USB Cables: The High End

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Clay:

 

"Personally I'd spend the bulk of my money reducing the sensitivity to jitter within the DAC (via, e.g., high quality local clocks fed asynchronously) as opposed to trying to filter/eliminate jitter with a (more expensive) cable."

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. I totally agree with you, FWIW. And I suppose that was the underlying point of the original post, above.

 

Yes, cables can make a difference ... but, dollars for dollars, wouldn't it make more sense to get better speakers? Or a better amp/pre-amp? Or a better source (or DAC)?

 

I suppose the counter is, what if I've already done all that? I have the speakers, amp, pre-amp and source that I want or love, now what?

 

Well, at that point, cables are probably next on the list, no? Certainly higher on the list than footers, tube dampers, ERS cloth, brass weights or contact cleaner, no?

 

Of course, I have all that stuff too ... Hmm. Some potential conflicts here, I guess, but then, better others learn from my mistakes .... ;-)

 

Have to say, though, that fiddling with all this gear has really reignited my love for music -- and not just computer audio! Got a 180g cut of 90125 spinning on the platter right now (gasp! vinyl!) and I am just loving it.

 

[barrows]

I am a bit curious as to why you seem reluctant to accept the idea that different USB cables will (should?) have an effect on SQ, even in a system where the USB DAC is properly engineered. I would also posit to you that different Firewire cables will also effect SQ in a good Firewire DAC (Weiss, Metric Halo, etc).

I think what is at play here is that most of us (or everyone?) does not understand why some things affect SQ in a digital system. For instance, Charlie Hansen of Ayre is on record as saying he did not know why different USB cables make a difference with the QB-9, but because he listens he accepts that the USB cables do matter.

While I can understand that two things affect the SQ of a computer interface: data integrity and jitter at the converter; I have a very hard time understanding/accepting how something (like playback software) can affect the SQ of a system-especially when it has been confirmed that I-tunes' output is bit perfect, and, say Amarras output is also bit perfect. Neither of these playback softwares can have an effect on jitter at the converter, but still people report SQ improvements running Amarra. If I accept that these SQ improvements are real, then I have to accept that there is more to digital music interfaces than data integrity and jitter, even if I have no idea what that "more" might be.

Also, it might be a good idea to ponder this: while the signal running through a "digital" cable represents digital data, the signal itself is not data, the signal is an analog waveform representation of the data. As this signal is analog, it is still subject to degradation in transmission through the cable.

I think if there were more Firewire DACs in the audiophile marketplace you would find more expensive Firewire cables for improving their performance, the USB DAC is now a very well represented product in the Audiophile marketplace, and the Firewire DAC is not (unfortunately). I believe that Locus Designs is developing high performance Firewire cables, and I would not be surprised that you might find improvement in sound with your ULN-2 if you tried one. I have a relatively expensive, pure silver, cryo treated, Firewire cable from Revelation Audio Labs, that improves the SQ of my RME FF-400 versus a Belkin cable.

 

[CG]

Yes, but...

 

If the problem is systemic, like due to noise coupling, then you have to find a manufacturer who can and will do something that is somewhat universal to allow for all the various system configurations. That is one advantage of single box players, or at least players that are part of a defined sub-system. Not only is a universal solution just plain hard, it can be pretty costly at times. The example and solution you gave regarding jitter still wouldn't get around the example I chose of noise coupling. In fact, your solution could conceivably make things *worse* by having larger current loops and all that. In that case, the jitter isn't being filtered by the cable - a coupling mechanism that may cause problems to the entire DAC is being mitigated to a degree.

 

A lot of this can be fixed, but few people are willing to pay for it. The reality of the marketplace is also that spending the calendar time to make a complete fix doesn't work well either. Products just have to evolve as best they can.

 

Again, the poor consumer has limited knobs to turn in this regard. Cables are but one. It would be grand if that wasn't so, but it is.

 

If I were you, I'd be bothering MH to build a DAC that is more immune to dirty power. Same thing.

 

[CG]

Barrows - love the purple cable. Very Prince like.

 

[cfmsp]

 

Gotta love violent agreement! It all makes sense now - I almost didn't post, as I couldn't figure out where we were disagreeing, all I could do is restate as simply as possible my view.

