Does high quality digital cables matter?
Comments
-
Regarding the "cables debate" specifically, I do think double-blind testing is perfectly suitable for evaluating audio equipment. Beyond that though, I don't really don't have a dog in the fight (so to speak). I think if someone loves their cables they should give them a big hug.
Please clarify:
1. What specific performance aspects of stereo do you think are particularly well-suited to double blind testing and why?
2. In order to be fair, shouldn't you be advocating that every consumer blind test prescribed and over the counter medicines similar to the way that audio blind test proponents advocate that every audio consumer blind test every piece of audio gear they purchase or are considering purchasing?
3. Do you think we should expand blind testing into other consumer areas such as shopping for vehicles and shopping for homes? Couldn't a strong case for blind testing houses be made since people are often influenced by the outer appearance of a home and the neighborhood it is in rather than the more pertinent performance factors such as construction quality, room arrangement, and foundation integrity? When considering a vehicle purchase, shouldn't we get someone to drive us around while we are blindfolded so that we can assess a vehicle's ride comfort, cabin quietness, climate controls without being visually influenced by brand name, price, and model?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
badchad, I cannot better Ray's (DarqueKnight's) post so I will not attemp to.
I did want to point out that: I did not ask why blind tests *could* be used to evaluate streophonic audio. I asked why they *should* be used to evaluate stereophonic audio. If you can answer this (which is actually ralated to Ray's part #1 above) as well as Ray's other questions we would appreciate it. Thanks very much.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Standard procedures in sensory science indicate that blind testing in multi-dimensional stimuli scenarios with trained subjects is not needed. Going back to my examples of shopping for vehicles and homes, if a person is an educated shopper, why would the identity of the item under evaluation need to be hidden?
The purpose of the blind is to eliminate pre-existing bias. We all have these inherent biases, many of which we are unaware of. These biases are not always synonymous with education/training/etc.
Consider the interpretation of the study: Do you want to know whether noobs like the audio equipment, or whether audiophiles? There are certain scenarios where one may be more favorable than the other. A great example is Bose. People by it because of marketing, and because when they get you in their little demo room it sounds "good" because people don't know what to listen for.DarqueKnight wrote: »Physicians do not accept on blind faith that a particular FDA medicine will have the desired effect. Physicians often have to try a variety of medicines before they find one that works for a particular patient.
Just because a medicine performed well in clinical trials with the trial subjects, it does not mean the medicine will provide the desired and expected benefit for everyone. Likewise, stereo listeners should not accept on blind faith that a particular piece of audio gear with have the advertised and desired effect.
The purpose of an "experiment" is to select a sample population to gain data. The data is then extrapolated to the population as a whole. Of course physicians don't accept that a drug will work based on blind faith. They have a reasonable expectation of the likelihood that a drug will "work" (and its side effects) based on the completed data.DarqueKnight wrote: »Just because a piece of audio gear performed well in blind or nonblind trials, it does not mean the gear will provide the desired and expected benefit for everyone.
Agreed. It helps me determine the likelihood of the desired and expected benefit.DarqueKnight wrote: »Blind testing in medicine does not "prove" anything. All it does is indicate whether or not a medicine is *might be* effective in certain situations.
agreed.DarqueKnight wrote: »The FDA's oversight of blind trials is in no way similar to what audio blind test proponents demand. In medicine, a physician does not blind test each and every one of his patients (consumers) when prescribing medicine. In audio, blind test proponents say they will not accept that a piece of audio gear performs as advertised until every consumer who claimed to hear a benefit validates it with a blind test.
I would trust a reasonably well designed study (along with other factors) to inform my purchasing decisions. I never got the impression blind proponents demanded testing in every consumer. I certainly would not advocate that. That defeats the purpose of the testing.DarqueKnight wrote: »
You are absolutely wrong.
I provided two excellent globally accepted sensory science references that explain in detail why different types of tests should be used for trained and untrained subjects (participants).
