I be a lot more worried about what a bad SATA could do to the data stored on the hard drive or the stability and reliability of the system being compromised rather than this nonsense about replacing a SATA cable to improve sound.  A good SATA cable doesn't cost $100.  It's a simple $10 part.

I doubt they even cost 10 cents each to the manufacturer when they come bundled with the motherboard.

Why even stop at SATA cables? Why not claim different PSUs, color of PCIE slots, L3 cache sizes and other more assorted "a teapot exists at the edge of the solar system now but you can't prove it right" arguments affecting sound quality.

Why not claim different PSUs, color of PCIE slots, L3 cache sizes and other more assorted "a teapot exists at the edge of the solar system now but you can't prove it right" arguments affecting sound quality.

Some people do, but that wasn't the point of this thread.  I read commentary elsewhere about SATA cables changing the audio character of a computer playback system and wondered how at all could that be possible.  I learned here that in fact circumstances can exist that would cause this to happen.  Those circumstances have nothing to do with digital music playback but with the presence of an RF radiation source near other components whose performance is influenced by that radiation.  I am satisfied that someone claiming to hear a difference in the audio character of their system after installing a $100 SATA cable is not necessarily a lunatic, just a bit of a fool for solving a problem he didn't know existed in the first place and then ascribing "mystic" qualities to his expensive new toy.

I don't think any circumstances exist where one of those cables is going to make a difference.

I am satisfied that someone claiming to hear a difference in the audio character of their system after installing a $100 SATA cable is not necessarily a lunatic

You "learned" the wrong thing and this is because of the nature of some irresponsible posts that caused me to quote myself from another believer-centric discussion.  As a long time member of this forum you should have already "learned" something about burdon of proof.

That said, there is another glaring problem with your comment: people who believe they hear something that they didn't hear should not be classified as lunatics.  This is either highly ignorant or entirely reckless if only said in jest.  Rather, it is an absolutely normal phenomenon that can experienced by people with perfectly normal brain and sensory function.  This is well understood by experts and should be well understood by anyone interested in participating in the subforum dedicated to scientific discussion.

If you missed the first glaring problem: you should not be "satisfied" with unsubstantiated claims of differences in sound quality and then waste time masturbating over a possible reason.  That is not science.

@greynol, I understand expectation bias is not lunacy and regret labeling it such.  "Lunacy" only enters into the picture when otherwise reasonable people argue about such things.  I enjoyed the conversation and it opened my eyes to additional ways of thinking about, challenging, and testing these types of claims.  I don't consider that to be masturbation though I grant you the freedom to label it whatever you find relatable.

I read commentary elsewhere about SATA cables changing the audio character of a computer playback system and wondered how at all could that be possible.  I learned here that in fact circumstances can exist that would cause this to happen.

That's two words now, you don't know the meaning of. Try looking them up. Along with "evidence".

testing these types of claims.

Where?

Coming up with reasons for non-existent problems is definitely masturbation, of the mental variety.

If you aren't nerdy enough to come up with EMR on your own, then maybe you're not nerdy enough to know that an SATA cable isn't the only thing in a computer that produces it; however, you should seriously consider why this single item is at the center of attention.

Hopefully you'll be "satisfied" that my take on the topic is far more tempered with reason than being "satisfied" with the possibility that people have actually been cured with snake oil.

As for testing, [JAZ] already bent over backwards and is now apparently too fatigued to contort himself and a wiki article in order to point out exactly how demanding proof is tantamount to erecting a scarecrow.  You might first have to wait for him to devise a test to find that microscopic pink elephant sipping tea at the far reaches of the solar system, which is no less pointless than the one at hand.

... ... ... Most people vastly overestimate how complex audio decoding is, and just how low the requirements for "real-time" operation are, particularly when talking about things like audio where "real-time" actually means "plus or minus a couple seconds worth of buffer".

They have to overestimate it: that justifies their audiophilia, and their inflation of ego from having made the machine, which had no problem in the first place, do something it could do anyway. Playing music has to be difficult! That is the foundation stone of audiophoolery.

