USB cable comparisons

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

IF different USB cables are really changing the sound then you need a better DAC

 

Optical is the way to go.

 

This is indeed a good option ... however, in the real world of the current gear available to buy, this may be quite difficult to do. A good workaround is to 'adjust' the cable used, so that its properties happen to be in balance with the weaknesses of the gear it's feeding - this is a bit of "playing with rubber bands to make sure things don't come undone" - very far from an elegant solution, but may actually do the trick in a particular situation.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Sorry but the truth has to come to light on occasion.

The popularity of cable snake oil has made a laughing stock of the audiophile community.

A lie repeated often enough still doesn't make it true.

 

 

There's no "lie" involved ... while the engineering of audio gear makes systems susceptible to factors which shouldn't be relevant, there will continue to be a market for variations of things like cables - the market will always reward those who come with 'solutions', even though the concept offends you.

[fas42]

A fav show locally is this beast,

 

 

Whether you appreciate the style or not, it's a guide to where we're at ...

 

[fas42]

6 hours ago, manueljenkin said:

Quick question. What is the length of the cable. If it is a small cable (0.7m or 1m like the one I have), would it be possible for you to try the 2m variant or longer? (I can't since I had to import the cable I have).

 

I ran into few interesting blogs, one of which is here: https://www.febo.com/reference/cable_data.html

 

What the supposedly scientific crowd can't seem to handle, is that the length of the cable is relevant because the change in sound may be caused by some parasitic characteristic of that link which is variable per the length - it's part of, "sometimes things aren't as simple as you would like them to be" nature of the real world ...

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

The better the combination of components in an audio system, the less difference in the "sound" of the cables can be perceived. Conversely, in a random set of poorly matched components, the difference in the "sound" of the cables may be more noticeable.

 

This is correct. When a system is set up with good quality components, but there hasn't been care in sorting out all the aspects - which you can call matching if you like - then the remaining replay distortion is very noticeable - people like to call this, "signature" 😀. These anomalies are usually of a type which are heavily influenced by the qualities of the cables used - the latter act as effects units, by moderating the levels and spectrum of the audible playback distortions, and can be endlessly played with; in the belief that they are improving the system - whereas it really is an exercise of going in circles ...

 

Conversely, when a setup is highly optimised then the character of the recording itself dominates - it sets the agenda for what you hear. At this point the value of of fiddling with cables is negligible - the conductors, construction and shielding are doing what they are supposed to do; transfer signals from one point in the overall circuit to another - and nothing else.

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, jon2020 said:

Oh no, not another one. Why even bother coming to this forum?

 

The question is, what you want to listen to: the sound of your system components, or the sound that's on the recordings - for some strange reason for a few, perhaps even a tiny few, the latter is preferable ... 😛.

 

The next step: if you want not to hear any distortion characteristics of your rig, then how do you go about it ... ? That is the difficult exercise in this game, which can become an all consuming activity for those who venture down this particular rabbit hole.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, xyzzy1 said:

 

the true honest audiophile is listening to music on their expensive audio equipment and trying to get a more intimate experience of the artistry of the musicians.

 

Which is slightly different from what I aim for - if you're trying to 'understand' what the musicians are doing, and want to focus very strongly on how they are going about their craft, then it is fair game to distort what you hear - let's say a drummer listens to a track with the intention of picking up precisely what his fellow musician is doing; to do this he may play with DSP to mold the sound, so that the drum kit instruments cut through better - he doesn't want to hear 'accurate' sound; he wants to hear more intensely what he really wants to hear.

 

Personally, I just want to hear what's on the record - get that spot on, and the result is immensely satisfying, IME. Then 'enhancing' the sound for extra oomph is a step that can be taken next, if it really seems worthwhile for a particular recording, is how I see it.

 

Quote

 

As with any hobby there are plenty of charlatans who buy expensive audio equipment because they can and then listen to vapid pop or the same few tracks because it sounds spectacular and loud. Honest audiophiles thank these folks for helping keep the high end companies alive :-).

 

There is always status in expensive stuff, which usually has the looks to make the impact ... but in audio, that has little chance of guaranteeing an excellent standard of performance ...

 

 

[fas42]

If you want accurate sound, then the cable thing becomes a very simple exercise: either it does nothing to the sound; or it makes it worse; or it makes it better. If the system is re-engineered so that a particular run of cable is no longer needed - it's been designed out of the equation - active speakers are a simple example of this - then we have the "does nothing" scenario - which I for one am in favour of, 😉. The "makes it worse" to most people should be a no-no, I reckon ... which leaves us with the "makes it better". And the question here is, why ... ?? If adding a certain cable "makes it better" then what's it actually doing? Adding 'nice' distortion', subtracting unpleasant distortion; compensating for less than decent engineering somewhere in the rig ... ... what??

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, richard_crl032 said:

 

Believe wishful thinking on listening to what is recorded ..  every designer of components, including usb cable, in the audio chain have their take on what is should sound when recorded.

 

There is an absolute ... what is actually in the source data, on the recorded track. Not so much with analogue, but once locked into a digital format, it's frozen. It will be the same if copied without error over a thousand generations, or replayed in a thousand years time - we won't bring the ideas of @sandyk into this 🙃. That's the sound we can guarantee to retrieve, if the reproduction system is up to it ... what was intended, in the recording studio, is completely irrelevant at this point.

 

5 minutes ago, richard_crl032 said:

 

Indeed but those will not survive for long and there are plenty of brand of expensive stuff that had been around for a long time ... let's not kid ourselves on gettinng cheap and great but only VFM. Having engineering solutions is not cheap and someone has to pay.

 

Cheers.

 

Current solutions that are VFM are pretty amazing - if set up well, they do so much that is right - which makes expensive, blingy stuff only valuable for doing things other than SQ more impressively ...

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, richard_crl032 said:

Oh no ..  trying to playback not all 1 and 0 are the same .. better engineered solution are often complex and expensive to get rhe 1 and 0 as rectangle shaped as possible in simple terms. How about noise etc. from ssd and hdd ?

 

The digital signal while being shipped around in the circuits has different qualities, in the sense of what one can measure in the analogue world - yes, shape of the steps, jitter, noise, etc ... but all these can be cancelled by simply regenerating the digital signal where it counts, at the converter, to as perfect a degree as one likes, to suit the behaviour requirements of the DAC.

 

Quote

 

Capacitance, inductance, loss etc. are also real in cables.

 

Even ripping quality in digital format varies.

 

It's not straightforward C, L, or R that does the damage - the real problems are parasitic, non-linear, static charge behaviours; hard to measure, quantify - and deal with ...

 

Quote

 

Anyway, glad you believe you can or have accurate recording playback but from my experience, even the 1kk full FM accoustic system heard many times while unbelievably dynamic, details, surreal, who knows or care if accurate.

 

Cheers.

 

"Unbelievably dynamic, details, surreal" is the true nature of recordings - as you say, usually only available from the "best" setups ... but it shows what's there to be drawn out. And, yes, that FM Acoustic setup was accurate.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, richard_crl032 said:

And then there is this conrad johnson setup with midrange that much more "palpable" than the FM Acoustics setup .. what is accurate ?

 

How one tests this is to try 'difficult' recordings - if the midrange of the conrad johnson combo is not a true representation of what's on the recording, then it will highly likely be caught out; and make the replay somewhat unpleasant, or even unlistenable ... if one can detect a characteristic that comes through on every recording, to some degree, then the 'signature' of the rig is intruding - and the playback is not accurate.