sergeauckland
pfm Member
Yes so with H264. I wasn't considering other coding methods.
Anyway, digital audio isn't digital television.
S.
USB cable group test in HFN
- Thread starter 337alant
- Start date
- Status
Yes so with H264. I wasn't considering other coding methods.
Anyway, digital audio isn't digital television.
S.
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
Serge, I'm just pointing out that some absolute statements in this thread are not actually absolute.
maxflinn
pfm Member
Not because of a HDMI cable they can't.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Absolute is an absolute word! All statements have to be taken in context.
My mistake was to think only in terms of the TV encoding method I was familair with and is generally used in TV. Other methods can give other results.
However, if we go back to Digital Audio and transmission errors in USB links, then there's no possibility of analogue changes in the sound, as the data being transmitted isn't coded that way, there's a fixed 1:1 relationship between the sample level being described and the data describing it. Either the data gets through bit-accurate or it doesn't. If it's wrong, then the DAC makes rude noises or mutes, it won't because it can't change the sound, make the bass soft or sharpen the treble or change the soundstage depth. Ther's nothing in the coding for anything but step by step level, and one sample is completely independant of earlier and later samples. Unlike TV encoding which relates each sample transmitted to what came before and what will come after (in the case of H264).
S.
OK, found the issue. It was the March 2012 issue.
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
If you go to the cinema you will see JPEG2000.
davidsrsb
pfm Member
I just took two pictures using a stationary webcam and even though this does not have the mechanical issues of a scanner, the file sizes were 24604 and 24627 bytes. Nothing changed apart from random sensor noise, so this "test" was meaningless unless it was repeated many times to look for correlation between file size and cable.
You could even interpret their "result" as hinting that the cheap cable produced a sharper scan with more fine detail to encode if you wanted to
Mongeddavid
pfm Member
History is littered with impossible things later becoming possible. Peoples opinions on here are just that in my view. I have invested alot of time and money in my system and whilst about the last thing i have to try out is a USB cable it is on my list for demo. If the few i borrow make no difference at all then i shall not be buying one. If i feel that they do and that the change is an improvement and that the cost is not excessive for that improvement I will buy it.I do not care if that is a perception solely in my head or whether it is a real world improvement.
Science is a great thing but it is evolving all the time and we do not have all the answers indeed most of what we know is revised or altered as time goes on. So my view is trust your ears and brain. Experiment. If it works for you then it really does not matter what anyone else thinks. Music is about emotion. If you feel good and satisfied at least in my view it makes my listening sessions more enjoyable. You may have a crap system in the eyes of the Audiophile but if it sounds right to you and does what you want it to then no one can say you are wrong.
Science is a great thing but it is evolving all the time and we do not have all the answers indeed most of what we know is revised or altered as time goes on. So my view is trust your ears and brain. Experiment. If it works for you then it really does not matter what anyone else thinks. Music is about emotion. If you feel good and satisfied at least in my view it makes my listening sessions more enjoyable. You may have a crap system in the eyes of the Audiophile but if it sounds right to you and does what you want it to then no one can say you are wrong.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Yes. Quite.
Indeed, but one thing that science has shown clearly and consistently for decades is that you can't trust your eyes or your ears unless you first remove biases and confounding factors!
ultrawomble
Sith Lord
Forgot to add...draw you own conclusions.
I think the key bit is where he says that on a rescan the Chord cable still gives a bigger file than the cheap cable, but crucially he doesn't say the file sizes were identical between the first and second scans for the same cable. Draw your own conclusions.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Don't cinemas show films any more? I haven't been to the cinema for about 40 years, and then films were films, shown on optical mechanical projectors.
S.
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
Digital cinemas have media stored digitally in JPEG2000 format.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Thanks. I didn't know that.
So presumably the data is stored locally, so data corruption between playout computer and projector are minimal, unlike broadcast TV which can have considerable block errors with weak signals.
Or do cinemas get their signals from some central distribution point over satellite or fibre network?
S.
Werner
pfm Member
If you read the whole text of that HFN group test carefully, and combine it with their advertised standard for scoring test subjects, then it follows that the audible differences between the best USB cable and the runner-up are very very large:
According to repeated explanations by the editor and contributors the assigned scores factor in performance and cost, thus reflecting value for money.
The winning USB cable gets a score of 88% (which is much higher than the average of component reviews) and costs 6500 UKP. Given the high score it is good value for money, and thus it must offer exemplary performance.
The second-best cable scores 85% and costs 55UKP. Compared to the winner veils must be raised, drummers killed, walls closed-in, and singers infected with pneumonia.
Thus HFN establishes the fact that differences between USB cables are not only existent, but also vast.
According to repeated explanations by the editor and contributors the assigned scores factor in performance and cost, thus reflecting value for money.
The winning USB cable gets a score of 88% (which is much higher than the average of component reviews) and costs 6500 UKP. Given the high score it is good value for money, and thus it must offer exemplary performance.
The second-best cable scores 85% and costs 55UKP. Compared to the winner veils must be raised, drummers killed, walls closed-in, and singers infected with pneumonia.
Thus HFN establishes the fact that differences between USB cables are not only existent, but also vast.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
Not absolutely trust no but you can get there on the balance of probabilities.
You can't trust your eyes either and might want to cast them over the raft of optical illusions available on the web with a bit of googling.
Using the objectivist/measurist/absolutist logic which states that the ears can be fooled therefore they should never, ever be trusted and applying this to sight you end up banning the driving of motor vehicles. Our eyes cannot be trusted therefore we will all die in an automobile accident.
Some people do die in car accidents of course but not many (you are twice as likely to die of a brain tumour) but to a black-and-white, binary thinker it's all or nothing with no room for uncertainties.
davidavdavid
davidavdavid
This entire thread begs the question. Why on earth are people still reading HFN? And I think overviews of USB cables underlies this curiosity.
- Status