[Arpiben]

Why not start understanding digital transmission with this:

 

[bigshot]

My dad was a ham radio operator back in the days where you had to do morse at a certain speed to get a license. He had records that he would practice with. I remember sitting in my room zoning out to the sound of "dah dit dah dit daaah daaah dit dah" through the wall. His call letters were ZCF which were the three hardest letters to tap out.

 

[GrussGott]

You have one poster writing about subjective findings, but then declaring all science based finding as null and void (based on qualifications). When questioned/refuted by someone with knowledge, he gets to dismiss out of hand. He can post what he wants, and then can dismiss everyone else's.

@Brooko I never, ever said "science based findings" were null and void - I said posters shouldn't provide advice based on scientific conclusions when they have no scientific credentials/experience to make those scientific conclusions (e.g., "USB cannot affect sound quality because science!"). Those two similar things are quite different.

You, yourself, just posted about credentials "in most people's eyes" - well not in my eyes, so you absolutely ARE advocating silencing someone because they disagree with you. That's playing arbitrary popularity contests, rather than moderating. FURTHER, @bigshot called me foolish and delusional like 20 times. So open name-calling isn't apology-worthy to you? Seems like arbitrary bias. (note: I don't care about name-calling)

To be ultra clear about what credible credentials are "in my eyes" for stating scientific conclusions of USB cable capabilities:
* 20 years of experience in digital signals science/engineering and/or technical product development ... then maybe. Call me a cynic.

Now, back to USB cables - do any of you have any peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the physical impossibility of USB cable architecture (beyond base spec) affecting sound quality?

Because if you did, that would useful and those papers are probably by digital signals scientists which I understand is a much higher level of qualification than some of you require.

 

[GrussGott]

Are you a "digital signal scientist"?

No, which is why I don't offer scientific conclusions about digital signals products and recording engineers and railroad engineers shouldn't either.


Anyway, let's see that peer-reviewed study about how in-spec USB cables in digital audio systems cannot affect a transmitted signal, then we can just close up this thread.

 

[bigshot]

 

[gregorio]

[1] He didn't list a single scientific credential. So, yeah, he discredited any scientific conclusion you've made because as he points out - you're not a scientist. If that's not accurate, blame him.
[2] FYI: engineers typically refer to electrical signals as "analog signals", [2a] thus any electrical signal carried by a conductor can be referred to as "analog", even if the electrical signal is generated in such a way as to ease downstream conversion to digital data)

1. Brooko did not list my entire resume, he just responded to an erroneous assertion that I'm an amateur. Clearly he did NOT discredit any scientific conclusion I made, that's just another lie that you've made up!

2. What do you mean "for my information"? You're funny! You're NOT an audio engineer, never been an audio engineer but you presume to give a "FYI" about what's typical for engineers to an actual engineer with 27 years professional experience. If that's not evidence of delusion, I can't imagine what is!!
[2a] To address the actual point: In the audio world, an analogue signal is one that is analogous to an acoustic sound signal, hence why it's called "analogue" in the first place! It's really an extremely simple concept to grasp.

I'm suggesting posters halt the unethical practice of doling out conclusive advice based on their amateur's-level awareness of digital signals and psychoacoustics science and/or research.

Firstly, why don't you take your own suggestion? Secondly, who are you referring to? Obviously not me, as I have a professional's-level awareness of digital signals. And additionally, there are quite a few people in this forum who may not be professional scientists or engineers but have a good understanding of digital signals. Vlearly you don't fall into either category.

So what are you saying, that doling out conclusive advice based on amateur's-level awareness of digital signals is not acceptable but doling out conclusive advice based on ignorance and fan boy delusion is?

[1] Thanks for supporting me!
[2] As you point out, I've provided all of the evidence to back up every claim I've made: I heard it, and told you my understanding of why it happens.

1. He wasn't, he was doing the exact opposite! Another simple concept you've failed to grasp ... Oh dear, this seems to be a pattern!
2. You've provided no evidence whatsoever beyond anecdotal evidence. You berate others for not being professional scientists but you don't even seem to know what science is or what qualifies as scientific evidence. Hypocrite, delusional or both?

