The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

34 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

you are not going to also insist that anyone (not even the proverbial 12 year old girl) can hear that!

 

Well I hear like a 12 year-old-girl. I figure this is only fair as my karate instructor tells me I fight like a 12 year old girl ! I can't say I 'kick ass' as I can't get my foot up that high, but I do a mean shin kick!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Is there something about the air in OZ that makes you guys able to hear things that the rest of us can’t?

 

here's a short vid of myself a few years back ( I'd let myself go a bit and got a bit out of shape). The point is we have to have incredible hearing to survive in the rugged Oz environment.There is also mandatory hearing testing for anyone before going 'outback'.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I just know when my ears are being fooled by expectation bias. 😉

 

George, I realize you say "I just know when my ears are being fooled by expectation bias" tongue-in-cheek but for the benefit of the mythical novice and gullible audiophile neophyte .....> boys and girls, Uncle George was just kidding,okay🤷‍♂️🤡

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

1) I‘ve never heard ANYONE complain that their new “boutique” cables were a mistake, and their system SQ has suffered because of them.

 

 They are possibly too damn embarrassed to admit it .

 

Well, I've bought boutique cables that I wasn't happy with and then bought boutique cables that I was happy with 🤷‍♂️.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Congratulations. You’re the first I’ve heard say that they’ve bought boutique cables with which they weren’t happy!

 

Whether mass produced, bespoke, or boutique ; cheap or expensive, I can't be the only one that likes one product over another. If your point is that expensive boutique cables are only appreciated because of confirmation bias, then what applies if you replace them with equally expensive boutique cables?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

23 hours ago, gmgraves said:

You may have a point about USB needing extra care to sound its best, but I’m not overgeneralizing. I was being very specific when I said that *I* find USB to be inadequate for audio.
I have the latest iteration of the Schiit Yiggy. when I first connected it to the MacBook Pro that I use as a “music server” using the aforementioned Audioquest Diamond 2 meter USB cable, my Mac couldn’t see the Yiggy! It never even showed up in the audio preference panel. A call to Schiit answered the question. It turns out that their latest USB implementation is not backward compatible to Mac OSes before 10.13 and I was running 10.11.6! In fact the MacBook Pro I am using has an Intel Core 2 Duo processor operating at 2.3 GHz, and apple says that 10.11.6 is the highest level OS that this particular Mac can run. Luckily, someone here (I don’t recall who) put me onto a hack that allowed me to upgrade to 10.15. Now the Yiggy/AudioQuest combo works with USB. I still find that both Toslink and Coax SPDIF sound better than this fancy new USB setup, though.

 

The way I see it the "point about USB needing extra care to sound its best" is no different to any other implementation, just different challenges.

 

The fact that there continues to be incremental improvements in USB audio, and not spdif, relates to USB's popularity and ubiquity and maybe a recognition of inherent spdif limitations. As JS once said "the perils spdif are well known" (2004). Spdif has been seen by many as a flawed audio interface dating back to last century technology.The USB technology seen in more expensive DACS is filtering down into everyday priced DACS and DIY implementations.

 

I would in fact be wary of any DAC that cannot produce at least as good a sound from its USB implementation compared to its spdif connection. A quick google of the Yiggy found comments that USB sounded better than spdif, of course not a statement of fact, just what I would expect.

 

Neither spdif or usb interface is arguably best suited for audio. That said, I have never heard spdif or AES/EBU produce anywhere near the current levels of stunningly awesome sound reproduction from high end USB DACS. YMMV.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

55 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

And what do you think about ethernet as an interface?

 

I think it has some theoretical advantages but then again so do optical connections.

 

For me, I don't stream over the local network or internet as I view this as an unnecessary complication and hasn't offered a sound quality advantage to my ears. That said I haven't extensively auditioned things like the MSB network renderer and/or related Uptone ethernet products.

 

IIRC MSB when I last listened were sending both ethernet or USB data to an I2S board. Whatever the implementation, if an Ethernet interface sounded better i would not hesitate to switch camps. It's just that my USB implementation sounds so damn good I seem to have lost my upgrade-itis of 30+ years, except for nuancing my current setup.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

38 minutes ago, PYP said:

It is great to have all the main gear in place and simply enjoy discovering music.  For me, Qobuz integrated into Roon is a music discovery machine. 

