WHF S&V hits rock bottom: now claiming USB cables have an effect on sound quality

[John_S]

I recommended using an expensive cable in the context of an expensive system.

I've done a blind HDMI test. I saw and heard the difference between a no-name bundled cable and a pricey one. Before I went into it, I was entirely unconvinced that I'd notice any difference at all. But I did!

If you can't see or hear a difference, then why is that a problem? You've just saved yourself a few quid.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Andrew Everard:

AlmaataKZ:Even other people say it works!

Yes, it does - you've made yourself look just like a polar explorer/serial killer...

the only thing I serially kill is cereals.

 

[axman]

I am a total noob with these things, but if the argument against expensive cables is simply that "it is all 1s and 0s so if the signal meets the minimum requirement therefore you can't see the difference, and if it doesn't than it gets corrected anyway", so I have to conclude that:

- there is no point buying an expensive CD player because it is all 1s and 0s anyway.

- better to buy the cheapest CD player and spend money on a good DAC

- in fact, no wories about playing non-lossless music from my ipod, because of the above argument.

The ideal system setup for me would therefore be - cheapest ipod playing the most compressed music formats, connected via the cheapest toslink to a good DAC which is connected via expensive analogue cables to a good amp/speakers.

Btw, I find it hard to believe that it is all 1s and 0s anyway because when I watch DVDs that I ... err.. imported from Bangkok... I see pixelation. I am no expert but as a hobbyist, if I can see pixelation from bad data, I therefore find it hard to accept the "only 1s and 0s" argument.

 

[The_Lhc]

axman:in fact, no wories about playing non-lossless music from my ipod, because of the above argument.
Btw, I find it hard to believe that it is all 1s and 0s anyway because when I watch DVDs that I ... err.. imported from Bangkok... I see pixelation. I am no expert but as a hobbyist, if I can see pixelation from bad data, I therefore find it hard to accept the "only 1s and 0s" argument.

No and no, in both cases, whilst they might be digital they've both been lossily compressed, so data has been thrown away, in the case of your DVDs, quite a lot of data. This is a completely different consideration to the "it's all 1s and 0s" argument. It's still all 1s and 0s just not as many of them as there were originally.

 

[Anonymous]

Cup your hands around your ears when listening - et voila: free surround sound!

I've just checked out your hdmi cables and you give a £300 per metre lead 5 stars!

http://www.whathifi.com/Review/van-den-Hul-Ultimate/

hahahaha. Thats really too funny for words.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Continue to be bemused, bennyboy71, why you bother frequenting this website when all you do is knock us.

We're happy to take feedback and constructive criticism, but when it's relentlessly negative comments it's of little use to us or others.

 

[axman]

the_lhc:No and no, in both cases, whilst they might be digital they've both been lossily compressed, so data has been thrown away, in the case of your DVDs, quite a lot of data. This is a completely different consideration to the "it's all 1s and 0s" argument. It's still all 1s and 0s just not as many of them as there were originally.

I'm just saying, 1s and 0s argument assumes that either I see the picture or I don't. But I do see the picture on a lousy DVD. So it follows that simply because you see the picture with poor cables, it doesn't mean that it is sending signals 100% correctly. The cable is simply sending enough signal, right?

Ok, so if I play lossless music only directly from my computer to a good DAC via toslink, it will be as good as CD quality. So why buy an expensive CD player?

Not wanting to defend WHFSV, I am a noob with not much technical background like a lot of the mags readers - so I do appreciate listening to both sides of the argument, but I am not getting enough convincing arguments from opponents of expensive HDMI cables either.

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:
Continue to be bemused, bennyboy71, why you bother frequenting this website when all you do is knock us.

We're happy to take feedback and constructive criticism, but when it's relentlessly negative comments it's of little use to us or others.

Ok then - how about the magazine making a stance and having the guts to admit the whole industry is predicated on selling snake oil to those with too much disposable income?

 

[Clare Newsome]

Because that's your opinion, not ours.

Yes, there are some ridiculously overpriced products, and we highlight them when we find them (two-star reviews for both Sony and Philips in the latest issue, for example), but otherwise our reviews are based on nothing but prolonged, comparative testing in a neutral, agenda-free environment.

 

[Andrew Everard]

bennyboy71:Ok then - how about the magazine making a stance and having the guts to admit the whole industry is predicated on selling snake oil to those with too much disposable income?