[1] No, which is why I don't offer scientific conclusions about digital signals products and recording engineers and railroad engineers shouldn't either.
[2] ... maybe, but that would presume we can fully, accurately, and completely "physically" measure sound ...
[2a] That kind of accuracy and understanding doesn't sound plausible to me - does it to you?

1. You're joking right? You're saying that engineers who are specifically educated and trained to record, manipulate and reproduce digital signals are not qualified to offer scientific conclusions about digital signals or even the basics of what digital signals are or how they work? What do you think digital audio engineers are educated in, how trains work? Your statement is so bizarre, it's funny!

2. If we can't measure sound, how can we record, digitise or reproduce it?
2a. Huh? It doesn't sound plausible to you that hundreds of millions of bits of data can be transferred per second without error? How do you think smartphones, tablets, laptops, digital TV's, etc., work without crashing every second or so? Or, are you saying that you don't understand the proven basics of how digital audio and digital information in general works? ... This is NOT the "What sounds plausible to GrussGott" forum, it's the sound science forum and the actual facts/science do not depend on what you find plausible! What "doesn't sound plausible" to me is that someone could be so incapable of grasping such simple concepts ... either trolling or delusion sounds far more plausible to me!!

G

 

[gregorio]

Anyway, let's see that peer-reviewed study about how in-spec USB cables in digital audio systems cannot affect a transmitted signal, then we can just close up this thread.

Again, you're joking right? Are you really saying that USB spec cables cannot accurately transmit USB specification signals? If so, what is the point of USB specification cables in the first place and how can the USB protocol ever work? Do I have to provide you with a peer reviewed study indicating that the USB protocol works bit perfectly (with USB spec cables), isn't billions of practical demonstrations of countless terabytes of data over more than two decades not enough?

Honestly, how ridiculous are you going to get?

G

 

[bigshot]

Prove a negative, Gregorio!

 

[Steve999]

You are questioning first principles and premises. I like that. I'm a big fan of that. It gets you places if done well. Yes, it makes people uncomfortable and they want you to go away. So let me look at some of your premises. I understand by one account that you come around here every six months or so and annoy everybody. Good! And argument, if constructive, can constitute one of the great pillars of higher-level learning. Don't get me wrong though--practical experience and book-learning are just as crucial.


So, respectfully, as to your premises: First, never underestimate the power of a brilliant uneducated mind. Questioning credentials is a relatively lowly method of reasoning when it comes to constructive argument. I dispute the premise that a person who is not educated in a particular field should not speak in that field as an authority. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers


I am not going to pay $33 for it and it would be improper for me reproduce it here in violation of copyright law but this might possibly do the trick as to proving in a peer-reviewed paper the audio transparency and flawless data transmission of USB cables, from the year 2000:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9053

So by your reasoning this may mean that we can close the thread.


Also, I question your premise that engineers are not competent to speak on scientific topics in their field. Let's take the example of a student who gets a graduate degree in chemical and biomolecular engineering. They are going to have to be at least competent in the sciences of biology, chemistry, computers, physics, and statistics, at a minimum. Engineers apply science. If they are not competent to do so then they will fail miserably at their craft. They may have a better working knowledge and more fertile and active minds and intuition than the scientists themselves in those same fields. They may also be capable of making major advances in the fields of science in which they practice. See Nikola Tesla, and Wilbur and Orville Wright, for two examples who have profoundly affected all of our lives.

By the way I am one of the several credentialed professionals I believe you mentioned in this thread (I apologize if it was not you). But I am extremely conscious in day-to-day life not to assume that this means I am right and someone else is wrong, though it is all too human to do so. Argument by authority is pretty lame in my book. Much snake oil is pedaled on that basis. It cuts both ways--it shouldn't be common practice in Sound Science or in the other parts of head-fi. In day to day life we have to rely on academic and scientific authorities and principles for innumerable things, down to driving our cars or running our air conditioners. But if there is a dispute, it's a pretty weak way of making your point--argument by authority is a perilous and potentially deceptive form of argument, and nobody learns much or gets anywhere new. Everyone just talks in circles. I am not very respectful of either questioning qualifications or flouting them in an argument. Either is too prone to amount to nothing more than a rather unpleasant and unwarranted ad hominem attack.

