Does high quality digital cables matter?
Comments
-
My man!!! so lets bottom line this entire conversation, have you or have you not conducted a Digital wire shootout yourself?Habanero Monk wrote: »Are you being purposefully obtuse?
As far as concerts and music from behind, never sang along with the entire crowd? Portions of Pink Floyd "The Wall" was in surround sound when they performed it live. YES also had concerts in surround.
Why do you keep going back to stereo imaging vs binaural / stereo left/right vs headphones? Is there a point that you are going to come to?
You dove into sound stage. I didn't. My experience is that sound stage, that panorama, is indeed wider with stereo. My experience with sound stage with headphones, that environmental object placement with purposefully mastered tracks, is pin pointed to a degree of 360 of them.
One bests the other and vice versa. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either could be used to evaluate cables as the evaluatee deems their best chance at reliable, repeatable discernment is concerned. You are superimposing your hang ups on others here.
Again, I'm bringing cables to test. Not headphones, not speakers, not amps, pre-pros, CDP's etc.
It's also great that you expect you would prefer multi-channel audio over headphones. Good for you. It's your preference. I'm personally looking forward to Dolby Atmos.
About as much as using various smart phones to record and mix audio on eh?
Ok so again, are you coming to a point? Have you even seen a post where I asked WHAT ZLTFUL's critical listening setup is? I don't care. Did you see any post of mine asking him what or how he's going to evaluate? Again I don't care to know. We've agreed as far as the Ethernet cables he's going to be blinded to it.
I used headphones to run my testing rig against. How in the world do you know what criteria I was specifically using to evaluate the tracks I was playing?
I just gotta know from you to me no matter what was said in all the past posts on this thread.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
if you feel more comfortable PM , you can PM me and we can talk shopDan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
OK. He must have been playing when he said this:
So again what's your point? He's altered terms of this to what he feels is beneficial to him, I've made some tweaks beneficial to me. You certainly can't say there has been zero amount of give on my side. Documenting the process publicly is the transparency portion.
You even said:DarqueKnight wrote: »As long as the test conditions are mutually agreed upon and mutually honored, I don't think motives matter.
I think it's a good experiment topic.
So why start bringing errata up now? -
ZLTFUL:
July 18-20th works for me. Can you get back to me on your computer rig and I can just bring the NIC's, Switch, SSD? That way on Friday I can perform a clean install of Windows 7 (I can also do Win8).
This will have to be setup on a clean OS at the very least. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »As far as concerts and music from behind, never sang along with the entire crowd? Portions of Pink Floyd "The Wall" was in surround sound when they performed it live. YES also had concerts in surround.
I was the one who mentioned multichannel stereo, so it should be obvious that I am aware of multichannel concert recordings.Habanero Monk wrote: »Why do you keep going back to stereo imaging vs binaural / stereo left/right vs headphones? Is there a point that you are going to come to?
Of course there is a point, and I have already stated it several times in this thread.Habanero Monk wrote: »You dove into sound stage. I didn't.
This we can agree on.Habanero Monk wrote: »Ok so again, are you coming to a point? Have you even seen a post where I asked WHAT ZLTFUL's critical listening setup is? I don't care. Did you see any post of mine asking him what or how he's going to evaluate? Again I don't care to know. We've agreed as far as the Ethernet cables he's going to be blinded to it.
My point is very clear to those who understand stereophony. You don't, and you don't care to, so my points escape you.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »My point is very clear to those who understand stereophony. You don't, and you don't care to, so my points escape you.
I understand what stereophony is, I understand the point you are attempting to make. Try to comprehend something though: I don't agree with your conclusion as it relates to soundstage as an absolute domain of a stereo system.
This is called a difference of opinion. Keep trying to square the circle there by all means. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »I understand the point you are attempting to make.
You are talking in circles. If you understand my point, why did you keep asking this?:Habanero Monk wrote: »Is there a point that you are going to come to?Habanero Monk wrote: »Ok so again, are you coming to a point?
Were you being purposefully obtuse?Habanero Monk wrote: »Try to comprehend something though: I don't agree with your conclusion as it relates to soundstage as an absolute domain of a stereo system.