It's impossible to admit something in which you don't believe.

So now are you saying the whole industry is rotten? Why are you even interested in hi-fi, then? I don't think I could be at all bothered about any pastime if I believed all those involved in were dishonest.

But good to see you're keeping up your record of almost every post you make attacking the magazine, bennyboy71.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

And of course detractors, in principle, will not enter any competitions on here because that would be just , well...

 

[Anonymous]

Nah, its mostly accessory sellers I have issues with, not the bread and butter people who make the source devices. Although, to be fair to all, there's lots of smoke and mirrors in that part of the industry too.

How about you do a piece of actual investigative journalism into where the industry makes its profits, perhaps in the format of a mock trial with defence and prosecution?

You could even get some samples sent out to readers to review in their own homes - that would be an interesting experiment.

Psychoacoustics - now thats another area I'd like to read more about.

Dont be frightened to turn the spotlight on the hand that feeds.

p.s. As a 'stakeholder' in WHF - I have a sub - I have every right to be as negative as I like.

 

[Andrew Everard]

bennyboy71:perhaps in the format of a mock trial with defence and prosecution?

Golly, that would be an original idea! What with wigs and gowns and gavels and everything...

bennyboy71:You could even get some samples sent out to readers to review in their own homes - that would be an interesting experiment.

Ah, now I see...

bennyboy71:Psychoacoustics - now thats another area I'd like to read more about.

I can imagine you would. And snake oil, foo, audiophiles, placebos...

bennyboy71:Dont be frightened to turn the spotlight on the hand that feeds.

We do: we invite readers in for The Big Question, we go out shopping with them for Savvy Shopper, we have a Readers' Panel...

 

[Anonymous]

bennyboy71:

Nah, its mostly accessory sellers I have issues with, not the bread and butter people who make the source devices. Although, to be fair to all, there's lots of smoke and mirrors in that part of the industry too.

How about you do a piece of actual investigative journalism into where the industry makes its profits, perhaps in the format of a mock trial with defence and prosecution?

You could even get some samples sent out to readers to review in their own homes - that would be an interesting experiment.

Psychoacoustics - now thats another area I'd like to read more about.

Dont be frightened to turn the spotlight on the hand that feeds.

p.s. As a 'stakeholder' in WHF - I have a sub - I have every right to be as negative as I like.


Didn,t know you were a stakeholder in WHF.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

Gives you access to specialist sections- Pay per view/ pay per slight.

 

[Anonymous]

johnnyjazz:bennyboy71:

Nah, its mostly accessory sellers I have issues with, not the bread and butter people who make the source devices. Although, to be fair to all, there's lots of smoke and mirrors in that part of the industry too.

How about you do a piece of actual investigative journalism into where the industry makes its profits, perhaps in the format of a mock trial with defence and prosecution?

You could even get some samples sent out to readers to review in their own homes - that would be an interesting experiment.

Psychoacoustics - now thats another area I'd like to read more about.

Dont be frightened to turn the spotlight on the hand that feeds.

p.s. As a 'stakeholder' in WHF - I have a sub - I have every right to be as negative as I like.






Didn,t know you were a stakeholder in WHF.

Of course I am - as is anybody who buys the magazine.

 

[Clare Newsome]

As i've said - and I hope many instances on these very Forums prove - we welcome constructive criticism and feedback on everything we do, online or in print, and strive to constantly improve and evolve to meet readers' needs.

But relentless digs at us achieve nothing.

 

[Andrew Everard]

bennyboy71:p.s. As a 'stakeholder' in WHF - I have a sub - I have every right to be as negative as I like.

Although of course strictly speaking the person who bought you the subscription as a Christmas gift has more of a claim to that status.

 

[professorhat]

bennyboy71:johnnyjazz:Didn,t know you were a stakeholder in WHF.
Of course I am - as is anybody who buys the magazine.

I think you're defining a "reader". Suggestions from readers can be good of course, but actual stakeholders in the publisher will have somewhat more influence.

Investigative journalism? I'd personally prefer the money is better spent on reviewing stereo and AV equipment as this is what I (and I'm willing to stage a guess, virtually all other readers) buy the magazine for.

 

[professorhat]

Messiah:professorhat:
And, if allowed, interference and degradation on this analogue waveform as it travels along the wire could mean a signal representing a 1 could very easily be mis-interpreted as a 0 on the other end. If this happens, the signal is degraded and error correction is required to ensure the signal is received as it was sent. If more errors occur than can be corrected (remember this happens in real-time to ensure there is no stop in audio playback), then clearly this is going to have an affect on the sound produced.

