[Toddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by somestranger26 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here you go.

Thanks a lot! Looks really good in high res…

Toddy

 

[Bradan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamora /img/forum/go_quote.gif i thought optical didnt get interference...

that's what I meant.

placebos ftw.

It was a 105$ monster cable.

Anddd

what's the deal with heavily shielded and braided, thick, silvered analogue cables? The cable is not long enough, and interferance is near non-existant.

There's no way people can discern the sound of copper A vs copper B. that's truly dumb.

 

[Bradan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by helios /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sounds like BS like the $500 Denon USB cable last year.

Yup, there seems to be allot like this in the audiophile market. 300$ power cables and stuff, this is the kind of thing I was referencing.

Optical cables don't have a flow of electrons like analog do, and they aren't even digital like optical; I understand that. I'm not even sure what forces actually interfere with the flow of photons, especially those carrying info in digital format (digital has error checking/correction too I assume).

I'm new here so I'm really skeptical of any setups above about 800-1000$ (DAC+AMP+HP) being perceivably better. Sry!

 

[Bomo.is.ooc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Looks ok to me I know a few that would love to have that.

Thanks

It definitely gets the job done well. I'm actually quite surprised at how little one can spend and get pretty decent listening equipment, if you just shop around and have a bit of flexibility and luck.

As for the Mac comments from some others on here, I don't really see the need to justify what I choose to use. It's honestly like the criticizing someone for using a pair of 'phones that you don't agree with. They work right for the user and that's all that matters. Often times there are circumstances that you probably don't know that contribute to what people use. Perhaps I need a mac because of the plethora of molecular/enzymatic rendering programs that are available for it and actually run smoothly...

Hopefully we can get back on topic and see that there are different strokes for different folks

There are a bunch of amazing looking set ups that y'all have. Definitely many drool-worthy desks at the homes of head-fiers.

edit: I over use the normal smiley face

 

[Tem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron909 /img/forum/go_quote.gif

You really inspired me for a new setup. Could I get a list of everything in this photograph? Meaning what monitor/speakers/desk/etc? I don't want to sound annoying but this is absolutely clean and nice.

 

[FallenAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is the idea behind braided, thick, silvered cables? Could I see some scientific suppourt for this? I don't mean scientific BS, I mean proof.

And what if some perceive a difference for with that cable, may I ask "could I see some scientific support" that it's they do not? And not "scientific BS, I mean proof." Can you provide that proof that some person or other does NOT hear a difference... and without "scientific BS".

Ask if you are up to the challenge of answering the question yourself before you speak.

You are correct in shielding not interfering with an optical signal though, unless you plan to run that optical wire right beside a power plan.

As for protons vs electrons, the theory of light is still not settled between photon theory vs wave theory. We do know though that light does travel in concentrated lines when in laser frequencies (as used with optical cables) and when bent at hard angles and depending on construction of the conductor, may suffer greatly from reflection, refraction and lose signal strength as well as timing when the same signal is sent on many paths due to these factors. Please do not start throwing "interference does not exist" or "photons" until you read a little physics and basic requirements for optical data communication. You might also benefit a little from reading my primer on digital audio - beside the most basic S/PDIF encoding, the standard does not have error checking or correction and don't get me started on jitter (most popular type is the timing of signal start/stop).

 

[Bradan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif And what if some perceive a difference for with that cable, may I ask "could I see some scientific support" that it's they do not?

Burden of proof lies on the cable pushers. I said I was skeptical. Placebos have been proven to work. There have been a large number of experiments that proove the effect of a placebo. You have to do an ABX test blind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif And not "scientific BS, I mean proof." Can you provide that proof that some person or other does NOT hear a difference... and without "scientific BS".

I can't, other than running some ABX tests. I doubt you have done one objectively. Meaning you can't see which you're using. There's no reason for copper-cableA to outperform copper-cableB. Seriously very, very little EM in this scanerio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ask if you are up to the challenge of answering the question yourself before you speak.

???

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are correct in shielding not interfering with an optical signal though, unless you plan to run that optical wire right beside a power plant.

Really? You think that EM interferes with photons on a macroscopic scale?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for protons vs electrons, the theory of light is still not settled between photon theory vs wave theory. We do know though that light does travel in concentrated lines when in laser frequencies (as used with optical cables) and when bent at hard angles and depending on construction of the conductor, may suffer greatly from reflection, refraction and lose signal strength as well as timing when the same signal is sent on many paths due to these factors.

Light exists as both waves and particles. No? Where were you taught?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please do not start throwing "interference does not exist"

It's not enough to deserve military grade cable shielding and braided cables. It's simply ludicrous to assume a 10ft copper wire could pick up such a large amount of EM. Cat7 can go like 500-1000ft, and it's not even that shielded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif or "photons" until you read a little physics and basic requirements for optical data communication.

