which quality USB cable to consider?

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

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.

Do the beans taste better?

[Albrecht]

6 hours ago, CuteStudio said:

 

I must admit I had trouble with diamond cables, diamond appears to be a rather poor conductor so I'd be questioning any claims

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

 

Let us leave no cable discussion left untrolled & un-disrupted. For we are the preachers of pseudo-science who must save people from themselves.....

[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.

 

[Ralf11]

I wouldn't worry too much about ladder vs. 'DSD'

 

I'd decide what bitrate, what interface to use & a budget, then see what can done re a loan from a dealer or a purchase that is returnable.

 

I'm not sure that 6 moons is a reliable source either...

[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.

 

 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

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

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

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

[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?

[mansr]

1 hour ago, CuteStudio said:

The author is Lynn Olson!

Is that supposed to mean something?

 

1 hour ago, CuteStudio said:

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

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.

[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.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

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.

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

[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?

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, CuteStudio said:

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?

Fine, I'll give a few examples.

 

Quote

I understand that noise-shapers are used at the encode and decode end, but what of the system as a whole? There's no way to wrap feedback around a recording made in 2001 and played back in 2013, unless we invent time travel.

Looking at the bitstream coming out of the encode ADC/noise-shaper, and the bitstream going into the decode DAC/noise-shaper, I see a string of DSD samples at the 64fs rate.

A sigma-delta ADC has a noise shaper. A DSD DAC (or "decoder" as he calls it) does not. That's a fundamental misunderstanding right there, and we've barely made it past the introduction. The talk about feedback around the whole record/playback chain makes no sense at all.

 

Quote

I have a question: what is the smallest signal this system can represent at 3.675kHz, and what would it look like in the DSD bitstream coming out of the ADC? I've picked 3.675kHz since it is close to the peak sensitivity of the ear, and a convenient divisor of 44.1kHz.

The smallest possible 3.675kHz signal would be nothing more than a single "one" that replaces a zero in the following string:

… 0101 0111 0101 0101 …

All the rest of the string is the usual tedious … 0101 0101 … pattern mentioned above. Except for that lone "one", all the rest come out as analog zero. How often does the rogue "one" appear? That's easy: 3,675 times a second. (Yes, I know that creates a small DC offset, but let's ignore that for now. Besides, practical DACs don't usually pass DC anyway, to protect the power amplifier in case the recording has an accidental DC offset.)

S/N ratio? Again, easy. The DSD samples are clicking by at a rate of 2.8224MHz, and we're interested in our one little guy at its 3.675kHz rate. Our "one" appears once every 768 DSD samples. The smallest possible modulation at 3.675kHz is one part in 768, or 9.5-bits, or -57dB below full-scale modulation.

This is not how it works. It just isn't. With sigma-delta modulation, you get a much better SNR, as is easily demonstrated. It doesn't really matter if the author actually believes in this naive presentation or is intentionally misrepresenting DSD in order to discredit it. Either way, he can't be trusted.

 

Quote

In the absence of noise-shaping, the resolution of DSD is a function of frequency; the higher you go, the less there is. At what frequency do we get 16-bit resolution? Well, 16-bits represents 65,536 possible levels; let's divide 2.8MHz by 65,536, and we get 43Hz. With every octave above 43Hz, the resolution drops by another bit, topping out at 1 bit 2.8MHz.

This is nonsensical. Without noise shaping you'd have 1 bit (~6 dB) of dynamic range, end of story. Where he got the idea of dividing the sample rate by some resolution figure I have no idea.

 

Quote

The most likely source of coloration is on the DSD end; when DSD is converted to (very) high-resolution DXD/PCM, noise-shaping algorithms are required in the conversion process.

Wrong. Converting DSD to PCM does not involve noise shaping. Noise shaping is used when reducing the sample precision (bit depth), not when increasing it.

 

Quote

DSD-Wide (2.8MHz/8-bit) is interesting professional format; unlike DSD-Narrow, it doesn't require noise-shaping, thanks to abundant dynamic range.

More nonsense. 8 bits does not provide "abundant" dynamic range unless noise shaping is used.

 

I could go on, but I have better things to do. 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.

[plissken]

Entire volumes of encyclopedic knowledge could be filled with what most in the audiophile press don't understand about digital systems and audio. 

[agladstone]

Almost all of my 600-700 DSD audio albums (where I also have 2 or 3 versions/ releases ripped of the same album 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 MUCH better than the 16/44 or 24/192 (10% of the time not, and 75% of that 10% of the time the late '80's CD rip in 16/44 is the best sounding). 

So, regardless of that artical and his research, in my own personal listening tests and countless blind A / B testing, DSD is the superior format! 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, agladstone said:

Almost all of my 600-700 DSD audio albums (where I also have 2 or 3 versions/ releases ripped of the same album 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 MUCH better than the 16/44 or 24/192 (10% of the time not, and 75% of that 10% of the time the late '80's CD rip in 16/44 is the best sounding). 

So, regardless of that artical and his research, in my own personal listening tests and countless blind A / B testing, DSD is the superior format! 

