[Arjisme]

Quote:

if science would have proven that there shouldn't be an audible difference,we would not have this discussion right ..?

Actually, through scientific methods, we can prove whether or not you can perceive a difference via auditory cues alone between two cables.  As it stands, with the attempts made thus far, there has been a remarkable dearth of evidence that anyone truly can hear such differences.  However, there is plenty of evidence that people detect differences when they can also utilize non-auditory cues.  We keep having this discussion because people such as yourself claim they hear a difference but have not performed or refuse to perform a good scientific test to prove that claim.  The current scientific evidence is that the claim is very likely false.
 
And consider:  if, say, you took a properly conducted DBT and could prove that you hear the differences you claim, that would be so noteworthy it might very well move the discussion to a new level.

 

[ddrddrddrddr]

Uhhh... he explains the problem with inductance in copper wires... fine. Using the same material there's no way that analog would have more voltage transition issues than digital, where accuracy of data is determined by bit rate whereas with analog it's determined by quantization.

 

[plonter]

Quote:

Actually, through scientific methods, we can prove whether or not you can perceive a difference via auditory cues alone between two cables.  As it stands, with the attempts made thus far, there has been a remarkable dearth of evidence that anyone truly can hear such differences.  However, there is plenty of evidence that people detect differences when they can also utilize non-auditory cues.  We keep having this discussion because people such as yourself claim they hear a difference but have not performed or refuse to perform a good scientific test to prove that claim.  The current scientific evidence is that the claim is very likely false.
 
And consider:  if, say, you took a properly conducted DBT and could prove that you hear the differences you claim, that would be so noteworthy it might very well move the discussion to a new level.

I hear ya..but i don't need to prove anything to myself or to anyone...  like i said earlier,i don't care so much about the difference in digital cables (nor analog for that matter),I also said that i won't buy anything above 100$ personally.  I always go for middle priced "just in case" but it turns out that there is a slight difference between some cables.
a lot of tests have been done,I don't need to make another one just to prove this.  others,with much better systems than mine and much better ears are making those tests as we speak.
 
I was just sharing my experience.  by the way...i think it is totally wrong to tell someone who claims to hear a difference that he is NOT,nobody have the right to do so because you can't know until you check the specific system for yourself.  IMO that's a total disregard of that person and his opinios altogether.  I am not talking about you specifically but in general. 

 

[ddrddrddrddr]

That would depend on whether you want to talk quantitatively or qualitatively. If you want opinions, then everyone have the right to one. The should really be derived qualitatively via the frequency response. After that you can perhaps make some comments and opinions on what that translates to audible sound quality.

 

[plonter]

Quote:

That would depend on whether you want to talk quantitatively or qualitatively. If you want opinions, then everyone have the right to one. The should really be derived qualitatively via the frequency response. After that you can perhaps make some comments and opinions on what that translates to audible sound quality.

was that reffered to me?  I wish i could understand what you are saying...

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plonter
 by the way...i think it is totally wrong to tell someone who claims to hear a difference that he is NOT,nobody have the right to do so because you can't know until you check the specific system for yourself.  IMO that's a total disregard of that person and his opinios altogether.  I am not talking about you specifically but in general. 

In this sub-forum, however it is acceptable to ask them to back this claim up with better evidence such as related measurements or blind tests,   1 million anecdotes <> good evidence

 

[plonter]

Quote:

In this sub-forum, however it is acceptable to ask them to back this claim up with better evidence such as related measurements or blind tests,   1 million anecdotes <> good evidence

you are right..it is even  a good thing to ask for backups imo,but some people are doing more than just ask for it,they tell you in your face that you are 100% wrong,and that's an unacceptable behaviour imo.

 

[Arjisme]

 
Quote:

by the way...i think it is totally wrong to tell someone who claims to hear a difference that he is NOT,nobody have the right to do so because you can't know until you check the specific system for yourself.  IMO that's a total disregard of that person and his opinios altogether.  I am not talking about you specifically but in general. 

I agree it would be out of line to tell someone what they hear.  However, I think you misinterpret the intent of those comments.  More often than not they are telling you why you hear what you hear.  That is different and is not out of line.  Some say they hear a difference in cables and suggest it is something about the cables themselves that is causing it.  However, they can never offer a plausible explanation as to why the cables themselves are creating this difference.  The argument here is that the cause of the difference is being misinterpreted.  We recognize you hear a difference, but it isn't due to the audio capabilities of the cables themselves.
 
When you start talking about "why," you are entering the realm of science.

 

[plonter]

Quote:

I agree it would be out of line to tell someone what they hear.  However, I think you misinterpret the intent of those comments.  More often than not they are telling you why you hear what you hear.  That is different and is not out of line.  Some say they hear a difference in cables and suggest it is something about the cables themselves that is causing it.  However, they can never offer a plausible explanation as to why the cables themselves are creating this difference.  The argument here is that the cause of the difference is being misinterpreted.  We recognize you hear a difference, but it isn't due to the audio capabilities of the cables themselves.
 
