Almost ridiculous difference
Posted by: Jonas Olofsson on 05 October 2013
This upgrade surpriced me a lot. Less harsh, better bass and the whole sound is a lot fuller. Never easy to describe this kind of stuff in words but there is really no contest.
I guess this is common sense for most here that everything makes a difference, still I wasent preparerad how much better it would be.
Yes, its a capable system I use but at this level everything seams be important.
//Jonas
I'm not going to be the one who re- introduces the argument that Naim cable is a bit controversial - personally I prefer Atlas ... oh damn .....
Tog
If one argument is countered, one just fabricates another one ...
all very scientific indeed
Waiting in the shadows to snipe I see - ah well so much for having a sense of humour - do you need emoticons to show you the way - poor chap.
Tog 
(specially for Aleg)
Pharmaceuticals and audio cables? What branch of scientology are some of you into exactly?
Referencing placebo effects, double blind testing and marginalisation of human variability (be it in cognitive or auditory terms) when seeking to evaluate sound 'improvements' ( generally considered subjective) has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Nearly as ridiculous as trying to use science to prove/disprove the existence of a deity.
Andy
"sound 'improvements' ( generally considered subjective)"
by whom? Who are these deluded who make up the generally ?
If we can discount science ...what do we use to determine them voodoo?
Seriously?
Tog
Are you maybe neglecting the fact that scientists are human beings and are well advised to nuture and make use of their most human and subjective capacties at least as long as science is so severely limited. At the beginning of all scientific inquiry there has to be a perception. This could be a perception which one has not made oneself but is reported by others. And it would be silly and limiting to exclude subjective perceptions per se. So to be efficient, it's necessary to discriminate between reported perceptions which are worth following up on and those that are not.
My attitude to the OP is something like:
On the one side there is the OP's + reports from others which - according to my subjective impression based on human capacity to sense honesty and integrity (e.g. reading between the lines in the case of written reports) - I believe to be trustworthy - they are quite obviously not talking out of their hats. And I have reason to believe that some are experienced in connecting up audio components as intended by the manufacturers without silly errors and are also well aware of the traps of auto-suggestion. Many report major, not minor improvements. I know from experience that the greater the improvement - even if only perceived subjectively - the less likely it is due to imagination. It boils down to whether I have reason to, and am able to trust, respect and value the reports.
On the other side there are "experts" telling me that these differences are either ridiculous or caused by some kind of placebo effect or due to suboptimal functioning of the original cables, or by phenomena which Simon has suggested (but the experts tell me that it is unlikely that major differences would be caused by these phenomena)
So I weigh between the trustworthiness of "expert knowledge" and the trustworthiness of the reports. How trustworthy is expert knowledge or scientific knowledge? Before Einstein and co scientists were saying that Newtonian Physics was precise in describing what it described. Wrong they were. After Einstein and co scientists were telling us, whatever unexpected direction science might go in the future, you could at least be sure of one thing: No science would ever contradict causality within the the confinements of space and time limited by the speed of light. Oops, wrong again. After conclusive theories predicted that this could be wrong, at the latest by 1964 [ http://philoscience.unibe.ch/d...HS10/bell1964epr.pdf ], during the last decade causality hardliners had to acknowledge a series of experiments which together apparently prove the transfer of information way beyond the speed of light [ last in the series: http://www.nature.com/nature/j...ull/nature12012.html ]
I think science is limited by concepts. Every thought is limited by the confinement of its content. And concepts and theories are based on thought. Its good to endeavour to understand and apply current concepts, but not in the sense of dogmatically identifying with them. I think a truly scientific minded person has an open mind even for the unexpected. Science in all areas has repeatedly been proven inadequate or wrong in the light of newer insights and revelations. That doesn't mean I don't believe science is extremely important. In fact I do trust science to a high degree. Science is a great way to help to grasp the world and to make things as far as possible predictable. But I would not say "We have science; the rest is magic". The rest is magic or a valid manifestation of something science cannot explain. (Not to mention Sociology and Psychology regarding overturning of previous "scientific knowledge". Have you ever read sociological studies? Even peer reviewed sociological studies can be awful)
Quiz: What is it:
- Current science cannot explain or define it. It is not directly accessible to scientific measurement.
