Computer Audio: Everything Makes A Difference
Connectivity
When your computer is in one room and the rest of your audio system is in another you usually have more than one way you can connect the two--via wired Ethernet or wireless WiFi. Sometimes physical restrictions such as distance, layout, or the physical makeup of your home will be decisive in determining which method is most practical. In terms of fidelity each method has its appeal. Hard-wired connections offer more robust data throughput and are less likely to suffer from dropouts and data loss. Wireless connections allow your computer to be completely isolated from the rest of your system, which can eliminate any noise problems caused by AC, RF, and EMI.
Once again, since each connection method has its own particular advantages and disadvantages it's impossible to make a blanket recommendation about which is sonically superior. I've used both wireless and hardwired connections with my computer audio systems and found that wireless connections are definitely more prone to dropouts, but the complete isolation between the computer and the rest of my system is comforting. The best solution is to try both connection schemes and then choose the one that combines more ergonomic and sonic advantages.
Software
Just like the arguments about whether nature or nurture is most important to human development, the discussion of whether software or hardware is more critical to sound quality in a computer-based audio system will probably continue well into the foreseeable future. Obviously not only does your choice of playback software have a major impact on the sound quality of your computer-based audio system, but how that software interfaces with your hardware will also affect your hardware choices. Just because one user finds a particular piece of software produces optimal sonics doesn't mean that you will have the same results in your system. Sometimes software decisions won't be clear-cut. When forced to weigh ergonomic ease against ultimate sound quality, different users will make different choices based on their own priorities. While iTunes is convenient, it doesn't offer (and doesn't claim to offer) the best playback quality; however, improving upon it does require additional effort in setup and day-to-day operation.
Simple Ain't No Fun
Probably the most often asked question I've heard during 30-plus years in audio is the query, "Which is the best?" I despise this question because it means that someone wants a simple solution to a complicated situation. The art and science of high-end audio has always been about exploration and discovery. Computer-based audio is no simpler than high-end audio. Fortunately, the more you explore and the deeper you dig, the more sonically rewarding computer-based audio becomes. We are only at the very beginning of what will be known as the "computer-audio age." It will be a wild but entertaining ride.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
I've learned better than to trust Steve's reviews after buying the Logitech Duet - a lemon which should still be in development.
Now I read his comment on more RAM, and can say that while the fact is (partially) true, it is also highly insignificant.
Here's the quote: "each time data is copied by being written to a disc and then read off that disc it increases the likelihood of data errors and timing errors that degrade sound quality." Yes, in theory the likelihood of errors exists, but hard drives use quite simple (and effective) error correction software, to the point where it is safe to say that such errors... do not happen. If they would, somebody, someday would wake up to find that they have more (or less) money in their account - likely because of an uncorrected hard drive error at some bank... to the best of my knowledge this cannot happen.
More so: the timing errors that might impact sound quality - are most likely to exist in SS's head than in reality - for the very simple reason that a computer working at 2GHz has to waist 100 cycles in order to miss a beat for a 20KHz sound wave. As all errors are corrected within 1 or two cycles, such an instance cannot possibly happen.
SS goes on to make the same argument when talking about faster drives - which have "more memory for error correction"... and again he is wrong - for the same reason. One can actually argue that from an audiophile point of view you might want to get a slower disk if it's less noisy than the higher speed one.
So, my friends, don't pay attention to SS. He doesn't understand the subject he's talking about.
At least I understand my subject enough to include and allow for contrary views.
Computer audio has become one of the last bastions of the bits is bits, flat earth, everything sounds the same, double blind testing, specs are all that matters gang. They get very huffy when someone with an open mind and good ears invades their space...
As for the Logitech duet being a lemon - why not post your opinion on Logitech's forums? They might set you right.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I'll grant you that.
I believe that a bit is a bit, and further I believe that a bit will sound the same whether it is transferred through a stock USB cable or through a brand (usually overpriced) one - and the main reason here is the same - a strong error correction mechanism built into the very technology employed.