So, I'm going to try to be more tolerant of people who are making these claims.  Not that the sound is necessarily "better", but that there is a real possibility that it is "different" in a way which they may perceive as "better".  It doesn't pertain to me as my client/server configuration would seem to avoid these issues, but if someone has a computer in their audio rack I can see the possibility that it could interfere with the overall performance of their system.  Swapping out various internal components could lessen or change the character of that interference.

Of course, the simpler solution may be to get the computer out of the room but that's another matter altogether.

Tolerance for such people is just pandering to their lunacy. There is zero "real possibility" that these things can make a difference, better or worse, unless they are broken --- in which case there will be more problems with the machine than playing music.

No, timing is not an issue. The only timing requirement is that the [music] data arrives in the right place (buffers have been explained above) in time. If it does not: snap crackle and pop. Or moments of silence. Ask those of us who have sufferred the DPC latency thing! If your system decides to stop processing the audio stuff because it has something else it considers more important, and that something else takes too long... Then you have a timing problem, with very audible results.

The amount of time it takes to read data from a disk? Ha Ha... your computer can play music from a CD drive.

Noise radiating inside the case? Nope. If it could change your music data it could change other data too. Machine would be horrible and very unreliable. Guess where PC components are designed to operate? And that includes internal sound cards!

Stuff inside the computer could affect stuff outside the computer? OK, maybe, I don't know. There are some electronic devices that need some space between them. That, if it is the case, just requires a little common sense, not audiophoolery.

So, please... no tolerance. For the sake of your own sanity.

I be a lot more worried about what a bad SATA could do to the data stored on the hard drive or the stability and reliability of the system being compromised rather than this nonsense about replacing a SATA cable to improve sound.  A good SATA cable doesn't cost $100.  It's a simple $10 part.

I doubt they even cost 10 cents each to the manufacturer when they come bundled with the motherboard.

Why even stop at SATA cables? Why not claim different PSUs, color of PCIE slots, L3 cache sizes and other more assorted "a teapot exists at the edge of the solar system now but you can't prove it right" arguments affecting sound quality.

When they come bundled is always nice but when you have to buy it because it's not included or need a longer one and just want something that works for what seems like a decent price.  It may cost $5 online for example but that may not include shipping costs and sometimes you just aren't in the mood to look at a hundred different cables.  I'm not doubting it costs them literally nothing to make.

Color coding is meant to make something easier to assemble or hook up correctly the first time.  I can see where some people can get the idea that this affects sound quality when in reality it has no such effect at all.  Other times those colors are just purely cosmetic.

Why even stop at SATA cables?  ... ... ...

They don't. It is all out there, and has probably been discussed here already. For instance, different-sounding network-attached storage? Not to mention network cables. And definitely not to mention to SD cards.

The lunacy is rife, and the only sensible thing to do is to stay away from it.

Edit: sorry I messed up up the quote

@splice Hehe.. I doubt dhromed meant 386 or 486 PCs... I still remember one soundblaster card I had where I could connect the speaker out of the PC, so that it "played" through the soundcard.
He most probably was talking about Pentium 4 or intel core motherboards with integrated soundcards on the motherboards. You got all type of noises due to bad shielding. Nothing to do with that "beeping" speaker. ( hard drive readings,  cpu throttling, mouse movement on the screen...).
Actually, in my older laptop, i have a weird problem where after playing some sounds (like clicks or pops of Windows) it might produce some high frequency noises when it finishes (which i can hear with headphones. I am guessing some looped buffer might be causing it). If i click on the mixer volume several times, so that it reproduces more sounds, it changes the noises and I might get at a point that i don't hear any noise.

And then, there are also bad designs: I've got an old DJ controller that, If i operate it with AC power (i.e. connected to a desktop, or to the laptop with the power connected), it can produce noises, which also change in strength and frequency depending on which leds are on in the controller.

You got all type of noises due to bad shielding.

an SATA cable isn't the only thing in a computer that produces it; however, you should seriously consider why this single item is at the center of attention.

