[Steve999]

I suggest we people who are worse than religious zealots go agnostic on this one. As I’m sure @Maxx134 knows, that’s been the subject of extremely bitter personal disputes elsewhere. I suggest we not get into it because we have no way of knowing. We should not take the bait. We’d just get dragged into the mud pit and we have no first-hand knowledge (that I know of). And in the end it is of no significant importance.

 

[gregorio]

[1] These people are worse than religious zealots.
[2] Even when the tests actually show measurable differences, they say it doesn’t matter because it’s inaudible.
[3] Even when a study backs up an audiophile claim, they say it’s too small to represent anything other than a statistical average of basic odds and probability ...
[4] Come out of the dark side and return to people who are mostly ...
[5] Either way, you’ll get beaten up far less than in this masochistic cesspool of condescension.

1. Of course we are! Because not only do we have beliefs but we have actual reliable evidence/facts to back up those beliefs. In fact, we have our beliefs BECAUSE of the reliable evidence/facts!

2. Please explain how it does matter if it's inaudible.

3. The study did not back-up an audiophile claim, it did the exact opposite! If I claim that magic is real, that I'm an actual magician and then toss 10 coins 457 times and manage to get 8 heads once, have I proved magic is real and that I am a real magician? Would you honestly believe that?

4. Come out of the dark side and return to people who are mostly ... ignorant of school level statistics?

5. If you go to a science forum, contradict and argue with science that a 7th grader would be expected to know and understand, then yes, expect to get beaten up! If you don't want to get beaten up for doing that, then go to a forum where everyone else also doesn't know or understand 7th grader science! Isn't this really simple and obvious? Although, if someone doesn't have a 7th grader understanding of science maybe it's really complex and not obvious at all?

G

 

[bigshot]

It’s thoughtful for hifiearspeakers to throw a life preserver to maxx134, but I think it would have been better if the life preserver he was throwing wasn’t made of concrete.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

2. That makes no sense. In a highly competitive service industry,
delighting one's clients must be the goal!

And if a client's delight - their wishes, Gregorio! - demand that you master their song or album skippy loud, you either do it, or the client goes elsewhere.

You of all people should know this!

 

[castleofargh]

Since the majority here claim that most sonic differences are inaudible, will anyone here claim than an Odac is as good as a Schiit yggdrasil?

could we stop with the off topics at some point?
your question is a strawman argument, not a question. we have hearing thresholds for most variables under a given set of conditions. if the differences go above those thresholds, chances are that we can notice the differences. if they are below, chances are that we won't. with DACs, the measured differences often suggest that we won't notice them. it's a pretty simple reasoning. when in doubt because we're dealing with something near those threshold levels, we perform controlled listening tests to try and determine under a set of conditions, if we can notice the measured differences, or whatever we thought sounded different under sighted listening. it's an extra step to increase confidence in our data. with DACs, I've failed to notice a difference many times. with amps, depending on circumstances, I've often noticed some differences. with headphones, I never felt that I needed to use a blind test to confirm audible difference. the measured differences are way above the known hearing threshold(just take FR and you're done proving that point). so we totally expect audible difference. it's just a matter of the magnitude of differences usually involved with different devices.

also while we're at it, what does "as good as" mean in your sentence? you mean price? look? subjective opinions? I did say that people would welcome honest questions, but if they make sense it might work better. and again, if you want to go discuss those stuff in the right topics, I really won't mind.

 

[castleofargh]

@Maxx134 you don’t belong in this thread. These people are worse than religious zealots. Even when the tests actually show measurable differences, they say it doesn’t matter because it’s inaudible. Even when a study backs up an audiophile claim, they say it’s too small to represent anything other than a statistical average of basic odds and probability, or they say the study was biased or it was merely groupthink or it wasn’t a true double-blind, or it was blah blah blah.

Come out of the dark side and return to people who are mostly open-minded, albeit often misguided, too. Either way, you’ll get beaten up far less than in this masochistic cesspool of condescension.

if you want an opinion, any opinion is one. if you want to find an anecdote showing whatever result you want to exist, sure enough you can find some by chance or manufacture one. but when trying to find some general rule about cables behaviors(which is a mistake from the get go IMO), of course you need statistics and well controlled experiments. if you know an alternative to that, you're welcome to help by sharing it with us. but some anecdote is not going to be conclusive about cables in general.

as for your criticism of people here, I've make several posts in this topic and others explaining how and why under certain circumstances some cables would be able to cause clear audible differences. I've never been shot down. but yes my anecdotes are too small to draw conclusions about cables in general. at best it can be used to say that cables will not always sound the same. but beyond that... not very informative. in any case, maybe they don't contradict me because they're biased by my moderator tag, but when I say something dumb on most topics, they don't hesitate to point it out when they notice, so I'm tempted to guess that they simply agree with my examples and the possible reasons for those changes in cables I mention.

