[number1sixerfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I generally agree with you, although I could give examples where it would be appropriate, and examples where it would not be appropriate, depending on how the initial question is phrased, or what really is the nature of the OP's inquiry. But the problem is that what you agree is a thread krap is the stuff that is happening over and over.

EXACTLY!! Agreed 110%. And it needs to stop. Period. Be it through maturity, moderation, or keeping it in the science forum, or whatever.

I agree completely, that whatever the measure, it needs to stop. I just don't agree(AT ALL) with people who think every single post that differs from their own opinion is a thread crap.

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif This thread is becoming a nice example of the problem I identified at the beginning of the thread. This thread is not intended to be a discussion about whether cables make audible differences. It is intended instead to be more of a discussion about "procedure," for lack of a better word, i.e., what guidelines or structures, if any, should be employed to address the problems identified in my initial post -- which problems have been observed by many others. Please, let's not make this yet another thread with discussions about whether cables make an audible difference. If you want to discuss that, I'd ask that you start another thread -- hopefully in the Sound Science forum. And I think it is possible to address the "procedural" issue without delving into the "audible difference" issue, which will only start fights. Thanks for your understanding.

Do people actually read and understand before they post? Or is it some sort of thrill to see your words on the internet?

Can we all just STOP the bickering and get back to the thread topic?

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is a really good point, and I think it can be elucidated with an example: Say you have someone in a speaker forum, let's call him John. John has a pair of one of those (formerly) trendy Insignia speakers. A well-known problem with those speakers is that they suffer from cabinet resonance. So he asks on a thread which damping material to get. Two people reply: The first person says that he should invest in dynamat, as it does a really good job. The second person says that he should save his money and get Peel and Seal (roof flashing) because they're essentially the same thing and Peel and Seal is a good deal cheaper. Neither person has thread crapped. Both have offered valid advice, and the OP has some information that he can take away from the thread. The two people can also give reasons for why they picked each one, and leave it at that. The same line of reasoning applies with cables. Say John goes to head-fi, and asks for a cable recommendation between his DAC and amplifier. Two people reply: One person recommends a botique audio cable somewhere in the triple digit price range. The other person says that John should save his money and buy BJC/monoprice cables, as they work just as well, are basically the same, and cost a good deal cheaper. The second person that posted made a valid recommendation - it was just a recommendation for a cheaper cable. The OP can then inquire further. The key here is that the recommendations should remain just that - recommendations. If someone says cables don't matter and recommends a cheap cable, what's wrong with that? It's just another cable recommendation. The only difference is that of price. The point at which it becomes threadcrapping is when someone starts arguing that buying the more expensive cable is BS, or that the person recommending monoprice has tin ears. The turning point is when a debate occurs when it doesn't need to. This is when moderation is necessary. The original analogy allows us to step out of our beliefs on cables and instead look at it from a more unbiased standpoint: would you really have a problem with someone recommending peel and seal over dynamat? More importantly, how silly would it be to bicker about whether or not dynamat is better than peel and seal/worth the price/etc? It's the same concept - the arguments are useless, but the differing advice is not. It would really be a disservice to the new members if he unwittingly buys an expensive cable, when he may have bought the cheaper cable and been perfectly happy with it. Without the other person recommending the cheap cable, that new member may think that, by default, cheap cables are terrible things just because nobody recommended them. Of course, the converse also applies: the person might have extra spending money, or be persuaded to go ahead and splurge in the expensive set of cables. The decision isn't as important as the OP having all options laid out for him so he can make a decision for himself. I don't really mind cable debates, so long as they're restricted to a cable thread (like most people). That being said, I don't think it's threadcrapping to talk about cables not making an audible difference in a cable recommendation thread, because that is a tacit recommendation for a cheaper cable -a recommendation that's no less valid than one for an expensive cable. The real problem is the incessant arguing, which happens from members of both camps - either a cable skeptic belligerently tries to make the claim that cables don't matter when the OP is already convinced, or the cable believer calls the skeptic tin-eared or says his/her equipment isn't up to spec. That's a problem, because it's the catalyst for a multi-page argument that will only turn off the OP, regardless of how the OP ends up leaning. The problem isn't relegated to cable believers or cable disbelievers. It's a product of people arguing when those arguments should be limited to specific threads designated for that purpose - and this happens from members of both camps. Basically, while I'm all for the moderation of debates that spark from innocent threads, I'm not for the removing of the stated opinion that cables don't make a difference. If each camp would just refrain from starting an argument based on that, everything would be fine, i.e. Poster 1: "I think you should get x cable for 100 dollars" Poster 2: "I think your money would better be served with a cheap monoprice cable. The differences are pretty much nonexistent, and you'll save a lot of money that you can throw into a new pair of headphone, or a new amp" 3: "I agree with the previous post: I don't really think cables make a difference. The monoprice cables are built really well and won't break the bank" 4: "I swear by that cable the first guy recommended. It's made my system much better in terms of sound quality" etc. Basically, all of my rambling aside, I think there's room for cable skeptics, so long as those skeptics (and the believers as well) refrain from arguing outside of that "do cables make a difference?" thread.