The Eart is not flat.
Double blind listening would expose a lot of people as having not so good ears, but then, I am not that keen on having such tests decide what sounds best - because I think that people value different things in music. This being said, I am using a lot of salt when reading a review - esp if the reviewer finds out on a regular basis that the system under review is comparable with systems that cost X times as much. I get even more concerned when reviewers are comparing a current product with a previous generation of a far more expensive one, or when a speaker reviewer submits a review for a speaker that was not fully broken in... I think that these are cheap tricks... Ideally, I'd like to see people like you writing articles that address this hypothetical situation: "Given the music I listen to, and a budget - this is what I'd buy and why." For example, I'd like to find out if I should buy the Focal Diablo or the Avantgarde Duo.
I never thought that specs are everything - just as I don't think that there's one standard for beauty. However I think that there are laws of physics that have to apply. I also believe in honesty, and expect it from the industry. For example when somebody markets a speaker with a Beryllium tweeter, I expect it to have a tweeter that is actually Be, and not a Be alloy - and tend to look at any company that submits a Be alloy tweeter as a Be tweeter as fraud; I also don't look very kindly at the reviewer who didn't catch this as - at best he facilitates fraud.
Back to the review - you didn't comment on my notes - which basically said that there's no such thing as errors/time delay when one is playing a file from a PC. What do you plan to do about this?
In the cold fro Toronto
PS: I reviewed the Logitech Duet as a lemon on the Logitech product page - and was surprised to see my review disappear after a few days. I then posted a review on Amazon - and it looks like people find it useful (it is the most popular negative review there).
PPS: the above rant wasn't directed at you, but at your peers/the audiophile press in general.
Thank you for your comments. I find it refreshing that somebody has the guts and time to make well thought out, valid points, even though they go against the general attitude of the audiophile press.
I totally concur! He really doesn't understand all that much about computers nor electronics. I reckon that we should all chip in and get him a hoodoo witch doctor to improve his sound further by chanting over his computer and his ultra special digital cables :)
Guys please...money doesn't grow on trees. Use a bit of common sense when dealing with audio. It truly is very easy to convince yourself of some dramatic improvement when you've just spent $5000 of your hard earnt cash on some esoteric cable. Worse still, that you actually manage to convince someone else that this 5K cable was actually worth it! Human psychology...rather than the human ear is the biggest factor here.
Uhh...that would be waste not waist. Perhaps you should write in a language you know something about. I also disagree with alot of what you have said but can't be bothered to get into a lengthy dual of words.
regards,Oddio
oddio said: "lengthy dual of words."
Uhh... that would be duel not dual... but I won't waste more words ...
When it comes to digital sound the variability comes in whenever there is a conversion from analog to digital or digital to analog. While in its digital form, there is no variabilty.in the material--the computer and all of its protective protocols take care of that. However, when the bits are sent to the sound card, the conversion back to analog can be done well or sloppliy. After all, the analog waveform is only mathematically approximated by the sound card.
The same is true when the analog music is converted to digital form by the conversion program. There are good converters and not-so-good converters. Reviews of analog to digital converters and different sound cards would be more appropriate than a discussion of speeds and feeds of the computer.
Practically all computers are fast enough to handle the music data without losing any and the conversion of audio from analog to digital and from digital to analog. Video content is different because the data rates are much higher. Most newer computers can handle video as well.
Bought a Neuhaus Labs T-2 amp to hook up to my Mac and love it. I have over 2,000 songs on iTunes. When I download high res music from HD Tracks, I am blown away at how good it sounds. I always thought computer audio was just two speakers connected to a PC that sounds terrible. Computer audio with a good amp is the future.
I wanted to reply direct to cagctg, but I couldn't, so here 'tis:
96/24 is the top bit-rate for the MAC's Toslink outputs.
It's not an issue of set-up ease or operational ease that makes computer audio tweaky; it;'s that when you make a change in either software of hardware it can and often does make an audible difference.
