USB cable comparisons

[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.

[Allan F]

7 hours 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.

 

Actually, you don't. Experienced listeners with high resolution gear can often quite readily discern differences between the sound of some USB cables, because the differences may be other than subtle if you know what to listen for.

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Yes, I suppose you like to think that.

Quote

Care to make a short recording with each so us infidels might catch a glimpse of the light?

 

Is there any particular reason why you appear to be making a determined effort to live up to your Member Title?

 

 

[Allan F]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Sal

 

 Haven't you been previously requested NOT to post your ANTI SUBJECTIVE tirades in this SUBJECTIVE thread ?

 Members who start threads like this, and use them to exchange experiences and ideas have become pissed of at the attempts by a few like yourself to derail threads like this.

(click to enlarge)

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, tmtomh said:

Finally, your statement that "The audiophile's job is only to choose the cable which sounds best, and, if they want, to report their subjective findings to others" is a statement that I cannot disagree with. But I cannot agree that this is the limit of what many of our fellow audiophiles actually are doing here. Many are going further and making arguments based on their subjective findings.

 

A distinction without a difference!

 

Quote

Similarly, while I agree that our ears and brains are the most important things, since that's the entire point of listening to music, I do not agree that they're the most important "measuring device"...

 

Again, you seem to get it but then you don't. It is the most important "measuring device" because , in the final analysis, it is the only one that really counts. And that is because the whole purpose of the exercise is to produce the best sound for us to listen to and enjoy the music.

[Allan F]

16 hours ago, tmtomh said:

But the problem is that the differences you perceive are meaningless to the rest of us, because we don't have your ears, your brain, your particular combination of cross-sensory experiences, and so on. Measurement, math, and physics are objective - not because objective is the whole ballgame, but because objective measurements and objectively established scientific mechanisms are the only things we have that can be communicated from person to person, outside  the unique subjective environment that each of us represents.re not. That's the difference.

 

IMO, there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. It assumes that the experiences reported are in isolation, i.e. not shared by others. When many people otherwise unrelated repeatedly report the same characteristics, there is a body of empirical evidence upon which one may rely. Those experiences may be communicated and may have as much reliability as any objective measurements. While there is no guarantee that you will hear the same thing, making decisions based on numerous reports by people who have earned your trust is far better than taking a stab in the dark. It is trite to repeat the simple truth that measurements do not necessarily correlate with what we hear.

[Allan F]

22 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yes, the phenomenon is very well known and studied. Most of the millions that purchased the original snake oil elixir thought it cured their ills, although it contained nothing more than some mineral oil with flavoring. There's no safety in numbers, I'm afraid.

 

Hackneyed rhetoric adds nothing to the discussion.

[Allan F]

31 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It was a response to your own rhetorical statement. Take it for what it's worth.

 

I did.... "nothing"!

 

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

With respect, I don't know that you want to be telling others that they don't get it. The importance of our ears (aka our ear/brain listening perception) is beyond dispute - I agree 100% that it's the most important. But you are missing the important distinction that our ears are not the most important measuring device. I suppose one could say our ears are the most important measuring device if one is talking about measuring aural enjoyment - but even then the point is not to measure our enjoyment, but rather to experience enjoyment.

 

Truly, I am not trying to be pedantic. Rather, words mean things, and they mean things for a reason. And if we confuse or equate measurement, perception, and experience, then we can't communicate meaningfully (or at least precisely) about this stuff. And that was sort of the point i was trying to make.

 

And so - once again - if you feel your system sounds better with one USB cable vs another, by all means enjoy that, and by all means share your experience here. But if, based on that perceptual experience (not to mention based on an extremely small sample size with no proper control) you claim that USB cables make a difference and that certain models are better than other models, then you're going to get push-back.

 

I'm not sure how else to say it - your experience and perceptions of a USB cable do not have to be false in order for me to express doubt and skepticism that I would have the same experience as you if I tried it.

 

With respect, you are being pedantic. The word "measure" has different meanings, depending on the context. And I am talking about "measuring aural enjoyment". You are entitled to your interpretation of words, but your definition of "communicating meaningfully" is, IMO, unjustifiably and/or unnecessarily limited. I am perfectly comfortable with push-back as it is not going to change many years of repeated experiences, supported by like experiences of many others. You are, of course, free to express any doubts or skepticism that you choose.  But, apparently, your skepticism - please forgive me for saying closed mind - precludes forming a conclusion based on actual listening to see if you have the same experience.

 

Anyhow, I see no point in pursuing this discussion any further as I believe the opposing views have been thoroughly canvassed and exhausted, never to be joined. I am going to retire to my living room to listen to music. Bye.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My humor didn’t come through correctly. Sal used the word entitled amd I couldn’t resist using it back. ?

I suppose you could include an emoticon like this to capture that intended state of mind.

