. Why not buy one for the DVD player and give it a go on the CD. If you like the sound buy a second cable.

I have edited my reply. Further to the above I had to go and do some more direct analgue and digital (silver cat) comparisons with the RCD-1072. The analogue sounds great, no question. It's just that the silvercats off that bit extra detail. What is blindingly obvious is the extra dynamic range and tightness in bass. It's exciting to hear the difference.

I'm really looking forward to doing some more listening over the next few days. :B

**Aussie Geoff** · 20 July 2004, 07:59 Tuesday

Well Since you Asked (part 2) ....

Phil (and others),

Writing the answer to your query made me think harder... (always good to do

)

Let me confess something – one of the things that I have really noticed with the Silver Digital Coax is a seemingly much greater dynamic range with Dolby Digital and DTS sound tracks. There is (as far as the ear perceives) a significantly greater difference between the loud and the soft parts of the sound track. I didn’t put this down in my review because it seemed completely inexplicable and my review was "excited" enough already and I didn't want people to think I was "on another planet"...

Now on the weekend I received more Silver Coaxes and have them on everything. My family actually complained today that the DVD player was faulty because on a particular DVD they had to turn it up to -10db on reference for really clear dialogue. At this volume speech was fine, but special effects, bass etc were “theatre like” in impact… We are getting a similar effect on the Digital TV, now connected by the Silver Coax where for some channels and shows we are having to turn it up lounder, or are noticing a much greater difference between loud an soft sounds... With the whole family hearing this dynamic range change - I've started to feel more confident in talking about it... (sounds like a disease

ops: )

And so I did some more research...

First some quotes from cable suppliers:

High velocity of propagation for greater clarity and dynamic range.

Low capacitance with fast rise time construction for sharp square waves to reduce effects of jitter.

The resulting reduction in jitter-causing dispersion in the digital datastream means smoother, more natural sound.

Jitter is a non linear distortion, a temporary fluctuation of the digital audio signal that it reduces dynamic range and clarity, while compressing the soundstage and significantly raising the noise floor. Your CDs and movie titles will sound good - not great.

… reduce cable-induced jitter and substantially lowers the noise floor. .... You’ll hear increased dynamic range, a more three-dimensional soundstage, pinpoint imaging and superb clarity.

Message: The high end digital cable makers claims re dynamic range, smoother more natural sound, imaging etc are exactly what I and the others are hearing from the Silver Coax. Note the focus on Jitter.

Now lets look at an article from the professional www.broadcastengineering.com web site on the digital recording and what can go wrong (Broadcast Engineering is the industry journal for TV, Cable and Satellite Broadcast engineers, and this is their companion website). Let me quote.

But keeping audio in a digital format does not automatically guarantee perfection. The notion that a signal comprised only of ones and zeros is immune to degradation is seductive, but misleading. Digital signals are affected by crosstalk, noise, cable length, poor circuit design and other factors that can ultimately translate into audible problems.

Many of these mechanisms of degradation are not obvious. This article describes what can go wrong, what effects to look for and what you can do about it.

Tempted then read the full article HERE – it’s worth it!

Message: Professional broadcast engineers agree that there are a number of issues that affect the quality of digital audio. Of interest is the articles strong focus (lots of diagrams etc) in Jitter.

Now let’s look at this article by Randy Boudreaux, Senior Staff Systems Engineer, Cirrus Logic, published in the Design and Reuse website HERE with the title “Timing key to optimizing audio performance in consumer products”.
Let me quote the introduction:

The generation and management of accurate, low-jitter clocks are key to quality audio in today's digital home and automotive entertainment systems. A typical A/V device such as an A/V receiver or DVD receiver has to play back audio content from a number of sources. These devices have to be able to switch from sampled analog audio from a VCR to a CD player's S/PDIF digital output to compressed digital audio/video from a DVD disk. Using the appropriate audio converter clock for each of these sources helps ensure the best audio performance.
Due to non-ideal sources of audio master clocks such as phase lock loops (PLLs) used for audio/video synchronization and clock recovery from an S/PDIF data stream, clock jitter has become the main deterrent to producing quality audio. As little as 1 to 2 nanoseconds of clock jitter can cause a large degradation in the system's ability to play back a wide range of audio content (dynamic range) and an increase o f harmonic distortion.