If you disagree with me, write, and write well. I may not answer, but I will read with genuine interest and kind feelings. I am not a big fan of posting here for just some of the reasons that you mention.

No, which is why I don't offer scientific conclusions about digital signals products and recording engineers and railroad engineers shouldn't either.

Anyway, let's see that peer-reviewed study about how in-spec USB cables in digital audio systems cannot affect a transmitted signal, then we can just close up this thread.

 

[Phronesis]

So, respectfully, as to your premises: First, never underestimate the power of a brilliant uneducated mind. Questioning credentials is a relatively lowly method of reasoning when it comes to constructive argument. I dispute the premise that a person who is not educated in a particular field should not speak in that field as an authority. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

… or Elon Musk. He's a guy that I'm guessing will still be talked about a century from now.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

… or Elon Musk. He's a guy that I'm guessing will still be talked about a century from now.

Elon touts lithium ion batteries. ...ni cad batteries last anywhere from 6 to 10 years.....part of my business is warranty work on batteries. .....we put an incredible number of lithium ion batteries in the landfill every week ....3 years is average life expectancy on this crap.This goes against his whole philosophy doesn't it?...so yep he will be talked about .

 

[GrussGott]

You are questioning first principles and premises. I like that. I'm a big fan of that. It gets you places if done well. Yes, it makes people uncomfortable and they want you to go away. So let me look at some of your premises. I understand by one account that you come around here every six months or so and annoy everybody. Good! And argument, if constructive, can constitute one of the great pillars of higher-level learning. Don't get me wrong though--practical experience and book-learning are just as crucial.

So, respectfully, as to your premises: First, never underestimate the power of a brilliant uneducated mind. Questioning credentials ...

This is all pretty good stuff with one key error: I'm not questioning anyone's credentials (everyone can make their own conclusions about that - I have), only the ethics of stating science-based conclusions without significant and practical experience in the actual research and design of the item in question: USB cables for hi-fi digital audio transmission. (which nobody here has claimed to have) or by busting out peer-reviewing research demonstrating their conclusion. (which nobody here has produced)

And yes - the OP's question could be easily and conclusively answered with peer-reviewed research showing the physical impossibility of an in-spec USB cable affecting downstream sound quality. Anybody making that claim should just show us the paper and then, yes, we can close this thread. QED.

The paper you posted doesn't seem to address the OP's question: why do USB cables improve audio quality? Just that using USB for "excellent" audio is possible: "This document demonstrates that USB technology is now mature to have a full range of applications with excellent Audio quality."

Again, everyone - engineers or otherwise -- can comment and form any opinions they want. go for it! Let's discuss! It's when they present their opinions as scientific fact to those asking for advice that it becomes irresponsible at best.

It's not ethical to portray advice as settled science when the science isn't settled - and if it is, it's as easy as linking to the peer-reviewed paper. /thread.

 

[Arpiben]

This is all pretty good stuff with one key error: I'm not questioning anyone's credentials (everyone can make their own conclusions about that - I have), only the ethics of stating science-based conclusions without significant and practical experience in the actual research and design of the item in question: USB cables for hi-fi digital audio transmission. (which nobody here has claimed to have) or by busting out peer-reviewing research demonstrating their conclusion. (which nobody here has produced)

And yes - the OP's question could be easily and conclusively answered with peer-reviewed research showing the physical impossibility of an in-spec USB cable affecting downstream sound quality. Anybody making that claim should just show us the paper and then, yes, we can close this thread. QED.

The paper you posted doesn't seem to address the OP's question: why do USB cables improve audio quality? Just that using USB for "excellent" audio is possible: "This document demonstrates that USB technology is now mature to have a full range of applications with excellent Audio quality."

