What HiFi Throw Down The Gauntlet.

[vln]

Surprises me not in the slightest. It's probably like the job writing the horoscopes in papers.

Personally I'm baffled at the apparent lack of any intellectual curiosity. Someone can spend 10 years listening to cables and yet have no interest in whether they really do sound different.Ethernet cables.

Never mind, maybe a place will come up reviewing films at Time Out.

Have to agree with this.

"What HiFi Throw Down The Gauntlet"? More like "What HiFi Presses Hands Against Their Ears And Goes LAALALALALALALALAALAAA!!"

I think the audiophile cable and accessories industry just went too far with computer audio and reached a point where people (or at least those with some basic understanding of technology and science, and at least a shred of critical thinking) just couldn't take it any more. Loudspeaker cables? Why not - I did hear *some* improvements/changes from time to time, when trying some of them out (admittedly not blind). But high end ethernet and USB cables? AYFKM?

In the article linked, the author says "I’m a reviewer, not a physicist, nor an engineer." Ironically, he seems to have no idea of the level to which that comes across.

Alan, out of interest, how ludicrous does a HiFi tweak need to become before you stop reviewing it?


Samuel.

 

[droodzilla]

"What HiFi Throw Down The Gauntlet"? More like "What HiFi Presses Hands Against Their Ears And Goes LAALALALALALALALAALAAA!!"

Well said! For its complacency and endorsement of wilful ignorance, that must be one of the most wretched articles about hi-fi I've ever read. He didn't have any interest in or knowledge of hi-fi when he started at WHF and he knows nothing of the science of digital audio but he's happy to encourage people to spend thousands of pounds on digital cables that might look nice but which improve sound quality not one iota. Beyond pathetic, really.

I'm extremely grateful to the sceptical voices on this and other forums that reminded me of the basic physics behind sound reproduction (digital and analogue). They've saved me a small fortune and I'm far less neurotic about hi-fi as a result of their posts. I still obsess about speakers but at least I know they really do sound different.

 

[pocketkitchen]

Well it's post 80 that suggests there is interpolation in HDMI. If this were true, it would suggest sparkles are actually due to a sequence of dropped samples, since isolated dropped samples would be unobvious.

That's correct. Normally occurs when cables start getting too long and therefore the 5v square wave resembles less of a square wave and more of a shark's tooth. Consequently, the receiver can no longer convert the ironically analogue voltage signal into the binary digits it needs to interpret. However, poorly engineered cables or often badly installed cables can exhibit faults even at relatively short lengths.

 

[mattgbell]

That's correct. Normally occurs when cables start getting too long and therefore the 5v square wave resembles less of a square wave and more of a shark's tooth. Consequently, the receiver can no longer convert the ironically analogue voltage signal into the binary digits it needs to interpret. However, poorly engineered cables or often badly installed cables can exhibit faults even at relatively short lengths.

This is an important point. What some folk fail to recognise is that, whilst digital cables do indeed carry digital data, they carry it in the form of an electrical (or optical) signal. And all signals are subject to degradation: that is basic physics. For instance, check out Johnson-Nyquist Noise.

Of course, whether this degradation makes any audible difference is another matter altogether. But it's certainly a theoretical possibility.

 

[flatpopely]

This piece from Blue Jeans Cable may be helpful for some.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/hdmi-cables.htm?hdmiinfo

They make and sell cables, why believe them?

 

[darrenyeats]

This is an important point. What some folk fail to recognise is that, whilst digital cables do indeed carry digital data, they carry it in the form of an electrical (or optical) signal. And all signals are subject to degradation: that is basic physics. For instance, check out Johnson-Nyquist Noise.

Of course, whether this degradation makes any audible difference is another matter altogether. But it's certainly a theoretical possibility.

The question is what measures are included in the protocol: error detection; error correction; resend on failure?

 

[maxflinn]

*If the corruption/restriction of data becomes too much for error correction to cope with you get failure, which will mean either no picture/sound, or in rare cases, sparklies.

Until that point you get perfect audio/video.

It is not possible to ever get the subtle changes in audio/video quality that reviewers report.

Blue Jeans Cables website explains it all clearly.

Is there really anything else re HDMI cables worth discussing? (apart from the lies used to sell them, which only a handful of rags still peddle on behalf of the cable resellers who can't lie about their performance because of the ASA).

