USB cable comparisons

[Sonicularity]

6 minutes ago, HumanMedia said:

 

What is a certified USB cable?

And what makes you think the manufacturer is not concerned about the quality of the USB connection? Because they supplied a bare minimum so that the DAC could be connected?

 

Here you go.

 

https://www.usb.org/compliance

 

I think my DAC manufacturer is greatly concerned about audio quality, and the measured specifications outshine many other similar products well above its price range.  The manufacturer is well respected and known for making professional audio gear.   It would seem silly to throw in a supposedly mediocre performing USB cable for the sole purpose of being able to simply connect the unit to a source while potentially sacrificing all of the impressive accolades and potential described in great detail within the promotional content.

[barrows]

It is common practice in the audio industry to include generic cable(s) with a product as a convenience to the purchaser, in no way does this practice suggest that the included cable(s) are the best performing option.

[asdf1000]

6 minutes ago, barrows said:

It is common practice in the audio industry to include generic cable(s) with a product as a convenience to the purchaser, in no way does this practice suggest that the included cable(s) are the best performing option.

 

True but on the other hand, as @marce said:

 

"A problem for domestic audio is external connectors, you never know what sort of cable is going to be hung on the end of the device, so you have to design for a generic cable and hope the punters use somthing similar and not some exotic antenna,?"

 

 

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

True but on the other hand, as @marce said:

 

"A problem for domestic audio is external connectors, you never know what sort of cable is going to be hung on the end of the device, so you have to design for a generic cable and hope the punters use somthing similar and not some exotic antenna,?"

 

 

Not sure what your point is?  The user has the potential to increase, or decrease, performance by their cable selection, options are good.  So the user gets to choose the best cable, which performs best in their system, there is nothing wrong with that.

[Sonicularity]

14 minutes ago, barrows said:

Not sure what your point is?  The user has the potential to increase, or decrease, performance by their cable selection, options are good.  So the user gets to choose the best cable, which performs best in their system, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

I'm not sure that I have ever seen any type of scientific evidence to suggest anyone can improve transparency, which is what everyone should expect from a properly designed USB cable within operational specifications.  

[marce]

7 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

True but on the other hand, as @marce said:

 

"A problem for domestic audio is external connectors, you never know what sort of cable is going to be hung on the end of the device, so you have to design for a generic cable and hope the punters use somthing similar and not some exotic antenna,?"

 

 

I was referring to the handling of EMC issues within the component, specifically conducted immunity. Cables hanging of kit are a possible source of introducing noise into the circuitry, not only can they act as antenna's picking up rf, but also couple to other sources of noise  such as near by mains cables (usually inductive coupling). This affect not just audio but any system. This can also work the other way, with the cable acting as a noise source (radiated emissions) and thus possibly causing problems to nearby equipment. Now imagine a set up where you have several pieces of kit interconnected by various cable, power cables, not just mains, but often these days via wall warts (often the work of the devil) all close together (such as a domestic audio system) and you could have an EMC nightmare, especially if the cables are not to the required specification (such as unshielded USB).

More on EMC testing to save me blabbing on.

https://emcfastpass.com/emc-testing-beginners-guide/emc-immunity-testing/

 

[Sal1950]

17 hours ago, str-1 said:

Generally, what differences should I expect to hear with different lengths of the same cable?  In a really good clean transparent system should I expect to hear any difference between a 0.5m and a 1.2m cable?

Either some tick, pops, dropouts of the sound, or no difference at all.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/01/demo-measurements-what-does-bad-usb-or.html

[look&listen]

15 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

 

I'm not sure that I have ever seen any type of scientific evidence to suggest anyone can improve transparency, which is what everyone should expect from a properly designed USB cable within operational specifications.  

 

Science never listen to music. People listen to music. Ears collect sound & send signals to brain.

Music never exist in science, electronics, even moving air, not even in ears. 

Music Only exist in human mind. Music constructed from deep analysis(synthesis?) of relationships & patterns of air vibrations. So human mind(only) makes music, composing, performance & appreciation(apprehension).

Science provide good tools for improving record & playback machines, but always secondary to true purpose of humans hearing music.

[Sonicularity]

42 minutes ago, look&listen said:

 

Science never listen to music. People listen to music. Ears collect sound & send signals to brain.

Music never exist in science, electronics, even moving air, not even in ears. 

Music Only exist in human mind. Music constructed from deep analysis(synthesis?) of relationships & patterns of air vibrations. So human mind(only) makes music, composing, performance & appreciation(apprehension).