Try to comprehend this: I never said, implied, or alluded that sound stage was the absolute domain of a stereo system. A monophonic, binaural, and stereo system will all produce a sound stage. What I said was they require different evaluation methods and tools.
Are you being purposefully obtuse?Habanero Monk wrote: »So why start bringing errata up now?
"Errata" is a list of errors with accompanying corrections. I have not provided such in this thread. Either you have me confused with someone else or you don't know the meaning of the word.
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
I stated that I think this is a good test as long as the conditions are mutually agreed upon and followed. Obviously this is not the case as ZLTFUL has mentioned several concerns about the test conditions.Habanero Monk wrote: »This is called a difference of opinion.
There's nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. I just think that if you are claiming that your opinion is scientifically motivated and scientifically justified, you shouldn't get hot under the collar when asked to cite the scientific principles pertaining to that opinion, nor should you be rattled when others cite the science pertaining to their opinion.Habanero Monk wrote: »Keep trying to square the circle there by all means.
You keep projecting your hangups on others. Isn't your Ethernet cable exercise your attempt to square your circle of disbelief that someone can hear something that you can't?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
As I already have a Cisco switch on site, no real need for you to bring one. I also have a handful of unmanaged Trendnet and NetGear gigabit switches on hand from 4 to 24 port if you would prefer.
I also have 4 identical GB NICs (Intel EXPI9400PTs) already in my server. The box is i5 2500k based with 16GB of RAM, a Crucial M4 256gb SSD OS driver with 4x2TB data drives (WD Reds). I also have a NAS that can be re-located.
As far as a fresh OS install, do you feel that this is truly necessary? If so, I would prefer not to re-image my own box as I have it running as a Plex server and a CineMar Main Lobby server as well...
I need a switch that supports 802.3ad LAG. What model Cisco switch? Is it Web or IOS managed?
I can bring a 120GB SSD to leave your current config alone. Intel's ANS supports the PT adapter it seems:
http://www.intel.com/support/network/sb/CS-034329.htm
Just to reiterate the entire reason I went through the efforts of putting a box together is, I'm just like you, I don't want my media server messed with and I don't believe there is any sound quality to be either gained or lost with EITHER box.
Trying to do the right thing here. I'm more than happy to bring the SSD and a Win7 evaluation DVD. It will take the time it takes to install. Do you care about patching up? That is where the biggest time suck will come from depending on your Internet throughput.
So we are talking your box, fresh OS install on SSD that I will bring. Let me bring my Cisco switch (since you already have one I am assuming you don't have issue from SQ standpoint) that is already tested and configured.
So you are proposing:
Your server with 3 NICs and Belden/BJC/Highend all certified >Cisco Switch 802.3ad LAG>next Ethernet downstream device? Please correct or confirm. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »You are talking in circles. If you understand my point, why did you keep asking this?:
There are two things going on:
I do understand the point you are trying to make. Your point is you think I don't understand stereophony vs binaural. I do. We are having a disagreement about sound-stage presentation. It's just opinions at that point. A point that you seem to grasp in one hand and then dismiss in another. I'm fine with that.
The 2nd:
Make your point already. Speaking of circular arguments you state that 'Critical evaluation is possible on headphones' and then go on about using a stereo system to do the evaluation. All when you have no idea what the person is using as a benchmark.
So which is it? If you concede a 3rd party can use both for critical evaluation of a cable, with the understanding that what an end user is using them for is up to the end user, stop making assumptions and shut up about it already. -
As I already have a Cisco switch on site, no real need for you to bring one. I also have a handful of unmanaged Trendnet and NetGear gigabit switches on hand from 4 to 24 port if you would prefer.
I also have 4 identical GB NICs (Intel EXPI9400PTs) already in my server. The box is i5 2500k based with 16GB of RAM, a Crucial M4 256gb SSD OS driver with 4x2TB data drives (WD Reds). I also have a NAS that can be re-located.
As far as a fresh OS install, do you feel that this is truly necessary? If so, I would prefer not to re-image my own box as I have it running as a Plex server and a CineMar Main Lobby server as well...
I need a switch that supports 802.3ad LAG. What model Cisco switch? Is it Web or IOS managed?
