[bfreedma]

I think I'll quote the banned OP after this conversation and bloviate for a moment. Anyone in the current USB discussion, note I'm going to be tying this conversation back to the OP, and not actually directly addressing the current topic of conversation. You've been warned.

This loop is instructive: There are those who will never be convinced. But I wanted to try to dispel discouragement, if I might. I once believed that I could get "better audio" from the right device. I bought my first "HiFi" DAP in 2011, a HiFiman HM-601 based on the information I obtained on this forum (not the Sound Science section, of course, but Head-Fi more generally). I truly believed my ears. I have always had an interest in science, and am a software engineer by trade, so I eventually found my way to the Sound Science section and was at first appalled by all the folks saying that I had wasted my money. So I read, at first attempting to reinforce my preconceived notions, and find assurance that I hadn't wasted money, and there was plenty of that to be found (away from this section of the forum).

But I ventured back, understanding that I hadn't really approached these questions in an honest way, and I started doing a lot more digging around "high resolution" audio. I eventually did my own blind testing and confirmed that everything I owned sounded like everything else I owned. I tried really hard to find audible differences, and even wrote a review that probably contributed to people disliking the Sony ZX1 (as I revealed that without the DSP on the device, it was indistinguishable from my Clip+).

There are those that will never be convinced, but you aren't talking to them when you hash this stuff out on an internet forum. You're talking to the lurkers. I could afford the small amount of money that I spent on a silly little DAP, but when I read about people on here putting savings towards their 14th DAP I just cringe. But while some folks have to be right, there are also those that want to get it right (thanks for that Colin Cowherd). I think these conversations are worth having for those lurkers just trying to get it right, and not waste their money.

I mostly lurk myself here, people like @gregorio have a deeper understanding of the analog side of audio than I will ever have, and I more or less leave those conversations up to people like him. I'll jump in on things like USB, as that's a bit closer to my own wheelhouse. the question is, of course, do you trust people that don't have skin in the game? Or do you trust the person who is trying to convince you that this $10,000 DAC has some magic pixie dust that can overcome the occasional error in USB data transmission?

Nicely written and I suspect many (most?) of the Sound Science denizens who came to this hobby without an EE background have followed a similar path. At some point, it became painfully obvious that how vendors claimed things "worked" just wasn't aligned with the basic physics involved and I had to acknowledge that the name brand cables I was buying weren't the right direction to be looking for improving audio reproduction.

The best ROI I've ever realized in audio was purchasing and reading https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprod...p-113892136X/dp/113892136X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk. It certainly didn't make me an expert, but it did enable me to focus on measurable improvements and their likely root causes.

But if anyone can produce reliable evidence that USB cables can make a difference, I'll be at the front of the line to buy one. Not waiting up nights for that to happen though.

 

[ScareDe2]

Not caring about how sound reproduction works and depending on subjective bias is the perfect way to feed placebo. If that makes you happy, great. But the thing about placebo and bias is that it only works for you. Someone else who isn't already convinced might not have the same experience you have. That is why they call it subjective.

I don't need to hear with your brain. I prefer my own brain thank you very much! And I'll pay attention to the physics of sound and how it is reproduced with high fidelity. I don't need to make stuff up to convince myself I have superhuman hearing. I can listen to Mozart with my decidedly human ears.

There is not such thing as high fidelity. You either have the exact same speakers in the exact same room with the exact same equipment that were used during the mix, or you just try to recreate what you subjectively think is accurate with your own material.
That said, in some circumstances, the cable is what will provide the balance needed ; in some other instances, the cables are irrelevant. Each person need a particular solution to fix a particular problems.

 

[megabigeye]

There is not such thing as high fidelity. You either have the exact same speakers in the exact same room with the exact same equipment that were used during the mix, or you just try to recreate what you subjectively think is accurate with your own material.

I used to think this way, but it's not really true. Two devices that are audibly transparent— that is to say, that all colorations or distortions lie outside of human hearing— by definition sound exactly the same. To my understanding, EQ/DSP should cover the rest.
I asked a similar question about a year ago. The answers were enlightening.

