External DAC with Connect

You're Welcome

AS mentioned earlier, improving speakers is far and away the best way to improve sound quality.

Actually what improves the sound quality even more is good quality recordings ...

Clearly there could be a problem with a dodgy cable or connector introducing errors into data transmission, and errors can be audible in the form of clicks, dropouts or other artifacts, similar to playing a damaged CD.

However that is a case of something not working properly and replacing a component to fix it.

So a manufacturer or reviewer can't make a general claim that this cable will improve sound quality. It may if the system is faulty to start with but if it isn't, how do you improve on zero errors?

And if an audiophile claims a cable improved sound quality, does that mean they have been listening to a faulty system? I'm not sure many would admit to that...

Audiophile claims for improvements in sound quality seem to get expressed as "the soundstage was better" or "the vocals are more alive" rather than "I was getting lots of clicks and now I don't":D

IanW, I have previously in this thread stated the following:

Carefully constructed experiments like a double blind study, none of which have ever proven the nonsense that digital cables, if operating correctly, make any difference in sound. If you conduct such an experiment and you actually prove there is a difference, then science will be proven wrong. Until then, you are simply reporting your bias . Good luck with that experiment..

It's not science itself that states the part you've put in bold. It's your belief, or bias as you put it. My belief may be different; it's the job of science to arbitrate between them. I'd argue that, at the time of writing, it hasn't done so (unless you're aware of a DBT that settles it one way or the other, bearing in mind that you can't prove the negative).

I apologize for not stating the bolded more clearly. I don't consider a system plagued with transmission errors, or insufficiently shielded, to be "operating correctly". Furthermore, given these circumstances, the sound would suffer noticeable dropouts, not the "brighter, more spatial, wooly, warm, orange peel sound, apple juice fluidity" nonsense that audiophiles describe. It is these silly descriptions that I am speaking to, not easily detected sound deterioration due to actual errors or interference.

I didn't say anything about plagues of transmission errors or inadequate shielding. Occasional, infrequent transmission errors would not necessarily cause drop-outs; the DAC might be designed to interpolate or perform some other error "reduction" (I recall this is discussed in the AES/EBU standard but I might be mistaken). Noise could be transmitted through the conductors of the cable and injected into the DAC's ground plane or power rail.

This is all about engineering and design, not really "science" as such. It is possible that some combinations of cable and equipment may not work together in a mathematically ideal way, simply because they were designed with different assumptions, constraints, or interpretations of the relevant standards.

A bad cable is a bad cable, but the SPDIF standard was written to a generic video cable, you do not need a $1000 cable to cross the threshold of reliable performance, and once you achieve that, there is no way to improve on it.

Likewise, I didn't mention $1000 cables, and neither did you in your original assertion, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

As to this part of your post:

By contrast if anyone ever carried out an experiment with a single combination of cable, equipment and listener that demonstrated a repeatable difference under properly controlled conditions (e.g. DBT) your hypothesis would be falsified at a stroke. I'm not making any comment about how likely that is, I'm just pointing out that it's in principle possible to falsify your hypothesis but never to conclusively prove it.

That means to ball is forever in the audiophiles court. Which begs the question: Why the heck haven't they actually used series of DBTs to prove their expensive "digital" cables sound better?

I think we all know the answer to that.

You're arguing on the basis the hypothesis is already proven fact, whereas I've postulated some plausible, engineering-based reasons why it might not be, so if anything I think the burden of proof is with you. But truly I have no axe to grind about this.

So far no one has mentioned another very important phenomenon that affects all audiophiles as well as some others (so far it has affected me thrice in almost 40 years) and that is the very clear increase in enjoyment when one buys new equipment, not because it necessarily sounds better (although it goes without saying that we think that) but because it is new we listen with different ears. This also applies to such silly "improvements" as cables.

When did the snake oil creep in or was it always there? Record players sure have a lot to answer for in this respect.

So far no one has mentioned another very important phenomenon that affects all audiophiles as well as some others (so far it has affected me thrice in almost 40 years) and that is the very clear increase in enjoyment when one buys new equipment, not because it necessarily sounds better (although it goes without saying that we think that) but because it is new we listen with different ears. This also applies to such silly "improvements" as cables.

I think that has been discussed and that is largely the point.

An audiologist one told me that memory and mood can account for significant differences in perceived hearing, often resulting in perceptions which could dwarf any real world differences.

Brand and cost certainly has an impact on how we feel, else manufacturers wouldn't spend millions on this every year. In most cases, audio vendors spend far more on marketing than they do on R&D. And confirmation bias is also significant: it's rare that someone spends a lot of money on something that is supposed to be an improvement without some kind of prior belief.

The trouble is there are those who deny (either directly or via omission) that these things could be a factor even though, in most cases, it's probably the single most significant factor in what you perceive.

When did the snake oil creep in or was it always there? Record players sure have a lot to answer for in this respect.

Snake oil has, of course, always been there, but in the past the lines were blurred. Back then, building a highly linear amp, or creating a recording and playback system with low noise and wide dynamic range was difficult and costly, and the market was born for people who were prepared to spend more money to get better quality. And then, as now, the purchasers of such systems weren't necessarily that expert in how it all worked. Often the purchasers were more interested in owning things which were "rare and beautiful" simply for status symbol value. That's a ripe breeding ground for snake oil products, especially as equipment improved, pricing came down, and the market for "hifi" expanded massively.