Prof,

If a 1 is mis-interpreted as a zero how is this picked up? Is the error correction not then working anyway??

Yes, this is the error correction working to pick up that individual error (have to say I'm not 100% how this works when streaming audio to a DAC via USB, but it will be built into whatever transport protocol is being used to transport the digital data). However, if the cable is prone to a high signal degradation (for whatever reason), then more errors may come through than can be corrected in the time the device has (as is the case in a real-time streaming scenario) and these errors will thus not be corrected.

 

[Anonymous]

UGH!

Don't you just hate computer morons who bang on about "digital is digital" and "it's just 1's and 0's"!

I must admit that I loathe to back the WHF magazine on most occasions, but in real-time audio replay, what starts as being 1's and 0's in the original file is going to be affected by so many things! All cables are microphonic to a degree so vibration has a critical affect on timing (errors which result in a percentage of those bits not getting to the other end at all or, just as importantly, not at PRECISELY the right moment in time).

As soon as you are outside of a computer and are dealing with a real-time stream (where you can no longer re-read the data for accuracy) errors are incredibly easy to accumulate.

Arguments about digital cameras/printers don't hold as they are in effect governed and controlled by the host computer to ensure data is re-check and verified to compensate for errors etc.

Plus anyone who has compared cheap cables and "specialist" such as QED, Belkin, Monster, IXOS are not going to hear much of a difference, they're all chinese mass produced dross!!!! Any cable manufacturer who sells via Currys/Comet etc is NOT a specialist brand!!!

At least give something like a Wireworld a try (I would ordinarily say Chord as well but considering they're HDMI's are shipped in from China I'd guess if they did/do a USB that would be too)

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:
bennyboy71:p.s. As a 'stakeholder' in WHF - I have a sub - I have every right to be as negative as I like.

Although of course strictly speaking the person who bought you the subscription as a Christmas gift has more of a claim to that status.

Ok, that'd be my girlfriend then. I'll ask her views on the mag and report back, but I'll try and steer her away from the cable reviews, as I don't want to offend your delicate sensibilites.

Anyway, please try not to fret too much - since I'll not be renewing my sub come Annual Money Spending Festival, you'll soon be shot of me as someone who cares, so hey, reasons to be cheerful!

p.s. Claire - constructive criticism? All criticism is constructive if you join the dots smartly enough....

p.p.s. Good luck with it all.

 

[Andrew Everard]

bennyboy71:I don't want to offend your delicate sensibilites.

Oh, they're not at all delicate. Positively robust, in fact...

bennyboy71:IAll criticism is constructive if you join the dots smartly enough....

Yes, but when the environment is more concerned with being smart that it appears to be dotty, it can be a bit of a struggle

 

[The_Lhc]

axman:
the_lhc:No and no, in both cases, whilst they might be digital they've both been lossily compressed, so data has been thrown away, in the case of your DVDs, quite a lot of data. This is a completely different consideration to the "it's all 1s and 0s" argument. It's still all 1s and 0s just not as many of them as there were originally.

I'm just saying, 1s and 0s argument assumes that either I see the picture or I don't.

No it doesn't.

But I do see the picture on a lousy DVD.

It's not the DVD that's lousy though, it's the encoding and compression prior to the, ahem, material being written to the DVD that's the problem but, what data has been written to the disk is being passed with a decent level of confidence. The artifacts you're seeing are written into the data on the disk, it's not the result of data loss during playback.

So it follows that simply because you see the picture with poor cables, it doesn't mean that it is sending signals 100% correctly. The cable is simply sending enough signal, right?

It's sending enough for the playback device's error-correction (which is actually interpolation or guesswork, rather than proper correction) to make a decent, err, fist of the material.

Ok, so if I play lossless music only directly from my computer to a good DAC via toslink, it will be as good as CD quality. So why buy an expensive CD player?

Well that's a completely different question but you'd find a number of people here saying just that.

 

[Sliced Bread]

bennyboy71:
p.s. Claire - constructive criticism? All criticism is constructive if you join the dots smartly enough....

Then please read carefully the constructive criticism of your posts mentioned earlier in the thread. There was quite a bit of information regarding the possibilities behind signal degradation and error correction via digital cables which you've yet to be able to refute.