 

"I suppose the counter is, what if I've already done all that? I have the speakers, amp, pre-amp and source that I want or love, now what?

 

Well, at that point, cables are probably next on the list, no? "

 

The next most worthwhile investment for me was tuning the AC circuit. But, yes, I would put cables next, and well above "footers, tube dampers, ERS cloth, brass weights or contact cleaner". I do own cables - whereas I don't have any of those other items you list - and I have spent significant money on them, although a recent pair of ASI Livelines is the first pair of expensive cables I've bought brand new.

 

cheers,

clay

 

[Guest Claude]

Barrows,

very well said and down to earth.

Thanks

Claude

 

[cfmsp]

 

"I am a bit curious as to why you seem reluctant to accept the idea that different USB cables will (should?) have an effect on SQ, even in a system where the USB DAC is properly engineered."

 

I'm not at all reluctant to accept the idea, Barrows. As I've tried to state, I AM reluctant to spend lots of money on cables when perhaps there's a better investment to be made with upgrading the components on either end of the cable.

 

OTOH, if the DAC is properly engineered I don't expect that it will need an 'expensive' USB cable unless there are problems upstream/elsewhere.

 

Said another way, I'd rather lose a bit of sonic quality via under-cabling a higher quality DAC, than to pay precious sums to a cable manufacturer for diminishing returns on an investment in lower quality (or poorly configured/installed/setup) component.

 

Make sense?

 

The discussions we've had on this thread have specifically mentioned price points of $500 and $2850 for USB cables. I have a Proton USB DAC i use in addition to my ULN-2 (for more portable use). I would never spend $500 for a single (as opposed to dual analog) cable to connect to it. That would seem to be significant diminishing returns.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

OK, I guess I misunderstood a bit. I had the impression you were suggesting that a product had a design flaw if it responded with better performance to a USB cable upgrade. Now I see that you are really just speaking to an upgrade hierarchy approach. Certainly USB cables at prices above $2000.00 seem quite expensive to me, but to the person who wants to get the best performance out of the dcs stack recently reviewed here, perhaps not.

Personally, I could see spending ~500.00 on a USB cable with something like the Ayre QB-9 if I went that route in my system-I have heard the benefits of the Locus Axis USB cable with the PS Audio PWD (running Centrance code) and it is a nice upgrade over the usual suspects (Kimber, etc.).

My system is pretty well sorted when it comes to cabling, AC, vibration control, etc. Once I get my source situation settled I am set until I can afford (beg, borrow, or steal?) better speakers-unfortunately any improvement on my current speakers starts around $15k, and I just do not envision having that kind of money around any time soon.

 

[cfmsp]

 

Well, since both yourself and Scot were confused about my view, that could only mean that I hadn't done a good job of articulating it.

 

And since Gordon AND Charles both agree that USB cables can sound 'different', even with Async USB, far be it from me to take a different position.

 

CG, yes, touche' on your comment about asking Metric Halo to deal better with dirty power. But doesn't their conversion to DC go a long way towards that? I do use a linear power supply (made by Gordon) to power mine, and have installed some 'voodoo' AC circuit tuning gear from Alan Maher recently, which made a huge improvement in sound in my overall system.

 

Barrows, re the $500 USB cable with an Ayre - I might do the same if I already had invested the $2500. If I hadn't - and believed that a $500 USB cable was 'de riguer' with the Ayre - I'd certainly assume it to be cost neutral with the $3k Weiss DAC2 with Firewire input.

 

OTOH, I'm quite happy with my $1500 ULN-2 and the $15 Gold-X Firewire cable that VIncent Sanders (and others have) recommended after comparing it too much more expensive Firewire cables, rumoured to be in the four figure range. I'm fairly certain that other Firewire cables might sound 'different'. 'Better' is a higher standard than different.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

"I'm quite happy with my $1500 ULN-2 and the $15 Gold-X Firewire cable"

 

Then, for all that is holy, get off the audiophile train and get back to listening to music.

 

LOL.

 

This hobby is enough to have you repeatedly muttering to yourself: "Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?"

 

[CG]

"Make sense?"

 

No.