The loss in a system's dynamic range is due to the increase in the noise floor. A high noise floor can cause a hissing sound when played back over the system speakers. Background hiss is most apparent during a quiet movie scene or a soft passage in a classical music recording. And audio captured with a system with inadequate dynamic range will always sound inferior.

Message: Designers of hardware (including the Cirrus hardware used in the Rotel Processors) focus on reducing clock jitter to increase dynamic range and reduce harmonic distortion.

Hmmmm…. :dothewave:

It’s a fair guess then that one of the benefits in the Silver Coax is something that reduced the level of jitter (maybe avoids adding jitter?) in the transmitted signal. I’d also suggest that if this is true, then high end DACs and Processors incorporating phase lock loop clock recovery and regeneration from the digital source are less likely to see the major step-up in benefits from the Silver Coax than other equipment (just a theory). But for the 99+% of us that don’t have this very special equipment – The Silver Coax cable may be a very good answer indeed…

I know mine make beautiful ;b>

Geoff

**Stevebez** · 20 July 2004, 08:28 Tuesday

Fabulous insight there AG.... will definitely look into those articles.!

Rgsd Steve.

**pciav** · 20 July 2004, 08:34 Tuesday

Thanks again Geoff. Lots of reading, lots of reading...

**whmacs** · 20 July 2004, 22:23 Tuesday

Hi All,
I received my silver coax yesterday from Doug (after reading Geoff's posts) and connected it up last night. As I am bias ( after paying $150 Australian, I want it to sound better!). I carried out a blind test on my wife. My wife has no interest in HT and will call it as she sees or hears it! I put on the Eagles 'Hell freezes over' DVD and let her listen for a few minutes. I then went and swapped in the new silver coax cable and played the same piece again. I then as asked her what sounded better (I didn't tell her what I did, she would kill me if I told her I spent $150 on a cable! :x ) She stated that the sound was much clear and she could here the voices a lot better. We then watched a movie and found that we could have the volume four or five notches lower while still maintaining the clarity of the dialogue. All this thanks to the silver coax cable from Doug. I don't really understand how a digital cable can make such a difference (its all 0's and 1's) but on my system RSP-1098 / RMB-1075 / RB-1070 / Sony DVD player /Jamo THX Speakers it seems to improve things.

cheers,
Stephen

**pciav** · 21 July 2004, 06:19 Wednesday

The phenomenon continues… Stephen, I am curious, what brand of cable did you replace? Thanks.

Phil

**whmacs** · 21 July 2004, 18:29 Wednesday

Hi Phil,
It was a Premier OFC coaxial cable, a modest priced cable. So in my case I went from an average cable to a good quality one. I'd never spent much on digital cables became I only thought of them as cables that pass 0's and 1's and not analogue signals.

cheers,
Stephen

**chrispy35** · 22 July 2004, 15:33 Thursday

Originally posted by Aussie Geoff

That aside, let me summarise what I've managed to find out about the physics of the issue.

The SPDIF Signal (see HERE and HERE for more information) when sent over coax is an analogue signal carrying an encoded digital source. The signal occupies a bandwidth from 100kHz up to 6Mhz with a varying carrier frequency depending on the underlying digital clock rate. For example: 2.8Mhz (Fs=44.1kHz), 2Mhz (Fs=32kHz), 3.1Mhz (Fs=48kHz) and 6.2Mhz (Fs=96KHz). Message: The cable is carrying a high frequency analogue signal and is this susceptible to the same issues as other analogue signals.

SPDIF does not have the fancy multi-bit error correction that the source CD or DVD does, just a basic parity bit to detect single bit errors in the signal. Message: Many errors in the signal will not be corrected and could therefore degrade the sound

This seems like a bit of an understatement here. I would say that any error in the recovered bitstream would have potentially catastrophic effects on the sound, far beyond 'degradation'. If the MSB of a PCM word is incorrectly recovered, the DAC output would show a very large step that would translate into a lot of high-frequency noise. If bit errors were randomly occurring, I would think the effects would be readily apparent even on the cheapest system. Does anyone have data that shows what the bit error rate is on a typical low-end coaxial or optical SPDIF connection? I'm guessing it's 0.

