USB cable comparisons

[audiobomber]

17 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

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

I auditioned a Benchmark DAC3 in my system for two weeks. The USB cable Benchmark supplied sounded a bit bright, which is not a good thing in my system. I replaced it with my usual Oyaide Class A cable and heard a more organic sounding, warmer tonal balance. How much better of a DAC does one need to eliminate cable differences? 

 

BTW, the difference in SQ between USB cables was greater than the difference between my Audiolab DAC/Pre and the Benchmark. I sent the DAC3 back. 

 

"Optical is the way to go."

 

Surely you don't mean Toslink, which is quite inferior to properly implemented USB?

[firedog]

33 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

"Optical is the way to go."

 

Surely you don't mean Toslink, which is quite inferior to properly implemented USB?

I think the reference was to optical ethernet, which is becoming the "way to go" around here.

And BTW, there are DACs being produced these days where the distortion/jitter differneces across the various inputs, USB, AES, Ethernet, etc - are non-existent. As always, it's the quality of the implementation, not the HW format, that matters.

[manueljenkin]

I am unsure how they measure jitter and how much of a coverage it actually provides. For sure they are not probing directly at the i2s bus and so we are having the variable of dac implementation (or masking) coming in. If any, it only says how that entire circuit behaves with different input.

 

I am actually interested in ethernet audio (for the diy dac I'm about to build - dddac1794). I just thought it wasn't a common thing yet. Do we have a thread for it?

[firedog]

20 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

I am actually interested in ethernet audio (for the diy dac I'm about to build - dddac1794). I just thought it wasn't a common thing yet. Do we have a thread for it?

You are correct there are very few "ethernet DACs"-most people are using outboard streamers that convert the ethernet to another digital format such as USB.

There are also ethernet DACs that simply have the full streamer board housed in the same case as the DAC boaard.  AFAIK, very few that go direct from ethernet input to DAC input on the DAC board itself, with ethernet and DAC integrated together. If I'm mistaken someone can correct me. 

[barrows]

51 minutes ago, firedog said:

AFAIK, very few that go direct from ethernet input to DAC input on the DAC board itself, with ethernet and DAC integrated together. If I'm mistaken someone can correct me. 

The above would likely be a bad idea.  It is not easy to integrate an Ethernet receiver inside a DAC without causing some problems (the same applies to USB receivers to a lesser degree).  I am not suggesting it is impossible though!

 

An Ethernet receiver requires far more computing power than a USB receiver, it essentially has to be a small computer.  An Ethernet receiver has a pretty big noise footprint, orders of magnitude larger than that of a USB receiver.

The proper way to integrate an Ethernet receiver inside a DAC is to keep it fully isolated from the rest of the DAC circuitry (more isolated than USB).  The Ethernet receiver really needs to be on its own board, with a dedicated power supply (own transformer, or at least own transformer secondary not shared with any other part of the DAC) with USB this kind of isolation can be done easily because one can use the USB power bus to power the receiver, providing the power isolation, with Ethernet it needs a separate supply of its own.  Additionally, the Ethernet interface, even when very carefully designed, will have enough radiated emissions (airborne RF) that it needs to be shielded from he rest of the circuitry physically.  The Ethernet receiver should be in a separate sub-enclosure, or at least with a continuous box over it on its PCB which is continuous with a good ground plane on the PCB.  Then it needs to have an isolated connection to the DAC board (USB benefits from his isolation also when properly implemented).  I have only seen a couple of DACs which go this far in their Ethernet receiver implementations: the best one I have heard is the Linn Klimax DS (not cheap), which uses a machined from block chassis with a separate compartment for the Ethernet receiver.

 

So there are, at least right now, advantages to keeping the Ethernet receiver in a separate box to assure best performance.  But of course it is inevitable that we will see more DACs with really good Ethernet interfaces in the future, but it will take some time for manufacturers to figure all this out, remember that it took awhile for USB interfaces to get to where they are now, where many of them are the best input on a given DAC.  Of course an Ethernet implementation such as I described also will add quite a bit to the price of a DAC, as will maintaining the operating system for the Ethernet receiver.  Right now many manufacturers looking to add Ethernet to their DACs are just buying a relatively affordable, rather poor performance, module from a third party company, as they do not want to spend the time and money to develop a really good interface themselves (or they may not have engineers with the capability to do so).

