TheFlash

My digital world: reclocking experiences

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, awkwardbydesign said:

The phrase is "the exception that proves the rule"  prove meaning test*; the opposite to "makes the rule"!

*As in proving ground, for weapons, etc.  And the Italian verb, provare.  Generally misunderstood and misused.

I looked it up and interestingly the Italin expression is also somewhat different - "L'eccezione conferma la regola" or "the exception confirms the rule".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tuga said:

I looked it up and interestingly the Italin expression is also somewhat different - "L'eccezione conferma la regola" or "the exception confirms the rule".

That's different.  It's the misunderstanding of the English phrase that I was referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, awkwardbydesign said:

That's different.  It's the misunderstanding of the English phrase that I was referring to.

The wording is similar but the meaning of the expression, identical in Portuguese and Italian, is different in English.

I wonder if there is an English expression that conveys what I meant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, awkwardbydesign said:

I wonder it the Italian phrase is a historical misunderstanding of the meaning.  As it makes no sense for an exception to confirm a rule, but testing it does.

I found a page about this on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Two original meanings of the phrase are usually cited.

The first, preferred by Fowler, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exist.

A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."

Most contemporary uses of the phrase emerge from this origin, although often in a way which is closer to the idea that all rules have their exceptions. The alternative origin given is that the word "prove" is used in the archaic sense of "test". In this sense, the phrase does not mean that an exception demonstrates a rule to be true or to exist, but that it tests the rule, thereby proving its value. There is little evidence of the phrase being used in this second way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
19 minutes ago, awkwardbydesign said:

I wonder it the Italian phrase is a historical misunderstanding of the meaning.  As it makes no sense for an exception to confirm a rule, but testing it does.

It is an often misunderstood and misquoted phrase. It originates from the idea that stating a rule for a specific case can imply a more general rule. For example, the specific rule "No parking on a Sunday" implies (proves) that a more general rule exists that allows parking on all other days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tuga said:

A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."

Agreed.

8 minutes ago, tuga said:

Most contemporary uses of the phrase emerge from this origin, although often in a way which is closer to the idea that all rules have their exceptions. The alternative origin given is that the word "prove" is used in the archaic sense of "test". In this sense, the phrase does not mean that an exception demonstrates a rule to be true or to exist, but that it tests the rule, thereby proving its value. There is little evidence of the phrase being used in this second way.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be understood in this way, at least in most cases where I have seen it used.  And the second meaning is completely missed.

Reminiscent of the (mis)use of "theory".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
11 hours ago, Lord J said:

Oh, I’m not entirely sure who that comment is aimed at?

This is an open HiFi forum isn’t it?

My passion is music and HiFi is the conduit to it. I cannot see why that should be questioned?

I’m aware we are going off topic but a digital cable is pertinent to ones digital reclocking experience. 

Maybe I’m fortunate. I have had the opportunity to listen to many different cables, some very expensive. Some, have ended up in my system, some have not.

For the record, my digital cable exceeds  the price of the actual Node 2i, and by some margin. I tried an QED cable that I owned (£100ish) a Black Rhodium one(£250ish). The differences were minor to the point of nothing. 
For a few reasons, I do not wish to name my cable of choice, but what I will say is that it is over £500 and when I heard it I just had to have it. I had my partner verify that I wasn’t going mad and also some friends whom share the love of music. We all agreed. I’ve reached the point in my HiFi journey that it’s gone beyond sexy new boxes and to “What actually makes the biggest difference?”.

If anyone discounts ANYTHING due to a bias or what they may believe is true is kidding themselves. Which of course they are free to do.

I will be bold and state this.
Regarding cables. If you cannot hear the differences between a good Digital cable and an average one or the difference between a standard mains cable and a good one then you are either deaf/cloth eared or unfortunately your system is not revealing enough.

Now I think I’ve said quite enough.

Good night gentlemen  

You would have been a delight at one of my bakeoffs when Dean (Scidb) swapped my mains leads for the £27k leads that had arrived in steel boxes with certificates of ownership.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

Allow me to mention @tuga and @Lord J in the same post.

I don’t believe an SPDIF cable being in spec is all there is to the quality of a cable. Sure, in the digital domain of 1’s and 0’s, a cable either works or it doesn’t. But most SPDIF cables do not join purely digital devices; most hook up a digital device to a digital-and-analogue device. It is in the analogue domain that one “digital” cable might differ from another due to its ability to transmit noise. Nick tells me off if I talk about shielding rather than suppressing the noise but whatever the mechanism the fundamental aim is the same: to design a cable to stop noise getting into the analogue circuitry.

If someone claims to hear a difference between digital cables, they might not be imagining it. But I can only imagine such a cable “making or breaking” a system if there was something fundamentally flawed in one of the components being connected.

Right, off to find myself some 1.5m cables to replace my conveniently short  it apparently sub-optimal ones!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rabski said:

Not for SPDIF though Ric. The rough rule of thumb is that the ideal length for SPDIF coax is around 1.5m to minimise potential reflection issues.

Ok I think I may need a hifi dictionary. Where does it end. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
11 minutes ago, Nativebon said:

Where does it end. 

At 1.5 m + apparently 😁

Edited by greybeard
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

Allow me to mention @tuga and @Lord J in the same post.

I don’t believe an SPDIF cable being in spec is all there is to the quality of a cable. Sure, in the digital domain of 1’s and 0’s, a cable either works or it doesn’t. But most SPDIF cables do not join purely digital devices; most hook up a digital device to a digital-and-analogue device. It is in the analogue domain that one “digital” cable might differ from another due to its ability to transmit noise. Nick tells me off if I talk about shielding rather than suppressing the noise but whatever the mechanism the fundamental aim is the same: to design a cable to stop noise getting into the analogue circuitry.

If someone claims to hear a difference between digital cables, they might not be imagining it. But I can only imagine such a cable “making or breaking” a system if there was something fundamentally flawed in one of the components being connected.

I agree that differences can be heard. I think that I could hear it myself years ago when I compared a couple of cables (one of them very short by the way).

In my view this is down to what you referred to as "sub-optimability" or unfitness for its designated purpose.

9 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

Right, off to find myself some 1.5m cables to replace my conveniently short  it apparently sub-optimal ones!

1.5m is not ideal length but a suggested minimum.

See here: https://positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if it makes anyone happier I ordered a very short AES/EBU 110 ohm cable from Grant Audio today. (He kindly refunded the coax - that I don’t need now I am sending the Node 2i back.

Edited by ProJules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
13 minutes ago, ProJules said:

that I don’t need now I am sending the Node 2i back. 

Why are you returning the Node 2i? I thought you were pleased with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hooked on the Audio Units plug in eq I have been using FabFilter Pro-Q3 to give me a customised “smile curve” eq (I lift some extra in the mids) that helps compensate for some hearing loss (age 60 + working in recording studios for 30 years) 

The Node 2i can give a smile curve eq to cheer things up - but not the parametric customisation  tweak I desire.

so it’s back to a thick / ugly usb cable from my Macbook trailing across the living room floor to the Mutec MC3+USB - Grace M903 
 

some screenshots for you. 
 

12422AE8-7D26-4BEB-9A9E-57C6EC3D67C0.jpeg

Edited by ProJules
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.