 

[ScareDe2]

I used to think this way, but it's not really true. Two devices that are audibly transparent— that is to say, that all colorations or distortions lie outside of human hearing— by definition sound exactly the same. To my understanding, EQ/DSP should cover the rest.
I asked a similar question about a year ago. The answers were enlightening.

I don't know what you mean. There is not two speakers that sound alike, unless it is the same model. The speaker cabinet, the room and its treatment also affect sound. Whether the door is closed or open affects the sound. A push-pin in the middle of an absorptive panel changes the sound.

 

[megabigeye]

I don't know what you mean. There is not two speakers that sound alike, unless it is the same model. The speaker cabinet, the room and its treatment also affect sound. Whether the door is closed or open affects the sound. A push-pin in the middle of an absorptive panel changes the sound.

This is what I meant about EQ/DSP.
This is probably not the place to talk about this stuff (I don't think), but you can feel free to ask in the thread I linked above (but be sure it's framed as a question; it's a thread for having questions answered, not making assertions, arguing, etc).

 

[KPzypher]

Audiophile being such a niche community in comparison to the rest of the consumer audio industry, the prevalence of snake-oil is unavoidable. Especially when forums like this being the main outlet, it is easy to sway community opinion with dishonest/strategic marketing and reviews. It is unfortunate to see sound science forums like this always taking the back seat, or its relevancy continually disputed, while making average buyers more prone to falling prey to snake-oil products.

 

[bigshot]

For the information of the regulars, I'm speaking in PM with jambajoe and seeing if we may be able to get the loan of a USB cable he is convinced sounds different than a comparable Amazon Basics cable. If we can do that, I will put out a call to the people here with experience setting up solid listening tests so we can prove a difference does or doesn't exist. I'll keep you informed on the progress.

Proving the difference is audible is the first step. Once it is proven that a an audible difference exists, then we can figure out why it exists. We can also measure to quantify the degree of the error. First things first.

Folks might want to start to think about what sort of switch box to use, and the protocols we will want to follow.

 

[KPzypher]

For the information of the regulars, I'm speaking in PM with jambajoe and seeing if we may be able to get the loan of a USB cable he is convinced sounds different than a comparable Amazon Basics cable. If we can do that, I will put out a call to the people here with experience setting up solid listening tests so we can prove a difference does or doesn't exist. I'll keep you informed on the progress.

I hope this comes to fruition and provide some additional insight to otherwise uninformed buyers. It's sad to often see science forums lack substance and data driven discussions, and just end up a shouting match between believers and deniers.

 

[bigshot]

I've been trying to set up something like this for a couple of years. The attempts I've made in the past always fell apart because the person claiming the unusual difference tried to make setting up the test an unattainable goal from practical considerations. In this case, all we need is a USB cable. That shouldn't be too difficult to obtain on loan and it will be easy to ship to the people who are set up to conduct the test.

If someone claims something that shouldn't exist according to known science, they should be happy to participate in proving it, so known science benefits. Just taking someone's word for it isn't science. Personally, I'm not interested in abstract theory. I'm interested in things I can actually hear. Listening tests are fun, and we have some people in this group who are well equipped to do a proper listening test.

 

[sonitus mirus]

But if anyone can produce reliable evidence that USB cables can make a difference, I'll be at the front of the line to buy one. Not waiting up nights for that to happen though.

I'm with you on this one, not holding my breath for some profound new development.

Digital audio electronic devices were created from the theories, not the other way around. It all works because it was proven on paper first. Nobody slapped some components onto a PCB and said, "Hey, this sounds halfway decent, maybe someday we can learn about all the mysteries behind how it all functions?"

These discussions always circle around one idea in the end. This idea is that our brains are complex and not fully understood with regards to our ability to sense our surroundings, and maybe there is something we are not measuring for now that we could be, and this data is somehow perceived as varying degrees of fidelity. This would be an amazing new discovery, and the best method to test for this is with blind testing. If this is not an appropriate method to attempt to isolate the ears, and nothing better is made available, there is nothing more to discuss.

