advertisement


USB cable group test in HFN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe P said:
Serge,


That doesn't square with my experiences, but hey-ho, I'm cool with that.

At least you're not saying that Captain Kirk is indistinguishable from Captain Picard in a blind test.

Joe
Click to expand...

When I was a young manager, I based my management style on Jean-Luc Picard. I always found Kirk too frivolous.


S
 
Serge,

I would never say this publicly on a internet forum, but I think Jean-Luc Picard is a much better captain than James T. Kirk.

Joe
 
Mmmm...I reckon Benjamin Sisko and Picard might be tricky in a blind test. And Janeway has a lot in common with Kirk, come to think of it!

Which reminds me, I must replace my USB cabling with bio-neural circuitry. It measures much better, at least until the gel packs get icky.
 
Awesome, an HDMI thread has been Trekked! Bet you don't get this on other audio forums.

And here's Captain Kirk, checking out this cables.

1857419465_c75a7337ca.jpg


Joe
 
maxflinn said:
I was curious given your apparent technical knowledge (Based on previous posts in this thread) whether you might believe that there can be differences between some types of digital cables, but not between others.

Anyway, thanks for your replies, I feel that I now know your position, which seems to be that you haven't looked into the scientific evidence re the potential for differences between digital cables, or demoed enough of them to have formed a personal, subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

Interesting how you rephrase what I said about HDMI cables to state my supposed 'position' on all digital cables..... Intended or not?

Do I 'believe' there can be differences between digital cables? It's not a 'belief', but I'm open to the possibility that there might be, whether HDMI, S/PDIF, USB, whatever. If I can see or hear such differences, all good and well.

I'm also open to the possibility, as stated above, that they might perform differently, even if the makers didn't design them to do so, and even if the makers can't see or hear those differences themselves (and even if the makers are doggedly insistent that they don't perform differently).

I have severe difficulty accepting the blanket premise that everyone who claims to see and/or hear differences is imagining things, deluding themselves, or falsely claiming as such to keep themselves in a job.

I also have difficulty accepting the premise that because a certain subset of scientific evidence at this point in time says that there 'can't' be differences, that there are none.
 
adamdea said:
I can absolutely promise you, Brian, that I have no interest in saving anyone from anything.

It must be very annoying though to have people saying that those who think they hear differences between amplifiers are imagining it. In a properly free society people should only be allowed to think that people who think they hear the difference between amplifiers are not imagining it.
Click to expand...
You don't get it, that isn't the bit that's annoying. It's the arrogance. It's the internet opening that little window of self importance...

Science is about learning, sorry you don't realise that.
 
Serge,

No but my jumper was always riding up and I'd have to pull it down.
Click to expand...
So your jumper was hoisted by its own Picard?

OK, my work here is done...

Joe
 
sergeauckland said:
I get very tired of the same old "I heard it so it must be true" mantra. If they'd said "I measured it so I'm happy that's the case" I might have more respect for their position.

This hobby isn't subjective to me. I don't give a fig for what something sounds like as long as I know it measures correctly. I don't buy stuff I like the sound of, I buy stuff that works properly as evidenced by the measurements.

Clear?

S.

Edit: And before somebody comes up with the same old....stuff that measures well but sounds bad, I have NEVER, repeat NEVER come across something that measured well but sounded bad. If it measures well in all important parameters, it will sound good.
Click to expand...

Serge,

I hope we can agree that we live in a non-linear world. If you don't agree, do a Google search for the evidence. I'm pretty sure that you would know that Vilfredo Pareto is often cited as being one of the first people to observe the skewed nature of many phenomena, and is known for developing the 80:20 principle. I've been interested in hifi for the last 40 years, and seriously interested in "high-end'ish" audio for the last 30 years. During that time, I've developed the belief that most hifi on the market sounds pretty poor. I've often wondered if Pareto's principle applied to hifi (80% of the best hifi was dominated by 20% of the products available for sale, for example), but felt that the proportion was nearer 90:10. This ties in well with Sturgeon's revelation that "90% of everything is trash/crud/crap". I would agree with this statement, with an emphasis on "everything".

You've suggested that "if a hifi component measures well in all important parameters, it will sound good". The corollary of this is that if a component doesn't sound good, then it can't measure well. It's been stated numerous times on this forum that electronic circuit design has been fully understood for a long time now, therefore most hifi should be designed to measure well, and sound "transparent".

We obviously have a dilemma here: we fully understand the design process, yet in a non-linear world it's impossible for everything to "measure well ....... and sound good". I can't believe that 90% of electronics are incompetently designed, yet to me they still sound crap. I don't have any data, but would suggest that most people on this forum would agree with this - it just doesn't fit with most peoples experiences.

The only way I can understand this dilemma is to suggest that being "well designed and therefore transparent" doesn't sufficiently describe the criteria needed to evaluate any hifi component - there must be other factors to consider. Common sense would suggest that any other factors must be related to the subjective sound quality, whether that be sound stage, fidelity, musicality, foot tapping or whatever allows one to enjoy listening to music. I feel it's important to not loose sight of why we're drawn towards wanting to own a high quality hifi system in our homes - the uncontrollable feel good factor that music can elicit. In this respect, your comment "I don't give a fig for what something sounds like as long as I know it measures correctly" is quite alarming, and seriously undermines your credibility amongst a group of hifi enthusiasts.
 
Brian said:
Science is about learning, sorry you don't realise that.
Click to expand...
I did get that, but I was also under the impression that repeatable experiments, controls and peer review come into it somewhere.
 
If the effect, even placebo, is repeatable then it is part of your reality and nothing else matters. Go for it. There is no such thing in science as reality as we experience it anyways.
 
sergeauckland said:
Well, aren't they? What else do you call it when there isn't a shred of objective evidence for the differences people say they hear?

S
Click to expand...

Well, maybe there isn't, but that doesn't mean that the differences don't exist and that one day we won't have the evidence. Advances in neuroscience are particularly interesting and are providing some fascinating results. This research http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/april/music.html dispels the myth that we all hear music differently and explains why some people feel compelled to tap their feet.
 
adamdea said:
I did get that, but I was also under the impression that repeatable experiments, controls and peer review come into it somewhere.
Click to expand...

Well, if experiments, controls and peer review confirm that the effect of XYZ is true, then it was true before science confirmed it. It wasn't untrue before the scientists experimented on it, only for it to become true after the scientists concluded that it was.

Something can be true before experiment, control and peer review confirms it to be so.

In the context of this thread, factors like musicality, soundstage may be readily apparent to those who listen, but completely undefined by those who haven't established the relevant parameters to enable completion of experimentation and peer review.
 
Spanna,

Foot tapping and head bobbing is simply a restrained version of what our ancestors did around the fire (and teens currently do while clubbing) with music in the air.

It's also used as a weapon in hifi forum arguments by deaf, old white guys who have two left feet and can't distinguish the difference between Aretha singing "Respect" and your average American Idol butchering it.

regards,

dave
 
dave said:
Spanna,

Foot tapping and head bobbing is simply a restrained version of what our ancestors did around the fire (and teens currently do while clubbing) with music in the air.

It's also used as a weapon in hifi forum arguments by deaf, old white guys who have two left feet and can't distinguish the difference between Aretha singing "Respect" and your average American Idol butchering it.

regards,

dave
Click to expand...

with the strange exception that = shock - some people do actually prefer the american idol bint....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top