advertisement


Shunyata Venom USB should not be making this difference

DimitryZ said:
There are only a few possibilities here. The cable is introducing bit errors is one. The cable is transmitting source jitter is another. The cable is inadequately shielded is a third. For completeness, we can add a possibility that the source has noisy power.

The first can be immediately eliminated due to the obvious logical fallacy as shown prior. Source jitter can be an issue, but modern DACs are exceedingly good at rejecting it - and cable itself is highly unlikely to suppress it. Cable shielding is part of the specification and a compliant cable should be adequate - besides shielding is very well understood. Finally, we may have a very noisy source that supplies dirty power to the USB receiver. DC power filtering is a solved problem today - again, a straight cable can't do much about it. There are active and passive dongles one can get that will attempt to reduce signal and power noise on the USB interface - or one can a ultra-expensive cable with a filter "tumor" built-in. However, Venom model is "tumor"-free.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say - apart from the first sentence. If your first sentence is correct, then of course everything else follows.

I personally don't agree with Rob Watts's idea that noise is the source of cable differences. This would not account for the variety of differences I (and others) hear in cables. (Although you would probably attribute this to delusion, placebo or confirmation bias.)

When Murray Gell-Mann had to account for different properties in newly discovered quarks, he had to invent new categories of properties to measure - strangeness, colour, charm, spin etc (as well as giving us the memorable Hawkwind song, "Quark, Strangeness and Charm"). I do not think we have to invent a new type of physics to account for something as basic as hifi cables. But I also do not think we can dismiss the idea that the only possibilities are the ones you have identified. We don't know what we don't know. Or at least I don't.

But I do like the Venom USB cable so much that I have just ordered another 3m one at an excellent close-out price!
 
RossB said:
I agree with everything you say - apart from the first sentence. If your first sentence is correct, then of course everything else follows.

I personally don't agree with Rob Watts's idea that noise is the source of cable differences. This would not account for the variety of differences I (and others) hear in cables. (Although you would probably attribute this to delusion, placebo or confirmation bias.)

When Murray Gell-Mann had to account for different properties in newly discovered quarks, he had to invent new categories of properties to measure - strangeness, colour, charm, spin etc (as well as giving us the memorable Hawkwind song, "Quark, Strangeness and Charm"). I do not think we have to invent a new type of physics to account for something as basic as hifi cables. But I also do not think we can dismiss the idea that the only possibilities are the ones you have identified. We don't know what we don't know. Or at least I don't.

But I do like the Venom USB cable so much that I have just ordered another 3m one at an excellent close-out price!
Click to expand...
I think digital cables is a special case.

The very purpose of a digital transmission pathway is to transmit two values. Unlike analogue transmission pathways, which transmits a signal with a high functional bandwidth, digital pathway has a narrow functional bandwidth. This narrow functionality, by definition reduces the potential for interference - there is just a limited number of ways one can break it.

Take a modern physical hard drive, for example. For ~20 years they used PRML (Partial Read Maximum Likelyhood) protocol for reading data. The magnetic head doesn't wait for a "1" to reach it's full value - a specified rise is enough to trigger recognition with extraordinary precision and reliability. And this data pathway is far more stressful than the pedestrian asynchronous USB sound transmission.

Given what is widely known about digital data transmission, it's very difficult to make a rational case for digital cables sounding different. Unlike analogue pathways, which were recently shown to be differentiable (with VERY different cables).

One can push to expand the "we don't know everything" border, but it's not right to do so instinctively or unknowingly. One has to soberly consider rational alternatives.
 
I agree with you absolutely. It makes no sense that digital cables should sound different. It equally makes no sense that different digital sources - a PC, a laptop, a streamer - should sound different, and yet they do, and quite significantly so.

I also agree very much that the "we don't know everything" argument cannot be taken too far. That way lies astrology, religion and other superstitions.