Totally agree it is fun to discover new music but for me this is a separate goal to striving for the best sound possible (but not saying they are mutually exclusive goals). When I find new music I download it, incorporate it into playlists within JRiver etc.

 

I find that with over a TB of music I keep on discovering 'new' stuff or rediscovering 'old' stuff.

 

JRiver also has "cloudplay" of curated lists and I must revisit this. I also listen to spotify and even Youtube to listen to new music and artists, so I am not against streaming per se. I have bookmarked AS music threads and have discovered gems this way as well. I also can still enjoy music on my car radio.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

33 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Obviously MMDoesV!

 

Viva la V, George.

 

I replaced my beloved Mark Levinson 31.5/30.6 state of the art combo for a USB laptop/ USB DAC many years ago as the latter sounded better. The laptop has long since been replaced with a dedicated server.

 

Now, talk about *negative* expectation bias as someone wanting USB to sound bad - I LOVED the ML's and they cost an arm and a leg to buy, at a time when I had far less money to spend on audio. I still have the AES/spdif/optical based MLs as I can't bear to part with them. USB audio just sounds better than spdif, as does ethernet implementations I have heard.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Due mainly to the Bean Counters these days, Coax SPDIF is not usually well implemented. Even my old Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 used decent transformer isolation, both at it's Input and an Output . Do that at the sending end as well , at a fraction of the price many are spending to make USB sound half decent, and also use proper 75ohm connectors at both ends, and Coax SPDIF will take some beating.

 

Hi Alex, I'm not buying that its a cost thing. I can well imagine that manufacturers will skimp on their spdif implementations, no challenge there.

 

However I have owned arguably state of the art spdif gear and very expensive current gear (Kalliope) that has 3 spdif  BNC inputs. USB sounds better to my ears, no contest.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

31 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Yet my DIY DAC crapped all over the Bricasti M1, even when inadvertently fed Toslink via HDMI from the Oppo 103 to the TV and back.

 This led our mutual friend into trying to force the Bricasti M1s output stage into Class A operation.

 Do you also use items such as Iso Regens and something way more expensive than a normal  consumer grade USB cable ?

Hi Alex

your DIY DAC sounded extraordinarily good but I don't agree it "crapped all over the Bricasti M1". Dave M was so impressed with the M1 he in fact bought it from me. He  described it as "perfect". Yes I know he later modified the output stage presumably making it better than "perfect" 😁

 

The fact that your DIY DAC can stand in this company is a testament to your knowledge and skills.Truly amazing !

 

It doesn't change that USB sounds better than spdif (for my ears).

 

Yes I have an isoregen and tried various USB cables, I think the Curious is in at the moment. That said I have used it with a printer usb cable and no added tweaks. It still sounds better than AES/spdif. I still have a $3000 NBS AES interconnect (I didnt pay that). It is fair to say the Kalliope DAC does have full galvanic isolation, doesn't need 5v handshake from pc, and uses its own internal ultracap to power usb input and is therefore optimized for usb.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

30 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 You shouldn't need to spend more money on either well implemented Coax SPDIF or USB !

 In the case of Coax SPDIF that is well implemented , all you should need for best results is a quality Coax cable with 75 ohm BNC connectors on each end for around $20

 

Certainly, that is the claim by many objectivists (no fancy cables required, just ones that measure okay) ....and what this thread is about.

 

I take the view that nobody knows it all and no matter how good or expensive your gear is, I don't believe it cannot be improved in some way, at least potentially.  And that is precisely why I mess with usb cables and the like. My aim is unashamedly to acquire the best sounding system I can afford, aspiring to world class high end sound. USB audio has me knocking at the door like never before.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

cables cannot add anything to a signal because they are not active components.

 

What if they modulate how other things may or may not be added such as RFI/EMI

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Cables can only subtract.

