436 posts / 0 new
Last post
SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

John Duncan wrote:

"This item makes the best toasted sandwiches ever"

Bet HE hasn't ABXed...

 

mad Abxed man.

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12821
RE: more 'snake oil'

Covenanter wrote:

Absolutely not!  The best they can do is make your aware of options and opinions.  Why are they so limited?  Well not because they don't do blind tests, although the fact that they won't even consider them shows me that they know they they would fail were they to be subjected to them.  I'm quite willing to listen to subjective opinions about things but I want to get those from people who actually have the kit in question not people who make a living out of inflating hype about products.  I suppose the real problem is that I've read reviews here which don't match perceived reality and so I suspect the judgement of those writing the reviews.  They are only journalists after all!  

No I'd rather dredge information from the postings on this and other forums and if you work at it you can do that.  There are many people posting here with firmly held opinions of things that I might not agree with but whose opinion is worth listening to because they have put a lot of work into forming it.

I think you need both sets of opinions. Owners are often heavily biassed and are unlikely to have heard enough comparable products with which to make a proper comparison.....or heard the component with as wide a variety of different kit.

Saying that, owners' insights can also be invaluable and as they can talk about the product as a long term proposition.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

professorhat wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

But the thing is, the big question in question doesn't answer any questions, what it does do is allude to the benefits of the products involved. Inadvertantly? No, I think it's obviously designed to do this, for obvious reasons.

As an entertaining feature? No, sorry, I'm just being silly aren't I  :cheer:

As I remember though, the HDMI cable BQ feature suggested two of the readers preferred the cheaper HDMI. So not sure how that benefitted the evil cable manufacturers.

 

Apparently, everything is entertaining except blind ABX tests  Smile

No, the big question isn't always a success, if success is to help sell certain products. I remember the one that tested Blu-ray players being pretty inconclusive, and there was much quoting of the participants views on the day on here in various threads afterwards, it wasn't a great BQ for the expensive BDP makers/sellers etc.

But, that was soon remedied when your good self went on a little WHF shopping trip for a new BDP  :), when if I recall correctly (and my apologies in advance if I'm wrong), you demoed three players in three different shops on three different TVs before declaring that the PQ of the Marantz was much better. NowI know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good  Blum 3

Andrew Everard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 30/05/2007 - 12:34
Posts: 28836
RE: more 'snake oil'

Covenanter wrote:
They are only journalists after all!

How very dare you! Surprised

They are writers who spend their entire lives, day in and day out, listening to hi-fi equipment and viewing home cinema gear, so I'd hope they'd have more ability than most to judge what's good and what's so-so.

They are emphatically not

Covenanter wrote:
people who make a living out of inflating hype about products

– knowing our review crew as I do, I'd say they are, to a man (and woman), much more cynical and hard to please than most: it's very easy to get blasé when you spend so much time auditioning equipment.

Tonestar1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 04/11/2008 - 18:53
Posts: 647
RE: more 'snake oil'

professorhat wrote:

Tonestar1 wrote:
 

I regularly work with large financial institutions transferring billions of pounds a day across digital networks I support. If there was any chance, any science to support expensive digital cables providing more accuracy do you not think they would already have the best money could buy? £200 for a cable would pay for itself in minutes if it provided 0.001% greater accuracy than another.  Or is this some secret only the hi-fi community know about? Get real.

Just to say Tonestar, this argument is used again and again - the way those transactions are completed uses a completely different protocol to the one used to transmit audio data in hifi. Those transactions have to be error free - there is no way there can be any errors as it would cause untold issues. So the communication protocol used guarantees data is transmitted error free - it's impossible. They can do this because, for this sort of data, it doesn't matter if data arrives out of order, and therefore data can be resent if it's been corrupted and sorted out later.

Audio data has to arrive in a certain order, but it's not crucial that data is absolutely error free - data can't be resent otherwise it wouldn't work. So a different protocol is used which will get things right most of the time, but it's not guaranteed. If you tried to use the same protocol to send your financial data over hundreds of miles, it just simply wouldn't work - simple as.

Funnily enough though, I do remember reading an article about how somewhere in Asia, a load of fibre optic cable had been replaced for a different kind in order to speed up the transactions. This was precisely for the reason you've stated above i.e. because the data effectively got there faster due to less errors (and therefore less data needing to be resent), it paid for itself very quickly when it came to these split second financial transactions. I'll see if I can track the article down.

 

 

Hi Prof,

No offence, but this is what I do for a living. Protocol is the language that each end of the connection uses to speak to one another, the language if you will, not the medium it's transferred across. If you run a fluke test on a length of standard CAT 6 cable it should provide minimum of 99.999% accuracy against the ones and zeros that are sent across it.

Ethernet protocol only retransmits if there is a checksum error or a collision. Collision is impossible on modern duplex nics and checksum errors are extremely unlikely.  