But I think that the scientific mindset does not observe a phenomenon and say "I cannot conceive of a rational explanation for this, and therefore it does not exist". That there is widespread anecdotal evidence that cables, including digital cables, make significant audible difference is undeniable. Even anecdotal evidence is still evidence. And not everyone who experiences this is stupid, gullible or delusional. I would like to think I am none of those things, though you may disagree.

Science - and I mean actual science and not just a few formulas picked up at a technical college - would figure out a way to properly test this phenomenon. And by that I do not mean the pseudo-scientific unsighted a/b test parlour game, which proves nothing other than white wine is the same as red wine and a professional violinist cannot identify a Stradivarius from a $100 knock off. (I have no doubt I would fail a "double blind test" between digital cables, or between amplfiers, and probably between speakers.) I mean a large scale, longitudinal study with a control group which identifies a way of measuring how people react - unconsciously - to small changes in their hifi systems, such as changes of cables. Of course, such a study would be prohibitively expensive and no one would seriously undertake such a thing for such a trivial reason. Which is why we are where we are.
 
RossB said:
I agree with you absolutely. It makes no sense that digital cables should sound different. It equally makes no sense that different digital sources - a PC, a laptop, a streamer - should sound different, and yet they do, and quite significantly so.

I also agree very much that the "we don't know everything" argument cannot be taken too far. That way lies astrology, religion and other superstitions.

But I think that the scientific mindset does not observe a phenomenon and say "I cannot conceive of a rational explanation for this, and therefore it does not exist". That there is widespread anecdotal evidence that cables, including digital cables, make significant audible difference is undeniable. Even anecdotal evidence is still evidence. And not everyone who experiences this is stupid, gullible or delusional. I would like to think I am none of those things, though you may disagree.

Science - and I mean actual science and not just a few formulas picked up at a technical college - would figure out a way to properly test this phenomenon. And by that I do not mean the pseudo-scientific unsighted a/b test parlour game, which proves nothing other than white wine is the same as red wine and a professional violinist cannot identify a Stradivarius from a $100 knock off. (I have no doubt I would fail a "double blind test" between digital cables, or between amplfiers, and probably between speakers.) I mean a large scale, longitudinal study with a control group which identifies a way of measuring how people react - unconsciously - to small changes in their hifi systems, such as changes of cables. Of course, such a study would be prohibitively expensive and no one would seriously undertake such a thing for such a trivial reason. Which is why we are where we are.
Click to expand...
Observation of phenomena is tricky business. When it comes to science, forum posts don't count as valid observations.

However flawed DBTs are, they are recognized as the standard for audio observations. I don't like them, they are really hard, and hopefully they can be improved (listener volume control, longer listening time, etc.), but they are currently the standard by which audibility is judged. If we conclusively fail them (on our own systems), it should give us some thought.

I am pretty sure that by that standard, USB cables sound the same. Analogue cables may not... quite.

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/search.cfm?type=jaes&title=&volume=69&issue=6


Further, consider that we, as audiophiles, are conditioned to try to pick out small differences and exaggerate them as "huge," "incredible," and "veil lifting." That's what we do - it's fun and gets us peer recognition as "golden ears" (or even "platinum ears") on social media.
 
Sorry, but if all we've got is the "recognised standard" of DBTs, it's not good enough.

We don't even know what we are testing. Are we testing whether we can identify sample A from sample B? Whether there is actually a difference between sample A and sample B (a very different test again)? Whether sample A sounds identical to sample B now, but in a month for some reason we are listening to less music for a reason we cannot identify?

When we try to identify whether sample A sounds the same as sample B, are we engaging the same part of the brain that we engage when we come home from a long day at work and play a Mozart concerto, or Rammstein, or whatever? Does it matter?

And what about methodology? Someone standing behind the rack plugging and unplugging cables behind a piece of cardboard? Is this really telling us anything useful?

If I accepted DBTs I would buy nothing but cheap white wine, since it has been proved that there is no difference between red and white wine, or between cheap and expensive wine. Would you choose your wine based on someone else's DBT?
 
