which quality USB cable to consider?

[CuteStudio]

USB is a digital format and relies on a balanced and correctly terminated transmission line so that the pulses arrive at the other end in the same shape that started out as.

 

This is not an area where money has any effect, you just need the correctly made cable, so go to a computer shop and buy one from a brand you recognise. Ones with a ferrite on are often well designed.

 

Spending more than about $10 on any digital cable of shortish length is a total waste of money. That's not me saying that, it's the well established laws of physics and transmission line theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line

 

Note that optical cable works on a different principle, but again cost is a non issue, you just need something that delivers enough light to the other end, $10 does this quite easily.

 

Spend the money you saved on some decent speakers or Mastered For iTunes tracks instead.

[CuteStudio]

BTW John Swenson's notes, while interesting are not so relevant to digital music in my experience.

 

His statement "At its heart digital is a way of looking at electrical voltages on a wire." might be his idea, but the heart of digital is not binary, its the use of numbers. All digital music is stored as a series of numbers, in the case of the uncompressed type that travels down USB cables to DACs it's a very simple serial stream of numbers.

 

The DAC then gets loaded up with the number and outputs the corresponding analog voltage, usually around 44,100 times every second. 

 

A bit error is an error, and some USB cables are so poor they introduce bit errors, but they are rare. 

USB data will be decoded as a series of digital numbers, like 12, or 678, or 2782 etc.

 

No amount of money is going to change that digital number unless you get a bit error and instead of 2782 you get 19166 instead (which is bit 14 flipped) for instance. 

 

If you want to avoid earth loops and RF coupling etc coming down _with_ your digital data then use an optical link instead. Analog also falls into the trap of buying expensive cables, when the same money spent on better capacitors or amps has far more effect, effects that your wife may notice, rather than just your bank account.

[CuteStudio]

Thank-you for your thoughts Daudio, in fact I did read the last post and implicitly referenced it by mentioning the authors name of one of the links, and quoted it, as shown above.

 

Cable discussions are rather like a holy war and I can see I have already inadvertently inflamed you, for that I apologise, that was not my intention.

 

I can say however that beyond a certain (rather low) price I have never heard the slightest difference with any digital cable unless it was so bad it wouldn't work with a regular device like a disk caddy, camera either. I'm sorry for that, but I cannot pretend to hear stuff I don't.

 

I also see expensive stuff like the iPurifier bandied about with expensive cables, which at the end of the day will have around the same effect as a cheap ferrite one can clip around one's cable, or get a cable with one built in already. I have worked with RFI, EMI and switched mode PSU engineers so while I may appear ignorant to you, I am confident in both my knowledge and sources og knowledge for when I have written above.

 

Additionally you'll find that my comments about termination and impedance of the transmission line (that all USB and data cables form) correctly is backed up by Gordon Rankin - so now I am wondering if you actually read my posts - did you see where I mentioned that? Good impedance matching and ferrites are available in decent low cost USB cables, which is why logically I can see no reason to pay more.

 

Could you please explain to this young, ignorant, impatient chancer exactly HOW a USB cable of the correct impedance with an EMI suppression ferrite could be improved upon with extra money?

I'm am confused how transmission line theory (that I provided a link to) knows how much money the cable sold for, or what brand it was.

 

Thank-you in advance!

 

[CuteStudio]

Does the type of cloth affect your ears? LOL

 

HiFi is always an emotive subject and often crosses the bounds of physics with things like $100 gold plated fuses and other such nonsense. 

 

The reason it does so it that it's not just physics, it is a large part perception. Perhaps you've noticed that one day the same gear can sound good, another day flat and boring. Often that isn't due to the mains quality or temperature, but due to the listener's mood. 

 

Just because the sound coming out of the speakers is _exactly_ the same with cheap USB cable A or super expensive USB cable B _does not_ mean people will not hear a difference. With a properly made cable the electronics will not know if it cost $10 or $1m, but YOU will, and YOU and the biggest factor in how something sounds: not the HiFi.

 

To keep one grounded in HiFi it's worth remembering a truism a musician once told me and it holds pretty much true in all cases: 'The Music Transcends The Medium'.

 

So when I explain that there IS no difference between correctly made cables at any price, of course the guy who's just shelled out $5,000 for a set of rather pointless interconnects is going to have a fit, that's just nature, but he is mis-interpreting what I and many others are saying: We are saying 'there is no difference to the sound', he on the other hand is saying that 'he notices a difference in the sound'.

