New Nordost Heindall 2 USB

[mayhem13]

I have actually tried different USB cables on my system, ranging in price from a $10 printer cable to modestly priced audiophile cables ($50-$200). The differences are so profound that I think anyone who says they all sound the same is either deaf or hasn't actually compared them, and is talking out of their a**. It wouldn't surprise me if the premium USB cables that I can't afford sound even better.

 

And I have also tried variations of USB cables.......and had quite the opposite experience that I could discern no appreciable difference with each comparison. This by default of your prognosis renders me deaf......thank you.

 

So please enlighten this clearly handicapped audiophile?.......what actually made each cable sound 'better' than another? I also find it interesting that performance increases are expectedly parallel cost.......does value figure into this anyplace? Is there a performance mechanism in place that's been tested and confirmed to 'improve' sound quality within USB cables?

[JohnSwenson]

Thank you for that explanation, it is very enlightening. However you made one statement that has me wondering what you are actually saying here: "Note: none of this actually changes the bits, that input circuit IS good enough to recover the actual bits." Since the "bits" are all we really care about here (as they ARE the data) it seems to me that would put the question to rest. But then you go on to say: "It is the consequences of the heroic measures taken by the receiver to get those bits in the face of poor SI (signal integrity) that can affect the sound." Would you mind elaborating on that last statement please? If the data is recovered intact, then the DAC will reconstruct the audio waveform (to the limits of it's capability due to quantization error, and analog stage distortion and noise, that is) exactly as the data tells it to. Changing cables does not, as you point out, affect the USB receiver's ability to recover the actual bits intact, so why would the receiver's "heroic measures" change the sound if the bits are recovered as transmitted? I look forward to your response.

 

I covered this extensively in my articles on AudioStream, the gist is that the threshold of a normal CMOS input (such as found on DAC chip inputs) is not a fixed voltage, it is a ratio between the voltage on the power and ground pins. Thus any noise on the power pin and ground pin causes a dynamically changing threshold on the input pins (including the clock pin). None of the input signals have an instantaneously changing voltage, it is a "ramp". The threshold is the voltage at which the chip senses the input changes from low to high (or 0 to 1). Thus noise on power and ground pins at the DAC chip changes the threshold, which changes where on the ramp it sees a change in value. Because the threshold is constantly changing, the TIME at which it sees the change happen also changes, otherwise known as jitter.

 

Thus increasing noise on power and ground increases the jitter seen inside the DAC chip, even if the clock signal itself doesn't change! The point about that dissertation on USB input receivers is that the condition of the input signal (the SI) will cause the receiver to change how hard it has to work to recover the bits, this change causes a change in the power and ground noise on the board, which changes the internal jitter of the DAC chip, thus changing the analog waveform, without changing the bits.

 

There HAVE been some recent tests that show the SI at the receiver chips does in fact vary radically with different cables.

 

John S.

[elcorso]

And I have also tried variations of USB cables.......and had quite the opposite experience that I could discern no appreciable difference with each comparison. This by default of your prognosis renders me deaf......thank you.

 

So please enlighten this clearly handicapped audiophile?.......what actually made each cable sound 'better' than another? I also find it interesting that performance increases are expectedly parallel cost.......does value figure into this anyplace? Is there a performance mechanism in place that's been tested and confirmed to 'improve' sound quality within USB cables?

 

We can't talk (or I don't like) to talk about deafness, but we can talk about differences in 'perception'. I could be very offensive to music lovers. Is like my 'wife' (we don't live together anymore), if she wants to offend me, she say "you are deaf, Roch". Maybe I'm not deaf, but don't want to listen what she is arguing (because yes, we 'talk').

 

Going to the 'perception' topic, what is important to me maybe is not so important to you. If you like piano music better than violin, you pay more attention when listening to a piano. Some other people listen to music as a whole, other listen also to details.

 

The other important thing is your DAC immunity to USB cables, and this depends on his USB interface.I have two DACs totally immune to USB cables: Playback Designs & exaDAC. Some others don't an their SQ is affected by different USB cables, and not always for a better SQ!

 

The last, but not he least is your gear 'resolution', where prices varies, but "you can't make chocolate without cocoa", and on very good gear there are expensive components inside. There is a lot excellent gear made by DIY guys at the nice price, where you don't pay advertising and dealers markup like of brand names.

 

Happy listening,

 

Roch

[One and a half]

There is a lot excellent gear made by DIY guys at the nice price, where you don't pay advertising and dealers markup like of brand names.

 

 

Add... or Product liability, where a proportion of the price ends up more than we think.

