Clearer Audio Silverline Optimus coaxial cable

[cheeseboy]

If a cable company quotes something about a cable which he disagrees with, fine, he can disagree, but he has to factually prove the cable company is incorrect wholly in their claim before he can make such bold statements,

no matter how outlandish a claim seems to be, it has to be proven before any real claims on it can be made. This surely IS THE first principle of scientific endeavour. This is what creates scientific research, and ultimately deeper understanding. the breaking down of components, cataloguing of data, and the resulting conclusions achieve knowledge and understanding. These are the building blocks of science. If people aren't applying these principles here...fine, just don't claim to be doing so.

Ok, I'm really not trying to stir things up, honestly, but you seem to have contradicted yourself here, not sure if you realised. The first quote says that if people have a problem with the claims, it's up to them to prove them wrong, the second states that if a claim is made, it needs to be proven before it can be made.

Also, none of this takes in to account the very thin line that marketing departments work on. As I've said before, I complained to the ASA about chord, it was upheld and all chord basically did was change the wording from "this cable will make it sound better" to "we beleive this cable will make it sound better". Very subtle but one is submissible, one is not. So when one is looking at any claims, it really pays to read every single word as just changing a couple of words can make all the difference. Also, the ASA can only cover uk based companies, which is why people like Nordost claim faster than light speeds. Which I think even most of the staunchest cable evanglist would have a hard time accepting!

edit: this isn't pro or anti cable btw, it's just anti marketing/advertising people who I think Bill Hicks summed up best, but if you don't know what he said, google it as it's not really SFW.

 

[chebby]

Unless the sainted Dawkins is mentioned it isn't a real cable thread.

So there you go.

(Unless someone has invoked him already. In which case my apologies.)

 

[cheeseboy]

Unless the sainted Dawkins is mentioned it isn't a real cable thread.

So there you go.

(Unless someone has invoked him already. In which case my apologies.)

can we add godwins law in as well, just so it gets spicy?

 

[Gazzip]

It is not just cable manufacturer's who make nonsensical claims of course.....

DAC - Bryston - DAC BD-2 re-clock to eliminate jitter and improve SQ? Behave! Jitter is completely inaudible.

NETWORK PLAYER - Cyrus Audio Stream X Signature - "If you want to hear all of the detail, energy and emotion in your music this is the best streamer you will hear." Wow! I would have said that the signal coming out of it is the same as any other streamer. i.e. The same that went in to it.

Let us not forget the roll of the humble hifi magazine in all of this. They collect all of this marketing material together in to one neat little bundle and proceed to legitimise it through review. The parasite living off the parasite wouldn't you say?

And then of course here we are posting on WHFSAV's website in turn legitimising their existence. What does that make all of us?

 

[steve_1979]

Unless the sainted Dawkins is mentioned it isn't a real cable thread.

So there you go.

(Unless someone has invoked him already. In which case my apologies.)

You mean you don't thoroughly read every single post in every single cable thread?

 

[chebby]

Unless the sainted Dawkins is mentioned it isn't a real cable thread.

So there you go.

(Unless someone has invoked him already. In which case my apologies.)

You mean you don't thoroughly read every single post in every single cable thread?

No. I just look at the last few posts to see if anyone has been banned / killed / converted (last one is, admittedly, the most unlikely).

Otherwise, everything that ever needed saying has already been said long before this forum existed and long before the World Wide Web existed.

 

[TrevC]

ft

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

Come on Paul. Didn't you read the rest of the post? If you did and didn't understand it,then fine. There is nothing for you here....I explained the principle quite clearly.

As far as I know, if a person claims something like "fairies live at the bottom of my garden"; the existence of fairies being something that is generally accepted as being a nonsense, then the onus is upon them to prove it, the default view being that fairies don't exist. Similarly, if the generally accepted scientific/engineering view, overwhelmingly supported by many blind tests, is that adequately constructed cables sound the same then isn't the burden of proof on those claiming that they can hear differences?

Oh, and did you mistake my sarcasm for lack of understanding?

Paul, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, but I can't see how I personally could make it clearer. But you didn't get the jist. Like trev on this, you are incorrect. Please read my post again, I believe I explain it quote well. And also my next post, that no matter how outlandish a claim, it cannot be conclusively claimed as false until proved otherwise....this stems from the most basic of scientific research principles.

If you cannot prove fairies don't exist, you cannot claim to do so without conclusive evidence. The thing to do is not get into scientific debates on fairies.

This is what science is!

No it isn't. Science isn't about disproving flights of fancy. It can however be demonstrated using test equipment that all interconnects of normal construction will sound the same.

 

[cheeseboy]

It is not just cable manufacturer's who make nonsensical claims of course.....