When you start talking about "why" you are entering the realm of science.

I know what you mean mate...believe me,I understand it completely.  I will try not posting in this forum again unless i have a proof to my claims,or if it is a question.
by the way...I did switch between those two cables number of times and the difference was always in the same places (monster=punchier sound ,dayton=less punchy with less aggressive highs).  it is not an ABX test,but it is good enough for me to hear the difference.
 
also,if i WAS doing a proper ABX test,it still doesn't proof nothing in 100% you know...
a proper scientiffic proof will be the one made by computer programmes or some sort of dedicated equipment ,and not human hearing.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

also,if i WAS doing a proper ABX test,it still doesn't proof nothing in 100% you know...
a proper scientiffic proof will be the one made by computer programmes or some sort of dedicated equipment ,and not human hearing.

If we're going by computer programs and dedicated measuring equipment then there isn't a difference to date.
 
Cable believers believe they can hear something we can't measure.  The current belief is that thanks to placebo from cited listening they perceive a difference they don't really hear.

 

[plonter]

Quote:

Quote:

also,if i WAS doing a proper ABX test,it still doesn't proof nothing in 100% you know...
a proper scientiffic proof will be the one made by computer programmes or some sort of dedicated equipment ,and not human hearing.

If we're going by computer programs and dedicated measuring equipment then there isn't a difference to date.
 
Cable believers believe they can hear something we can't measure.  The current belief is that thanks to placebo from cited listening they perceive a difference they don't really hear.

well..the first claim (made by audiophiles) that they hear things that can't be measured is just absurd..if any,it is the opposite way around ( that some measurable things can't be heard by humans). if you're asking me, there's nothing that can NOT be measured by computers and such.    I agree with you about this.
but i don't know how much it is true (those claims..) because science DID "prove" that there IS an audible difference (jitter etc.) it is just that humans can't really notice it in most cases.
those so called "believers"(like me) say that they can hear a difference.
 

 

[Iniamyen]

Quote:

well..the first claim (made by audiophiles) that they hear things that can't be measured is just absurd..if any,it is the opposite way around ( that some measurable things can't be heard by humans). if you're asking me, there's nothing that can NOT be measured by computers and such.    I agree with you about this.
but i don't know how much it is true (those claims..) because science DID "prove" that there IS an audible difference (jitter etc.) it is just that humans can't really notice it in most cases.
those so called "believers"(like me) say that they can hear a difference.
 

 
When did science prove that all jitter is audible? Read this thread to start: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/457858/to-what-degree-is-jitter-audible
 
If humans can't "notice it in most cases" then how is it audible? I would have to notice something before I would classify it as "audible."
 

 

[plonter]

Quote:

 
When did science prove that jitter is audible? Read this thread to start: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/457858/to-what-degree-is-jitter-audible
 
If humans can't "notice it in most cases" then how is it audible? I would have to notice something before I would classify it as "audible."
 

you didn't understand what i was saying obviously...
I didn't say that science has proved that JITTER is audible,i said that science has proved that there IS a difference ...and that difference is called "jitter".    we the humans Seemingly can't detect that difference...but a computer certainly can. (jitter is AUDIBLE to a computer,i simply used this computer-human analogy). 
if it were the computer who listen to the music,it would say that one cable/transport is better than the other because the difference in jitter output.
it is all numbers eventually.  some jitter amounts have proven to be audible though.

 

[Iniamyen]

Quote:

well..the first claim (made by audiophiles) that they hear things that can't be measured is just absurd..if any,it is the opposite way around ( that some measurable things can't be heard by humans). if you're asking me, there's nothing that can NOT be measured by computers and such.    I agree with you about this.
but i don't know how much it is true (those claims..) because science DID "prove" that there IS an audible difference (jitter etc.) it is just that humans can't really notice it in most cases.
those so called "believers"(like me) say that they can hear a difference.
 

It sure looks like you are saying jitter is audible to me... either way, my point is that it's probably not as black and white as being "audible." Especially since in the case of an HDMI cable you will probably be passing the signal to something that will effectively cancel the effects of jitter before converting the signal to analog... which could make the whole premise moot.
 
I agree in principle that if you inject increasing amounts of jitter into a signal that is directly converted to analog, without reclocking, at some point I would think it would become audible. But I can't say for sure, since I've never done a listening test. For that I would refer to the tests that have already been done, in the other thread I linked.
 
And I'm still not sure how the Monster cable specifically addresses jitter which may or may not exist and may or may not be audible

 

[plonter]

my usage of the computer-human analogy confused a little...perhaps i should have phrase my words differently.   but anyway..I realy don't believe that i have a great amount of jitter in my system,and my dac also has a good reclocking so even if my marantz transport was sending a high amount of jitter the dac would probably disable it..at least most of it.
 
again...I don't care so much in order to have a special listening test,an abx test or whatever you guys call it...  my "test" is done when i switch between the two cables based on my hearing only.  it maybe don't prove anything to anyone else,but i got my proof.