AAHH - of course.... finally I get it..
those are the bits put by the aliens, purely to m/f-uck our understanding of our world,.... right?
How so?
If the distribution of answers over A & B are statistically insignificant, there is no audible difference, thus they are the same.
Not aliens, Maxwell's Demons...😉
This discussion has been reasonably sane, some are incredible, including noise being recorded with the digital signal depending on the PSU type used (the files were bit identical, but sounded different due to the PSU type used when ripping/copying the files).
This discussion has been reasonably sane, some are incredible, including noise being recorded with the digital signal depending on the PSU type used (the files were bit identical, but sounded different due to the PSU type used when ripping/copying the files).
Should the last phrase "thus they are the same" be replaced by: thus they cannot be distinguished by this test?
If so, then it confirms that the AB test cannot prove they are the same.
I intentionally chose to write "thus they are the same" because I knew that if I were to use "sounds the same" someone would get stuck to that irrelevant detail. But here we are anyway, I guess.
I didn't think it was necessary, but, let's do this so that we can agree on the actual topic that we are talking about:
1. If we want to be anal about linguistics, "same" means that there is one single cable. That is, not even multiple cables of the same brand/model. Only a single physical entity.
2. If there is a person who claims that different cables do NOT sound "the same", it means they DO sound like different physical entities.
3. So then, if there is a person who claims that two different cables DO sound "the same", it doesn't matter whether there's actually different physical entities involved, or if the person was being tricked. They simple sounded "the same".
4. This discussion was whether point 2 or 3 is true for USB cables.
So, if a person fails to notice any differences in either an ABX test or the test described by me, the sound is "the same", thus the person who claimed there was, was wrong.
And, if a person does notice differences when doing multiple ABX tests or the test described by me, and the results end up being statistically insignificant, the sound is "the same", thus the person who claimed there was, was wrong.
And, if a person does notice differences when doing multiple ABX tests or the test described by me, and the results end up being statistically significant, the sound is NOT "the same", thus the person who claimed there was, was right.
And, since we know science, we already know that the USB-cables do sound the same. The above tests just confirm it.
I like this, it reminds me of Bill Clintons defence speech after the Monica jiggery pokery which brought his presidency to an end just as it was ending anyway.
His claim is that they sound different to him in his system. An ABX test under double blind conditions will confirm or refute his claim. He can also use other test formats (e.g., triangle).
In order to change the sound (apart from glitches and dropouts), a mechanism must recalculate the numerical values and substitute new ones. This requires the participation of a demon. The claimant is certainly wrong, but if he doesn't understand the technology well enough to see that what he's claiming is extraordinary, he has to come to that conclusion himself by doing a good experiment.
Try this experiment. Type some text into a text editor (not a word processor), perhaps a poem or song lyrics or a passage from a well known story. Save the resulting ASCII text in a file on a USB drive plugged directly into the USB port. Then connect the drive via a USB cable, and read it back aloud. The try again with different cables. The words will of course remain the same. However, when reading the file via a "better" cable you will find the meaning of the words is subtly changed. Words read via a cheap cable will sound dull and boring, while those read via a better cable will sound more detailed and interesting. The will be read with better pace and rhythm. The words will sound sharper yet more fluid.
Please explain.
You answered to:
How does statistically insignificant become statistically significant if I dug out the stats books?
This one particular test instance is all that matters if the claim is that the person can hear a difference in this particular test-case.
Yes, that's the correct qualification. There's no large-scale testing needed for stuff like this- if individuals want to assert that basic engineering, math, and physics are all mistaken, then they can come forth with data.
That's important to note: the burden of proof on extraordinary claims is on the person making those claims. They can either pony up data showing that they're right and the rest of the world is wrong, or learn for themselves the hardest and truest lesson about perception. Or they can decline to do any replicable experimental verification, and it's just one more alien abduction and anal probing claim.
I got one explanation that the sharpness of the signal (1 and 0) affects how it is interpreted in a dac. A very sharp signal requires a bigger bandwidth as we all know than a less sharp one. Many cables have separated signal from power with a dual run of cables to reduce noise and get better signal quality. Why bother if all cables sound the same?
Thats really not how things work. The differential pair is converted to binary data in the USB physical layer (or phy if you like). After that binary data is handled through the system.
In no way can the edge-rate of the USB signal affect the DAC (unless it's totally out of spec and the physical layer starts dropping packets - (but then things are totally broken)
Ok I am no expert, but why do I hear a different sound from one cable to another?
I do not know, I just say I can hear it.
I do not know, I just say I can hear it.
Again - did you confirm your feeling with a blind listening test? If so, then you can really hear it and technical discussion is appropriate. If not, trying to come up with technical causes is a waste of time.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.