Originally posted by Aussie Geoff

The digital clock in the signal (e.g. 44.1 KHz for CD PCM) is derived from the transmitted signal by the receiving device. Small errors in the timing of the signal (known as Jitter) can affect the clock rate and create measurable distortion in the received signal (try THIS link) or do a GOOGLE search… Message: Jitter introduced by a cable (or any source) is known to create distortion

Some high end DACs (separate Digital to Analogue converters) and high end HT Processors incorporate phase lock loop clock recovery regenerators to retime the received signal and eliminate introduced jitter… I haven’t yet been able to find one of these to try the cable on…

Here we can agree. Jitter in the data stream is inevitably transferred to the analog domain depending on the jitter transfer characteristic of the clock recovery mechanism used at the rx of the SPDIF link. I'm skeptical about how audible the jitter problem is though with a decent cable. Discontinuities along the cable which could cause reflections and inter-symbol interference will add jitter. Usually impedance matching is hardest to master at the connectors rather than along the cable. High-frequency losses that close the data eye at the receiver might also add jitter but I'm using to seeing that effect on 1.2 GHz signals, not on 6 MHz signals.

Do any manufacturers provide eye-diagrams for their cables to show how clean they are?

**Woo Wooooo** · 22 July 2004, 16:47 Thursday

monster cable

I like monster :roll: :E

**Ross Smith** · 22 July 2004, 17:17 Thursday

Aussie Geoff

Hi Geoff,
I'm anxiously waiting for my Silver Digital Coax to arrive it should be this week hopefully.I was going to buy some Silver Cat anologue cables for my Rotel (971) CD player but after reading your post I might wait and get the Coax instead.I have tried some Van Den Hul Thunderline interconnects to see if they were any better than my Audioquest Ruby but the difference was very little.
I was interested to hear that you tried the Silver Coax's on your Strong digital STB, did that improve the sound by much!. I have found the sound from digital TV here in Australia pretty ordinary.

**nyny** · 22 July 2004, 21:04 Thursday

Fellas, I just ordered the silver coax....will report my opinion once I received and tested it. I am extremely curious to find out what kind of difference this cable could make...... :B

**Aussie Geoff** · 22 July 2004, 21:26 Thursday

My ears tell me there is a big difference -who knows why

Chrispy35,

I wouldn't like to argue with any of your points. I too was really bewildered by what I heard and used to be a ones and zeros are ones and zeroes man. I use high sped data communications at work and thought the SPDIF interface will be the same. However looking at the specifications, it clearly isn’t. For example Ethernet and token ring and the other high speed data I work with is all packetized with error correction, while SPDIF is encoded differently and in a largely continuous stream with no error correction. The clock timing in SPDIF needs to be continuous since it is driving a real time audio signal.

The timing in the digital data I work with is limited to each packet, which are buffered in the sender and receiver. With a new packet of data, the clock resyncronises with that packet using special syncronisation bits at the start of the packer. In contrast, essentially SPDIF seems to be trying to derive a (say) 44.1 Khz clock in real time from a data stream continuously and using this to simultaneously drive an audio signal at the same time it is receiving it. This means that small variations in timing (jitter) need to be caught up and adjusted on the fly by the receiving circuitry of the SPDIF signal – hence many designs starting to incorporate various degrees of phase locked loop clock recovery circuitry etc.

I don't pretend to be a digital audio engineer. If it helps, HERE'S another very interesting link from the World 93rd Audio Engineering Society Convention and prepared by the Audio Research Group at the Department of Electronic Systems Engineering at the University of Essex and titled "Is the AESEBU / SPDIF Digital Audio Interface Flawed".

At 36 pages it's pretty heavy going and I don't pretend to understand it all. What I did pick up is:

The encoding of digital signals on the SPDIF interface is WAY more complicated than ones and zeros, with many high frequency wave forms being used for a single one or zero (there are lots of diagrams showing this)
The ones and zeros are encodes as a sort of triangular waveform in the SPDIF signal and the timing of the edge of the waveform creates the jitter.
Very high bandwidth through a cable and its connections is important to minimise jitter
Jitter is audible at levels much lower than previously thought or allowed for in the SPDIF standard (mind you this is an old paper, but then the SPDIF standard is old).

I have just posted what I have found in amateur research to try and understand what I am hearing. I'm not inclined to research further (beyond me). And I don't want this thread to degenerate into one of those:
>> "Theoretically there can't be a difference between digital cables"
>> "Yes there can"
>> "No there can't"
Threads that are littered around some other forums. I am happy to trust my ears.