 

Both points are perfectly correct, the emotion flares up when people think the two very different points are the same point: which they are not.

 

[CuteStudio]

2 hours ago, kilroy said:

for those capable of discerning the differences.

 

 

I'll refer you to my previous post, I understand you feel there are two classes of listener, the incapable, lower class with cloth ears who can't hear anything and those superior listeners who can tell - which would be you.

 

This of course is nonsense. Just because you believe you hear a difference doesn't mean there IS a difference.

Perception is a large part of HiFi, so to borrow your phrasing perhaps I should say:

 

"For those of us capable of understanding USB cables don't affect the sound"

 

But that's a tad aggressive and tribal. Everything affects the perceived quality of sound, the mind is a complex, emotional thing and the music itself contains emotion and messages. The chances of the same recording sounding the same on two different playings are remote: there will ALWAYS be differences.

 

Additionally before you get too hung up on jitter, digital cables, CPUs or disk drives I suggest you perhaps look at some of the waveforms you are playing in Audacity to see how natural you think they are. Select a good one, play it, and then visit a music shop and try hitting a snare drum, a piano key, and cymbal etc - and then come back and tell me how important a USB cable is.

 

Many people for example have made real improvements by buying new speakers, switching to a "Mastered For iTunes" copy of the music or moving the sofa. I..e there's no actual need to spend huge sums of money of improving something that is working perfectly and can be bought for $10. There's enough real stuff to buy for that money.

[CuteStudio]

I recommend listening to some calming Priscilla Ahn instead of your cables, it's a lot more soothing

[CuteStudio]

I too was skeptical about the USB cables for audio until I bought this for £1.59:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1m-USB-2-0-High-Speed-Cable-Printer-Lead-A-to-B-BLACK/200549668167

 

It has a lovely liquid treble and solid lows, allowing the music to go down the cable from one and (USB A IIRC) to the other (USB B).

Lets never say that money spent on cables is wasted, it's certainly filled a gap between me and my music.

[CuteStudio]

1 hour ago, Emerald Core said:

The best i heard was:

- Audioquest Diamond USB

 

The best others have heard were:

- WireWorld Platinum Starlight 7 USB

- Totaldac USB/Filter 

 

The best I assume if money is no object are:

- Synergestic Research Galelio UEF USB with optional groundblock

- Siltech Golden Universal Crown

 

That is to my humble knowledge 

 

I must admit I had trouble with diamond cables, diamond appears to be a rather poor conductor so I'd be questioning any claims of diamond cables, none of mine ever worked and in the end I just ended up binning a lot of diamonds as they were essentially useless, an expensive lesson learned!

 

Platinum is another metal that is over-rated, the conductivity is a mere 16% of copper, again my reel of platinum had to be retired, silver wire is the best one to go for, although a slightly thicker copper is the practical way to go. Cheaper too.

I did find the platinum wire good in the garden though, it doesn't go rusty so it's good for the runner bean poles, so it's not been a total waste.

 

Synergy is always excellent though, I always try to use synergy when I can, I even use if for filling gaps between door frames and architrave or skirting and walls, you can buy synergy in easy to use cartridges at about £1.50 per go. I've not found it conductive though, especially when it dries out. Maybe synergestic has some copper particles mixed in?

 

If you want to filter your USB eBay sell clip-on ferrite's for around £2-3 which are always useful on mains, speaker and all data cables for removing RF, good idea, etremely cheap to implement in the comfort of your own home.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ferrite-Ring-TDK-ZCAT2035-0930A-Black-Clip-On-8mm-Cable-OM990A-/390425624463

 

Golden universal crown sounds like the best, gold doesn't conduct as well as copper but is suited to ruling, a good combination with crowns and well tested over the centuries, and of course a universal crown would be a far better fit for both ruler and kingdom, so the top marketing award goes to Siltech, which I expect shortly to release the Sauron ring to bind all HiFi products together for greater transparency with only a slight tendency toward a dark sound.

 

Also don't forget the MPingo wood to rest your DAC on!

 

[CuteStudio]

22 hours ago, mansr said:

Do the beans taste better?

 

 

I must say my £1.59 lead is still performing faultlessly, feeding from my laptop to a USB/Optical CM6631A adapter and on from via a cheap optical cable into my Ultracurve.

 

I have been reading up on DACs however which was probably a bad idea:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue65/dac.htm

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue66/dsd.htm

https://www.scribd.com/document/105561243/Thermionic-Valve-Analogue-Stages-for-Digital-Audio-A-Short-Overview-of-the-Subject-by-Thorsten-Loesch

 

so now I'm thinking that maybe I need a better DAC. Doh!