And just because YOU doubt that anyone can hear a difference between 3 and 6 ft USB cables of differing quality levels doesn't mean that someone with a higher resolution system doesn't hear differences. They do.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
There is no doubt that you can hear a difference. The meaningful question however is whether there IS a difference. Very simple, scientific and unpoetic. Audiophile reviews and sales pitches are mostly fiction, because they talk about subjective impressions that are not backed up by real evidence. Of course, these reviews can be fun to read (like a lot of fiction). But it is absolutely not fun to read that the amount of RAM can alter the digital information which is passed to the audio device. Too bad, but that is just plain wrong.
Bits are bits. The laws of physics do apply to electronics. However, those that frame the debate in a "bits are bits" way miss the point because the question misses the point.
It is physics that one litre of gasoline from a particular gas station's pump has a certain thermal output when it burns. Using the analogy, this litre of gasoline are the bits. It is empirically provable that a Toyota Formula 1 car can convert half of that litre to more forward motion than a Toyota Prius can convert the other half litre to forward motion. So long as the gasoline is available for the engine to burn it, one drop of that litre is the same as another. Bits are bits. What counts is what happens after that.
The brand of hard drive is irrelevant because bits are bits. The speed of the hard drive is irrelevant, because any modern HDD can serve the bits far faster than the song can play. Even a slow HDD these days reads at 50MB/sec. The length of a USB cable, its brand, or whether it's a USB cable, an ethernet cable or an eSATA cable are all in the irrelevant so long as the bits are there when the processor needs them.
So long as there is enough RAM to run the operating system efficiently, say 2 GB of RAM, more may be an improvement in a computing sense but not an improvement in sound quality. Bits are bits, as long as they are available when they are needed by the digital-analog converters.
Timing is an entirely different matter. The bits may be available, but whether they are processed in a way that matches the precise timing of the original music is another matter. However, although we are in the Stone Age when it comes to digital music, clearly the fact that a computer can easily slice up one second into 3 billion parts can give us all hope that timing issues will be solved. But the cable doesn't effect the timing in a computer system. It may in a AVR, I don't know, but music draws data so slowly that all modern computer processors will be reading from the cache and not from the cable or the hard drive. L1, L2, RAM, HDD cache -- there are a lot of caches between the processor and that incoming USB or Ethernet cable. The bits are available when the computer needs them, and bits are bits.
The digital to analog converter is an entirely different matter. Clearly the Toyota F1 engine is vastly different than the Toyota Prius engine. I suggest that the author and this publication keep its focus on the engine rather than arguing about whether a steel fuel line versus a titanium fuel line will affect the engine output.
Your automotive metaphors are clever, but irrelevant and don't IMHO burn gas...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I'm no a/v expert but I do know a few things about computers. The most succinct description of the problem I've seen comes from ScottB in this comment:
http://www.avguide.com/blog/guest-blog-its-time-admit-we-dont-know-every...
ScottB -- Fri, 02/05/2010 - 21:17
We in the computer world are so used to a particular protocol that we cannot fathom why a/v gear is designed the way it is. ScottB describes it best, that a computer has a protocol that "requests data, at a high transfer rate from the source, fills a buffer with the data, and begins to "meter" out the data from the buffer based on its own internal clock. When the data buffer gets more room, another request to the source is sent for more data. This is the kind of protocol used for almost all USB (or Ethernet, or eSata, etc) peripherals, like disk drives, printers, cameras, etc, and within broadly defined design limits, data integrity through these asynchronous protocols is perfect, regardless of cable.
But the most commonly used USB audio protocol is synchronous - the data is first clocked at the source, and transferred at the rate it is to be consumed, modulo clock error. The receiver has a passive role - it must take the data at the rate the source dishes it out. The receiver is therefore somewhat at the mercy of the source."
