USB cable group test in HFN

[formbypc]

Have you actually read this thread?

Most of it, yes.


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.

But surely if a group of experienced listeners claim that there are differences, having listened to them over a number of sessions, and having cross-referenced the sessions for consistency of results, and you haven't actually listened to the same gear yet, but claim no differences, that sheds doubt on your view?

 

[adamdea]

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.

Of course, which is why the expressions "subjectivist" and "objectivist" (let alone the thoroughly stupid "absolutist" one) are so misleading and unhelpful to anyone who actually wanted to understand how significant results can be obtained.

 

[Mescalito]

But surely if a group of experienced listeners claim that there are differences, having listened to them over a number of sessions, and having cross-referenced the sessions for consistency of results, and you haven't actually listened to the same gear yet, but claim no differences, that sheds doubt on your view?

Essentially, follow the money. Who's to gain by claiming there are differences?

Chris

 

[adamdea]

But surely if a group of experienced listeners claim that there are differences, having listened to them over a number of sessions, and having cross-referenced the sessions for consistency of results, and you haven't actually listened to the same gear yet, but claim no differences, that sheds doubt on your view?

Where is the evidence that that happened? if they randomised the order and repeated the tests and obtained the same results I would be at least somewhat impressed.
But I can't see that they did. If you can point to them claiming they did, I apologise and appreciate the correction.

 

[clivem2]

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

I've been saying this is the most likely explanation but there are those around here who don't want to accept this, some just want to continue arguing over bits. My take on the HFN article is that they heard differences but haven't ascribed the reasons to this most likely aspect.

 

[maxflinn]

But surely if a group of experienced listeners claim that there are differences, having listened to them over a number of sessions, and having cross-referenced the sessions for consistency of results, and you haven't actually listened to the same gear yet, but claim no differences, that sheds doubt on your view?

Other people's subjective perceptions do not call scientific fact into question.

It works the opposite way.

 

[spxy]

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.

Na this is going too far...humans can become quite skilled at various tasks involving our senses.

Also fooling our senses works both ways, sometimes we hear/see things that aren't there, sometimes we miss hear/see things that are there....also sometimes we are right....

 

[flatpopely]

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.

It's stored locally as the bandwidth at full bore is huge.

There is no blocking in jpeg2000 as each frame is an individual jpeg image, no key frames like mpeg/264.

 

[Steven Toy]

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"?

I covered that point. We know accidents happen and most are of the SIDSY variety but they are comparatively uncommon.

 

[formbypc]

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

But has any reviewer or review group ever tried this and subsequently claimed that they fell upward, and that they tried this over a number of sessions, with consistent results over multiple sessions?

That would have to have happened for your analogy to be appropriate to the current review being discussed, surely?

 

[sergeauckland]

I've been saying this is the most likely explanation but there are those around here who don't want to accept this, some just want to continue arguing over bits. My take on the HFN article is that they heard differences but haven't ascribed the reasons to this most likely aspect.

The may claim to hear differences, but never followed up, as Adam said, with cross-checking that these perceived differences were real and consistent.

Anyone can claim anything, even that cat's piss deflectors make it sound better, but without cross-checking and some statistical analysis, it's worthless.

Statistics are necessary to eliminate, or at least substantially reduce, the possibility of lucky guesses. Some measurements on the output of the DAC might also have been of rather greater value than the meaningless eye diagrams.

S.

 

[Igloo Audio]

It's quite an old post (2009) you may have seen, but Brad Johnson of Lavry has his say when asked about USB and other interfaces on the Lavry DA11.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=902

Peter

 

[adamdea]

Na this is going too far...humans can become quite skilled at various tasks involving our senses.

Also fooling our senses works both ways, sometimes we hear/see things that aren't there, sometimes we miss hear/see things that are there....also sometimes we are right....

True, but asking people what sounds, tastes, feels nicer without careful controls does not yield results on which not much if any weight can be placed. The situations in which these evaluations have been shown to be "fooled" are not rare or marginal cases but apply to everyday things (like the taste of strawberries)

Even once you get past that stage the reports have to be evaluated and graded carefully because otherwise the views of the person compiling the data come into play.

One of the most noticeable follies that abound in these waters is people claiming that their experiences are consistent with other people's when it is often glaringly obvious that they aren't.

 

[clivem2]

The may claim to hear differences, but never followed up, as Adam said, with cross-checking that these perceived differences were real and consistent.

They claim to have done blind auditioning as part of the process. If they descrive the process in excruciating detail for each review the magazine would close due to bordem of the readership. If you don't believe a word they write then how come you read their music section? We all have to make our own judgements as to whether we believe people when they say they've done something. What I really don't like is being told repeatedly what my view and judgement should be.

 

[formbypc]

Other people's subjective perceptions do not call scientific fact into question.

Yes, they do.

The version of scientific 'fact' at any one point in time is established by scientific method, of experimentation to test hypotheses. If the science world is happy that the experiment proves the hypothesis, it becomes scientific 'fact'.

The hypotheses are put forward because human observation suggests that the previously-accepted version of the 'fact' may be inadequate. Otherwise, there's no reason to formulate the new hypotheses.

 

[Mescalito]

But has any reviewer or review group ever tried this and subsequently claimed that they fell upward, and that they tried this over a number of sessions, with consistent results over multiple sessions?

That would have to have happened for your analogy to be appropriate to the current review being discussed, surely?

Not in the least. Entire congregations of churches swear blind that they have witnessed the impossible every sunday.

That does not mean that the impossible actually happens every Sunday, merely that they think it does.

Chris

 

[sergeauckland]

They claim to have done blind auditioning as part of the process. If they descrive the process in excruciating detail for each review the magazine would close due to bordem of the readership. If you don't believe a word they write then how come you read their music section? We all have to make our own judgements as to whether we believe people when they say they've done something. What I really don't like is being told repeatedly what my view and judgement should be.

It's not that I don't believe what they say, but what they say is incomplete. As I said above, anyone can claim they heard anything they like,but without cross-checking and some statistical analysis, it's pretty much meaningless.

As I said above, even showing how the output of the DAC changed with the different cables would have been better than showing the eye patterns.

S.

 

[maxflinn]

They claim to have done blind auditioning as part of the process. If they descrive the process in excruciating detail for each review the magazine would close due to bordem of the readership. If you don't believe a word they write then how come you read their music section? We all have to make our own judgements as to whether we believe people when they say they've done something. What I really don't like is being told repeatedly what my view and judgement should be.

This has nothing to do with people's views or judgement, USB cables don't have a sound, they transfer data, and each and every one of them does so in exactly the same way with exactly the same results every single time.

Embrace that, and look at the test again, then tell us what you see..

 

[clivem2]

It's not that I don't believe what they say, but what they say is incomplete. As I said above, anyone can claim they heard anything they like,but without cross-checking and some statistical analysis, it's pretty much meaningless.

As I said above, even showing how the output of the DAC changed with the different cables would have been better than showing the eye patterns.

S.

I don't disagree with what you say but I stated why they don't do this. It's the way of the world today.

 

[hammeredklavier]

The winning USB cable [...] costs 6500 UKP

Tell me that's a typo... !!