[JJF_888]

Great timely topic!

 

[JJF_888]

For example, there's a music genre called counterpoint which relies on what's called "implied harmony", harmony which isn't actually there in the music but which the brain predicts/invents itself, hence "implied" harmony. JS Bach was the master of counterpoint and he (and all other composers) was manipulating/fooling what listeners were certain their ears were telling them 300 years ago!

Do you have a reference for learning more about this? TIA!

 

[JJF_888]

Can any of the audiophile magazines be viewed as credible or something other than advertising platforms?

 

[gregorio]

Do you have a reference for learning more about this? TIA!

Not off the top of my head, I studied counterpoint over 30 years ago, before there was a web! I can't even remember the text books we used, although one was by someone with the surname of Fux. Contrary to what I stated before, counterpoint isn't really a musical genre as such but a compositional technique/style. The pinnacle of that technique is to be found during the high baroque in the musical form known as the Fugue, although counterpoint dates back at least a couple of hundred years earlier. I'm sure if you typed; counterpoint and implied harmony, into google you find something useful.

G

 

[JJF_888]

Thanks!

 

[JJF_888]

Would putting a simple ferrite choke, or one on each end of the USB, remove the potential of any power supply noise?

 

[Arpiben]

Thanks for the link. It is rather bizarre in terms of your comments though. Firstly, nowhere does the article mention it was a double-blind test as you described it. There is a very significant difference between blind and double blind tests, so much so, that blind tests are not accepted in say medical research or pretty much any branch of science. How is it possible for you, a uni prof, not to know this? There was no explanation of the methodology of the tests, so no way to determine/evaluate if it was even a bona fide blind test, let alone how affected by biases the test was, even if it were a bona fide blind test! There was also no explanation of how the data was obtained, the data itself was not published, nor was how it was analysed and therefore we have no idea how or even if the published conclusions/reviews correlate with that data. All that's been provided is an edited collation of the testers' subjective opinions, which demonstrates nothing, not even that there were any audible differences between cables! For example, during each tester's testing was each test always a different cable or did some of the tests use the same cable as the previous test (unknown to the tester)? If it was the former, then that knowledge alone is enough to introduce so much bias as to invalidate the test, regardless of the tester being unaware of which different cable they were listening to. You stated of this article "Where is the placebo effect and expectation bias here?" Again, how as a uni prof of science philosophy is it possible for you to even ask this question, let alone use it to support your assertion? It indicates little/no understanding of what the scientific method is or why it exists!

I will commend the article for providing some actual measurements, a rarity in cable marketing. Although unfortunately, it's not explained that these measurements are effectively useless/irrelevant! A USB cable's job, by definition, is to transfer a USB specification signal. The rise times (properties of the eye pattern) are irrelevant, provided they are within the USB specification. It is incumbent on the USB receiving equipment (in this case a USB DAC) to accurately extract the data from a USB specified signal, regardless of it's rise time! If a USB DAC performs more accurately with a faster rise time than with a slower rise time, providing both rise times are within the USB specification, then the DAC is not compliant with USB specifications (is faulty)! The exception to these irrelevant measurements was the one for the Signal Projects Lynx Reference USB cable, which, if the measurement was accurate, demonstrates that is cable is NOT a USB cable! Astonishing, even sub $10 cables are capable of meeting USB specifications but apparently not this audiophile cable costing 100 times more?! The fact that it even works without serious errors is testament to the fact that DACs must be relatively insensitive to rise times, even if they fall outside the USB specification. Of course the review they publish ("free-form" section) is complete nonsense, digital audio cannot be louder or quieter without applying one or more algorithms to significantly change the bit values, as already explained.



Again, simple logic! If there were something present that we are unaware of, then we can't measure it and therefore can't record it, digitize it, undigitize it or reproduce it!

G

Fully agreeing on the useless/irrelevant character of the measurements provided in the mentioned paper.
I will just add the following:

• no indication of measurement plane & test bench ( USB Host (DAP) - USB Cable- 'Probe'- USB Device (DAC)?)
• Eye patterns are performed at U.I.= 80ns ( 12.5 Mbps Full Speed specifications) not at U.I.= 2.08 ns (480 Mbps High.Speed).
• Length of every USB cable not provided
• Test files 44.1kHz/16bit (~1.4Mbps) and 176.4kHz/24bit (~8.5Mbps) but no eye pattern at those rates
• USB cables' impedance characteristic not measured but "estimated" with eye pattern at imho not usefull frequency.

