The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Paul R]

I would note that you are setting yourself up as an authority and saying essentially that you are distributing the "truth" about the matter, unless you are very careful to label conclusions you posit as your opinion.

 

You also run the risk of alienating many people, again, unless you are very careful indeed.

 

But it is a good initiative I think, and I will probably be interested in reading what you write.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Alex does have a point; the title is antagonistic, designed to imply that there is in fact, an actual swindle, and this is an expose. It assumes that Prufrock is correct in his assumptions.

 

That is why I suggested being careful to identify this as opinion, not factual evidence. Otherwise, I can understand where it might be seen as bordering on being slander.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Take it easy folks. The title is a necessary evil I'm afraid. I will be stated early on that this is not a swindle in the usual sense of the word. Nothing libelous being thrown around.

In general nobody is deliberately trying to fool anybody in audiophile land. And its no big deal anyhow if a sect of balding middle aged men want to sit around in tubelit surroundings playing with their cables. Although I don't believe that there would be a mother around who say that this is altogether "healthy" activity. I am sure Dame Edna would agree.

 

Ah- I see. You wish to have free reign to ridicule people without being challenged.

 

Pretty much not going to happen.

 

That is an old European Authoritarian technique used to immediately cause self doubt and conflict in people with opposing opinions - it presents an unsane dichotomy.

 

Authoritarian repression at its European best.

 

Tell the dear peepul exactly what is best for them because they are not smart enough to be able to figure it out for themselves.

 

The popular way of saying that over here is "If you cannot dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit..."

 

Moreover, you have the unmitigated gall to classify anyone who disagrees with you as:

a sect of balding middle aged men want to sit around in tubelit surroundings playing with their cables.

 

That is plain insulting, and yet another old European Authoritarian method of swindling people. Paint a picture of those who oppose you with an unflattering, slightly disgusting, perhaps slightly creepy picture, and paint yourself as the shining knight coming to rescue the great unwashed masses.

 

Unfortunately, when you employ such tactics and call them a "necessary evil" you forfeit any claim to free speech or any right to spread your opinion in such a manner without challenge.

 

Nobody has the right to ridicule other pople without being challenged on it- no matter how right they might think they are, or how noble they believe their purpose to be. Usually it turns out they are neither, by the way.

 

If you want to see how to present your opinions the right way, look at ESLDUDE and MITCHCO. Both of them have posted really thought provoking and challenging thinking about the same subject, and garnered almost universal respect, though not always agreement. And they have consistently done so without the use of any such "necessary evil" as you say you feel compelled to emoy.

 

They put a lot of work into it too. There are no shortcuts.

 

Paul

[Paul R]

Gee, talk about gatecrashing a persons thread. All I wanted was a little quiet time in skeptics corner with listeners who hold a similar view on this particular subject.

 

Still no response to this suggestion of Julf's though:

 

"I suggest another test that can be done easily - and provides answers that can be verified beyond individual listening rooms. What we need is someone who has a high-quality, high-res ADC/sound card to record the output of a good DAC playing a piece of music - and record it twice, once using a cheap, generic cable and once using a fancy, audiophile cable. Better yet, record the piece three times - picking one of the two cables randomly for the third recording. Then make all three recordings available online, and let CA members do a blind ABX. Do this with enough people and multiple music samples, and you should get a pretty reliable result."

 

What do you reckon?

 

I reckon for any such test to have any meaning, the cables need to be shipped around to each tester, along with the test files on a USB stick, and played on the tester's own systems. That means for any kind of analysis to be done, the equipment of each system has to be recorded, and the environmental conditions, as well as the tester's opinions.

 

And it would require a fairly large sample to derive much meaning from. Two or three testings won't do, it needs two or three hundred testers. Then you stand a good chance of deriving some significant data from the results, and perhaps being able to draw a tentative conclusion.

 

At least you stand a good chance of being able to design a better test to target whatever the initial data suggests is happening. (Or not happening.)

 

There is no simple answer to this, nor is there a "cut and dried" answer. Perhaps a Kickstarter program is what is needed to finance a true test, but...

 

Really - the simple answer is to let people listen and decide what to buy for themselves. Cheaper answer too.

 

I find this idea there is some kind of conspiracy or "swindle" going on to be unlikely in the extreme, but am open to solid hard cold facts that prove it.