I can bring a 120GB SSD to leave your current config alone. Intel's ANS supports the PT adapter it seems:
http://www.intel.com/support/network/sb/CS-034329.htm
Just to reiterate the entire reason I went through the efforts of putting a box together is, I'm just like you, I don't want my media server messed with and I don't believe there is any sound quality to be either gained or lost with EITHER box.
Trying to do the right thing here. I'm more than happy to bring the SSD and a Win7 evaluation DVD. It will take the time it takes to install. Do you care about patching up? That is where the biggest time suck will come from depending on your Internet throughput.
So we are talking your box, fresh OS install on SSD that I will bring. Let me bring my Cisco switch (since you already have one I am assuming you don't have issue from SQ standpoint) that is already tested and configured.
So you are proposing:
Your server with 3 NICs and Belden/BJC/Highend all certified >Cisco Switch 802.3ad LAG>next Ethernet downstream device? Please correct or confirm.
I'm proposing:
Server>Ethernet>Cisco Port 8 <> Cisco Port 1-3 LAG> Client Computer> Your USB DAC. The three cables are closest to client side and it lets me swap with no drop in playback. That is critical and it's key to the fast switching that I have seen members here rely on when comparing two similar components. -
6509 with the following modules:
2x IDSM-2
2x FWM-1
1x SUP720-3B
1x NAM-1
1x WS-X6148E-GE-45AT
Of course, since I couldn't use the fiber module, there is some magic happening to use our Centurylink DSL (50down/5up) but we had some surplus network gear that was getting excessed anyway so I picked it up dirt cheap at our monthly surplus auction.
A lot of its capabilities/functionality isn't being used but still...
IOS managed.
Nice switch. For the sake of time do you mind me bringing the Cisco switch I already have configured? I have the IOS document for the 6500's 802.3ad configuration but it is for Switch to Switch and Multi-Mesh trunking. I'd rather not take time bending that procedure for a Server/Switch setup.
Must be nice to have a property surplus department. Everything here is on a service agreement. It goes back to vendor as part of our change management structure
-
While this 'test' keeps getting more and more interesting, it also keeps getting further and further away from a real world scenario of a network based music server system.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. -
6509 with the following modules:
2x IDSM-2
2x FWM-1
1x SUP720-3B
1x NAM-1
1x WS-X6148E-GE-45AT
Of course, since I couldn't use the fiber module, there is some magic happening to use our Centurylink DSL (50down/5up) but we had some surplus network gear that was getting excessed anyway so I picked it up dirt cheap at our monthly surplus auction.
A lot of its capabilities/functionality isn't being used but still...
IOS managed.
A 6509!? - We ran our entire company off one of those puppies back in 2002 - think it cost around 100K new back then.... -
Habanero Monk wrote: »I do understand the point you are trying to make. Your point is you think I don't understand stereophony vs binaural. I do. We are having a disagreement about sound-stage presentation. It's just opinions at that point. A point that you seem to grasp in one hand and then dismiss in another. I'm fine with that.
There is opinion and then there is science-validated opinion. My opinion regarding sound stage is that you should use a playback system optimally designed for the specific recording.
When you squeeze a 10 foot wide stereo sound stage into the space between your ears, by listening to it on headphones, there is a masking effect on detail, image weight and image placement.
When you squeeze a 10 foot wide stereo sound stage into the space between the speakers, by listening to it in mono, there is a masking effect on detail, image weight and image placement.
Humans hear in stereo. There is no way that a binaural or monophonic playback system can render a natural sounding sound stage similar to what humans hear in real life. That does not mean that stereo material played back on a binaural or mono system will sound "bad". It just means the material will not be rendered with the clarity and detail possible with a stereo system.Habanero Monk wrote: »Speaking of circular arguments you state that 'Critical evaluation is possible on headphones' and then go on about using a stereo system to do the evaluation. All when you have no idea what the person is using as a benchmark.
Your "one size fits all" mentality blinds you to many simple truths. Yes you can use headphones for critical evaluation depending on the signal being evaluated. If you use headphones (a binaural playback system) to evaluate a stereo signal, then your results will be compromised because listening to stereo on headphones introduces distortions in detail and sound stage. It should be clear that if you take a sound stage meant to span a number of feet in front of you and squeeze it into a space a few inches wide between your ears, there are going to be some errors in perception and masking of detail.Habanero Monk wrote: »So which is it? If you concede a 3rd party can use both for critical evaluation of a cable, with the understanding that what an end user is using them for is up to the end user, stop making assumptions and shut up about it already.