RossB said:
Sorry, but if all we've got is the "recognised standard" of DBTs, it's not good enough.

We don't even know what we are testing. Are we testing whether we can identify sample A from sample B? Whether there is actually a difference between sample A and sample B (a very different test again)? Whether sample A sounds identical to sample B now, but in a month for some reason we are listening to less music for a reason we cannot identify?

When we try to identify whether sample A sounds the same as sample B, are we engaging the same part of the brain that we engage when we come home from a long day at work and play a Mozart concerto, or Rammstein, or whatever? Does it matter?

And what about methodology? Someone standing behind the rack plugging and unplugging cables behind a piece of cardboard? Is this really telling us anything useful?

If I accepted DBTs I would buy nothing but cheap white wine, since it has been proved that there is no difference between red and white wine, or between cheap and expensive wine. Would you choose your wine based on someone else's DBT?
Click to expand...
DBTs is a flawed methodology.

We have so far not devised an acceptable alternative. The common understanding is that the claim in question would fail this criteria.

I offered a technical test that is relatively easy to execute. You rejected it, emphatically.

It seems we reached the logical end of this discussion.
 
RossB said:
I did say I was not looking for a cable debate, but I got one anyway. It seems the Monty Python sketch has played out.
Click to expand...
Painting me as a cartoonish character is actually dirty pool... But it's generally OK on this forum.

Good job!
 
RossB said:
If I accepted DBTs I would buy nothing but cheap white wine, since it has been proved that there is no difference between red and white wine, or between cheap and expensive wine. Would you choose your wine based on someone else's DBT?
Click to expand...
If your knowledge of DBTs and what can be achieved by doing them is on this level, it is hard to have a rational discussion.
 
Octavian said:
If your knowledge of DBTs and what can be achieved by doing them is on this level, it is hard to have a rational discussion.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I am talking about the pseudo-scientific A/B comparisons which are passed off as double blind testing in "experiments" such as the wine comparison, and hifi cable listening. Real double blind tests in the medical world involving large numbers of participants and rigorous protocols are clearly very different and their conclusions are obviously far more persuasive. But feel free to read into it whatever you think I am saying as I'm sure you will.
 
mansr said:
Anyone who suggests there is anything to magical USB cables is by definition not credible.
Click to expand...
Probably not relevant to data transfer, but long time ago I had small usb tester showing voltage and amps which you insert between socket un cable. There was difference between cables in current draw when charging phone.
 
DimitryZ said:
I will ignore the personal stuff.

There are only a few possibilities here. The cable is introducing bit errors is one. The cable is transmitting source jitter is another. The cable is inadequately shielded is a third. For completeness, we can add a possibility that the source has noisy power.

The first can be immediately eliminated due to the obvious logical fallacy as shown prior. Source jitter can be an issue, but modern DACs are exceedingly good at rejecting it - and cable itself is highly unlikely to suppress it. Cable shielding is part of the specification and a compliant cable should be adequate - besides shielding is very well understood. Finally, we may have a very noisy source that supplies dirty power to the USB receiver. DC power filtering is a solved problem today - again, a straight cable can't do much about it. There are active and passive dongles one can get that will attempt to reduce signal and power noise on the USB interface - or one can a ultra-expensive cable with a filter "tumor" built-in. However, Venom model is "tumor"-free.
Click to expand...

All commercial cables have insulation. Most insulation is polymeric and the dialectric properties of such material will have an influence on the propagation velocity of the signals in that cable. That’s why foamed insulators are popular - to get closer to the dialectric properties of air.

For analogue cables this can make an audible difference and it might be the same for digital……
 
flutteringwow said:
I've never tried one, but have definitely been on my list of wants.

What did you find from it?
Click to expand...
Use a Delta NR on the Auralic streamer - seemed to turbocharge the sound. More gutsy, dynamic and detailed. No brainier to me.
Use an Alpha NR on the darTZeel power amp - similar effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top