This is they key difference between the a/v world and the computer world, and all those in the debate should take Scott's words to heart. The audio world uses the source to determine timing. This was the way of shellac 78s, of vinyl, of 8-tracks, cassettes, and CDs. The audio world has always done it that way and continues to do it that way. In that world than the cable may make a difference on timing and thus may make a difference on sound.
The computer world is entirely different, as ScottB explains. I would hazard a guess that nearly all the computer people who enter this debate do not fully appreciate this fundamental difference. We computer people can't imagine any competent electrical engineer designing an audio system that would depend upon the source for timing. We don't think of the history of audio that got us here. That in a nutshell is the source of the incredulousness that you see from computer people in discussing this issue. So when you're in a discussion with a computer person and they start rolling their eyes, speaking in small words, and treating you like a six-year-old, don't be offended. It is because they fundamentally don't understand the history of the world in which you live.
Until the audio world changes that protocol, the audio people are correct. Yes, it is possible that a six-foot cable will sound different than a 3 foot cable, or that one cable will sound different than another. Whether anybody can hear it is a separate debate. Once the audio world joins the 21st century it will be the DAC processor that will control the timing. Given that it is easy for a computer to slice a single second into 3 billion parts, it would be a fairly simple matter for a computer to have perfect timing, or at least timing so close to perfect that even the most discriminating audio reviewer will not be able to perceive it.
So there. Both sides are correct.
Asynchronous USB DACs have been around for a while now. You just have to know what you are buying.
And "audio people" are still mostly wrong, beacause there is very little real evidence supporting most of the "there is a difference between x and y" claims. No, there is not. Youre just imagining it - unless you can pass a double blind test (DBT). Of course, this is hard to grasp for people who have been brainwashed over and over again by hi-end salesmen.
Seriously, I can't believe you are suggesting that a 3' usb is going to sound different than a 6' usb or a free usb cable is worse than some special gold plated super usb cable! If you seriously think that makes a difference in the data the PC uses then the accuracy of everything in the computer world is highly suspect. The only way that MIGHT be possible is if you are flooding the USB bus which means your running SEVERAL streams(probably 8 or more) of high quality audio (96/24) over the same usb bus at the same time. IF you were doing this you would end up with crackles similar to exceeding the headroom in any digital audio signal. There is a whole market of pro and semi pro audio interfaces for PC/Mac that use firewire and usb to transfer LOTS of audio simultaneously.
The only thing on pre-recorded material is the DAC and playback speakers. As long as the cabling to the speakers is shielded it doesn't even matter.
Before writing an article about this next time please do some research.
Oh Chris, Have you ever done any listening?
Or is theory good enough for you?
And thanks for telling me what should and shouldn't matter. I had NO Idea...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
"And thanks for telling me what should and shouldn't matter. I had NO Idea..."
Trust me, we can tell.
I think we would all be well served to read Floyd Tooles work. Here is a guy who has pretty much dedicated his life to listening, testing, checking his methodology and producing sensible useable results.
He has (to my satisfaction) proven or as the case may be disproven so many rubbish audio myths that we should all be taking notice. His research would serve us all well.
USB cables, HDMI cable or even analog cables (providing they are not complete rubbish) have no bearing on the sound. It's proven folks.
I even went to a seminar the other day where a sales guy had us listening for the AUDIO difference in different brands of HDMI cables then justified it by putting the cables on a tester (at Max VIDEO bitrate) and showing the errors until I pointed out we were talking about audio and insisted at looking at the errors at Audio bitrate. Funny, they all passed with flying colours.....
But yet 2/3 of the class could hear magical changes between the cables.
When we start testing we start listening for difference and then we start to hear what we didn't before. It's like glancing at a photo then answering questions after. Its only when we go back we see the additional detail....BUT it was all there in the first place.
When people "expect" clear high's from a speaker, lo and behold they start hearing them. Now I am not saying all speakers produce all sounds, far from it, I am just questioning the way we "test" and "review" audio.