 

I think you just don't like the price of cables. :8^)

 

Seriously, these questions are the kinds of areas you just have to investigate yourself if you are dubious. What if by adding a $2000 cable you could make the Proton you own better than anything from any manufacturer at any price? What if the actual DAC performance itself is not the limitation and that the Proton is more than good enough, and it is being crippled by the inherent connection between your various Apple products and the DAC?

 

To me, it's too easy to presume in advance what the value of something is based on the assumed cost of manufacture. It's far too easy to be fooled. Heck - what if you found out that the cost of materials and assembly for your Proton is actually less than that of a modest cable? How would your value equation work then?

 

Conversely, just because something is high priced doesn't mean it's good.

 

Presuming that a DAC being properly engineered is the total requirement for good system performance seems to be a kind of nice but goofy notion.

 

[cfmsp]

"I think you just don't like the price of cables. :8^)"

 

Take out the word 'just' and we have a winner

 

"Seriously, these questions are the kinds of areas you just have to investigate yourself if you are dubious."

 

As I said, I'm perfectly happy with the $15 Firewire cable feeding my DAC, and see no contradiction at all in the fact that I'm waiting delivery of a handmade pair of Balanced analog interconnects (to run between my DAC and First Watt J2) which cost alarming close to 100x at retail price.

 

 

"What if by adding a $2000 cable you could make the Proton you own better than anything from any manufacturer at any price? What if the actual DAC performance itself is not the limitation and that the Proton is more than good enough, and it is being crippled by the inherent connection between your various Apple products and the DAC?"

 

What if USB connectivity (Async or otherwise) is actually a crippling aspect of computer audio playback, and Firewire were totally immune to differences in cables? :0

 

I ask this ONLY to make a point - unlikely "what ifs" have little value in proving a point, IMO, and I don't believe your "what ifs" are more likely than mine to be true (or ever occur), but I do recognize your point that perhaps the cable IS inherently as important a 'component' as any other.

 

 

"To me, it's too easy to presume in advance what the value of something is based on the assumed cost of manufacture. It's far too easy to be fooled. Heck - what if you found out that the cost of materials and assembly for your Proton is actually less than that of a modest cable? How would your value equation work then?"

 

Re the cost of materials & assembly of the Proton vs. a modest cable, I'd be shocked to discover that this were NOT true. I expect to pay for clever design - a guy who can make something sing from cheap components is the kind of genius I'd like to reward.

 

"Presuming that a DAC being properly engineered is the total requirement for good system performance seems to be a kind of nice but goofy notion."

 

Well, absolutely agreed, but I've never said that. What I've said is that I'd insure I had a properly engineered DAC and front end (i.e. gear on the other end of the cable) BEFORE spending anything significant on a cable.

 

And, I said that I don't believe properly engineered components should require expensive cables to function well. said another way, I believe that the diminishing returns principle should kick in per usual on digital cables.

 

Perhaps I should rephrase that later:

I place a premium on engineering principles which can minimize the engineering requirements - and thereby cost required - of all connecting cables (and power cables for that matter).

 

In using those words, we leave much more space for agreement, given that these words are less likely to be interpreted as 'competently designed components shouldn't easily exhibit differences in cables', which I decidedly am NOT saying.

 

I am the same with speakers - I'll pay more for speakers engineered in a way that they do NOT present difficult loads and thereby require costly amplifiers.

 

Similarly, Nelson Pass recommends against costly power cords with his First Watt amps - IOW, he is not taking a design "shortcut" which presumes some near miracle at it's input in order to work according to spec. That some see benefit in aftermarket powercords when used with his products does not invalidate my belief in his design approach. It means that I don't have to spend a gazillion dollars on a power cord to get the sound that I paid for.

 

This is all part of the philosophy I have for assembling my audio system.

 

This is why I'm a fan of Async digital connections when I probably should ONLY be concerned with how a product sounds in my listening room with my system (and when the real performance factor here is the fixed oscillator in the DAC - albeit Async allows easier reliance on this oscillator).

 

I'll admit it, I am a fan of well designed products. FULL STOP! I also appreciate that it's difficult to provide the highest quality within cost constraints - which is why I don't go gaga over dCS components (although my last CD player was the Arcam FMJ CD23 which utilized RingDAC technology).