 

The "swindle theory" is an extraordinary claim in and of itself, and requires extraordinary proof. Moreso in fact, than the idea that different cables sound different.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Yes, that is the real fascination to me as well.

 

I have said I hear these things other people describe myself. Cannot fail to hear them. I just don't believe myself without question. I think this thought ends up scaring some people. After all if you go from trust your hearing to I don't think I can always trust my hearing it can lead to some doubt about a good many perceptions.

 

 

Gosh, is that light red, or do I jut think it is red? Perhaps it only looks red to me but if I run a blind test on it, people might not be able to tell the difference between it and that other light, which is green I think.

 

If I only think it is red, perhaps I had best ignore it. I don't need to stop for it because my mind is just tricking me into thinking it is red.

 

(Crash!)

 

Yes, I do agree with you about questioning what we perceive. But there is a point where you need to learn to trust your perceptions more than doubt them. Otherwise you wind up making poor choices.

 

Paul

[Paul R]

At this point I am not suggesting trying to find out how and why the audible differences happen, but simply see if there are any audible differences. I would appreciate your views on why a series of ABX tests on hi-res files recorded from the output of the DAC on a decent system, but using different USB cables, wouldn't show if there are audible differences or not.

 

Exactly because we don't have a theory, or at least a testable theory about why there would be differences. What we do have are a few well thought out theories that say there should be no differences.

 

What we need to attempt to falsify are those theories, since that at lest, is doable.To do that, we need to impose more consistency than simply passing files around will accomplish.

 

We already have exactly that situation, and so far at least, nobody has found a way that is acceptable to all sides of this discussion to validate results and move forward.

 

So, let's say that with cable-a and cable-b, x number of people out of a test population of y are able to hear differences in their own system. Depending upon the results, further testing might be indicated or it might not.

 

A testing procedure and standardized way to record the results is also needed. Then a way to sanitize the data and evaluate it.

 

That is a bare beginning by the way, not the end game. Like I said, to do it right is time intensive, takes some money, and is a lot of hard work.

 

If anyone was really willing to put the work into it, it is probably six weeks of work to design and put the test together, and six months or more of testing. Maybe more like a year.

 

This is why it doesn't get done- it is a lot of time, money, and effort to do it. Hitting round at the edges with half-arse efforts are a waste of time. Which is the reason most people just suggest going and listening.

 

The results of just listening are at least as accurate as some of the tests being proposed. Actually, there is a good chance that listening is more accurate for an individual that poorly constructed tests that encourage indefensible conclusions drawn from inadequate and even incorrect data.

 

All this protecting the consumer stuff is a smokescreen for not wanting to do the real work, IMO. It is way easier to point fingers and get out the pitchforks and torches (a fine old European habit, no? Americans are too well armed for that to work well over here, we just seem to sue each other instead... ) than to do the work to get real answers.

 

Cheaper too, and you don't run the risk of getting answers you don't like.

 

Paul

[Paul R]

The only issue with the USB stick approach is that it severely limits the number of participants, and increases the time it takes to conduct the test, just to accommodate a rather controversial position.

 

I know we have had this conversation many times over, but if two files compare bitwise identical, where can the audible differences be stored? In the fifth dimension? And as operating systems only copy the bits, wouldn't your audible differences disappear just copying the file from one disk to another?

 

 

I suggest that for a different reason than you assume - precisely the reason that Alex stated. It eliminates any possibility of a tester listening to the wrong copy of the get files. For example, a MP3 copy of the file they have on their system.

 

I am not suggesting tht copiying the file around would change the sound, only that a tester would, invariably, get the wrong file somehow. It is, however, not coincidental that doing so would satisfy objections from folks who believe that would make a difference.

 

I am not suggesting testing for that however, I am suggesting testing to see if two cables make a difference.

 

Note I did not even suggest what kinds of cables. That would have to be discussed and decided upon. Probably by people suggesting cables they can readily hear differences in. Speaker, digital, or interconnects I suppose. Pick one.

 

Paul

[Paul R]

I don't think that was the concern Alex had - he was clearly concerned about the contents getting corrupted during a network transfer. Somehow I don't see how transfer using an USB stick would reduce the risk of confusion compared to a download, especially is the files are distinctly named and tagged.