- Nothing I (and I assume you) know, have or perceive is more real and less illusive than it
- I personally can prove its existence absolutely and with no doubt by purely subjective means
- it the fundamental pre-requisite for ALL scientific knowledge
What is it? ( answer is easy peasy)
I believe that the experts' knowledge regarding ethernet cables is well thought through (bits are bits etc) . Nevertheless, considering the perceived trustworthiness and the number of the reports, I'm not going to automatically assume the experts are as yet able to explain absolutely everything relevant and I would be quite happy to put in a little effort to check whether specialized ethernet cables can improve the sound. But I do think it is most likely that Simons suggestions of using chokes and shielding would be as good - but I don't truly know that to be the case untill I have tried.
What's the hi fi equivalent of Pascal's wager?
Utter flannel! When did that become a 'fact'?
The effect of the cables can be examined under rigorous conditions if there is a desire to do so. However there seems to be no desire for people to put their money and expensive cables where their mouth is on this one, just write pages of irrelevant prose.
Test the hypothesis in a rigorous manner. Go to it. "Nurture subjective capacities" in a hemp-lined neo-natal dolphin cloud tank, and don't bother telling anyone about it unless they ask first.
In my limited world I had never heard of Pascal's wager (or had forgotten about it). So just peaked into wikipedia and from my not-thorough reading, it seems to me that the wager has following flaw and is actually silly: I can only deduce that it is based on blind faith which is a form of dishonesty towards oneself. So the preposition that you don't lose anything by believing in God is false: You lose honesty.
A God you *believe* in must be a mental projection (=Illusion). A God who is reality and who's existence is in your perception is a a God you *know*, so believing in him is not only unnecessary, it is in fact impossible.
So by using the word belief, Pascal must mean a God who is not real. That contradicts the whole point of the wager or leads to dishonesty.
But I would be prepared to wager, that music is the closest thing to God. Especially if it being delivered by a naim hifi
Sorry. My bad expression. Fact applies to them being human beings. And I'm suggesting that they are well advised to use their capacity of discrimination as human beings as counter measure to getting too identified with current theories potentially being dogmatic. I seriously mean things like intuition, inspiration, imagination or even empathy and emotional intelligence. Einstein himself has said: - "I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.” . I don't think a scientific man like Einstein would speak such words if they didn't have great meaning. As far as I know one of his great accomplishments (theory of relativity?) was according to him a result of inspiration, not a logical development from known or conscious knowledge. There is also nothing wrong in using human capacities like intuition and empathy to evaluate the meaningfulness of perceptions of others which could lead to a useful scientific inquiry.
No problem I'm less grouchy now! I'm interested in the outcome of a debate, but more interested in the outcome of a listening test (emoticon with big flappy ears).
Always open to rational argument -
The outcome of a listening test - blind or otherwise might narrow down the fact that there is a perceived difference in SQ if done in reasonable controlled conditions with an adequate sample - preferably random - of participants.
Isolating the cable as the possible culprit rather than other factors is very important - perhaps more so when the construction of an ethernet cable is not expected to make a physical difference to the process.
To say that a hypothetical company has no idea why the product works - begs the question why they set about manufacturing a high end cable in the first place - surely they must have had an initial hypothesis.or would this hypothetical company have just engineered a whole bunch of cables to see what happened. If they have a hypothesis it can be tested!
The points about the flawed nature of the scientific process are understood and of course there is a room for error when people are involved: which is why the process is designed to be rigorous and methodical.
My point is ...what is the alternative? We could accept that some people hear a difference by in a $600 cable when there is hitherto little scientific evidence as to why this should happen. Therefore it must be the $600 cable that improves the sound. Or in the absence of any credible evidence we could consider that there might also be other variables that we might want to consider and eliminate before assuming the cable is responsible.
If it is easier to believe that it is the $600 cable based on the evidence presented so far - be my guest. I would describe that approach closer to faith than certainty.
Tog
Conrad
if that was science, there would never be any progress.
because there would be no discovery of what was not known before.
and that's the limitation of Measurists, they will only find what they already know is there according to there measurement techniques. But what if you don't know how to measure what you have perceived is there?