 

My view is that with no cost constraints, pretty much any competent designer can build a good sounding product. As I said above, I'd rather reward those that can design to high standards with less costly materials. This also contributes to my lack of desire to pay loads of money for cables. It seems that the cable manufacturers are racing each other to a goalline of providing the most expensive cable possible, and being 'egged on' by audiophiles, rather than building the most cost effective cable possible. Their justification for the high prices seems in large part to be the use of ever more pure unobtainium as the base material.

 

I'll admit to not knowing enough about cable design to know who is clever and who is not.

 

Perhaps Franck Tchang will finally allow me to view an expensive cable as being well designed, as opposed to over engineered. We shall see.

 

I don't believe - as strongly as you seem to CG - that the ONLY reason we don't see expensive Firewire cables is that the audiophile cable manufacturers haven't seen this as a market, although I will agree with you that we likely will see more in the future, possibly the very near future.

 

I still like to believe that my DAC is less affected by the unknown hobgoblins requiring $2850 cables to sound its best. Perhaps this is simple a case of 'ignorance is bliss'. I'm okay with that.

 

Clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elprior]

> Perhaps this is simple a case of 'ignorance is bliss'.

 

I think that's it

Well done, you've just judged yourself, your are being a better Judge now !

 

Elp

 

[cfmsp]

 

"your are being a better Judge now !"

 

well thank you!

 

Although I should let you know that I'd also be judging others as well. I'm not the only guy on this forum running $15 cables into their Firewire DAC and very expensive cables out.

 

clay

 

 

[Elprior]

Well Clay, you're judging me

 

20€ (ie 30$) usb cable, and expensive analog interconnects (1500$) from (very expensive) dac to monos

 

Elp

 

[cfmsp]

"Also, it might be a good idea to ponder this: while the signal running through a "digital" cable represents digital data, the signal itself is not data, the signal is an analog waveform representation of the data. As this signal is analog, it is still subject to degradation in transmission through the cable."

 

I understand this and agree, unlike the many who seem to believe that '1's and '0's are literally all that is streaming through a digital cable.

 

However, there is some merit in the 1s and 0s argument - as compared to purely analog signal going into, e.g., my power amp (or preamp).

 

As I understand it, for the bits to be properly received (as bits) the signal need only maintain enough signal purity so that each sample can be read and interpreted binarily, i.e. as '1' or '0'. Therein lies the basis of my fundamental belief that $2850 cables are not required for maximum sound quality. IOW, I don't believe the engineering challenge calls for (or perhaps even allows for) uber-buck cables to properly communicate the digital signal.

 

Conversely, I do believe there are not-yet-understood factors in play with regards getting the bits from disk to DAC. I'm not willing to attribute them to signal degradation given what I said above.

 

I'm certainly open-minded about it (despite that my comments seem always to come across less so in print), I'm just not willing to throw a bunch of money at a cable manufacturer without knowing why.

 

I'm very curious as to what you & others believe/theorize can generate a need for such cables (even as I don't see the obvious benefit).

 

It's not that difficult to believe that even a signal that can always be interpreted properly (regarding '1's and '0's) can still tax the receiver 'chip' (or whatever) such that it has an effect in other areas of the circuit (as compared to a signal that is not as taxing).

 

 

"I think if there were more Firewire DACs in the audiophile marketplace you would find more expensive Firewire cables for improving their performance, the USB DAC is now a very well represented product in the Audiophile marketplace, and the Firewire DAC is not (unfortunately)."

 

With regards the absence of 'audiophile' Firewire cables, I for one think it's fortunate - not unfortunate - that Firewire is not very well represented as a product in the audiiophile marketplace, very fortunate, in fact.

 

[barrows]

"As I understand it, for the bits to be properly received (as bits) the signal need only maintain enough signal purity so that each sample can be read and interpreted binarily, i.e. as '1' or '0'. Therein lies the basis of my fundamental belief that $2850 cables are not required for maximum sound quality. IOW, I don't believe the engineering challenge calls for (or perhaps even allows for) uber-buck cables to properly communicate the digital signal."

 

Yes, this is why it is so confusing, as you point out in your statement:

 

"Conversely, I do believe there are not-yet-understood factors in play with regards getting the bits from disk to DAC. I'm not willing to attribute them to signal degradation given what I said above."

