Unsighted reviews of audio equipment only focus on a single criterion: the sound. Mostly this is subjectively judged and depends upon the ability of the reviewer to communicate meaningfully and even then, only within the context of the review - the room where listening takes place has a major impact.
So if sound is the only criterion we use as consumers when making a purchase decision, then unsighted reviews explained in language we can understand are a useful source of information. But still, we are outsourcing the listening experience to someone else and - as John and other reviewers consistently state - thereās no substitute for listening ourselves.
But thereās a bigger point here: sound is rarely the only criterion for choice. We have to consider system matching both sonically and - I speak for myself here - visually too. Some great-sounding kit in my experience looks like it was blind assembled, never mind blind tested. Sorry fellow audiophilesā¦ thereās no excuse for anything fugly to be in my home, however great it sounds.
And then thereās the brand effect - impossible to ignore in the real world. Would I buy something from a brand I trust over one that Iāve never heard of? One assembled in the UK, US or Germany over one built in China or Vietnam? Notwithstanding the huge improvements in Far Eastern manufacture in recent decades, Iām afraid the answer is āyesā from me.
All of these are factors I weigh up - along with reviewers opinions - before parting with my cash. Iām sure many of you will behave the same way.
So I conclude: blind listening is a useful way of comparing the sonic differences between equipment (including cables ) but it is only one among many factors to consider, and the rest of them require laying eyes on the product.
There is one point I do agree with Darko, I do not believe in blind tests.
Why, just because it does not work for me. Switching between equipment in a short term (and even 30min is short term for me) does not allow me to detect small (but important) differences.
I really need to listen for quite some time to a piece of equipment. When I miss something after removal, than I know something is really different, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
A good example for me are the different settings in HQPlayer. Any change I make sounds ābetterā in first instance. Giving it a couple of days/weeks I always come back to the same preference settings
Most likely since I am burnt in this way
Dirk
Nevertheless, claims about the benefits of audiophile power or digital cables, or other such snake oil are very useful as a marker of vendors to avoid. Itās like how Nigerian 419 scammers deliberately write their outlandish letters in broken English. This helps them filter out all but the most gullible of marks, so they donāt have to waste expensive scammer labor on pursuing a lead that may wise up at the last moment.
One serious and sincere question I would like to ask people who hear a change of sound quality between different USB/Ethernet cables:
What do you think for yourself is the reason behind the differences?
Any theories are welcome, so they can be discussed in a proper manner. Forget A/B testing and anecdotal claims (which could be true), they cannot be discussed if not in the same room.
I quite enjoyed the Darko article and think it is a very worthy discussion.
Where the logic goes astray though is here:
"John: If you claim that all USB cables sound the same and that any sighted test saying otherwise is wholly unreliable due to psychoacoustics, then it follows that all sighted tests executed under the same conditions are psychoacoustically flawed. In other words, if we are to acknowledge the placebo effect as real for subjective reviews of USB cables, then, assuming the same test conditions, we should acknowledge the placebo effect for all product types: DACs, turntables, cartridges, amplifiers etc.
Barry: Errrrrā¦"
The correct answer from Barry should have been: āCorrect!ā
All sighted tests ARE impacted. The only way to A/B test effectively, which is usually easier for cables and CDs, is to invite a friend over (or ask your partner) and have them swap, or pretend to swap out the gear while you arenāt in the room. Then listen and repeat.
Just in the interest of sharing, a friend and I last did this with a Nick Drake song, blind comparing the original release CD, the SACD, and the remaster. To our surprise we both selected the original.
In other words, if we are to acknowledge the placebo effect as real for subjective reviews of USB cables, then, assuming the same test conditions, we should acknowledge the placebo effect for all product types: DACs, turntables, cartridges, amplifiers etc.
Barry: Errrrrā¦" The correct answer from Barry should have been: āCorrect!ā
As for the article, unfortunately, fictitious Barry didnāt stick to his guns and got āfound outā. However, those that demand truly unsighted reviews, this indeed would apply to all gear to remove any perceived sighted bias.
I guess it was a long way up the top of this thread, but indeed it does show flawed logic to make a point in the article. Pity there are no comment section available at that actual site. Perhaps thereās a reason for that?
Just in the interest of sharing, a friend and I last did this with a Nick Drake song, blind comparing the original release CD, the SACD, and the remaster. To our surprise we both selected the original.
Oh, what Nick Drake album was that, and were you able to articulate similar reasons for your choices?
Lets face it, if digital cables really do sound different, then there is some seriously wrong. Their whole purpose is to deliver a stream of one and zeroās in the most perfect way so that the end point receives an exact copy of the source. Sure, the D-A at the end point and upstream equipment can colour the sound in the way it is rebuilt and presented, but if the delivery cable affects that sound then the system has failed. It really just doesnāt make any sense to me.
Why limit this debate to Darko and USB cables Check out this āshoot outā of Ethernet cables from $5 to over $1000 per cable. The reviewer can hear a difference in every cable.
No publicity is bad publicity. Reviewers must thrive off opinions of others.
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
40
You have to feel a bit sorry for the poor guy. Ads pay his bills, so he canāt really come out against the hype of the industry, or forswear hearing differences where there really are none. Heād kill his ad sales.
I believe you will hear something about jitter. But this comes from not understanding that USB Audio 2.0 is asynchronous, so the bits are delivered into a buffer on the DAC device. The DAC clock then clocks those bits from there into the actual DAC mechanism, be that R2R or delta-sigma. The only clock that makes any difference is that internal DAC clock.
The other argument Iāve heard is that grounding on the USB cable may affect the analog side of the DAC. I suppose thatās possible, but good DACs will separate the digital and analog stages completely. My Bryston BDA-3.14 even has separate power supplies for digital and analog, so not sure how the USB cable can affect the analog stages.
) but it is only one among many factors to consider, and the rest of them require laying eyes on the product.
