[jackmccabe]

Quote:

the point is that to truly "scientifically" research something's effect you have to fully know it's nature.
without knowing it completely we can only measure a limited range of characteristics.
finally, all these tests that were conducted told us actually ONLY possible variations in _those characteristics that we know about_
and, assuming that those tests were made in appropriate way using ideal instruments, anyway we can only say that _we didn't see any cable effect on electrical characteristics that we know and we can measure_

We currently know that an ideal amplifier/ dac produces no distortion, there fore it will output the signal exactly as it was input.
Of course their are many types of distortion, but these are all fairly easy to measure, unfortunately the one thing we can't measure is placebo effect and bias.
It is far far more likely that people are being fooled than there is something that cables make a difference to that modern science can't measure, it is just ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
 
The problem with high-end audio is that much of it is subjective and people are very arrogant and unwilling to accept facts as they 100% believe in their opinion.
Yes, people continue to argue because they are so stubborn that even when faced with facts, they will reject them because they know they are right.
I just wonder how people could even bother arguing that there are differences when they haven't performed any sort of controlled listening tests.

 

[vandaven]

The problem is that people are not willing to accept that whatever happens between the audio interface and the computer is a controlled digital system with no "esoteric" possibilities.
 

 

[uelover]

Quote:

It is far far more likely that people are being fooled than there is something that cables make a difference to that modern science can't measure, it is just ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
 
The problem with high-end audio is that much of it is subjective and people are very arrogant and unwilling to accept facts as they 100% believe in their opinion.
Yes, people continue to argue because they are so stubborn that even when faced with facts, they will reject them because they know they are right.

 
Lol. After such a long time, flaming starts again.
 
Problem with the other half of the camp is that even with one just test result (even when there is a lack of treatment group and the entire test setup and procedure is unknown) the phenomenon of affirmative bias sets in.
 
I could not even confirm the test on my end due to the lack of equipment and Vandaven had just ignored my PM to him questioning the tools he used for the test.
 
Then, people sitting on the side just jump in and started flaming again.
 
In any case, seems like there is no one here genuinely interested in performing a well-controlled experiment. Wasted my time here these past two days getting back into this thread hoping to meet some good and tech-savvy Samaritans.

 

[DaBomb77766]

Quote:

 
Lol. After such a long time, flaming starts again.
 
Problem with the other half of the camp is that even with one just test result (even when there is a lack of treatment group and the entire test setup and procedure is unknown) the phenomenon of affirmative bias sets in.
 
I could not even confirm the test on my end due to the lack of equipment and Vandaven had just ignored my PM to him questioning the tools he used for the test.
 
Then, people sitting on the side just jump in and started flaming again.
 
In any case, seems like there is no one here genuinely interested in performing a well-controlled experiment. Wasted my time here these past two days getting back into this thread hoping to meet some good and tech-savvy Samaritans.

Rest assured his test equipment is adequate for the job.  His test was well-controlled...what makes you think otherwise?  If anything, if it wasn't well-controlled that's when differences would show up.  He used a good DAC-ADC and it showed a minimal difference.  Unless he fudged the data there's not much else that can be done...others are free to do the same, but it will have the same effect.

 

[vandaven]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uelover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Then, people sitting on the side just jump in and started flaming again.
 
In any case, seems like there is no one here genuinely interested in performing a well-controlled experiment. Wasted my time here these past two days getting back into this thread hoping to meet some good and tech-savvy Samaritans.

Uelover, 
 
in each and every test I've shown on this thread and the parallel thread here http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/555612/cable-discussion-continued-split-from-usb-cable-thread/105#post_7514713 the equipment was mentioned.
 
I kindly forwarded you the test results as WAV files and you took a look at them.
 
I am sorry that I also got other stuff to do than to repeat myself all day long.
 