[Allan F]

22 hours ago, Shanepj said:

On another note, I would try and find out where the unwanted interference is coming from as you may further improve what you have already experienced 

 

Eliminating the noise at its source is, of course, preferable. Also, have you tried placing a ferrite core around USB cable close to the where it enters the DAC? If you can otherwise get rid of the noise, you might find that improved sound quality is achievable with a better USB cable.

[Allan F]

On 2/7/2019 at 1:17 PM, matthias said:

 

I think the BM is more similar to the Phasure Lush than to the Curious.

 

Matt

 

Based on the description in the review, the above is certainly consistent with my experience with the Phasure Lush and Curious.

[Allan F]

11 hours ago, matthias said:

 

Allan,

very interesting to read your posts about both Lush and Curious.

Is it correct, that you prefer Curious in your existing set-up?

Thanks

 

Matt

 

Yes, Matt, that is correct. When we did the comparisons with the new setup some time ago, my audiophile friend who is my "other set of ears" and I both clearly preferred the Curious.

[Allan F]

On 3/19/2019 at 2:29 PM, HumanMedia said:

 

The Oyaide is relatively neutral, presenting the full frequency range evenly and clearly. To me and in my system the Curious sounded ‘less bright’ but in a bad way, it seemed like it rolled off quickly over 10khz and below 80hz. It might compensate for a system with elevated high frequencies and treble problems, but does it by fixing the problem with another problem. Lower bass dropped off quickly too. The Curious midrange was very creamy, but in an artificial way, like you are on methadone, in one sense perceivable as pleasurable but with a constant feeling of ‘not right’ and artificial-ness. It is faux smooth, different and interesting at first, but quickly feels like an effect rather than real naturalness. The Oyaide feels like it just steps out of the way and presents music.

 

Your profile does not list your audio system. As the effect of cables is highly system dependent, it would be helpful if you were to provide details of the system on which you made these observations. In my system, the Curious USB cable exhibits none of the characteristics that you describe. In fact, It sounds extremely neutral, natural and musical and has proved to be superior to a number of highly regarded USB cables, including the Wireworld Platinum Starlight 7, Light Harmonic Lightspeed 10G, and Phasure Lush.

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, jon2020 said:

 

I was referring to this poster who did not compare the Curious with the Oyaide but called out the poster who actually compared and shared his listening experience.......

 

You misunderstood the purpose of my post. I wasn't calling anyone out. Rather, I was describing my experience with the Curious USB cable in contrast to his. I suggested that he provide details of his system so the context of these differing observations was available for whatever value that might be to others in explaining the differences. The topic of this thread is USB cable comparisons, in general, not comparisons to the Oyaide USB cable, in particular.

[Allan F]

13 minutes ago, jon2020 said:

He compared the Curious vs Oyaide. You compared Curious vs others.  The topic on hand at the time, though not the topic for the entire thread, is Oyaide vs others, not Curious vs othets. Please chill.

 

I guess you missed the  part where he described the characteristics of the Curious cable. You might benefit from your own advice.

[Allan F]

On 8/2/2020 at 4:09 PM, CheapSplurge said:

Got a bargain deal on a curious cable incoming, is the thing pretty good as far as more clarity and resolution? Using it with a chord dac. 

Additionally would a uptone regen make it ever better?

 

 

IMO and experience, I would expect the answer to both questions to be "Yes".

[Allan F]

On 7/14/2021 at 11:42 AM, audiobomber said:

Some prefer the original Curious cable to the newer and more expensive Evolved.

 

FWIW, in my system I found the Curious Evolved to be a definite upgrade from the original Curious USB cable which it replaced. The original Curious USB cable was a noticeable improvement over the Light Harmonic Lightspeed USB cable in my system, notwithstanding that the latter was very considerably more expensive.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, richard_crl032 said:

Not surprised ... depends on what your system was lacking or needing to hide.

 

Price does matter but not beyond what a good cable that does not mess up more.

 

Cables are imho only for final eq after you finalised the components....

 

You will not see heaps of 10k powercord or 5k interconnects in recording studio that create the very music that your system is trying to playback as near as possible to what the studio mixed.

 

I don't view cables as equalizers or necessarily to address "what your system is lacking or needing to hide" unless those are obvious. More often, IMO, replacing an existing cable with a new one is a question of finding that it reveals improvements in areas that you probably were not previously aware of. But I agree that there comes a point where you do want to finalize your cable configuration and just enjoy the music. Auditioning cables through critical listening is hardly what I would call an enjoyable pastime.

 

With regard to recording studios, many do not pay sufficient attention to the quality of their cables. While they need not be in the 5k or 10k range, those studios that do care to invest in quality cables can produce superior SQ, all other things being equal.

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, iLguapo said:

What makes the new Curious cable “evolved?

 

FWIW, the following is offered by the cable's designer, Rob Woodland:

The new Curious Evolved USB cable takes the original design principles and pushes them further. The work wasn't so much on the data lines (which I'm really happy with) but on the ground system. And at this point, I believe the most important decision you make in designing a USB cable is how you use the ground wire/s. There is a special relationship between data lines and ground. One of those things where "art" is just as important as "science".