Bits is bits?

[John Dyson]

49 minutes ago, marce said:

Did you bother to look at Henry Ott's site or many many other out there...

You need to examine differing views and also look for information that is not biased towards selling audiophile addons.

 

I agree 150% -- there is so very much distortion against technical reality and fact, created in the audiophile press and a few desperate and dishonest people selling audiophile equipment.

 

There ARE differences in qualitative opinion regarding many issues in the audio world, many of those differences are honest and technically supportable.  Much nonsense about certain (not all) premium cables, esp in the digital world are simple non-facts as encouraged by profiteers and their 'useful idiots/innocents' (not intending to call ANYONE an idiot per-se - rather emphaisized the 'innocent', just a useful, mildly derogatory  and adaptable term from history) who continue the nonsense simply due to confusion (we all get confused) about poor measurement technique, or simple ignorance (all of us can be ignorant or misinformed from time to time.)

 

I am NOT intending to hurt anyones feelings, so when I use terms like 'useful idiot', it is really intended as what it means -- an individual whose ignorance or zeal that benefits a manipulative and/or predatory kind of person/organization...  Perhaps the individual who I might claim acts as a 'useful idiot' should be called 'useful innocent' more often instead...  BTW, 'useful idiot' did not originate from V. Lenin, but historically that claim had been made.

 

So -- there is a lot of nonsense being continued on by those who are simply misinformed or just don't know, and that nonsense often benefits often predatory profiteers -- including our MQA owning 'friends'.

 

Remember back in the day when they would sell special speaker cables that had so darned much capacitance that they actually caused problems on power amplifiers?   Sure, good cabling can help the quality on analog signals, or improve the reliability of digital connections, but a choice of cable and connectors should not be based solely on packaging or snake-oil non-facts, but primarily on engineering decisions (or whatever engineering discipline that consumers can muster.)

Dishonesty sucks, and ignorance (in the sense of not-knowing) further enables the dishonest.  It hurts me when good people are misled, and then without the tools from an actual engineering discipline, re-enforce the incorrect or erroneous idea or conclusion.

 

Simply, USB cables cannot affect 'sounstage' unless one includes the 'soundstage' effect from sales literature, pretty packaging, and clueless/dishonest sales people or sales information.

 

A super-duper USB cable can sound better than an adequate USB cable -- but the effect does NOT come from physical behavior in the wiring and circuitry, moreso from physical/chemical behavior in ones brain.   Of course, in both cases, the resulting signals themselves would be identical -- they just sound different in certain listeners mind -- especially from someone who might have spent $100 for $10 worth of wiring :-).   But that 'fancy' wiring looks and feels so good, so must be better, right? :-).

 

John

[DonaldT2109]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Where has anybody claimed that a special USB cable rearranges the Bit Stream. That claim is a figment of your imagination !!!.

 

What !!!!!!!!

 

On here you , and on the manufacturers sites and on the reviews, a couple of which I quoted earlier.

All claiming that these special cables can change the audio encoded in the bitstream passing over it

You and others are claiming that the magic cables can also do that

 

And this is exactly what a lot of us are trying to point out. It simply can not

If you knew the first thing about the subject, the only places that that can happen are at source and in the DAC

 

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

A "better" USB cable simply means that the analogue signal is less distorted, subjectively, because of how the slight variation in the nature of the USB waveforms changes the level and type of interference effects on the analogue parts of circuitry. Less distortion means "soundstage (is) large with excellent width and depth" - the true nature of the source material.

 

This is where you are going completely wrong. This is where a lot of people have their huge, huge misunderstanding.

The analogue signal is not carrying any audio. The analogue signal is transporting the bitstream of digitally encoded audio

You cannot possibly affect the quality of the source audio by reducing distortion on the analogue signal. Can you really not understand this ?

 

As John Dyson tried to tell you a few posts ago ...... " I sure hope that you are telling a joke...  The USB waveshape doesn't make it down to the digital audio signal unless the waveform/signal is so very distorted that it causes a real error...  It could cause a CRC/checksum error correction even at higher levels of a protocol, or worst -- big digital audio dropout/splat.  If an error is extreme enough to make it to the digital audio stream, then the error has NOTHING to do with subtle phase, audio timing, ambiance, or noise issues.* "

 

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 I suspect that Blackmorec, Barrows   and quite a few other members may know quite a bit more than somebody like  yourself, a self proclaimed expert in this area,as well as everything MQA related, gives them credit for.

