advertisement


USB cable group test in HFN

Status
Not open for further replies.
337alant

337alant

Negatively Biased
Did anyone notice the USB cable group test in the July HFN&RR.
10 Cables were tested with a blind listening panel
System was a Sony Vaio lap top / Foobar 2000 / Thesycon V1.56 drivers / Asychronous USB connection into a Musical Fidelity M1-S-Dac, only the cable was changed.
Paul Miller produced a USB eye Pattern for each cable and did a round up of the results on page 98.
His conclusion was that there was repeatable, auidble and measureable differences in the cables, he also produced and Eye pattern for the standard give away cable which he described as noisy and grotty :rolleyes:

Alan
 
Not just digital cables ( as i still maintain I've heard detectable differences between digital coax cables, but that's more of an issue with the technology used I think) but USB is a fully error corrected, asynchronous transfer method, with the ability to perfectly sync timing information between source and DAC. There is absolutely no room in the USB specification for variance in performance.

That would be like assuming my photos would transfer off my camera looking more bright and vibrant with a better cable. Which is absolute nonsense. The file either gets to the other end or it doesn't. There aren't shades of grey with this kind of technology.
 
shrink said:
Not just digital cables ( as i still maintain I've heard detectable differences between digital coax cables, but that's more of an issue with the technology used I think) but USB is a fully error corrected, asynchronous transfer method, with the ability to perfectly sync timing information between source and DAC. There is absolutely no room in the USB specification for variance in performance.

That would be like assuming my photos would transfer off my camera looking more bright and vibrant with a better cable. Which is absolute nonsense. The file either gets to the other end or it doesn't. There aren't shades of grey with this kind of technology.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY..

Differences are simply NOT POSSIBLE.
 
Shrink, by logical default I agree with you. However, if someone claims differences in a well conducted (was it?) blind test I'm interested in finding out more.
 
Vital said:
Shrink, by logical default I agree with you. However, if someone claims differences in a well conducted (was it?) blind test I'm interested in finding out more.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree to some extent. The Hifi geek side of me is tempted to try just any other USB cable (like a £30 audioquest job) in place of my one that came with a scanner!!

But the side of me that has 13 years in the IT industry using these things professionally, just thinks its utter bollocks and refuses to acknowledge it.
 
I too was rather disappointed by this article. The eye pattern differences between the cables were very small, even with the cheap standard cable, the eye height was still WELL in excess of what's necessary for complete lock. So I don't think the technical differences stack up. The listening tests weren't blind, so I gave them zero credence, as I do with pretty much all subjective reviews.

I think it was misguided of HFN to run that article, flawed as it was.

S
 
Talk about expectation bias! Someone comes up with data that doesn't fit their view and they won't consider their view might be flawed. Tunnel vision with myopia. Ironic given the eye patterns. At least some of the listening tests were blind. Read the article following P98.
 
The listening panel was blind and appears that all of them claimed to hear differences. PM himself showed various eye patterns for the cables.

However, no testing was done to prove the panel could identify or tell the cables apart blind, so saying they heard differences is moot, no proof was offered.

And neither did PM show that the different eye patterns accounted for different jitter in the dac, in fact no measurement of jitter was given and no comparison was made of the analogue out from the dac.

So you can sum it all up thus.

"No proof of differences in sound due to the different cables under test was offered. We all claim to have golden ears, but we didn't test to prove we do"

Utterly pointless.

I'm happy to beleive that breaking the gnd connection on a usb cable could affect a difference potentially, but none of these were tested
 
clivem2 said:
Talk about expectation bias! Someone comes up with data that doesn't fit their view and they won't consider their view might be flawed. Tunnel vision with myopia. Ironic given the eye patterns. At least some of the listening tests were blind. Read the article following P98.
Click to expand...

Clive there was no data, just opinion. it really is time you learned the difference.
 
Did they use a USB isolator which is considered to be a good idea and at 30UKP, cheap.
 
sq225917 said:
Clive there was no data, just opinion. it really is time you learned the difference.
Click to expand...

The point is there was enough evidence to suggest doubt. Those that are so arrogant to believe they are always right have closed minds. Fortunely most normal people are more balanced. It's time you realised this. What did you say recently, you're easy to dislike? Hopefuly this is only an internet persona due to an arkward posting style.
 
The Wright brothers said they could fly, I expect many didn't believe them.

Max, I share your doubts, but not your absolute unquestioning doubt.
 
clivem2 said:
Yes, once we stop questioning we are in a bad place. Prejudice is pre-judgement and it's not good.
Click to expand...

Questioning with the benefit of knowledge, history and the application of intelligence is always a good thing.

Questioning based on what we know to be false is something else entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top