 

Evidence or assumption based on theory ? What if they 'add' distortion

 

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

So if two cables sound different from one another, it’s because they are subtracting different things in differing amounts.

 

Your hypothesis and a possibility

 

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Really, It’s that simple.

 

not to everyone

 

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

What is not so simple, in fact, it’s downright elusive, is how to measure and quantify those differences in any way other than by listening.

 

the great audio debate in a nutshell. Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts.

 

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Make no mistake, my friend, boutique cables are “snake oil” and the fact that there is no way to quantify the differences in cables, or to characterize how a specific cable will act in a specific application is used by the marketing departments of these boutique cable manufacturers to their advantage in selling their wares.

 

A conspiracy theory .....based on, well,  theory. bah humbug!.......I say listen and enjoy your cables😁😜

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, Summit said:

What I object to is the description of a way of transfer a digital signal as being flawed. It is almost humours then it is stated by the all-cables-sound-the-same-brigade.

 

I respectfully disagree.I don't think the second statement follows the first and regarding the first, I have no problem with identifying flaws in an interface or pretty much anything else for that matter.

 

The questions are as I see it, does the flaw exist, does it matter, can it be fixed or can you adapt or work around it. Most of the latter comes with better implementation and looking at the task required.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, Allan F said:

23 hours ago, sandyk said:

Why do so many members need to use expensive aftermarket USB cables such as Peter's Lush Cable, and way more expensive types ?

 

One could just as well ask why some people spend $US1995 for a Berkeley Alpha USB to SPDIF converter.

 

I would guess that they don't have a USB DAC. It would seem a bit odd not to just put that money towards a USB DAC.

 

On a broader level, one could ask, and some do, why buy expensive aftermarket anything? This applies to power supplies or anything else. One could also ask, and some do, why do you have to buy cheap aftermarket anything? IOW is the objection to the $ involved or based on the assertion that none of these things make a difference, or both? On either count, I know what my answer is, and really there is only one person I need to please in this hobby .....

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Many people such as George and myself don't prefer USB Audio, ...........  In some cases though, they need to use USB because of the lack of a Coax SPDIF output, as in many cases, onboard Optical Output is mediocre at best.

 

Hi Alex, this maybe speaking to Allan's point?

 

Most stand alone transports or players would have coax spdif out but many pc's may well not.So, for a pc why not just buy a sound card with spdif out at a fraction of the cost of a Berkeley Alpha USB to SPDIF converter.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Can you install a Soundcard in a Mac Mini? Does a Mac Mini have Coax SPDIF Out , or does it only have onboard Toslink ?

 

Not being a Mac user , I dunno. The only hits I got on google was re mac Mini dropping spdif as "obsolete".

 

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 IIRC, USB Audio mainly evolved due to the demands of Mac Mini and affordable Laptop owners.

 

Not sure this is true Alex but we are long passed that now 😜

3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

A USB to SPDIF converter is/was a requirement for certain DACs, e.g. Berkeley, original Bricasti, etc. that have/had no USB input.

 

Yes agreed, and I know Bricasti quickly changed their tune on this.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I would be surprised if we don't still have a few thousand Mac Mini users in this forum, including quite a few with Linear PSUs designed by John Swenson.

 

I wondered why my PM mailbox was full. They all sent me messages saying they are happily using USB audio, IsoRegens and boutique usb cables ! 😜

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

How can they do that [modulate how other things may or may not be added such as RFI/EMI ?] Cables are passive. All they can do is conduct to a greater or lesser extent.

 

George, just because you don't understand how, doesn't mean it cannot exist.

 

 

Quote

As I said before, cables can’t add distortion (they can’t ADD anything) but poor or corroded connections at the interface between cable and connector can introduce distortion via the “diode” effect. Of course, dirty RCAs can do the same thing between the male and female connector.

 

So, "poor or corroded connections at the interface between cable and connector can introduce distortion via the “diode” effect". Ergo, there is a least one mechanism that YOU know of that permits, in your world, the addition of something. You have provided the single counter-example that rejects your own hypothesis about cables that, "they can’t ADD anything"

 

Quote

 

No sir. It’s not a hypothesis. Since wire, by definition, can’t have gain, any differences between cables must be the result of differing losses. Again it’s just common sense. If somebody discovered wire that amplified the signal passing through it, it would be the greatest discovery in the history of electricity!

