USB cable group test in HFN (part II)

[Werner]

But I'm not sure that they are quite as extensive as you suggest.

Headcolds or other ailments that directly affect the ear, state of mental relaxation, state of physical rest, general physical condition, amount of specific substances in the blood, just having travelled by noisy means (including a car), being in unfamiliar surroundings, knowing that decisions have to be made, using unfamiliar music, or using music with excessive emotional bagage, embarking on a listening session while what you actually needed was a good book, the simple fact that playing a track a second time will be affected by the first time, ... the list is very long and can only be shortened by cautious preparation, and then by training of the subject.

 

[Mescalito]

Headcolds or other ailments that directly affect the ear, state of mental relaxation, state of physical rest, general physical condition, amount of specific substances in the blood, just having travelled by noisy means (including a car), being in unfamiliar surroundings, knowing that decisions have to be made, using unfamiliar music, or using music with excessive emotional bagage, embarking on a listening session while what you actually needed was a good book, the simple fact that playing a track a second time will be affected by the first time, ... the list is very long and can only be shortened by cautious preparation, and then by training of the subject.

That's why I buy well specced kit & just listen to the music. If the music doesn't immediately engage, I go & do something else.

Sometimes the kit sounds astounding, sometimes it doesn't.

What it's feeding to the speakers doesn't change, I do.

Chris

 

[formbypc]

So, what is your position on the non HDMI digital cables?

Broadly similar to my 'position', if I have one, on HDMI cables. See above.

So perceiving differences means there are differences?

I'm open to that possibility, as well as to the possibility that there aren't.

In other words, even if there's nobody on the planet that says they can perform differently, you're still open to the possibility that they can? Why?

Yes, because (for example) at one stage, nobody on the planet thought mankind could fly, and we did, eventually. We moved from nobody thinking that, through a small number proposing that we could, to a small number experimenting with it, and from there to larger and larger numbers accepting and experiencing it. Why should the progress of digital transmission be any different? We may only be at stage one at the moment.

In the 1500s, what did we know about digital transfer? Nothing. The 1600s? Nothing. All R&D has been accomplished in... what? The last 30 years or so? Whatever it is, it's a small period of time in the big scheme of things. And you're suggesting we're already at the point where it's fully understood, and no progress will be made in this field, ever again?

And, why might the scientists that created digital data transfer be doggedly insistent about the way it works? It's not like they're trying to convince anybody, is it? I mean, who wouldn't believe them anyway, and why?

There's people like you who are doggedly insistent that digital cables cannot perform differently. I'm not suggesting any reason why a developer, maker or consultant involved with these cables might be so, but even if they were, their understanding may still be at stage one.

There's a blanket premise that nothing sounds or looks different? That anyone who says so imagines it, Or is deluded? And these claims are made to keep them in a job?

Or there's a blanket premise that anyone who claims to see and hear things that are proven impossible, are perceiving these things due to expectation bias, that the guys looking to stay in work have prepped them for by way of test like the one in question?

This is the premise that you, serge and others suggested earlier in the thread. That digital 'just works', or words to that effect, and before posts were removed, there were suggestions that the HFN listeners were imagining things, and that the test was rigged to please the advertisers.

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.

But digital data transfer isn't something we don't yet fully understand, it's based on mathematics, it isn't organic or mysterious! Everything about it is completely understood by the people that created it, you know, the ones who tell us how it works so doggedly. There's nothing that isn't known about it and nothing further to find out.

Do you realise how arrogant this sounds? That because either/both of mathematics and science have reached a certain point, that we know 'everything' about how digital transfer works? That nothing else, ever, will ever be found that will change it? Do you realise how arrogant it sounds when you, serge or any other above suggests that everyone who claims to hear/see differences in USB, S/PDIF or HDMI cables is dismissed with "They're imagining it"?

Do you feel like the cartoon character who's just confidently stepped off the cliff, hasn't realised there's fresh air under him, and is just waiting for gravity to take hold when he does realise this?

Come on, you're an intelligent guy, surely you can't be serious about some of what you've said above?

Ah, the ultimate put-down, as defined by Zappa. Whenever anyone prefaces with "C'mon, you're an intelligent guy/gal ...", they don't really mean it, you know .....

I reserve the right to amend any of the above once I've had my morning coffee and read it again.

