USB cable comparisons

[Ralf11]

"We found the real problem is not noise on the ground or 5V lines - it's noise that piggy-backs on the data itself."

 

- this seems like an odd stmt. to me

[Ralf11]

it seems odd for digital signal transmission

[Ralf11]

true but not really relevant to noise - you do know about noise and signal extraction, right?

[Ralf11]

HiFi news and record review?  using a Google site search got nothing either

 

S'dad - I'll let you and @mansr discuss that...

 

 

if I go USB then the Lush would be the one I'd try out

[Ralf11]

well, he is correct - no reason to pay big bucks for a simple LRC network

 

buy an expensive cable and cut it open (or Xray it) - see what you bought

[Ralf11]

24 minutes ago, Blake said:

 

It is totally cool with all of us if you agree with Sal.  Honestly.  All we (actually Reverendo, the OP, with his initial post) ask is that you take this sort of discussion to another thread.  

 

Pretty please, with sugar on top, and a sprinkling of rainbows, kisses and unicorns.

 

 

 

please re-read the OP - he does not say to avoid price comparison or construction details; he does say to avoid DBT arguments and I have not done that

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, barrows said:

Yeah, I have seen the HI Fi News USB cable tests with both eye pattern measurements and subjective listening evaluations.  The eye pattern, generally correlated (but not in every case) pretty well with the subjective evaluation.

I must admit, I have heard significant differences between USB cables, even with a DAC with full galvanic isolation, with clocks and re-clocking on the clean side (my only explanation would be for low level noise effects such as what Alex mentions, ground bounce, maybe resonances, somehow modulating noise floors and getting through to clocks, DAC inputs, and analog circuits).  I am skeptical of high end USB cables which are "hand made".  A high speed cable needs to be precisely made to meet bandwidth and impedance specifications.  There are high end USB cables from Nordost that are precision made by custom built machines here in the US.  They also specify exactly how the cables are constructed, so you know what you are getting.  Of course they also make the very expensive Valhalla 2 USB, it is too bad this one is not more affordable.

If one wants to hear two USB cables which are very different, try the LUSH vs. Akustik Referenz, huge difference in presentation between these two.

 

Akustik Referenz: very incisive, precise transients, vanishing noise floor (reverb tails go on longer), lots of ambience, vivid        

                                levels of dynamic shading, not bright in itself, but might not be tolerated in a bright system.  Still, great

                                timbre and tone.  

 

LUSH: bold, slower transients, detailed but somewhat subdued, very rich musical timbres think very much wood to a cello.  Big

            sounding, with big macro dynamics, but less detailed micro dynamics.  Could be just the thing for slightly forward

            systems, or those really preferring a "musical" cable (for lack of a better word, sorry). 

 

would you be willing to substitute big, round tones for 'musical'? (I've been reading a nice book on jazz...)

 

maybe a Lush would go well with Maggies or electrostats?

 

and, have yo heard the Sablon?

[Ralf11]

also interested in the ID of that 'cheap cable' above

 

another question is how one decides which USB cable to buy (or which smaller group to buy for a listening test) - the Lightspeed is north of $1k so you have to wonder if $5k could not be better deployed...

[Ralf11]

20 hours ago, HumanMedia said:

...

And looking at those HiFi News cable eye patterns, the cables I have empirically bought or trialled, and didn’t like have bad eye patterns, the ‘cheap’ cable I keep coming back to despite its flaws actually performs quite well. I now don’t think this is a coincidence - for my personal tastes anyway. 

 

 

 

this is the cheap one I asked about

 

Thx - knew cableco.com did speaker cables; did not know they 'rented' USB cables

[Ralf11]

there is an (old) thread I started on interfaces per se - no traction tho

[Ralf11]

No.

 

If the system is galvanically isolated, reclocks, and the myriad of other possible problems have been taken care of... then there should be no differences in SQ among USB cables.

[Ralf11]

Theories are complicated constructs of hypotheses which have been tested.  So, yes.

[Ralf11]

28 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

If you believe that, use photons instead.

 

 

he posted magical results, so photons won't help

[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.

[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

[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).

[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.

[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

[Ralf11]

experience is not the problem that blind testing solves

 

scientific studies are not based on anecdotes; however, anecdotal observations can be used early on in the stages of a study to help form hypotheses

 

@barrows - I am not aware of any studies showing that training allows listeners to partly or wholly overcome confirmation bias - if you have one, post it up.  I can get access to most databases and/or make an actual physical appearance in a couple or research libraries, if need be.  I'm not saying partial isn't plausible, a trained listener might be able to hone in on some particular distortion, but plausibility isn't "really where it's at." (sorry Bob...)

 

 

[Ralf11]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Even better is NO USB cable if you are able to use a suitable USB adaptor. However, that's not usually possible. 

 IF you are able to make it work without the need to extend the noisy +5V out from the USB port, disconnecting this and the shield in the adaptor may offer further SQ improvements.

 

Well put.  Use optical or Ethernet if you can - now, where is that Uptone box?

[Ralf11]

but can a USB cable (maybe not meeting specs) affect a DAC in some freq. dependent way?

[Ralf11]

14 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 In short, YES! t

 Added electrical noise can often add "grittiness" to the  sound, and in some cases be perceived as added HF detail. (FALSE HF detail)

 

Sandy, did you see the sibilance posts & glare posts on a different thread 1-2 days ago?  Maybe grittiness fits in there as well...

[Ralf11]

were these blinded listening tests?

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Of course not. The utter stress of not knowing what you're listening to makes it impossible to discern even night-and-day differences.

 

I notice they do NOT want to answer the question.

 

I have to wonder if there is a financial connection with the over-priced cable co.

[Ralf11]

I am not sweating it at all.

 

But I am sure you don't want your site used for people with financial interests to push products...