Things have changed: these days building an amp that is, for practical purposes, "transparent" can be done by putting together a handful of off-the-shelf components. Recording and playback systems now give us a dynamic range far greater than any commercial recording requires, and a frequency response that is beyond human hearing, but the snake oil guys insist that we can improve on perfection.

There are still challenges, such as speakers, room acoustics, and the quality of recording mixing and mastering, but these are expensive, difficult and, often impractical for end-users to address. As such, they are a hard sell so the snake oil salesmen stick to what has traditionally worked: equipment and cables, bigger specification numbers, pseudo-scientific explanations, and flowery prose.

Cheers,

Keith

It's not science itself that states the part you've put in bold. It's your belief, or bias as you put it. My belief may be different; it's the job of science to arbitrate between them. I'd argue that, at the time of writing, it hasn't done so (unless you're aware of a DBT that settles it one way or the other, bearing in mind that you can't prove the negative).



I didn't say anything about plagues of transmission errors or inadequate shielding. Occasional, infrequent transmission errors would not necessarily cause drop-outs; the DAC might be designed to interpolate or perform some other error "reduction" (I recall this is discussed in the AES/EBU standard but I might be mistaken). Noise could be transmitted through the conductors of the cable and injected into the DAC's ground plane or power rail.

This is all about engineering and design, not really "science" as such. It is possible that some combinations of cable and equipment may not work together in a mathematically ideal way, simply because they were designed with different assumptions, constraints, or interpretations of the relevant standards.



Likewise, I didn't mention $1000 cables, and neither did you in your original assertion, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.



You're arguing on the basis the hypothesis is already proven fact, whereas I've postulated some plausible, engineering-based reasons why it might not be, so if anything I think the burden of proof is with you. But truly I have no axe to grind about this.

Why would the burden of proof be on me? I'm claiming that unless the one who claims to hear a difference can prove it via a DBT, then that difference is based on faith. Prove you hear a difference and then we can talk about why it exists.

And Blackcat cables were one of the boutique brands mentioned in another thread by the very person who made the claim about cables sounding different. Check out their prices and you will see that $1000 cables were mentioned.

Consider the two statements:
1. Two amplifiers that have the same measured flat frequency/distortion response of the kind that most modern amplifiers exhibit, that are working within designed limits - i.e, without clipping/distorting - cannot be distinguished from each other in a level matched DBT when operating with tone controls or the like not engaged.
2. All amplifiers sound the same.
People, of whom I am one, that support the first statement are often said to be saying the second, which they are not. The second statement is not a short version of the first, and isn't believed to be a true statement by them.
I am curious to know if there is anybody on this forum that disagrees with statement 1.

It is interesting - and to me revealing - that the only responses to the above display inadequate reading comprehension or deflect follow on explanations with a stab at humour.

Things have changed: these days building an amp that is, for practical purposes, "transparent" can be done by putting together a handful of off-the-shelf components.
This isn't recent and the amplifier problem was solved by engineers and manufacturers about 25 years ago. Recent real progress has been to drive down the cost of the solution to very low levels.

Pricing them for what the target market will bear is a different matter, the realm of business management/marketing and not science.

The DAC problem was similarly solved within a few years of their appearance on the audio scene. In some ways, it is a simpler problem - none of the complex and dynamic speaker load interactions to be dealt with.

The cable subject does not merit discussion. Along with green magic markers.

This is the internet though. I am sure there are still places on the net where the view that the Apollo missions landing on the moon was a hoax is actively debated.

So far no one has mentioned another very important phenomenon that affects all audiophiles as well as some others (so far it has affected me thrice in almost 40 years) and that is the very clear increase in enjoyment when one buys new equipment, not because it necessarily sounds better (although it goes without saying that we think that) but because it is new we listen with different ears.
Good point, though I would argue that it isn't the ears that are the culprit, but the easy to manipulate brain.
As just an example, take the case of someone that has bought a Marantz PM 6005 amp, after reading the audio press reviews of how it delivers noticeably better sound than even its immediate predecessor, the 6004. Having got the new kit home, and installed it, with a brain preconditioned to believe it sounds better, how can it not sound to be so? The financial and emotional investments demand that kind of return.
I am not sure that Marantz makes such claims for it - as far as I know, the only thing they say is that it has the addition of a built in DAC to take digital inputs. But Marantz counts on the media, perhaps persuaded by ad spend, and word of mouth on the net and other places, to do the job of selling better sound quality from it.

You're arguing on the basis the hypothesis is already proven fact, whereas I've postulated some plausible, engineering-based reasons why it might not be, so if anything I think the burden of proof is with you.
What is the truth, the philosopher would ask?
Every scientific fact is nothing but a hypothesis that is yet to be proved wrong, to be then substituted by a better one. The all swans are white hypothesis/fact is easy to be proved wrong by finding just the one black swan - but where is that in this case of amplifiers/DBTs?
Surely if you are going to make such postulations, they remain just speculations until you find the black swan? While the white swan hypothesis has been constructed by many people that have done these tests over the years and are satisfied to its quality. Anyone that doesn't agree has the burden of finding the black swan to destroy it.
Over at Harbeth UK, Alan Shaw for some time now has offered a free pair of his flagship speakers to anyone that can turn up one in controlled conditions, with any two amp of the claimants choice that are in working condition and meet a frequency response/distortion criteria that almost all modern ones do. No downsides, no entry fee, except for travel costs. And yet he has seen no takers, not even from people living in the UK where travel costs/time may not be the investment it would be for people elsewhere. Where are the black swans hiding?