Originally Posted by cel4145
No. It just means I'm looking for scientific explanation that trumps the existing explanation, rather than listening to some guy on the Internet who has to be rude and/or insult those that don't believe in USB cable audio superiority in order to make his points. 00940 just provided one reason why it might sound better to you--it is possible that a poorly designed DAC would need a cable with better shielding. That has nothing to do with one USB cable being inherently better than another for audio quality.
I was not being rude to non-believers, but instead stated that i found it silly that with all the logic and so-called science it was concluded that "we know everything - digital is digital and that's that". Excerpts form interviews of famous designers of digital audio have been posted, someone posted links to a number of articles. Still it was "i know everything - it's impossible". So why should one more article make a difference? (I did state that there's information out there on the web.) i appreciate 00940's post as much as the others, but it's not the first one linked to from this thread.
My point since the beginning was that with evidence on *both* sides (as according to various articles and links) and if it interests you, it is the scientific thing to test your hypotheses. That is all. But still... "we know usb specs. My printer works perfect." You demand proof in the forms of graphs and plots for 'audiophile cables' but are you even sure your usb 2 cable conforms to that standard? You're basing your assumption on the fact that it works. How is that different from someone else basing their hypothesis on what they hear? There's concrete information than that on the "heard the difference" side but for some reason, all is dismissed as placebo. 100% placebo. Because digital is digital. It can't be any other way.
Now you're saying you believe it may be the case depending on how well dacs are designed. Well, which of the hundreds of dacs out there is perfectly designed? Most dacs of a common price range use one of a handful of chips available to handle usb inputs (like an xmos). The designs of these boards do tend to be more limited than the rest of the dac and more importantly, similar between different dacs. If a cable makes an improvement on one, it is likely to do so on another. So in these cases, the cable matters. A berkeley audio usb->spdif box goes to great lengths to deal with its usb input and with stunning results. Where's the logic of "perfect" data transfer with any "functional" cable and circuits in that one? Still 100% placebo?
And the shielding.... Well isn't that part of the cable? The shielding, construction, materials, connectors etc. each play a role to a degree. I've never said a good cable needs to be made out of gold and covered in unobtainium or something, did i?
Look, you can believe what you like. I am seriously not interested. But please, if you want to be scientific about it, please keep an open mind and check things out. It is easy to put things down to as placebo effects and it is dangerous too because it is hard to disprove that something is NOT placebo. It's easy to read specs but it is harder still to understand their limitations upon application. Folks throw around words like double blind tests like it's easy or even possible to do in many cases. There's a lot of bs in this hobby like i said, but it ain't all bs. Seeing for yourself is part of the fun, imho, specially if it costs you nothing.