I have very little knowledge in "optical data communication", but I definitely understand the basic concepts of light and EM. Don't inult my intelligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif You might also benefit a little from reading my primer on digital audio - beside the most basic S/PDIF encoding, the standard does not have error checking correction

Ya, but I'm thinking there are very, very few errors. I could see composite getting a few more, but come on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif and don't get me started on jitter (most popular type is the timing of signal start/stop).

I thought jitter was correctable by software?


-----------------------------------------------------

I'm simply saying that this high end cable thing is a big money grab to me, and whether or not that last little tiny bit of radiation changes the signal a teeny-tiny bit is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that that reduction in interferance is perceivable, or just thought to be perceivable through the placebo effect.

Is this kind of a "you gotta have faith" sort of deals? I'm not into that.

I beleive that the cables won't be audibly different, that's all. We are in disagreement and it's not going to change. I think we can drop it.

 

[FallenAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Burden of proof lies on the cable pushers. I said I was skeptical. Placebos have been proven to work. There have been a large number of experiments that proove the effect of a placebo. You have to do an ABX test blind. I can't, other than running some ABX tests. I doubt you have done one objectively. Meaning you can't see which you're using. There's no reason for copper-cableA to outperform copper-cableB. Seriously very, very little EM in this scanerio.

Not the place to discuss ABX so I won't get into it, but there are obvious errors to the ABX testing methodology, brain gets confused with quickly changing data. I prefer listening to an entire track or even better, an entire CD before switching equipment to test and compare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Really? You think that EM interferes with photons on a macroscopic scale?

With enough EMI to affect the properties of the conductor its dielectric properties, it can most definitely interfere. I was simply quoting extreme circumstances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Light exists as both waves and particles. No? Where were you taught?

Something cannot exist as two different and opposing models under different scenarios, it just means that a proper model has not been constructed yet, where were you taught?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not enough to deserve military grade cable shielding and braided cables. It's simply ludicrous to assume a 10ft copper wire could pick up such a large amount of EM. Cat7 can go like 500-1000ft, and it's not even that shielded.

Military has many specs and in this case you're comparing apples to oranges - CAT7 as in used by TCP/IP protocol which follows CRC checking and allows for data-corrected CANNOT be compared to the streaming protocol of S/PDIF which offers neither.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have very little knowledge in "optical data communication", but I definitely understand the basic concepts of light and EM. Don't inult my intelligence.

A little knowledge is the most dangerous thing.

I do know about data communications (one of those fun things I studied in my program - data communications, requirements for data systems, that kind of stuff

). I can only assume your intellect by the claims you make and you are definitely reaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ya, but I'm thinking there are very, very few errors. I could see composite getting a few more, but come on.

Not as few errors as you might thing, but complete lost packets, yes, VERY few, you'd hear it fairly clearly when it errors out; but timing errors, not as uncommon as you might think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought jitter was correctable by software?

Not with S/PDIF, but you are most welcome to write a proper streaming protocol with data correction, one is long overdue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm simply saying that this high end cable thing is a big money grab to me, and whether or not that last little tiny bit of radiation changes the signal a teeny-tiny bit is irrelevant.

You are welcome to believe what you want, I have a different opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is relevant is that that reduction in interferance is perceivable, or just thought to be perceivable through the placebo effect.

Never claimed that interference was perceived or factual, I said you were correct on there being minimal risk of interference which could be cured by a shield to an optical cable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is this kind of a "you gotta have faith" sort of deals? I'm not into that.

Don't believe in faith, believe in experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I beleive that the cables won't be audibly different, that's all. We are in disagreement and it's not going to change. I think we can drop it.

Not my place to convince you of anything, believe whatever you want, but do expect to get resistance if you make claims and try to push your point of view on others, that's why they call this a discussion forum after all.

 

[Adamora]

is this a war or something?

 

[FallenAngel]

 

[Adamora]

O_O, are those all amplifiers on the left?

 

[.Sup]

Why do you have some cables unplugged Angel?

 

[FallenAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamora /img/forum/go_quote.gif O_O, are those all amplifiers on the left?

Nope, NorthStar m192 DAC, Beta22 headphone/pre-amp, Melos Maestro headphone amp and GainClone integrated amp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by .Sup /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why do you have some cables unplugged Angel?

Photo a couple of months old... when my desk was clean.

I had just put everything together and haven't wired the speakers yet. Aside form that, what cables are unplugged? I have a few pairs of headphones, can't use all of them at the same time.

 

[.Sup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope, NorthStar m192 DAC, Beta22 headphone/pre-amp, Melos Maestro headphone amp and GainClone integrated amp. Photo a couple of months old... when my desk was clean. I had just put everything together and haven't wired the speakers yet. Aside form that, what cables are unplugged? I have a few pairs of headphones, can't use all of them at the same time.

Power cords

Very nice setup mate

 

[FallenAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by .Sup /img/forum/go_quote.gif Power cords Very nice setup mate

The power is plugged in, there's a power bar under the rack attached to the socket that you can just barely see and thanks.