 

[Maxx134]

my high end Oppo player and DAC/amp

I owned that dac/amp and thought it was above average in mid-fi gear.
I found it sweet with great soundstage.
The problem is, how can I measure this...

3. The study did not back-up an audiophile claim, it did the exact opposite! If I claim that magic is real, that I'm an actual magician and then toss 10 coins 457 times and manage to get 8 heads once, have I proved magic is real and that I am a real magician? Would you honestly believe that?

The real issue is that it was one guy, on first try.
It wasn't 457 times
It was 457 people trying once, correct?
That makes the percentage conclusion an actual error.

It’s thoughtful for hifiearspeakers to throw a life preserver to maxx134, but I think it would have been better if the life preserver he was throwing wasn’t made of concrete.

OMG lol!
Its the thought that counts!
At the end of the day, we all hear to enjoy.

could we stop with the off topics at some point?

Yes, I must apologize for not thinking how loaded.
Disregard the question please as it is not condusive to any positive solution.
My apologies, now lets focus on wire please.

So far, of all of the manufacturers claims of types of materials and windings, we have no types of measurements posted to back up their claims, correct?

My new question then is, how do they know? How are they testing it?

 

[bigshot]

In home audio electronics (DACs and amps) I haven't noticed much of a correlation at all between price and sound quality. More expensive usually means more power (in an amp) or more features. It's pretty much the same with cables. More money buys you better build quality or more bling.

 

[gregorio]

And if a client's delight - their wishes, Gregorio! - demand that you master their song or album skippy loud, you either do it, or the client goes elsewhere. You of all people should know this!

Exactly, either way the client gets skippy loud, so how's that my fault?

The real issue is that it was one guy, on first try.
It wasn't 457 times
It was 457 people trying once, correct?
That makes the percentage conclusion an actual error.
OMG lol!

OMG lol indeed, you've got to be joking right? OK, so if instead of me tossing 10 coins 457 times, I get 457 different people off the street to toss 10 coins once each. By the law of averages it's almost certain that at least one of them will get 8 heads (on their one and only try) and then according to your logic you would honestly believe they are a real magician. That's staggering!

It doesn't matter whether it's 1 person throwing 10 coins 457 times or 457 different people throwing 10 coins once, the probability of at least one of those throws being 8/10 is exactly the same! Maybe I was being overoptimistic about a 7th Grader level of logic/understanding, maybe we should drop down to a 5th Grader or even lower? OMG indeed!

G

 

[bigshot]

Tossing 457 coins could become quite expensive.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Exactly, either way the client gets skippy loud, so how's that my fault?

Who said it was your fault?

Step down off that high horse Greggy - you're not God, you're not always right - and the rest of us are not always wrong.

 

[Steve999]

[deleted—disengaging]

 

[Maxx134]

maybe we should drop down to a 5th Grader or even lower? OMG indeed!

Lol ok, ok..
but most won't do those laws of averages at 5th grade or 12th haha.
Edit**:
Rather talk about 457 strands of cotton woven inside an Uber thousand dollar headphone cable?!

 

[gregorio]

Who said it was your fault?

You said it was Bob Ludwig's fault, how it it any more his fault than it would be mine?

Lol ok, ok.. but most won't do those laws of averages at 5th grade or 12th haha.

OK, let's start at the beginning, grade school: If Jonny has 457 apples and Sally collects one apple from 457 different people, who has more apples? ... lol

G

 

[oldmate]

I got a new USB Cable the other day - here is my review,

Music played through the sufficiently warmed-up Oyaide d+ Class A USB cable flows gracefully, with a self-effacing, delicate, open, airy quality. Resolution is extraordinary, but with nary a hint of frequency-specific spotlighting. Tonal balance is coherent from top to bottom, without the added grunge and glare of most USB cables, nor the broad presence range dip and lispy, sparkly top end that euphonically color the sound of pure-silver USB cables.

I’ve never heard superior focus from any digital cable, regardless of format. Every note is reproduced with exceptional timing precision, yielding an unexpected sonic benefit: naturally rich timbres of disarmingly realistic substance, body, and density. This “emergent phenomenon” seems to be the serendipitous byproduct of unprecedentedly accurate temporal alignment of an instrument’s harmonics, which allows the listener’s auditory system to recognize and identify sounds with considerably less mental effort.