Rgds

 

[theorist]

In his book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ Thomas Kuhn (1962) defines a scientific paradigm as:

• what is to be allowed to be observed and scrutinized;
• the kind of questions that are permitted to be asked and tested for answers in relation to the subject under investigation;
• how these questions must be structured, and;
• how the results of scientific investigations must be interpreted.

When a paradigm is starting to breakdown anomalies occur that are not thinkable under the dominant/hegemonic paradigm. Anything that does not fit the orthodoxy of the paradigm as defined by the above criteria are dismissed by the scientific defenders of that orthodoxy as bizarre, irrelevant, wrong, deluded, inconceivable, ignorant or misinterpreting/ misunderstanding, impossible, extremist; or, by making statements such as: ‘no logics and facts will persuade you that you are wrong’ or ‘you can’t provide measurements showing this’, etc. If you go back through the discussions in this topic forum, you will see these words/clauses are used repeatedly throughout by a few defenders of IT signal ‘perfection’ orthodoxy when I or someone else say that they hear differences in their systems when changing USB or other digital cables such as ethernet ones.

Indeed, following Kuhn (1962) theory changes in science or anywhere else in what is called knowledge, are not fundamentally an accumulation of facts, but rather a change of ways of intellectually conceiving concepts and ways of understanding the world. Some people are fixed in their ways and don’t wish to engage with change in their worldview. So, if people believe that their theories say that USB cables cannot affect the sound of music being produced in an audio system is this not then expectation bias of the highest order? Accordingly, they won’t hear any change, even in a double-blind test, because they know that they cannot be any – and they have the theory to ‘prove’ this. Others of us, without this believe, may, of course, hear changes, at least when change occurs. And while I cannot speak for others, I have heard differences between USB cables in my system, sometimes this is obvious and immediately audible, in other cases much more subtle and only apparent over time and with reflection. And, yes, at least for me, there is a general correlation between digital cable cost and perceived signal/music quality improvement in my system, but this is not necessarily always the case between different cables, and this correlation is probably stronger within a brand’s own product range than across different brands, perhaps indicative of the strength of the design principles being used by different companies.

 

[Clive101]

Not off topic ( but close ) the issue of noise within systems.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-electronics-blu-mk-2-the-official-thread.831343/page-93
Some well regarded people, the post by Romaz is of particular interest earlier posts of USB cables are also of interest (same person).

 

[theorist]

Not off topic ( but close ) the issue of noise within systems.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-electronics-blu-mk-2-the-official-thread.831343/page-93
Some well regarded people, the post by Romaz is of particular interest earlier posts of USB cables are also of interest (same person).

Yes, despite what some may claim, the average PC is really pretty noisy, not in an analogue sense of noise, but in what to me is largely I consider musical 'glare'. Some people describe it metaphorically as 'looking' at your music as though through dirty or distorted glass. That's why I have an Antipodes DX (its also not too expense in NZ as its made here). As described by Romaz, Mark has built these servers after lots of listening tests to select and then layout: 1) really good clean power supplies, 2) lowest noise SSDs, and 3) to have component/layout/operating software set up and operating in a manner that attempts to 'tune' this computer noise in its various components so that it is minimised and less intrusive in the overall music. Even Audirvana or Amarra software designed as Mac or PC music processors try and optimise the back-ground tasks (or turn them off) in your computer to minimise the noise that they generate that gets picked up in the digital signals carrying your music data.

Undoubtedly, some of the trolls will come back and attempt to trash this heresy of their 'properly implemented digital sound must always be perfect' orthodoxy, but don't believe them, listen with 'open' ears and decide for yourself!

 

[Arpiben]

Not off topic ( but close ) the issue of noise within systems.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-electronics-blu-mk-2-the-official-thread.831343/page-93
Some well regarded people, the post by Romaz is of particular interest earlier posts of USB cables are also of interest (same person).

For sake of objectivity, you should also quote or remind the numerous posts of your DAC designer ( Chord / Rob Watts).
He has been repeatedly posting that USB / BNC digital cables do not make differences!
According to him, RF currents circulating in those cables, may affect SQ due to noise floor modulation.