 

[adamdea]

Headcolds or other ailments that directly affect the ear, state of mental relaxation, state of physical rest, general physical condition, amount of specific substances in the blood, just having travelled by noisy means (including a car), being in unfamiliar surroundings, knowing that decisions have to be made, using unfamiliar music, or using music with excessive emotional bagage, embarking on a listening session while what you actually needed was a good book, the simple fact that playing a track a second time will be affected by the first time, ... the list is very long and can only be shortened by cautious preparation, and then by training of the subject.

True and all agreed. My response was perhaps crudely drafted and was intended to refer to the contents of the equation.

 

[Peter Stockwell]

The aspect of the 80/20 rule which I hear most often is that you make 80% of your money from 20% of your customers. This is often taken to imply that the easiest way of increasing sales is to sell more stuff to the existing good customer base.

In hifi the 20% are "enthusiasts" and can be relied on to buy new product categories -cables, supports, power conditioners, cd lathes, and to trade each of them up to more expensive ones.
Selling them expensive accessories is easier than selling a new customer a new pair of speakers.

Was that what you had in mind?

I didn't have anything in mind, particularly, I was looking for a way for 80:20 to add up to 6500 but couldn't see a way to do it. It's just in reading through the Wiki on Vilfredo Pareto, he was an economist, he started to develop his principle of 80:20 from an analysis of pea pods in his garden in 1906!

I think he arbitrarily chose 80 & 20 for the symmetry but it could easily be 85:35. The gist is that, in everything, there are easy gains from simple easy sources, and harder gains with more effort. I worked in IT, and when I worked at the assembler level close to the OS I spend of lot of time dealing with marginal cases, a lot of hard work for small gains but if I hadn't the system wouldn't have been 100% reliable.

I can't see any reason why usb cables would differ in the pure transfer of data, they either work or they don't. But I could and do entertain the idea that, for want of a better word, secondary effects can differ.

 

[Errol]

I reserve the right to amend any of the above once I've had my morning coffee and read it again.

No need for editing, it made sense, with a refreshing lack of blinkered arrogance.
Have another flat white.
Mr ED.

 

[Mescalito]

Originally Posted by maxflinn
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.

But digital data transfer isn't something we don't yet fully understand, it's based on mathematics, it isn't organic or mysterious! Everything about it is completely understood by the people that created it, you know, the ones who tell us how it works so doggedly. There's nothing that isn't known about it and nothing further to find out.

"Do you realise how arrogant this sounds? That because either/both of mathematics and science have reached a certain point, that we know 'everything' about how digital transfer works? That nothing else, ever, will ever be found that will change it? Do you realise how arrogant it sounds when you, serge or any other above suggests that everyone who claims to hear/see differences in USB, S/PDIF or HDMI cables is dismissed with "They're imagining it"?"



Science can and often is wrong.

A mathematical theorem, however is an entirely different beast. Once proven, it is true, and true for all time. There is no possibility of their EVER being a counter-example. In the realm of the natural numbers, for instance, 1 + 1 = 2 was, is and always will be true.
Digital encoding is built upon the same immutable underpinnings.

So, intimating that it is based upon our current state of mathematical knowledge and that wqe may develop improved theorems is a nonesense. Literally.

His statemebnt was not in the least arrogant. Merely accurate.

Your response, however indicates that you are simply ignorant of how these things work.

Chris

 

[Peter Stockwell]

What's the difference between these two numerical values?

100 and 100

??

If the answer was anything other than nothing, then I'd be scribing this that I write on a rock, and your prime minister would probably be called Gandalf!

That's Maxflinn's law

The number's don't have to add up to a 100, humans love symmetry, and some love absolute truths, or believed absolute truths. Remember, once the earth was flat, that the earth was only 4000 years old (or whatever), all debunked by scientific method and curiosity.

I think there cannot be a difference in usb cables with respect to data transfer. The differences with respect to SQ, if they exist, have to come from secondary effects, and I would expect to be system dependant. (and I would expect you to argue listener difference)

 

[maxflinn]

To Mescalito.

Originally posted by formbypc

But thanks for saying what I would have tried to say, but not as well, in my response.

 

[formbypc]

Mescalito, can you throw in some quote marks or tags to clarify where your post and the quote start and stop? Just putting the quote in bold would help.

