Jump to content
IGNORED

Best USB cable to use between computer and dac?


Recommended Posts

I didn't say *all* of them had left.

 

Yes, Julf, thank goodness you're still here. :-)

 

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

In reproduced audio, we must, as it is all we have, consider the source, in this case a hard disk or an SSD, as good as we can get. Anything downstream can never improve on it or add to it, it can only leave it alone or detract from it. Garbage in, garbage out. Sometimes 'good' in, garbage out, but the output can never be better than the input.

 

Your wall plate simply detracts more or less depending on its shielding.

 

BTW: in my location we finally get four channels of 'Freeview' (free to air) HDTV next week! Whoopee! High definition garbage! I bought my 'HD Ready' TV eight years ago and am still waiting. Bit like hi res audio :)

 

 

 

Link to comment

the A**h*le you refer to is one of three highly talented, objectivist, engineers responsible for the design of the Berkeley Audio DAC. I'm certain it can be safely said that he could, if discussing technical issues, run circles around any one of your continual rants and anger based responses. You do need some anger management training.

@Julf, I can only respond that when looking at the tone of your continual posts, tagline and photo that you are just belligerent. You're on a site discussing issues that you clearly take exception to but, nevertheless, it quite easy to find where you'll be just by pursuing the Active Topics list. You're obvious and predictable and appear to enjoy the fight. Most sober minded posters here admit that these cables changes are audible and are the first to admit that the science hasn't yet given us a model to define the change. You seem to be that most reactionary model of the half-trained scientist, all standard theory, but no imagination.

WDW

 

Link to comment

Just another of dozens of 'me too' DACs whose heart and brain is bought in. It is not all in the circuit layout, the power supply, and the output stage, as these people would like us to believe. They are just the peripherals. But I would certainly like to know why he thinks that a longish cable can somehow 'improve' the sound over a shorter one. He may have totally revised a hundred years of electrical theory. I wait to hear of his Nobel prize.

 

It's not anger at all, merely skepticism, and a long career in electronics and related subjects. And you attack Julf as well. You would probably attack Faraday and Shannon if they were here, for not being totally convinced by myth and magic.

 

And where does your 'most' come from?

 

PS: I just see that another me-too 'reference' DAC has popped up. Yulong. Who they? It will be DAC du jour before long.

 

Link to comment

WDW.... You mention science in your post to Julf... Has there actually been any controlled repeatable blind testing showing individuals (professional and hobbyist) been able to discern clear differences in digital cables ? 

I'd be very interested to read them as I  myself have become cynical....

 

Mike

 

Link to comment

you wrote:

 

"Just another of dozens of 'me too' DACs whose heart and brain is bought in." You really have no idea what you are talking when referring to Berkeley Audio but reserve the right to wail and curse and defame.

 

I should have known, never wrestle with a pig.

 

WDW

 

 

Link to comment

...when I posted my query to Barrows, I wasn't intending to become the latest Julf/Powell target/poster boy for subjectivistis audio but here goes...

As Jud has posted, many senior scientists such as Gordon Rankin, Michael Ritter and others have noted and, I assume, tested cables performance which have lead to their considered opinions on the issue.

I'm not a scientist, nor electrical engineer, but can hear differences in some cables...many when not expected at the least...ie: power chords. Well, that's all for me.

WDW

 

Link to comment

What's different about the Berkeley from the claims of all the others? Note I am not saying it is a 'bad' DAC, I am just curious as to why you seem to think it should stand out.

 

You call these guys 'scientists' Are they? Or are they electronic engineers? I genuinely don't know. Where I worked for thirty years we had a 'Chief Scientist', with a Nobel prize in Physics to prove it. And another who was involved in chaos theory, Benoit Mandlebrot, of whom you may have head.

 

But other than fiddling around the edges with power aupplies and so on, these DACS are all the same, though of course they can be made to sound different, according to the designers likes and dislikes. And many seem to have similar likes and dislikes to Gordon and and the other guy. Fine.

 

And I would really like an explanation from anyone, anyone at all, on how lengthening a cable carrying 'digital' signals can improve the sound. Don't forget that we had another 'scientist' talking about the 'quantum' effects in his 5000 dollar USB cable not long ago. The only man on the planet who has actually been able to mainain an induced quantum effect. No Nobel prize yet, though.

 

Link to comment

WDW

 

Please don't feel like I was targeting you... I really have no axe to grind I am neither in the industry or of the flat earth society... I'm happy to be convinced either way.....

 

But coming from a metrology background where controlled repeatable measurements are imperative and anything else is worthless...  So some published 

trials would be a good read...

 

Cheers Mike 

 

Link to comment

"@Julf, I can only respond that when looking at the tone of your continual posts, tagline and photo that you are just belligerent"

 

Ah, so now even my photo somehow offends you?

 

"Most sober minded posters here admit that these cables changes are audible"

 

Ah, so it's the good old "most/all/every sober minded/sane/sensible/reasonable person agrees with me" argument. Very scientific.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Most people would use a digital antenna closer to the TV. You sure go to extremes, putting the TV on the roof! You must be an audiophile- either that or a mad scientist... :)

 

I was mad enough to try this, with the TV on the roof and the aerial cable shortened, and signal quantity and quality improved slightly, as measured by the TV itself.

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Agreed... Sad that the kids standing alone in the playground think it is because the are "too cool/smart", when in actuality it is because they are oblivious to social etiquette and norms.

 

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment

Don't you think everyone is getting a little to damn sensitive? Lighten up a bit.

 

I assure you, it is NOT a matter of life or death that some people can hear differences in cables that other people think should not under any circumstances be possible.