Again, everyone - engineers or otherwise -- can comment and form any opinions they want. go for it! Let's discuss! It's when they present their opinions as scientific fact to those asking for advice that it becomes irresponsible at best.

It's not ethical to portray advice as settled science when the science isn't settled - and if it is, it's as easy as linking to the peer-reviewed paper. /thread.

Why do you need an answer since,IMHO, your posts are a perfect example of digital transmission issues:

1. Your arguments are burried in a lot of noise. Your Signal to Noise Ratio is negative in Decibel and far out of specifications for an information Transmitter.
2. Nevertheless your posts are reaching us unaltered through different media/technologies/cables.
3. As Receivers, some of us, are not able to properly retrieve the information you are sending.Too much noisy.
4. As Receivers, others are pleased with that noise and do bellieve that Receivers in point 3 are the ones out of specifications.

Addendum:

• Using Ferrites/ Dongles/decrapifiers/etc at Receivers point 3 side will not help understanding you better
• Using corrective action at Transmitter side (different argumentation) will allow Receivers in point 3 to deal with your information but Receivers in point 4 will be out.

 

[donunus]

If you are getting enjoyment because of that bottle of wine you're drinking, it doesn't make sense to recommend a particular interconnect as being the source of the better sound. Solipsist impressions are fine for you. They mean jack diddly to me. The only things we can share are objective facts... or perhaps a glass of that wine you're drinking.



BUH BYE!



WOW! Back so soon! Welcome back. If you do a blind test, you can share how you conducted it. Other people can replicate your results. That's how science works! Blind tests aren't hard to do. You just have to have a switch box, a way to balance the line level, and a friend to help flip the switch for you. The switch box and level adjustment is easy. You have a friend, don't you?

Priceless lol Scientific proof this thread is useless. If you are actually serious, how do you hocus pocus people using my ears. Surely, trained ears with some experience will pass and the newbies will fail due to the lack of training in finding the subtleties here. It is defininitely not as easy as comparing the sound coming from a boom car to a refined electrostat but the differences were there and I identified the cable playing after being used to how each cable sounded for a few days. All cables were covered in black cloth and labeled a number during the test then I took notes every listen. Someone else swapped the cables by the way so I didn't try to cheat and touch them to feel which one was under the cloth.

 

[Phronesis]

This is all pretty good stuff with one key error: I'm not questioning anyone's credentials (everyone can make their own conclusions about that - I have), only the ethics of stating science-based conclusions without significant and practical experience in the actual research and design of the item in question: USB cables for hi-fi digital audio transmission. (which nobody here has claimed to have) or by busting out peer-reviewing research demonstrating their conclusion. (which nobody here has produced)

And yes - the OP's question could be easily and conclusively answered with peer-reviewed research showing the physical impossibility of an in-spec USB cable affecting downstream sound quality. Anybody making that claim should just show us the paper and then, yes, we can close this thread. QED.

The paper you posted doesn't seem to address the OP's question: why do USB cables improve audio quality? Just that using USB for "excellent" audio is possible: "This document demonstrates that USB technology is now mature to have a full range of applications with excellent Audio quality."

Again, everyone - engineers or otherwise -- can comment and form any opinions they want. go for it! Let's discuss! It's when they present their opinions as scientific fact to those asking for advice that it becomes irresponsible at best.

It's not ethical to portray advice as settled science when the science isn't settled - and if it is, it's as easy as linking to the peer-reviewed paper. /thread.

Perhaps it’s not a fact that it’s been conclusively shown that there could be no perceivable difference in sound when using two different USB cables. However, it is indeed a fact, based on decades of research, that perception is unreliable to the extent that large differences may be perceived to exist which do not actually exist. Controls can be introduced to make perception more reliable, but you haven’t used such controls, so it would be unwise for you to conclude that you’ve perceived a real difference in sound. Try introducing those controls and see what your results are. I did that when comparing DAC/amps, and was shocked to find that differences I had clearly perceived previously disappeared when introducing those controls.