 

[Errol]

I think there cannot be a difference in usb cables with respect to data transfer. The differences with respect to SQ, if they exist, have to come from secondary effects, and I would expect to be system dependant. (and I would expect you to argue listener difference)

What's this? more common sense?
Mr ED

 

[formbypc]

Going back to earlier in the thread;

- Originally Posted by sergeauckland

"It's only odd if you believe that it all sounds different. If there's no difference, and I've not found that there is between modern SS designs of reasonable competence, then buying on sound makes no sense at all."

and I said

"Again you use the word 'believe' as if everyone is imagining things."

and 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?"

---------------

Birds flew, long before mankind had objective evidence to support that they did, before we knew how wings worked against air molecules to provide lift, and before we knew what air molecules were. You can't say they only started to fly when we had objective evidence to show that they could.

Objects fell to earth, long before we had objective evidence of the existence of gravity, and long before we quantified how it works.

These are basic examples, but surely the same principle applies to digital transfer and cables, and any other aspect of our lives, i.e. that there may well be aspects of it which haven't been fully quantified?

Does anyone really hold the viewpoint of the (possibly misquoted) US patents office head, who took the view that there is/was 'nothing left to be discovered or invented' ?

 

[Robert]

Headcolds or other ailments that directly affect the ear, state of mental relaxation, state of physical rest, general physical condition, amount of specific substances in the blood, just having travelled by noisy means (including a car), being in unfamiliar surroundings, knowing that decisions have to be made, using unfamiliar music, or using music with excessive emotional bagage, embarking on a listening session while what you actually needed was a good book, the simple fact that playing a track a second time will be affected by the first time, ... the list is very long and can only be shortened by cautious preparation, and then by training of the subject.

The effects are minimised even further by sighted/blind back to back testing by changing absolutely nothing other than the ability to see what's playing.
If you listen to a set of cables sighted, then blind, any mood condition, chemicals in the blood, headcold effects etc are pretty constant for both methods.

As I say often here, the aim is better and more reliable listening tests, not perfection because that doesn't and will never exist.

The default standard for comparative testing is wholly inadequate since the listening regime itself usually introduces more perceived differences than those existing between the items being compared. In the case of electronics, the test procedure is usually responsible for all of the perceived difference.

All we get from proponents of the loosest possible sighted testing is yebutyebutyebut while stubbornly refusing to see that their own methods represent the worst of all possibilities!

Going back to earlier in the thread;

- Originally Posted by sergeauckland

"It's only odd if you believe that it all sounds different. If there's no difference, and I've not found that there is between modern SS designs of reasonable competence, then buying on sound makes no sense at all."

and I said

"Again you use the word 'believe' as if everyone is imagining things."

and 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?"

---------------

Birds flew, long before mankind had objective evidence to support that they did, before we knew how wings worked against air molecules to provide lift, and before we knew what air molecules were. You can't say they only started to fly when we had objective evidence to show that they could.

Objects fell to earth, long before we had objective evidence of the existence of gravity, and long before we quantified how it works.

These are basic examples, but surely the same principle applies to digital transfer and cables, and any other aspect of our lives, i.e. that there may well be aspects of it which haven't been fully quantified?

Does anyone really hold the viewpoint of the (possibly misquoted) US patents office head, who took the view that there is/was 'nothing left to be discovered or invented' ?

This misses the point that in the past, the physics relating to flight weren't fully understood.
Today, the physics relating to the performance of cables at audio frequencies is fully understood - so the subject should now be a closed one, just as the subject of 'how flight works' is now closed because the research and understanding is now considered at the mature state.

Then of course we have to consider that 'flight' simply means to travel through the air - it has no absolute reference.
The transmission of audio signals through cable does have a very precise reference where audio is concerned - we want the same signal at both ends.
The flight analogy isn't a good one.

So of course we don't know everything, but we know everything about specific subjects and specific strands of science.

Back to the issue of cables, it is possible to pass music signals through different constructions such that deep nulls of <150dB are achieved.
So at audio frequencies, whats left to consider other than cables need to meet a base minimum requirement, and since we can achieve 'perfection' with null testing, we already know what those minimums are?

 

[formbypc]

So, intimating that it is based upon our current state of mathematical knowledge and that we may develop improved theorems is a nonsense. Literally. ... Your response, however indicates that you are simply ignorant of how these things work.

But that's not what I said - I said

"Do you realise how arrogant this sounds? That because either/both of mathematics and science have reached a certain point, that we know 'everything' about how digital transfer works? That nothing else, ever, will ever be found that will change it?"