 

[bigshot]

The problem of focusing on how the brain processes audio instead of the actual physics of fidelity is that brain processes aren't consistent. One person may have a predisposed preference for something, but that doesn't mean I do. Sound reproduction is a matter of physics and fidelity. We know all about that. No mysteries there. You have a sound that is recorded and played back... how close is the playback to the original sound? With modern technology, that part is easy. As long as we get that right, the brain is going to process it however it wants to. But at least the equipment hasn't injected any noise or distortion.

When people mention how our brains process sound, it's usually because none of the physics jibe with what they dearly want to believe. So they throw in psychology to muddle things up and that allows them to throw the baby out with the bathwater...."We don't know everything, so we can't know anything." Brain processing is a red herring.

 

[sonitus mirus]

The problem of focusing on how the brain processes audio instead of the actual physics of fidelity is that brain processes aren't consistent. One person may have a predisposed preference for something, but that doesn't mean I do. Sound reproduction is a matter of physics and fidelity. We know all about that. No mysteries there. You have a sound that is recorded and played back... how close is the playback to the original sound? With modern technology, that part is easy. As long as we get that right, the brain is going to process it however it wants to. But at least the equipment hasn't injected any noise or distortion.

When people mention how our brains process sound, it's usually because none of the physics jibe with what they dearly want to believe. So they throw in psychology to muddle things up and that allows them to throw the baby out with the bathwater...."We don't know everything, so we can't know anything." Brain processing is a red herring.

Without any strong evidence to support ideas that would challenge well-established fundamentals, I would agree.

 

[Pro-Jules]

To do a good a/b audio test you need to swap back and forth in under 3 seconds or your brain will forget it’s sonic memory “photograph”.

For example if you were swapping a pair of iems on and off 2 different cables - it would take more than 3 seconds to do it - so an accurate a/b evaluation chance is lost. With that lost perhaps the extra $$ spent on the cable and the cool look of it might come into play - and you may well convince yourself your new purchase sounds better than the cheaper one you are testing it against.

or you shrug your shoulders and decide after spending all that money - the new one MUST be better.(bs-ing yourself)

imho of course.

Or you do the swapping a/b tests and can clearly hear the difference between them.

 

[dazzerfong]

To do a good a/b audio test you need to swap back and forth in under 3 seconds or your brain will forget it’s sonic memory “photograph”.

For example if you were swapping a pair of iems on and off 2 different cables - it would take more than 3 seconds to do it - so an accurate a/b evaluation chance is lost. With that lost perhaps the extra $$ spent on the cable and the cool look of it might come into play - and you may well convince yourself your new purchase sounds better than the cheaper one you are testing it against.

or you shrug your shoulders and decide after spending all that money - the new one MUST be better.(bs-ing yourself)

imho of course.

Or you do the swapping a/b tests and can clearly hear the difference between them.

You say that, but some critics of A/B testing is that it's too quick, so if anything, they want an extended period of time to test.

 

[Kentajalli]

To do a good a/b audio test you need to swap back and forth in under 3 seconds or your brain will forget it’s sonic memory “photograph”.

For example if you were swapping a pair of iems on and off 2 different cables - it would take more than 3 seconds to do it - so an accurate a/b evaluation chance is lost. With that lost perhaps the extra $$ spent on the cable and the cool look of it might come into play - and you may well convince yourself your new purchase sounds better than the cheaper one you are testing it against.

or you shrug your shoulders and decide after spending all that money - the new one MUST be better.(bs-ing yourself)

imho of course.

Or you do the swapping a/b tests and can clearly hear the difference between them.

And this is why A/B testings (blind or otherwise) can lead to false results.
There are other reasons too - an example:
if you listen to a balanced frequency response of equipment A and quickly switch to a U shaped response of equipment B - for a short lived time, you may percieve the u shaped version as having better bass and treble - after longer Auditioning you will come to your senses that A was right and B wasn't!
After all we eventually would like to listen to music for longer periods than a few seconds.