We'll be waiting for the results of a test showing that an audiophile grade SATA cable fixed a system that employs audio functionality which was poorly designed.

Let's also not pretend as if there haven't been non-audiophile-priced options for adequately designed functionality for the last 20+ years which don't have the already mentioned issues and these options can and should be exercised long before paying $100 for an SATA cable that won't solve the problem.

non-audiophile-priced

If there is anything that totally ruins the placebo effect ...

Shielding is a conductive barrier that blocks EM fields from a region. While you can put foil around a sata cable, you can't actually shield it because both ends of the cable open. The foil you add is like putting on a raincoat before jumping in the ocean. It makes a little sense to assume the rain coat will keep you dry, but it won't work if you try it.

Apesbrain is going to post the controlled listening test results of "audio character" sound, without and with the bling SATA cable, any minute now. So that we too can be more tolerant of peeps making such claims.
Stay tuned....

The only reason why a SATA cable could be an improvement over another (which I am not saying to be the case) is if the worse cable somehow produced much more electical radiation that the audio (hardware) components could capture them and amplify them enough to be on an audible level.

Not a chance. Modern cables are sophisticated to the point where they have to fit into a fairly tight technical straight jacket, or they will break things.

Here's an example of the myth: Shield-your-sata-cables - the myth.

Some relevant measurements and discussion: Measurements shielding-sata-cables

Bottom line, This is a placbophile twaddle.

Shielding is a conductive barrier that blocks EM fields from a region. While you can put foil around a sata cable, you can't actually shield it because both ends of the cable open. The foil you add is like putting on a raincoat before jumping in the ocean. It makes a little sense to assume the rain coat will keep you dry, but it won't work if you try it.

Not only that, but the cable is twisted pair, with a lot of inherent interference rejection.

Referencing SATA Interface specs the SATA interfaces is composed of two balanced, twisted pair lines markeed A+ and A- going one way, and B+ and B- minus going the other way.

First, let me say thank you for bringing this thread I've been trying to forget back to the front page.

Apesbrain is going to post the controlled listening test results of "audio character" sound, without and with the bling SATA cable, any minute now. So that we too can be more tolerant of peeps making such claims.
Stay tuned....

You got me.

I blame this idiot.

G*d d*mn it! That fellow is a weasel!

non-audiophile-priced

If there is anything that totally ruins the placebo effect ...

Just wait. Audiophile-priced SATA cables will shortly be announced if they haven't already been announced.  . If you want to see the news break as it happens, let me recommend the Computer Audiophile web site. It seems to be Placebo Central.

Just wait. Audiophile-priced SATA cables will shortly be announced if they haven't already been announced.  . If you want to see the news break as it happens, let me recommend the Computer Audiophile web site. It seems to be Placebo Central.

Google and ye shall find:
https://www.avforums.com/threads/surprisingly-sata-cables-do-sound-different.1310560/
https://ppaproduct.blogspot.no/2013/08/sata-cable.html
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:w1rJeUBs9u4J:www.computeraudiophile.com/f7-disk-storage-music-library-storage/high-grade-sata-cables-sound-19181/+&cd=2&hl=no&ct=clnk&gl=no
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ELuVHslfFYsJ:www.computeraudiophile.com/f7-disk-storage-music-library-storage/sata-2-sounds-better-sata-3-a-19339/+&cd=3&hl=no&ct=clnk&gl=no

So SATA 2 sounds better than SATA 3. Ohwell, I bet that SATAn 666 will sound just godawful.

The first time i stumbled across this nonsense was at diyaudio and silver SATA. Silver cable is the best choice...
The typical suspects add their knowledge. Must be the last time i was reading and posting there.

The first time i stumbled across this nonsense was at diyaudio and silver SATA. Silver cable is the best choice...
The typical suspects add their knowledge. Must be the last time i was reading and posting there.

Wow - what an entertaining thread !! To be fair, though, the majority of posters were mocking the guy peddling his hand-made silver SATA cables.

Simple answer: If it does, something is woefully, tragically, terrifically, reprehensibly, ridiculously broken, and your computer wouldn't boot with that cable in place.