advertisement


USB cable group test in HFN

Status
Not open for further replies.
davidavdavid said:
This entire thread begs the question. Why on earth are people still reading HFN? And I think overviews of USB cables underlies this curiosity.
Click to expand...

I still read HFN because apart from the relatively few reviews of cables, they also carry some interesting technical articles from Jim Lesurf, have good music articles on classic albums and reviews of classic kit. Even their mainstream reviews have the technical measurements which can sometimes be interesting, but mostly are either ho-hum or show how crap the product really is regardless of the glowing words used in the subjective review.

However, if they go further down the Foo route, I will consider whether my subscription should be renewed.

S.
 
Werner said:
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.
Click to expand...
The winning cable - that's no different to the rest in terms of what it does - costs £6500 yet still wins in a test that's judged in terms of sound quality and value for money :)

I never thought I'd see a magazine stoop lower than What HiFi, but Mr Miller, take a bow, you've helped win the test for the magazine that does so, BY A DISTANCE.
 
davidavdavid said:
This entire thread begs the question. Why on earth are people still reading HFN?
Click to expand...

Because it's a pleasing leisure activity.

Because it pleases them more than (for instance)

walking in the rain/on the beach/down the high street
listening to Radio 1
watching the latest 'structured reality' TV show

etc
etc
 
sergeauckland said:
However, if they go further down the Foo route, I will consider whether my subscription should be renewed.

S.
Click to expand...
Whatever anyones' view are...extreme objectivist....reasonably balanced....extreme subjectivist; then views from another position are seen as Foo or at least flawed. We could all question why we post here but at least there's no cost to be here except for trade members.
 
maxflinn said:
The winning cable - that's no different to the rest in terms of what it does - costs £6500 yet still wins in a test that's judged in terms of sound quality and value for money :)

I never thought I'd see a magazine stoop lower than What HiFi, but Mr Miller, take a bow, you've helped win the test for the magazine that does so, BY A DISTANCE.
Click to expand...

I agree that £6500 for a 1m cable cannot be justified.
 
Steven Toy said:
I agree that £6500 for a 1m cable cannot be justified.
Click to expand...
Especially a data cable, lord knows I'm not one to buy into the level of differences some report between analogue cables, but I accept differences are at least possible.

But not with a digital cable, they're impossible :confused:
 
ultrawomble said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Yap. Understood that the first time I read it.
 
maxflinn said:
yet still wins in a test that's judged in terms of sound quality and value for money :)
Click to expand...

Careful, we have to be more precise here.

'Value' is an aggregate of sonic performance as well as other properties.

The winning cable is constructed with loads of precious metals, shiny bits, and even laser-engraved serial numbers on polished metal connector covers. It is utterly beautiful to behold. If that does not constitute 'value' then I don't know (*).


Oh, wait ... the test was blind, not? So back to sheer sonic performance then.


(* Go to the manufacturer's website: it reads almost as a Swarovski catalogue. I imagine.)
 
Steven Toy said:
I agree that £6500 for a 1m cable cannot be justified.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that you question their evaluation based on subjective assessment? Not only do they say it's justified, they imply that it scores higher even taking into account its score. It's actually foolish to spend less if you have £6500.
 
formbypc said:
Have you actually used/listened to any of the cables that were under test?

If not, how can you conclusively say that they're no different from each other?
Click to expand...

I've never actually jumped out of a tenth story window. But I can conclusively assert that I would not fall upwards.

Chris
 
Steven Toy said:
Using the objectivist/measurist/absolutist logic which states that the ears can be fooled therefore they should never, ever be trusted
Click to expand...

That is not what OMAs state. They use subjective listening tests aplenty, but only after the diligent elimination of other confounding factors.

Of course I mean people and organisations who actually do things, instead of those who only preach how it ought to be done.
 
Werner said:
Careful, we have to be more precise here.

'Value' is an aggregate of sonic performance as well as other properties.

The winning cable is constructed with loads of precious metals, shiny bits, and even laser-engraved serial numbers on polished metal connector covers. It is utterly beautiful to behold. If that does not constitute 'value' then I don't know (*).


Oh, wait ... the test was blind, not? So back to sheer sonic performance then.


(* Go to the manufacturer's website: it reads almost as a Swarovski catalogue. I imagine.)
Click to expand...
Very good :)
 
formbypc said:
Have you actually used/listened to any of the cables that were under test?

If not, how can you conclusively say that they're no different from each other?
Click to expand...
Have you actually read this thread? There's nothing to hear, that's the whole point.

Ears only help judge when there ARE differences to be heard. None of the participants needed them.
 
Werner said:
That is not what OMAs state. They use subjective listening tests aplenty, but only after the diligent elimination of other confounding factors.

Of course I mean people and organisations who actually do things, instead of those who only preach how it ought to be done.
Click to expand...

I am not refering to those who do. I was refering to those who preach.
 
Steven Toy said:
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.
Click to expand...
No Steven it's your blinkered black and white view, which can't understand the importance of the evidence of our ability to be fooled in the context of evaluation: this is not the same as the possibility of being fooled that there's an elephant in the middle of the road.

If you grasped the importance of that distinction you would understand that the doubt about sighted evaluation (or the potential randomness of unsighted evaluation) is not about the rare possibility of being wrong, it's about the commonplace fact of being wrong day in and day out.

At this point the "balance of probabilities" goes out of the window.
 
Steven Toy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Steven, I'd love to keep this going but life is too short. The debunking of a theory by exaggeration ad absurdum is well-recognised but only if the theory being debunked claims to be absolute. Of course, I did not mean you cannot trust your eyes/ears full stop. What is clear is that you cannot trust your eyes or ears to make fine distinctions (or even fairly coarse distinctions depending on the situation) unless biases are corrected for.

To equate that to not driving is a nonsense as you well know. In fact - how many accident reports might contain the words "I didn't expect him/it to be there", or "I didn't see him"?
 
Digital cables, like the name implies are used to pass bits from one side to the other.
Bits are 0's and 1's. There's no grey area between a 0 and a 1.

If USB cables can sound different, it can only be due to electrical interferences between source and DAC ground.


Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top