advertisement


USB cable group test in HFN (part II)

formbypc said:
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' ?
Click to expand...
Spot on, people who don't believe in unicorns are just small minded. It's just like gravity.
 
formbypc said:
Using words like 'enough' for a 'decent' transfer, as opposed to 'everything' for a 'perfect' transfer, doesn't indicate you're all that convinced....
Click to expand...

The clue is of course in what I wrote on the next line, which subtly implied that apart of sending tunes down a piece of wire we are also capable of stuff that is orders of magnitudes more challenging and demanding. Then there is a second implication that if we succeed in that latter stuff then it would be rather unlikely that due to some oversight we are compromised with the first stuff to an extent where it seriously matters to balding blokes with expansive stereos and too much time on their hands while the also-balding white-coated blokes (and gals, hopefully not balding) counting purple fermions never even noticed it.


But anyway, it is in my nature not to use absolutes, I even describe 'infinity' in my publications as 'a very large number'.
 
Werner said:
The clue is of course in what I wrote on the next line, which subtly implied that apart of sending tunes down a piece of wire we are also capable of stuff that is orders of magnitudes more challenging and demanding. Then there is a second implication that if we succeed in that latter stuff then it would be rather unlikely that due to some oversight we are compromised with the first stuff to an extent where it seriously matters to balding blokes with expansive stereos and too much time on their hands while the also-balding white-coated blokes (and gals, hopefully not balding) counting purple fermions never even noticed it.


But anyway, it is in my nature not to use absolutes, I even describe 'infinity' in my publications as 'a very large number'.
Click to expand...

Oooh, Werner, I'm suprised at you! Infinity is NOT a number, as I am sure you are very aware:)

Chris
 
Infinity is just an 8 taking it easy, getting some shut eye while the other numbers go to work.

Joe
 
formbypc said:
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....
Click to expand...
If we step back from the history of science for a moment, it's helpful to go back to first principles here. It is easily demonstrable that any old cable will transfer the data bit perfect to a comptentently design dac unless its broken.

That doesn't seem to be in dispute.

It follows from this that all of the information necessary to reconstrct the signal has been transferred. With aycnh usb we also know that the conversion clock does not depend on any embedded clock in the data stream. The data transfer is perfect. That's not arrogance it's matter of understanding the nature of the process

On the face, of it the dac then has everything it needs to convert the data to arbitrary accuracy determine by the quality of the dac. This is a matter of maths and logic. It is completely different from analog signal transmission. We do know that.

It's difficult enough to see how any upstream effect can materially affect the dacs ability to convert to arbitrary accuracy. To do so whatever effect there is will have to significantly affect the clock converting the data or significantly affect the analog output. It is not impossible but there is no reason to suppose that it is the case. This is even more true of the cable geometry than it is of transport side effects because the transport could at least in theory be introducing huge amounts of supriae, in comparison how big a difference can the cable (which is designed to conduct and has to meet basic specs) make?

Then on the other hand we have a considerable body of evidence as to the unreliability of sighted audio tests and quite a lot of evidence about the difficulty people have identifying blind really quite large amounts of interference such as jitter. This body of knowledge tells us what sort of evidence we need in order to learn new things. It doesn't tell us that we can't learn new things.

There is no evidence being ignored just as there is no evidence of UFOs being ignored.

Without any means to distinguish superstition and anecdote from valuable data you can't make progress.
 
Werner said:
On the other hand we can exert maximal control, in which case we run the risk of getting P = F(S,a,b,i,-,-,-,-). delta-Ps may be more accurately known, but at the same time they may be less relevant. f has changed into F.

I see the uncertainty principle at work.
<snip>
All puns fully intended.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle. This is why I have doubts about DBX being "the ultimate answer". (About the puns ... snicker.)
Robert said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, when you flip between sighted and blind changing nothing else, and get different results, it does tell you something valid and useful, at least in the context of that particular test.
Darren
 
"Imagining you are hearing something" is a meaningless phrase. Hearing is a mental phenomenon, either you hear something or you don't. The only question is what are the causes of what you hear.

Those who hear differences really do hear that. Repeat, differences are actually heard.

The differences heard might by caused by something other than differences in what is impinging upon the ear drums. Listening blind eliminates some of the possible "something other"s.
Darren
 
darrenyeats said:
"Imagining you are hearing something" is a meaningless phrase. Hearing is a mental phenomenon, either you hear something or you don't. The only question is what are the causes of what you hear.

Those who hear differences really do hear that. Repeat, actual differences are heard.

It may be that the cause of the differences heard may be something other than differences in what is impinging upon the ear drums. We listen blind to try to determine, indirectly, whether these "something others" are involved or not.
Darren
Click to expand...

Very well put.