I'll search the literature. I've attended more science-based meetings than I can remember with all sorts of blinded studies involving "experienced" and/or "trained" volunteers. I have personally completed studies in "experienced" and "trained" drug users evaluating their perceptions of effects.DarqueKnight wrote: »You are also confusing "experience" with "training". They are two different things. One can be experienced at some task and do it improperly. Many people are experienced at listening to stereo systems, yet they are untrained in sound localization and sound characterization techniques.
Depends on what your asking. If its a simple question such as: "Which sound do you prefer?" Neither may be needed. In some situations Both may be required, or a mixture of the two.DarqueKnight wrote: »This is from one of my threads from 2010:
A note that "forced discrimination" designs don't have to blinded. As the name implies, they simply "force" a subject to choose (usually between two alternatives). I'm curious what the text says about interpreting negative result. For example, it says:
"When the test is conducted properly and "difference" is not found we infer that the samples are similar, and often state "the same", but proof of similarity was not measured using these test methods."
So then, what does it mean? If subjects can't tell a difference between two treatments, then what?DarqueKnight wrote: »The "great debate" on cables only came about because people who are not trained and experienced in stereophonic perception do not have a framework of understanding to relate to the experiences of those who are trained and experienced in stereophonic perception. Here is another analogy that sums up the situation:
1. Two NFL quarterbacks are in an airport discussing the strategies they use to get gorgeous supermodels in bed and how easy it is for them to do so.
2. The quarterbacks are overheard by a male clothing store salesman who is incensed by what he assumes to be wild, fanatical tales. The salesman demands proof that it is as easy to get gorgeous supermodels in bed as the quarterbacks claim. He considers such women "unobtainable". He dismisses the media reports of people actually dating and marrying supermodels as "media hype". The salesman wants the NFL quarterbacks to prove that they can get supermodels in bed using the same methods the salesman uses to get retail store cashiers and department store cosmetic counter sales ladies in bed.
3. The quarterbacks explain, or try to explain, that the methods the salesman uses to get the women he can get would not be relevant to the pursuit of supermodels. The quarterbacks further explain that they live in a "different world" with different social, economic, and occupational rules.
4. The salesman smugly assumed and concluded that, since the NFL quarterbacks refused to demonstrate that they could get supermodels in bed using an irrelevant and ineffective testing methodology, there really is no proof that their previously discussed methods work as claimed.
Well, if someone approached me and said "I'm an NFL quarterback I lay tons of women", I'm not sure I'd believe them either. How about this: "I'm a science guy, you should see the chicks I lay". <--- whatcha think?Polk Fronts: RTi A7's
Polk Center: CSi A6
Polk Surrounds: FXi A6's
Polk Rear Surround: RTi4
Sub: HSU VTF-3 (MK1)
AVR: Yamaha RX-A2010
B&K Reference 200.7
TV: Sharp LC-70LE847U
Oppo BDP-103 -
No agenda here Greg but it can't be without merit when you have clever folks at companies like Harman(Revel,JBL) and those that utilize the facilities at the NRC(PSB) using it for loudspeaker R&D.More specifically, please tell us WHY blind tests SHOULD BE used for stereophonic audio evaluation (when trained listeners are used) . -
badchad, I cannot better Ray's (DarqueKnight's) post so I will not attemp to.
I did want to point out that: I did not ask why blind tests *could* be used to evaluate streophonic audio. I asked why they *should* be used to evaluate stereophonic audio. If you can answer this (which is actually ralated to Ray's part #1 above) as well as Ray's other questions we would appreciate it. Thanks very much.
I would provide the rather boring answer of "simple curiosity." But that is merely my personal opinion. I think human perception is a fascinating thing.
One could also make the "snake oil" argument that IF these differences provided by audio equipment are NOT detectable when examined free of bias, people are being unfairly swindled and taken advantage of. I don't particularly care for con artists, but on the other hand, I think if you can sell an eskimo a fridge, then go for it. So, I'm kinda torn on this.Polk Fronts: RTi A7's
Polk Center: CSi A6
Polk Surrounds: FXi A6's
Polk Rear Surround: RTi4
Sub: HSU VTF-3 (MK1)
AVR: Yamaha RX-A2010
B&K Reference 200.7
TV: Sharp LC-70LE847U
Oppo BDP-103 -
The purpose of the blind is to eliminate pre-existing bias. We all have these inherent biases, many of which we are unaware of. These biases are not always synonymous with education/training/etc.