DAC - Bryston - DAC BD-2 re-clock to eliminate jitter and improve SQ? Behave! Jitter is completely inaudible.

NETWORK PLAYER - Cyrus Audio Stream X Signature - "If you want to hear all of the detail, energy and emotion in your music this is the best streamer you will hear." Wow! I would have said that the signal coming out of it is the same as any other streamer. i.e. The same that went in to it.

Let us not forget the roll of the humble hifi magazine in all of this. They collect all of this marketing material together in to one neat little bundle and proceed to legitimise it through review. The parasite living off the parasite wouldn't you say?

I agree, it's not just the cable companies. I think the reason why they get singled out is that they are the ones with the biggest markup and least effect on a system.

I wouldn't call it a parasite, just capitalism and the current market. Unless the ASA or similar makes rules to say that all claims within the sector have to be backed up, it's not going to change, and marketing and advertising companies will constantly push the bar and make more and more outragous claims until they do get called out on it.

Although I would say, if there's a uk based company making stupid claims, try reporting them to the ASA, you might be surprised at the outcome. However, like most things in the UK (and this is not aimed at you directly Gazzip btw) people like to whinge, and not actually do anything about it.

 

[TrevC]

Unless the sainted Dawkins is mentioned it isn't a real cable thread.

So there you go.

(Unless someone has invoked him already. In which case my apologies.)

Sainted? Shome mishtake surely!

 

[TrevC]

It is not just cable manufacturer's who make nonsensical claims of course.....

DAC - Bryston - DAC BD-2 re-clock to eliminate jitter and improve SQ? Behave! Jitter is completely inaudible.

NETWORK PLAYER - Cyrus Audio Stream X Signature - "If you want to hear all of the detail, energy and emotion in your music this is the best streamer you will hear." Wow! I would have said that the signal coming out of it is the same as any other streamer. i.e. The same that went in to it.

Let us not forget the roll of the humble hifi magazine in all of this. They collect all of this marketing material together in to one neat little bundle and proceed to legitimise it through review. The parasite living off the parasite wouldn't you say?

And then of course here we are posting on WHFSAV's website in turn legitimising their existence. What does that make all of us?

Well, er, :O)

 

[radiorog]

If a cable company quotes something about a cable which he disagrees with, fine, he can disagree, but he has to factually prove the cable company is incorrect wholly in their claim before he can make such bold statements,

no matter how outlandish a claim seems to be, it has to be proven before any real claims on it can be made. This surely IS THE first principle of scientific endeavour. This is what creates scientific research, and ultimately deeper understanding. the breaking down of components, cataloguing of data, and the resulting conclusions achieve knowledge and understanding. These are the building blocks of science. If people aren't applying these principles here...fine, just don't claim to be doing so.

Ok, I'm really not trying to stir things up, honestly, but you seem to have contradicted yourself here, not sure if you realised. The first quote says that if people have a problem with the claims, it's up to them to prove them wrong, the second states that if a claim is made, it needs to be proven before it can be made.

Also, none of this takes in to account the very thin line that marketing departments work on. As I've said before, I complained to the ASA about chord, it was upheld and all chord basically did was change the wording from "this cable will make it sound better" to "we beleive this cable will make it sound better". Very subtle but one is submissible, one is not. So when one is looking at any claims, it really pays to read every single word as just changing a couple of words can make all the difference. Also, the ASA can only cover uk based companies, which is why people like Nordost claim faster than light speeds. Which I think even most of the staunchest cable evanglist would have a hard time accepting!

edit: this isn't pro or anti cable btw, it's just anti marketing/advertising people who I think Bill Hicks summed up best, but if you don't know what he said, google it as it's not really SFW.

Yep, I get your point. I wasn't necessarily contradicting myself. I just presumed if a company makes a claim they also need evidence to back it up. Any claim needs evidence, or like you say, you have to word it as being a belief or theory.

 

[Craig M.]

It is not just cable manufacturer's who make nonsensical claims of course.....

DAC - Bryston - DAC BD-2 re-clock to eliminate jitter and improve SQ? Behave! Jitter is completely inaudible.

Even with DACs that don't re-clock?

Cable arguments are great, you get to see who the stupid people are.

 

[cheeseboy]

Yep, I get your point. I wasn't necessarily contradicting myself. I just presumed if a company makes a claim they also need evidence to back it up. Any claim needs evidence, or like you say, you have to word it as being a belief or theory.

alas, most sales blurb I've ever read never has any actual evidence to back it up. It's just vague statements and psudo-science

 

[radiorog]

You have insecurity issues, as we all do

You should stop digging Rog. (You know what I mean - as in digging a hole, just to be clear)

By the way, is that another "fact" - that everyone has insecurity issues? How could you possibly have a clue?