 

CLEARLY, they don't

 

4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Well that obviously that went right over your head, like most of this stuff appears to be doing. 

 

 

And this coming from somebody who believes that a  cable can make digital audio sound better ?

Why is it, that when a communications expert says it is black, an IT expert says it is black, an audio expert says it is black, a digital audio expert says it is black, a cable expert says it is black, simple physics says it is black  ..........

......    you re still clinging on to white ?

 

4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

All you need do to educate yourself is to read some of John Swenson’s work...available here on the sponsored Uptone Audio Forum.... .most of this stuff is covered and I highly recommend it. 

 

SPONSORED...............   like the reviewers, he is being paid to convince people like you that a water pipe is the same as a broaband connection and that a dumb piece of wire can enhance digitised audio. The cable companies have plenty of money to pay these people as they are making huge, huge profits from charging insane prices for bits of wire that do exactly the same as the cheapest cable

 

For about the 10th time.   Can anybody please explain how a dumb piece of wire can affect the quality of an audio recording being transmitted accroos it in digitised form.

 

There are those just throwing abuse at the people who know it can't be done so please stop that and just explain it to me.

 

How is it done  I am still waiting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Simply, USB cables cannot affect 'sounstage' unless one includes the 'soundstage' effect from sales literature, pretty packaging, and clueless/dishonest sales people or sales information.

John

I disagree .

 RF/EMI and noise induced from the +5V SMPS into D+ and D- , as well as external RF /FD/EMI can affect Soundstage just the same as distortion etc. in a non decoded Dolby A recording that has had EQ to try and overcome the problem.

A higher  quality USB cable can't improve the recording, but it can help to prevent further degradation of the audio.

 I have heard the effects of less than optimum USB implementation through some very high quality systems, and the added " graininess" right across the whole soundstage is damn annoying.

Neither does an Audiophile need to fully understand how something works to decide whether a musical recording is high quality or not, any more than he need to read Engineering textbooks by Henry Ott or others  to decide whether a design sounds good or bad.

The ears are the final arbiter of how something sounds, not instrument measurements unless they are abysmal, or how a waveform looks in an audio editing program.,

 

Regards

Alex

[John Dyson]

37 minutes ago, esldude said:

His writings are of the form of telling me if we build a bridge with twice the material it can be stronger.  Which it can.  And he is willing to use 4 times the material for 16 times the price.  Of course a bridge is meant to convey traffic from one side to the other without collapsing.  If it does that, then there is no twice as good or four times as good.  There is no benefit to the elaboration.  Unless you are selling bridge materials.  

 

If he starts writing about how to actually improve results, rather than over building that which already works just fine, then let me know. 

I agree -- expanding:

 

Creating a scheme to make a digital signal 'more perfect' than 'perfect' is specious, silly and wasteful.   Making a signal 'more reliable' is definitely a good thing though.  In the world of USB, HDMI, etc -- if there is a wire bad enough to create an error while carrying a digital audio signal, then there is a severe design problem, hardware failure or extremely severe interference overcoming the shielding or interfering with the ground currents.   There could certainly be cases where a really cheap wire can cause problems -- but those problems are most often very noticeable.   Once a reliable connection is established, and digital errors don't creep in, then things are as good as they will become.

 

On the other hand, transports like DSL do require lots of error correction to overcome the error prone low level analog communications scheme.   HDMI/USB are most often carried by cables that should never require a lot of error correction*.

 

*On some local protocols that share connectivity, expected problems like collisions can cause errors that seriously require detection/correction  -- such protocols are well designed to avoid problems in the resulting communications -- Ethernet is that kind of connection.   I believe (haven't looked at the spec) that certain USB modes can also have collisions?   If it can, then the problem is NOT caused by wiring quality, but simply a usage or over-subscription issue.

Local wiring for transport of digital signals  does not impact audio quality, other than the extreme condtions that I mentioned above.  Some analog issues in the digital/analog interface can affect the quality -- and analog garbage can be propagated along wiring for digital interfaces -- and it CAN affect the analog/digital conversions, but those are all well understood ANALOG effects, nothing to do with the effectiveness of the digital wiring/connection.   Soundstage is not one of the possible analog interference issues -- noise propagation CAN happen, but is insignificant unless there is a real design error.  (Sorry for so much equivocation, but broadly generalized statement of actual physical fact can be misinterpreted out of context.   It is so difficult to be absolutely accurate without giving all kinds of seldom needed exceptions -- e.g. nuclear blasts can interfere with digital signals :-)).