The purpose of consumer training is to eliminate the effects of bias. If the effect of bias is eliminated, what is the basis then for blind tests? You seem to think that consumer bias is an insurmountable obstacle. If that were true, people would need to do blind testing for the most major purchases in life, such as homes and vehicles. Curiously, I don't see people advocating that, although blind tests could be adapted for such purchases.Consider the interpretation of the study: Do you want to know whether noobs like the audio equipment, or whether audiophiles? There are certain scenarios where one may be more favorable than the other. A great example is Bose. People by it because of marketing, and because when they get you in their little demo room it sounds "good" because people don't know what to listen for.
It was established in the literature many decades ago that home stereo systems were not designed for noobs and other naProud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
The purpose of the blind is to eliminate pre-existing bias. We all have these inherent biases, many of which we are unaware of. These biases are not always synonymous with education/training/etc.
The purpose of consumer training is to eliminate the effects of bias. If the effect of bias is eliminated, what is the basis then for blind tests? You seem to think that consumer bias is an insurmountable obstacle. If that were true, people would need to do blind testing for the major purchases in life, such as homes and vehicles. Curiously, I don't see people advocating that, although blind tests could be adapted for such purchases.
There are biases much stronger than consumer bias, such as racial bias and gender bias, that people have overcome, yet blind test proponents act like visual bias is an insurmountable obstacle. Explain to me how this makes sense.Consider the interpretation of the study: Do you want to know whether noobs like the audio equipment, or whether audiophiles? There are certain scenarios where one may be more favorable than the other. A great example is Bose. People by it because of marketing, and because when they get you in their little demo room it sounds "good" because people don't know what to listen for.
It was established in the literature many decades ago that home stereo systems were not designed for noobs and other naProud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Well, if someone approached me and said "I'm an NFL quarterback I lay tons of women", I'm not sure I'd believe them either. How about this: "I'm a science guy, you should see the chicks I lay". <--- whatcha think?
My analogy was that of actual NFL quarterbacks and not of people pretending to be NFL quarterbacks. The quarterbacks in my analogy also did not approach anyone with claims of laying tons of women. It was two NFL colleagues discussing an aspect of their lives, when someone else with no relevant knowledge or experience barged in on their conversation demanding proof of what they were saying.
The situation in my analogy is similar to what happened in my thread here:
Five-Speaker-Jumper-Comparisons-For-The-SDA-SRS-1.2TL
where I was discussing cable performance evaluation results with some stereo performance enthusiasts, and someone with no knowledge of the subject matter decided to display their ignorance:I just lol'd...hard! Thread is so full of win!
I just thought it was funny that the conclusion made was that the most expensive jumper was the "Best".
Just thought it was kinda ironic, I was warned about threads like these! Next thing you know I'll be getting asked to trade pinks..or in audiophile terms "Weber and Rinne results".Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »The purpose of consumer training is to eliminate the effects of bias.
In the instance of audio, using Philips GoldenEar web site tools as example, the purpose of training is to increase the awareness of what to listen for.
You self administer and it's blind.
https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html
The single blind, which is adequate IMO for audio evaluation, is used to eliminate the effects of bias. You can only remove bias, you can't entirely train it away. The training is to help you with discerning differences that your hearing threshold allows.DarqueKnight wrote: »If the effect of bias is eliminated, what is the basis then for blind tests? You seem to think that consumer bias is an insurmountable obstacle. If that were true, people would need to do blind testing for the most major purchases in life, such as homes and vehicles. Curiously, I don't see people advocating that, although blind tests could be adapted for such purchases.
What does a car or home purchase have to do with blinded testing? I'm not testing ZLTFUL's cables. I'm testing his claim to discern the audible difference in the confines of a cable the meets CAT6 spec in a packet switched network.