The long and short of it, we recommend all our customers use 12 AWG figure 8 speaker cable and save their money for other more useful components. We have demo'd this over and over and no-one has ever picked the difference UNTIL we tell them which cable they are listing to. Then miraculously the differences appear. But when they don't know, there is no difference or random spurious results apply.
So it is cheap USB cables for me.
Actually most of SS's assertion are incorrect. I design computers at a famous "fruit company" and dabble in "Absolute Sound Madness" for 25 years. The bit transferred from your CD will be the same entering your DAC. Whatever your computer, bus, ram, storage, software, cables and color of your girl friend's knickers. But then everything changes. Marco seems to have a pretty good grasp in audio jitter but with a difference; tata!! Adaptive or Asynchronous USB. Adaptive, most of DACs will have the computer control the data flow, and yes some computers are better than others(see next chapter, why?). Asynchronous Dacs will control the computer and reduce jitter by a factor of 100 something...And yes with a Mac(maybe PC...), Itunes as your file manager and a fantastic DAC your should have the best audio source possible....
Audio blogs always degenerate into two camps: those that don't "belive" that differences in this or that item can make a difference, and those that actually hear differences. The first camp uses the tired argument that the second camp were simply duped into paying too much for whatever they bought and then justify their purchase after. Did the first cam ever consider that some second camp "fools" like me, actually spend our hard earned cash AFTER listening, and want the improvements we hear.
I have no quarrels with the first cam if they want to listen through cheap wire or don't hear differences on thir systems, but since I do hear differences with almost any change in my system (not allways positive), and since every professional musician, enginneer and mastering specialist that I have had over have revelled in the quality of the sound in my room, maybe, just maybe, I'm on the right track, no?
Sorry about the earlier spelling errors, Tim.
Proper system design should eliminate almost all potential impacts on sound quality due to variability associated with devices in the digital path. The objective should be the retreval of sound data from a storage system and assemblage in a conversion device where it can be optimally translated to sound. The path from the storage to conversion device should have no effect on sound quality. If you are noticing sound differences associated with variation in cable length in this path then I would suggest that the system is poorly designed, not that there is an optimal cable for sound quality.
PS Audio appears to be close to releasing what appears to be a well thought out digital system with a Network Access Server in the data storage role. I don't have a 100% clear view of the overall system but it is interesting to read Paul McGowan's notes in the back issues of PS Audio's Monthly Newsletter on-line regarding the development of their Perfectwave system.
I look forward to the TAS review when the full system is available.
I am not convinced in the slightest that a 3' USB cord will perform at all better than a 6' cord.
I am convinced, however, that the author of this article has been less-than-honest about it.
Holy smokes, what a bunch of vitriol! I thought we listened to music for the pleasure that it provides us, not so that we can hurl vindictive nonsense at each other.
Stephen, thanks for the article. I enjoyed reading it, as I do your other contributions to this and other forums. Please don't let this free for all deter you from providing us with the benefits of your insights and experience.
As for the rest of you, I'd suggest that a return to civility would serve us all rather well.
I will say up front that I do not have the expertise to say one way or another regarding the technical side of a computer and as a result, I'm not in a position to make a comment.
What I can comment on is that the Logitech Duet.....is a dud. My first one went back under warranty, replacement unit went back under warranty at which time I requested a refund and went with a Sonos system which has worked flawlessly out of the box without a glitch.
Anybody looking to get into computer based audio should really look at Sonos as it's simple to set-up, easy to use and just works. When paired with a decent DAC, the results on the audio side are excellent. I really wanted to give the Kaleidescape system a try but from a cost standpoint, it was out of reach.
I am not familiar with any of Mr. Stone's other work. What I read here is a reasonable attempt to introduce his readers to a very complicated topic. I think that readers with professional or hobbyist exposure to computer hardware will find it a bit innocent. This is not unusual in non-tech journalism -- it's like reading about the new Porsche Cayman in GQ if you're a real gearhead: the writers at GQ aren't going to talk about the finer points of limited-slip differentials, and if they do, you could expect them to be unaware of the real complexities.
