Best USB cable to use between computer and dac?

[elcorso]

Titanium is not very conductive of heat or electricity and you don't need to demagnetize, it is one of his properties, plus hardness, rigidity and low weight (less than aluminum), then it's the choose for bond 'repairs' and/or substitution.

 

For the conductors I'll choose pure mono crystal cooper, or silver, but it's very expensive right now.

 

For isolation and/or dielectric I'would choose coconut instead o 'rare rainforest-grown bamboo fiber'. Why? Because coconut have some natural and good oils, that could help a lot.

 

BTW, in the Rainforest there is nothing 'rare', everything grows natural and on big amounts over here, but of course there are some 'rare' visitors that visit us (and everyone is very welcome), like some 'rare' visitors that we get in this forum from time to time.

 

The only thing I could recommend to everyone when looking for USB cables is to try by yourself, and you don't need to expend a fortune, since sometimes the chipper ones will be those of choice. System and taste dependent? Maybe.

 

Roch

 

[Jud]

Only things I would find to discuss further in what you have said are dielectric and system dependency.

 

Dielectric - Air is best, but probably impractical for USB. See Omega Mikro stuff and then try to imagine the ribbon within mesh design withUSB terminations.

 

System dependent - Then I think there is something wrong elsewhere in the system.

 

[elcorso]

I stated system and taste dependent (bold here and not in my original reply.

 

Why taste? As somebody could like better solid state versus tubes (not my case).

Maybe they prefer SS because found it more precise, razor shape precision?. Or more defined, like hard transients or unnatural transients? This, of course, from my taste. And also for comparison purposes only. Please remember here mi English limitations, but even on other languages will be hard to explain and understand.

 

For example, I remember now my 'silver cable' times (also under SS), very, very precise, but unmusical (to my ears). By that time, a lot of people was very impressed for the 'detail', but there were not such a thing on real live music, from unamplified concerts.

 

I was ( a long time ago) in Salzburg, and had the good luck to listen to an small chord ensemble, we were very close to them and very few people. When the two violins was playing I hear no hardiness at all, everything was so sweet... Then I sold my SS equipment and silver cables and went to tubes.

 

I'm sorry for the long explanation.

 

Regarding 'system dependent', yes, this could be another big true, since if you don't have enough resolution (or well trained ears), you can't find any difference form cable to cable, or anything you change. I don't like to state this, because it could sound like arrogancy. But I listened to some friends systems, where they didn't spent a fortune, but very well tuned systems, and them notice with easy this 'differences'.

 

Roch

 

[4est]

I am with Roch on this one. A system implies that things are working together/interacting and therefore any conclusion only relates to the whole, not the parts and pieces. If this weren't the case, this hobby would be much more straight forward and the engineering/physics far simpler. To further Rochs silver/copper comments in gross generalizations, I find that silver is more detailed and copper has more body. Silver favors micro dynamics and copper macro dynamics. True accuracy is an unattainable goal, and often a moving target as changing one piece can effect the entire chain. Everything is a filter of sorts.

 

[goldsdad]

"[...] coconut have some natural and good oils, that could help a lot."

 

Do you find coconut oil to sound better than snake oil?

 

P.S. I better make clear that I'm joking.

 

 

[Julf]

"Silver favors micro dynamics and copper macro dynamics."

 

Even for digital interconnects (such as USB)?

 

[4est]

Forgive me- I was off topic. I think Roch was using an analog exemplification (SS vs tubes). My comment was intended in that vein, and not in reference to USB cabling, but systems as a whole.

 

[tarquineous]

I have found the same true with SPDIF cables. I have no idea why, but the silver is definitely brighter. My preference is copper cables. The sound is less emphasized, more natural. That my take on it.

 

This goes for hook up wire inside the component. I removed the silver internal wire I had installed in one DAC, and replaced it with copper wire. Even the one inch of silver could be heard. (FYI).

 

Haven't tried it with USB, but it wouldn't surprise me if the silver is brighter. And it may be a good thing, as I like the silver cables for video equipment, digital or analog.

