Why do USB cables make such a difference?
Status
Not open for further replies.
post-14659494
Post #1,591 of 1,606

GrussGott

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
538
Reaction score
353
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Posts
538
Likes
353
Please address the tests which have been done and show no measurable difference. And stop with the "unscientifically-proven position". I've given you measurements and opinions from people in the industry (ie expert opinions).
If you don't understand why that's not even a stitch toward scientifically proven, then maybe we need a new thread on what "scientifically proven" is.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14659498
Post #1,592 of 1,606

GrussGott

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
538
Reaction score
353
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Posts
538
Likes
353
Point 4 is bunk. There is no need to have access to the source code when the output of two cables can be captured and compared. Either the data is identical or it isn’t.
yeah, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the equipment and science so we're at a stopper.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14659502
Post #1,593 of 1,606
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
13,312
Reaction score
24,243
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Posts
13,312
Likes
24,243
Posts reported - I suggest others do same. Blatant trolling now.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14659506
Post #1,594 of 1,606

bfreedma

The Hornet!
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
2,396
Reaction score
1,265
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Posts
2,396
Likes
1,265
If you don't understand why that's not even a stitch toward scientifically proven, then maybe we need a new thread on what "scientifically proven" is.
yeah, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the equipment and science so we're at a stopper.
As usual, no specifics, just deflection.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14659507
Post #1,595 of 1,606

GrussGott

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
538
Reaction score
353
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Posts
538
Likes
353
More attempts to obfuscate and confuse?
Yes, Brooko, because you're a big smartie hero and everyone who disagrees with your OPINION must very very bad man!

You might consider you have an overinflated sense of your expertise and ability to judge a definitive answer ... Might that be possible???

Naw, you've probably got everything figured out.

I mean, might as well assume that?

You couldn't be wrong.

everyone else is.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-14659519
Post #1,597 of 1,606

GrussGott

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
538
Reaction score
353
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Posts
538
Likes
353
Have you not read any of the information in the links @Brooko keeps posting, or are you purposely ignoring them? If you disagree with the findings, specify why.
Dude. asked and answered like 1000 times (read back 80 pages). It's not scientific proof.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14659893
Post #1,599 of 1,606

god-bluff

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
249
Location
God's own country
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Location
God's own country
Posts
1,048
Likes
249
Yes hundreds of posts by just one person. I don't know where they find the time. The subject consumes them totally . What a waste
 
     Share This Post       
post-14660105
Post #1,600 of 1,606

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,986
Reaction score
2,020
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
3,986
Likes
2,020
yeah, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the equipment and science so we're at a stopper.
Dude. asked and answered like 1000 times (read back 80 pages). It's not scientific proof.
No, it the exact opposite. Although you are correct that "we're at a stopper" as clearly you are unable to recognise what is objective scientific evidence (and what isn't) or even realise the basic scientific principle of "burden of proof", even though it's actually posted as a headline in this sub-forum's home page!

G
 
     Share This Post       
post-14660106
Post #1,601 of 1,606

GrussGott

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
538
Reaction score
353
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Posts
538
Likes
353
As usual, no specifics, just deflection.
(1.) Scientifically proven means we have a predictive theory that proves it's IMPOSSIBLE for USB cables to make a difference for all ears, for all equipment, for all environments. We don't have that. No links posted have ever shown that (and I'm pretty sure 1000 pages ago I posted those links; I also posted the often-used link to the 2011 USB.org letter which says USB cables don't matter, except when you actually read the letter it says everything I'm about to tell you, and posted previously.)

(2.) Because we're talking about the transmission medium of an encoded signal, we'd need to show that the signal BEFORE encoding is ALWAYS reproduced 100% by the receiver AFTER decoding - why?

(3.) This means we need to understand how the decoder works and deals with signal variance during transmission: can this results in errors, and if so how does the decoder deal with that, and if so can we hear it?

(4.) The USB audio spec doesn't provide for error correction, i.e., unlike a USB file transfer which can check for errors and re-ask for data, UAC doesn't re-ask, plus UAC also must account for timing (go back and read any of my posts with charts, graphs, tables, copies of the USB spec where all of this is explained)

(5.) If USB bulk transfers do check for errors and re-ask for the data .... are those errors 100% originating from the sender-only for all equipment in all environments, or might some of those errors happen during transmission? And if some of those errors happen during transmission, that means the cables, and if UAC can't correct for errors, then cables might make a difference through shielding or other factors. We'd need to understand all of that before we could begin to know what to measure. Thus we need to understand how the receiver code (e.g., XMOS firmware) deals with signal variance.

