USB cable comparisons

[look&listen]

24 minutes ago, elcorso said:

I have another prayer

Prayer not work on trolls. Ignore work great!

[look&listen]

43 minutes ago, Blake said:

Looks like I misinterpreted your "hand made" comment.

I assume "hand made" mean hand terminated connectors on machine made cable & maybe some extras, but hybrid construction.

But Mapleshade & Lush seem very well liked, even if very hand made 

[look&listen]

27 minutes ago, chrisc said:

But are there any other reviews or opinions about it I could read?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[look&listen]

1 hour ago, chrisc said:

any other reviews or opinions about it I could read?

Forgot this one;

 

8000 posts should be enough?

[look&listen]

2 hours ago, Apmusson said:

However, occasionally my system the sound a little dull after a long period of usage - I ended up turning the Hugo 2 and Ultrarendu off for a short period and the magic was back.

Remind me of leaving computer on for many weeks, then odd things start happens. Reboot machine & all Ok again. Which suggest (to me) a software problem, not cable. Suggest to you to try & isolate problem, UR (computer inside!), Hugo, USB cable?

Very unusual problem worth more investigation IMO.

[look&listen]

15 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

 

I'm not sure that I have ever seen any type of scientific evidence to suggest anyone can improve transparency, which is what everyone should expect from a properly designed USB cable within operational specifications.  

 

Science never listen to music. People listen to music. Ears collect sound & send signals to brain.

Music never exist in science, electronics, even moving air, not even in ears. 

Music Only exist in human mind. Music constructed from deep analysis(synthesis?) of relationships & patterns of air vibrations. So human mind(only) makes music, composing, performance & appreciation(apprehension).

Science provide good tools for improving record & playback machines, but always secondary to true purpose of humans hearing music.

[look&listen]

4 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

1 Science is responsible for recording and playing back the music.   

2 Science can be applied to verify that what is played back is identical to what was recorded

3 to a degree that makes it unlikely that any difference is audible.   

4 I certainly hope a good mastering engineer isn't swapping out cables to get the right house sound for a particular session.

 

1- No, only the sound. You still not clear on difference between 'music' & 'sound'. (oddly like too many audiophiles )

2- Really? I see much evidence you incorrect. Watch CA activity stream for examples of 'science' fails daily.

3- That is your opinion only (see above)

4- 'Getting a sound' is what recording studios all about! There no pretense to deliver event/purist recording product. Massive geek hardware toys reason enough to manipulate, not preserve, sound  

If Cookie or Barry or ?? swap a cable (or all) to achieve better reproduction for their purist products, I say Hooray! better for our 'ears'. Meters, scopes, AP-1s, &c. don't care.

 

You miss point that hearing of sound, music, & SQ all happen in our mind(wetware), so electronic measurement(hardware) from different universe & only sometimes correlated enough to be useful. Trained listeners, even if sometimes inconsistent, uncalibrated, still orders of magnitude more skilled, complex & subtle in 'sound' & 'music' analysis then EE toys (). All (almost?) respected audio product designers use EE tools in development, but final step is 'voicing' by trained ear(s). That is for a good reason, is reality of audio! (ignoring stupid objective/subjective arguments!)

 

Sorry all, not mean to start up 'objective/subjective brawl' or 'can't hear cables knife fight' or 'sighted vs. blind BS' in thread. Probably OP not want that too.

But lost patience with arrogant hearing denier attitudes. Must because guard fell down, since most fools & villain posters blocked to make CA sane, (mostly) friendly place (even if so slow for time now )

[look&listen]

19 minutes ago, jabbr said:

group think about shared experiences

Sorry, but you confuse 'thought', 'opinion', 'preferences', & 'perceptions' - different concepts. 

 

Think your argument not hold up for shared 'perceptions'.

[look&listen]

23 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Sorry "shared experiences" or "shared perceptions" or whatever does not form "empirical evidence" in the scientific sense. Its not the same no matter how much you want it to be, or how many people say it is

Remind me of Sheldon ('Big Bang Theory' TV) arguing with Amy about which science dominant. He only know and see everything thru, Physics & Math. Part idiot/savant (extreme geek!), part testosterone. Caricature for TV sit-com, but contain core truth of more then few CA characters.

 

Please do not forget many (more?) useful tools from so-called 'soft' sciences!