What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[AnotherSpin]

Sorry but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You state that science is very useful for practical things but apparently not for the practical thing of transferring digital data, despite the fact that science invented digital data, the transfer of it and digital cables, all according to the theorems and laws you quoted. Science cannot tell us why digital cables sound different for the same reason it cannot tell us why some unicorns are blue or why some mermaids are blonde, because they don't exist!I see, so what you're saying is that you don't understand the basic principle of digital data. The fundamental principle is that it's binary, there are only two states and therefore it is literally impossible for "things to be a bit messier". There is either a zero or a one, that's it, there cannot also be a messy zero and a messy one (or anything else) because that would require 4 states and only two exist, "messier" cannot exist. That's the whole point of digital, that's why it was invented to supersede analogue, which has an almost infinite number of states and therefore can be "messier".
If "a digital cable isn't dropping bits" then there cannot still be "the matter of how the signal arrives", because how the signal arrives dictates whether bits will be dropped. Using your own analogy; if a hammer hits a nail in perfectly, then how the hammer arrived at the nail must have been accurate enough otherwise the nail would not be hammered in perfectly. Likewise, none of "all these things can affect timing" otherwise there would be dropped bits. I'm not sure how you can rationally come to this conclusion. I presume you've heard stereo audio and the effect of sound seeming to come from between the left and right speakers. There's only two options for this, either your brain ("imagination") is creating this illusion or magical, invisible speakers pop into existence and actually produce sound between the left and right speakers. Do you consistently hear (perceive) a stereo effect/illusion, "time after time, system after system"? If so and it's "rather difficult to chalk it all up to imagination" then you must be claiming the only other option, that magical, invisible speakers do indeed pop into existence every time you perceive the stereo effect. Surely you're not actually claiming that are you?Sorry, but none of that makes any sense I'm afraid. Digital audio is itself a basic measurement (series of measurements) so if it doesn't "show up" in measurements then it cannot be recorded or reproduced and therefore obviously cannot exist. Therefore, it's obviously not worth entertaining the idea that what some of us are clearly hearing might actually exist, when it doesn't actually exist. Is it also your contention that we should entertain the idea that the stereo illusion is caused by magical, invisible speakers rather than only entertaining the proven facts/reasons of how it works because we invented it? Lastly, your assertion that "current theory hasn't yet been informed by anything as inconvenient as real world experience" is I'm afraid just a blatant untruth. In fact the exact opposite is the case, we have an entire scientific field specifically dedicated to nothing other than the "real world experience" (human perception) of sound, going back over a century and a half!

I don't mean to be rude or insulting but you don't seem to have a reasonable understanding of what digital audio is, why it was invented or how it works, you appear to be contradicting yourself and posting some clearly false assertions. Again, none of this is intended in any way to be insulting, I'm sure you're probably a very nice/good guy with a lot of valid, useful knowledge in other areas of audio and music, and being misinformed about this particular area does not detract from that.

I do hope you won't take offence if I don't go through your post point by point. If you scroll up the thread a little, you'll see it's all been answered already.

[71 dB]

Frankly, even my previous post was probably a bit much. I've no particular desire to plunge into a debate.

Nobody forces you to debate. It is your own choice. I'm not much into debating either, but I want to debunk audiophile nonsense.

In my current home setup, I happen to be using several digital cables. Over time I've tried basic no-name generics of several types, as well as offerings from a few rather reputable brands.

There are different types of digital cables. I wanted to debunk Harry's claims that internet data cables (ethernet cables if I am not mistaken) do have burn in phases that affect sound quality. As I said, interned data cables don't even know what the data represents! Could be sound, could be jpg pictures. Could be .mov video files. Could be .zip folders containing all kind of stuff...

Digital audio cables (coaxial/optical) are used to transfer sound and talking about jitter and its effect on sound quality at least makes some sort of sense. However, as I mention, modern digital audio devices have jitter way below audibility.

They all influence the sound differently, quite audibly so, in fact, each with its own signature. On that basis, I've formed a view about what sort of sound, and in which part of the chain, brings me closer to what I'm after.