 

[Clive101]

For sake of objectivity, you should also quote or remind the numerous posts of your DAC designer ( Chord / Rob Watts).
He has been repeatedly posting that USB / BNC digital cables do not make differences!
According to him, RF currents circulating in those cables, may affect SQ due to noise floor modulation.

Thanks for the mention of Robs Watts ( an expert ) he did reply to an earlier post of mine re the same USB issue.
He is always open minded, and his recent post on cables with ferrite cores is interesting digital zeros and ones being transferred between Dave and Blu mk2 on cables seems to support the noise issue.
Have a quick read.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-electronics-blu-mk-2-the-official-thread.831343/page-87
Thank you for the reply

 

[Clive101]

Yes, despite what some may claim, the average PC is really pretty noisy, not in an analogue sense of noise, but in what to me is largely I consider musical 'glare'. Some people describe it metaphorically as 'looking' at your music as though through dirty or distorted glass. That's why I have an Antipodes DX (its also not too expense in NZ as its made here). As described by Romaz, Mark has built these servers after lots of listening tests to select and then layout: 1) really good clean power supplies, 2) lowest noise SSDs, and 3) to have component/layout/operating software set up and operating in a manner that attempts to 'tune' this computer noise in its various components so that it is minimised and less intrusive in the overall music. Even Audirvana or Amarra software designed as Mac or PC music processors try and optimise the back-ground tasks (or turn them off) in your computer to minimise the noise that they generate that gets picked up in the digital signals carrying your music data.

Undoubtedly, some of the trolls will come back and attempt to trash this heresy of their 'properly implemented digital sound must always be perfect' orthodoxy, but don't believe them, listen with 'open' ears and decide for yourself!

Yes that Antipodes DX does look like a nice piece of kit did you compare with anything else before purchase and to be on topic how did the noise compare on the USB cable..?
I may be in the market to one ..?

 

[gregorio]

[1] When a paradigm is starting to breakdown anomalies occur that are not thinkable under the dominant/hegemonic paradigm.
[2] I or someone else say that they hear differences in their systems when changing USB or other digital cables such as ethernet ones.
[3] So, if people believe that their theories say that USB cables cannot affect the sound of music being produced in an audio system is this not then expectation bias of the highest order?
[4] Others of us, without this believe, may, of course, hear changes, at least when change occurs.
[5] And, yes, at least for me, there is a general correlation between digital cable cost and perceived signal/music quality improvement in my system ...

1. What paradigm is starting to breakdown? I don't see the digital age ending because digital doesn't work, I see the exact opposite!
2. So, we've got a few thousand audiophiles making unsubstantiated claims that the transfer of digital data is flawed and on the other side we've got mathematical proof that perfect data transfer is possible, countless actual measurements which prove it's not just possible but standard and most of the rest of the world's population who rely on this fact.
3. Yes ... but of course we are NOT talking about a theory. We are taking about a mathematically proven theorem, countless actual measurements and probably the most demonstrated and relied upon fact in human history!!! How as even an averagely educated, rational person can you not know the difference, let alone as a uni prof?
4. No one is disputing that you hear a change! What we're disputing is what is causing that change. You are basing your explanation/claim purely on your perception of what you think you're hearing and effectively pitting your trust in your perception against the mathematical proof, the measured data and the demonstrated facts. How is that even possible for a self proclaimed uni prof, it's not even acceptable for high school student?!
5. As the article you linked to demonstrated, under certain circumstances there could be a correlation. The Lynx USB cable does not apparently adhere to it's stated specifications and in this case the correlation between price and quality would be higher price = lower quality, not at all an uncommon occurrence in the audiophile world and it works because many audiophiles appear to prefer lower fidelity.