Moving the debate on.. If one wants to dismiss the parasitic effects I describe (BTW PureReader who/where are these experts- perhaps they can contribute here? I am also considered a subject matter 'expert' in my particular field of data and IP media systems but wouldn't profess to know everything - far from it ), then one needs to look at the other key component that comes to mind, the integrity and composition of the conveyed signal.
In the world of TCPIP used in network streaming, the audio data is broken down into lots of tiny frames containing packets. These frames can re sequenced and randomly interspersed with other frames from other devices and applications on the same network. Some of the frames such as broadcast frames even require processing by the Network player whilst it's receiving and compiling the audio data frames and passing up its stack.
So why doesn't the other network activity have such a huge (ridiculous) or significant variable affect on sound quality?
I suggest the reason being is that the parasitic physical effects i describe have more influence on the end sound through coupling than the typical integrity of the flow and composition of the data traffic itself , of which only a subset carries our chopped up and possibly out of sequence and/or inconsistently timed sequence of packetised sample data.
IME parasitic effects have a huge impact in the world of signals and digital and analogue electronics... Even our humble NACA5 speaker cable length is designed mitigate parasitic effects.
But I accept accurately predicting parasitic effects can be challenging and not always possible, hence conventional wisdom is to take precautionary mitigations and measures. This is the other reason why we still rely on labbing or prototyping rather than relying on sims. I have certainly experimented at reducing known parasitic effects on my network equipment and basic cables connecting my Naim components to positive effect.
Simon
Regardless of what scientific research is, isn't or should be, the reality is that:
- not all audble differences can be explained or measured, certainly not in the opinion of our esteemed hosts (the Julian Vereker quote was a nice illustration of this), although I understand that some here cannot accept this;
- lacking the R&D budget of GlaxoSmithKline, hi fi companies do try random stuff. In the case of Audioquest, they stuck some ethernet plugs on some existing cable expecting it to make little or no difference and it made a big difference, so they carried on. I know this because I asked at a demo of the Firefly (unless I imagined that too? :-).
Keith
For many reasons including:
1. It would attract even more vitriol than usual
2. It would make them a laughing stock - it's simply not an approach that any would entertain in this saving face world.
3. It discredits the product.
4. They ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY! (which, incidentally, is the most likely thing)
5. They don't want to make it too explicit because any patents that may apply have long since run out and so they can be copied willy nilly, leaving them to pick up their R&D tab.
As for your wireless solution - it always sounds worse, even comparing with poor quality wired ethernet, but if you're happy with it, enjoy!
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Firstly, I may have posted a dud link. The second link probably should have been:
[see end of post] . Trouble is I'm using a mobile device at the moment, and its not rendering www.nature.com properly so I can't check. Name of the study is "Bell violation using entangled photons without the fair-sampling assumption".
You say that 'faster than light signaling' does not violate causality. But it definitely occurs outside of the confinements of causality. Is that not a violation of sorts? It is my understanding that latest experiments do imply that there is a "hidden" faster than light communication in nature.
Anton Zeilinger (co-author of some of the relevant studies): "In einem gewissen Sinn sind Quantenereignisse unabhängig von Raum und Zeit" (translation: In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time). Xiao-Song Ma (co-author) "....This rules out the possibility of any physical signal between the two photons. Introducing this non-causal choice is a substantial step beyond existing quantum eraser experiments, where such communication is still possible in principle"
So something is happening outside of the realms of causality (= non-causal) Am I understanding something wrongly? Or am I understanding the term causality wrongly (I don't think so)?
"No, PureReader, Science starts with a measurement, repeatable, verifiable, objective measurement"
I don't quite agree with that. The "measurement, repeatable, verifiable, objective measurement" is perceived in the awareness of a human being. So it is a perception which would be the cause of further inquiry. This is in my view not irrelevant. Not only measurement may stand at the beginning of scientific inquiry, it could be inspiration, an idea, which then may lead to certain *related* and *specific* measurements.
Edit:
That is strange. The link I posted was "shortened" for some reason during the process of posting.
Another try:
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...ull/nature12012.html
Please add http://www.nature.com in front of following string:
/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12012.html
That should work. Or use the search function on nature.com ("Bell violation using entangled photons without the fair-sampling assumption")
in the end it matters not one iota if the reason a user perceives an Ethernet cable as better is simply the influence of its high price tag. If they enjoy the AQ then why not?