 
 
 

 

[Willakan]

Wait a sec, nothing needs proving. We're not breaking new ground here - the fact these cables do absolutely nothing to the sound (nothing as in nothing significantly measurable that can be shown to vary consistently between cable designs or types - something that is approaching the boundary of measuring equipment resolution, let alone the hearing resolution of the human ear) if they are competently designed has already been established scientifically - vandaven was just presenting yet more evidence in an effort to persuade some more people with some visual examples.
 
Cables, especially digital, are not some mystical uncharted science. The work in defining the (low) quality of cable required to transmit any form of USB/HDMI/other digital standard to a standard that is to all intents and purposes perfection was laid down by the people who defined the standards. Funnily enough, they don't specify "Litz cable geometry to improve transfer" in those documents. 
 
If we're going to go the whole "not enough evidence route," the theory has been laid down that says "Cables will not make a difference to the end-user." Testing was then done, so this became established scientific doctrine. For this to change, some evidence must be presented that makes that statement seem incorrect. Evidence that is heavily biased is below contempt. Of course, if evidence could be presented demonstrating the cables were distinguishable under blind testing, that would be different - but that has never been done - wonder why?
 
The only people left making "advances" in the field are the cable manufactures, who busily sell various products that do nothing for extortionate prices, based on "science" that is presented in a hugely misleading fashion - eg making out that heavy attentuation of frequencies far outside the human hearing range is an audible issue (gonna miss those 1khz tones). This kind of science makes little sense when applied to analogue audio cables - when you move to the digital domain even audiophiles that believe in analogue cables making differences become sceptical, and with good reason.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[kr0gg]

Quote:

...so are you suggesting that cable companies are utilizing an electrical phenomenon unknown to modern science?

from my point of view - they don't know themselves what actually makes some usb cables sound better than others. my guess is that they find needed combinations almost by simple substitution experiments.
BUT marketing requires that these kind products of products should have a scientific explanation of the effect.
so they have to compose a "bla-bla legend" in order to just have one.

 

[Willakan]

It's a cute idea, the cable companies doing wonderful trial and error experiments with unmeasurable factors to strive for ever better audio for the devoted audiophiles. It's discredited by the fact that people can only tell the difference between their cables when they know what they're listening to.

 

[DaBomb77766]

Quote:

from my point of view - they don't know themselves what actually makes some usb cables sound better than others. my guess is that they find needed combinations almost by simple substitution experiments.
BUT marketing requires that these kind products of products should have a scientific explanation of the effect.
so they have to compose a "bla-bla legend" in order to just have one.

There's also the scientifically proven and well-backed up theory that it's simply a placebo effect.  The placebo effect is extremely powerful.  And the human mind is very good at fooling your senses.  How else would ghost "sightings" and "paranormal events" be so common?

 

[Bostonears]

 

How else would ghost "sightings" and "paranormal events" be so common?

I only see ghosts when I'm listening to music through Litz-constructed digital cables.

 

[dvw]

Quote:

The problem is that people are not willing to accept that whatever happens between the audio interface and the computer is a controlled digital system with no "esoteric" possibilities.
 

Agreed 100%. There is not even a valid theory that the "value" of the signal can be changed selectively. This is like if I put a $100 check in my pant pocket and go to the bank. The bank will only convert that check for $99 because the check has been wrinkled in my pocket.
 

 

[Hennyo]

This thread has gone leaps and bounds, and nearly every person here does seem to have a valid point. I think that that multiple people in the room should conduct true blind tests, preferably on some mid-tier equipment so we can assume there are no 'bottlenecks.' It is true that many inventions have taken place without the mathematical backup available at the time, rather they were made on good impulse and common sense.
 
While cables probably don't carry to much weight in the 'undiscovered science' category, multiple people here can blind test A - B - C many times over a given 5 minute period. If we all posted our multiple blind testing in a thread somewhere, not only would it prove weather or not weather digital cables are fact or fiction, but also be a great place to determine where/what systems cables make the most difference on.
 