As I noted above, you did not fully understand my comments. You cherry picked the parts you thought (or wished) were in agreement with you.
Anyone can use any evaluation tool and methodology they desire. However, it is not just "up to the end user" if they want their evaluation results to be scientifically validated and taken seriously.
If you are using stereo program material, then it is better to use a test that uses a stereo playback system. If a person says they can make certain sonic distinctions in cables using stereo program material and a stereo playback system, it does not make sense, from a scientific evaluation standpoint, to test the assertion using stereo program material and a binaural or monophonic playback system.
I provided a recent example of this when I stated that parts of the Philips Golden Ear Challenge were easier (for me) to perform using my computer's stereo speakers rather than headphones.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
While this 'test' keeps getting more and more interesting, it also keeps getting further and further away from a real world scenario of a network based music server system.
I'm thinking ZLTFUL's setup is more representative of a "high end" network based music server system.
If they are going to use a system that is far removed from a "typical" residential music server system, they should state the differences in configuration and performance so that readers will be better able to relate to what they did.
When I read about a high end six figure loudspeaker or six figure CD/SACD playback system, I can relate the performance and construction quality differences to what I currently have if the article is well written with sufficient technical detail about the gear under evaluation and the associated system gear.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
$58k in this configuration minus the X6148E. The price dropped on them like a rock from about 2005 on til EOL.
Definitely overkill for a home network but then I am working on my certs so...hehe.
When I did my CCNP and CCSP I had two 2501's, some, I can't remember the name, Catalyst Switch, and a two PIX. I picked up the entire rig on ebay, did my certs, and then got about 90% of my $$ back out of it. -
While this 'test' keeps getting more and more interesting, it also keeps getting further and further away from a real world scenario of a network based music server system.
How so?
Server (NAS is also a server for those that may wonder) to switch/router to client computer running a media center application (JRirver etc) to USB/TOSLINK/SPDIF/PCIe interfaced sound device to the analog stack.
I'm looking for constructive comments here folks. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »There is opinion and then there is science-validated opinion. My opinion regarding sound stage is that you should use a playback system optimally designed for the specific recording.
When you squeeze a 10 foot wide stereo sound stage into the space between your ears, by listening to it on headphones, there is a masking effect on detail, image weight and image placement.
You have to take that up with the person that is doing the evaluation. You are barking at the wrong person here. If you think I made a mistake by using headphones to test out my LAG setup then more power to you. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. I now have it upstairs and swapped out for my normal computer.DarqueKnight wrote: »When you squeeze a 10 foot wide stereo sound stage into the space between the speakers, by listening to it in mono, there is a masking effect on detail, image weight and image placement.
Anyone that wants to participate can use what ever final SPL generating device they want. You'll have to speak with management about that.DarqueKnight wrote: »Humans hear in stereo. There is no way that a binaural or monophonic playback system can render a natural sounding sound stage similar to what humans hear in real life. That does not mean that stereo material played back on a binaural or mono system will sound "bad". It just means the material will not be rendered with the clarity and detail possible with a stereo system.
What happens if they want to use Party Rock Anthem? What then? Make some material suggestions to ZLTFUL then.DarqueKnight wrote: »Your "one size fits all" mentality blinds you to many simple truths. Yes you can use headphones for critical evaluation depending on the signal being evaluated. If you use headphones (a binaural playback system) to evaluate a stereo signal, then your results will be compromised because listening to stereo on headphones introduces distortions in detail and sound stage. It should be clear that if you take a sound stage meant to span a number of feet in front of you and squeeze it into a space a few inches wide between your ears, there are going to be some errors in perception and masking of detail.
I have no idea what they are using as source material. I have no idea of what they are using as SPL generation device. I don't care.
AGAIN. I am bringing some cables. I'm sure ZLTFUL would welcome you to the audition if you could just keep mum.DarqueKnight wrote: »Anyone can use any evaluation tool and methodology they desire. However, it is not just "up to the end user" if they want their evaluation results to be scientifically validated and taken seriously.
Why don't you simply ASK ZLTFUL what he is using for playback?