The options are:

A) these differences are real. In this case we need scientific theories about what causes these differences. Why isn't science working on these things?

B) The differences are in the head of the listener as manifestation of placebo effect and confirmation/expectation bias.

So whenever I hear claims that all cables are the same, I can't help but smile and move on. They simply don't align with my own direct experience. If, in your case, they all sound identical, then that's perfectly lovely. Do carry on.

Depends on what kind of cables we are talking about! Analog speaker cables can alter the sound audible (but thick/short enough cheapo cable is completely fine) while internet data cables simply can't do anything to the sound (except completely ruin it by introducing bit errors, but obviously we are not talking about that).

People who are interested of improving the sound quality of their playback system should put their money and effort where it counts the most: Better speakers/headphones. Better room acoustics/room correction. Speaker placement in the room (moving the speakers 5 cm can make an clearly audible difference). Listener placement (room mode/stereo image optimation) etc. Cables are the area where there are least improvements to be had if any. Cables seem to be the perfect product for snake-oil sellers. They are relatively cheap to manufacture meaning huge profits are possible as long as you can convince audiophiles to pay for practically nothing.

[AnotherSpin]

All right, you win. Can't argue with genius.

[Harry]

All right, you win. Can't argue with genius.

His mind is not working properly, the wires are of poor quality, and not burned in yet!      

[Spotted Horses]

You see, even if a digital cable isn't dropping bits, there's still the matter of how the signal arrives. Jitter, interference, impedance, shielding, conductor material, all these things can affect timing. And timing, especially in audio, can have a real impact on how things sound once the signal gets turned back into music.

That is wrong. The digital cable transfers numbers. It is literally impossible for timing to have any effect on the audio.

You seem to share a common misconception among audiophiles that bits received by the target device are streamed into the DAC, which leads to claims about "bit jitter" in CD playback and now jitter in digital cables. In USB or ethernet communications blocks are data are transferred and written into a memory buffer in the receiving device. A microprocessor will then read that data and perform error detection and correction. If an uncorrectable error is detected the microprocessor will request re-transmission of the data. When data is fully decoded and error-checked it will be transferred to the memory buffer of the DAC. Data is clocked into the DAC at a steady rate independently of anything that is happening at the receiving end (except if transfer fails so badly that the DAC's memory buffer is empty). There is no connection between the timing of bits received and the timing of data clocked into the DAC.

This would not apply to the ancient system "Toskink" (optical or coax) which was developed in 1983. In that system communication was strictly one way and there was no way for the receiver to notify the sender that data transmission was faulty and had to be retransmitted. The rate of conversion was more-or-less determined by the sender and data errors would be uncorrected and result in noise.

[Spotted Horses]

All right, you win. Can't argue with genius.

He is not a genius. He is a person with technical training who knows how audio reproduction devices work. Therefore he does not regard them as a subject for mystical speculation.

[Harry]

The science Gremlins have invaded the thread.

[Spotted Horses]

The science Gremlins have invaded the thread.

As StudioGuy mentioned somewhere, all of the equipment we are discussing was designed by scientists and engineers using theoretical calculations, computer modeling, rigorous measurement and data analysis, and of course trained personnel listening to the result because there are always residual distortions and it is important to understand that some distortions are more deleterious than others. A bizarrely expensive audiophile component will use the same chipsets for USB comms and analog signal production as a consumer game console. All designed by soulless engineers who would be flummoxed to discover that someone is using a $20,000 USB cable to connect to a USB controller chipset that costs $5 wholesale.

[AnotherSpin]

The science Gremlins have invaded the thread.

Harry, but that's perfectly normal. Not natural, but normal. Not everyone has heard music in good sound, and some of these poor souls try to compensate for their audio ignorance by quoting physics textbooks, not realizing how comical that sounds. Well, it doesn't really matter to us, does it? Let's just feel sorry for them.

[Spotted Horses]

Harry, but that's perfectly normal. Not natural, but normal. Not everyone has heard music in good sound, and some of these poor souls try to compensate for their audio ignorance by quoting physics textbooks, not realizing how comical that sounds. Well, it doesn't really matter to us, does it? Let's just feel sorry for them.

