USB cable comparisons

[Richard Dale]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Yes, I suppose you like to think that.

I suppose you like to think you're polite, possibly wrongly.

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, barrows said:

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.

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

[look&listen]

4 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

1 Science is responsible for recording and playing back the music.   

2 Science can be applied to verify that what is played back is identical to what was recorded

3 to a degree that makes it unlikely that any difference is audible.   

4 I certainly hope a good mastering engineer isn't swapping out cables to get the right house sound for a particular session.

 

1- No, only the sound. You still not clear on difference between 'music' & 'sound'. (oddly like too many audiophiles )

2- Really? I see much evidence you incorrect. Watch CA activity stream for examples of 'science' fails daily.

3- That is your opinion only (see above)

4- 'Getting a sound' is what recording studios all about! There no pretense to deliver event/purist recording product. Massive geek hardware toys reason enough to manipulate, not preserve, sound  

If Cookie or Barry or ?? swap a cable (or all) to achieve better reproduction for their purist products, I say Hooray! better for our 'ears'. Meters, scopes, AP-1s, &c. don't care.

 

You miss point that hearing of sound, music, & SQ all happen in our mind(wetware), so electronic measurement(hardware) from different universe & only sometimes correlated enough to be useful. Trained listeners, even if sometimes inconsistent, uncalibrated, still orders of magnitude more skilled, complex & subtle in 'sound' & 'music' analysis then EE toys (). All (almost?) respected audio product designers use EE tools in development, but final step is 'voicing' by trained ear(s). That is for a good reason, is reality of audio! (ignoring stupid objective/subjective arguments!)

 

Sorry all, not mean to start up 'objective/subjective brawl' or 'can't hear cables knife fight' or 'sighted vs. blind BS' in thread. Probably OP not want that too.

But lost patience with arrogant hearing denier attitudes. Must because guard fell down, since most fools & villain posters blocked to make CA sane, (mostly) friendly place (even if so slow for time now )

[tmtomh]

5 hours 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.

Your point here is an excellent one - and you are quite right that humans often hear things that cannot be accounted for by measurements of equipment.

 

However, you seem to be seriously mistaken in what your argument here proves and does not prove. What it proves is that human perception is variable and influenced by many factors. What your argument does not prove is that if you hear something, it must be the result of an objective characteristic of the equipment that magically cannot be measured.

 

This is the number-one problem with arguments like yours: Confirmation bias, poor memory/recall of small audio details, cross-sensory perception, and a whole host of other physiological, neurological, and environmental factors all play into what we hear.

 

People who disagree with you are not claiming that you're lying or delusional - we all believe that you are hearing/perceiving differences. 

 

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.

 

I have zero interest in saying you don't hear what you say you hear. But I have a very strong interest in your claim (or implication) that others will hear what you hear if they buy the USB cable you've bought. Because that claim is, to be generous, lacking any support.

 

 

2 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

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.

 

These are one and the same. As I noted above, it's not about whether you or I can hear something - I have no doubt you hear what you say you hear. It's about whether I will hear what you hear if I buy the same USB cable you have, and whether or not a USB cable you think is worse will sound better or the same to me. That's where your own experience is interesting to read about (and I appreciate you sharing it), but has no bearing on anyone else, unless one believes that what you hear is based on an objective characteristic of the USB cable that somehow cannot be measured. That's where the voodoo lies in these arguments.

 

2 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

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'.

 

Everyone here is expressing individual opinions. But some of those opinions are opinions about matters that are provable (or disprovable) and others are not. That's the difference.

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

That's where your own experience is interesting to read about (and I appreciate you sharing it), but has no bearing on anyone else, unless one believes that what you hear is based on an objective characteristic of the USB cable that somehow cannot be measured

I do not agree with the above.  I am sure the characteristics we can hear from different USB cables can be distinguished by measurements.  As a (simple) example I point one to the USB cable tests performed by HiFi News.  They pretty much correlated listening tests with measurements of the eye pattern (more precise and accurate sounding cables generally showed a cleaner and more open "eye").

I suspect that all differences we are able to hear with USB cables are indeed measurable, but the question is by which measurement, or, perhaps, do we need a new measurement which is not commonly done?  In any case, i do not believe in "magic" cables, so the differences can be measured if one really wants to figure that out.

 

But, in the mean time, Audiophiles have the most important measuring device already at hand, their ear/brain mechanism.  It is not the job of the Audiophile to prove what she/he hears to others, that would be the job of the engineers who need to satisfy their curiosity for understanding the mechanisms at hand.  The Audiophiles' job is only to choose the cable which sounds best, and, if they want, to report their subjective findings to others.

