>“all S/PDIF digital audio cables sound the same…” until that too became disproved.
post "proof"

snake oil horse shit scam technology for idiots with too much money. funny the only people who defend this kikery literally dont know anything about how they work. a cable is a cable, its just a couple wires connecting one end to another.

>Is digital audio really just ones and zeros?

>>51945654
There's no point in discussing here.
You'll only get replies from poor people who cannot afford these cables and tell themselves it's all the same.

>>51945922
Advanced Baiting: /g/ edition

>Is digital audio really just ones and zeros?

>>51945654
tl;dr
If cables perform according to spec there's no difference.
But not all cables do and you can get some missing/corrupt data. It can happen even with digital signals like USB or HDMI. It's not just "it either works or it doesn't" as some say.

>>51945905
>>51945943

This. People don't understand what the digital in "digital audio" means. These are the people that buy this shit.

>holy fuck I've just been listening to numbers!

>>51945943
It's becoming known that a small part of the audio creator's soul flows through the wiring. I actually took my cables to a spiritualist's shop to have them aligned; this man's shop is located on a ley line, so he sets cables on his floor for a few hours to align them with the Earth's natural energies for a small fee. This allows spiritual energy to travel through them more easily, improving the quality of the music, and especially the emotional impact.

>which brought with it the attitude that “all S/PDIF digital audio cables sound the same…” until that too became disproved.
I'd like to see some evidence of this.

>>51946010
I searched and found nothing.

>>51945982
Underrated

>>51945654
>In 1982 Sony gave us “Perfect sound forever,”

>Sony

You mean Philips?

>>51945973
HDMI and Display Port correct missing/corrupt data.

You'll either get perfect sound or no sound.

>>51945943
What did he mean by that?

rotational velocidensity

>>51945654
just... wtf

>>51945654
if you say you don't "think so" that digital audio is truly recorded digitally, then what business do you have making cables. yes, between a $2 and a $20 cable there will be a difference (much more so in analog though) and beyond that it's always perfect thanks to digital. what exactly does this cable do? that a $2 doesn't?

>>51945922
>>51945931
not that advanced desu

>>51948642
The only difference you'll get between 2 and 20 is shielded vs not and most won't even need to bother with shielded shit so it'll sound exactly the same.

>>51948836

in digital, if the cable is under 10 feet long, you can pretty much put it right next to a blender and an atari and wrap it around a tube television and not hear any noise on the other end. again, more important in analog.

>>51947252
Maybe some new version of HDMI?

It definitely was possible to get less than perfect picture (artifacts, white pixels) over HDMI.

I went to high school with the son of the CEO of AudioQuest (William Low). Ask me anything

>>51949298
What did he think of it? Did he say it was snake oil?

>>51950867
I didn't probe that because I figured it would cause an argument. It kinda sounded like he believed it.

>>51945654
So, since this thread is pretty close to what i'm looking for, can anyone tell me if the FiiO E10K DAC is any good for a cheap dac/amp? I'm moving into a dorm, so I'm not bringing my speakers, so I'm wondering if it'll be worth getting a cheap dac for my MDR-7508.

>>51945654
My god. I still I wonder why I haven't scammed audiofools like you...