I've got bad news for you, the people who designed the substantial parts of your system used physic textbooks.

[Harry]

Harry, but that's perfectly normal. Not natural, but normal. Not everyone has heard music in good sound, and some of these poor souls try to compensate for their audio ignorance by quoting physics textbooks, not realizing how comical that sounds. Well, it doesn't really matter to us, does it? Let's just feel sorry for them.

We stand UNITED! They have ears but are tone deaf!  

[71 dB]

"Toskink"

Is that the bedroom version of TOSLINK? 

[71 dB]

Harry, but that's perfectly normal. Not natural, but normal. Not everyone has heard music in good sound, and some of these poor souls try to compensate for their audio ignorance by quoting physics textbooks, not realizing how comical that sounds. Well, it doesn't really matter to us, does it? Let's just feel sorry for them.

You don't know how audio ignorant I am. You just assume I am because I don't share your audiophile delusions.
I have not quoted physics books. Changes are you'd understand nothing if I did.

[StudioGuy]

They all influence the sound differently, quite audibly so, in fact, each with its own signature. On that basis, I've formed a view about what sort of sound, and in which part of the chain, brings me closer to what I'm after.

Digital data cables don't carry sound they carry digital data, isn't that obvious from what they're called? Therefore they do not influence the sound, cannot have a sound signature and how can you have "formed a view about what sort of sound" on the basis that they don't carry any sound?

So whenever I hear claims that all cables are the same, I can't help but smile and move on.

So whenever I hear claims that cables affect the sound, I can't help but smile at the fact they don't know the difference between digital data and sound.

I do hope you won't take offence if I don't go through your post point by point. If you scroll up the thread a little, you'll see it's all been answered already.

Not at all. If you wish to keep contradicting yourself and posting falsehoods that's up to you, although it is against the user agreement you agreed to. Incidentally, I did scroll up the thread a little and didn't see that any of my points had been answered.

[71 dB]

The science Gremlins have invaded the thread.

For a person who condemns bullying and disrespecting others you certainly don't show good example Harry. I'm sorry you are so closed-minded and you don't even try to understand what we "science Gremlins" are trying to do.

[ritter]

Further to the above comment by @71 dB, another post by @Harry  (reply #3390) has been reported to the moderation. I therefore ask all members to refrain from insulting others (even if in jest), and to avoid derogatory expressions.

Regards,

The Spanish Dictator.

[AnotherSpin]

You don't know how audio ignorant I am. You just assume I am because I don't share your audiophile delusions.
I have not quoted physics books. Changes are you'd understand nothing if I did.

I've already said it a few times, and I'll say it again, hopefully for the last time. I have nothing against the fact that you don't hear what I clearly hear and know: that differences in the quality of USB, ethernet, or optical (Toslink) cables do affect sound quality. Enjoy music the way you hear it; I'll enjoy it the way I do. Let's leave it at that.

[drogulus]

    Your brain interprets what your ears hear and is able to make up differences based on expectations. Blind testing can show how these differences can be made to disappear.

    I'm aware that I can be fooled into thinking that my DSD file sounds different from the 16/48 transcode I make of it. However, if for some reason I choose not to indulge my feels and have a malicious demon test me (I have one sitting near by reading about how Philby escaped to Moscow) I know I won't have these feels any more.

     At that point I can go down the road of making excuses about the test parameters or just admit the differences were made up, probably because I wanted them to be there.

[Harry]

You don't know how audio ignorant I am. You just assume I am because I don't share your audiophile delusions.
I have not quoted physics books. Changes are you'd understand nothing if I did.

You are a ignorant person, and show zero respect for people that have another frame set as you have. You are like the Zealots always irritating and ready to kick people because they think differently.

[Harry]

For me the time is very near that I take my leave from GMG, I am more than fed up with moderators who takes sides. I was insulted many times yet I did not report anything, but neither was I protected against insults, instead I am reported. That's the world upside down