USB Cable Poll: Redux

[mudlark]

The poll is completely meaningless. Again I have to state the obvious. I feel obliged. It is a necessity.

How can windows be blamed for problems with audio replay. If there are any problems it is due to programs being written badly. Windows doesn't have to deal with billions of different hardware and drivers as you should know well. Windows has various protocols and the software and hardware complies with it and works or it doesn't comply with it and it fails. Windows has many times more computing power to deal with any audio issues.

Take jriver. That is one complicated program and you could even suggest that it suffers from bloatware, yet many people think jriver is the bees knees. This doesn't appear to fit with your view of computing.

Even my pathetic raspberry pi has sufficient performance and it does that with a pathetic power supply.

 

[mudlark]

As I've said before, I strongly agree with Alan's point that acuity can be selectively trained over time - and that unusually high levels of sensitivity can be acquired to specific stimuli when focused on for sustained periods. That is, after all, how brains work. It's not about 'being a good listener': it's about acclimation.

But on balance I don't believe blind testing is any more useful than sighted. I'm always very impressed when someone passes a blind test because the dice are so heavily loaded against doing so! As I've said many times, I don't have any special skills in that area, and I don't approve of the word 'miracle'.

You can't use "trained" listeners and provide any useful data. The reason for this is that you can't measure the performance of these individuals. What you can do is find some subjects, test that they have adequate hearing then do some scientific experiments. Nothing else will do.

If you have a club of super listeners, then please enjoy yourselves. Most of us will not be joining.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan,

Would it be possible to describe how the blinding was done - was it a single-blind or double-blind situation? If it was a panel, was there discussion (so that the opinion of one panelist could affect the opinions of others)? Would it be possible to publish the actual test notes (with names of brands and listeners anonymized)?

The test was performed single-blind. It was a panel test, with ad hoc listening notes and then discussion. Test notes cannot be published, because I just about got away with the breach of confidentiality in stating publicly there was a test. Because of the general online animosity surrounding digital cable tests in general, absolute anonymity was demanded.

In fairness, it wasn't a wash. One reported no meaningful differences and two more fixated on the word 'subtle'.

 

[whatsnext]

The idea is that if the engineers do all the hardcore listening work to ensure everything is as good as it can be, it's all done for you. You just buy it and enjoy it.

It's taking kaizen strategies into R&D.

These people aren't from loopy left-field audio brands - these were guys from the audio division of Matsushita. People who spend their whole careers listening to different compounds in feet or different types of capacitor.

I appreciate what you say however, my commnets were having in mind the relatively small number of PFM members who post saying that they can discern between for example USB cables rather like to OP to this thread/poll. Maybe he/they can but if others do not share a similar experience when trying cables A and/or B then perhaps a bit of empathy might win prizes and credibity if not customers.

Having tried various analogue I/Cs and one much lauded loudspeaker cable I am left with the sense a difference can be discerned but none gave the dramatic change some post of. If my system is easily capable of letting one hear differences in recording session/mix on the same album/CD I am sure the cables are not holding it back too much.

 

[Alan Sircom]

You can't use "trained" listeners and provide any useful data. The reason for this is that you can't measure the performance of these individuals. What you can do is find some subjects, test that they have adequate hearing then do some scientific experiments. Nothing else will do.

If you have a club of super listeners, then please enjoy yourselves. Most of us will not be joining.

Trained listeners are an accepted compromise because of the small sample sizes of most audio tests. There is a considerable body of peer-reviewed work (a significant amount of which has been carried out by Harman) on the subject.

Of course you can measure the performance of trained listeners. It's called 'regular testing'. Any musician who has done ear training, or studio engineer who's gone through critical listening training will attest to this.

 

[Alan Sircom]

I appreciate what you say however, my commnets were having in mind the relatively small number of PFM members who post saying that they can discern between for example USB cables rather like to OP to this thread/poll. Maybe he/they can but if others do not share a similar experience when trying cables A and/or B then perhaps a bit of empathy might win prizes and credibity if not customers.

Having tried various analogue I/Cs and one much lauded loudspeaker cable I am left with the sense a difference can be discerned but none gave the dramatic change some post of. If my system is easily capable of letting one hear differences in recording session/mix on the same album/CD I am sure the cables are not holding it back too much.

I don't dispute any of this, and I don't think it comes down to acuity of listening, system or any other dismissal.