 

All that said, i do believe that DACs with Ethernet input will be the standard in the future, just as USB is the near standard now, but good ones will come at a bit of a premium.  As an example of some of the complexities (just the tip of the iceberg here): USB audio has basically one standard format of communication now, USB class 2 audio: Ethernet has at least 4 I can think of off the top of my head:  DLNA, Roon RAAT, HQPlayer NAA, and Ravenna, so right there if one wants to support everything, there is a lot of code to write.

 

OK, sorry for the OT post!  Who has made comparisons of the Curious Evolved USB cable with other cables, I am really "curious" about this model of cable. 

[audiobomber]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

I think the reference was to optical ethernet, which is becoming the "way to go" around here.

And BTW, there are DACs being produced these days where the distortion/jitter differneces across the various inputs, USB, AES, Ethernet, etc - are non-existent. As always, it's the quality of the implementation, not the HW format, that matters.

I don't know for sure whether Ralf11 was referencing Toslink or Optical transmission, which is why I framed my response as a question. I would note though that at least two posters assumed that Toslink was being referenced. 

 

If S/PDIF sounds as good or better than USB, either the USB implementation has been botched or the audio system has a problem. Asynchronous USB and I2S are superior technically to S/PDIF (XLR, Toslink & coax), because of the embedded clock.

 

 

[barrows]

4 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Asynchronous USB and I2S are superior technically

I2S interfaces between boxes are generally flawed because the standard way this has been implemented is that the source component is the clock master, sending the clock over I2S to the DAC.  It does not have to be this way, but because it has been implemented this way in every I2S DAC (possibly with the exception of MSB's proprietary interface) I am aware of.

 

The master clock should be in the DAC, as close to where the conversion  happens as possible (at the DAC chip, or discrete conversion section).  Async USB allows for this approach, as would Ethernet inside a DAC.  Unfortunately, the way I2S has been done so far, it puts the master clock in the source, which is not the best approach.

[firedog]

22 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

 

 

If S/PDIF sounds as good or better than USB, either the USB implementation has been botched or the audio system has a problem. Asynchronous USB and I2S are superior technically to S/PDIF (XLR, Toslink & coax), because of the embedded clock.

No, that's what you think should be true in theory, but it isn't necessarily what happens in practice. Check out, as one example, the Matrix Audio streamer DACs, that measure equally well with various inputs. USB performance is excellent, as are the other inputs. You can argue your on paper idea of what is true as much as you want, it doesn't make it true in reality, if a company wants to optimize performance of the various formats. 

It's just one of many audiophile "facts" that isn't a fact. 

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thank you for saving me all the keystrokes. Perfectly said. 

 

 

But YOU don't adhere to what he said.

 

the subjectivists come and start making OT subjectivist posts at my thread and you did NOT them what Firedog said, nor did you tell them to lighten up.

 

Instead you delete the entire thread.

 

That is indeed an act of censorship.

 

I saved the thread - should I repost it????

[manueljenkin]

Well, an advice (having seen stuff on other domains as well) - never go by X>Y terminology unless you understand the full network. Yes clock extraction is a big deal but it can be done. Heck, DDR is a super complex assembly that samples at both edges of the clock and it has been made robust enough that we rarely encounter issues dude to data loss. You do need a stable input to begin with though. As always, implementation >> buzzword.

 

That said, I'll never trust anything from ASR chart, let alone take it as a validation of anything. There is hell lot of variables that is often hidden, and doesn't even care to show the filter responses most of the time. Filters are what make a large portion of the sound (and can have consequences on aliasing, phase shifts and other kind of stuff which are audible).

[audiobomber]

26 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

But YOU don't adhere to what he said.

 

the subjectivists come and start making OT subjectivist posts at my thread and you did NOT them what Firedog said, nor did you tell them to lighten up.

 

Instead you delete the entire thread.

 

That is indeed an act of censorship.

 

I saved the thread - should I repost it????

Is that the thread you banned me from posting in, simply because I asked for your views on whether USB cables sound different?