****, TYVM.

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by null_pointer_us /img/forum/go_quote.gif IIRC, that bumblebees can fly contradicts current scientific understanding of flight, not logic, which becomes no less valid with the passage of time. If critical thinking ever fell out of style with the scientific community, the scientific community would no longer be scientific. Questioning one's own (and others') observations is the foundation of science. Why the pro-(digital)-cable people are using science as a reason to avoid thinking about the subject matter is beyond me. The corruption is random, affecting any and all bits. Which bits are affected depends purely on the passage of time, i.e. how long you hold the source of interference close enough to the cable to multilate the data stream. There's no way for random digital data corruption to affect just the highs, or the mids, or the lows, or to widen the soundstage, or any other "observations" along these lines. Such observations can never be anything more than delusion. No, but it does indicate that you want very strongly to believe it is possible.

But clearly something that seems impossible is possible. Just as you want to claim the bumblebee flying defies current scientific understanding then why cant a digital cable compromising or enhancing sound quality be something that does occur that is beyond current scientific understanding.

Why not? What experiments have you done to make such a conclusion? Do you design or test digital equipment? What expertise do you have to make such claims? I guess I most want to know what authority has determined digital cables make no difference?


No that indicates I take the time to do my own evaluation.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif Say John goes to head-fi, and asks for a cable recommendation between his DAC and amplifier. Two people reply: One person recommends a botique audio cable somewhere in the triple digit price range. The other person says that John should save his money and buy BJC/monoprice cables, as they work just as well, are basically the same, and cost a good deal cheaper. The second person that posted made a valid recommendation - it was just a recommendation for a cheaper cable.

Agree 100% that this is entirely appropriate. But this is not what is happening, i.e., it is not the problem for which I and others would like to see some solution. What is happening is more along the lines of what I posted earlier, which comes from an actual thread, where someone asks about what type of music is best for hearing differences between cables, and folks intruded to say "no type of music is best because all cables sound the same."

Now, the insults that fly fast and furious in the threads regarding differences (even the threads that raise such differences) are also a problem, and I think one can argue that the inability to control such discussions also warrants some new approach, but there are really two separate, but related issues, i.e., (1) the thread krapping, and (2) the tone of the discussions in legitimate cable discussion threads.

 

[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif But clearly something that seems impossible is possible.

Well, "clearly," it's not "seems impossible"; it's "is impossible."

Quote:

Just as you want to claim the bumblebee flying defies current scientific understanding ...

The bumblebee thing was your claim; I was just correcting the wording of it.

Quote:

... then why cant a digital cable compromising or enhancing sound quality be something that does occur that is beyond current scientific understanding.

It's not beyond current scientific understanding; it's logically impossible.

A digital cable can compromise digital sound quality in precisely two cases: when the cable is improperly made or is subjected to conditions outside what's accounted for in the spec. Both conditions are abnormal. They result in random distortions (or total failure) that are extremely obvious (often resulting in device malfunction) and have no specific or consistent audio properties (in digital audio transfer), due to the fact that the order and function of the bits in the cable has nothing to do with the meaning of the bits when reassembled into the data stream (e.g. audio, video, keyboard strokes, mouse movements, etc.).

As for the enhancing part, that's logically impossible. The cable is supposed to transfer a series of logical true/false values. In the kinds of cables we're talking about, this is done one bit at a time. Adding extra values, or removing values, would corrupt the data and change the meaning of the values that follow in a random and haphazard fashion. What you'd get in this case would be random noise. Enhancement through randomly changing the bits' values isn't possible because every bit is sent one at a time through the wire; any properties of the wire would affect all bits equally.

And of course the wire is just a dumb piece of metal, so there is no way for it to look at the bits, decide which ones correspond to the desired traits of the audio (e.g. soundstage, bass, midsection, brightness) and then just happen to start affecting bits when those bits happen to pass through. If you want any kind of digital enhancement, you need to look into something like better ripping software, a DSP (to improve the bits before or after they are transmitted), better DACs or ADCs in your components, etc.

A digital cable is just a medium for lossless transfer of binary data from one device to another. If it doesn't facilitate this lossless transfer, it's not functioning properly, period. There's no way to "spice up" the data. If your job, to be repeated many times a day, is to read a number on the screen and write the number on a piece of paper, then random changes to the numbers aren't helpful or even able to have a consistent result of any kind (unless you want to get fired and have a nasty hole in your resume).

Quote:

Why not? What experiments have you done to make such a conclusion? Do you design or test digital equipment? What expertise do you have to make such claims? I guess I most want to know what authority has determined digital cables make no difference?

What you're asking here is for me to prove a negative.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by null_pointer_us /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you hit the Report Post button when you see one?

Should I hit the Report Post button on the immediately preceding post? Or maybe I should go all the way back to post #27?

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by null_pointer_us /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not beyond current scientific understanding; it's logically impossible.

It's not logically impossible (though I'm not convinced that it's beyond current scientific understanding either). A logical impossibility directly results from a contradiction, and is determined a priori. The statement "Digital cables make an audible difference" is not anything that can be disproven in the realm of logic, because it's determined by empirical evidence. You can claim that it's false, but it's not logically impossible - even if I claim that the sky is green, I might be wrong, but I've made a logically possible statement. There's no inherent contradiction in the statement "Digital cables make an audible difference."

