Quote: Originally Posted by jung If we can not agree on what is lossy codec, as opposed to lossless, then we can not have this discussion meaningfully. My point is that bits can be different, but the result can still be equal, physically. See below. It's hard to agree when you...

Quote: Originally Posted by jung I want VBR 400kbps, not 200kbps, nor lossless, and never CBR. I don't care how many people can not ABX. If only one person in the whole world can ABX, it is one too many. But lossless is only a mathematical illusion, not a physical reality. The...

Quote: Originally Posted by spanimal These tests were merely my methodogies to verify my capabilities, the results only suggests to me that my hearing perception is not acute enough to distinguish between only these two capables in only my system - nothing more. It is quite persumptious...

Quote: Originally Posted by spanimal After numerous switchings with different songs, focused, unfocused - eventually they sounded the same to me - I will never be able to distinguish these cables in blind test. Then I got really nervous as I never had to switch cables so often when I...

Quote: Originally Posted by spanimal Time to buy a new inexpensive USB cable and let SPANIMAL hearing decide on the outcome. Can it? Will it? Opinions coming up. I hope you will at least perform a blind (preferrably ABX) test, the results of a sighted test will of course be...

Quote: Originally Posted by Patrick82 This looks like some sick experiment involving electricity and a mass murderer.

Quote: Originally Posted by manaox2 USB itself only does error detection. As you said, it would make sense for any USB receiver to perform error correction before using the data. If I've understood the protocol correctly, the reciever can only detect and discard invalid packets...

Quote: Originally Posted by DistortingJack I think that the beautiful part of this is that for someone who uses and understands digital audio, this whole thread is like witchcraft talk. When digital audio gets corrupted, there is no slight loss in soundstage. What you get are very...

Quote: Originally Posted by manaox2 I usually see asynchronous synchronization schemes touted as being better for digital audio transfer as it has data "cells" that are intended to reduce jitter for realtime audio transfer. Its claimed that this is ignored as speeds have become faster...

Synchronisation and reliable transfer of audio is also a basis for the USB spec: "An essential issue in audio is synchronization of the data streams. Indeed, the smallest artifacts are easily detected by the human ear. Therefore, a robust synchronization scheme on isochronous transfers has...

In a futile hope of ending this (an similar discussions about HDMI cables and the like) I actually contacted the guys behind the USB standard with this issue. I got the following reply: "(..)Every data component moved via USB is "protected" by a CRC16 calculation that detects random bit...

I've used the Q220 as a non-portable bbq at my balcony the last two years, and I'm very happy with it. It's simple and it works - and it's easily big enough for 4-6 people.

Max Payne - 6/10 if you played the game, 4/10 if you didnt. Marley and me - 7/10 if you own a dog, 5/10 if you don't Fast and the Furious (the new one) - 8/10 if you're a riceboy, 6/10 if you aint

Aliens! That explains it! The high end loudspeaker cables actually IS magic, the aliens made them!

Just a quick note to the guys that talk about digital cables improving sound: I think a practical test is in order to prove the point null_pointer_us is trying to make. Try this on a .wav file on your PC: Open the file in notepad (or your favorite text editor) - preferrably a quite short...