A cumulative 5 hours of work divied out to a group of individuals will could go a long way for the community. : ) The conclusion would be invaluable to anyone curious around the world.. Until then, many posts are flaming. Some subjectively say 'yes', and some scientifically say 'no or very little'. The current facts remain, people are continuing in greater numbers that they do make a difference, and well, the other crowd will claim they can't/don't, as there is a lack of (acceptable) scientific evidence. -For that crowd.
 
Ultimately a series of blind testing or some dramatically new piece of evidence are the only ways to reach a conclusion. If no dramatic piece of evidence surfaces due to our misunderstanding of science or lack of knowledge thereof, the much easier way to reach consensus = Properly done blind testing is the same as scientific evidence. Especially across a consensus.
 
Does the majority agree? If so, lets gather a list of people who'd wish to blind test, and over the next 45 days or w/e when people can, we will create a new thread with OP #1 being the blind testing videos given credit to each person.
 
My 2 cents:
The only requirements, across all demoers, should be what the head-fi community deems 'decent' equipment, preserving our quality listening during the blind tests and helping allow for no anomalies. This would be a control of sorts.
 
 
 

 

[Hennyo]

 
Nearly every person here does seem to have a valid point. I think that that multiple people in the room should conduct true blind tests, preferably on some mid-tier equipment so we can assume there are no 'bottlenecks.' It is true many inventions have taken place without the mathematical backup available at that time, rather they were made on good impulse and common sense.
 
While cables probably don't carry to much weight in the 'undiscovered science' category, multiple people here can blind test A - B - C many times over a given 5 minute period. If we all posted our multiple blind testing in a thread somewhere, not only would it prove weather or not weather digital cables are fact or fiction, but also be a great place to determine where/what systems cables make the most difference on.
 
A cumulative 5 hours of work divied out to a group of individuals will could go a long way for the community. : ) The conclusion would be invaluable to anyone curious around the world.. Until then, many posts are flaming. Some subjectively say 'yes', and some scientifically say 'no or very little'. The current facts remain, people are continuing in greater numbers that they do make a difference, and well, the other crowd will claim they can't/don't, as there is a lack of (acceptable) scientific evidence. -For that crowd.
 
Ultimately a series of blind testing or some dramatically new piece of evidence are the only ways to reach a conclusion. If no dramatic piece of evidence surfaces due to our misunderstanding of science or lack of knowledge thereof, the much easier way to reach consensus = Properly done blind testing is the same as scientific evidence. Especially across a consensus.
 
Does the majority agree? If so, lets gather a list of people who'd wish to blind test, and over the next 45 days or w/e when people can, we will create a new thread with OP #1 being the blind testing videos given credit to each person.
 
My 2 cents:
The only requirements, across all demoers, should be what the head-fi community deems 'decent' equipment, preserving our quality listening during the blind tests and helping allow for no anomalies. This would be a control of sorts.
 
 
Quote:

It's a cute idea, the cable companies doing wonderful trial and error experiments with unmeasurable factors to strive for ever better audio for the devoted audiophiles. It's discredited by the fact that people can only tell the difference between their cables when they know what they're listening to.

Correct, that would seem to be the general opinion. Lets test it.

 

[Bostonears]

 

Ultimately a series of blind testing or some dramatically new piece of evidence are the only ways to reach a conclusion.

But many people have their beliefs firmly entrenched, and prefer to keep it that way. They aren't interested in evidence to the contrary. No matter what test is devised, someone will find fault with it and claim that it doesn't apply to their gear, or to their ears, or to their music, or to their way of listening, or whatever.

 

[jackmccabe]

Quote:

 

But many people have their beliefs firmly entrenched, and prefer to keep it that way. They aren't interested in evidence to the contrary. No matter what test is devised, someone will find fault with it and claim that it doesn't apply to their gear, or to their ears, or to their music, or to their way of listening, or whatever.

Completely true, as has happened with practically all previous blind tests.