advertisement


USB cable group test in HFN

Status
Not open for further replies.
maxflinn said:
Because, I assume, you've been sufficiently swayed by his piece, to not now be 100% sure that there can not be audible differences between USB cables.
Click to expand...

There was nothing in the article to change my view. The eye-height patterns were all sufficiently similar, and more importantly, well over what's needed for proper lock that the eye pattern differences won't be relevant.

If the data gets through all the cables intact, then the cable themselves have no bearing on what's decoded.

Nothing in the article challenged that view.

S.
 
sergeauckland said:
There was nothing in the article to change my view. The eye-height patterns were all sufficiently similar, and more importantly, well over what's needed for proper lock that the eye pattern differences won't be relevant.

If the data gets through all the cables intact, then the cable themselves have no bearing on what's decoded.

Nothing in the article challenged that view.

S.
Click to expand...
Yup. I haven't read the article, but I'm aware of the fact that there can be no differences between any digital cables in terms of performance, beyond either working perfectly or not working.

Industry stooges like Paul Miller want to make people think otherwise, for commercial reasons.

It's black and white, to me.
 
Are they 'measuring' (eye diagrams) one technical aspect of the chain and offering it up as some kind of evidence supporting a claim made concerning another aspect, that being audibility, which itself is not being subjected to similar scrutiny, or infact any kind of credible testing at all.

They either don't actually have a clue what they are doing over there, or they know exactly what they are doing. :mad:
 
Vital said:
Then I must doubt your certain conclusions, although I continue to have strong doubts about the audible effects of USB cables.
Click to expand...
I'm certain that pricey USB cables are pure Foo. Beyond that, I don't know, depends on the product.
 
Malcolm Steward tried this sort of non-sense, backed by Naim, over digital SATA cables for hard disks. Not only was he derided all over the world for his stupidity, he claims he was even sent death threats.

In any event he recanted on his article but still maintained that he 'heard what he heard'.

HaHa, so what ! It destroyed any credibility he had left, and some of that of his associates and supporters too.

JC
 
You know, somebody should do an USB cable blind test listening session, with various types of computers and a very high end dac/amp/speakers/cables.
 
jirij said:
You know, somebody should do an USB cable blind test listening session, with various types of computers and a very high end dac/amp/speakers/cables.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a good idea. I have no opinion on whether they vary sonically from one to another or not.
 
<moderating>

I've taken some of Maxflinn's libel (and responses to) out as I am not prepared to host such on this site, as is very clearly stated in the AUP. Any reoccurrence will be met with a lengthy ban.

PS from a personal / non-moderating perspective I find it most amusing the extent to which certain people desperately cling to ideology even when blind testing is used, i.e. they apparently only want 'scientific methodology' when it reaffirms their own long-established belief structures (I've not read the article so I've no opinion myself).
 
jirij said:
You know, somebody should do an USB cable blind test listening session, with various types of computers and a very high end dac/amp/speakers/cables.
Click to expand...

If you have to many variables you will just drive yourself nuts trying to come to a conclusion.
The point of this excercise was to see if there was any credible difference between USB cables so that was the one and only variable here.
The listening panel gave there sound quality views on each cable and Quote, "Our listeners included John Bamford and all were unaware of the names or types of cables in the test or, indeed of which cable was being auditioned at any one time. the results of each listening were cross-referenced to verify the consistency of our opinion"

Alan
 
As is often the case in hi-fi, the water seems to be distinctly muddy.

Statement: If you paint a boat blue it will go quicker through the water than a boat painted any other colour.
Question: what evidence have you for saying that?
Answer: I have observed fishes swimming and the blue ones were the fastest - ergo, blue is the fastest colour.
Question: but what evidence have you that this is the case?
Answer: There were ten of us observing the fishes and we all agreed the blue fishes were the fastest.

On the other hand, the above does not actually prove that painting a boat blue will not make it faster in the water...
 
Tony L said:
<moderating>

I've taken some of Maxflinn's libel (and responses to) out as I am not prepared to host such on this site, as is very clearly stated in the AUP. Any reoccurrence will be met with a lengthy ban.

PS from a personal / non-moderating perspective I find it most amusing the extent to which certain people desperately cling to ideology even when blind testing is used, i.e. they apparently only want 'scientific methodology' when it reaffirms their own long-established belief structures (I've not read the article so I've no opinion myself).
Click to expand...
Sorry Tony, I'll watch that libel thing in the future :)

As far as the test goes, well, there actually are some absolutes in HiFi, and one of them is that no digital cable, of any kind, coax, USB, HDMI, etc, can have any influence whatsoever on the data that flows through it, unless it's broken.

So in this instance, I don't need to read the article, to know with 100% absolute certainty, that any differences in sound, be they perceived or real, cannot and were not related in any way to the USB cables used.

This is something that the magazine in question should be aware of, and they in turn should make their readership aware of it, so that they don't waste their money on boutique USB cables.
 
maxflinn said:
As far as the test goes, well, there actually are some absolutes in HiFi, and one of them is that no digital cable, of any kind, coax, USB, HDMI, etc, can have any influence whatsoever on the data that flows through it, unless it's broken.
Click to expand...

Unless of course scientific testing, e.g. controlled blind tests, prove otherwise. You either believe in science, or you don't - it is no place for ideologues or regurgitating half-understood rhetoric.

PS I'm arguing a point of logic here, I have no knowledge about the specific test in question.
 
If one cable is claimed to be noisy/grainy, it should be easy enough to play test tones through it and directly measure these effects. When someone actually does repeatably this I will believe that there is an effect
 
Tony L said:
Unless of course scientific testing, e.g. controlled blind tests, prove otherwise. You either believe in science, or you don't - it is no place for ideologues or regurgitating half-understood rhetoric / manufacturer sales pitch.

PS I'm arguing a point of logic here, I have no knowledge about the specific test in question.
Click to expand...
Tony, I agree, properly controlled double blind ABX tests, carried out by unbiased experts have their place, and I've noted the results of many of them, and formed opinions based on them.

But, in this instance, the test was pointless. The only things a proper test of digital cables will reveal is complete technical ignorance on the part of the testers, or that there's no differences.

No other option exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top