[Leo-]

Well, ok - at least now I understand you're picking up on the semantics not the physics. No need to be unapologethic though - I've said it wrong in the past and I'm sure it's not the last time. I already said this to our instrumentation guys at work and they get quite pissed off too ("don't call my expensive instrument a freaking oscilloscope you uneducated person!" is a classic one). Thanks for the stories nevertheless, I actually work with very complex and expensive instrumentation but not on the electronics side.

However I've never seen people taking pictures of SA screens, definitely not something from my time. Oldest SA that I've operated was from the 70's in an old analog flight simulator but it was quite easy to read the numbers off the screen. Not that easy was to convert the aircraft stability modes to circuit gains - at university I actually had an enthusiast professor who teached us how to make these electronic analogies, but that's another lost art that nobody will ever need anymore.

What were we talking about?

 

[bigshot]

There is in no high fidelity, or absolute sound, in reproduced music.

A philosopher!

I read your post three times trying to figure out what kind of DAC I should buy, and I couldn't parse anything out of it except "There are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." That really doesn't help me much. Some specific technical info and objective tests might help me make a better decision. Philosophers don't make the best advisors when it comes to putting together a stereo system. Poets don't make great audio equipment reviewers either, but a lot of them seem to be taking up the trade. I'll stick with scientists for judging electronics.

I'm curious why this thread was moved to Sound Science. There are people in it who aren't talking at all about Sound Science. If it was veering off topic at one time for the woo woo cable forum, I think we can agree it's veering off topic for Sound Science now. Maybe the thread should be marked "return to sender".

 

[Arpiben]

Good methodology and a basic oscilloscope is enough to track eventual audible interferers.
No use of any Tektronix/Keysight (Agilent before) digital scope sampling at 5GSps with all options (FFT/Spectogram/etc...).
Those may be use by designers for tracking EMI.
In some cases 'old analog' measurements are more efficient in tracking defects, VSWR in waveguides for example.
@pinnahertz is perfectly right and this applies not only to audio.

 

[Leo-]

Just few months ago I found an even more basic issue. Some guys came by to complain about some strange "vibrations" which I had never noticed before. Their results looked physically impossible to me, so I compared the output of the software to my routines for some perfect example signal. Bingo - turns out the instrumentation software had a gross bug that was never noticed before. Scary stuff - dozens of companies use the same software.

@pinnahertz actually there may would be a way to get RMSs from old oscilloscopes using your pre-historic method. In the old times before computers were widespread, people would get integral estimates by plotting graphs in heavy paper, carefully cut around the silhouettes and weigh them with a precise scale against a reference. This could be done with the polaroid of the output signal - knowing the amplifier gain and doing the same for the input signal, the fundamental frequency could be subtracted. Useless but funny.

 

[Arpiben]

Just few months ago I found an even more basic issue. Some guys came by to complain about some strange "vibrations" which I had never noticed before. Their results looked physically impossible to me, so I compared the output of the software to my routines for some perfect example signal. Bingo - turns out the instrumentation software had a gross bug that was never noticed before. Scary stuff - dozens of companies use the same software.

@pinnahertz actually there may would be a way to get RMSs from old oscilloscopes using your pre-historic method. In the old times before computers were widespread, people would get integral estimates by plotting graphs in heavy paper, carefully cut around the silhouettes and weigh them with a precise scale against a reference. This could be done with the polaroid of the output signal - knowing the amplifier gain and doing the same for the input signal, the fundamental frequency could be subtracted. Useless but funny.

In old times people used to have better physical idea or knowledge of what they were talking about.
Nowadays too much un correlation between different departments and cost saving issues may lead to what you describe.
Famous brand digital spectrum analyzers 0-110GHz suffering with unacceptable aliasing issues for example.
Too much software and not enough testing.No magic RF cables for correcting a 100 kEuros test equipment.

 

[pinnahertz]

@pinnahertz actually there may would be a way to get RMSs from old oscilloscopes using your pre-historic method. In the old times before computers were widespread, people would get integral estimates by plotting graphs in heavy paper, carefully cut around the silhouettes and weigh them with a precise scale against a reference. This could be done with the polaroid of the output signal - knowing the amplifier gain and doing the same for the input signal, the fundamental frequency could be subtracted. Useless but funny.

Talk about a ridiculous solution. The amount of time consumed and lack of precision would disqualify that method on those criteria alone. There have been distortion analyzers in the world for 70 years for sure, likely longer. Manually tuned and nulled Wien bridge beasts from the 1940s...yes, I've used one of those too...got the answer more quickly and with far greater precision.

You are technically correct, but practically ridiculous.

 

[gregorio]

Well, ok - at least now I understand you're picking up on the semantics not the physics.

