[svyr]

>track down Dan Lavry's posts about jitter and how it may affect the analog output of a DAC.

errr, isn't this a bit separate to effects of USB cables? (read em a while ago. Dan sure is courageous. He was getting flamed by n00bs )

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Could someone please explain to me a reason why a null test would not prove there is no audible difference.

For the same reason that no one having yet bagged a bigfoot proves there's no such thing as bigfoot.
 
That's why it's called a null result rather than a negative result.
 
se
 
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

You have to indeed be careful you aren't fooling yourself. I can only speak for myself when I say I've often expected something to make no difference at all and found a difference for which I don't have an explanation for. I think a better attitude to have is to find out the cause rather than declare everything as being placebo or whatever. Deciding on only one truth is not scientific, even if one's belief is related to science.

I think it is inside DACs that we will need to be looking for our answers though. Either we get someone to make measurements (I'm working on that) or this thread ends being being a bunch of audiophiles and non-scientists chest-beating their beleifs. Which do you reckon is better?

I do have an explanation for why people find a difference. It is based on all of the evidence bearing in mind some of us have one hand tied behind our back with regards to the presentation of all of the evidence. From that I can decide on 'one truth'. I have made a very reasonable and defendable decision, how is that 'not scientific'? Based on the way you phrased the above, can anyone make a decision about anything?
 
Even if you do get more measurements, how do you plan to link that to audibility? Which do you reckon is better, more measurements or more measurements and a link to audiblity?
 
I am prepared to accept new evidence as it appears, but as it stands with all cables, USB included is that the difference is in the listener and not in the cable.
 
 

 

[jackmccabe]

Quote:

For the same reason that no one having yet bagged a bigfoot proves there's no such thing as bigfoot.
 
That's why it's called a null result rather than a negative result.
 
se
 
 

Wait are you saying differences made by cable are like bigfoot, or are you criticizing null tests?
 
Also why would you assume usb cables make audible differences with certain dacs and not with others;
as this just seems illogical is it just so you can live in a fantasy reality where cables only make a difference in your system?

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

You have to indeed be careful you aren't fooling yourself. I can only speak for myself when I say I've often expected something to make no difference at all and found a difference for which I don't have an explanation for. I think a better attitude to have is to find out the cause rather than declare everything as being placebo or whatever. Deciding on only one truth is not scientific, even if one's belief is related to science.

I think it is inside DACs that we will need to be looking for our answers though. Either we get someone to make measurements (I'm working on that) or this thread ends being being a bunch of audiophiles and non-scientists chest-beating their beleifs. Which do you reckon is better?

This is a general comment:  It is my opinion and has been stated before.
 
It's not so easy to tell the difference between comparable dacs.  It's also not so easy to tell the difference between comparable amps. 
 
I should think that the differences between comparable usb cables has to be an order of magnitude less than the difference between amps and dacs.
 
USG
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

The way Steve Eddy and Currawong are arguing it is as if we risk fooling ourselves by deciding that bigfoot does not exisit having looked at all of the available evidence, whilst those who suggest he does exist ignore some of the available evidence, evidence which very much shows, bigfoot does not exist.

 
I am still open to new evidence, are you going to accept all of the existing evidence?
 
 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Wait are you saying differences made by cable are like bigfoot, or are you criticizing null tests?
 

 
Neither.
 
I'm simply pointing out that a null result is not the same as a negative result. It proves nothing one way or the other, hence, the term "null" which comes from the latin nullus resultarum which means "no consequence."
 
Quote:

Also why would you assume usb cables make audible differences with certain dacs and not with others;
as this just seems illogical is it just so you can live in a fantasy reality where cables only make a difference in your system?

 
I'm not making any such assumption.
 
se
 
 
 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

The way Steve Eddy and Currawong are arguing it is as if we risk fooling ourselves by deciding that bigfoot does not exisit having looked at all of the available evidence, whilst those who suggest he does exist ignore some of the available evidence, evidence which very much shows, bigfoot does not exist.

 
 

My only "argument" is pointing out that a null result proves nothing one way or the other. Just as not having bagged a bigfoot proves nothing one way or the other.
 
se
 

 

[vandaven]

Quote:

 
Neither.
 
I'm simply pointing out that a null result is not the same as a negative result. It proves nothing one way or the other, hence, the term "null" which comes from the latin nullus resultarum which means "no consequence."
 