People make car, house, furniture, paint, carpet decisions because they are items of sight. They are purchased on one of many criteria. Looks being one of the primary. You certainly won't find me challenging anyone because they purchased an Audio Quest $80 Ethernet cable because of it's looks. You like the way it dresses up your system that's great.
When you take the dubious step of saying it does X/Y/Z to the sound vs another competent CAT6 cable then I have to take issue since I understand how packet switched networks operate. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »In the instance of audio, using Philips GoldenEar web site tools as example, the purpose of training is to increase the awareness of what to listen for.
You self administer and it's blind.
https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html
Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.Habanero Monk wrote: »The single blind, which is adequate IMO for audio evaluation, is used to eliminate the effects of bias. You can only remove bias, you can't entirely train it away. The training is to help you with discerning differences that your hearing threshold allows.
Notice I said that training was for eliminating the effects of bias, not eliminating the bias itself. Notice I said that I have an aesthetic bias against silver colored components, however that bias did not stop me from purchasing such components because I evaluated them on performance.Habanero Monk wrote: »What does a car or home purchase have to do with blinded testing?
A lot. Since people claim that blind testing eliminates bias, why should we stop at insisting it be used for stereo audio. Why shouldn't it be used for more major purchases like cars and homes?Habanero Monk wrote: »I'm not testing ZLTFUL's cables. I'm testing his claim to discern the audible difference in the confines of a cable the meets CAT6 spec in a packet switched network.
Great. I think it's a wonderful experiment. I look forward to your results.Habanero Monk wrote: »People make car, house, furniture, paint, carpet decisions because they are items of sight. They are purchased on one of many criteria. Looks being one of the primary. You certainly won't find me challenging anyone because they purchased an Audio Quest $80 Ethernet cable because of it's looks. You like the way it dresses up your system that's great.
But we are not discussing people who admit that they bought solely on the basis of aesthetics. We are talking about people who claim a sonic benefit and didn't "validate" it with a blind test.Habanero Monk wrote: »When you take the dubious step of saying it does X/Y/Z to the sound vs another competent CAT6 cable then I have to take issue since I understand how packet switched networks operate.
I understand how packet switched networks operate as well. In fact, I did my doctoral research in performance evaluation of packet networks and I have a patent in the field. However, just because I know something about packet networks, I don't assume I know everything.
With that said, I think it is commendable that you are willing to go to some effort and expense to support your position.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Habanero Monk wrote: »When you take the dubious step of saying it does X/Y/Z to the sound vs another competent CAT6 cable then I have to take issue since I understand how packet switched networks operate.
If that's the case we would have to incorporate the switch in the realm as we all know not all switches/routers are not created equal and it's not always about the $ value of that switch either2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC
erat interfectorem cesar et **** dictatorem dicere a -
txcoastal1 wrote: »If that's the case we would have to incorporate the switch in the realm as we all know not all switches/routers are not created equal and it's not always about the $ value of that switch either
All this has been pointed out to our resident network genius. You also need to look at the circuitry that changed the binary file into the voltages sent over the cable, and the circuitry that turns those voltages back into the binary file. Music files are time sensitive. Exactly when these transformations take place can introduce jitter, and the cable used can exaggerate the jitter. Just because the CRC is correct doesn't mean the received data is the same as the transmitted data in a musical sense.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
WOW, 9 pages of a thread NOT involving the hi jinx of PFB:)Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.-John Wooden
-
I would provide the rather boring answer of "simple curiosity." But that is merely my personal opinion. I think human perception is a fascinating thing.
One could also make the "snake oil" argument that IF these differences provided by audio equipment are NOT detectable when examined free of bias, people are being unfairly swindled and taken advantage of. I don't particularly care for con artists, but on the other hand, I think if you can sell an eskimo a fridge, then go for it. So, I'm kinda torn on this.
Could it be that those people that cannot/do not hear differences between audio equipment are the ones afraid of being taken by "snake oil con artists"? After all, if you are trained to listen for certain audio aspects; you listen without bias based upon aesthetics and can hear a difference, then there is no "snake oil" inflicted upon the listener. It has already been shown in the studies Ray posted that listener bias can be overcome (along with Ray, myself, and many others on this forum).