Science provide good tools for improving record & playback machines, but always secondary to true purpose of humans hearing music.

 

Science is responsible for recording and playing back the music.   Science can be applied to verify that what is played back is identical to what was recorded to a degree that makes it unlikely that any difference is audible.   I certainly hope a good mastering engineer isn't swapping out cables to get the right house sound for a particular session.

[One and a half]

45 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Science is responsible for recording and playing back the music.   Science can be applied to verify that what is played back is identical to what was recorded to a degree that makes it unlikely that any difference is audible.   I certainly hope a good mastering engineer isn't swapping out cables to get the right house sound for a particular session.

Ahh, mastering engineers are known to swap cables out to make a difference.  An example is here.

[Ralf11]

54 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Science is responsible for recording and playing back the music.   Science can be applied to verify that what is played back is identical to what was recorded to a degree that makes it unlikely that any difference is audible.   I certainly hope a good mastering engineer isn't swapping out cables to get the right house sound for a particular session.

 

Science includes a variety of methodologies.  One is mechanistic - e.g. the post by Archimago above yours.

 

Another, in this context, would be a listening test.  In a sense it is more comprehensive than a mechanistic study, because if a difference can be detected one need not know the mechanism (I've posted before on the origins of the science of epidemiology and how it solve a public health crisis in London).  OTOH, if no difference can be detected, then no rational person can claim there is one.

[Sonicularity]

4 minutes ago, One and a half said:

Ahh, mastering engineers are known to swap cables out to make a difference.  An example is here.

 

Yep, she said it best.  

 

"I know a lot of my recording engineer buddies are really going to think I'm nuts. "

 

There was reportedly a 1/10 dB difference between the two cables tested, so there was a measurable difference found, but one that I would probably not expect most people to be able to hear.  Cookie has created outstanding products and is remarkably accomplished at what she does, and although I respect her position on the matter, I don't necessarily agree with many of her "blindfolded" testing results, and these would need much more critical analysis before I would accept them for what she claims them to be.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Science is responsible for recording and playing back the music.   Science can be applied to verify that what is played back is identical to what was recorded to a degree that makes it unlikely that any difference is audible.   I certainly hope a good mastering engineer isn't swapping out cables to get the right house sound for a particular session.

 

What science may suggest to be unlikely to make an audible difference is often contrary to the experience of many members of this forum. USB cables, interconnect cables, and power cables can all contribute to a not insignificant difference in sound quality.

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

What science may suggest to be unlikely to make an audible difference is often contrary to the experience of many members of this forum. USB cables, interconnect cables, and power cables can all contribute to a not insignificant difference in sound quality.

 

- and here is the central problem - claims are made based on perceptions, but the perceptions are composed of 2 or more component parts: actual SQ and other inputs based on visuals of the equipment, ergonomics, mood, cost of components, foods, EtOH flavor profiles & etc. - all usually subsumed under the heading 'confirmation bias'

 

it's valid to make a purchase based on visual esthetics or ergonomics (I love the shape of the knobs on my Audio Research pre-amp, and would avoid a good sounding speaker system that looks like a hungry Velociraptor, as 2 examples)

 

but to choose based on SQ alone, you simply cannot make uncontrolled listening comparisons; you need to control for various extraneous effects

[One and a half]

1 minute ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Yep, she said it best.  

 

"I know a lot of my recording engineer buddies are really going to think I'm nuts. "

 

There was reportedly a 1/10 dB difference between the two cables tested, so there was a measurable difference found, but one that I would probably not expect most people to be able to hear.  Cookie has created outstanding products and is remarkably accomplished at what she does, and although I respect her position on the matter, I don't necessarily agree with many of her "blindfolded" testing results, and these would need much more critical analysis before I would accept them for what she claims them to be.

I would guess, if you would pour money into a scientific  test to your specifications, then the matter can be settled. Pour, I mean thousands, gobfuls of them. Just not worth the effort, could be the main reason why there's so little scientific evidence on this topic? Anyway, this thread is going to end up with both sides claiming cables do/do not make a difference, like most cable threads at CA with no consensus or partial moves towards either side. 

