Coax, optical, ethernet, USB, HDMI....

[Cosmik]

I suggest the essential difference is whether the link is 'feed-forward' only, like S/PDIF, or if it is bi-directional 'on-demand' like asynchronous USB i.e. the DAC requests packets of data.

In the former case, the DAC has to synchronise to the incoming stream, which means it has to adjust its own timing occasionally, or re-sample the data. This will be affected by jitter and the quality of the link at some level, even if the bits always make it through intact.

In the latter case (by the power of Thought Experiment) the physical implementation doesn't matter as long as the bits make it through intact and in time. USB, ethernet, fibre optics, WiFi are all equivalent.

TIDAL works, and nobody can say exactly what path and what types of link have been used to get to your house - indeed it changes all the time - which (by the power of Thought Experiment) suggests that it is possible to make a receiver completely independent of the physical implementation of the link. If the claim is that only the final element in the chain matters to the sound, then (by the power of Thought Experiment) make sure that your favourite type of link is actually built into the DAC itself, with a universal converter interface in front of that, and then you can be confident that whatever you connect to it cannot affect the sound.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Indeed so - with the meaning of 'valid' only defined if the result is a positive, so as to exclude said test from validity.

In your imagination.
The rest of the world understands the need for controls on perceptual testing...and a whole lot else.
Any claim of audibility between Optical, Coax etc. would require a controlled listening test. Your bane.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In your imagination.
The rest of the world understands the need for controls on perceptual testing...and a whole lot else.
Any claim of audibility between Optical, Coax etc. would require a controlled listening test. Your bane.

Do you know if any controlled listening tests have been done?

Tim

 

[AJ Soundfield]

No and I haven't bothered to look, since I'm not obsessed over the mundane.

 

[Opus111]

Your bane.

In your imagination.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

'valid' only defined if the result is a positive, so as to exclude said test from validity.

In your imagination TOEpus111

 

[AJ Soundfield]

In your imagination.

Let's see your valid listening tests for Coax, optical, ethernet, USB, HDMI

 

[Opus111]

'Valid' meaning?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

'Valid' meaning?

Not your imagination.
Acceptable to adults familiar with the scientific method, i.e with controls such as blinding. Otherwise, you should stay away from rational adult discussion threads and prevent moronic derailment. You have zero to contribute.

 

[Opus111]

Acceptable to adults familiar with the scientific method, i.e with controls such as blinding.

Meaningless then, just as predicted.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Meaningless then, just as predicted.

Controlled listening tests are meaningful to adults. You're on the wrong forum TOEpus, go preach to other believer infants elsewhere, you'll be of no help to Tim looking for valid data in this thread and this site.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I come from a religious background. We can see what ways scientists are 'sinful'

That crap isn't going to fly here.
Provide Tim valid listening data for Coax, optical, ethernet, USB, HDMI or scram.

 

[Opus111]

Controlled listening tests are meaningful to adults.

The dropping of the word 'valid' is duly noted.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

The dropping of the word 'valid' is duly noted.
I come from a religious background. We can see what ways scientists are 'sinful'

Sinful LOL

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No and I haven't bothered to look, since I'm not obsessed over the mundane.

Yes. I think this is why you don't see studies making these comparisons or, for the matter, comparing many of the things audiophiles "hear." I suspect that among those knowledgable enough to conduct a decent study, there is no interest, because they no there is little to nothing there.

Tim

 

[Opus111]

That crap isn't going to fly here.

You brought it here

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The dropping of the word 'valid' is duly noted.

Valid and verified would be great. But any evidence of audibility would be a good start.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Oh, and how about cheap plastic optical vs. the best glass wire? Blue Jeans cable, which is about as "high end" a cable company as I trust, says this:

Optical Digital Audio Cable: Mitsubishi Eska POF
When we have a choice, we prefer to run digital audio in coax; it's more robust over distance, and the cable is interchangeable with cable used for certain other applications (e.g., composite video). However, an increasing number of devices are coming onto the market with digital audio available only in optical form, following the TOSlink standard. For these applications, we build our optical cables using the finest high-performance Plastic Optical Fiber (POF), Mitsubishi's ESKA Fiber. While POF is in general rather lossy stuff compared to glass optical fiber, we prefer it for optical digital audio use because it's much more physically durable and because its aperture matches the spec for optical digital audio use, unlike glass fiber which is too small and must be used in bundles. Our fiber is encased first in a tough cladding layer and then, for added durability, a flexible outer PVC jacket similar in texture to the PVC on some of our high-flex Belden cables (e.g. Belden 1505F). In our own usage, we've tested these cables at lengths up to 50 feet and found them to perform perfectly even at those extended distances.

Tim

 

[AJ Soundfield]

You brought it here

That is you and explains your rejection of audio science among other things

 

[Opus111]

Oh, and how about cheap plastic optical vs. the best glass wire?

Implementation details would be crucial. TOSLINK is fairly severely bandwidth restricted so tends to introduce data-correlated jitter (the worst kind). Glass wire could have much wider bandwidth, but then it depends on the quality of the receiver and its PLL. I so far haven't found jitter to be audible but then I avoid DACs which produce large dollops of out-of-band noise which might fold down into the audible regions. Its those which potentially are going to be hardest hit by jitter.