So, can it be that it is cable naysayers are the ones that are in fact biased and are wanting people who can hear differences in cables to help the naysyaers overcome their bias by "proving" to them that differences exist in equipment? This is called projection; a mental state which someone is exhibiting is expressed upon others, "accusing" them of exhibiting that behavior. This is a coping mechanism.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
Monk,
Yes, you may know packets and how they work....but do you know how they sound ? If you read any of DK's previous evaluations on cables or gear, he attests himself that in certain instances he can't hear a difference....while in others he can. I have never seen a better more detailed evaluation, even professional reviews, than what he does. Combining both science and sensory to give you everything you need to know.
Your speaking strictly from a science viewpoint. What about the sensory perception ? Which is all different in each of us as we all know sound is subjective. Who knows, your ears may even be better than most of ours....if you tried different cables.
It has been my personal experience that the differences in digital coax cables are more slight than analog cables, but still there none the less. I would assume the same applies to Ethernet. Also, the more revealing your system is, the easier it is to pick out these differences. Use a good dac in the mix when evaluating, that should help discern slight differences better imho.
Lets see, isn't it about time for another post on whether or not cables make a difference ? This topic is about as boring as another PFB thread on shipping. At least his are entertaining.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
DarqueKnight wrote: »The purpose of consumer training is to eliminate the effects of bias. If the effect of bias is eliminated, what is the basis then for blind tests? You seem to think that consumer bias is an insurmountable obstacle.
We can agree to disagree here. I think we all have inherent bias, whether we're aware of it or not. These biases are formed from the moment we're born due to our life experiences. This is Psych. 101. You don't have to agree, but if an individual is blind to the treatment conditions, his/her bias is limited. That's the point.
It takes minimal extra effort to blind a study and it all but ensures bias is completely eliminated. This is why its standard practice across nearly every scientific discipline.DarqueKnight wrote: »If that were true, people would need to do blind testing for the major purchases in life, such as homes and vehicles. Curiously, I don't see people advocating that, although blind tests could be adapted for such purchases.
As a general rule, as the degree of objectivity increases, the need for blinded testing decreases. Home buying involves many PRIMARY objective factors such as price, square footage, taxes, distance to work, # of bathrooms, bedrooms etc. However, in a hypothetical example where all things are equal, I would have little objection to buying a home where particular aspects of the home are reasonably blinded (for example, I wouldn't want to be blinded to the geographic location of the home, as living in California would affect my ability to work in the East coast).
In the absence of objective data, I don't quite understand why someone would only buy a home "On the west side", or only drive Fords.DarqueKnight wrote: »There are biases much stronger than consumer bias, such as racial bias and gender bias, that people have overcome, yet blind test proponents act like visual bias is an insurmountable obstacle. Explain to me how this makes sense.
Do you honestly believe racial and gender bias has been eliminated? David Sterling wants to speak with you about the difficulty in erasing such things. Returning back on topic, the far simpler (and much more effective) solution to reducing bias is to blind subjects. I'll assume you know that "blinding" doesn't refer to literally, blind-folding subjects, right?DarqueKnight wrote: »It was established in the literature many decades ago that home stereo systems were not designed for noobs and other naPolk Fronts: RTi A7's
Polk Center: CSi A6
Polk Surrounds: FXi A6's
Polk Rear Surround: RTi4
Sub: HSU VTF-3 (MK1)
AVR: Yamaha RX-A2010
B&K Reference 200.7
TV: Sharp LC-70LE847U
Oppo BDP-103 -
Could it be that those people that cannot/do not hear differences between audio equipment are the ones afraid of being taken by "snake oil con artists"?
Absolutely.After all, if you are trained to listen for certain audio aspects; you listen without bias based upon aesthetics and can hear a difference, then there is no "snake oil" inflicted upon the listener. It has already been shown in the studies Ray posted that listener bias can be overcome (along with Ray, myself, and many others on this forum).