 

unh...  a meta-analysis did find it was a bit better and compared the same recordings

 

but it sounds like you compared different albums - so you may have found only that DSD producers took more care in recording or mastering, not that the format is superior

 

OTOH, it may not matter to a consumer

[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?

[agladstone]

40 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

unh...  a meta-analysis did find it was a bit better and compared the same recordings

 

but it sounds like you compared different albums - so you may have found only that DSD producers took more care in recording or mastering, not that the format is superior

 

OTOH, it may not matter to a consumer

No, I compared the same exact albums per se, yet I do agree with you that every single release and every single version of the same "album" does sound a bit different and that has to do with the mastering, DRC, etc used for each different release and version of any same album. 

That being said, almost every single SACD / DSD version / release of any same album I've tested, the SACD / DSD version has been better than the 16/44 or 24/96 or 24/192, but not 100% of the time, just most of the time. 

If that is because DSD is superior to PCM or if the mastering on the DSD version was better and it had less Dynamic Range Compression , that I can't be sure of, but none-the-less, better is better, so the DSD version wins regardless of why!! 

[agladstone]

4 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

 

 

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

I have ripped all of my SACD's to DSD and I have ripped all of my CD's to 16/44 FLAC. 

So in that case DSD = SACD and 16/44 = CD so to speak for this purpose. 

I have some "albums" (same one) where I have 3 diff SACD versions (As example a 2010 SHM-SACD, a 2003 Columbia, and a 2015 MFSL) and also have that same exact album in 4 diff CD releases (none of which are "re-mastered" versions, but a 1985 made in Japan CD, a 1989 USA CDand  a 2007 EU CD, etc) AND I also own the same album in an LP (Vinyl ripped to 24/96 FLAC) AND I also own it in 24/96 Pono download AND I also own it in a HDTracks 24/192 FLAC. 

Pink Floyd The Wall would be one of many I have 10 different releases and formats of as example. 

And in my experiences almost always the DSD versions are the best sounding version. 

NOT always! Sometimes it is the late '80's 16/44 CD Rip, sometimes it is the 1st pressing Original Vinyl ripped to 16/44, oddly it is rarely the newer 24/192 HDTracks version (few exceptions here though definitely). 

[Ralf11]

agladstone - you compared the same exact albums per se - meaning the different layers on the same disc?  or ??

[mansr]

1 hour ago, CuteStudio said:

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.

You sure know how to pick them. That site is a real hoot.

[One and a half]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

You sure know how to pick them. That site is a real hoot.

Benjamin was a member at CA..... for a short time, then left by order.

[acg]

5 hours ago, agladstone said:

I have ripped all of my SACD's to DSD and I have ripped all of my CD's to 16/44 FLAC. 

So in that case DSD = SACD and 16/44 = CD so to speak for this purpose. 

I have some "albums" (same one) where I have 3 diff SACD versions (As example a 2010 SHM-SACD, a 2003 Columbia, and a 2015 MFSL) and also have that same exact album in 4 diff CD releases (none of which are "re-mastered" versions, but a 1985 made in Japan CD, a 1989 USA CDand  a 2007 EU CD, etc) AND I also own the same album in an LP (Vinyl ripped to 24/96 FLAC) AND I also own it in 24/96 Pono download AND I also own it in a HDTracks 24/192 FLAC. 

Pink Floyd The Wall would be one of many I have 10 different releases and formats of as example. 

And in my experiences almost always the DSD versions are the best sounding version. 

NOT always! Sometimes it is the late '80's 16/44 CD Rip, sometimes it is the 1st pressing Original Vinyl ripped to 16/44, oddly it is rarely the newer 24/192 HDTracks version (few exceptions here though definitely). 

 

Differences in dacs pale into insignificance any difference between file storage formats such as PCM and DSD (not that I believe that a difference really exists).  Your dac probably converts everything to DSD anyway, so what you are hearing is the difference in internal processing of your dac, not a difference between file storage formats.  

 

There is so much crap floating around about "which is better PCM or DSD?" because of flawed personal testing such as it seems you have performed that the truth is well obfuscated.

 

Here is the truth...if you want better sound get a better dac that suits the format in which your digital music is stored.  Forget which file storage format is "best" and get the music you like in whatever format it comes and a dac that works well with that music storage format.  

[agladstone]

31 minutes ago, acg said:

 

Differences in dacs pale into insignificance any difference between file storage formats such as PCM and DSD (not that I believe that a difference really exists).  Your dac probably converts everything to DSD anyway, so what you are hearing is the difference in internal processing of your dac, not a difference between file storage formats.  

 

There is so much crap floating around about "which is better PCM or DSD?" because of flawed personal testing such as it seems you have performed that the truth is well obfuscated.

 

Here is the truth...if you want better sound get a better dac that suits the format in which your digital music is stored.  Forget which file storage format is "best" and get the music you like in whatever format it comes and a dac that works well with that music storage format.  

No my DAC does not convert to DSD - I use a Mytek Brooklyn DAC, I will say that Mytek DAC's do excel with DSD and MQA files. 

[agladstone]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

agladstone - you compared the same exact albums per se - meaning the different layers on the same disc?  or ??

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

The CD Layers and DSD layers on hybrid SACD's are often 2 completely different master Inga entirely anyhow