*Quite unlikely anyway unless over a long run.

 

[Julf]

This is an important point. What some folk fail to recognise is that, whilst digital cables do indeed carry digital data, they carry it in the form of an electrical (or optical) signal. And all signals are subject to degradation: that is basic physics. For instance, check out Johnson-Nyquist Noise.

Of course, whether this degradation makes any audible difference is another matter altogether. But it's certainly a theoretical possibility.

Any suggestions for how the Johnson-Nyquist noise (thermal noise to you and me), at levels below -100 dBm at a bandwidth of 25 MHz, could make an audible difference to digital data, and in what scenarios?

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan, out of interest, how ludicrous does a HiFi tweak need to become before you stop reviewing it?


Samuel.

Nice back-handed insult.

The answer is, of course, as ludicrous as the empirical threshold of the individual reviewer. This is always two or three steps too far for the Hi-Fi Science Club, and two or three steps not far enough for the faerie folk. Generally, each magazine goes after taking the temperature of its readership and producing reviews in step with the zeitgeist of the many.

You don't like this? You think we should be more leading the readers than be led by their demands? Simple. Just find us another 60,000-70,000 readers for each magazine as they currently stand (or roughly the sort of readership audio magazines used to have before VCRs, computers, phones, Walkman, computer games, cheap SLRs then cheap DSLRs and all the other trappings of modern life distracted people from the pure path of hi-fi) and we'll happily go back to a more objective, informative and educational role. Oh, and you might want to set the clocks at WHSmiths back 40 years or so while you are at it, to give hi-fi magazines some more shelf space in four out of five branches now.

Because, if you don't, you end up having to pander more to our readers demands than try to steer the readers away from the rocks.

We do have unique constraints in the UK and US in that magazines and advertisers are bound by codes of conduct and, that causes fairly major problems because those limits are never enough for our readerships. Especially as we now have to seek an international readership that often reads home-grown magazines, websites and bloggers where such constraints do not exist.

One of the biggest product review requests we received until the product was discontinued was to evaluate a passive box of er, something, which absorbed bad light (because light is a frequency, just like sound) from around your electronics. These €1,000 bricks (you needed three per device) received a lot of praise from places like 6moons and I used to get a number of requests to review them, usually from people who already had at least one trio of unlight-bricks and were thinking about buying a lot more.

Such people do not want a review, they want legitimisation of their purchase in print. And magazines who mistakenly view such an invite as a demand for a fair review frequently end up losing readers as a result. Something we can all ill-afford.

 

[paskinn]

Nice back-handed insult.

The answer is, of course, as ludicrous as the empirical threshold of the individual reviewer. This is always two or three steps too far for the Hi-Fi Science Club, and two or three steps not far enough for the faerie folk. Generally, each magazine goes after taking the temperature of its readership and producing reviews in step with the zeitgeist of the many.

You don't like this? You think we should be more leading the readers than be led by their demands? Simple. Just find us another 60,000-70,000 readers for each magazine as they currently stand (or roughly the sort of readership audio magazines used to have before VCRs, computers, phones, Walkman, computer games, cheap SLRs then cheap DSLRs and all the other trappings of modern life distracted people from the pure path of hi-fi) and we'll happily go back to a more objective, informative and educational role. Oh, and you might want to set the clocks at WHSmiths back 40 years or so while you are at it, to give hi-fi magazines some more shelf space in four out of five branches now.

Because, if you don't, you end up having to pander more to our readers demands than try to steer the readers away from the rocks.

We do have unique constraints in the UK and US in that magazines and advertisers are bound by codes of conduct and, that causes fairly major problems because those limits are never enough for our readerships. Especially as we now have to seek an international readership that often reads home-grown magazines, websites and bloggers where such constraints do not exist.

One of the biggest product review requests we received until the product was discontinued was to evaluate a passive box of er, something, which absorbed bad light (because light is a frequency, just like sound) from around your electronics. These €1,000 bricks (you needed three per device) received a lot of praise from places like 6moons and I used to get a number of requests to review them, usually from people who already had at least one trio of unlight-bricks and were thinking about buying a lot more.

Such people do not want a review, they want legitimisation of their purchase in print. And magazines who mistakenly view such an invite as a demand for a fair review frequently end up losing readers as a result. Something we can all ill-afford.