 
I'm not making any such assumption.
 
se
 
 
 

Excuse me, but I don't seem to understand what you are talking about. I suppose the "nulling" refers to the tests I did by re-recording music and audio test sequences by using different USB cables (as variables) within the "signal" chain. The inverse summation (one signal reversed by 180°) of both usb cable recordings led to the result that there is no significant or measurable difference between a "high conductive expensive" usb cable and a "no-name" usb cable. It's kinda like 5 - (5 x -1) which equals zero. That is meant by nulling. ANY positive or negative result would have meant that one of the cables is of higher quality than the other. 

If this is too hard to understand, I really do not know how to simplify it any further, but I am willing to try to propose explanations to anybody who doesn't get it. 
 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Wait are you saying differences made by cable are like bigfoot, or are you criticizing null tests?
 
Also why would you assume usb cables make audible differences with certain dacs and not with others;
as this just seems illogical is it just so you can live in a fantasy reality where cables only make a difference in your system?

The general answer is that the greater resolution of the dac the more you can hear the difference between cables.
 


Quote:

The way Steve Eddy and Currawong are arguing it is as if we risk fooling ourselves by deciding that bigfoot does not exisit having looked at all of the available evidence, whilst those who suggest he does exist ignore some of the available evidence, evidence which very much shows, bigfoot does not exist.

 
I am still open to new evidence, are you going to accept all of the existing evidence?
 
 

 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

My only "argument" is pointing out that a null result proves nothing one way or the other. Just as not having bagged a bigfoot proves nothing one way or the other.
 
se
 

Not having bagged a bigfoot is only part of the evidence as to whether such exisits or not.
 
How do you link your cables to audible differences in sound quality?

 

[vandaven]

Quote:

My only "argument" is pointing out that a null result proves nothing one way or the other. Just as not having bagged a bigfoot proves nothing one way or the other.
 
se
 

Apparently you are not able to distinct between the analog world and a digital system, which is kinda "simple" in comparison. In the digital world, we have a fixed system with a certain number of samples and wordlenghts per second. In case of a digital CD, it's 44100 x 16 different bits of audio information per second. The mountains and woods, which are constantly changing shape (maybe at the speed of the Planck interval), offer lots of hiding places for Bigfoot, so he may hide there forever without being caught. If a DAC is not reacting to the bitstream accordingly, it's probably damaged.
 

 

[jackmccabe]

Quote:

Neither.
 
I'm simply pointing out that a null result is not the same as a negative result. It proves nothing one way or the other, hence, the term "null" which comes from the latin nullus resultarum which means "no consequence."
 

Wait your making an assumption that a test is useless based on its name? 
Wow.
Science as we know it currently states audio cables cannot make an audible change to the sound unless functioning incorrectly.
As no one has yet to produce a single shred of evidence that suggest contrary.
I personally find it ridiculous of someone to put what they "hear" over science and logic.
Peoples minds are extremely easily tricked, so to assume that you are in fact correct and scientific tests are incorrect seems arrogant and silly.
If someone can actually provide any (unbiased, reasonable) evidence that suggests there is a difference I would be gob smacked.

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Apparently you are not able to distinct between the analog world and a digital system, which is kinda "simple" in comparison. In the digital world, we have a fixed system with a certain number of samples and wordlenghts per second. In case of a digital CD, it's 44100 x 16 different bits of audio information per second. The mountains and woods, which are constantly changing shape (maybe at the speed of the Planck interval), offer lots of hiding places for Bigfoot, so he may hide there forever without being caught. If a DAC is not reacting to the bitstream accordingly, it's probably damaged.
 

No reason to be condescending, Eddy's clever enough.
It might have passed you right by, but you are in fact talking about two completely different things, both being applicable to the discussion here.
You are talking about a specific testing protocol, often refered to as Null Difference Testing, used in the audio production world, and elsewhere. One famous example is the Carver Challenge, where Bob Carver used null testing to tune his solid state amplifier to sound perceptably identical to an expensive tube amplifier.
On the other hand, what Steve Eddy is talking about is a Null Result, the only result you do not want from a scientific experiment, because it adds no useful data.
 
Oh and PRM, there is no 'evidence' against a bigfoot, it's existence is just highly improbable. An almost infinite improbability factor, one might say.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

That depends on your definition of evidence. Mine is that it anything which can be used to prove or disprove something. Evidence to show 'proof' of bigfoots existence can be hoaxed, is part of the evidence that it does not exist.