 

I can see you don't see that, because you are not thinking it through. If part of the test criteria is- you must use the files off the included USB stick, then you reduce if not eliminate the probability of the file getting passed around bad being the wrong copy. If you don't do something like that, then your test data is far more suspect. Chain of possessin type of thing.

 

Ad for your other comment, I think what you are saying is along the lines of "it is more fun to do something -anything, even if it does not produce usable results- than to do something te right way."

 

Just passing around files to tet cables is a useless test, and would produce meaningless results. Won't stand up to even the most trivial peer review.

[Paul R]

Indeed. It's easy and cheap to throw around words about why a test is "not good enough", instead of actually spending the effort to run a test that can provide some valuable information, even if it isn't perfect.

 

Pitchforks and torches went out of favour in Europe once we sent our narrow-minded religious fanatics over to the (former) colonies.

 

It is just as easy to whine about doing nothing instead of wasting time and money on a teSt which will produce no reliable results.

 

But it is even easier to just go listen for ourself- and far more reliable than the test you propose.

 

And even forward thinking liberal European leading England was convicting people of witchcraft in the 1940s. Didn't repeal the 18th century witchcraft laws until 1951 in fact.

 

Uh huh...

[Paul R]

Ah, thank you for pointing out what I was doing wrong.

 

I must have been confused by Alex writing:

 

Somehow I took that to imply that the issue was that the files would be degraded less using an USB stick compared to "going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters", and that the distribution method you suggested would be better as it would ensure the files would be identical instead of corrupted by the net.

 

I am glad you are so much better at understanding what Alex meant, and corrected my mistake. Much appreciated.

 

 

Alex said:

Not that I expect you to accept any of this ! Paul is simply suggesting a method that should ensure that everybody receives an identical copy of the comparison material.Even if you refuse to accept any reasons for differences, surely that method should be acceptable ?

 

Guess he was right. Either that or you simply choose to misinterpret.

 

Are you sure you aren't secretly an European naysayer?

 

Other than Paris, there isn't much of Europe I do not like, including or most especially, the people. I admit to being particularly found of the U.K.

 

Paul

[Paul R]

Paul say all of this occurred, once the results came back there are those that could or could not hear any difference. Was it their system ? their speakers, their headphones, are they all using the same interconnects, apple vs PC, cheap DAC vs high end DAC, tubes vs solid state, the wife bothering the poor soul, their age , it never stops if you know what I mean..

 

Yes, of course. So let's play with that a bit. Assume that 100 people participated in the test.

 

Out of that, let us assume that 70 were able to detect some difference between cables. (I assume a high number because no further effort with this testing method would make sense if say, only 10 people could hear a difference. Not because I am pushing one result or the other.)

 

Out of those 70, how do we now go back and further narrow down equipment and other issues. I think I proposed a very bare minimum, and much more thinking and analysis would be needed before anything is actually implemented. Especially since we operate on very restricted budgets and have no prospect of financial gain from doing all this work.

 

Which is absolutely why the most prevalent form of this testing is individuals listening for their own purposes, and sharing their personal opinions.

 

Paul

[Paul R]

Ah, thank you for pointing out what I was doing wrong.

 

I must have been confused by Alex writing:

 

Somehow I took that to imply that the issue was that the files would be degraded less using an USB stick compared to "going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters", and that the distribution method you suggested would be better as it would ensure the files would be identical instead of corrupted by the net.

 

I am glad you are so much better at understanding what Alex meant, and corrected my mistake. Much appreciated.

 

 

 

Are you sure you aren't secretly an European naysayer?

 

More likely you simply choose the parts that agree with whatever you want to believe.

 

Paul

 

 

Or maybe I simply looked at the whole paragraph instead of just cutting out one half?

[Paul R]

Ah, thank you for pointing out what I was doing wrong.

 

I must have been confused by Alex writing:

 

Somehow I took that to imply that the issue was that the files would be degraded less using an USB stick compared to "going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters", and that the distribution method you suggested would be better as it would ensure the files would be identical instead of corrupted by the net.

 

I am glad you are so much better at understanding what Alex meant, and corrected my mistake. Much appreciated.

 

 

 

Are you sure you aren't secretly an European naysayer?