What I will say is that the difference is clearly and instantly audible, including on blind testing with my family and others in shops or friends houses. And, it is not just this cable, in comparing digital cables there are often differences to be heard. It's just this one is such as step up from the others I have tried it is hard to credit...

Geoff

**Aussie Geoff** · 22 July 2004, 22:21 Thursday

Good luck with your cable

Ross,

Good to hear from you again.

I'm anxiously waiting for my Silver Digital Coax to arrive it should be this week hopefully.

Great – I hope they work their “magic” on your system as they have for myself and the others who have posted here.

I was going to buy some Silver Cat analogue cables for my Rotel (971) CD player but after reading your post I might wait and get the Coax instead. I have tried some Van Den Hul Thunderline interconnects to see if they were any better than my Audioquest Ruby but the difference was very little.

If you are doing any form of processing (subwoofer on, more than 2 speakers on etc) this is relatively easy to understand:

The CD player uses special optimised high quality DACs and all sorts of over sampling tricks etc to do the best job it can of converting the CD digital signal to analogue. Which it then sends down those interconnects
In the HT Processor or Receiver, if it needs to do any processing at all (subwoofer, pro, logic, 3/5/7 channel stereo, etc, it takes that analogue signal and digitises it. Now there is always a loss of quality in this. In better Receivers / Processors they use 24 bit 192Kz A/D conversion to minimise this (i.e. they sample the analogue signal very accurately). Note: some processors and Receivers always convert to digital and have no analogue bypass mode.
The receiver then digitally processes the signal to do its stuff (could be as simple as sending the bass to the subwoofer and removing the bass from the speaker signal).

The receiver / processor then converts the digital signal to analogue, with a quality that is dependent on the DACs in the receiver / processor rather than the CD player.[*]Bottom line – Unless you use pure direct stereo, you get two extra conversions and loose much (or all) of the benefit of the fancy DACs in the CD player.[/LIST]
So try the coax when you get it and see what you find on your set-up. Right now I find it so superior I don’t use my Analogue cables. However I have ordered some Silver KingCats from Doug to see, since (before the Silver Coax) I just loved the pure stereo from my RCD-1072. I’m hopeful that this will allow the optimised CD DACs in the RCD-1072 to once again “be the best”

However let me quote from a friend (Matt Stacey) who has also purchased the Silver Coaxes (he has a RSP-1066 and the RCD-1072) and been doing A/V analogue to digital comparisons:

”I am falling in love with my Rotel’s all over again”
”I can’t believe the improvement, If I’d purchased the RSP-1068 and got this much change I’d be more than happy”
”The sound from Analogue is very good, but the Silver Coax is even better, with much more dynamic range and detail, and way better bass”

A mystery… (Mind you his analogue cables are relatively basic). I too have experienced this with my $300 analogue interconnects though – so maybe there is something “magic” about the Silver Coax

I was interested to hear that you tried the Silver Coax's on your Strong digital STB, did that improve the sound by much!. I have found the sound from digital TV here in Australia pretty ordinary.

Yes – when I first tried it I wasn’t sure – I was getting so much detail and it sounded a little “harsh” in the treble. However this has smoothed out remarkably after a couple of days and now the sound is amazing – we watched the movie version of Stargate on TV last night and the clarity was stunning. To be sure I have recorded programs on the Strong’s Hard disk and played them back so I could A/B the sound with my old cable – and the difference is very clearly there. My wife last night (unsolicited) commented how much clearer the TV was, especially vocals. The surround channels were do defined and realistic (panning across the 4 rear channels etc) I even checked the Strong to make sure we weren’t receiving one of the (too rare) 5.1 broadcasts.

I will add though that it does reveal some of the “less than perfect” sound that is broadcast – especially from older TV shows and movies… However for modern TV shows (e.g. CSI etc) Movies and Live Broadcasts it is amazing….

However it is ultimately all about what you hear in your system - so try it for yourself when you get the cable and decide. If it works for you enough to justify the cost – just get an extra cable (I have 5 now!). You may also want to get an opinion from HTguide member whmacs (Stephen McMillan) as he has a Strong as well and (based on PMs) was going to try his silver coax on it.