Certainly no enjoyment censorship from me, but if a user can only perceive a difference because it is expensive then the opinion itself is worthless. why not have a thread based on the effect of MDMA consumption on cable efficacy? I'm sure the results will be well worth reading (NOT)!
No idea why. Maybe the forum is gaining its own consciousness and learning to automatically erase links. Your link might be OK, I need to check it doesn't break forum rules, if I can get it work...
I don't much like vodka, but I do like cinnamon, and the price is much more modest too. I've got one ordered, which I'll use from the switch to the SuperUniti, and will report back in due course. It may make a difference, and it may not, but at least I will know for myself.
Also a pdf link to a theory about quantum physics in a previous post (exactly 19 backwards from this post) definitely worked - I checked it after posting. Now it does not work, again due to the shortening dots remaining in the link upon activation.
If anyone was interested it can be found by googling (first entry): bell1964epr[1]
Richard, are all links automatically deactivated after the 60min editing period, if you don't give the okay?
I've read all this and enter the discussion with a degree of trepidation. I claim no expertise, and only seek to understand.
My understanding is that a TCP/IP digital 'stream' either arrives or it doesn't. It has error correction so can't 'fail' except catastrophically. Therefore the cable makes no difference. And yet some people are hearing a difference. So why?
It strikes me that the process of error correction may be a factor. I don't know what that takes, but presumably there must be a degree of processing involved to examine the data, a resend, recheck, reassembly in the proper order. Now, for all I know that can't possibly be a factor for a gazillion reasons. But if a 'better' cable requires less error correction of the data then maybe that's why it sounds different?
Just a thought. I'll now go back to listening to music.
Alex
Alex
there are two sides to this discussion:
1. Those who say as long as the bits arrive at the destinatation than there can be no difference in sound. All differences heared are assumed/placebo because there is no scientific explanation / description of why anything other than bits determine the sound quality.
2. Those who say if a difference is heared after a change and repeatably heared, than there is a difference due to the change made, regardless of whether science already has an explanation for such an effect or not. Acknowledging that science is not all-knowing and laggs behind with their development of theories by the phenomena seen in reality. The first group refuse to acknowledge the actual existence of such phenomena until science has come up with a credible explanation for them being there in the first place.
so this discussion is not about what is actually happening, because that would assume something is actually happening. No, this discussion is about not acknowledging that someone is actually hearing a difference, because they claim that because they know of no reason why there could be a difference, they don't acknowledge its existence at all.
All very difficult and is to do with philosophy of science and a somewhat narrow-minded view on reality.
I wasn't clear about who I meant with "experts". Quotation marks intended (I missed them on second time originally) because I cannot be sure all are true experts. The "experts" are are mainly forum members of this and other audio forums, ranging from those who are obviously very well informed about digital networking, to those who are professionally active in closely related fields like yourself. E.g. garyi, yourself or 'kengale' and 'Martin Colloms' (no digital networking background I believe, but a well informed engineer) on the hifi critic forum. I'm going by memory, which tells me that their input on possible audible differences specifically caused by influences of tweaks like using chokes, shielding, selecting cables with various crosstalk specs (Colloms tried this), in the most part implies that there should be no (or minimal) difference in a normal home environment. Typical example: kengale, who I believe to be a very knowledgeable professional, says that these things should make no difference; if they do, then the design of the components is faulty. An IT-engineer who is my neighbour agrees completely with this view. Then there are a few statements saying differences are possible, very few saying worthwhile differences (you for example) , but I'm of the impression nobody implies major differences of the kind described by some who have "upgraded" to audioquest, meicord or similar. Colloms has reported some considerable audible differences, but is very open to the possibility that they maybe caused by other factors as yet not described. I think a controversy exists, but it may not be clear cut and I am in no way implying that it manifests through your comments. Your explanations are very enlightening and sound most plausible of all to me. As you know analogous controversy exists in other areas of digital audio. You have probably heard of reports of people preferring the sound of files ripped to a naim unitiserve, to files (properly) ripped on PC. I know that this "controversy" is decided on this forum (no difference) and I would agree...but elsewhere it is not.