Anyway, bed beckons in my time zone. It's been fun.

[/quote]

Paul, I had no right to say you have insecurity problems as it can obviously be construed as being derogatory. I wasn't trying to, I just feel that most humans have insecurity feelings at times, and it is actually a good thing. Keeps us on the humble side and not megalomaniacs. And also I have no way of knowing if this was why you thought I was being patronising. But I shouldn't have said something that can so easily be thoufht to be insulting, and I apologise. I wasn't being patronising tho....

 

[Gazzip]

It is not just cable manufacturer's who make nonsensical claims of course.....

DAC - Bryston - DAC BD-2 re-clock to eliminate jitter and improve SQ? Behave! Jitter is completely inaudible.

Even with DACs that don't re-clock?

Cable arguments are great, you get to see who the stupid people are.

Sorry but I don't really understand your point? Most low cost DACs do not re-clock and they do not suffer from SQ loss due to jitter. They do not need to reclock because the signal is clocked in the transport stage and this perfectly adequate clock is sent to the DAC. The amount of any associated jitter with this methodology is completely inaudible. Re-clocking in the DAC is a sales gimick that has been adopted as a high end solution to a problem that does not exist.

If you go right up the digital hifi chain to DCS for example or equivalent then the mighty "Master Clock" is introduced. Once again completely pointless in a domestic environment when only one signal is being clocked. Needed in a studio environment to master clock multiple signals in the mix but a complete waste of money in any home setup.

 

[Craig M.]

It is not just cable manufacturer's who make nonsensical claims of course.....

DAC - Bryston - DAC BD-2 re-clock to eliminate jitter and improve SQ? Behave! Jitter is completely inaudible.

Even with DACs that don't re-clock?

Cable arguments are great, you get to see who the stupid people are.

Sorry but I don't really understand your point?

That's because I wasn't making one, I was asking a question.

 

[ellisdj]

Hi there,

Funnily enough I have a 1 metre long one of these about to go up for sale. If your system is overly bright then you may want to look elsewhere. If not then this cable really does bring the mids and highs out.

It did to my ears in my system anyway.

Something isn't overly bright here.

This Comment was not needed - however it has resulted in another ruined thread - 5 pages of crap - nothing interesting especially to the op who was after a few opinions that is all. There has been only 1 relevant post in 5 pages - there has been 5 x as many insulting comments. Says it all

This is simply not fair and surely even Trev C must be tired of the relentless and it is relentless fruitless quest that he simply cannot stop himself making a pointless or snyde or insulting comment.

This is the same in every section from the same people - there is no need to do it!!!

 

[cheeseboy]

This Comment was not needed - however it has resulted in another ruined thread - 5 pages of crap - nothing interesting especially to the op who was after a few opinions that is all. There has been only 1 relevant post in 5 pages - there has been 5 x as many insulting comments. Says it all

no offence ellisdj, but are you aware of the irony of your post?

 

[radiorog]

I see cheeseboys comment as valid, and I don't believe there is any irony. He didn't insult anyone.

 

[andyjm]

It is not just cable manufacturer's who make nonsensical claims of course.....

DAC - Bryston - DAC BD-2 re-clock to eliminate jitter and improve SQ? Behave! Jitter is completely inaudible.

Even with DACs that don't re-clock?

Cable arguments are great, you get to see who the stupid people are.

Sorry but I don't really understand your point? Most low cost DACs do not re-clock and they do not suffer from SQ loss due to jitter. They do not need to reclock because the signal is clocked in the transport stage and this perfectly adequate clock is sent to the DAC. The amount of any associated jitter with this methodology is completely inaudible. Re-clocking in the DAC is a sales gimick that has been adopted as a high end solution to a problem that does not exist.

If you go right up the digital hifi chain to DCS for example or equivalent then the mighty "Master Clock" is introduced. Once again completely pointless in a domestic environment when only one signal is being clocked. Needed in a studio environment to master clock multiple signals in the mix but a complete waste of money in any home setup.

Hmmn. What do you believe the threshold of audibility to be for uncorrelated jitter on a standard 16/44.1 S/PDIF link?

 

[Gazzip]

Hi Andy, I found this quite an interesting post in relation to jitter audibility.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/668878/jitter-correlation-to-audibility

What I find REALLY interesting about this post is that scientific analysis by the AES has established (in theory) that jitter is audible. However, AB/X testing has suggested otherwise. The evidence presented by AB/X is then dismissed by the scientist/engineer writing this article as inconclusive. The tests were flawed apparently. Sound familiar?

I think the conclusion of the scientist is that although jitter probably isn't audible it is probably worth reducing as much as possible anyway, which I feel to be a less than scientific reaction TBH.