I'm not doing this to be statistically significant. I am however devising a testing rig that once enough of an N is introduced that the rig remains unquestionable to validity as N approaches a statistically meaningful #.
Scientifically valid huh? So what speakers, amp, DAC would be universally, scientifically, accepted? What I should ask is what do the MEASUREMENTS look like for speakers, amp, DAC look like for them to be scientifically accepted?
Your equipment perhaps? Problem: I can guarantee you if I used your modded SDA's there would be a whole contingent of Audiophilum that would laugh that out of the room. You would take offense rightfully so.DarqueKnight wrote: »If you are using stereo program material, then it is better to use a test that uses a stereo playback system. If a person says they can make certain sonic distinctions in cables using stereo program material and a stereo playback system, it does not make sense, from a scientific evaluation standpoint, to test the assertion using stereo program material and a binaural or monophonic playback system.
I have no idea of what source material will be in use.DarqueKnight wrote: »I provided a recent example of this when I stated that parts of the Philips Golden Ear Challenge were easier (for me) to perform using my computer's stereo speakers rather than headphones.
Hmmm. I did the entire thing on my headphones. I guess that explains why I did sweat the stereo field portion but did pass without error. I finished the challenge in 3 non-consecutive sessions over the period of a week. -
You mean you don't have six figure components in your system? I think less of you now.
I keep telling you guys that I have not gotten serious about audio yet.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
I am OK with that.
Federal Government. We don't lease anything. Just buy it and then surplus/excess it when it is EOL.
Ok, forget about the $1600, just hook me up with your surplus department ;-) -
$58k in this configuration minus the X6148E. The price dropped on them like a rock from about 2005 on til EOL.
Definitely overkill for a home network but then I am working on my certs so...hehe.
Nice - I salute your overkill sir.... -
Habanero Monk wrote: »Why don't you simply ASK ZLTFUL what he is using for playback?
I didn't have to. He volunteered the information.Habanero Monk wrote: »I'm sure ZLTFUL would welcome you to the audition if you could just keep mum.
Why would I want to keep mum on a discussion board? Furthermore, I am not communicating in a disrespectful way that would make a reasonable person want to exclude me from attending a listening test ... am I?Habanero Monk wrote: »I'm not doing this to be statistically significant.
This we can agree on.Habanero Monk wrote: »Your equipment perhaps? Problem: I can guarantee you if I used your modded SDA's there would be a whole contingent of Audiophilum that would laugh that out of the room.
You would take offense rightfully so.
My signature should provide a reasonable clue that I don't take insults against SDA's seriously. Indeed, the fact that I have been an advocate of heavy modifications for the SDA series speakers should be sufficient indication that I believed there to be significant room for improvement in the stock speakers.
I would not be offended in the least about anyone laughing at my modded SDAs because they have never heard my SDAs on my electronics in my room. Furthermore, I think that anyone sufficiently experienced in audiophile stereophony would surmise that I had a compelling reason for continuing to upgrade my source components, electronics, cables, and accessories, to the tune of $116,000 retail, yet chose to keep and continually modify my 20+ year old SDAs. Rather than a laughing point, I think my choice of loudspeakers lends some credibility to my claim to be performance driven, rather than brand and price driven.
Lastly, I am not sure why any knowledgeable person would laugh at SDAs. Even in their stock form, SDAs exhibit low levels of distortion, stable impedance over a wide frequency range, and spectacular stereophonic spatial performance. While there are other speakers that beat SDAs in some areas of performance, I have not found a better loudspeaker in the areas of stereophonic performance most important to me: image stability, image placement, sweet spot stability and width, and sound stage size.Habanero Monk wrote: »Scientifically valid huh? So what speakers, amp, DAC would be universally, scientifically, accepted? What I should ask is what do the MEASUREMENTS look like for speakers, amp, DAC look like for them to be scientifically accepted?
Scientific validation is not about brand names and spec sheets, it is about being able to prove a hypothesis or theory with repeatable results using observation and experimentation. It is not recommended to use apparatus and methodology more complex than is required to prove your hypothesis. Therefore you have a wide latitude in selecting experimental gear.Habanero Monk wrote: »Hmmm. I did the entire thing on my headphones.
