USB cable group test in HFN
- Thread starter 337alant
- Start date
- Status
maxflinn
pfm Member
Both will have been subjected to the same testing prior to getting approval for public sale, and assuming both worked, different results are impossible. The test was flawed, and simply yet another attempt at causing confusion designed to sell expensive cables.
Tony L
Administrator
Once again you dismiss evidence if it doesn't correspond to your own belief-set / ideology. You have just failed the pfm scientific module!
maxflinn
pfm Member
But it's not my belief-set / ideology, it's the truth, it's a fact, and it's reality
The only thing evident from that test is the magazines agenda!
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
I don't even believe the "data".... simply not possible.
Tony L
Administrator
As long as it contains no libellous content.
davidsrsb
pfm Member
I would say that it is possible for the scanner to give a different file size. This could happen either if the scanner is usb powered and has inadequate supply regulation, causing image "noise" or if the scanner is one of these dumb types where the raw scan data is transferred to the PC without any error detection.
Neither of these makes it the cables fault, they are down to defective design of the scanner and its driver software
I don't think any "libel" has existed, so far, on this thread.
For a statement to be libellous it has to be false. A truth is not a libel.
Until proven false, it is simply comment. It is up to the subject to allege 'libel', no-one else really, and then he has to prove the libel.
I don't think that is possible, let alone likely. There is overwhelming evidence in support of Max's case, just as there was with Malcolm Steward's claim. He had no hope of claiming libel, obviously.
JC
JC
For a statement to be libellous it has to be false. A truth is not a libel.
Until proven false, it is simply comment. It is up to the subject to allege 'libel', no-one else really, and then he has to prove the libel.
I don't think that is possible, let alone likely. There is overwhelming evidence in support of Max's case, just as there was with Malcolm Steward's claim. He had no hope of claiming libel, obviously.
JC
JC
Tony L
Administrator
You need to read up on libel law - in the UK it is the reverse of the above, it is down to the accused to prove the damaging statements they made are true. You will almost certainly find bleeting half-understood rhetoric is insufficient. I'll allow you & Max Flinn to continue once I receive the deeds to your house as collateral as I'm not taking any even the slightest risk to publish stuff I consider entrenched nonsense! The posts removed were very clearly libellous.
From a personal perspective I believe in science. I mean proper science, not the regurgitated rhetoric of the entrenched. As such I'm not prepared to have a handful of ideologues attacking a publication for following established scientific method such as blind testing just because the results don't correspond precisely with their established belief-set. Magazines should be actively encouraged down this path IMO.
This is the force of my post above.
Proper science is well established in this matter.
Personally, I don't think the article in question had any regard or reference to established science in the context of digital cables.
To suggest that a digital cable interferes with the digital content of a signal, to the extent of altering it sufficiently to change the musical information it might contain, yet not change data which carries information of other uses, is frankly unbelievable.
YMMV.
JC
clivem2
pfm Member
I would like to see some scientific tests which show what:
- a slightly wider soundstage looks like on a graph or table
- a slightly deeper image looks like
- more space around an instrument looks like
- better central focus looks like
- additional detail looks like
- increased dynamics too though this should be easier to validate
If a test can be developed to clearly show these individual characteristics then we may be able to test USB cables, DACs and amps for differences. Until then all we have is conjecture.
- a slightly wider soundstage looks like on a graph or table
- a slightly deeper image looks like
- more space around an instrument looks like
- better central focus looks like
- additional detail looks like
- increased dynamics too though this should be easier to validate
If a test can be developed to clearly show these individual characteristics then we may be able to test USB cables, DACs and amps for differences. Until then all we have is conjecture.
All of your criteria are analogue concepts.
USB cables carry digital data, and nothing more, from one location to another.
Robert
Tapehead
You've missed one very important stage.
- First test that the effect under consideration (and discussion) is audible.
If it is, then yes all on your list can be observed through measurement.
The items listed are emotional responses to changes in the signal - a changed signal can be observed as such and will fail a null test.
Plus what JCB said.
clivem2
pfm Member
I listen in the analogue domain. I want to know if changing cables is audible in the analogue domain. Such tests would be useful for DACs, amps, music players as well as cables.
Paul R
pfm Member
clivem2
pfm Member
Forgetting cables for a minute, can you honestly tell me that you've never heard these sorts of differences when changing a hifi component? If not then discussion ends.
Robert
Tapehead
Of course I have, and no the discussion doesn't end.
I've heard such things many times but there has always been a good, demonstrable, measurable reason for it.
At the most basic level, two completely different masterings of the same material can alter the aspects you list. Ask the mastering engineer what he's done and he'll give a nice long list of effects. Some EQ tweaking here, some compression effects there, some panning here, some frequency selective channel mixing there, etc etc.
He certainly won't say he's swapped a cable to sweeten the mix.....
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Exactly. That or it's all in the imagination of the listener. Especially nonsense like "more space round an instrument" .
S.
- Status