You seem fond of quoting scientific philosophy while at the same time ignoring the absolute basics. You have two facts (different cable, different perception) and are making a correlation between them without evidence, a classic logical fallacy. For example, it's fact that more people drown in summer, it's also fact that more ice cream is consumed in summer but it would be a logical fallacy to state that therefore consuming ice cream causes drowning! Until you can demonstrate that the difference isn't just a consequence of your flawed perception then all you're doing is repeating the same logical fallacy! If you're going to quote science philosophy then you can't only quote the bits of it which could potentially support your unsubstantiated claims, here's one of the most famous bit's of scientific philosophy, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You are claiming that perfect digital transfer is impossible, therefore that the mathematical proof must be incorrect, as must the countless actual measurements and therefore effectively that the digital age which relies on these facts cannot exist, all of which is about as extraordinary a claim as it's possible to make! And what is your most extraordinary evidence for your most extraordinary of claims? Apparently nothing more than your personal perception of what you're hearing, that of a handful of other extreme audiophiles and some marketing materials aimed at said audiophiles! Really? And you're purporting to be a uni prof in science philosophy??

[1] Yes, despite what some may claim, the average PC is really pretty noisy, not in an analogue sense of noise, but in what to me is largely I consider musical 'glare'. Some people describe it metaphorically as 'looking' at your music as though through dirty or distorted glass. ... Even Audirvana or Amarra software designed as Mac or PC music processors try and optimise the back-ground tasks (or turn them off) in your computer to minimise the noise that they generate that gets picked up in the digital signals carrying your music data.
[2] Undoubtedly, some of the trolls will come back and attempt to trash this heresy of their 'properly implemented digital sound must always be perfect' orthodoxy, but don't believe them, listen with 'open' ears and decide for yourself!

1. The vast majority of digital data is not music, so what happens to all those other zeros and ones which do not represent music, does they have musical "glare" too, is that like looking through "dirty or distorted glass". Does the world need Audirvana or Amarra software in order for computers to function accurately and for the digital age to exist?
2. Undoubtedly, some trolls (and shills), who put what they think they're hearing above proven maths, actual measurements, all the reliable tests and of course the facts which have been demonstrated countless trillions of times a second for many years, will try and convince you to do the same, any vaguely rational person should not need telling NOT believe them!!

G

 

[theorist]

Yes that Antipodes DX does look like a nice piece of kit did you compare with anything else before purchase and to be on topic how did the noise compare on the USB cable..?
I may be in the market to one ..?

Actually I did not compare the DX to other kit, I had heard an Antipode DS in a near identical system to mine and was impressed in how 'clean' the music sounded compared to my Mac running Amarra. When the strong reviews for the DX came out a couple of years ago, I just went for it after a listen that found it significantly better than the DS in regard to the palpability of the music it presented, ie little, if any, 'digital glare'. Largely, this was also because the NZ price of NZ kit here is generally 30% less than its cost overseas and all imported kit here is about 30% more expensive than say its US price, so it becomes a no-brainer to buy good local kit here like Plinius or Antipodes, because of its significant price advantage. To answer your other question, the impact of any good dedicated music server will be much greater in cleaning up digital 'glare' in a system over the improvement made by the purchase of any USB cable. Indeed, I suspect, that one of the reasons people claim to hear no difference between printer USB cables and dedicated quality audio USB cables are that they are using noisy computers for their source that literally 'drown-out' in glare the small by comparison, but still significant, improvement made by a well designed cable.

I think a lot of people, even some Head-Fliers, don't seem to get the basic premise of the interest of audiofiles to try and get as close as possible to the 'absolute sound' even when we know that this is impossible (just think of the latency (inertia/slew rate) of all recording microphones). But it does rather amuse me when some equate the accuracy of a digital code to produce the correct bit of hex code (or whatever) to represent, say, the letters of the alphabet, which is rather different than the nuanced information necessary to accurately reproduce the timbre, timing and other characteristics of palpable music that audiofiles are attempting to achieve (the spaces between the notes -- after Miles Davis). And no doubt the 'digital is already perfect' science types will profoundly disagree, but they are entitled to their believes, just as we are.

Indeed, I don't draw on 'scientific philosophy', but I do use philosophy. My philosophical perspective considers science a useful human construct, but one which ultimately is just a method for testing the validity of repeatable patterns in the natural world, that is, provided that these patterns are not too complex and non-linear, or even random, at least as defined by our state of knowledge, in their affect. But this often very useful and sometimes sophisticated method cannot constitute truth-in-itself and to believe that it does is simply to reify it as a deity (after Nietzsche). And, I am afraid, some people do tend to place science falsely on this profound pedestal as the ultimate guarantor of truth.