Geoff

**Ross Smith** · 22 July 2004, 22:56 Thursday

Hi Geoff,
thanks for the reply and all the information, one question. How does a CD played through your DVD player using the Silver Coax sound, I know the transport in a CD player probably would be better!. I might save myself some money on another Silver Coax if my new Pioneer 667A (DVD A-SACD) can play CD's proficiently enough.
One thing using a digital coax from the CD player I can set my speakers to small and let the M&K Sub do the low bass work, this I find helps the speakers and the midrange becomes that much clearer by not having to do the low bass.

**Sithlord10** · 22 July 2004, 23:35 Thursday

Coax for digital connection

Hi all. After reading most of the posts in this thread I have a question. Does anyone use Optical for the digital connection b/w their pre-amp and their dvd player? I have never used coax for the digital connection believing optical to be superior. I purchased Audio Quests Optical 5 cable which cost $500 (Australian) and compared it to their Optical 3 which cost $300 and the Opt 5 was imo much better. I believe in the cable theory that not all cables are made equal and now I'm thinking more about trying coax for the digital b/w my 1098 and denon A11 dvd player. So my other question to all is if you were running an optical for the digital connection and now are using coax did you experience much of a change and if so what? I'm very interested in your optinions. Geoff you have to stop telling us about your modifications and additions to your system your going to cost us all alot of money

**nyny** · 23 July 2004, 06:55 Friday

Sithlord10>>> I am currently using an optical cable to connect my DVD player to my preamp. I just ordered the silver coax yesterday and should receive it next week. I will post my opinion after I test it. :T

**Aussie Geoff** · 23 July 2004, 08:41 Friday

My 2 Cents on Fibre versus Coax...

Sithlord10,

Good to se you back – it’s been a while since you graced our forum…

Hi all. After reading most of the posts in this thread I have a question. Does anyone use Optical for the digital connection b/w their pre-amp and their DVD player? I have never used coax for the digital connection believing optical to be superior. I purchased Audio Quests Optical 5 cable which cost $500 (Australian) and compared it to their Optical 3 which cost $300 and the Opt 5 was IMO much better. I believe in the cable theory that not all cables are made equal and now I'm thinking more about trying coax for the digital b/w my 1098 and Denon A11 DVD player

Let me give you my experience (for what it is worth) and I hope that others add to this… Having been a “pure stereo” person for 20 years and with my teenage son playing music so loud he broke my speakers - I bought a HT system in 1999. It was Sony based, with a Sony Receiver, DVD CD, Tape etc. Choosing Optical was easy as the Sony had more optical than coax and, working with fibre optic at work I knew how good it was for high speed data. I remember feeling relieved and thinking “at last I don’t have to worry about high end cables as I did with the analogue stereo system”.

When I upgraded to a Denon 3802 in 2001 the salesman at the store suggested I try a Coax Cable. I was doubting – but he was insistent as to its virtues – offering free take home for a week trial etc. I did and was impressed by the tighter deeper bass and a generally more musical sound (the optical was “harder edged” and had slightly brittle treble.) So it didn’t return home and stayed on my DVD player. I had an ES Series Sony CD player which only had fibre – so I went back to the store and borrowed several of the best fibre cables they had in different brands. Again clearly different sounds and I picked one I and my family liked. 2003 saw me upgrade again to Rotel which had more coax connections than the Denon.

Acquiring a new Digital TV box needing a connection I went cable comparing again (this time from the Rotel store as well as the Denon store). I took several home and compared them (with my family as critical ears), with a $250 IXOS being clearly superior. Still being suspicious – I also went to Dick Smiths and bought the best Digital Coax they had – it had all the right buzz-words – OFC 99.99% pure copper, gold plated, double screened etc. for $39. We blind tested it and it beat the AR cable I started with but was nowhere near the IXOS but I kept if for Digital TV as I wasn’t up for $250 for the extra quality of a second IXOS on TV sound.

So my other question to all is if you were running an optical for the digital connection and now are using coax did you experience much of a change and if so what? I'm very interested in your opinions.

I now have quite a cable collection (way too many

) including a the top of the line Monster and Tara Optical Cables and several varieties of Coax. And I’ve compared them over time. My view is that:

A really good fibre cable will beat a lesser quality Coax
The quality of the optical connection seems to vary a lot between equipment. For example Sony’s are good as (amazingly) was my digital Foxtel. Coax seems to be more consistently good between devices.
For less money I can find a Coax Cable that beats an Optical at any price point I’ve tried.
Coax’s (generalising) seem to have better, deeper, tighter bass than Fibre and silkier treble.