 

If you have been following this debate fairly closely to date, you will recognise the comment above as being a recurrent theme. Trust your ears. They do not lie.

 

I said that listening was probably just as reliable as the test that was proposed.

 

I did not say to always trust your ears, But ears are just as, or even more reliable than poorly constructed tests using other methods.

 

A heck of a lot cheaper too. I really don't like the idea of cables having an invisible surtax on them only to fund your testing- even less so when the testing methods are faulty and encourage unreliable or even false conclusions.

 

If I buy something, and feel ripped off, I have a choice of many remedies for the situation. Not a one of which actually needs to involve expensive testing packaged into the price to satisfy some consumer watchdog type of thing.

 

If you need that, you pay for it. Just don't try to push off some substandard testing as "proof" of what you want to believe.

 

 

 

Paul

[Paul R]

Very interesting, considering the message you replied to was me pointing out you choose only part of what I had chosen - what does that imply based on your conclusion?

 

That you are operating as I expected of course. I quoted your entire quote and the paragraph from Alex you choose to misinterpret. It basically tells me you are not interested at all in the real facts of the subject, but rather simply amusing yourself, perhaps indulging in a belief of how very clever you believe yourself to be.

 

You did ask.

[Paul R]

Most reasonable people might conclude after reading this and other lengthy posts on this subject that there is NO absolute method of quantifying audio as it pertains to pleasurable listening.

The subjectivists contend that measurement quantifiers don't exist that analyze some of the things they hear. Usually we find these 'quantifiers' renamed with common adjectives or adverbs as there exists no science of sound to identify them. Maybe this is done to elude the measurement and validate their perceptions....who knows? Nobody. This is an unfortunate truth as there's no way of knowing what it is they hear.

Now before you might think I've jumped the fence and inherited the subjectivist point of view, consider the last statement. Since these 'perceptions' or 'abilities' cannot be measured, nor can the material be compared to a valid reference, by default, the conclusions of such must be considered invalid. Liken it to people who say they can see an Aura or ghosts. As such theirs is the burden of proof.

Now the objective side wields the tools of science. There's the accepted understanding f the science of human hearing, an extensive list of parameters and properties associated with these measurements as well as proven mathematical formula and physical laws associated with the properties of sound waves. But, somehow the objective front is still somehow presented with the burden of proof.......to devise measurements or methodology to quantify the subjectivists special perceptions.

 

This is well thought out. Let me address a small part of it though. I believe you are, in a way, blinding yourself by insisting on labeling people as "subjectivist" or "objectivist." Most of the "subjectivist" people here "wield the tools of science" as well as anyone here you label as an "objectivist." Not all of course, but a lot.

 

Many of the "objectivists" clearly do not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject, and yet draw indefensible and inaccurate conclusions based on that understanding. Then feel that because they are being "scientific" they have the forces of truth, justice, and God on their side.

 

There are two clear facts to start with and reason forward from. That reasoning requires careful thought and testing, as well as a lot of time and work.

 

(A) People appear to be able to hear differences in cables

(B) Measurements do not usually reveal the reasons behind the differences these people here.

 

There are two lines of reason to avoid:

 

(1) The people who hear differences are making it up or imaging it

 

(2) The people who take the measurements are incompetent or doctoring the results to suit their preconceived ideas.

 

Note that both (1) and (2) above have happened before, which is the audiophile world is not only silly, but in explicable to me. But the fact they have happened does not mean they are a general happening nor does it invalidate what people hear or measure.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

How much of this contention over expensive cables is fueled by envy?

 

I would ask everyone to think about this, but personal replies are probably not appropriate. This is just a question for people to think about, without any obligation to respond.

 

Is most of this fueled by envy? Mostly from people who cannot reasonably afford to spend say, $5000 on cables? People who can and do spend that kind of money - or more - on cables, universally claim to be able to hear and enjoy a difference. Could the antipathy towards the cable companies and prices be nothing more than an expression of envy?

 

Here is an interesting definition of envy, first hit on a casual google search no less. The Author is Gordon Clanton, and a very brief google search on him turns up this contact information, if anyone is interested.

 

Gordon Clanton teaches sociology at San Diego State University. He welcomes comments at [email protected]

 

Here's a quote from page 424 on the PDF excerpt of his book. Interesting, and gives one furiously to think, no?