 

[Jud]

Roch, I think we pretty well agree. Because I was replying from my phone, and thumb typing is not my forté, I was quite terse. Let me explain a bit more what I meant.

 

For example, I remember now my 'silver cable' times (also under SS), very, very precise, but unmusical (to my ears). By that time, a lot of people was very impressed for the 'detail', but there were not such a thing on real live music, from unamplified concerts.

 

Exactly. I think this comes from people listening to systems rather than the music they produce. It deprives the listener of any true reference by which to judge the sound. As I like to say, no one ever left a Pavarotti recital raving about the "detail" or the "treble" or the "high frequency accuracy." And this leads inevitably to "system matching," where one selects other components or cables with the opposite audible problem so the artificially noticeable "detail" will not become overwhelming. In this way one attains a system made up of components with audible defects.

 

Will every cable or component interact with all the others to produce the end result? Of course, this is inevitable. But if the *quality* of a component is system dependent - that is, Cable A produces better sound on all other systems than Cable B, but on your system Cable B gives a better result - then it seems to me this is likely an instance of "system matching." Perhaps you have components that give artificial detail, and Cable B has muddy high frequencies. Or perhaps Cable B has thick Teflon insulation, so the transients coming through it are smeared by dielectric pumping, helping to take the edge off that artificial "zing" you get from another component. In a system where all the other components are very high quality, Cable B's muddiness or rolling off of transients makes it sound worse, but in yours you get merciful relief from artificial detail. *That* is the sense in which I meant that if the quality of a cable is system dependent, you have a problem elsewhere in your system. In a "well tuned" system, as you put it, the true quality of a cable (or the lack of it) should be apparent.

 

It seems to me as exemplified by your discussion of people being impressed by "detail" not present in live music, there is also not a tremendous amount of room for taste when the goal is the reproduction of the live music experience. Your taste may be for lots of high frequency detail, but live music and recording sessions don't always have that. Thus if you find components to your taste, they will unduly emphasize high frequencies, and your system will have its own sound that differs markedly from the reality of what the recording captured. If on the other hand when selecting components you don't impose a particular taste, but choose those that give sound as varied as the recordings themselves, then you will minimize any "system sound" and get closer to the reality of the music.

 

Re Julf and USB cables: Yes, I've heard what I'm discussing here, good and bad, with USB cables. As I've mentioned in this forum (perhaps this thread?) previously, the Furutech GT2 USB cable I tried had artificial "zing," while not retrieving some of the real details of the recordings I played. The Wireworld Starlight did not have such errors of commission, but omitted more of what was in the recordings than the Audioquest Forest. With the Audioquest Carbon, my system passed along even more of what was in the recordings than it did with the Forest. (I previously provided additional notes about what I heard from particular recordings when auditioning these cables.)

 

[Talk2Me]

Just figured out my usb (again) connection from my MacbookPro to my Wadia S7i. Not bad guys, not bad. And his is only at 96kHz. I just read Lavry's take on hi-res, very interesting to say the least. I am using RAL Prophecy and Mhdt cables.

 

[Jud]

I just read Lavry's take on hi-res, very interesting to say the least.

 

His paper deals with the sample rate one needs to get correct audio band frequency response, but IIRC (which I may not - been a while since I read it), doesn't get into the gentler filtering 4x rates (176.4, 192) allow, nor the oversampling step that is skipped by some DAC chips with 4x input vs. 2x.

 

[Talk2Me]

I have been comparing a cooper and a 10x more silver usb cable. In all honesty, it is all system AND recording dependent in my case. I have a tube preamp and ss amp. When I played The Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Sessions", the silver cable took all honors. But, with Van Morrison's "Still On Top-The Greatest Hits", some of his earlier recordings were too harsh with silver, and the cooper cable took off a little harshness.

 

[whatever]

I'm a newb to audio systems but I can attest that use of different USB cables does have impact on sound quality....

 

I compared between the generic printer USB cable and an AudioQuest Carbon ($120). I did notice the reduction in unwanted noise. The bass sounded a little sturdier. Now this was during break-in. I haven't kept long enough to see full potential.

 

I say the cables do make difference in SQ so everyone, let's accept the fact and close the thread and quit crying. bye

 

[Talk2Me]

Hey newb, no one is crying here. Maybe, go to the Bose forum?