So with due respect to Mr. Stone, I think there are a few questionable conclusions that he is not technical qualified to make. The difference in data transfer rate between a WD Green 5400 RPM drive and a run-of-the-mill 7200 RPM drive is unlikely in my thinking and experience to have any impact on sound quality. Although, as someone pointed it, it makes a big difference in the audible noise a system creates. There are other points I could take issue with as well. However, I am not qualified to make these assertions – neither is Mr. Stone, as far as I can tell, nor are most people who weigh in, with such vigor, on this debate. The intersection of people who understand the hardware-level workings of PC’s and Macs with those who have extensive audio hobbyist or engineering knowledge is very very small. So, we read articles, and experiment, but mostly just spout our nominal beliefs on the topic. The problem is that hearing is psychologically linked; we are pre-disposed to confirm our own beliefs (“I hear a difference!” ... “There’s definitely no difference.”); and hearing a difference doesn’t mean you have any understanding of what caused it.
I do take Mr. Stone’s larger point about the variabilities involved: all of the different elements that can be a part of this new playback chain do interact, and they interact in a whole new set of ways (relative to, say, the interaction between a loudspeaker and amplifier – which isn’t that straightforward).
I certainly share with some of the other posters here an abhorrence for the idea that swapping USB cables could affect the sound of a digital playback chain. However, as Mr. Stone rightly points out, I haven't done any listening to this level, although I now do 100% of my listening through a computer playback chain, and any restatement of my beliefs about how it shouldn't matter don't amount to much. In any case, accusing Mr. Stone of intentionally misleading his readers is irresponsible.
Anyway, if I sound jaded, it’s because I’m an ex-audiophile, happy to press play and listen rather than tweak, spend, listen, worry and tweak..
At least this kind of rubbish makes for good amusement.
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?t=2577348
Which rubbish are you referring to? Theirs or mine? I can only be responsible for mine :)
It never ceases to amaze me how manners and any sort of respectful discourse vanish on the Internet.
Please TRY to be civil...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
There is a tension between computer and audio engineers. There is no argument that a computer will deliver bit perfect data streams to its digital output. At least there shouldn't be.
Differences in sound quality will be due the quality of clocking at the DAC.
Timing errors will give rise to audible distortions at different points in the audio band. It is known that digital SQ is sensitive to RF interference so it is possible that cables with differing RFI susceptibility may sound different and SS is right to suggest that experimentation through substituting different components is a valid exercise.
I have heard demo files in which spurious noise has been added randomly at 80 dB below the music level (simulating jitter) and I found it impossible to tell when it was added and removed.
I believe that a good jitter number of itself does not guarantee good SQ. It is apparent that the circuit designer's choice of components will have a significant effect on SQ - certainly pro studio quality DACs have sounded significantly better in my listening tests than more moderately priced units.
Once the signal is in the analog domain, cables make a difference - it's due to the physics of interactions of impedance, inductance and capacitance between the source, destination and cable.
Computer geeks should stay out of audio discussions.Period. They have no clue as to what good audio is. When someone tries to help, or explain,they all have to start their trashing. I can say that after many years of listening and experimenting, things like good cables make a huge difference! No debate to it!
Prove it.
I don't think old people should be allowed in audio discussion either. Their hearing and mind has degraded way too much and they can't even understand simple things like the internet. Then they go on rants where they pretend to understand science and make outrageous claims about different sounds from different cables! I was just reading this one blog where this crazy guy said he could hear differences in digital cables! Hahaha. Then they just go on and on about how they have soooo much experience and everyone should listen to them while they continue to make ridiculous claims about analog, tubes, cables, records, evil computers, young wippersnappers, how much experience they have, walking uphill through the snow both ways, cables, how much experience they have, and pretend science. Did I mention they have experience?
I think that anonymous posters have zero credibility.
They have no identity and so they don't really exist...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I'm not anonymous, so I must ask:
What DBT have you done if any?