[Freann]

@JohnSwenson: Great insight - thank you!

As a non-engineer I frequently confuse the digital signal (Nyqvist et al) with the apparatus used to transport it. On is perfect, the other most certainly is not.

[wwaldmanfan]

So please enlighten this clearly handicapped audiophile?.......what actually made each cable sound 'better' than another? I also find it interesting that performance increases are expectedly parallel cost.......does value figure into this anyplace? Is there a performance mechanism in place that's been tested and confirmed to 'improve' sound quality within USB cables?

 

On my system, the best-sounding USB cable, the Kimber Kable Ag ($165, 1M) was not the most expensive one that I tested. Chris C. has also endorsed this cable.

I have read that silver transmits a waveform differently than copper, which could theoretically account for some variation. I am not a scientist and cannot verify this information, but, I found this interesting:

SILVER AUDIO

[mayhem13]

I covered this extensively in my articles on AudioStream, the gist is that the threshold of a normal CMOS input (such as found on DAC chip inputs) is not a fixed voltage, it is a ratio between the voltage on the power and ground pins. Thus any noise on the power pin and ground pin causes a dynamically changing threshold on the input pins (including the clock pin). None of the input signals have an instantaneously changing voltage, it is a "ramp". The threshold is the voltage at which the chip senses the input changes from low to high (or 0 to 1). Thus noise on power and ground pins at the DAC chip changes the threshold, which changes where on the ramp it sees a change in value. Because the threshold is constantly changing, the TIME at which it sees the change happen also changes, otherwise known as jitter.

 

Thus increasing noise on power and ground increases the jitter seen inside the DAC chip, even if the clock signal itself doesn't change! The point about that dissertation on USB input receivers is that the condition of the input signal (the SI) will cause the receiver to change how hard it has to work to recover the bits, this change causes a change in the power and ground noise on the board, which changes the internal jitter of the DAC chip, thus changing the analog waveform, without changing the bits.

 

There HAVE been some recent tests that show the SI at the receiver chips does in fact vary radically with different cables.

 

John S.

 

But jitter is readily and easily measured.......so the premise of your theory is that 'better' USB cables reduce jitter? This could easily be measured, proven and published.....unless that is to say that the 'jitter' you describe is in fact of another type similiar to varying degrees of harmonic distortions?

[mayhem13]

On my system, the best-sounding USB cable, the Kimber Kable Ag ($165, 1M) was not the most expensive one that I tested. Chris C. has also endorsed this cable.

I have read that silver transmits a waveform differently than copper, which could theoretically account for some variation. I am not a scientist and cannot verify this information, but, I found this interesting:

SILVER AUDIO

 

Interesting read. LoL. I found the use of 'one possibility' especially intriguing which indicates the mfg has no idea as to why their cables improve SQ.......they just do. So my question is how do they develop or engineer a cable? Is this all purely done with trying different metals and jacketing and then critically listening for what appears to sound better?....or at least different?

 

If you can't see the silliness in all of this I don't know what else to say other than I'm happy that you're perceiving a difference and enjoying the music.......and I am not, saving myself upwards of $1k for my systems total wiring load.

[wwaldmanfan]

Interesting read. LoL. I found the use of 'one possibility' especially intriguing which indicates the mfg has no idea as to why their cables improve SQ.......they just do. So my question is how do they develop or engineer a cable? Is this all purely done with trying different metals and jacketing and then critically listening for what appears to sound better?....or at least different?

 

If you can't see the silliness in all of this I don't know what else to say other than I'm happy that you're perceiving a difference and enjoying the music.......and I am not, saving myself upwards of $1k for my systems total wiring load.

 

I didn't say I bought Silver Audio's high-priced cables, but I am always willing to listen and keep an open mind when someone offers an explaination of how this stuff supposedly works. You never know when you might learn something. I then put my money where my mouth (or ears are).

I have tried boutique speaker cables, power cables, too, but this is what I am running now: $165 USB cable, mid-priced audiophile analog interlinks, $1.70/foot speaker cable, and $10 generic, shielded 14AWG power cables. Sounds good to me.

[Paul R]

Yes Paul, I know about wingsuits. That's why I was careful to specify naked arms. I knew that were I not careful to make that distinction, that some contentious so-and-so would bring up wingsuits in order to prove my analogy wrong. Looks like my careful wording didn't do me much good in that instance.

 

(grin) I tried soooo hard to resist. About 20 milliseconds...