 

An intercontinental MPLS or VPN link will come with an SLA of  1% or less packet loss. That’s the signal travelling across thousands of miles and hundreds of interconnects as well as numerous routers and switches along the path. To suggest similar errors are prevalent on one metre of pure medium is extremely unlikely.

Would be really interested to read the fibre article if you can find it.  There’s a lot of money to be made in lowering latency, which as all mediums condauct at a standard rate 2x10*8 for leccy and 3x10*8 for light its done via transmission accuracy and processing power in the hops. That's how radianz made there money.

 

 

 

Here is a Verizons SLA’s for packet loss, if anyone cares J

http://www.verizonbusiness.com/terms/global_latency_sla.xml

Tonestar1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 04/11/2008 - 18:53
Posts: 647
RE: more 'snake oil'

Hey prof, The increase in speed in your article isn't due to better glass. It's due to smarter kit at each end.

 

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 22 hours ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23081
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

But, that was soon remedied when your good self went on a little WHF shopping trip for a new BDP  :), when if I recall correctly (and my apologies in advance if I'm wrong), you demoed three players in three different shops on three different TVs before declaring that the PQ of the Marantz was much better. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good 

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

Tonestar1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 04/11/2008 - 18:53
Posts: 647
RE: more 'snake oil'

SteveR750 wrote:

professorhat wrote:

Tonestar1 wrote:
 

I regularly work with large financial institutions transferring billions of pounds a day across digital networks I support. If there was any chance, any science to support expensive digital cables providing more accuracy do you not think they would already have the best money could buy? £200 for a cable would pay for itself in minutes if it provided 0.001% greater accuracy than another.  Or is this some secret only the hi-fi community know about? Get real.

Just to say Tonestar, this argument is used again and again - the way those transactions are completed uses a completely different protocol to the one used to transmit audio data in hifi. Those transactions have to be error free - there is no way there can be any errors as it would cause untold issues. So the communication protocol used guarantees data is transmitted error free - it's impossible. They can do this because, for this sort of data, it doesn't matter if data arrives out of order, and therefore data can be resent if it's been corrupted and sorted out later.

Audio data has to arrive in a certain order, but it's not crucial that data is absolutely error free - data can't be resent otherwise it wouldn't work. So a different protocol is used which will get things right most of the time, but it's not guaranteed. If you tried to use the same protocol to send your financial data over hundreds of miles, it just simply wouldn't work - simple as.

Funnily enough though, I do remember reading an article about how somewhere in Asia, a load of fibre optic cable had been replaced for a different kind in order to speed up the transactions. This was precisely for the reason you've stated above i.e. because the data effectively got there faster due to less errors (and therefore less data needing to be resent), it paid for itself very quickly when it came to these split second financial transactions. I'll see if I can track the article down.

 

 

Music streaming is time dependant for it to work. The packets of data used to transmit financial data across continents, or even to your printer are simply buffered and read when the device is ready. It's the time dependency that makes music reproduction a very different challenge.

Prof, no offence again, but you are completely missing the point. Digital signals cannot overtake one another on a wire. They have a constant speed discovered by einstien. It's the equipment at the end or intermediate hops along the signal path that cause things to arrive out of sync. On one section of glass or copper it's the performance of the sender or the receiver that causes this not the medium itself. If it's sent in order it arrives in order.

Tonestar1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 04/11/2008 - 18:53
Posts: 647
RE: more 'snake oil'

SteveR750 wrote:

professorhat wrote:

Tonestar1 wrote:
 

I regularly work with large financial institutions transferring billions of pounds a day across digital networks I support. If there was any chance, any science to support expensive digital cables providing more accuracy do you not think they would already have the best money could buy? £200 for a cable would pay for itself in minutes if it provided 0.001% greater accuracy than another.  Or is this some secret only the hi-fi community know about? Get real.

 

Just to say Tonestar, this argument is used again and again - the way those transactions are completed uses a completely different protocol to the one used to transmit audio data in hifi. Those transactions have to be error free - there is no way there can be any errors as it would cause untold issues. So the communication protocol used guarantees data is transmitted error free - it's impossible. They can do this because, for this sort of data, it doesn't matter if data arrives out of order, and therefore data can be resent if it's been corrupted and sorted out later.

Audio data has to arrive in a certain order, but it's not crucial that data is absolutely error free - data can't be resent otherwise it wouldn't work. So a different protocol is used which will get things right most of the time, but it's not guaranteed. If you tried to use the same protocol to send your financial data over hundreds of miles, it just simply wouldn't work - simple as.

Funnily enough though, I do remember reading an article about how somewhere in Asia, a load of fibre optic cable had been replaced for a different kind in order to speed up the transactions. This was precisely for the reason you've stated above i.e. because the data effectively got there faster due to less errors (and therefore less data needing to be resent), it paid for itself very quickly when it came to these split second financial transactions. I'll see if I can track the article down.