 

John

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, DonaldT2109 said:

On here you , and on the manufacturers sites and on the reviews, a couple of which I quoted earlier.

All claiming that these special cables can change the audio encoded in the bitstream passing over it

You and others are claiming that the magic cables can also do that

 

That's absolute BS. I have never claimed that a special or high quality cable can improve what's on the recording. They can only help to prevent further degradation.

[John Dyson]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

John

I disagree .

 RF/EMI and noise induced from the +5V SMPS into D+ and D- , as well as external RF /FD/EMI can affect Soundstage just the same as distortion etc. in a non decoded Dolby A recording that has had EQ to try and overcome the problem.

A higher  quality USB cable can't improve the recording, but it can help to prevent further degradation of the audio.

 I have heard the effects of less than optimum USB implementation through some very high quality systems, and the added " graininess" right across the whole soundstage is damn annoying.

Neither does an Audiophile need to fully understand how something works to decide whether a musical recording is high quality or not, any more than he need to read Engineering textbooks by Henry Ott or others  to decide whether a design sounds good or bad.

The ears are the final arbiter of how something sounds, not instrument measurements unless they are abysmal, or how a waveform looks in an audio editing program.,

 

Regards

Alex

Okay, think about this...  You have a digital signal (USB) that is unmodified by the cable.  A pretty cable that is expensive/has more shielding will NOT sound any different than the cable that is simply adequate.  Both produce the same digital signal results, and the signal is then decoded to produce the desired analog.   USB and the protocols used above it do not modify the signal (well, there are modes that can drop packets, but protocols can hide that.)

 

If there IS a noise propagation issue, it comes entirely from shielding and noise currents, and as such it is actually possible that a more completely shielded cable for general use can make the situation worse.   These shielding and noise current issues come entirely from the analog domain, and would be caused by inadequate design in the digital to analog conversion mechanism.

 

If cabling makes a difference at that level, then there is an analog design problem in the receiving side -- and that is NOT good.   We can tweak our equipment to work around failures elsewhere all of the time, but there really shouldn't be a need to need a 'better' digital transport unless it is really faulty.

 

There are simply no timing differences between cables either -- unless there is a *REAL* problem.

 

John

 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Once a reliable connection is established, and digital errors don't creep in, then things are as good as they will become.

 

You do not need  digital errors to change the sound where there is RF/EMI going along for the ride as well.

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

If there IS a noise propagation issue, it comes entirely from shielding and noise currents, and as such it is actually possible that a more completely shielded cable for general use can make the situation worse.

 John

I don't need to think about it. I have been playing around in the USB  area for more than 10 years now, including using a C.R.O to look at the actual waveforms, and  have seen on  the C.R.O the effects of the noisy SMPS +5V on the signal, as well a  lower level Data signal appearing on the +5V lead as well.  The actual +5V at the USB device can jump around by several hundred mV as well

e,g, (assuming the link still works)

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/13905-continuing-pursuit-of-power-supply-improvements-and-improved-dac-performance/

 Agreed about shielding , but it may also markedly improve the performance as reported here by numerous members.

 

As far as I am concerned , the best USB cable is NO USB cable, just a high quality impedance matched Adaptor to plug the DAC into

  E.E. George Graves is correct in stating that poorly implemented USB audio sounds shitty, even in comparison with Toslink.

 

 Regards

Alex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aGREED, BU

[John Dyson]

26 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

You do not need  digital errors to change the sound where there is RF/EMI going along for the ride as well.

Okay, I see where you are getting at...

 

Of course, if the receiving side has a serious design/layout problem (in todays world, should not really happen), then a cable that better protects the analog environment for the subsequent D/A conversion might be helpful.  That is less 'soundstage' and more 'noise' issue, and shouldn't really happen on anything near premium quality equipment.   That might be more of a boombox or cheap cellphone issue (actually, such noise issues should not be likely on cellphone since they require extremely competent analog design!!!) 

