Ethan Winer may be on the verge of proving expensive interconnects don't matter.

[RCHeliGuy]

Mark....... say it isn't true !!!!!!! Next you'll be telling me there is no Santa Claus !

Dave, I'm so sorry to be the bearer of bad news...

Have you heard about the the tooth fairy yet?

And yes magic USB cables are just as real as they are.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Another aggressive, derogatory, judgmental comment.

No that comment was about people who are willfully deceiving people.

My comment may not be PC, but it is not lying like the people on that website are.

To be derogatory I'd have to be saying negative things about them that was not true.

The people who sell this pixie dust should be punished for it so that they would stop spreading blatant lies.

Unfortunately the words Caveat Emptor come to mind along with a well known quote from PT Barnum.

 

[amey01]

So Adam and mark. You are saying the following statement in the article is false:

'Streamed music signals do not benefit from this resend function and therefore error correction systems cannot replace missing or corrupted data.'

This is a fairly large gap between what you are saying and the article. I'm not questioning .. however I find this to be a fairly important divergence in the article vs your statements.

It depends on how the DAC has been designed, but I would go to say that any DAC which is operating in isosynchronous adaptive mode as non-audiophile.

Given I don't know where your knowledge starts and stops (and mine too - I'm no expert in the matter), I'll cut and paste a quote from the head of compliance at the USB Implementation Forum. I hope it helps:

When reading it, note in particular this line "Most USB audio/video devices use the bulk transport because real-time
delivery of the data is not necessary. Bulk audio/video devices will buffer
data before rendering it"

Note it does not say "all". This is why I say it depends on the DAC.

USB transmits information digitally. Bits are either received correctly or
not received. What a bit looks like on the wire has no effect on quality if
the bit is received correctly. If a bit is not receive correctly, error
checking in USB protocols will flag the error in data transmission.

Jitter is not a cable problem. Jitter is a transceiver (PHY) issue on the
devices.

Can bits get scrambled within a cable assembly on occasion? Yes, primarily
due to EMI but this is highly unlikely -- more on that later. Is occasional
data scrambling a problem for audio/video? Maybe. The answer depends on the
hardware receiving/rendering the data.

USB supports isochronous transport which is a timely delivery of data. The
isochronous transport has guaranteed bandwidth on USB. Isochronous
protocol, however, does not support error recovery. In other words, if data
is flagged as an error by the receiver, there will be no attempt at data
retransmission. So if the receiver is using the isochronous protocol, then
there can be errors in data. Most webcams use the isochronous transport.
High-end audio/video equipment that does not mandate real-time delivery of
data should not use the isochronous transport because accurate data delivery
is not guaranteed.


USB also supports bulk transport. The Bulk transport shares bandwidth and
timely delivery is not guaranteed. Bulk protocol does have error recovery
and errors in data will be retried. If the receiver uses the bulk USB
protocol, then there will be no errors in the data. This is why USB mass
storage devices always use the Bulk transport.

Most USB audio/video devices use the bulk transport because real-time
delivery of the data is not necessary. Bulk audio/video devices will buffer
data before rendering it. I can think of only two situations where the
audio/video will be disturbed when rendered: 1) If the host is busy
performing IO to other USB devices, or 2) There are errors in data
transmission where continual retries cause buffer under-run to occur. The
second point could be cable related -- it could also be poor hardware design
of the host or peripheral as well. The USB Bulk transport works very nicely
for audio and video because data is accurately delivered.

Now onto cable quality. A cheap USB cable will work perfectly fine in the
vast majority of home/office environments. All USB certified cables use
certified connectors and are shielded, have minimal skew on the data lines,
and meet criteria regarding impedance and voltage drop. If the environment
is extremely noisy with EMI, then a better shielded cable may be necessary.
Usually relocating the cable or power strips will suffice to mitigate EMI.

Personally, I would never recommend anyone buy an expensive USB cable unless
they are experiencing problems not related to their hardware and there
exists definitive suspicions of environmental interference. I do always
recommend that the cable purchased be USB certified which provides assurance
that the product is properly designed for USB. Using USB certified
audio/video equipment also assures that the USB signal quality and other
packet parameters of the transceiver meets specifications.

Of course, all of the above is premised upon properly designed and
functioning hardware.

Regards,
Mark Paxson
USB-IF Compliance Administrator
[email protected]

 

[Rich]

This seems like a good time to drop this link (for anyone who is lost in this debate): http://hifipig.com/cable-wars/

*scurries back into bunker*

 

[timm]

Thanks Adam. That is good.

 

[timm]

This seems like a good time to drop this link (for anyone who is lost in this debate): http://hifipig.com/cable-wars/

*scurries back into bunker*

How funny is that?? LOL

 

[RCHeliGuy]

This reminds me of all the articles about living in a "Post Fact Society" where engineers and scientists are shunned and people who believe something different cling to pseudo-science to support their beliefs. The idea is perpetuated that science can't prove anything absolutely and therefore the science can not be believed and whatever someone believes has the same value as the truth.