Don't get too righteous.

[Ralf11]

No.

 

Besides that I am not capable of banning you from any thread.

[audiobomber]

33 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

No.

 

Besides that I am not capable of banning you from any thread.

Sorry for misstating. I just tried posting to your thread and it worked. Two previous attempts failed, not sure what that was about. 

 

I'm still curious though, have you tried hearing differences in USB cables?

[Ralf11]

no diff. when tried - maybe I need a super expensive one?

 

I am currently doing a long term comparison (not yet a test) of an ESS vs. an R2R DAC - both < $1,000

 

also on the traveling Okto DAC list...

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I saved the thread - should I repost it????

No. You have 13,000+ post already. 

[Ralf11]

CC you are pissing in the party tray

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

No, that's what you think should be true in theory, but it isn't necessarily what happens in practice. Check out, as one example, the Matrix Audio streamer DACs, that measure equally well with various inputs. USB performance is excellent, as are the other inputs. You can argue your on paper idea of what is true as much as you want, it doesn't make it true in reality, if a company wants to optimize performance of the various formats. 

It's just one of many audiophile "facts" that isn't a fact. 

 

  +1

[sandyk]

WRT  Differences between USB cables.

 

I.M.E.  Using high resolution Videos . e.g. saved or downloaded 1080 .ts streams of live musical performances from SNL etc. is more capable of revealing differences between USB cables, or even a direct USB input than Audio by itself, when  using a suitable Media Player such as an Oppo 103.  This can be tried using these files saved to a USB memory stick plugged into a USB-A to USB-B cable of for example 3M and 5M lengths , and compared with directly plugged  in. Many USB cables will either exhibit errors or even fail completely with typical generic USB cables at lengths of >3M as well as look and sound a little degraded before obvious errors occur. .

I have even seen a 5M long USB cable that had no screening !

[Teresa]

13 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

But YOU don't adhere to what he said.

 

the subjectivists come and start making OT subjectivist posts at my thread and you did NOT them what Firedog said, nor did you tell them to lighten up.

 

Instead you delete the entire thread.

 

That is indeed an act of censorship.

 

I saved the thread - should I repost it????

 

Was that your "New Audiophile Cable Design" thread? When I signed on tonight the first thing I wanted to do was go there and see more comments and to see if anyone besides me thought it was funny. But instead I got: 

 

Sorry, there is a problem
You do not have permission to view this content.
Error code: 2F173/K

 

I thought your post was very funny and don't understand why other subjectivists didn't like it. I wish you could repost it, perhaps Chris might allow a comedy forum?

[tapatrick]

45 minutes ago, Teresa said:

perhaps Chris might allow a comedy forum?

😂

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Was that your "New Audiophile Cable Design" thread? When I signed on tonight the first thing I wanted to do was go there and see more comments and to see if anyone besides me thought it was funny. But instead I got: 

 

Sorry, there is a problem
You do not have permission to view this content.
Error code: 2F173/K

 

I thought your post was very funny and don't understand why other subjectivists didn't like it. I wish you could repost it, perhaps Chris might allow a comedy forum?

 

Yes, it had a joking component and a science component.

 

2 humorless australians crapped on it and a humorless mihnasotan censored the entire thread

 

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[sandyk]

57 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Yes, it had a joking component and a science component.

 

2 humorless australians crapped on it and a humorless mihnasotan censored the entire thread

 

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

Perhaps most Yanks should leave Comedy and Humour to the Poms, who do it way better ?

 There are a few exceptions, but you sure aren't one of them !

[Kimo]

51 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Perhaps most Yanks should leave Comedy and Humour to the Poms, who do it way better ?

 There are a few exceptions, but you sure aren't one of them !

 

 

Who doesn't love the comedic insight of Russell Crowe.

[sandyk]

40 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

 

Who doesn't love the comedic insight of Russell Crowe.

 Russell Crowe-Although a New Zealand citizen, he has lived most of his life in Australia.

[Kimo]

I had an Aussie drinking buddy here, who was a bit of a crank, and especially funny when he got rolling on his "Irish" jokes.  His mom was some semi famous Australian folk/children's singer, but I can't remember her name now.