So it's all the fault of those naughty old readers, who you have to 'pander' to (your word.) None of the exaggerated prose and PR gloss is your fault..it's those naughty people who buy the magazine. They make you do it . How convenient, it comes straight from the 'blame the consumer' school of business.
I think quite a few readers pay their money in the belief that an expert is giving them impartial advice, foolish people. According to you, the job is to just 'pander' to whatever beliefs you think your readers hold. That's probably more like propaganda than responsible journalism. Pity.

 

[darrenyeats]

Paskinn, the way I read Alan's post, the question is how to decide what to review and what not review (which was the question posed by the way) - rather than giving biased advice per se.

 

[Alan Sircom]

So it's all the fault of those naughty old readers, who you have to 'pander' to (your word.) None of the exaggerated prose and PR gloss is your fault..it's those naughty people who buy the magazine. They make you do it . How convenient, it comes straight from the 'blame the consumer' school of business.
I think quite a few readers pay their money in the belief that an expert is giving them impartial advice, foolish people. According to you, the job is to just 'pander' to whatever beliefs you think your readers hold. That's probably more like propaganda than responsible journalism. Pity.

Oh, that just reeks of the kind of self-satisfied smugness of BBC types before the pogroms, and that attitude was the reason there were pogroms. When were you kicked out?

A media outlet that disenfranchises its readership to the point of having them leave can only exist in a world where you are milking the wider public for your funding. Otherwise, it's down to patronage - not even advertisers stay around if you've managed to lose too many readers - and patrons have their own demands.

The impartial advice does not change - every reviewer I know (which is, basically, almost all of them) believes in what they write, even if you disagree with their beliefs - but media outlets only survive by being in lock-step with the demands of their audience. This does create a filter - if readers don't like the verdicts and opinions of a reviewer, we get calls for their dismissal (usually with 'cancel my subscription' appended to the text). If enough actually follow up on that threat, the Powers That Be will excise that reviewer. So, reviewers who aren't in step with the zeitgeist either limit their reviewing to aspects that don't conflict (such as, reviewing loudspeakers) or simply disappear.

I would really like to see how this can be side-stepped? Should Nick Grimshaw have a 10 minute classical slot on the Radio 1 Breakfast programme because it would be right to educate the listeners? Or should the BBC go with the demands of the listeners?

Even the BBC realised this, when they stopped making children's programmes with responsible adults patronising kids, and started making programmes that appealed to children.

 

[maxflinn]

Alan, Joe Bloggs who buys WHF for professional advice gets told that the more money he spends on HDMI cables, the better the audio/image quality of his TV/home cinema system will be.

This is completely untrue, and immoral. It is a lie that exists for commercial reasons, and is certainly not something that the WHF readership demand.

There is no other excuse for it but greed!

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan, Joe Bloggs who buys WHF for professional advice gets told that the more money he spends on HDMI cables, the better the audio/image quality of his TV/home cinema system will be.

This is completely untrue, and immoral. It is a lie that exists for commercial reasons, and is certainly not something that the WHF readership demand.

There is no other excuse for it but greed!

Well, no. On a number of levels.

If advertising concerns made it down to reviewer level, then the same thing would apply; advertisers would leave the magazine if it were at odds with the concerns of the readers, and the reviewers would be asked not to review things like HDMI cable. The fact is there seems to be no reader exodus on the grounds of whether or not they review HDMI cables.

There's a lot of noise about this on the WHF forum, but curiously there are also a lot of people who have been reading WHF for many years and are now cancelling their subscriptions who have been members of the WHF forum for a little over three days.

Reviewers at WHF are kept away from commercial concerns. They are asked to form their opinions on products based purely on performance qua performance. Not performance filtered through commercial pressures, or through an abstract series of objective measurements; purely through siting in front of it and using it, in an attempt to reproduce the buying experience.

Those who take a "it technically cannot, so it won't" or a "this is a friend of the company, so it must" or even "I like this company's products, so I'll like this one too" are quickly removed from the review roster.

If a reviewer feels the performance of an HDMI cable alters performance, he or she is basing that finding on nothing more or nothing less than sitting and comparing. Not trying to stack the deck in either direction. So, not trying to ascertain the performance of three HDMI cables using three uncalibrated televisions, and no hobbling one output. Simply using one cable, then another cable, in the same system and on the same calibrated TV set.