Congratulations. I could have done the entire thing on my headphones, but I chose what was easiest on my ears. If there had been a strict requirement for headphone use, I would have adhered to it.Habanero Monk wrote: »I guess that explains why I did sweat the stereo field portion but did pass without error. I finished the challenge in 3 non-consecutive sessions over the period of a week.
Great. This is a perfect example of the fact that using binaural playback for stereo material is not optimal. You were "sweated" by stereo sound field examples that were not particularly challenging and did not have a wide array of sound images. Think what might have happened if you had been presented a complex musical selection like a choir or had been asked to pick out the location of a violin section of an orchestra.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Scientific validation is not about brand names and spec sheets, it is about being able to prove a hypothesis or theory with repeatable results using observation and experimentation. It is not recommended to use apparatus and methodology more complex than is required to prove your hypothesis. Therefore you have a wide latitude in selecting experimental gear.
You will find no argument from me there. You may have your hands full with others. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Think what might have happened if you had been presented a complex musical selection like a choir or had been asked to pick out the location of a violin section of an orchestra.
I would have used my speakers. And on parts that I might have had a problem with using speakers I might have thrown on my headphones. But that isn't how I went through it. I'm not sure how others would go through it, not sure what they would use for evaluation, don't care. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
Why would I want to keep mum on a discussion board? Furthermore, I am not communicating in a disrespectful way that would make a reasonable person want to exclude me from attending a listening test ... am I?
I didn't say you were communicating in a disrespectful way. Certainly enthusiastic on the points you want to make and it's appreciated. Really.
I say that because you seem awfully vocal on how someone else chooses to evaluate. So I am to assume if they broke out their favorite headphone rig you would just keep in silent attendance...
I too find my eagerness pushing me in certain scenarios to just get in there:
-
Habanero Monk wrote: »I say that because you seem awfully vocal on how someone else chooses to evaluate.
This is an audio discussion forum, therefore someone being awfully vocal on the audio-related activities of others is to be expected.
Thinking further, the following comments are in general and not particularly aimed at you or anyone else.
In order for me to be vocal on how someone else chooses to evaluate, the evaluator must first be vocal on how they choose to evaluate, otherwise, I would have no knowledge of what they were doing. In this regard I am no more vocal than the person who reveals and discusses their evaluative activities.
If someone else publicly documents a past, present, or future evaluation, then they should have a reasonable expectation of some sort of feedback.
If someone is claiming that their evaluation method is scientifically justified, then they should expect to be held up to awfully vocal (I prefer the term scientifically rigorous) feedback and scrutiny.
Some people use inappropriate evaluation techniques for malicious purposes in order to deceive. Others use inappropriate evaluation techniques out of benign ignorance. The latter group would appreciate someone being awfully vocal and pointing out the potential pitfalls and erroneous conclusions that might occur.
Some people have accepted erroneous concepts at face value and appreciate it when an alternative viewpoint is respectfully presented. For example, most people are not aware that the term "stereo headphones" is an oxymoron. Headphones are a binaural playback system and cannot be "stereo", although they can be used to playback stereophonic material.Habanero Monk wrote: »So I am to assume if they broke out their favorite headphone rig you would just keep in silent attendance...
Sure, the same way I keep silent when I am at a big box electronics store or specialized audio store and the sales person is feeding a ton of BS to an unsuspecting consumer or even to me...the same way I keep silent when I am at some person's home and they are bragging about the prestigious brand names and how much money they spent on their stereo system, when I know the salesman just bent them over and had his way with them...and their credit card. The only people who have "bragging rights" in audio are the ones who bag top performing gear at a ridiculous "steal" of a price.
Like Bruce Lee, I find it far better to just walk away most of the time.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
While my file player (Bryston BDP-1) uses a direct attached USB drive, I do find this thread/subject interesting. On one hand, I can accept the idea that the data should be the same, but on the other hand, every preconceived idea I have had about how cables should work have been proven wrong. So, I am approaching this with an open mind.
Anyway, here is an interesting article on the sound quality of digital music bring affected by the storage device being used. The gist of this is that there is still a lot to be resolved, and/or understood, in music reproduction. To assume that some technology is infallible for music reproduction is both arrogant, and stupid. Hopefully, the test write-up will be on par with this.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol5_no3/listening_to_storage.htmLumin 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. -
Here is another relevant article on this subject. The point I am trying to make here is there are no absolutes when it comes to music reproduction, and no technology is perfect.