Certainly agree you can train individuals to listen for particular aspects of sound quality. I struggle with how that eliminates bias in the case of a cable comparison. In an actual experiment, you'd train subject to listen for particular nuances and subtleties in a music selection. But then during the comparison phase you would tell a subject:
"Ok, now that you're training is complete, I'm going to ask you to use your training to evaluate two cables. One cable is a really expensive, high quality cable made from rare metals mined from Asteroids."
"..The other cable is from Wal-mart".
I fail to see how that eliminates bias.So, can it be that it is cable naysayers are the ones that are in fact biased and are wanting people who can hear differences in cables to help the naysyaers overcome their bias by "proving" to them that differences exist in equipment? This is called projection; a mental state which someone is exhibiting is expressed upon others, "accusing" them of exhibiting that behavior. This is a coping mechanism.
Yes. This could be the case. However, I think "most" of the "naysayers" would be convinced with objective data. In my opinion, this is the beauty of science. The data are the data. The data do not care about the cables. The data are neutral.Polk Fronts: RTi A7's
Polk Center: CSi A6
Polk Surrounds: FXi A6's
Polk Rear Surround: RTi4
Sub: HSU VTF-3 (MK1)
AVR: Yamaha RX-A2010
B&K Reference 200.7
TV: Sharp LC-70LE847U
Oppo BDP-103 -
All this has been pointed out to our resident network genius. You also need to look at the circuitry that changed the binary file into the voltages sent over the cable, and the circuitry that turns those voltages back into the binary file. Music files are time sensitive. Exactly when these transformations take place can introduce jitter, and the cable used can exaggerate the jitter. Just because the CRC is correct doesn't mean the received data is the same as the transmitted data in a musical sense.
And all the matters not. If the CRC is correct, if the checksum is correct the data integrity is 100%. If your position is correct then you have a lot to worry about when it comes to financial transactions.
If Jitter is an anomaly to good sound because of variance of waveform, well the audio wave form is not constructed on the data wire. It's packet data. The data is sent and the waveform is reconstructed at the computer in RAM. If there is missing data either TCP or a manufacturers correction routine higher in the OSI stack is responsible for taking care of this.
Jitter shouldn't be a problem because a good DAC re-clocks all the data coming in. It's part of most marketing literature. Now if there is demonstrable effect due to Jitter it is the DACs' fault.
Jitter is also measurable: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/jitter-does-it-matter.html
I have a Dayton Omni-mic I can bring if it matters that much. -
txcoastal1 wrote: »If that's the case we would have to incorporate the switch in the realm as we all know not all switches/routers are not created equal and it's not always about the $ value of that switch either
Raise of hands:
How many members here believe (for those that appropriate music this way) that when they download a track from a source like HD Tracks that the SQ is compromised by their home router/switch as it passes through to be saved on their local HD?
I have a few albums in the 24/192 encoding format that I would swear are hash identical to the one contained at HDtracks server. Bit for Bit. -
There are some players including streamers and CDP's that have included a buffer before distributing the analog feed. This buffer is used to correct errors and help with the jitter when implemented correctly.2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC
erat interfectorem cesar et **** dictatorem dicere a -
Habanero Monk wrote: »And all the matters not. If the CRC is correct, if the checksum is correct the data integrity is 100%. If your position is correct then you have a lot to worry about when it comes to financial transactions.
Red herring. While financial data might make you happy, or cry, it is unaffected by jitter.If Jitter is an anomaly to good sound because of variance of waveform, well the audio wave form is not constructed on the data wire. It's packet data. The data is sent and the waveform is reconstructed at the computer in RAM. If there is missing data either TCP or a manufacturers correction routine higher in the OSI stack is responsible for taking care of this.
You know as little about jitter as you do networking.Jitter shouldn't be a problem because a good DAC re-clocks all the data coming in. It's part of most marketing literature. Now if there is demonstrable effect due to Jitter it is the DACs' fault.