[*]Before I found the Silver Coaxes I was happy to mix and match – using my high end Fibre Cables on equipment like Foxtel and best sounding coax on the CD player.[*]Being “cable rich” I even connected both a fibre and coax to the same DVD player so I could switch between instantly using the Dig-Sel button on the Rotel Remote. However after a few comparisons – the $250 fibre sat connected but not the default…[*]Once I heard the Silver Coax on my DVD, then tried it on my CD, I couldn’t resist trying it on other things. The superiority was so great that now I only have one fibre in use – for a device that doesn’t support Coax.[/LIST]

Geoff you have to stop telling us about your modifications and additions to your system you’re going to cost us all a lot of money

Sithlord…. You can talk

with every few months you getting a new high end toy like those SVS PB4+ subwoofers, new amplifiers (two so far from memory), new Audio Quest cables, new…. You win hands down in the toys stakes…. But it is fun… (Right now the Silver Coax’s have revitalised my interest in tweaking and I’m trying better speaker cables, power cables etc. Lots of differences and fun to find a good value improvement.)

You have a great system. Try one Silver Coax against your $500 fibre and see if you like it… Worst case is you use the Silver Coax on something lesser like a digital TV box…. However let me tell you that the Audioquest Fibre will need to be very special indeed for you not to be impressed…

Geoff

**Aussie Geoff** · 23 July 2004, 08:54 Friday

Some answers to your questions....

Ross,

Thanks for the reply and all the information, one question. How does a CD played through your DVD player using the Silver Coax sound, I know the transport in a CD player probably would be better!. I might save myself some money on another Silver Coax if my new Pioneer 667A (DVD A-SACD) can play CD's proficiently enough.

Great question! And fascinatingly - both I and my friend Matt Stacey who have different brand DVD players and different model Rotel Processors with the same Rotel RCD-1072 CD player, have found that the digital from the CD is markedly better than the DVD, when they are both connected by the Silver Coax. (This also applied in a couple of stores where I tried the cable out).

When I only had one Silver Coax, my DVD sounded better than the CD over a (lesser) Digital Coax and the Analogue on the CD was best of all. Now that I have bought lots of Silver Coax's - the CD over the Silver Coax is very substantially clearer again than the DVD. However unless you heard it you'd be very happy with the CD quality from the DVD with the cable. But once you heard the CD player with the right cable you could never go back (Matt bought his CD player within days of hearing it). Even my 20 year old son (relatively cloth eared) now won't play his CDs in the DVD player because the CD player is just so much better...

One thing using a digital coax from the CD player I can set my speakers to small and let the M&K Sub do the low bass work, this I find helps the speakers and the midrange becomes that much clearer by not having to do the low bass.

Absolutely - and with the sound quality I can get now - to be honest unless the Silver Analogue Interconnects I am getting make a huge difference (and that's for the future) I am more than happy with the CD sound from digital coax - it's better than I ever thought my system could produce...

Geoff

**ajpoe** · 23 July 2004, 09:49 Friday

Originally posted by Aussie Geoff

Phil C,
I understand your dilemma - it has driven me mad trying to understand it to. In the end I have decided to "go with the flow" and trust my ears. Basically if it sounds better, I am happy with it... For what it is worth this has lead me down the path of trying more "black magic" such as better speaker cable, bi-wiring and power conditioners, and for each component, while many haven't worked - I have been able to find some that made very worthwhile improvements... So I'm happier than ever.