 

No one is arguing against the first law of thermodynamics George or even how it might support your hypothesis, but hypothesis it is, until such time as you can show results of your experiment which supports or rejects it.

 

As you so rightly assert, there is currently no reliable way to measure these effects, and as such they are untestable. Until such time you and I and everyone else is spruiking theory based on some factual evidence.

 

So, scientifically and objectively speaking, we agree that a piece of wire cannot add *energy* in the usual way we think of it such as "amplification" of this or that part of the frequency response. That does not mean that it cannot modulate or influence how external energy may enter the system. I think we also might be vaguely in agreement here, and as you say, it is not the wire adding energy.

 

Although not advocating it as plausible, I guess there is also a possibility that "added" energy may result from energy release via  the interaction between cable substrate and the electrical energy applied. A chemical or electro-mechanical interaction that releases energy. Granted far fetched but who would have thought you could split a tiny atom and end up with an atomic bomb. There is energy inside the system that can be released with the right circumstances, just sayin.

 

 

Quote

Well, some people believe in astrology, ghosts, and flying saucers, to name a few. Believing in something doesn’t make it true if it isn’t, and won’t make it false if it is true. The fact that you wish to believe that boutique cables have magical powers and do things that are impossible, is no one’s business but yours. In other words, believe what you will. You are certainly free to do so.

That’s true generally in life as well as audio.

 

We agree in principle. What appears to be lost on you is that said principle equally applies to you ie your beliefs and continuing to repeat them, as you say, "doesn't make it true". Condescending remarks comparing legitimate scientific curiosity backed by (many?) thousands of observational reports to "magic" and "flying saucers" doesn't really help your case, IMO

 

Quote

The only thing that I find amusing about this fact is that practically no one actually compares cables! They read a review, or see an advertising blurb or simply buy on price (as in “I want the best, and the best is always the most expensive”). 

 

Well, just another example of a belief unfounded by evidence, a bit like your assertion about nobody ever being unhappy with their boutique cables - also incorrect.

 

George, you may find it "amusing" but please do no not serve it up as irrefutable science when clearly it is non-science (and notwithstanding the laws of thermodynamics). The only real scientific answer is "I don't know" and we all need to learn to live with that, even have fun with it.  😉

Edit- just found the Feynman quote i was after....

“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.”

― Richard P. Feynman

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Believe me, I do understand “how”.

 

You say "Believe me, I do understand “how”. Okay but excuse those of us that may not steadfastly believe you nor your conclusions based on your "know-how". Repeating it doesn't make it so. You offer opinion and that is fine, and no matter how compelling, it is NEVER "more than theory" no matter how much you believe it, are pretty sure you're right about it, or offer supportive reasoning and factual premises for it, until such time as you offer experimental results it remains theory.  If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

     1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

George, just because you don't understand how, doesn't mean it cannot exist.

In reply pkane2000 said :

That logic applies equally well to Santa and unicorns. 

As well as many of the reports quoting "definitive" measurements in A.S.R 

 

Santa was one of those guys that sent me the aforementioned PMs. He is bummed about Mac Minis dropping spdif. 😉😁

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Santa is a PC user.

 

That's what he told me too, he got a pc for Christmas ! 😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I’m not married to this hypothesis. If somebody comes up with a better one, or even better, actually proves one, I will gladly accept it as truth. But so far,  my hypothesis is, as far as I can see, the only one that fits all the observed results. But at least I thought through the problem and came up with a working hypothesis about Interconnect sound,

 

Yes, totally agree and all credit to you.Sincerely

 

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

while all you have done is criticize my theory. Well, at least you’ve thought about it, but if you actually have any theories of your own on the subject, so far you’ve kept them to yourself. 

 

George its more some of the conclusions you seem to draw like "Make no mistake, my friend, boutique cables are “snake oil”" That is a positive vote for the premise of prufrocks successfully titled click bait thread.You are entitled to that opinion

 

So, after a huge number of similar threads over many years across multiple audio fora, my view is, if you value science and don't have a dog in the fight, we cannot be certain whether boutique cables make a huge difference in SQ if at all. 