I didn't limit my statement to maths theorems, that's your amendment.

 

[formbypc]

Today, the physics relating to the performance of cables at audio frequencies is fully understood - so the subject should now be a closed one, just as the subject of 'how flight works' is now closed because the research and understanding is now considered at the mature state.

So of course we don't know everything, but we know everything about specific subjects and specific strands of science.

Do we? How do you KNOW?

Learned men and women of the past thought they knew everything about their fields, then someone else discovered something else to prove them wrong and advance science and humankind a bit further.

Why is today, of all times in history, any different?

 

[sergeauckland]

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.

I take great comfort from that.

S.

 

[Werner]

a certain subset of scientific evidence at this point in time says that there 'can't' be differences

That is not what is being said, even though the above sentence is often used as shorthand for a more elaborate statement:

Given the present state of knowledge it is unlikely that the claimed observations are valid and/or to be attributed to the claimed origin. Thus in order to resolve this the observers are urged to re-do the experiment, now with maximal rigour so as to suppress any undue influences.

Yes, because (for example) at one stage, nobody on the planet thought mankind could fly, and we did, eventually. ... Why should the progress of digital transmission be any different? We may only be at stage one at the moment.

That is too funny for words.

Did it elude you that the present state of interconnectivity in the developed world (including the odd interplanetary link) handsomely obsoletes a rather large body of SF novels written not even that long ago?

If this is stage-1 (Montgolfier? Wright, even?) then I truly wonder about stage-2.

In the 1500s, what did we know about digital transfer? Nothing. The 1600s? Nothing. All R&D has been accomplished in... what? The last 30 years or so? Whatever it is, it's a small period of time in the big scheme of things. And you're suggesting we're already at the point where it's fully understood, and no progress will be made in this field, ever again?

It may look like a small stretch of time, but with development being exponential this small stretch carries an awful lot of weight.

Even so you're wrong with the dates.

The Chinese used lighter-than-air craft for signalling. Two-in-one. 2300 years ago.
The Romans had reliable semaphore links. Hints of cryptography and error protection?
Electricity was used for signalling from the moment it (the electricity) got somewhat manageable.
An awful lot of the laws governing electromagnetism was established in the 19th century. Applying it was just engineering.
In 1942 Winston and Frankie used a reliable trans-atlantic encrypted real-time PCM trunk for their chats. A smart Alec was involved.

Do we know everything?

No.

Do we know enough for a decent transfer of audio?

Yes. And for a few somewhat more advanced applications too.

 

[Robert]

Do we? How do you KNOW?

Learned men and women of the past thought they knew everything about their fields, then someone else discovered something else to prove them wrong and advance science and humankind a bit further.

Why is today, of all times in history, any different?

Because I can take a variety of cables of varying construction and null them to better than -150dB. In short, I have a very precise reference point representing perfection - a complete null. If I can take several very different cables of varying construction and achieve this perfect result* what's to still discover where the performance of audio cables are concerned?



* -150db set by measurement system limits and small fully understood differences in LCR and RF performance. All moot since you aren't going to hear this stuff at these levels, and that's also been proven.

 

[formbypc]

It may look like a small stretch of time, but with development being exponential this small stretch carries an awful lot of weight.

So what happens next? Development continues at an exponential rate, even more accelerated than in recent years, or it stops because we've 'discovered everything' ...?

Even so you're wrong with the dates.

I think everyone can see that I wasn't quoting specific, correct dates for specific events.

Do we know everything?

No.

Do we know enough for a decent transfer of audio?

Yes. And for a few somewhat more advanced applications too.

How do you KNOW this, though?

Using words like 'enough' for a 'decent' transfer, as opposed to 'everything' for a 'perfect' transfer, doesn't indicate you're all that convinced....

 

[Mescalito]

So what happens next? Development continues at an exponential rate, even more accelerated than in recent years, or it stops because we've 'discovered everything' ...?



I think everyone can see that I wasn't quoting specific, correct dates for specific events.



How do you KNOW this, though?

Using words like 'enough' for a 'decent' transfer, as opposed to 'everything' for a 'perfect' transfer, doesn't indicate you're all that convinced....[/QUOTE]

In the digital domain we do know everything for a perfect transfer. Computer networks work.

Other than hardware failures digital transfer is 100% reliable. Why? Because it was designed to be that way.

Chris