There ARE individuals who we correspond with whose equipment might be affected by 'digital cable noise' issues, but those are work arounds because of inferior or problematic design.   I will definitely accept in those cases, that cabling differences (including moving the cable around because of slight capacitance changes) can make a 'difference' when impedances are all messed up... :-).  The analog mess can then infiltrate the receiving (and even sending) circuitry -- I sure hope that doesn't happen very often :-).

 

Bad impedance matches can make all kinds of noise problems through a system, but hopefully the design has considered those issues.  Thinking about the snake-oil being sold nowadays, maybe the designers are more focused on nebulous non-existent problems rather than simple, good design?

 

So, yes, in the specific example of incomplete considerations in the associated analog hardware design, the cable can make a difference.   But, as I noted above, even moving a perfectly shielded cable can have consequences when the analog interfaces are not reasonably well designed.

 

You know, I sometimes use a stripped piece of coax as a TV antenna -- works great in this digital world...   As long as the signal is strong enough and the multipath isn't extreme (we use ATSC here, not a COFDM derivative like most other countries)*, a simple piece of stripped coax produces  exactly the same audio/video as a fancy outside antenna.   This cabling matter is similar...   But, again, there are definitely cases where there can be unexpected issues.

 

* COFDM is more robust WRT multipath than 8VSB, but technology has narrowed the gap except in the case of mobile.  But, there is a slight SNR and payload vs bandwidth advantage with 8VSB.   For practical purposes nowadays, both are probably past their peak.  The stripped coax work-around is actually better in the COFDM world than in 8VSB, but it even works well here...  Amazing...  (Better than moving the rabbit ears to avoid severe ghosting.)

 

Back when I made LOTS of money, I would very likely purchase more expensive cables than actually needed -- but I spent LOTS of money wastefully back then.  So, I cannot claim that someone might not feel better with nicer cabling...  The color of cabling is important to my Mom (if she tolerates it at all).

 

John

 

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Okay, I see where you are getting at...

 

Of course, if the receiving side has a serious design/layout problem (in todays world, should not really happen), then a cable that better protects the analog environment for the subsequent D/A conversion might be helpful.  That is less 'soundstage' and more 'noise' issue, and shouldn't really happen on anything near premium quality equipment.   That might be more of a boombox or cheap cellphone issue (actually, such noise issues should not be likely on cellphone since they require extremely competent analog design!!!) 

There ARE individuals who we correspond with whose equipment might be affected by 'cable noise' issues, but those are work arounds because of inferior or problematic design.   I will definitely accept in those cases, that cabling differences (including moving the cable around because of slight capacitance changes) can make a 'difference' when impedances are all messed up... :-).  The analog mess can then infiltrate the receiving (and even sending) circuitry -- I sure hope that doesn't happen very often :-).

 

Bad impedance matches can make all kinds of noise problems through a system, but hopefully the design has considered those issues.  Thinking about the snake-oil being sold nowadays, maybe the designers are more focused on nebulous non-existent problems rather than simple, good design?

 

So, yes, in the specific example of incomplete considerations in the associated analog hardware design, the cable can make a difference.   But, as I noted above, even moving a perfectly shielded cable can have consequences when the analog interfaces are not reasonably well designed.

 

You know, I sometimes use a stripped piece of coax as a TV antenna -- works great in this digital world...   As long as the signal is strong enough and the multipath isn't extreme (we use ATSC here, not a COFDM derivative like most other countries)*, a simple piece of stripped coax produces  exactly the same audio/video as a fancy outside antenna.   This cabling matter is similar...   But, again, there are definitely cases where there can be unexpected issues.

 

* COFDM is more robust WRT multipath than 8VSB, but technology has narrowed the gap except in the case of mobile.  But, there is a slight SNR and payload vs bandwidth advantage with 8VSB.   For practical purposes nowadays, both are probably past their peak.

 

Back when I made LOTS of money, I would very likely purchase more expensive cables than actually needed -- but I spent LOTS of money wastefully back then.  So, I cannot claim that someone might not feel better with nicer cabling...  The color of cabling is important to my Mom (if she tolerates it at all).

 

John

 

John

 Not even all HDMI cables perform the same. A couple that I have cause severe degradation of UHF HDTV reception due to spurious UHF radiation from the cable to my PC monitor to a necessarily close by  indoor antenna, This has been shown to be due to an internal pig tail earth side connection .

