The results of the Randi/ars test are in:

meh

Did they really need to go to such lengths to prove something that was **** obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense?

In the analogue world, susceptible to noise and degradation and a million other things, it’s an exercise in Chinese Whispers. Unless you use high quality cables the data could come out of the other end as 35, or as 36 and 5 at the same time, or ‘herby bricks.’ This is what you’re fighting against and why you pay good money for interconnects.

In the digital world, the result is 36 or it’s no result. The tech has the ability to go “gurdy pricks, what, say that again?”(*) but ultimately the 1/0 concept results in “it’s perfect” or “it’s buggered.” There is no 0.9.

I’m not saying it’s necessary or would even work, but isn’t the point of the shielded cables that they stop interference getting into the machine at all, not necessarily just into the DAC? In the Chinese whispers analogy it’d be like getting the right answer from the penultimate person in the chain, then getting punched in the face (by some randomly induced current where your Ethernet cable coiled around the power cable).

Full disclosure, I have moderately expensive but very unequal length speaker cables.

The results of the Randi/ars test are in:
meh

Did they really need to go to such lengths to prove something that was **** obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense?

Welcome to the scientific method. For many of us, this is what we do every day.

For many of us, this is what we do every day.

I also have a pointless job 😉

Did they really need to go to such lengths to prove something that was **** obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense?

Such as like the world being flat you mean.

DezB – Member
For many of us, this is what we do every day.

I also have a pointless job

I at least get to use a massive magnet to look inside people. That bit is fun.

Such as like the world being flat you mean.

Er, yeah, exactly the same as that. You know what this thread is about, yeah?
Or you just jumped in at the end with something totally irrelevant?

Did they really need to go to such lengths to prove something that was **** obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense?

This is what I was thinking, just can’t understand why people would even think there could be any truth in it, but then billions of people still believe the world was created by an invisible spirit in six days or something.

Human nature innit?
You have to keep proving things to keep the light of rationality burning.
It wards off our tendency to willngly believe nonsense.

Did they really need to go to such lengths to prove something that was **** obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense?

It’s not an experiment I would have thought worthwhile, but on the other hand just relying on “common sense” is about as far from the scientific method as you can get.

It’s not an experiment I would have thought worthwhile, but on the other hand just relying on “common sense” is about as far from the scientific method as you can get.

thing is it doesn’t need to get to the common sense stage, the science of digital data rules out any possibility of there being a difference before ears can be involved.

Er, yeah, exactly the same as that. You know what this thread is about, yeah?
Or you just jumped in at the end with something totally irrelevant?

Well, the article was about the proof or otherwise of a theory that an ethernet cable carrying digital pcm information makes a difference to the final sound quality.

The point is that people think something as accepted wisdom and someone questions that, so it is necessary to investigate using a scientific method which is actually true.

If the experiment proved positive, then it would query the accepted wisdom of digital information. That is the point, I’m sorry you cannot see the point. 🙄

the science of digital data rules out any possibility

And hence my comment about the flat earth. The science at the time said it would be stupid. If enough people observe something then it’s worth investigating. If it’s proved then the current science needs amending.

Headphones are good choice because they take the room out of the equation.

They are in a great big hall so the room isn’t as much of a factor as it would be in a smaller space, plus the effect of the room would be the same for each person – the only advantage would be that you wouldn’t have to worry about them moving around on their seat and therefore moving their head/ears around – unless they adjusted their headphones during the test.

By using headphones you are taking other things – like the ‘image’ or ‘soundstage’ out of the equation as well.

Well done on convincing yourself that your comment was worthwhile traildog. The rolly eyes helped a lot.

And hence my comment about the flat earth. The science at the time said it would be stupid. If enough people observe something then it’s worth investigating. If it’s proved then the current science needs amending.

Brilliant 😆

And hence my comment about the flat earth. The science at the time said it would be stupid. If enough people observe something then it’s worth investigating. If it’s proved then the current science needs amending.

You should get a hifi marketing job! But seriously, digital data can’t be observed ‘differently’, read the analogy on the first page or google for more info.

Love how a ‘flat earth’ reference has unwittingly made it into this thread!

digital data can’t be observed ‘differently’

That’s not correct. Digital information is actually in an analogue domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter

However, I’m not saying the Ethernet cable will make any difference. All I am saying that it is not daft to scientifically investigate claimed observations, despite what DezB says.

I don’t understand why it was even necessary to do listening tests. All that is needed is to compare the ability of each cable to accurately transmit the digital data, the analogue bit has nothing to do with it. But we all know that’s not a test worth doing.