And if you actually are curious rather than defending a biased position you have no intention of changing, please know i'm not saying cables DO matter, i'm saying we don't know for certain they don't, and they appear to work for me, but I could be mistaken.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-14660113
Post #1,602 of 1,606

GrussGott

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
538
Reaction score
353
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Posts
538
Likes
353
you are unable to recognise what is objective scientific evidence
And you are unable to recognize that scientific evidence on some equipment, in some environment, analyzed by a few people, DOES NOT EQUAL scientific proof.

If one was extremely biased, they'd look for any evidence their bias was correct, find it, and stop.

Sorry Greg, limited testing of limited equipment by a few people does not equal proof - and I'm sorry for everyone frustrated by that fact.

but it is a fact.

Nothing proven, so the adventure continues!
 
     Share This Post       
post-14660153
Post #1,603 of 1,606

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,986
Reaction score
2,020
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
3,986
Likes
2,020
(1.) Scientifically proven means we have a predictive theory that proves it's IMPOSSIBLE for USB cables to make a difference for all ears, for all equipment, for all environments.
(2.) Because we're talking about the transmission medium of an encoded signal, we'd need to show that the signal BEFORE encoding is ALWAYS reproduced 100% by the receiver AFTER decoding - why?
(3.) This means we need to understand how the decoder works and deals with signal variance during transmission: can this results in errors, and if so how does the decoder deal with that, and if so can we hear it?
(4.) The USB audio spec doesn't provide for error correction, i.e., unlike a USB file transfer which can check for errors and re-ask for data, UAC doesn't re-ask, plus UAC also must account for timing (go back and read any of my posts with charts, graphs, tables, copies of the USB spec where all of this is explained)
(5.) If USB bulk transfers do check for errors and re-ask for the data .... are those errors 100% originating from the sender-only for all equipment in all environments, or might some of those errors happen during transmission? And if some of those errors happen during transmission, that means the cables, and if UAC can't correct for errors, then cables might make a difference through shielding or other factors.
[5b]. We'd need to understand all of that before we could begin to know what to measure.
1. No it doesn't. What we do have though is overwhelming reliable evidence that differences are way below audibility. The burden of proof is on you to provide some reliable counter evidence and you haven't provided a single shred. You cannot just keep ignoring the requirements of science and then cry "you're not being scientific". Read the "burden of proof" on the home page of this forum and STOP arguing a fallacy!!
2. No we don't. We talking about the transmission of digital data, we therefore need to show that the digital data exiting the cable is identical to the digital data entering the cable, which is easy to do and has been done countless times. Also done numerous times is actually comparing the output of the DAC, which demonstrates difference many times below audibility.
3. It should not result in errors and extremely rarely ever does. If it does, the internal error correction of the DAC should handle it, if that error correction is overwhelmed then we can hear it (as a burst of static).
4. Any cheap decent DAC can handle timing well beyond the ability of any human to detect.
5. What errors?
5b. We do understand all of that and have done for decades. And anyway, we don't need to know what to measure, we can just perform a null test, which measures EVERYTHING in the signal.

You've been told all this before and choose to ignore it. That's your prerogative of course but it's not your prerogative to define science to suit your belief and repeat your belief endlessly when it's so clearly contradicted by the science (at least in this sub-forum)!

G
 
     Share This Post       
post-14660700
Post #1,604 of 1,606

GrussGott

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
538
Reaction score
353
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Posts
538
Likes
353
The burden of proof is on you
That's not how science works Greg, and this is the science thread.

In this case, I'm saying we have no definitive answer one way or another, and you (and others) are saying we do; yes you have some evidence, but that's not proof, that's just speculation based on limited empirical observations. not proof. speculation. Thus if you're claiming we have a definitive answer, you have to prove it and you haven't thus no definitive answer.

And, BTW, your opinion is totally fine if you disclaimed that (a.) you're not a digital signals expert, (b.) therefore while you have a strong opinion based on what you've seen, you don't really know.

But you don't do that Greg, so I'm pointing out that you don't just in case someone might take your (and many others here) unproven certainty as a fact, and then pass along that misinformation to others, thus spiraling out misunderstandings.

I don't have to prove a thing, because I'm not taking a position one way or another, but you are, so you need to prove it or disclaim it's just an opinion. QED.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-14660709
Post #1,605 of 1,606

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
21,040
Reaction score
3,317
Location
Hollywood USA
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Location
Hollywood USA
Posts
21,040
Likes
3,317
Website
www.facebook.com
What a waste of words. This is what it looks like when you have no argument and you wouldn't even be able to put across an argument if you did. I second Brooko's motion on how to handle this.
 
     Share This Post       
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top