[GryphonGuy]

22 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.  

 

Scientific evidence is either a factual observation or a series of factual observations.

 

I'm not sure your understanding of the word, transparency, is the same as mine.

• pulling out weeds from a garden increases garden transparency
• cleaning a dirty clear-glass window increases light transparency
• removing electrical interference (a.k.a. noise) on an audio cable increases sound transparency

So transparency means we can see or hear more of what we want (the garden, the light or the music) and less of what we don't want (weeds, dirt, noise etc).

 

And I conclude that there are many ways of factually observing that we can improve on things we want to observe to the detriment of the things we don't as long as we have control over those same things.

 

Regards

GG

[Sonicularity]

38 minutes ago, GryphonGuy said:

 

Scientific evidence is either a factual observation or a series of factual observations.

 

I'm not sure your understanding of the word, transparency, is the same as mine.

• pulling out weeds from a garden increases garden transparency
• cleaning a dirty clear-glass window increases light transparency
• removing electrical interference (a.k.a. noise) on an audio cable increases sound transparency

So transparency means we can see or hear more of what we want (the garden, the light or the music) and less of what we don't want (weeds, dirt, noise etc).

 

And I conclude that there are many ways of factually observing that we can improve on things we want to observe to the detriment of the things we don't as long as we have control over those same things.

 

Regards

GG

 

My use of the word transparency is meant to be the same as being totally clear or invisible with regards to sight.  Something cannot become more invisible.  Invisibler? ?  I may need to come up with a better adjective than transparent.

[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...)

 

 

[Nordkapp]

AFAIAC, expensive usb cables are a total waste of money that could and should be otherwise allocated towards more meaningful propositions. Like room treatment and investment securities. I played around with $6 cables and $200 Audioquest offerings. Not a single bit of difference was identified. Maybe i have just have crap ears. 

[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.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

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 other than subtle if you know what to listen for. 

 

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.

[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?

[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?

 

 

[Sal1950]

36 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

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.

Santa Claus flies around the globe, delivering presents to children all over the world in just one night.

And David Copperfield made a 747 disappear off a runway in a blink of the eye. He really did it, I and tens of thousands of other people saw it happen.  ?

 

Stop living in a crowd enforced, expectation bias induced world and come back down to reality. Do you ever even read and try to understand the facts?

 

3. Similar to the above point, poor digital cables are not capable of changing the overall tone of the sound. There is no such thing as a digital cable capable of acting as a "tone control", making certain sounds "brighter" or "warmer". A passive digital cable is not capable of acting with some kind of frequency filtering mechanism.
 

[Ralf11]

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

[sandyk]

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.

[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)

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

 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)

[tmtomh]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

I do not agree with the above.  I am sure the characteristics we can hear from different USB cables can be distinguished by measurements.  As a (simple) example I point one to the USB cable tests performed by HiFi News.  They pretty much correlated listening tests with measurements of the eye pattern (more precise and accurate sounding cables generally showed a cleaner and more open "eye").

I suspect that all differences we are able to hear with USB cables are indeed measurable, but the question is by which measurement, or, perhaps, do we need a new measurement which is not commonly done?  In any case, i do not believe in "magic" cables, so the differences can be measured if one really wants to figure that out.

 

But, in the mean time, Audiophiles have the most important measuring device already at hand, their ear/brain mechanism.  It is not the job of the Audiophile to prove what she/he hears to others, that would be the job of the engineers who need to satisfy their curiosity for understanding the mechanisms at hand.  The Audiophiles' job is only to choose the cable which sounds best, and, if they want, to report their subjective findings to others.

 

I upvoted your comment, as I think you make a good point here, even though I don't entirely agree with you.

 

Eye patterns can indeed be measured. I would respectfully take issue with the argument you make about eye patterns, though, for two reasons:

1. Eye patterns show what's coming out of the USB cable as it enters the DAC. Eye pattern variations are a meaningful measurement only if they impact what comes out of the DAC at the other end. Tests have been done on this (was it @Archimago, or am I misremembering who did them?), and the tests demonstrated that with virtually all DACs, the output was identical regardless of what the eye pattern looked like at the input.
2. If the premium USB cables that folks are arguing for all produced superior eye patterns to the generic or less-expensive cables that folks are explicitly or implicitly arguing against, I would put more stock in the eye-pattern argument. But - and again, this is the problem with these individual-experience-based arguments IMHO - I'm not aware of any significant correlation between audiophile cables and eye patterns vs less-expensive cables. (I have no doubt that some audiophile cable models have superior eye patterns to some generic cables - what I'm talking about here is a correlation between eye pattern and the full spectrum of cables that folks recommend and/or have purchased.)