 

As USB (and Firewire, in my experience) do make a difference in SQ, even with apparently well engineered async interfaces, I just think that "not-yet-understood" factors may be at play in the transmission through the cable.

 

While I do not have any experience with what I would consider "uber-buck" USB/Firewire cables (my aftermarket Firewire cable goes for around $300.00 if I recall correctly, and I have tried the Locus Axis USB at around $500.00) I have heard improved performance from the more expensive cables I've used. I do not know how much more improvement is going to happen when going to 4 figure USB/Firewire cables, and I suspect that at those higher prices one is entering the realm of diminishing returns, where there are improvements, but the improvements are minute compared to the additional expenditure. I could be wrong though...

In any case, once you have settled in with the new analog cables in your system (and I would love to hear how you like the Livelines) I would encourage you to give an aftermarket Firewire cable a try, if you can get one for a no/low risk home audition. You might be surprised.

As to what the "not-yet-understood" factors in computer audio/data transmission might be, I am not at all qualified to speculate about that. Perhaps there are some computer/digital engineers on the forum who would be willing to go out on a limb to try and discover/describe what additional factors affect SQ other than data integrity and jitter.

And then there is another can of worms-will cable quality/design affect network players connected by ethernet cable???

 

[CG]

"As to what the 'not-yet-understood' factors in computer audio/data transmission might be, I am not at all qualified to speculate about that."

 

Again, I recommend the collected works of Henry Ott (no audio guy, he) as well as a primer in nodal analysis if you aren't facile on the subject.

 

Do I sound like I'm repeating myself?

 

Do I sound like I'm repeating myself?

 

[cfmsp]

 

Kinda like this?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Compatibility-Engineering-Henry-Ott/dp/0470189304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260573239&sr=8-1

 

clay

 

 

[CG]

Exactly, although you can find an awful lot on his web site.

 

For less money than a cheap Firewire cable, even.

 

[cfmsp]

 

purely hypothetically speaking,

if one weren't qualified to even read this book, they'd probably have no cause to question the cost of digital cables, yes?

 

hypothetically yours,

clay

 

[icebreaker]

Nice. I can find out if my transients have immunity. They've been sounding a bit tired recently. Or do I want immunity from transients? So many questions.

 

[CG]

"if one weren't qualified to even read this book, they'd probably have no cause to question the cost of digital cables, yes?"

 

I think there may be a logic thing in there that I'm not quite following. Are you saying that if someone isn't an engineer or scientist with a background in EMI and all that, that they'd likely get sucked in by charlatans trying to rob them blind? (Are you an AES member?) Or are you saying that people who don't understand this material can't appreciate the difference between a low noise system and one that is not? Or that people who aren't skilled in the subject shouldn't have an opinion? Maybe it's just late for me...

 

The book isn't very hard to understand anyway. It's not full of Fermi Dirac distribution equations, for gosh sakes. Most of what you might need to learn is available on the web pages anyway.

 

My long lost point here is that even outside the rarified world of audiophiles, there's consideration given by systems engineers in regard to noise sources, noise transmission, noise immunity, and so on. The mere act of connecting a working computer to an audio system might cause problems, even if it wasn't supplying 1's and 0's for conversion to an analog signal.

 

[CG]

"Nice."

 

Hey - people get unhappy when audio suppliers tell them things that they translate into being preyed upon. Here's a guy who has nothing to do with the audio industry.

 

But, I do see your point.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"The mere act of connecting a working computer to an audio system might cause problems, even if it wasn't supplying 1's and 0's for conversion to an analog signal."

 

This much I understand, but barely, and only conceptually.

 

Thus my question above with the untoward logic. My question was not in relation to possible charlatanism, but rather, armchair engineering. To wit, someone without the knowledge to easily understand Ott's book probably would have no business questioning the benefits of expensive digital cables - not that I have anyone particular in mind. ;-0

 

To your point about possible charlatans however, neither should anyone be 'marketing' expensive digital cables without understanding it either, one would think.

 

Thanks for the pointer, I'll peruse the site. I don't think this book will be as interesting a read as say, Bob Katz's Mastering Digital Audio, which is highly recommended, by the way for digital audiophiles.

 

As always, thanks for your response,

Clay