What evidence can you cite that cables make a difference?
There's nothing wrong being open minded, however, there is a problem making claims you can't prove. It's what you call a "belief", and nothing more.
I do think, however, that those who claim to hear differences in digital cables, etc. should be willing to submit to Double Blind Tests. If you really believe that you can hear a difference, fine. Prove it. What places me in the sceptic camp is that instead of submitting their claims to scientific testing, they tent to start talking about subjectivity, the design of the test etc.
I do believe that some people *hear* differences between USB cables. However, I am also convinced that the difference they hear is a result of the placebo effect, more than the cable.
"Should be willing to submit"
What, pray tell, mr. Rabbi, would YOU be willing to submit to?
I'm not too fond of submitting
Are you?
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I'm sorry, but the idea that you can tell the difference between a 3ft and 6ft USB cable is patently absurd. If you manage to tell the difference in a double blind test I will eat my hat. I don't care if you are running a $5 Million dollar system.
The old audiophile canard of "your ears aren't golden enough" has got to go. The snarky comments about "Submitting" to double blind tests further undermine the arguments.
The emperor has no clothes!
While I would love to see you eat your hat...
You are talking SNARKY? Have you READ this thread?
Obviously not.
If it looks and acts like a troll, it is a troll.
I know what your hat looks like - it's floppy with a point.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Seriously Steve, why are you using technicalities to walk away from a challenge? Please read "Willing to partake in a Double Blind Test, etc..." in Noah's comment above and act to it.
Also, he shouldn't have to submit to anything - after all, he doesn't state that he can hear the difference between a 3 feet and a 6 feet cable, or that more RAM will make a difference in sound quality... or that everything makes a difference. BUT YOU DO...
Most people who know what they are talking about would be happy to take on such a challenge... set the record straight once and for all... Are you up for it? It would be fun watching him eat his hat.. or you eating crow. ;-)
Wow:
Mr. Stone, I am offended by your nasty tone, and sexual insinuation. Submit is a perfectly appropriate term and you know it. I think you behave no better than those you criticize here. Be Nicer!
However, I'll take your bait: I am willing to submit to any scientific test of my equipment. In fact, I go out of my way to test my ears and my gear. After failing a DBT on fancy speaker cables, I decided that any "difference" I though I heard when doing a sighted test was a product of my *mind* and not the cables. I sold the cables, made my own biwire pair from "Belden" Bulk cable used the extra money on some books I really wanted to read.
Do you not believe in the placebo effect in other areas of human life? Do you not trust the FDA's methods? Do you not download compressed software programs for fear that they don't operate as well as a version installed from a CD-ROM? Why are you so afraid? And why are you so mean?
You demand things of me and then object to MY tone?
Puhleeze, I am "mean" because I'm tired of hearing the same old thing over and over "You MUST do this, otherwise I consider you a liar."
The only thing your test has proved is that your system is not resolving enough information to hear any differences.
Your conclusion is a leap of logic that your data does not support. If you would prefer to spend money on books rather than cables, fine, but to denigrate another's decision based on your own limited tests is disrespectful of their right to make a different decision based on their own values.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Seriously Steve, why are you using technicalities to walk away from a challenge? Please read "Willing to partake in a Double Blind Test, etc..." in Noah's comment above.
Also, he shouldn't have to submit to anything - after all, he doesn't state that he can hear the difference between a 3 feet and a 6 feet cable, or that more RAM will make a difference in sound quality... or that everything makes a difference. But YOU DO...
Most people who know what they are talking about would be happy to take on such a challenge... set the record straight once and for all... Are you up for it? It would be fun watching him eat his hat.. or you eating crow. ;-)
PS: I logged in as Anonymous, because apparently I have been banned from postig comments... I guess that you don't like those who disagree with your opinions. I made the first comment to your post.
Yeah right. Ask Amazing Randi about double blind tests. He chickened out of his $1mill cable challenge - that he still owes to Michael Fremer.