I haven't ever tested HDMI, so I couldn't say if it does or doesn't make a difference. But if I were due to review an HDMI cable, I would approach it in the same way I would with any component - slot it in a system, compare it to a baseline, and describe any and all changes in performance. As a result, if I did just that and found I perceived a difference, would it be more intellectually honest to report that finding come what may, or pretend it didn't happen?

You might argue that some things simply aren't worth testing as they are a given. That isn't the way it works, because you get asked 'why not' a lot. I can say that I don't have a chip in the HDMI game because it's not a commonly used digital connection in audio. If it were, I would be reviewing HDMI, because I'd be being asked repeatedly for reviews of HDMI cable. Not by the advertisers, by the readers.

 

[Joe P]

Max,

This is completely untrue, and immoral. It is a lie that exists for commercial reasons, and is certainly not something that the WHF readership demand.

I think you'll find that all sorts of businesses stretch the truth to persuade punters to part with their cabbage. I don't know why the same practice applied to wire gets you so worked up.

A visceral reaction to quackery I understand, because people's health is at stake. Similarly, bilking the elderly out of their pension cheques on all sort of scams that prey on their fears understandably raises one's ire.

But wire? On a scale of 0 to 100, where zero represents no concern and 100 a level of concern that ought to keep all sane and rational people awake during the wee hours, I rank misleading wire reviews around 0.34.

Joe

 

[Joe Hutch]

Alan, Joe Bloggs who buys WHF for professional advice gets told that the more money he spends on HDMI cables, the better the audio/image quality of his TV/home cinema system will be.

This is completely untrue, and immoral. It is a lie that exists for commercial reasons, and is certainly not something that the WHF readership demand.

There is no other excuse for it but greed!

If Joe Bloggs buys a consumer mag stuffed to the brim with adverts for, amongst other things, cables, then he would have to possess the mental abilities of a slow-learning baboon to imagine he was buying professional advice.

 

[formbypc]

This is completely untrue, and immoral. It is a lie that exists for commercial reasons, and is certainly not something that the WHF readership demand.

Is this based on your theoretical view of cable performance, or have you actually sat down with some cheap / mid-price / eye-wateringly expensive cables and compared them ... ?

 

[Joe P]

Using nothing but the Talosian-like power of my mind, I have resisted the almost irresistible lure of a shitty burger.

But let me tells ya. It wuz a close call. That tune, the happy people, the ****ing clown,...

Joe

 

[louballoo]

Max,


I think you'll find that all sorts of businesses stretch the truth to persuade punters to part with their cabbage. I don't know why the same practice applied to wire gets you so worked up.

A visceral reaction to quackery I understand, because people's health is at stake. Similarly, bilking the elderly out of their pension cheques on all sort of scams that prey on their fears understandably raises one's ire.

But wire? On a scale of 0 to 100, where zero represents no concern and 100 a level of concern that ought to keep all sane and rational people awake during the wee hours, I rank misleading wire reviews around 0.34.

Joe

Verbose hobbyists rank 100! Next thing they will want access to exclusive demo rooms!

Your Pal from the West......

Louballoo

 

[droodzilla]

Is this based on your theoretical view of cable performance, or have you actually sat down with some cheap / mid-price / eye-wateringly expensive cables and compared them ... ?

The theoretical reasons for believing (competent) digital cable construction *cannot* make a difference are overwhelmingly strong. It's the same theory that underpins the transmission of digital data across the world via multiple servers and thousands of miles of cable. Banks and other massive multinational corporations rely on it but somehow it's not good enough for the reproduction of sound in our own homes. Someone better warn IBM!

The burden of proof is on those who maintain, against all reason, that digital cables can improve (or change) sound quality. That means conducting proper double-blind tests that demonstrate a statistically significant and repeatable effect. Without this there is simply nothing to explain: anecdote (and the reviews in most hi-fi mags are no better than that) is not data.

Is this worth making a big fuss over? Well, in the grand scheme of things it pales into insignificance compared with the troubles in Syria, or even the coalition's scapegoating of the poor and disabled in this country. Still, we are on a hi-fi forum, right, so it's only to be expected that people will get worked up about hi-fi while they're here. Who knows what they get up to when they're not?