 

-Paul

 

 

 

Here we revisit and extend the definition of envy and note the difficulty of studying an emotion that

routinely is denied, repressed, and relabeled. As noted above, envy is hostility toward superiors, a

negative feeling toward someone who is better off (Scheler 1961; Schoeck 1970). In other words,

envy is resentment toward someone who has some desirable object or quality that one does not

have and cannot get.

 

Envy is not the wish for the object or advantage that provoked the envy. Rather, envy is

the much darker wish that the superior would lose the object or advantage. Envy is the perverse

pleasure, the malicious joy (Schadenfreude), that is felt when the superior fails or suffers.

 

The envious person rarely resorts to violence against the superior and rarely seeks to seize

or to win the desired object through direct competition (Schoeck 1970). Often the envious person

takes no action, but instead merely wishes that the other would lose the advantage that provoked

the envy or otherwise would suffer. And the envious person may quietly celebrate any such loss

or suffering that may befall a superior. Most often, such dark feelings are contained within the

individual. Occasionally, they may be voiced to others: "I'd like to see him get what's coming to

him," "Serves them right," or "How the mighty have fallen." [/Quote]

[Paul R]

The cable "phenomenon" has nothing whatever to do with the medical conditions mentioned above btw. IMO, it is more in a stable alongside all the other cults, movements, sects that have gone off on a tangent from normal scientific/rational thought yet survive and prosper due to the weight of numbers effect and other individual facilitating factors.

 

Wow- how utterly condescending.

 

Of course, it would be just as true to say that people really are able to hear differences in cables and those who so adamantly try to disprove that are merely envious. Would be just as accurate a statement. Just as flattering an image.

 

 

Actually- I have a serious question. If you don't want to listen to different cables, and refuse to accept that different cables sound different, what are you doing here?

 

What are you trying to gain? I swear, at this point, I expect you turn up selling a line of boutique cables at a crazy price...

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Thanks for this Demian:

 

"My life would be much easier if I did not hear differences. I could get on with improving identified properties and measure those and call it a day."

 

Yeah, I am with ya... and not even a cable designer.

 

And me three!

 

Life would be so much simpler were I able to pick out equipment soley on specs and how it looked. Not as much fun perhaps, but simpler!

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Manufacture/ Dealer/customer

Hard to know how much of a deliberate scam it all has been. I am inclined to think most of these merchants actually believe the rubbish themselves. When will the scam stop? Cant see it happening until advertising comes into line with reality.

 

Actually, I can not see where you have proved there is any deliberate scam or swindle at all. Might be a language difference, but scams and swindles are crimes here. Selling someone expensive audio cables, whether they have magic in them, or science, or just the power of suggestion, is not a crime. Not a scam, not a swindle.

 

This is especially true because it is very unlikely the purchaser of an expensive cable is going to purchase that cable without listening to it first, and with out hearing something the very much like in that listening.

 

Anyone capable of making the money to buy expensive cables is also rather unlikely to be taken in by a scam or swindle.

 

Again, what is your purpose and what do you hope to gain?

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Hi Paul,

 

I would like to chip in on this one with a big

 

As far as I know, the USA law declares that one is innocent until proven guilty. This goes for many other countries as well.

 

But... how to prove a cable does not work as advertised and cable manufacturers are indeed guilty of misleading their customers.

 

MM- I expect the scenario might be more like this:

 

[Customer] Hey! These cables are not half as good as I thought they were - I am not happy with them - I want my money back.!

[Vendor] Sure- ship them back to us and we will refund your money.

 

or

[Customer] Hey! These cables are not half as good as I thought they were, I am not happy with them - I want my money back!

[Vendor] Suuckkkkerrrr..... no refunds!

[Customer] Oh yeah?

<hangs up>

<dials American Express>

[Amex] How can I help you?

[Customer] I bought these cables from Vendor X, and they are not what they were purported to be. They won't give me my money back.

[Amex] Can you give me the transaction details?

[Customer] Sure they are xslkdf8cmna;8clkdjfdskjf.

[Amex] Thank you, we will challenge this charge and investigate.

<hangs up>

<Amex calls Vendor>

[Amex] This is so and so calling from Amex. One of our members has challenged a charge from you. Will you take back the merchandise and refund their money?

[Vendor] No! No refunds!