You flat-earthers need a new hobby - how about online poker?
I don't care if you believe me or not - I still enjoy my hobby, which is something I suspect you do not...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Do you know what a flat-earther is? Google has provided a pretty solid definition for you: The term flat-earther is commonly used to refer to an individual who stubbornly adheres to discredited or outmoded ideas. This sounds a hell of a lot more like a fancy cable using, tube amp using, turntable listening, expensive tweaking audiofool than a cable skeptic.
I mean seriously, hearing a difference in 2 different lengths of USB cable? Do you mow your lawn to make your speakers sound better? Do you add lightning bolt stickers to your car to make it go faster? There are a million things you could do to make your system sound better if they don't have to be related to what is actually coming out of the speakers.
I've got this awesome audiophile mug I keep next to my speakers that makes them sound great. Its because of crystal resonances! I can sell it to you for no less than $5000. No refunds though, if you don't hear a difference your system might not be resolving enough. It might need to burn in for at least 1000 hours though so it can get used to its new spot.
David, what was the last piece of music you listened to?
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Eric Clapton's Unplugged album.
Steven:
Wow! You seem to be getting so mad, and I simply don't understand why!
First of all, my system is perfectly revealing. After all, I read your magazine and others like it! It so happens that my speakers (Eminent Technologies LFT-16), headphones (AKG k701), monoblocks (Marantz MA-500), DAC (MuFi X-24k), etc. have all been recommended by the Audiophile Press, and reveal plenty.
I was once an accomplished live sound engineer. My live recordings have been released on Blue Note Records, among others, I am subscriber to Carnegie Hall. I know what good sound it, as I am sure you and most of us who are so crazy about this hobby do. I'm not telling you to do or be anything.
I am, given my own experience, challenging your *interpretation* of your own data. Double Blind Testing has shown me that much of the difference I *did* hear, was due to my own brain, and not to the cables/tweaks. No one is saying that different transducers, amps, and sources don't impact sound quality.
It seems to me that your argument is that the scientific method itself isn't applicable to home electronics at all, and that claim is deeply problematic to this Rabbi. Listen, I think there *are* things in this universe that human knowledge can't (yet, if ever) explain. But audible (yet unmeasurable) effects of the data transfer capability of 3m of USB cable just isn't one of them. I don't buy it, and neither your indignation nor your crude sexual innuendo sways me. I hope your other readers agree with me more than you, but hey, isn't that what free speech on the Internet is all about?
-Rabbi Noah
P.S. Randi is a jerk, an treated Fremer unfairly. So what? That has nothing to do with me, so don't change the subject. Also, MF frequently admits that he is unsure if he would pass a DBT (see his review of a whole bunch of tonearm cables a few months back.)
I'm not mad, just bored by the same old arguments over and over again...
The crude sexual innuendo is in your own mind, not mine.
I'm glad we agree on something - Randi IS a jerk - I liked him much better when he was still pulling rabbits out of his hat - now it's "whoops, wrong hat..."
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
The differences in perception in these cases are almost always one half placebo effect and one half psycho-acoustics, with a small amount of window dressing on the side. It's an entertaining if somewhat tired debate, and it's been going on for decades, in one form or another. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong, but everybody wins with great sounding music!
I am wondering where sata cables fit in to all of this. Wouldn't they be a weak link? $300 power cord, $250 usb cable and a $2.99 sata cable? That wire is inbetween all of what you stated in this article. Or how about the wires that go between the power supply and the motherboard? Did you replace those with some magical, super powered wires? If you haven't done anything to the sata cable or the power supply cables it just goes to show what a crock cables actually are.
Then people, in these comments no less, say computer people should stay out of an audio discussion. How about you learn what other cables are in your machine that could be "bottlenecking" your system?
Despite the arguments here (that contains some sexual references), I find the article very helpful (at least Idon't have to call a PC repair online to fix the issues). I think Steve is right with the RAM subject but I believe I don't have to fill the RAM slots to get the best audio performance.