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

But jitter is readily and easily measured.......so the premise of your theory is that 'better' USB cables reduce jitter? This could easily be measured, proven and published.....unless that is to say that the 'jitter' you describe is in fact of another type similiar to varying degrees of harmonic distortions?

 

Umm- just to be accurate, I would suggest jitter is not so easily measured as one might think. Some types of it are, but the stuff being talked about on USB cables right now? Boy howdy, that ain't an easy thing to measure.

 

At least, not without about a six figure investment in test equipment.

 

-Paul

[mav52]

Umm- just to be accurate, I would suggest jitter is not so easily measured as one might think. Some types of it are, but the stuff being talked about on USB cables right now? Boy howdy, that ain't an easy thing to measure.

 

At least, not without about a six figure investment in test equipment.

 

-Paul

 

So true, and then it all comes down to how accurate the device is providing the signal to be measured via the "USB cable". And then you will have those that note that the device providing the signal whatever it is, was "not the best, or most expensive etc.. a never ending cycle.

[mayhem13]

Umm- just to be accurate, I would suggest jitter is not so easily measured as one might think. Some types of it are, but the stuff being talked about on USB cables right now? Boy howdy, that ain't an easy thing to measure.

 

At least, not without about a six figure investment in test equipment.

 

-Paul

 

Is this because John says so or is there multiple types of jitter? Can someone please enlighten me as to the differing degrees if they do exist? I'm fearful that again, poor jitter is being thrown around like the immaculate conception or something.

 

I would then also expect the companies developing these cables are in possession of these expensive measurement devices to prove their engineering and designs?.....how else do you develop and bring and new or superior product to market?

 

Is there an example of such gear?.....mfg, part #, etc? I can inquire with the various cable companies and find out if the own/use such a device.

[Paul R]

No, this is from me, though I am pretty sure John and others would concur.

 

Jitter is a pest that assumes many different forms in many different types of transmission systems, and exists in some form or another in all transmissions systems. Packet jitter in a network is the variation in the *latency* over the network. USB cables are subject to this type of jitter and the DAC is subject to this and other types.

 

Such as Clock jitter, which is a real pain in audio systems and is a special case of sampling jitter in a system.

 

Testing for jitter can be enormously complicated, and expensive. In the case we are talking about here, injecting jitter into the system would probably not be the ideal way to measure what might be going wrong.

 

So to get you started on your learning curve, try this PDF form TI. Then note that he stuff we are looking for is really difficult to see with this level of equipment.

http://www.ti.com/lit/an/scaa120a/scaa120a.pdf

 

Then here is a related page from Tektronix that has a bit deeper information.

Jitter, Noise, and Timing Analysis | Tektronix

 

This is out of date, but goes a bit deeper into some aspects.

Timing jitter measuring equipment for digital systems.

 

From there, it can get *really* complex. Especially in the case of something like John described, which is essentially a sneaky way for noise to enter into a DAC and present itself audibly.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this because John says so or is there multiple types of jitter? Can someone please enlighten me as to the differing degrees if they do exist? I'm fearful that again, poor jitter is being thrown around like the immaculate conception or something.

 

I would then also expect the companies developing these cables are in possession of these expensive measurement devices to prove their engineering and designs?.....how else do you develop and bring and new or superior product to market?

 

Is there an example of such gear?.....mfg, part #, etc? I can inquire with the various cable companies and find out if the own/use such a device.

[JohnSwenson]

Is this because John says so or is there multiple types of jitter? Can someone please enlighten me as to the differing degrees if they do exist? I'm fearful that again, poor jitter is being thrown around like the immaculate conception or something.

 

I would then also expect the companies developing these cables are in possession of these expensive measurement devices to prove their engineering and designs?.....how else do you develop and bring and new or superior product to market?

 

Is there an example of such gear?.....mfg, part #, etc? I can inquire with the various cable companies and find out if the own/use such a device.

 

Note that the jitter I mentioned in the above post is INSIDE the DAC chip! This is really difficult to measure, the equipment costs in the $10,000,000 range, there aren't too many of them in the world. I work for a company that DOES have one and we have measured the jitter inside chips with varying amounts of noise at the power and ground pins. There is no way cable manufacturers have one of these.

 

What CAN be measured is the signal integrity at receiver pins, this just takes a good 5GHz scope with a really good differential probe. We are talking $50k or so and available all over the place (if you have the $50K!) I'll bet Belkin has one of these, but I don't know about audiophile cable companies. I'm pretty sure that some of these companies just do the build and listen and hope they come up with something good. The result of that of course is that frequently they wind up putting the money on things that don't really matter and that what DID make it better was some side effect of doing the expensive thing. While a few probably do actually measure things, I have no clue which companies fall into which categories.