 

 

Music streaming is time dependant for it to work. The packets of data used to transmit financial data across continents, or even to your printer are simply buffered and read when the device is ready. It's the time dependency that makes music reproduction a very different challenge.

Prof, no offence again, but you are completely missing the point. Digital signals cannot overtake one another on a wire. They have a constant speed discovered by einstien. It's the equipment at the end or intermediate hops along the signal path that cause things to arrive out of sync. On one section of glass or copper it's the performance of the sender or the receiver that causes this not the medium itself. If it's sent in order it arrives in order.

EDIT not for prof for Steve R.

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

But, that was soon remedied when your good self went on a little WHF shopping trip for a new BDP  :), when if I recall correctly (and my apologies in advance if I'm wrong), you demoed three players in three different shops on three different TVs before declaring that the PQ of the Marantz was much better. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good 

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.
SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

Tonestar1 wrote:

SteveR750 wrote:

 

Music streaming is time dependant for it to work. The packets of data used to transmit financial data across continents, or even to your printer are simply buffered and read when the device is ready. It's the time dependency that makes music reproduction a very different challenge.

Prof, no offence again, but you are completely missing the point. Digital signals cannot overtake one another on a wire. They have a constant speed discovered by einstien. It's the equipment at the end or intermediate hops along the signal path that cause things to arrive out of sync. On one section of glass or copper it's the performance of the sender or the receiver that causes this not the medium itself. If it's sent in order it arrives in order.

EDIT not for prof for Steve R.

That's not what I meant - of course the data packets cannot pass each other. The key difference is the timing of the data: the recieving device for a printer is not controlled or affected by the sending device clock, it merely needs the data in the right sequence, if it's late it simply waits until it arrives. An audio DAC can't wait until the correct data arrives, and so the timing (jitter) is critical.

I can see that transmission time losses can impact the time taken for a given packet to travel from A to B and how this is a benefit in data transmission, but audio files have a different demand surely.

daveh75's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 31/07/2008 - 18:54
Posts: 8404
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

But, that was soon remedied when your good self went on a little WHF shopping trip for a new BDP  :), when if I recall correctly (and my apologies in advance if I'm wrong), you demoed three players in three different shops on three different TVs before declaring that the PQ of the Marantz was much better. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good 

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.

 

Those in glass houses...

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

daveh75 wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

But, that was soon remedied when your good self went on a little WHF shopping trip for a new BDP  :), when if I recall correctly (and my apologies in advance if I'm wrong), you demoed three players in three different shops on three different TVs before declaring that the PQ of the Marantz was much better. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good 

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.

 

Those in glass houses...

?
Tonestar1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 04/11/2008 - 18:53
Posts: 647
RE: more 'snake oil'

 

[/quote]

That's not what I meant - of course the data packets cannot pass each other. The key difference is the timing of the data: the recieving device for a printer is not controlled or affected by the sending device clock, it merely needs the data in the right sequence, if it's late it simply waits until it arrives. An audio DAC can't wait until the correct data arrives, and so the timing (jitter) is critical.

I can see that transmission time losses can impact the time taken for a given packet to travel from A to B and how this is a benefit in data transmission, but audio files have a different demand surely.

[/quote]

Steve,

I think we are talking at crossed purposes here.

The point I am making is that the medium involved, glass or metal can have no effect on the timing or quality of the data whatsoever unless it’s made of seriously flawed materials. If the cables were of lower quality they would not show lesser blacks, poorer colour spectrum in the case of tv. In the case of audio they would not show poorer bass or a harsh top end. Digital cables are not capable of defining how a one or a zero relates to a high note or a low note, a black or a white. It’s a pulse of light or electricity. This is pure snake oil. How can one HDMI carry backs better than another? How can an optical cable carry high frequencies better than low? How would a piece of glass or metal transmit “ones” that are transmitting blacks better than “ones” that are transmitting red or blue?  Or which “ones” are transmitting high notes as opposed to lower ones? It ridiculous these comparisons come into digital cable reviews.  

I am not decrying good quality kit. It’s how well the source data is transmitted or how well the receiving device accepts that data that’s the key point. Half decent digital mediums will all carry ones and zeros at a rate where errors are insignificant, even to an audiophile.  

professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 23 hours ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11033
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

But, that was soon remedied when your good self went on a little WHF shopping trip for a new BDP  :), when if I recall correctly (and my apologies in advance if I'm wrong), you demoed three players in three different shops on three different TVs before declaring that the PQ of the Marantz was much better. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good 

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.

Nope, it was definitely before. I'll dig out the articles when I get a free moment (actually still working at the mo), just to make sure my memory isn't fallible in this case.

 

The owls are not what they seem...

Pages

Log in or register to post comments