 

In any case, USB cables in particular will make a difference, it totally depends on the source noise, the cable LCR, and the victim (DAC) immunity to that noise. For example, source A might produce 80uV noise at a broad range frequency, it's a mac mini. Source B might be a laptop, producing 120uVdb noise and different frequency spectra. The cable might be the same for both sources and has 0.0004mH inductance, so the attenuation of the cable to the noise will work differently in both cases. The amount of noise coupled between the source and victim is then dependant on the cable and yes ultimately ends up what you hear, since the noise is coupled internally of the power supplies in the DAC. This isn't speculation, just how Ohms law works. The figures used are plucked out of the air to illustrate differences. Equipment to measure that level of crud can also cost thousands, so just add this to the testing scheme.

[Ralf11]

That is another advantage of a valid listening test: it does not require a lot of $$, just an hour or so with one or two people involved (plus the test items, electronics - not speakers).

[Richard Dale]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

- and here is the central problem - claims are made based on perceptions, but the perceptions are composed of 2 or more component parts: actual SQ and other inputs based on visuals of the equipment, ergonomics, mood, cost of components, foods, EtOH flavor profiles & etc. - all usually subsumed under the heading 'confirmation bias'

 

it's valid to make a purchase based on visual esthetics or ergonomics (I love the shape of the knobs on my Audio Research pre-amp, and would avoid a good sounding speaker system that looks like a hungry Velociraptor, as 2 examples)

 

but to choose based on SQ alone, you simply cannot make uncontrolled listening comparisons; you need to control for various extraneous effects

Sorry no you're wrong. I don't need blind tests and an understanding of Karl Popper to go shopping for great sounding USB cables. I use a Nordost Heimdall 2 USB cable into a Chord 2Qute in my main system and I think they are a really good combination. The Nordost cable improved the resolution of the Chord DAC and helped deliver it's full potential. And that difference was significant enough to be obvious to an experienced listener.

 

As far as I know this thread is supposed to be about people's experience of listening to various makes of USB cables, not about whether or not differences can be heard.

[Ralf11]

You need blind tests to compare the SQ of USB cables.  While you are free to spend your own money any way you like, you are quite, quite wrong if you think you can do that by uncontrolled anecdotal experiences.

[Richard Dale]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

You need blind tests to compare the SQ of USB cables.  While you are free to spend your own money any way you like, you are quite, quite wrong if you think you can do that by uncontrolled anecdotal experiences.

Sorry I regard your quote above as an 'anecdote' and no more than an opinion.

[Ralf11]

that's because you don't know what the term anecdote means; the effect has been proven over & over again, and entire laboratories are devoted to cross-sensory effects

[Richard Dale]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

that's because you don't know what the term anecdote means; the effect has been proven over & over again, and entire laboratories are devoted to cross-sensory effects

Anecdote: "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.",  "a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person"

 

Example of an anecdote: "the effect has been proven over & over again, and entire laboratories are devoted to cross-sensory effects"

 

All you are really saying is something along the lines of 'please shut up, you don't know what you are talking about'.

[barrows]

58 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

You need blind tests to compare the SQ of USB cables.  While you are free to spend your own money any way you like, you are quite, quite wrong if you think you can do that by uncontrolled anecdotal experiences.

While I agree that controlling for the variables you mentioned earlier is necessary, I do not believe one needs to be blinded to do so.  In fact, properly trained listeners can control for those variables intellectually-this is not necessarily easy, but trained (either over years of their own experience or as part of their professional training) listeners learn to control these variables.  This requires considerable experience, but it is achievable.

I find there are some pretty big differences between some USB cables, anyone who does not believe this owes it to compare these two:

 

LUSH vs. Inakustik Referenz.  The difference between these two is so large, i really doubt even the most fervent non-believer could deny it upon experiencing it.  The other interesting thing is, both cables are "good", they are just different, and I can see audiophiles choosing one over the other due to sonic preferences, or just system synergies.

[mansr]

29 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

All you are really saying is something along the lines of 'please shut up, you don't know what you are talking about'.

And you disagree with this why, exactly?

[Richard Dale]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

And you disagree with this why, exactly?

Well I suppose I like to think I'm an experienced listener having been an audiophile for about 45 years, and know something about how to overcome the problems that there may be in sighted listening auditions. In the same way on a more skilled level a mastering engineer certainly needs to do sighted listening in order to do their job, although I'm sure they would also regard blind listening tests as useful. I object to the absolutist idea that even for expert listeners, anything other than a blind test is meaningless and merely an 'anecdote' in the objectivist parlance as used by Ralf11.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

Well I suppose I like to think I'm an experienced listener having been an audiophile for about 45 years, and know something about how to overcome the problems that may be in sighted listening auditions.

Yes, I suppose you like to think that.