 

The intermediate stage between these two, power and ground plane noise, is also fairly easily measurable with the same scope and differential probe, but I find it generally is more informative to look at the spectrum. A good spectrum analyzer for this is a bit more expensive, but can be had for under $75K. But this has to be measured in the DAC, not at the cable. So to really do this properly takes a stable of different DACs and run the same measurements on each of the DACs and see how the cable design affects the noise in the DACs. I'm less inclined to believe that any company actually does that.

 

As to my own cable habits, I do NOT buy expensive USB cables. I CAN hear differences in cables, but by the time you get past a really good $50 one the improvements in the expensive ones are fairly small, I would much rather take the money and build a better DAC, or amp or speaker.

 

John S.

[gmgraves]

No, what we care about is whether the output signal is effected. You seem to have skipped right over what might be the most important point that John made (bold text mine):

 

 

I didn't overlook it, I misread it. In a poorly designed DAC, I'll concede that it is possible that some of the USB receiver's digital noise (caused, by that receiver having to work real hard to recover the bit-stream intact) could conceivably leak into the analog stage and cause such things as decreased signal to noise ratio, increased distortion, etc., and yes it might be enough to alter the sound. BUT, I can't see that happen over a meter or two of USB cable. And even if that did happen, it would be a function of poor DAC design, not the cable. So I still don't see how a better (read that: "more expensive") cable can correct for poor SI (or cause poor SI) over the lengths in question. Perhaps as one approaches the USB limit of 5 meters, signal quality might diminish to the point where it could become an issue, in which case, cables with less reactance might do less damage to the signal's integrity, but I can't believe that these USB receiver chips are that poorly designed in this day and age or that modern DAC designers aren't taking the trouble to isolate their analog stages from the effects of the digital portion of the circuit. Even the tiny DragonFly has separate power supplies for different parts of it's circuit (five power supplies altogether, I believe). Maybe that's the answer for you guys. Use only DACs which are in the form of USB dongles that plug into the computer directly, thus eliminating the need for USB cables altogether!

 

BTW, In my estimation, that still doesn't let USB cable burn-in off the hook for being in the same category with green CD pens, speaker cable elevators, Phonograph record de-magnetizers and other dubious products and audiophile-neurotic procedures.

[gmgraves]

As to my own cable habits, I do NOT buy expensive USB cables. I CAN hear differences in cables, but by the time you get past a really good $50 one the improvements in the expensive ones are fairly small, I would much rather take the money and build a better DAC, or amp or speaker.

 

John S.

Now that's a very sensible attitude. Thanks for clarifying your earlier post. Have you seen any measurements that show that "burning-in" a USB cable actually does anything? I doubt it, but if you know something I don't about this, I'm all ears.

[kennyb123]

I didn't overlook it, I misread it. In a poorly designed DAC, I'll concede that it is possible that some of the USB receiver's digital noise (caused, by that receiver having to work real hard to recover the bit-stream intact) could conceivably leak into the analog stage and cause such things as decreased signal to noise ratio, increased distortion, etc., and yes it might be enough to alter the sound. BUT, I can't see that happen over a meter or two of USB cable. And even if that did happen, it would be a function of poor DAC design, not the cable.

 

You claimed that you were looking for an explanation as to why USB cables could change the sound. John kindly took the time to provide you with one - a very convincing one at that.

 

What's interesting is that you didn't ask John if what he describes is common or is just is limited to "poorly designed DACs". Or whether this could happen over a typical cable length.

 

A couple days ago you wrote:

 

The difference between me and someone who has "made up their mind" is that the type of person that you are accusing me of being, will never change their mind no matter what evidence comes to light."

 

Well I thought John's explanation was certainly worth further investigation. That you so quickly sought to explain it away is very telling.

[mayhem13]

You claimed that you were looking for an explanation as to why USB cables could change the sound. John kindly took the time to provide you with one - a very convincing one at that.

 

What's interesting is that you didn't ask John if what he describes is common or is just is limited to "poorly designed DACs". Or whether this could happen over a typical cable length.

 

A couple days ago you wrote:

 

 

 

Well I thought John's explanation was certainly worth further investigation. That you so quickly sought to explain it away is very telling.

 

I'm not so convinced Kenny. I find Johns explanation to be mostly theoretical and from an actual standpoint of audibility, insignificant. Where John's theory supports these discussions is that he claims he can hear the difference but his arguement doesn't directly support that. We're still left in the same audiophile quagmire that pollutes this thread and every cable based thread we come across.