This is the world we live in and people are irrational about many things. A large percentage of the world believe in various religions that each claim to be the one true religion. This is just the tip of the iceberg, and people are indoctrinated at an early age to believe many different things that are just the beliefs of family, friends, ministers, priests, teachers, etc...

The bottom line is that people want to believe things and don't like it when science says differently. People want magic.

 

[twich54]

a well known quote from PT Barnum.

.............but alas, after 146 years Phineas and his Ringling buddies will be no more. No worries, a new Circus comes to town this Friday in Washington !

 

[Gordon Gray]

The bottom line is that people want to believe things and don't like it when science says differently. People want magic.

Na. People just want respect and tolerance for disparate opinions.

Adam has similar beliefs as yours but is able to present them (at times) in a manner that acknowledges the above.

Maybe you can learn something from him.

FLUSHHHHHHHHHH.

PS: Happy to report that the power cord I recently installed in my system has had a very significant impact on the sound of my system. Not minimal. Much to the better. I'm somewhat shocked by the difference. This is based on roughly six hours of listening (to date) to a wide variety of musical genres. I've read about this elsewhere but never experienced it before. Always thought it was hyperbole until now. My initial sense is that the difference is caused by "AC noise reduction", which Shunyata excels at and has demonstrated on their website, but there is obviously something else going on here.

And yes Mark, I am expecting another derogatory, insulting comment from you.

 

[Rich]

That's an interesting take on the article, Mark, and probably says more about your own inherent biases/beliefs than it does about the article. My take on it was that people tend to form into various camps based on their own personal knowledge, perceptions, experience, and beliefs and will dig in further and further to an absolutist perspective as a debate progresses, lashing out at the other side with snide put downs and refusing to consider for a moment that the other side may have any relevant viewpoint to inform the topic. Your comment fairly well exemplifies that perspective.

The truth is, I lean more toward your viewpoint in this debate. I think the impact of cables on the sound of a system is minimal at best and a lot of people fool themselves into hearing a bigger change than is there. I think there is a lot of snake oil in the cable business and you don't have to spend that much to get a well-designed cable that can do its job adequately. At the same time, my instinct is to not agree with you or Adam simply because of the way you make your points. The arrogance and snide dismissiveness you two use to make your points rings alarm bells to me. In my experience, people who are so absolutely sure of their own knowledge and arrogantly dismissive of those with alternative viewpoints are generally the types of people who miss the forest for the trees.

I am well-grounded in science. I believe in science. And I have stayed out of most of this debate because I know that I am not technically-qualified enough in the engineering to add much to the discussion. I think you and Adam assume too much that you are. As Alexander Pope said, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You two dismiss arguments of people in the business of making cables, many of them highly respected in their field (like George Cardas), pretty much out of hand, with very little technical argument to back your viewpoint. Just a haughty sense of self-righteousness. Honestly, it's off-putting and does little to encourage folks to see your side of the argument. A bit of humility goes a long way.

Science is not static. It constantly evolves as we learn new information. We have very different ideas about a lot of things today than we did two decades ago. Adam brings up the point that, to paraphrase, those USB guys know what they're doing. They're not dumb. And he's right. But he ignores the fact that their knowledge isn't complete. They didn't just put out USB 1.0 and it's perfect and we're all done. It's been out for 20 years and we are now at version 3.0. And more will follow as we learn more and figure out how to improve it. We don't understand everything just yet. A good scientist remains curious and open to new ideas.

All this to say that I am not convinced that science has explained everything in the world just yet, and if a multitude of people are convinced they hear things, I am willing to give them some benefit of the doubt. Not that I necessarily buy into what they say, but I'm not going to arrogantly say I know everything and they are idiots for buying into false propaganda, etc. Generally, I find the truths tend to lie somewhere in the middle between opposing absolutist viewpoints.

 

[Pneumonic]

Is it really anymore than just this?

1. Do you believe frequency, amplitude and phase completely describes an audio voltage signal?
2. Do you believe we have test instruments that are fully capable of measuring frequency, amplitude and phase?
3. Do you believe we know what the limits are of human hearing relative to said frequency, amplitude and phase attributes?
4. Do you believe Scully and Mulder were onto something?

 

[Pneumonic]

That's an interesting take on the article, Mark, and probably says more about your own inherent biases/beliefs than it does about the article. My take on it was that people tend to form into various camps based on their own personal knowledge, perceptions, experience, and beliefs and will dig in further and further to an absolutist perspective as a debate progresses, lashing out at the other side with snide put downs and refusing to consider for a moment that the other side may have any relevant viewpoint to inform the topic. Your comment fairly well exemplifies that perspective.

The truth is, I lean more toward your viewpoint in this debate. I think the impact of cables on the sound of a system is minimal at best and a lot of people fool themselves into hearing a bigger change than is there. I think there is a lot of snake oil in the cable business and you don't have to spend that much to get a well-designed cable that can do its job adequately. At the same time, my instinct is to not agree with you or Adam simply because of the way you make your points. The arrogance and snide dismissiveness you two use to make your points rings alarm bells to me. In my experience, people who are so absolutely sure of their own knowledge and arrogantly dismissive of those with alternative viewpoints are generally the types of people who miss the forest for the trees.