[Amex] That is not acceptable sir, the customer says the product doens't do what it says it should do...

[Vendor] Pound Sand!

[Amex] You have three days to reconsider, else we will chargeback the money.

[Vendor] Blllllllluuuurrrrrrt!

<three days later>

Customer, looking at Amex account online sees charges refunded.

 

That's a little bit comical, and in reality, the vendor would probably agree to refund the customer's money once they receive the equipment back, but honestly, it is far more than way than otherwise. Creepy vendors are at a severe disadvantage, and good vendors would never argue with the customer, just promptly refund their money.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Funny that. I had that with HDTracks. I sent them a spectrogram clearly showing what they had sold me as a "hi-res" recording was actually upsampled from 44.1 kHz. They refused to give my money back. So I reported them to paypal - who refused to reverse the charge, as "it is very hard to show the product was not substantially as advertised". After a long battle, HDTracks allowed an exchange - but no money back.

 

Seriously, maybe it is different with international sales - I complained to HDTracks about a download that was awful, and they took a day, but then immediate offered to refund the cost of the album or let me choose another download. I did choose another download, but the offer of a refund was there. I of course, destroyed the downloaded album I was complaining about.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Well, officially they don't do international sales. How had you paid - credit card?

 

I did not know that- I had heard they were big internationally. I'm pretty sure the charge was on a Mastercard account I use for buying small things off the internet.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Hi Paul,

 

Maybe I am in a "too funny" mood today... But you have to agree there is a pretty thin line here. I am not sure to what extent the "I am not satisfied with the product" goes in the USA, but in Holland is is based on if it is working or not. Especially with regards to expectations I am not sure if the right for refund is always granted.

 

I think (but I am not sure) that "reasonable expectation" is valid. However, a manufacturer is not responsible for the client's (perhaps outrageous) expectation. Besides that, when it comes down to cables, they usually leave it open enough for customer to make up their own mind, and yes, a customer should always verify performance before making the final buy.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

It's pretty ingrained here, if you don't like something, take it back. Why waste the money? It's also true that the larger the purchase price, the fewer returns there are. Perhaps people think things through more carefully on larger purchases, but you can even return vehicles here, within 3 days.

 

That's purely because you change your mind about a purchase, whether the item works perfectly or not.

 

If something is broken or not working correctly, there is usually no question at all about the vendor taking it back, without arguments.

 

Some people on places like E-Bay get adamant about "No Returns." Even that won't fly - my wife bought an expensive purse from an E-Bay seller, and the purse came packed only in a mylar envelope, well crushed and damaged. The seller told her to put in a claim with the Post Office.

 

I told her to refund every penny right now, or else. Had to go the "or else" route, but got every dime back through Paypal. The insane seller sent me a couple death threats though.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Well, I guess I just, obviously, missed the point of shipping around a USB stick vs. letting everyone download the same sample file. I thought it had to do with the files integrity.

 

It would be test integrity, avoiding skewed results when someone already has the same file on their system, but in perhaps a different format, or from a different recording.

 

There is also contention that the files degrade in some manner when copied about. Simply using a USB stick would avoid any possible question along those lines. Sort of as a side benefit.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

The hash would correct this. If someone wanted to _truly_ reproduce the test they could only do it if the file they used matched the published hash. Using a file with a different hash is actually running a different test in my book because the tester used different source material.

 

I guess I don't understand "file degrade in some manner when copied about". A file is bits in a defined order based on file type right? Wouldn't the bits have to change for the file to "degrade"? The hash would check for that.

 

How would a hash correct anything? Unless you asked the user to run a hash program on each file they played, and even then, human error can slip in. Run the has on the files you download, play another one. or even more likely, oops, I downloaded the FLAC file and I need an ALAC file, let me just convert it with my handily dandy copy of XLD, nobody will notice. My settings upsample everything, but I don't think that will make any difference... etc.

 

Far better to provide a physical copy of the known files, and avoid all the possible errors that may occur.

 

It is really just a matter of debating what is the best method, and what method would provide the most reliability in results. From a testing point of view, not a technical point of view.

 

As to the "degrade" issue, don't ask me. I don't have a theory to explain it, and yes, I agree that a digital file cannot degrade. However, there is something there people are hearing, and why let it become a factor?