Geoff

Geoff, I appreciate all the input you provide. I am just getting into the 'higher end' equipment and have never really bought into cables and speaker wires making that much of a difference. Probably because I never had equipment to justify expensive cables. Can you enlighten us on what tweaks you found helpful and what didn't work. I have biwired, I noticed a difference but I don't have a conditioner, I don't have expensive interconnects or expensive speaker wire etc. I probably don't have a lot of other things that you didn't list above too. For example, my dealer drives me up a wall trying to push MIT cable on my every time I go in there but I've also read the article where in blind tests people couldn't tell the difference between $1000 cable and 16 gauge zip cord. Obviously you've done a lot of research and trial and error and I think it would be cool to see what you think really affected the quality of sound vs. what didn't.

ajpoe

**chrispy35** · 23 July 2004, 11:26 Friday

Originally posted by Aussie Geoff

I wouldn't like to argue with any of your points. I too was really bewildered by what I heard and used to be a ones and zeros are ones and zeroes man. I use high sped data communications at work and thought the SPDIF interface will be the same. However looking at the specifications, it clearly isn’t. For example Ethernet and token ring and the other high speed data I work with is all packetized with error correction, while SPDIF is encoded differently and in a largely continuous stream with no error correction. The clock timing in SPDIF needs to be continuous since it is driving a real time audio signal.

The timing in the digital data I work with is limited to each packet, which are buffered in the sender and receiver. With a new packet of data, the clock resyncronises with that packet using special syncronisation bits at the start of the packer. In contrast, essentially SPDIF seems to be trying to derive a (say) 44.1 Khz clock in real time from a data stream continuously and using this to simultaneously drive an audio signal at the same time it is receiving it. This means that small variations in timing (jitter) need to be caught up and adjusted on the fly by the receiving circuitry of the SPDIF signal – hence many designs starting to incorporate various degrees of phase locked loop clock recovery circuitry etc.

I don't pretend to be a digital audio engineer. If it helps, HERE'S another very interesting link from the World 93rd Audio Engineering Society Convention and prepared by the Audio Research Group at the Department of Electronic Systems Engineering at the University of Essex and titled "Is the AESEBU / SPDIF Digital Audio Interface Flawed".

All SPDIF designs incorporate clock recovery, some use FIFO's in addition to the CRU to buffer data and absorb/filter some of incoming jitter but they all rely on recovering a clock signal from the data stream. The reason the data is encoded with with biphase mark scheme is to ensure that there are enough data transitions to reliably recover a clock from the SPDIF data to provide error-free reception. The argument in the paper is that the biphase mark encoding scheme used is not the best scheme for ensuring low-jitter clock recovery at the receiver. The reason there is no forward error correction scheme in SPDIF is that it doesn't require one for error-free communication (stated clearly in the introduction of the paper). Saying reduced jitter improves audio makes sense as the paper describes but I still want to make it clear that improvements heard in cables are definitely not due to reduced bit-error rates.

**Sithlord10** · 23 July 2004, 19:36 Friday

Umm yeah I forgot about those updrades

ops: . I will have to post some pictures of my gear now that I've hooked up the Krell TAS. Sorry to say but the Krell has superior sound compared to the Rotel 1095 but bang for buck the Rotel cannot be beat. I truelly loved that amp but with diagnosed upgraditis I needed more power and clarity and the Krell has filled that void. I don't see myself upgrading any of the equipment any time soon but these silver coax cables has me very interested. I value your optinion very much Geoff and I would be happy for you to buy one for me to try out :rofl: . Alright then damm it I'll get one and I hope it doesn't sound better than my Audioquest otherwise I will cry. Thanks again for your contributions to this forum.

**Aussie Geoff** · 23 July 2004, 19:48 Friday

Thanks and Thank you for your 1098 review last year!

Sithlord,

Thanks

It's a small world you know. I had been "lusting after" a Denon AVR11 (5803) for some time but it was your review (and your brother Darklord) of the 1098 in this very forum last year that "tipped me over the edge" to try the 1098 - and I have never looked back....

PS - I'd have the Krel TAS (or better) in an Eye blink if I could afford them - I've heard them and there is no doubt at all that they sound better than the Rotels - but for the price (aussie $13,995 compared to $3,000 for the Rotel RMB-1095) they would want to...

You enjoy your system and let us all know how you go with that cable. For me it is seriously all that I could expect if I had bought a (imaginary) RSP-1099 for $4000 replacing my 1098 - I would be just as happy with the improvement as that AUD $160 cable makes for me....

PPS - I hope you continue to remain an "inspiration" to us all in the upgrade stakes...