I am well-grounded in science. I believe in science. And I have stayed out of most of this debate because I know that I am not technically-qualified enough in the engineering to add much to the discussion. I think you and Adam assume too much that you are. As Alexander Pope said, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You two dismiss arguments of people in the business of making cables, many of them highly respected in their field (like George Cardas), pretty much out of hand, with very little technical argument to back your viewpoint. Just a haughty sense of self-righteousness. Honestly, it's off-putting and does little to encourage folks to see your side of the argument. A bit of humility goes a long way.

Science is not static. It constantly evolves as we learn new information. We have very different ideas about a lot of things today than we did two decades ago. Adam brings up the point that, to paraphrase, those USB guys know what they're doing. They're not dumb. And he's right. But he ignores the fact that they're knowledge isn't complete. They didn't just put out USB 1.0 and it's perfect and we're all done. It's been out for 20 years and we are now at version 3.0. And more will follow as we learn more and figure out how to improve it. We don't understand everything just yet. A good scientist remains curious and open to new ideas.

All this to say that I am not convinced that science has explained everything in the world just yet, and if a multitude of people are convinced they hear things, I am willing to give them some benefit of the doubt. Not that I necessarily buy into what they say, but I'm not going to arrogantly say I know everything and they are idiots for buying into false propaganda, etc. Generally, I find the truths tend to lie somewhere in the middle between opposing absolutist viewpoints.

Here's the issue.

The vast majority of audiophiles conduct improperly administered subjective testing which is fraught with error and, thus, gives inaccurate results of what constitutes the differences in what they hear when they conduct a listening test.

It is these untrustworthy results that are the primary reason why this hobby sees so many different opinions on devices that, objectively, should all sound the same.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

PS: Happy to report that the power cord I recently installed in my system has had a very significant impact on the sound of my system. Not minimal. Much to the better. I'm somewhat shocked by the difference. This is based on roughly six hours of listening (to date) to a wide variety of musical genres. I've read about this elsewhere but never experienced it before. Always thought it was hyperbole until now.

I'd love to hear a description of the significant impact that you heard from a power cord that didn't sound right initially but after being broken in by running a fan for two weeks had its sonic character changed so much that it now makes a significant impact on your sound.

 

[Rich]

I'd love to hear a description of the significant impact that you heard from a power cord that didn't sound right initially but after being broken in by running a fan for two weeks had its sonic character changed so much that it now makes a significant impact on your sound.

Well, duh. It made the sound "airier" of course.

(My apologies, Gordon. I simply couldn't resist the joke. You know how I am. Besides, this thread needs a bit of levity right now as everyone is taking themselves way too seriously.)

 

[User211]

It just so happens I have been running some crossover simulations and implementing them.

That means I will be running some FR tests, as the current guess, and it really does involve a bit of fluke and guesswork, is not right. So I'll slip in an interconnect change and see if I can see a difference.

 

[timm]

Here's the issue.

The vast majority of audiophiles conduct improperly administered subjective testing which is fraught with error and, thus, gives inaccurate results of what constitutes the differences in what they hear when they conduct a listening test.

It is these untrustworthy results that are the primary reason why this hobby sees so many different opinions on devices that, objectively, should all sound the same.

Pneumonic..... I just noticed your system.... fairly revealing I would say?? Maybe brutally so..... What cables do you use?

 

[timm]

I guess I should ask the skeptics..... Does that battery thingy on Audioquest cables make a difference?

 

[Rich]

Is it really anymore than just this?

1. Do you believe frequency, amplitude and phase completely describes an audio voltage signal?

The answer is no. Your description ignores some pretty obvious confounding factors, like electrical noise, EMI, ground loops, etc. This is the problem that occurs when you try to over-simplify a very complex topic. The audio voltage signal does not travel along a cable in a vacuum.

 

[Rich]

Pneumonic..... I just noticed your system.... fairly revealing I would say?? Maybe brutally so..... What cables do you use?

The funny thing about that is that the person who designed his amps and speakers, a very capable engineer in his own right, seems to believe that cables do make a difference and sells a fairly expensive set of speaker cables specifically designed for electrostatic speakers.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I'd love to hear a description of the significant impact that you heard from a power cord that didn't sound right initially but after being broken in by running a fan for two weeks had its sonic character changed so much that it now makes a significant impact on your sound.

Na. You'll just use it to make more "absolutists / can't be true" statements. Maybe call me stupid, uninformed in the world of science, etc.

Your biases are so strong that you will not even consider the validity of my observations so I don't understand the reason for your post.

You have to be "open minded" to have that type of exchange.

Suffice to say that I spent many listening hours to determine if there was a change and assuming there was, was it for the better?

The answer is clearly yes.

PS: If you are interested in reading more about this product line, please go to the "What's Best Forum / Shunyata Research" threads.