maxflinn
pfm Member
I'm going to try to get hold of a copy of the mag as obviously it's best to have read the article in question before making contact, not sure where it's sold locally (I'm in Ireland) though, but I'll try to track one down.
USB cable group test in HFN
- Thread starter 337alant
- Start date
- Status
maxflinn
pfm Member
That's not something that worries me, but point takenDon't get yourself taken to court - be sensible
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Good luckThat's not something that worries me, but point taken
btw The easiest way to read the article would be to take out a digital subscription.
Whaleblue
Southbound
Adam,
0's and 1's are concepts. Cables don't do concepts. They do do stunningly reliable representations of 0's and 1's through a designed protocol though I totally agree!
In fact in general, agreed, agreed, agreed. I'll get off my pedantic horse now.
Dare I ask why you pick out MDac and Weiss here?
0's and 1's are concepts. Cables don't do concepts. They do do stunningly reliable representations of 0's and 1's through a designed protocol though I totally agree!
In fact in general, agreed, agreed, agreed. I'll get off my pedantic horse now.
Dare I ask why you pick out MDac and Weiss here?
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
They have bit perfect transmission tests.
maxflinn
pfm Member
Assuming it's not rolling, I'll do that. Thanks.
Whaleblue
Southbound
Ironically I'm thinking about doing so now, having not read a HiFi mag in years! PM wins?
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
There's no such thing as bad publicity. Perhaps Stuart Hall disagrees.
337alant
Negatively Biased
So after arguing for 34 pages and over 500 posts and you haven't even read the article yet
best of luck .Alan
maxflinn
pfm Member
Guys, my point of contention is the test itself, ie, what was the rationale behind carrying it out in the first place, seeing as it's common knowledge that digital cables cannot offer varying levels of performance.
Though once I've read it, I'll expand on the testing procedure too, and if anyone would like to put forward suggestions of what to put to him, that'd be great.
Though once I've read it, I'll expand on the testing procedure too, and if anyone would like to put forward suggestions of what to put to him, that'd be great.
maxflinn
pfm Member
I'm all ears, (no pun intended) perhaps we can come up with the questions between us, and I'll send them off?Max, you're something else! Yes, might be best to read the article first, and I hope this thread might have served a purpose in getting you to put forward a fair and comprehensive argument...
Whaleblue
Southbound
In swear I'm going to give this thread up soon...
Phrases like "seeing as it's common knowledge that digital cables cannot offer varying levels of performance." are possibly best avoided. I think this thread, penned by a variety of audiophiles who might even care about USB cables, alone contradicts it.
That's me done. Going now. Good luck
Paul R
pfm Member
We don't need to be considering 'traditional measurements', just whether there is a significant difference between two series of data. If there isn't then your soundstage interpretation is an illusion, if there is then it could be real.
If we play the same piece through the same equipment twice the result will differ measurably, but I think it is fair enough to consider that level of difference 'the same', especially if the repeated samples are taken close together. So we could construct a statistical measure of that difference, and when we change the cable (or whatever) is the difference greater? And with a digital reproduction we have the 'perfect' source as a reference.
Whether you can hear it or not is almost irrelevant, if an actual improvement is available through educated cable choice I'd want it regardless. It's certain that the best USB cable won't be seriously expensive, your DIY efforts demonstrate that.
Paul
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
Actually if you compare the Benchmark USB measurement vs the others in the test all it shows you is that the Benchmark Asycn implementation is pretty crappy as regards jitter. Other brands make async USb that surpasses their own spdif measurements and moves the quality game forward. Benchmark just didn't manage this with the device under discussion- it tels you nothing about async usb, just about their implementation of it.
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
It 's commonly assumed that digital cables should not offer varying levels of performance. Only an idiot who's never read the hdml tests he references in his own post would claim that their performance cannot differ- when patently it can.
Perhaps you meant to say, well designed digital cables either work or they do not, if they do not then errors are audible.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Indeed, but it's important to stress that these audible errors consist of clicks, chirps, mutes, not changes in sound quality. Saying one heard a softening of the bass or constriction in the soundstage as a result of a cable change is nonsense.
S
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Maybe they could have done a bit better on the asynch. The measurement for asynch on the Benchmark is something like 30ps of jitter (and where is the evidence that anyone can hear jitter *ten times* that?). But my main point is that the measure for S/PDIF is IIRC 9 ps. I will take a lot of convincing that there is anywhere meaningful to go beyond that even if that is the meanest 9ps of jitter imaginable.
Incidentally I have been looking out for this in measurement results in HFN and stereophile for a couple of years now, and it is not rare for measured S/PDIF performance to exceed usb. Any manufacturer worth his salt should make a dac able to perform beyond reproach in measured performance on S/PDIF.
- Status