Geoff

**Sithlord10** · 23 July 2004, 20:27 Friday

I'm glad I could help mate. The difference b/w the Denon and the 1098 was too big to ignore. I bought the Denon thinking it to be the last amp I would ever buy with it's upgrade options. Even after the upgrade I think back now after having the 1098 for awhile now, that a pre-amp is just the logical way to go if you want close to theatre sound in your home. The 1098 is the best upgrade I have undertaken thus far with a close second with the Krell. I still haven't come close to the 200 hours of use with the Krell (Cost me $11,000) for it to really shine but atm it's incredible and scary. I will have to wait until my tax return arrives then I will order the Silver Coax, and if it doesn't satisfy can I interest you in buying it? You think you have a great cable collection gee you wouldn't want to see mine. You could hook up foxtel within a 2km radius with my left overs :B I initiallly started with Tara Labs then went Audioquest for interconnects and speaker cables and have never looked back. The power board I'm using is the Professional Power Boss Series http://www.fortron.com.au/ape/html/products/pb380.htm which has 4 outlets all isolated. The HeraldSun newspaper did a review on it and they loved it but after having it for sometime it made an improvement in my system probably as much as your new board did for you. It's great to experiment and try different things and thats what makes this hobby so enjoyable. I think I will stop buying Hi-Fi mags and just read your posts, alot more interesting and informative. Keep it up :T

**ajpoe** · 24 July 2004, 19:29 Saturday

Ok, more on these silvercat cables. Here's my setup, what do you think? I am running 5 interconnects from my receiver preouts to my 1075. On the front left and right and surround left and right I have Y adaptors and split the signal to the 1075 and the subs on each channel via subwoofer cables. I am going to get 4 of those better Y adaptors Andrew is using from Radio Shack. (http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=8552) Here's my issue. I use my HTPC for music, DVDs, etc and it has optical or coaxil spdif outs. I use optical because the coaxil would have to be a miniplug to RCA cable. It also has multi channel output via mini jacks if you want to use that. My HD DirecTV box only has optical out for digital. In previous posts, digital coaxil via the catcables seems to be the best sound but my sources lack the ability to do this. Because my original signal is coming from optical cables, is there any point in getting the silvercats to run between the processor and amp? I would think the sound quality will only be as good as its weekest link which in my case looks as thought it is from the source to processor. Since everyone raves that this few hundred dollars in cables is such an increase in sound quality, would it really work in my case? Also, are you getting these expensive cables to get the sound from processor to sub also or are my monster THX subwoofer cables fine for the subs?

**Lex** · 24 July 2004, 21:33 Saturday

ajpoe: it is still possible for the analog from pre-amp to amp to make a difference even without the fancy smancy digital cable that folks been raving about here. It's going to transmit the highs with more authority and detail, and the lows could even be improved. Silver is the best conductor, so whatever signal you have, silver is going to make the most of it in most cases.

Silver can make a difference for a subwoofer, but it is not ultra critcal in most applications unless you are trying to squeeze the last little bit out of your system maybe.

Bottom line, regardless of digital cable used, you could still benefit from Silvercat analogs from pre to amp.

Doug

**Aussie Geoff** · 25 July 2004, 07:50 Sunday

ajpoe,

I would think the sound quality will only be as good as its weekest link which in my case looks as thought it is from the source to processor. Since everyone raves that this few hundred dollars in cables is such an increase in sound quality, would it really work in my case?

I haven't yet got Silver Cables from my pre-processor to my amps - but I have ordered them

What I can say from experience is that adding better cables here can make a big difference. For example I recall htguide member sithlord10 getting Audioquest for his RSP-1098 to RMB-1095 and loving it. Here's a quote:

... they gave me a pair of Audio Quest Diamondbacks Audio Interconnects for nothing worth $200 . I now have another pair and I'm using them B/W the 1095 and the 1098 for the 5 channels (Waiting for another single one to arrive). What an amazing difference.

I put in Van Den Hul 102 III Hybrids and got a big improvement last year... I'm looking forward to another one with the Silver Interconnects from Cat Cables.

Also, are you getting these expensive cables to get the sound from processor to sub also or are my monster THX subwoofer cables fine for the subs?

I have the MonsterBass 400 to my two subs. Monster's sub cables have a relatively good reputation - made a huge difference for me. If I was buying now I'd try the Cat Cable ones (cheaper and better made) but I have them now and I'm happy. I'm sure you (like me) could do better but I'd be upgrading lots of other parts of the system before bothering with those...

Geoff

Silver Digital Magic

Silver Digital Magic

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Related Topics