 

I get and respect the evidence suggesting they do not. I also get and respect that (many) thousands of people hear significant differences (at times self included) and that is at odds with contrary evidence. I get and respect that hearing differences can be psychologically influenced. I don't get nor respect the view that it must be illusion or bias (not implying you) to explain the differences.

 

Observations are valid data points and when shared with thousands of others it becomes progressively less likely in my view that illusion is the underlying mechanism, not impossible, just less likely. It is also possible it is a real psychoacoustic effect that some but not others perceive.This btw is the difference between the "Santa Claus" or "Russell's teapot" analogy. It is not such an "extraordinary" claim if thousands or millions see the teapot. If only the guy down the street sees the teapot (or Santa) it is likely he has been drinking a strange brew in his teapot ie he is experiencing an hallucination not shared with peers.

 

My position then, as stated is that we just don't know. We don't know because as I see it, as do you apparently, it cannot be reliably tested. As said many times, I am okay with doubt (not knowing). My theory is that cables can make a difference but I don't understand how, as yet, and I am left in a state of not knowing how or why, but subjectively sometimes hear differences as shared with many of my peers.The universe doesn't owe me an explanation. In such circumstances I go with what I hear, not what I am supposed to hear or not hear.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

6 hours ago, 4est said:

Who said that you NEED to spend $100s more anyway? I think all four (ethernet, spdif, optical and usb) are all capable of great sound, and much depends on what the device has been optimized for. I have the original Regen on the front of a hopped up Amanero USB> I2S/DSD card as much to give the card clean power as anything. I hope you will not argue with that.

 

Perhaps you are unable to hear the flaws that I can with USB, including it's susceptibility to capacitance to earth using a very low noise external Linear PSU ? I can reliably hear the small amount of degradation caused by simply connecting the shield wire of a quality R Core transformer to mains Earth. ( I fitted a toggle switch on the rear panel )

 

The way I hear it, current USB audio sounds better than spdif.

 

The way I see it , "needing to spend $100s more" to optimize USB audio ie to make it sound even better still, is one of the main advantages of USB audio, as in there is ongoing research and development. Spdif would appear to be deemed "obsolete"  in some quarters and that was my prediction many years ago when I 'jumped ship'. There had been ample discussion of its limitations and the prospect of no R&D to address them.

 

The cost of ongoing R&D in USB audio is *relatively* modest IMO (even minor if only "a few hundred dollars") and IMO well worth paying. R&D also came with a $ tag in previous decades when spdif reigned.

 

Will Ethernet audio be the future? I don't know. If it sounds better to me and USB audio is dumped as obsolete with no further R&D (justifiable or not), I will jump ship once again. I will say what a PIA but, 'the king is dead, long live the king'.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

Quote

Anyway, this is all off topic and non Objective.

 

Ha, I just noticed this is an Objecti-Fi thread. Given it was started in 2012 and the title of the thread, I find that interesting. It still remains on topic as USB audio cables are part of what we are discussing.

 

46 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Sorry David, but I disagree . This is the main Disadvantage of USB Audio. You already have way more expensive gear than many members, and you should not have to pay many $100s more to make it sound transparent as a transmission medium. 

It should NOT need expensive aftermarket USB cables, Iso Regens , or special internal USB cards with in some cases expensive low noise external power. If you need to use these ancillary products for best results , then the products have design problems still, despite already being way above average. 

 

This was also the case with expensive AES/spdif cables etc. Whether you should need them or not is what this thread is all about.

 

Thanks to the talents of people like @JohnSwenson and @Superdad 's Uptone audio it may well be possible to incorporate this technology in future DACS and/or obviate the need for more boutique cables.

 

I don't care how expensive gear is, I always remain open to improve it, or to choose complementary gear to match overall system quality. No manufacturer is all knowing, all seeing. That is why there is R&D.That is why IMO USB audio did already surpass spdif and maybe USB will be surpassed one day.