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 - even your own comment argues that eye patterns make for better-sounding USB cables, and even your own comment trots out the "do we need a new measurement" trope.

 

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" - they are a very acute and complext perceptual and experiential device, but not a very precise or reliable measuring device.

[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.

[R1200CL]

7 hours ago, Nordkapp said:

Maybe i have just have crap ears. 

 

Could your HiFi equipment matter ??

(And power)

[reverendo]

14 hours ago, tmtomh said:

Your point here is an excellent one - and you are quite right that humans often hear things that cannot be accounted for by measurements of equipment.

 

However, you seem to be seriously mistaken in what your argument here proves and does not prove. What it proves is that human perception is variable and influenced by many factors. What your argument does not prove is that if you hear something, it must be the result of an objective characteristic of the equipment that magically cannot be measured.

 

This is the number-one problem with arguments like yours: Confirmation bias, poor memory/recall of small audio details, cross-sensory perception, and a whole host of other physiological, neurological, and environmental factors all play into what we hear.

 

People who disagree with you are not claiming that you're lying or delusional - we all believe that you are hearing/perceiving differences. 

 

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.

 

I have zero interest in saying you don't hear what you say you hear. But I have a very strong interest in your claim (or implication) that others will hear what you hear if they buy the USB cable you've bought. Because that claim is, to be generous, lacking any support.

 

 

 

These are one and the same. As I noted above, it's not about whether you or I can hear something - I have no doubt you hear what you say you hear. It's about whether I will hear what you hear if I buy the same USB cable you have, and whether or not a USB cable you think is worse will sound better or the same to me. That's where your own experience is interesting to read about (and I appreciate you sharing it), but has no bearing on anyone else, unless one believes that what you hear is based on an objective characteristic of the USB cable that somehow cannot be measured. That's where the voodoo lies in these arguments.

 

 

Everyone here is expressing individual opinions. But some of those opinions are opinions about matters that are provable (or disprovable) and others are not. That's the difference.

wow. this has been busy. and actually an interesting read mostly being able to make it civil (though Sal really does need to learn some manners ;))

I am really tempted to enter this discussion, but I do believe, that, although fruitful, it is not part of the flow of this topic, although, honestly, helpful. And I do appreciate the tone with which it has been brought forward.

All I will only mention on this thread on this particular topic is that some people are assuming certain epistemological premises that I doubt they apply coherently in other aspects of their life. There has to be a level of commensurability for us to be even able to communicate with one another, so there has to be a epistemological presupposition  to make this even viable. Where we draw the line between that basis and what constitutes "nonsense" is an interesting discussion, but it at least opens the door for subjective experiences (a.k.a. "YMMV") to be possibly significant for other people.

This is an initial answer to what I consider to be the most articulate view that has been brought forward as espoused by tmtomh, and I would be glad to elaborate this in a thread that has the objective to discuss this field. Would someone be willing to start that thread?

[barrows]

9 hours ago, tmtomh said:

even your own comment argues that eye patterns make for better-sounding USB cables, and even your own comment trots out the "do we need a new measurement" trope.

My reference to the eye pattern test was pointed at Hi Fi News published measurements and subjective listening tests.  I am not arguing anything here, only acknowledging that HiFi News' tests did show correlation between that measurement and subjective sound quality.  My point was that measurements can show differences, and that, perhaps, other measurements might show other differences as well (not commonly done measurements, perhaps).  Again, for audiophiles, we do not "need" new measurements, as we already have the best possible tools for evaluations, the same ones we use to listen to music every day.  Audiophiles do not need any more "proof" than this.  Only those skeptics, whose listening skills may be quite undeveloped, or engineers, are the ones who may need other measurements to sort this out.

For audiophiles, using listening tests to evaluate our systems is totally appropriate, relevant, and there is nothing wrong with doing so, despite what some other's with tons of opinions and very little experience might think.

[barrows]

10 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

And David Copperfield made a 747 disappear off a runway in a blink of the eye. He really did it, I and tens of thousands of other people saw it happen.

This is a completely non-relevant analogy.  In fact, it is not analogous at all.  A magician starts out with the intent to deceive, to trick, there is no intent to deceive anyone when evaluating audio components.

[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.