I suspect it comes down to how OCD you are in your listening demands. The world's navies seek out obsessive-compulsive listeners and turns them into SONAR operators. Where the rest of us would hear undifferentiated noise, a SONAR operator hears whales, schools of fish, shipping and Sean Connery's 'Russian' accent. They can hear things that are so far on the impossible side of unlikely from a classical psychoacoustics model that signal detection theory was formed from the wreckage.

Not every OCD listener ends up in the Navy. Some of the gravitate toward music and audio. Some of them spend their days listening to capacitors. Some spend their days listening to wire. If they also hear things that are so far on the impossible side of unlikely, maybe it's because they are wired that way.

 

[ItemAudio]

The poll is completely meaningless. Again I have to state the obvious. I feel obliged. It is a necessity.

How can windows be blamed for problems with audio replay. If there are any problems it is due to programs being written badly. Windows doesn't have to deal with billions of different hardware and drivers as you should know well. Windows has various protocols and the software and hardware complies with it and works or it doesn't comply with it and it fails. Windows has many times more computing power to deal with any audio issues.

Take jriver. That is one complicated program and you could even suggest that it suffers from bloatware, yet many people think jriver is the bees knees. This doesn't appear to fit with your view of computing.

Even my pathetic raspberry pi has sufficient performance and it does that with a pathetic power supply.

Again, please read what I said - Windows (and the space shuttle) were wheeled in to illustrate that the best laid plans ganglam a'style when exposed to a multiplicity of real-world factors. In Challenger's case: cold; with Microsoft: a impossibly vast peripherosphere of potentially conflicting drivers and chipsets. Locking an OS to a tightly defined hardware platform (ahem, Apple) inherently improves reliability.

None of that comments on audio quality - ie, whether Mac sounds better than PC, Pi or a Commodore 64. It's addressed to the fact that audio components vary, and interactions between them can be hard to predict - speaker cable modifying amplifier behaviour is a typical example.

 

[Purité Audio]

You can make a cable sound 'different'if you alter the electrical parameters enough, personally I would spend the time and effort on factors that really can improve your sound quality.
Keith.

 

[Julf]

The test was performed single-blind. It was a panel test, with ad hoc listening notes and then discussion. Test notes cannot be published, because I just about got away with the breach of confidentiality in stating publicly there was a test. Because of the general online animosity surrounding digital cable tests in general, absolute anonymity was demanded.

In fairness, it wasn't a wash. One reported no meaningful differences and two more fixated on the word 'subtle'.

Thanks, Alan. I totally understand and respect the need for confidentiality. And I also appreciate the fact that it was a tentative test to determine the need for further tests. That helps to put the results in perspective.

 

[maxflinn]

I'm sorry, Alan, but suggesting a USB cable can have a 'house sound' is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard said on a forum. So is suggesting they can sound different of course, but a house sound?

It's pure, grade A Foo and with respect, you must clearly know so! It's a real shame that a man of your standing has no choice (?) but to come on a forum like this and try to lend credence to this kind of cobblers.

I'm out of this one for the day anyway, life's too short!

 

[Julf]

I don't know. But reversing this, how can the one person who speaks out about specific brands correctly identify the brands, when they didn't know what brands were in the test? I'm not filtering this - these weren't correct guesses out of six wild guesses and I wasn't asking people for that level of analysis (because I didn't think it was possible). They only spoke out when they recognised specific characteristics in the presentation, and they got it right three times out of three.

So the fact remains, how is this possible? Sheer chance is a possibility, but randomly naming names - especially at the time names that had no dog in the USB fight - and getting it right is a little uncanny.

Some people think the birthday paradox is uncanny too. I would like to understand exactly what the odds against the result were. So there were 6 cables involved? All different brands, or were there several cables of the same brand? How many of the brands did the person actually get right - and were there any misidentifications? I assume the person could "pass" on situations where he/she didn't feel confident, and only call out the ones where he/she felt confident about the choice?

 

[mudlark]

the analogy with the space shuttle is completely irrelevant. We all know the performance of computers. The space shuttle failed because it was being used outside it's flight envelope. There were no "best laid plans" for the space shuttle that failed. It was a collection of idiot decisions.

You clearly don't understand how a computer works. The hardware for audio is straight forward. The reason I know this is there are many computers that can produce excellent data for a DAC to process. I would agree that the analogue out can be a bit dodgy, but the digital output is fine in the majority of cases.

My computer isn't an audio product. It picks up some data from it's hard drive or another one on my network or even another one on a server in the usa. This data then gets used to create an audio signal.