"Most network audio websites and also manufacturers involved discount the idea that the choice of network cable can affect the sound, either because they are sure it does not, or simply because this is a convenient view to take. Since 15m of network cable costs about £13, it was easy to buy two lengths of Belkin Snagless UPTP (unshielded and recommended for audio use) in Cat5e and Cat6 varieties. They arrived in tight coils and needed to be stretched out for a day or two to 'relax' and lay flat before gently smoothing out the bends. With the network audio system up and running, the two test cables were used between the NASconnected router a hard disk drive Naim UnitiServe. Patience was required, as the system had to synchronise after each disconnection. Multiple trials were carried out, but this was not really necessary, as the differences were not trivial. Using Cat6 as the reference, reversion to Cat5e dropped sound quality by around 20 per cent jaw dropping in view of the trivial cost involved, especially when compared with the price of the whole audio system.
Variations in the sound of digital audio replay don't necessarily correlate with those in the analogue domain; sometimes different terms are needed. By comparison, Cat5e sounded 'greyer', with less contrast and somewhat dulled detail. Specifically, low level detail and image depth were impaired, unwanted grain and sibilance were increased, and there was a shortfall in coherence and involvement. Dynamics were softened and the sense of rhythm was significantly reduced. Three DACs were tried (the Metrum Octave, the MSB Platinum Signature and the Naim DAC), all with very similar results, so I do not think that the differences are down to failures of the DACs to re-clock or reject jitter, nor the S/PDIF performance of the UnitiServe, which has proved a first rate source of data in this format.
"Most network audio websites and also manufacturers involved discount the idea that the choice of network cable can affect the sound, either because they are sure it does not, or simply because this is a convenient view to take"
We therefore believe that network cables have a significant influence on audio replay. (Incidentally, we have been warned against using screened types.) Other factors may well affect performance too, such as the quality of termination to the plugs and the fit and tightness of these plugs for these not wholly reliable 'telephone' connectors. And we hope to try out some 'audiophile' network cables soon."
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol6_no1/audio_networking.htmLumin 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. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »"Errata" is a list of errors with accompanying corrections. I have not provided such in this thread. Either you have me confused with someone else or you don't know the meaning of the word.
BTW my "Errata" comment was to your diatribe pointed at me because the use of headphones for X form of evaluation was mentioned. You most certainly went on a multiple page diatribe about something I never specifically mentioned as it pertains to a best practice when it comes to the playback of Stereophonic recordings. You got all wound up on that one on your own.
I simply pointed out the purposefully mastered binaural recordings do a killer job of simulating objects in a three dimensional space. Something I haven't heard with a strictly 2.0 loudspeaker setup.
If you want to know why I used headphones in this case (that headrott attempted to snipe me for)
The computer was on a bench, cabling hanging out everywhere, motherboard sitting on a piece of cardboard, just finished the LAG config in both OS and the Switch and I wanted to listen to audio out of the mainboard jack just to make sure I wasn't having any drop outs as I switched out cables on the switch.
It was certainly easier than lugging my amp, source, loudspeakers down.DarqueKnight wrote: »I stated that I think this is a good test as long as the conditions are mutually agreed upon and followed. Obviously this is not the case as ZLTFUL has mentioned several concerns about the test conditions.
Most of his concerns are addressed at this point. Please keep in mind I have invited comment as far as my proposed test setup is concerned. I've yet to see anything mentioned that is data driven. I think there are a few more items of understanding to get worked out but I see nothing that is a show stopper.DarqueKnight wrote: »You keep projecting your hangups on others. Isn't your Ethernet cable exercise your attempt to square your circle of disbelief that someone can hear something that you can't?
We're going to find out pretty soon whether I have a hang up or ZLTFUL can hear the audibility of Ethernet cables. We'll have to see who squares their circle. -
Here is an interesting article by John Curl where he shares his thoughts on various topics. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the iPad to copy anything, so you have to read it. One point though is he really condemns A/B type 'testing'.
http://www.q-audio.com/johncurl.pdfLumin 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfKL6RM8hsYThis discussion has been closed.