Alex

[marce]

38 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

That's absolute BS. I have never claimed that a special or high quality cable can improve what's on the recording. They can only help to prevent further degradation.

Many do though... There are long threads where the discussion is almost exclusively how playing with a cable has a noticeable effect on the resultant analogue, the USB cable comparison thread comes to mind.

[John Dyson]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

John

 Not even all HDMI cables perform the same. A couple that I have cause severe degradation of UHF HDTV reception due to spurious UHF radiation in the cable to my PC monitor to a necessarily close by  indoor antenna, This has been shown to be due to an internal pig tail earth side connection .

Alex

Here, you are talking about EMI side-effects...  I used to have a computer that blanked out all TV reception in my house and noise within a few houses of where I lived (back before serious FCC EMI control), but it didn't affect the results on the computer.

 

There ARE interference issues, and that is part of the design decision to purchase a cable.   I didn't realize that we would be focused on the secondary matters other than audio quality.    In those cases, it is better to use a cable that works around any problems.  If there are serious sensitivities regarding cabling, it becomes a problem similar to AC power noise matters...   Isolation devices might be appropriate.

 

If a problem is related to subtle impedance (audio noise infiltration) and radiation issues, then the 'quality' of a cable isn't quite as important as the behavior of that cable being compatible for the application.  That is a very different situation, and when we have those kinds of problems beyond minor EMI type things, then it is time to return to the manufacturer for design correction or the standards bodies to get the standard improved.

 

I do understand what you are talking about now -- but in the case you describe, it is almost impossible to resolve simply using a generally better cable, then you would be looking for a specific cable resulting from an exhaustive search that better matches a given piece of hardware.  That gets into the domain of tweakiness, and shows a problem that is simply not within the realm of consumer solvable.   Back in my design days  -- I would suggest 'needing a design reconsideration.'

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

5 minutes ago, marce said:

Many do though... There are long threads where the discussion is almost exclusively how playing with a cable has a noticeable effect on the resultant analogue, the USB cable comparison thread comes to mind.

That is EXACTLY the kind of discussion that I fear...   There can be audio noise infiltration issues, but hopefully those don't happen very often, and don't happen at all on competent and standards compliant wiring and equipment.

 

John

 

[marce]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

John

 Not even all HDMI cables perform the same. A couple that I have cause severe degradation of UHF HDTV reception due to spurious UHF radiation from the cable to my PC monitor to a necessarily close by  indoor antenna, This has been shown to be due to an internal pig tail earth side connection .

Alex

Then the cable is not to standard and is a bad design, plenty of info out there on using pig tails and how RF screening needs to be 360 degrees to work properly.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I do understand what you are talking about now -- but in the case you describe, it is almost impossible to resolve simply using a generally better cable, then you would be looking for a specific cable resulting from an exhaustive search that better matches a given piece of hardware.  That gets into the domain of tweakiness, and shows a problem that is simply not within the realm of consumer solvable.   Back in my design days  -- I would suggest 'needing a design reconsideration.'

 

 Nope. In this case the solution for me was to swap the better designed HDMI cable that came with my Oppo 103 with the offending cable (s)

 Perhaps we do need a tightening up of some cable specifications though ?

 

 G'night from Sydney Au.

[DonaldT2109]

46 minutes ago, sandyk said:

That's absolute BS. I have never claimed that a special or high quality cable can improve what's on the recording. They can only help to prevent further degradation.

 

Oooops    many apolagies Sandy.    

 

I confused you with the whole bunch of people on here that claim it can improve as in " The soundstage is large with excellent width and depth"

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, marce said:

Then the cable is not to standard and is a bad design, plenty of info out there on using pig tails and how RF screening needs to be 360 degrees to work properly.

PLEASE do not tell us to look at books from Henry Ott and others again though.

 Audiophiles do not need to know this, and they rely on having competently designed  gear by experienced designers, which is apparently not always the case.

[John Dyson]

3 minutes ago, DonaldT2109 said:

 

Oooops    many apolagies Sandy.    

 

I confused you with the whole bunch of people on here that claim it can improve as in " The soundstage is large with excellent width and depth"

That was exactly the context of my own discussion.  I got confused WRT the noise issue getting picked up -- probably because I mentioned that the noise can be a problem in-extremis (not a normal issue -- hopefully!!! :-)) when describing the possible problems.  'Soundstage' is far far out of the ballpark, bordering on fantasy.