Why does this happen? Why is it so common during a discussion/disagreement with audiophiles that they will bring up some irrelevant point, stated as applicable fact or science and then, when someone demonstrates it's clearly wrong, they accuse that person of picking up on semantics rather than the science or applicable facts, of doing exactly what the audiophile himself is actually guilty of?! It's so common that this isn't even the first time it has occurred in this thread; I had a series of exchanges with @Clive101 who quoted a bunch of analogue studio equipment to support his argument and when I explained why the studio equipment he quoted was inapplicable, he accused me of quoting studio equipment in which he had no interest. Again, why does this happen, what's the point of it, how does it benefit the audiophile or his argument? How does accusing others of exactly what they themselves initiated and are guilty of extricate them from the hole they've dug for themselves by making irrelevant and erroneous statements in the first place?

As I explained in post #335 (which you've apparently not read or conveniently ignored), irrespective of your irrelevant and erroneous statements regarding oscilloscopes, your statement ("It is certainly easy to take measurements, to make meaningful ones it is not so much.") is nonsense at a far more fundamental level: The process of recording and reproducing audio is itself a process of measurement/quantification, so if we cannot take meaningful measurements/quantifications we cannot make meaningful recordings in the first place! Are you saying that audiophile USB cables take un-meaningful audio recordings and turns them into meaningful music? The problem with trying to argue for an audiophile myth is that following the argument through to it's logical conclusion typically results in having to contradict relatively simple, obvious facts and make not just erroneous but utterly ludicrous claims/statements/conclusions. But even this is not the end of the road though, because of course one can always just accuse everyone else of contradicting basic facts and making utterly ludicrous claims! The circular (il)logic world of audiophilia can be fascinating to witness.

G

 

[Leo-]

Talk about a ridiculous solution. The amount of time consumed and lack of precision would disqualify that method on those criteria alone. There have been distortion analyzers in the world for 70 years for sure, likely longer. Manually tuned and nulled Wien bridge beasts from the 1940s...yes, I've used one of those too...got the answer more quickly and with far greater precision.

You are technically correct, but practically ridiculous.

It does serve an important point which is to show again what a proof by absurd is. We found that there is at least one way (impractical or imprecise it doesn't matter at all) to measure something with the oscilloscope, therefore the assertion "it is impossible to measure thd with an oscilloscope" is false, thereby closing a big parenthesis and supporting my argument that if in at least one situation USB cables do make a difference, then the assertion that all USB cables are the same is false.

 

[Clive101]

Why does this happen? Why is it so common during a discussion/disagreement with audiophiles that they will bring up some irrelevant point, stated as applicable fact or science and then, when someone demonstrates it's clearly wrong, they accuse that person of picking up on semantics rather than the science or applicable facts, of doing exactly what the audiophile himself is actually guilty of?! It's so common that this isn't even the first time it has occurred in this thread; I had a series of exchanges with @Clive101 who quoted a bunch of analogue studio equipment to support his argument and when I explained why the studio equipment he quoted was inapplicable, he accused me of quoting studio equipment in which he had no interest. Again, why does this happen, what's the point of it, how does it benefit the audiophile or his argument? How does accusing others of exactly what they themselves initiated and are guilty of extricate them from the hole they've dug for themselves by making irrelevant and erroneous statements in the first place?

As I explained in post #335 (which you've apparently not read or conveniently ignored), irrespective of your irrelevant and erroneous statements regarding oscilloscopes, your statement ("It is certainly easy to take measurements, to make meaningful ones it is not so much.") is nonsense at a far more fundamental level: The process of recording and reproducing audio is itself a process of measurement/quantification, so if we cannot take meaningful measurements/quantifications we cannot make meaningful recordings in the first place! Are you saying that audiophile USB cables take un-meaningful audio recordings and turns them into meaningful music? The problem with trying to argue for an audiophile myth is that following the argument through to it's logical conclusion typically results in having to contradict relatively simple, obvious facts and make not just erroneous but utterly ludicrous claims/statements/conclusions. But even this is not the end of the road though, because of course one can always just accuse everyone else of contradicting basic facts and making utterly ludicrous claims! The circular (il)logic world of audiophilia can be fascinating to witness.

G

Well that's your opinion of which your entitled, I used the example to demonstrate that Torus ( power conditioner ) work for me and for a studio.

 

[pinnahertz]

It does serve an important point which is to show again what a proof by absurd is. We found that there is at least one way (impractical or imprecise it doesn't matter at all) to measure something with the oscilloscope, therefore the assertion "it is impossible to measure thd with an oscilloscope" is false, thereby closing a big parenthesis and supporting my argument that if in at least one situation USB cables do make a difference, then the assertion that all USB cables are the same is false.

Wow, someone who is actually more pedantic than I am!