Chris
 
darrenyeats said:
"Imagining you are hearing something" is a meaningless phrase. Hearing is a mental phenomenon, either you hear something or you don't. The only question is what are the causes of what you hear.

Those who hear differences really do hear that. Repeat, differences are actually heard.

The differences heard might by caused by something other than differences in what is impinging upon the ear drums. Listening blind eliminates some of the possible "something other"s.
Darren
Click to expand...
I agree with the general thrust of this (which is essentially a verbal version of Werner's formulae), but in the case of comparisons we can imagine a difference in the sense that auditory memory is unreliable. In one sense you can't be mistaken what you hear, but you can be mistaken what you heard.
 
Auditory memory is one of the factors in the formulae.

As is, I repeat, recent listening history.

You can't have the exact-same listening experience twice in a row. The second time will have a different initial state than the first time, caused by that first time.
 
formbypc said:
Broadly similar to my 'position', if I have one, on HDMI cables. See above.



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



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?



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.



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.




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?



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.
Click to expand...
See Mescalito's reply.

The arrogance you speak of is not being conveyed by those of us here who understand what is possible, in the context of this thread, but by those who question the workings of digital data, as outlined by the people who actually created it!

Just step back and think about it.
 
Werner said:
Auditory memory is one of the factors in the formulae.

As is, I repeat, recent listening history.

You can't have the exact-same listening experience twice in a row. The second time will have a different initial state than the first time, caused by that first time.
Click to expand...
Yes. Agreed. Isn't there a difference though between factoring memory into current perception (how memory changes the way I perceive now) and the conscious process of deciding how what I hear now compares with what I heard when the shiny (or unknown) cable was in circuit? I can see that the two processes could be run together, but they seem different to me.
 
Peter Stockwell said:
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)
Click to expand...
Yes. Differences, perceived or real, found between different working USB cables, in a setup where only they were changed, would have to be down to something else bar the cables.
 
maxflinn said:
Yes. Differences, perceived or real, found between different working USB cables, in a setup where only they were changed, would have to be down to something else bar the cables.
Click to expand...

ANd whether those differences are real or not can be found by DBTs of a significant number of people and then analysed statistically. If there really is a difference, then it will show up in the analysis.

There needs to be a singificant number of trials such that the possibility of lucky guesses is reduces. It will never be eliminated entirely, but the maximum possible error can be calculated from the number of participants and the number of trials.

If even one participant was reliably able to identify cable differences, over a statistically sufficient number of tests, then there's something there to be investigated further.

The problem of finding enough participants to take a sufficient number of tests under controlled conditions remains, especially when it's in nobody's interest (except the truth) to get such a result.

S.
 
Perhaps someone could take a leaf out of Harbeth's book and offer their best speakers plus an amp of choice for anyone who could definitively prove in dbts they could hear a difference.
 
avole said:
Perhaps someone could take a leaf out of Harbeth's book and offer their best speakers plus an amp of choice for anyone who could definitively prove in dbts they could hear a difference.
Click to expand...

I suggest this would go the same way as the Harbeth offer, with all those saying that they can hear the difference refusing to participate in such a test.

S.
 
Suppose we suspend reality for a moment, and assume the differences claimed in the article are possible.

This is all hypothetical.

Right, the first thing to get out of the way, and I'm pretty sure that nobody will disagree, is that no digital cable can improve the data that passes through it. The only possible way that one cable could be better than another is if it lost less data than the other cable.

Therefore by default, the best cable loses no data, and cables are judged as worse by the amount of data they lose.

So in the test, we'll say the £6500 cable loses no data at all, and the rest lose some, with the worst losing the most. (The Vertere I believe)

Now, it wasn't reported that any of the cables tested caused audible clicks, pops, or sound dropouts. Therefore even the Vertere was able to pass enough data through to the DAC, to allow sound quality that while judged the poorest, was cohesive and lacking of any clearly obvious audible artifacts.

Data loss did not cause obvious artifacts, rather a slightly inferior overall sound quality, as judged by the panel.

Not hypothetical anymore.

How could this be possible? How can lost 1s and 0s manifest themselves as a slightly less pleasing sound without obvious artifacts?

Remember the HDMI cable links? They explained how the wrong information can never be sent, a pixel on the TV can't be the wrong colour. Also, different information can never be sent, it just cannot happen, the source does not change according to the use of different cables.

So how can data loss which, let's remember, is the only hypothetical reason that one cable can offer differing performance to another, how can it not be RANDOM?

If you playback the same tune on the same system using the Vertere, several times, and each time data is being lost, then how can it sound the same every time? Data loss would have to be random, and could effect any frequencies or passages of the same track, at any time, each and every time it's played.

The same track would have to sound different, every time it was played with the Vertere in situ.

Can anyone explain to me how random data loss would result in identical playback of the same song?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top