 

I think it's important to focus on significance here and be comparative. If we liken the differences John might hear to how sound can change with temperature and humidity ( and it does), then is the jitter induced change relevant or significant?........or if being 2 degrees off axis from one speaker in the horizontal plane more than the other significant? If you added a bit too much salt to your dinner causing an increase in your blood pressure which reduced your HF auditory sense, would you perceive it while listening? Certainly there can be a slight but perceivable change in soundstage........but does it matter?

 

Still I find absolutely nothing to support these wild claims that changing USB cables produces a VAST audible improvement that's so absolute. You've read the above posts from some members here and the testimonials from cable manufacturers where a veil has been lifted revealing detail never experienced before?........and with each 'new' cable, there's more details, more soundstage depth.....and on and on and on. This is pure marketing hyperbole.

 

Now NONE of this is to say that John is not an accomplished engineer. Certainly he has some very progressive ideas and developments that can benefit our community and listening experiences. But again, you've got to consider the significance of change.

 

Thanks for listening.

[gmgraves]

You claimed that you were looking for an explanation as to why USB cables could change the sound. John kindly took the time to provide you with one - a very convincing one at that.

 

What's interesting is that you didn't ask John if what he describes is common or is just is limited to "poorly designed DACs". Or whether this could happen over a typical cable length.

 

A couple days ago you wrote:

 

 

 

Well I thought John's explanation was certainly worth further investigation. That you so quickly sought to explain it away is very telling.

 

 

It is worth investigating. My comments are merely meant as thought provoking queries, not answers. I certainly agree that this could happen even if I'm still skeptical about the results.

[gmgraves]

(grin) I tried soooo hard to resist. About 20 milliseconds...

 

-Paul

 

 

I know the feeling....

[gmgraves]

And I have also tried variations of USB cables.......and had quite the opposite experience that I could discern no appreciable difference with each comparison. This by default of your prognosis renders me deaf......thank you.

 

So please enlighten this clearly handicapped audiophile?.......what actually made each cable sound 'better' than another? I also find it interesting that performance increases are expectedly parallel cost.......does value figure into this anyplace? Is there a performance mechanism in place that's been tested and confirmed to 'improve' sound quality within USB cables?

 

 

I have heard differences between USB cables, but none worth paying a premium for even if the differences aren't my imagination. Also, just because something sounds "different" doesn't necessarily mean it sounds "better" than something else, unless, of course, they are imaginary differences, in which case they will always sound better and how much better will always be tied to price. The higher the price, the better the USB cable will sound. It seems to be axiomatic!

[gmgraves]

Interesting read. LoL. I found the use of 'one possibility' especially intriguing which indicates the mfg has no idea as to why their cables improve SQ.......they just do. So my question is how do they develop or engineer a cable? Is this all purely done with trying different metals and jacketing and then critically listening for what appears to sound better?....or at least different?

 

If you can't see the silliness in all of this I don't know what else to say other than I'm happy that you're perceiving a difference and enjoying the music.......and I am not, saving myself upwards of $1k for my systems total wiring load.

 

 

I've wondered this as well. How does one develop a premium USB cable when, apparently, it's value over a generic cable depends upon the design of the DAC with which it is to be used? What parameters in USB cable design and construction does the manufacturer have control over? How does he know which of those parameters to change and by how much? John Swenson mentioned the exorbitant price that some of the specialized equipment used to measure a lot of these things cost. Do most cable manufacturers have this pricy test gear, or perhaps have access to it? I know one famous cable manufacturer and have visited his facility and seen his R&D "lab". I can assure you that this company does not have those resources. So how do they "design" their pricy USB cables? I think I know, but, I'll keep that opinion to myself for now.

 

What it comes down to, I guess, is that people who believe that cable sound is real and important to their enjoyment of music will believe that no matter what the science says. I'm fine with that. I didn't used to be, but what the hell, it takes all types of audiophiles to make an industry or a community with the John Curls on one end, and the Enid Lumley's on the other. Most of us fall somewhere in-between.

[kennyb123]

in which case they will always sound better and how much better will always be tied to price. The higher the price, the better the USB cable will sound. It seems to be axiomatic!

 

Then why did I report earlier in this thread that the Heimdall was superior to the Wireworld Platinum Starlight? Someone else also reported that the Heimdall beat the Transparent Premium. The Heimdall is priced lower than both of these. These are just two examples.

 

But usually price is a good indicator. That's by design as manufacturers consider their competition's performance when pricing their cables.

[beanbag]

I have heard differences between USB cables,

 

ABX or AB?