 

[whatever]

Hey Talk2Yourself,

 

I don't see what BOSE got to do with this thread. But I wouldn't be surprised if BOSE sounds better than the gear you got in your sig. You probably have fast bit bass which is considered inferior...

 

[Talk2Me]

It must be fun to be 19 years old again, no?

 

[whatever]

Hey Talk2Yourself, keep on topic. You are wasting internet forum space and trolling now. Grow the fuck up. ;-)

 

[elcorso]

Thanks for the correct translation of my thinking on reproduced music 'taste'.

 

Forrest, the same to you. Maybe for this, some cable factories choose silver plating their mono crystal cooper cables, most of the current travel on the cable skin, but not all, after all. This is about analog cables, but on the digital ones "One never knows - do one?".

 

BTW, one of my reference digital recordings, or the "acid test" (in finance argot) is:

 

Raasted: "Solo Violin Sonatas", Johannes Soe Hansen, Comp. 2010 Dacapo CD/SACD

 

http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/6642

 

Roch

 

[Paul R]

Clean up your acts before you annoy everyone by getting the thread pruned or locked.

I am sure we all appreciate your opinions, but a lot of people find the language offensive. Please, get it G-Rated and polite.

 

The boss doesn't tolerate personal attacks...

 

-Paul

 

 

[Mark Powell]

Does make a valid point, more by accident than design, I suspect, with his Bose sounds better than Burmester etc.

 

It is all down to personal taste, and nothing whatsoever to do with 'high fidelity' or accurate reproduction. Nothing at all.

 

As Jud so succinctly puts it, who ever comes out of a concert talking abot the 'detail' or the 'good treble'?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

What Paul said. Period.

 

 

 

[Julf]

As you guys clearly have ears that are able to detect fine detail, it would be great if you could help by participating in the hi-res listening test. It is not trying to prove anything, just help us understand the audibility of higher sample rates vs. higher bit depth.

 

 

[Julf]

"This is about analog cables, but on the digital ones "One never knows - do one?"."

 

No, one never knows. But I do have to repeat my "rational" view that while silver (and other materials) might have a certain audible effect on an analog interconnect, those properties, when applied to a power cable or especially a digital interconnect, would cause a very different effect. It might still be audible, but would not bear any resemblance to the kind of effect it causes in an analog context.

 

Perhaps a good analogy would be how cutting a corner off a sheet of paper makes the sheet rounder, but if you fold the sheet in halves over and over again until it is a very small square, then cut off a corner, and unfold it again, it is not "rounder", it has a lot of holes in it.

 

Likewise, if you attenuate high frequencies in an analog cable, the sound will be less bright. But if you attenuate high frequencies in a digital cable, initially the effect will be to increase DAC *input* jitter (that affects, or doesn't affect sound, depending on DAC design), until the eye pattern fills up and you start getting random bit errors. They won't sound "less bright", they will sound like random noise and distortion.

 

I apologize for the fact that my limited brain tends to approach technical issues in a rational, analytic way, but that is my cross to bear...

 

[4est]

or a bone to pick.

 

Julf, you seem to think that everyone here is ignorant of the technologies because we have observed behavior that is inconsistent with what is to be expected. May I add, that is exactly why we are discussing these things. If the traditional engineering answered these questions, I feel most people here would be accepting of that. As it happens, we have yet to understand these mechanisms properly enough to explain the phenomenon. Your continued finger pointing in a thread that is essentially of no consequence to you is nothing short of patronizing IMO.

 

[Julf]

"Julf, you seem to think that everyone here is ignorant of the technologies"

 

Forrest,

 

As usual you seem to think you know what I think.

 

I specifically made clear that I was presenting *my* view, and where I was coming from. I gave a reason for my views. I think that is far less patronizing than "discussing" something by stating "everybody knows you can hear a difference, and the only people denying it are closed-minded electrical engineer types". We just seem to have a very different view of the meaning of the word "discuss".

 

Could I, once again, ask you to please address the factual content in my postings, instead of making silly remarks about my motivations?