 

[pinnahertz]

It does serve an important point which is to show again what a proof by absurd is. We found that there is at least one way (impractical or imprecise it doesn't matter at all) to measure something with the oscilloscope, therefore the assertion "it is impossible to measure thd with an oscilloscope" is false, thereby closing a big parenthesis and supporting my argument that if in at least one situation USB cables do make a difference, then the assertion that all USB cables are the same is false.

The only thing you have actually proven, though, is how you can apply proof by absurd. That's fine, but it has no bearing on the reality we will encounter reality. So, at extreme risk of being absurdly logic'd to death...using a scope to "measure" distortion would be an extremely rare case, and actually the misuse of a tool. It's as ridiculous as saying that because you actually can hammer a nail with a wrench you could build a house without a hammer. True in the absolute, but ridiculous.

Perhaps the statement "All USB cables sound the same" is false in the absolute, but it's correct in general and on average in practice. If you're going to live life in the absolute, they you must die. Why? LOGIC! Everyone who drinks water dies! And, sooner or later, everyone must drink water. That means to avoid dying you must stop drinking water, which in turn will cause your death. The same principle applies to a far, far greater extent with prescription drugs. Ever check those side effects? Many include, in the long list, "death". If you then applied absolute logic, you'd never take any of them, even if they could actually extend or save your life.

Wouldn't it be far more beneficial to study the "why" of the anomaly? If 100 different USB cables were tested in a true ABX/DBT, and with a significant number of tests with a significant number of people we came out with a clear statistical fallout that one cable in 100 did, in fact, present a difference in sound quality where no others did, would it be most relevant to study why that one creates a difference rather than to dogmatically declare, "See! The statement that "all USB cables sound the same" is FALSE! One way is research, science and engineering, the other is technically correct, but ridiculous. If you can discover why the one cable is audible, wouldn't you contribute the the collective knowledge of the science of data transmission? The other way you contribute to...well, really nothing other than to declare your own rightness.

Real science recognizes that true absolutes are rare, and many so called absolutes are actually a bit fuzzy. Engineering embraces that fuzzyness and works with it. By clinging to the assertion that the statement "all USB cables are the same" is false, you've embraced the world of the barrister, and left the world of science and engineering behind. You are, as I've said before, both correct and ridiculous.

How do we know, for example, that the USB cables that "sound the best" don't degenerate over time? Is cable rot possible? Sure it is, I've seen it first hand. In USB cables? No, but in cables in general, yes, old cable with cracked insulation, oxidized conductors, discolored outer jacket, etc. So then by your logic you should replace your $1000 rotting USB cable periodically because you can't absolutely say they don't rot!

Can you say, absolutely, that sound itself doesn't cause some physical degeneration? Hearing loss? Death? Nope. So then, stop listening to music! It's sound, and therefore can cause death. How about an equipment failure causing electrocution? You can't even turn you system off without risking that!

Aren't you worried about how many people get struck by lightning? Or killed by meteors?

Can you say, absolutely, that posting in a forum cannot result in physical degeneration such as RSI as one example? How about some other sickness? Death? Think carefully now, and take appropriate action.

 

[bigshot]

It does serve an important point which is to show again what a proof by absurd is. We found that there is at least one way (impractical or imprecise it doesn't matter at all) to measure something with the oscilloscope, therefore the assertion "it is impossible to measure thd with an oscilloscope" is false.

Congratulations. You've gone from accusing others of semantic arguments to making one yourself, and all in the space of just a couple of posts!

 

[Leo-]

It is funny that I do agree with you in principle, but I admit I'm kinda tired of going around this point in circles. Perhaps we don't have to spend so many bits discussing phylosophy - I'm sure that in person this could render an interesting conversation, but forum discussions somehow tend to reverberate little arguments and turn them into large signal distortions.

Coming back to where this discussion started, originally I wanted to make a point the few colleagues who stated rather categorically that "USB cables must all sound the same since they only carry bits", and the fact that they don't only do that (electrical noise aside, they also carry power for USB powered DACs), and if different cables are able to isolate the effects of high currents passing through the power cable from the signal ones, then not all cables sound the same in all circumstances if these currents can have a deletereous effect on the signal (timing at the receiver, increased noise, etc).

And yes, I was almost struck by a lightning once.

 

[theorist]

Congratulations. You've gone from accusing others of semantic arguments to making one yourself, and all in the space of just a couple of posts!

All uses of language in a discourse have an effect/affect on the Other, so they are inherently a semantic argument (Lacan 2007).

 

[bigshot]

There's no lack of contentless semantic arguments in internet forums. In fact, lousy debating is the fuel that runs the whole engine.

Unfortunately, I don't have much interest in argumentativeness. I'm more interested in working on improving the sound of music.