Yes, some DACs do reclock data, but like anything else, are not perfect. The better the input then the better the output. I can actually speak from personal experience on this subject where from upgrading a digital cable between the file player and DAC I experienced a major (my major is your non-existent) improvement. This should never have happened if the DAC eliminated jitter.Jitter is also measurable: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/jitter-does-it-matter.html
Are you kidding me! Did you bother to read that? Or, more likely, you don't understand it. (See below)I have a Dayton Omni-mic I can bring if it matters that much.
Don't bother, since you wouldn't understand how to either properly use the tool, or understand the measurements. You have continually demonstrated that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. At least you have been consistent over time on various topics. Consistently wrong.
Relevant information from Monk's link above.
"CABLE JITTER: Cables can smear digital signals by attenuating the highest frequencies. The diagram to the right is an example. The top blue waveform illustrates a perfect digital S/PDIF or AES3 bitstream. The bottom red waveform is what you might get out the other end of a long cable. The hardware receiving the signal uses the zero crossingswhere the signal transitions an imaginary line drawn horizontally through the middle of the red waveformto extract the clock. As you can see by the red arrows, that isnt always correct due to the waveform distortion. The gaps between the red arrows are jitter. The amount of smearing depends on the bitstream itself so as the audio signal changes so does the clock timing creating jitter related to the audio itself."Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Of everything this thread has brought, this is the most interesting thought I've seen. While I don't see eye to eye with you on just about everything audio related, it is a very intriguing question.
It is a good thought, but, as usual, not followed through. The received download file needs to be compared to the original file played from a directly attached source. Without a basis of comparison it is impossible to know if any jitter has been introduced during transmission. More than likely, it has, but without hearing the original file one has no idea if the downloaded copy could be better.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »And all the matters not. If the CRC is correct, if the checksum is correct the data integrity is 100%. If your position is correct then you have a lot to worry about when it comes to financial transactions.
If Jitter is an anomaly to good sound because of variance of waveform, well the audio wave form is not constructed on the data wire. It's packet data. The data is sent and the waveform is reconstructed at the computer in RAM. If there is missing data either TCP or a manufacturers correction routine higher in the OSI stack is responsible for taking care of this.
Jitter shouldn't be a problem because a good DAC re-clocks all the data coming in. It's part of most marketing literature. Now if there is demonstrable effect due to Jitter it is the DACs' fault.
Jitter is also measurable: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/jitter-does-it-matter.html
I have a Dayton Omni-mic I can bring if it matters that much.It is a good thought, but, as usual, not followed through. The received download file needs to be compared to the original file played from a directly attached source. Without a basis of comparison it is impossible to know if any jitter has been introduced during transmission. More than likely, it has, but without hearing the original file one has no idea if the downloaded copy could be better.
Jitter or not, if the 0's and 1's are the same..bit for bit..then there is no difference. There cannot be any difference. The source equals the playback. Exactly. You can't get Jitter from nothing, and you can't get nothing from nothing..IE: If there's not an 0 or a 1 to support it, then it's NOT there. If you hear something different, then your mind is playing tricks. This is a well documented mental disorder common among ALL humans.Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo.
-
However, I think "most" of the "naysayers" would be convinced with objective data.
You underestimate how firmly rooted they are in their skeptical pile of poo.In my opinion, this is the beauty of science.
Yes, it's amazing how often science gets it wrong.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Relevant information from Monk's link above.
"CABLE JITTER: Cables can smear digital signals by attenuating the highest frequencies. The diagram to the right is an example. The top blue waveform illustrates a perfect digital S/PDIF or AES3 bitstream. The bottom red waveform is what you might get out the other end of a long cable. The hardware receiving the signal uses the zero crossingswhere the signal transitions an imaginary line drawn horizontally through the middle of the red waveformto extract the clock. As you can see by the red arrows, that isnt always correct due to the waveform distortion. The gaps between the red arrows are jitter. The amount of smearing depends on the bitstream itself so as the audio signal changes so does the clock timing creating jitter related to the audio itself."
First off jitter is jitter. Doesn't matter what kind of data is in the signal. Jitter is just a part of signal propagation and timing. So no disagreement from me there.