Using the sort of irrational thought you tend to use would suggest data from an australian internet radio station would be worse than that from Manchester. Certainly the data from Australia would suffer from a huge amount of latency, but just like magic the audio sounds fine in my living room. Identical to the stuff streamed from Manchester.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Some people think the birthday paradox is uncanny too. I would like to understand exactly what the odds against the result were. So there were 6 cables involved? All different brands, or were there several cables of the same brand? How many of the brands did the person actually get right - and were there any misidentifications? I assume the person could "pass" on situations where he/she didn't feel confident, and only call out the ones where he/she felt confident about the choice?

There were six cables, four of which were prototypes. Two were from the same brand. He recognised Nordost and the two Audioquest cables correctly. He didn't make any identifying comments on the other cables. No one else made brand related comments. He knew there was a Nordost cable in the mix, but didn't know the other products in the group. At the time, there were only a handful of bespoke USB cables on the market (Cardas, Transparent and couple of others), so although he knew there was a Nordost cable coming, he had no idea of other brands about to enter the field.

He did not rate Audioquest's cables highly. Nordost faired better, but came second out of six. Two of the others marginally preferred what would become Audioquest Diamond, then Crystal, then the next Audioquest, then Nordost, the giveaway and finally Cardas Clear. Two others preferred Crystal, then Nordost, then Cardas and Audioquest at about level pegging, then the second Audioquest, then the giveaway. One thought they were all too close to call. Two thought they were very close, one thought they were moderate differences and one thought the Crystal cable was 'head and shoulders' above the others.

Most of the ranking and rating was academic. We pulled together a range of cables and a range of people to see if there was something worth testing. We'd do the same with Ethernet cables, but that would be like painting a huge target on your chest, so I'm personally reluctant to investigate, in case the answer is a positive one.

 

[Alan Sircom]

I'm sorry, Alan, but suggesting a USB cable can have a 'house sound' is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard said on a forum. So is suggesting they can sound different of course, but a house sound?

It's pure, grade A Foo and with respect, you must clearly know so! It's a real shame that a man of your standing has no choice (?) but to come on a forum like this and try to lend credence to this kind of cobblers.

I'm out of this one for the day anyway, life's too short!

I am reporting the findings of the test. Nothing more.

How do you explain someone being able to recognise something under the conditions I described?

I am quite prepared to accept there might be duplicity or bias involved, but I tried to limit that and this popped out. It's like someone saying 'the next cars to pass by will be a blue Ford and a red Nissan', and then have a blue Ford and a red Nissan drive past. In such a case, you go looking for reasons why they reported what they reported. And yes, it will probably be blind chance or some form of deception.

My point in all of this is there are four outcomes to this poll. If you try it for yourself and conclude there is no difference - great. If you try it for yourself and concluded there is a difference - great. Both point to a spirit of empirical experimentation that should be encouraged in all.

But, not trying for yourself and then pontificating to those who have tried (and that includes those who think a USB cable makes a difference trying to shout down those who have tried the test and disagree) is little more than empty rhetoric.

Those who are arguing this from a position of citing the scientific and engineering absurdity of it all have a point. And I don't disagree, despite observing differences personally. I respect that position, but wish it were more open to the idea of exploring the possibility of 'why' rather than shutting 'why' off at the first juncture.

Those, however, who simply choose to reject the concept, and even the investigation of the concept simply because they don't like the idea, I cannot respect on a fairly deep level. They bring nothing to the table.

 

[Julf]

There were six cables, four of which were prototypes. Two were from the same brand. He recognised Nordost and the two Audioquest cables correctly. He didn't make any identifying comments on the other cables. No one else made brand related comments. He knew there was a Nordost cable in the mix, but didn't know the other products in the group. At the time, there were only a handful of bespoke USB cables on the market (Cardas, Transparent and couple of others), so although he knew there was a Nordost cable coming, he had no idea of other brands about to enter the field.

Hmm. A bit too many unknown constraints for me to calculate the odds. A simplistic calculation places it around 2%. My conclusion would be "needs more verification".

We'd do the same with Ethernet cables, but that would be like painting a huge target on your chest, so I'm personally reluctant to investigate, in case the answer is a positive one.

I really recommend doing it.

 

[Julf]

How do you explain someone being able to recognise something under the conditions I described?