 

John

 

[DonaldT2109]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Not even all HDMI cables perform the same. A couple that I have cause severe degradation of UHF HDTV reception due to spurious UHF radiation from the cable to my PC monitor to a necessarily close by  indoor antenna, This has been shown to be due to an internal pig tail earth side connection .

 

Now you have done it Sandy

All the cable manufacturers will now tell us that we need a $2000 cable to get better terrestrial television reception  !!!!    😀

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, sandyk said:

PLEASE do not tell us to look at books from Henry Ott and others again though.

Why not? He seems a hell of a lot more trustworthy than, say, John Swenson or Ted Denney.

[DonaldT2109]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why not? He seems a hell of a lot more trustworthy than, say, John Swenson or Ted Denney.

 

This must be one of the few industries where potential customers believe exactly what they are told by the manufacturers and those who clearly have a financial interest in the products being sold.

[John Dyson]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Nope. In this case the solution for me was to swap the better designed HDMI cable that came with my Oppo 103 with the offending cable (s)

 Perhaps we do need a tightening up of some cable specifications though ?

 

 G'night from Sydney Au.

The cable and cable interfacing quality issue seems to be the issue that we ended up discussing...  YES -- if the radiation/impedance matching/noise transmission is a problem, then there is a basic design issue...   Is it a standards issue, or a quality control problem in the product?  I cannot answer that.

 

Frankly, knowing what goes into the standards processes with lots of very smart engineers in their specific fields, My first guess that noise issues are suboptimal design quality on the wire/connector or even the interface electronics themselves.   The standards might have been too loose, but certain kinds of analog design quality are tricky to properly specify.  It isn't as simple as bit error rates, but has so many dimensions that it requires very expert engineers to do the interface designs, qualify the connectors and of course -- all of the cable issues along with that.   RFI issues require more than a guy/gal sitting in front of a workbench doing a cool design -- requires another layer or two of design expertise -- RFI/EMC qualification is one issue that started decreasing my interest in commercial/professional EE design.   I ended up being an 'answer person' instead of someone who takes responsibility for design -- the fun has been progressively taken away from us.   EMI/EMC are important issues, but so very unpleasant to deal with.  All of the EMI qualification has eventually helped us step up to these GHz frequencies being moved around nowadays -- and requires true experts in layout (ad-hoc layouts are not adequate any more.)  

 

Truly, as 'consumers', we don't want to get too tweaky -- audio stuff is already tweaky enough.   I didn't realize that there were problems with USB cable&interface design quality, it should be open and closed...  The theory is so well understood -- gotta be bean counters making engineering decisions, probably the same kind of people that originally specified (my informal allegation) that DolbyA decoding wasn' t really needed.  (With my DolbyA hat on, tweaky is okay but undesirable -- that is a very different thing for sure.)

 

With whatever noise infiltration issues that might exist, why isn't the audiophile press actually looking at these REAL matters.   I don't think that it is actually much of problem except when there is excessive cost reduction or poor design decision, but still much more important than the 'problem' supposedly solved by MQA...  In fact, MQA causes MORE problems than it solves.  Stuff is already complex enough -- wrt the matters associated with cabling, which should NOT be a problem at all (except, IMO, quality control and cost reduction issues.)  

 

John

 

[marce]

32 minutes ago, sandyk said:

PLEASE do not tell us to look at books from Henry Ott and others again though.

 Audiophiles do not need to know this, and they rely on having competently designed  gear by experienced designers, which is apparently not always the case.

Ignorance is bliss...

[marce]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why not? He seems a hell of a lot more trustworthy than, say, John Swenson or Ted Denney.

It does seem that only information that supports the true believers ideology is worth reading however flawed it is, such as dielectric absorption being a mechanism by which DC cables can sound different! Of course this will only work with high frequency DC😁

[pkane2001]

Just now, marce said:

It does seem that only information that supports the true believers ideology is worth reading however flawed it is, such as dielectric absorption being a mechanism by which DC cables can sound different! Of course this will only work with high frequency DC😁

 

“High frequency DC”! I’m glad we can still invent new things in a field that’s been studied and well documented for many decades