You can feel free to argue that digital cables don't make an audible difference (or any difference at all), but your use of the term "logical impossibility" is misguided.

 

[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Should I hit the Report Post button on the immediately preceding post? Or maybe I should go all the way back to post #27?

I was asked questions by someone, and I answered them.

Why pick on me and forget about the people who are interacting with me?

 

[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not logically impossible (though I'm not convinced that it's beyond current scientific understanding either). A logical impossibility directly results from a contradiction, and is determined a priori. The statement "Digital cables make an audible difference" is not anything that can be disproven in the realm of logic, because it's determined by empirical evidence. You can claim that it's false, but it's not logically impossible - even if I claim that the sky is green, I might be wrong, but I've made a logically possible statement. There's no inherent contradiction in the statement "Digital cables make an audible difference." You can feel free to argue that digital cables don't make an audible difference (or any difference at all), but your use of the term "logical impossibility" is misguided.

No, it's a logical impossibility. Random data corruption (that is, changes in the stream by external factors, applied to all bits that happen to be passing through the cable at the time without any correlation to their position/meaning in the data format) does not cause consistent effects specific to the nature of the data being passed through the cable. This has nothing to do with the science of the materials being used. How can so many people read this, and just not get it? Logic != science. I'm not making a scientific claim. I'm making a factual claim, that's just as true whether we're talking about cables or signal lamps. Bah. My patience has run out again.

 

[haloxt]

Here's my take on anti-cabler (A) vs. pro-cabler (P) on this thread:

P: Why don't we try to limit the amount of anti-cable opinions where they aren't wanted, and allow them to post links to anti-cable threads and be done with it?
A: Why are you trying to censor us because you are obviously wrong and we are right? And here's the proof...
P: We're not trying to stop you, just allow you to post a link to your anti-cable threads on any thread you want and leave it at that.
A: Why are you trying to censor us because you are obviously wrong and we are right? And here's the proof...
P: This thread isn't about who is right or wrong, just to allow people to talk about what they want without constant derailments when they aren't desired by the threadstarter.
A: Why are you trying to censor us because you are obviously wrong and we are right? And here's the proof...
P: Look, you're derailing this thread now with the same thing this thread was intended to address and try to solve.
A: Why are you trying to censor us because you are obviously wrong and we are right? And here's the proof...
P: Allowing you to post a link to your anti-cable threads on any cable threads isn't censorship, it is just to prevent derailments to cable arguments like in this thread now.
A: Why are you trying to censor us because you are obviously wrong and we are right? And here's the proof...

etc. etc. etc.

 

[fhuang]

nah, don't worry about this anti-cable $hit. you won. head-fi do not allow cables impression, question or whateva. happy now?

 

[hybris]

Just a quick note to the guys that talk about digital cables improving sound: I think a practical test is in order to prove the point null_pointer_us is trying to make.

Try this on a .wav file on your PC: Open the file in notepad (or your favorite text editor) - preferrably a quite short sample, something from your windows folder perhaps? Then go to the middle of the file, and type your name in there somewhere.

Then save and play the file. This is about what would happen if your digital cable altered any of the bits on the way over. Did it improve soundstage? no?

 

[null_pointer_us]

hybris, that is an excellent idea!


EDIT: But remember we're (meaning everyone on all sides of this cable discussion) are still annoying the heck out of PhilS and some other posters by being off-topic.

I considered contacting one of the moderators to have these posts moved to a new thread. Does anyone object to this idea?


Quote:

Originally Posted by fhuang /img/forum/go_quote.gif nah, don't worry about this anti-cable $hit. you won. head-fi do not allow cables impression, question or whateva. happy now?

No. As I've said many times, I enjoy reading impressions about analog cables, and I get annoyed when I see analog cable threads derailed. (Why do random people keep pushing me into the objectivist/anti-cable stereotype? <-- don't answer this here please.)

 

[pabbi1]

I believe that >95% of all threads in this forum, asking for opinions on specific cables, also have 'cables don't matter' posts. The empirical evidence stands on it's own. So, with the abdication of most more seasoned cable users (leaving alone the idea what their beliefs are, just based on what they have experienced with a range of cable options), the content is diluted, then the noise to signal level has just made this forum no fun.

For about a year (after debating 1/0 for many years), I ONLY posted in threads explicitly asking opinions about either Senn aftermarket OR APS, where no input was asked for regarding whether they mattered. In 100% of those threads, 'cdm' was interjected - violating both the subject and intent.

If that is what is being argued as OK, there is no longer any reason to read nor listen. And, too volumnous for Mods to keep at bay, with the subtle shades, nuances and spin for 'cdm'.

I will never, ever understand why DBT is disallowed, everywhere, but it's corollary, 'Cables Don't Matter', apparently, is.

Argue latitude, argue varying opinion, argue anything you like - it is all, in the end, just arguing.

That is realpolitik - and, no fun to debate, any longer.