I fully understand his results, his methodology. I am even offering as an aside from the testing to take measurements AFTER.
That is take a measurement from a file local on the HD, then through the CAT Cables.
So you are posing a supposition that needs to be born out by both measurement and blind testing and it brings me back to my entire point:
ZLTFUL isn't going to hear the difference with a cable that passes spec. NEXT/FEXT/Skew/BER etc... The certification is going to show the bandwidth properties of the cables. -
It is a good thought, but, as usual, not followed through. The received download file needs to be compared to the original file played from a directly attached source. Without a basis of comparison it is impossible to know if any jitter has been introduced during transmission. More than likely, it has, but without hearing the original file one has no idea if the downloaded copy could be better.
I only need the HASH. PERIOD. Copying a file it doesn't copy jitter and embed it. Jitter may affect the timing of the Analog carrier (100/250/500Mhz) but the product delivered to the HD of the computer is 100% Jitter free as a file. -
No problem. A sequence of 1s and 0s can be correct, but have timing errors as to when the rise and fall of the 1s and 0s occurs. For most data this is irrelevant. For example, 01000001 represents the letter 'A'. Where the rise and fall time of each bit occurs doesn't matter, since it will always be 'A' when printed or displayed on the computer screen. There is a small +/- tolerance built into this encoding. As long as the frame is within this tolerance, the letter 'A' results.
However, for music, data being transformed into an analog signal the rise and fall time are very important. Otherwise, the music is 'off'. In this case the +/- tolerance can result in a slightly different musical signal than what was transmitted. While the digital frame is correct from an Ethernet perspsective, a little distortion results from the timing errors. This is the jitter aspect. Unfortunately, every link in the chain can add, or subtract, these timing errors. This is nothing new, and is well understood. Whether some people want to believe it is another issue.
Personally, until this better understood and resolved I will stay with direct attached USB storage to my file player. No network music for me.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
No problem. A sequence of 1s and 0s can be correct, but have timing errors as to when the rise and fall of the 1s and 0s occurs. For most data this is irrelevant. For example, 01000001 represents the letter 'A'. Where the rise and fall time of each bit occurs doesn't matter, since it will always be 'A' when printed or displayed on the computer screen. There is a small +/- tolerance built into this encoding. As long as the frame is within this tolerance, the letter 'A' results.
However, for music, data being transformed into an analog signal the rise and fall time are very important. Otherwise, the music is 'off'. In this case the +/- tolerance can result in a slightly different musical signal than what was transmitted. While the digital frame is correct from an Ethernet perspsective, a little distortion results from the timing errors. This is the jitter aspect. Unfortunately, every link in the chain can add, or subtract, these timing errors. This is nothing new, and is well understood. Whether some people want to believe it is another issue.
Personally, until this better understood and resolved I will stay with direct attached USB storage to my file player. No network music for me.
Good explanation Fox on the differences in the 1's and 0's transferring data on a computer screen vs. data in music...something we hear. We use 2 different sensory perceptions, eyesight and hearing. Transferring packets of data for eyesight, is different than transferring data for hearing such as music files.
I do like Skips question on the "standard". Is that a standard for computer data ? Is it possible to exceed that standard in musical data for small gains in SQ ? I think so, mainly because when I come across a "standard" in anything it means "good enough", not necessarily the "best".HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Good explanation Fox on the differences in the 1's and 0's transferring data on a computer screen vs. data in music...something we hear. We use 2 different sensory perceptions, eyesight and hearing. Transferring packets of data for eyesight, is different than transferring data for hearing such as music files.
Yes I agree on BF description very detailed and brought something to the table here.I do like Skips question on the "standard". Is that a standard for computer data ? Is it possible to exceed that standard in musical data for small gains in SQ ? I think so, mainly because when I come across a "standard" in anything it means "good enough", not necessarily the "best".
yes like you Tony I think along the same wave length "Standard" = good enough to get good results 99.99996% of the time. Can we make it better yes but can we do it in a cost efficient way to get better results on return of investment. make sense? Sometimes the cost to get better results diminishes the return on investment.
This discussion has been closed.