I quite fancy this one: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/totaldac/3.html

but don't think that's really in the budget, but a proper ladder DAC with passive filtering is now my long term aim.

If I do get it one day I'll be using the same cables as I am now, but I may upgrade the USB cable with a £2 clip-on ferrite.

 

[CuteStudio]

A good DS will beat a poor ladder but a good ladder will beat a good DS converter.

 

I'm not a fan of DSD for the reasons stated in this article:

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue66/dsd.htm

 

 

I have no choice over sample rates and bit depth :D. All my source material is PCM at 16/44.1.

That may be somewhat limited but it's easily converted to 24bit for processing, readily up-sampled to a sensible 88.2 and can create some very accurate sound.

 

Once at 24/88.2 there's really no gain in going faster it's ready to feed into the best ladder DACs, so that's decided for me too  

 

BTW that TotalDac is reviewed in many places including Positive Feedback, the key is not the review or brand but rather the  construction and philosophy, 6 moons are quite accurate with that: in fact you can see from the photos the resistor arrays. It's just a good example of a high-end ladder DAC and the function is very simple: The PCM gets clocked into the resistor ladder, a passive filter takes out the RF and you have the best representation of the intended waveform possible as a result.

 

 

[CuteStudio]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

The author of that article has severely misunderstood how DSD and digital systems in general work.

 

The author is Lynn Olson!

I'm interested in your assertion, could you explain what he has got wrong?

[CuteStudio]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Is that supposed to mean something?

 

Too much to detail. If he genuinely understands the subject, he's done an abysmal job explaining it, or he's being deliberately misleading. Either way, it's a terrible article.

 

Yes. Lynn Olson

http://nutshellhifi.com/

If you do nothing else this week: read his site. Decades of accumulated knowledge and experience.

More knowledge about HiFi, audio engineering and sound than almost anyone.

 

Thorsten Loesch is another famous man worth reading. Even his simple insights into GNFB around an OPT is genius.

Both post in diyaudio too, possibly the most concentrated knowledge of HiFi on the planet.

[CuteStudio]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

I've seen that site and had another look just now. There's not a word about anything digital there.

 

1) I don't think you had time to read that site before you replied

2) I was answering your question, not claiming it was about digital audio

3) Several parts mention digital: https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&q=nutshell+hifi+digital&oq=nutshell+hifi+digital

4) You still haven't specified any fault with the article he wrote about digital music and DACs.

 

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue66/dsd.htm

 

Please point out an error in the article. Is the graph wrong? Is the maths wrong?

 

[CuteStudio]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

It seems clear that the author, for whatever reason, is on a mission to discredit all things digital, and DSD in particular, based on a confused and rudimentary understanding of the processes involved.

 

Well thanks for actually giving specifics, DSD does appear to have been created by a non HiFi company (Sony - a bit like Philips inveting the CD lol) as a rather misguided idea to backup their master tapes. 

 

Reading articles (e.g. this: http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/ and the referenced articles) does indicate it's not been a particularly smooth path given the need for PCM for anything other than backing up tapes.

 

It seems there are some great SACDs out there but it's not a format I'll ever be investing in, I'd prefer to switch instead to Mastered by iTunes as a way to get a better sound.

 

[CuteStudio]

1 hour ago, agladstone said:

 in 16/44 and also again the same album in 24/192). 

I would say at least 90% of the time, the DSD version is

 

 

Sorry but you've lost me, did you go from CD to 24/192 or to DSD/SACD?

[CuteStudio]

6 hours ago, agladstone said:

also the DSD layers converted to 24/88 and 24/96 too. 

 

So I'm guessing that the studio recordings would have been mostly recorded down to analog, DSD or PCM, then any DSD converted to PCM (or in the odd case analog) for mixing and mastered (Audacity shows that the most butchering of quality will be here, far exceeding format differences) in PCM, DSD, M4a and MP3 for distribution.

 

The question is: How accurate is the conversion from DSD back to 24/88 or 24/96? 

I would suspect that for PCM sticking with a ladder DAC and for DSD sticking with a DSD DAC would give the best sound reproduction and another layer of conversion is just going to lose information.

 

I'd probably convert DSD to PCM too mind, room EQ and digital crossovers + bi-amp/multi-amp  are the future and those need PCM.

I'll probably go for a nice SET tube amp for the tweeters, soft-start and no solid state horrors