I am quite prepared to accept there might be duplicity or bias involved

So I guess you answered your own question. There is one explanation that is quite possible, and another that flies in the face of a lot of engineering theory and practice. What is the proper conclusion? Mine would be "definitely not strong enough proof of our current theories and practices being wrong".

It's like someone saying 'the next cars to pass by will be a blue Ford and a red Nissan', and then have a blue Ford and a red Nissan drive past.

Actually that specific case is not very unlikely at all. See the birthday paradox.

My point in all of this is there are four outcomes to this poll. If you try it for yourself and conclude there is no difference - great. If you try it for yourself and concluded there is a difference - great. Both point to a spirit of empirical experimentation that should be encouraged in all.

Absolutely.

Those who are arguing this from a position of citing the scientific and engineering absurdity of it all have a point. And I don't disagree, despite observing differences personally. I respect that position, but wish it were more open to the idea of exploring the possibility of 'why' rather than shutting 'why' off at the first juncture.

I don't think we are shutting off the "why", we are just saying there is still not any substantial proof the obvious explanations aren't true.

 

[hc25036]

We need a passing statistician to join in, but my gut feeling (having spent a lifetime working with statisticians on understanding and analysing huge data sets) is that chance could be playing a big part part here. Correctly identifying 3 of 6 in a non-random selection (ie the range of all available audio USB cables is very small) will have odds of being correct that would surprise us all by being much more likely than intuition would have us believe.

I'm trying to find a web site that has examples of this kind of thing that I used to use in staff training. The examples had real-life situations where your instinct is "that's impossible" but the statistics show the chances are quite good. The 'birthday problem' is a good example - you only need 23 randomly selected people in a room to have a 50:50 chance of them sharing a birthday. Stats, chance and guessing can be tricky... plenty of people make a living out of understanding more about that than most (Derren Brown is one of the few to admit it).

 

[Julf]

We need a passing statistician to join in

I agree - I, for one, am more than happy to admit my eyes glazed over during the statistics courses at uni, but I have seen enough good examples to realize that you can't rely on intuition to understand odds.

 

[ItemAudio]

I don't dispute any of this, and I don't think it comes down to acuity of listening, system or any other dismissal.

I suspect it comes down to how OCD you are in your listening demands. The world's navies seek out obsessive-compulsive listeners and turns them into SONAR operators. Where the rest of us would hear undifferentiated noise, a SONAR operator hears whales, schools of fish, shipping and Sean Connery's 'Russian' accent. They can hear things that are so far on the impossible side of unlikely from a classical psychoacoustics model that signal detection theory was formed from the wreckage.

Not every OCD listener ends up in the Navy. Some of the gravitate toward music and audio. Some of them spend their days listening to capacitors. Some spend their days listening to wire. If they also hear things that are so far on the impossible side of unlikely, maybe it's because they are wired that way.

Alvien Lucier's piece “I am Sitting in a room” explores the idea that echoes contain the information needed to describe every object in that room. It's not the catchiest tune, but it's a very interesting listen . . .

Bats and dolphins see with echolocation, humans can't. Except Ben Underwood did . . .

Obviously this is an extreme example, but all often when 'impossibility' is claimed, it's what A C Clarke called a failure of imagination. All this stuff is on a spectrum, so it would be interesting to ask those who claim to find USB cables different exactly how different they sounded - different like speakers? Different like DACs? Different like amplifiers?

The idea of acclimation is critical: faces are all very, very similar - but they strike us as entirely dissimilar because we're attuned to discriminating them. By focusing on digital-domain effects, I've seem currently to have lost the ability to discriminate speaker cables, so maybe there's something in Alan's cap-meister anecdote . . .

 

[Alan Sircom]

Hmm. A bit too many unknown constraints for me to calculate the odds. A simplistic calculation places it around 2%. My conclusion would be "needs more verification".

Very possibly. But if the point of the test was to see if there were differences to be had, rather than someone's magic cable-recognition powers, the results were far stronger. Effectively we had 42 A-B presentations (six cables, plus a repeat, to six listeners) and got 33 reports of hearing differences between the A-B presentations, which just about puts it in the 95% confidence level (I make anything better than 30/42 puts us there).

I really recommend doing it.

I feel we are damned whatever the outcome:

If we hear a difference and suppress it, we're lying
If we hear a difference and report it, we are accused of lying
If we don't hear a difference and report it, we are accused of being deaf
If we don't hear a difference and suppress it, we are hiding our deafness

On balance, the best action is no action at all.