 

Look at it this way - crap happens.

 

It is fun to discuss why, but only to a point. Nobody should be having a crisis of faith about this stuff.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Me too, though I did not have too far to go to reach 'cynical'.

 

Take speakers. A simple wooden box, read a couple of books on speaker and crossover design, buy in or make a few drivers, stick a 50,000 price tag on what is mainly a pretty simple piece of furniture-style woodwork, and off you go. 50,000 dollars a pair. Get a pretty good Mercedes for that.

 

One newbie firm is now using 'egg box' type acoustic damping. Wonderful, its been used for donkeys years. As I remember, the origiators actually tried egg boxes.

 

If you are really serious, you might even hire the acoustic chamber at the local university.

 

And we have still not heard from WDW about the cable testing he 'assumes' the DAC manufacturers did. Standard 'lumped parameters' and a few ears, if anything. Nothing wrong with that. but it would be nice to be told. And if I was selling a 5000 dollar DAC I would throw in a 100 dollar or so cable, or no cable at all. I would certainly not risk my image by putting a WalMart cable in the box.

 

Link to comment

"...If one was being totally lunatic, one would solder the cable to the pc boards at either end, thus removing the connectors, where reflections, if any, will occur...

 

You mentioned here a good point: Connectors. Yes connectors designed at the beginning as printer ports. Small enough in size in order to fit in NoteBooks, they don't fit very easy, they don't have a lock like 'old' RS-232, or in CAT cables. More or less the same than HDMI connectors: Everything congested.

 

I would like to make direct a soldered connection on the PC Board on my computer to my DAC PC Board. But, this will be not practical at all.

 

I wonder why Gordon Rankin (Wavelength Audio) includes with his very good USB Interfaces (I owned one of this) gives you with each unit a very good USB cable and SPDIF cable, since they are not cheap, one meter long each one!

 

I can think it is for his generosity, but for his honesty and compromise with hi-rez.

 

Regarding different sound from different music players, even if out of thread, it is very easy to notice different SQ, at least to me, and for a vast majority of this community.

 

Carpe Musica,

 

Roch

 

Link to comment

You are correct, as usual. But some of this stuff has gone way beyong 'unscientific' and has moved towards 'anti-science'. Like you, I was trying to be on a middle path, but when you stand back and look at how these things actually work, that becomes very difficult. All this 'I hear more bass when I change my USB cable' for example. It is so easy to make such claims, no one can tell what you hear or think you hear.

 

If computer audio is to move forward, the people who claim such effects need to be able to demonstrate them. And there are ways of doing that. Saying 'You objectivists don't know everything' is no answer at all.

 

For the good of us all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Or at least evidence.

 

And (I am pulling your leg a bit here) who was 50 percent of the people in the differences between you and Julf just a few days ago?

 

:)

 

Link to comment

"As Jud has posted, many senior scientists such as Gordon Rankin, Michael Ritter and others have noted and, I assume, tested cables performance which have lead to their considered opinions on the issue."

 

Jud posted: "There have also been experienced designers such as Gordon Rankin with tens of thousands of dollars worth of test equipment who say they are certain they do hear additional differences (beyond the measurable ones) that aren't accounted for by their measurements so far."

 

That matches my recollection of Gordon Rankin reporting USB cables sounding different to him despite no corroboration from his measurements.

 

 

 

Link to comment

And then there are some who join CA wanting to be an expert, start attacking people right and left for their "foolish" ideas, and then start complaining they are not treated as experts.

 

That leads to an exodus of people with interesting and often entertaining viewpoints.

 

To those who believe they are (not aimed at anyone in particular!) one of the people with actual training, experience, and expertise in digital audio...

 

My question would then be - where are your products?

 

Build a better DAC, put it out there, and then everyone will be able to judge what your experience and ability is. (Or a better amp, or preamp, or computer music player, or whatever.)

 

-Paul

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

You swapped it for a better one, which reduced the degradation from noise. It did not make the signal 'better' than what it was when it exited the transmitting box.

 

We were both roughly in the same trade for a long time. Can you figure out how a bit that remains distinguishable despite secondary effects affecting the sound? Sure as hell I can't. My only thought, which is pretty much a last resort, is that noise, while not affecting the bit, gets into the analogue circuitry of the following box.

 

Link to comment

I never found the specs, graphs or dyno testing sheets. Can someone post the link for them thanks. I would never trust 50-80 year old ears in any hearing test of audio equipment i believe in science.

 

Win7pro64>JRiver17>ESI JULI@PCIE>Custom AQ DCoax>AdcomGDA700Mod >GTP450ModAUDIO>AudioquestYIQ3>AdcomGFA5500Mod>12gRomex/MC M1.2s/AQ DB14.2>KEF Q Towers>KEF Reference SBox>ESS AMT1C Mod

Link to comment

(grin) Me of course, though I am not sure I took it as seriously as people might have thought.

 

I'm not sure that someone who claims they hear something extraordinary needs to provide extraordinary proof, unless and until they try to make someone else spend money on something based upon their claim.

 

It does not really do any harm (or any good either) for someone to claim that for them, 16/44.1 CDs are "unlistenable." Or the reverse, that 16/44.1 CDs are the ultimate sound and hires is a waste of time.

 

Unless and until, they try to "prove" it as an authority and start deriding other people because they think or believe differently.

 

A lot of us come from corporate or scientific backgrounds, and unless we stop and think instead of just react, our immediate reactions are often inappropriate in a large social group tied together by a hobby.

 

With people like you and others around, I am sure the hobby will never get to far off into lala land... but at the same time, we need the dreamers and artists and people willing to try crazy stuff just as much.

 

Just my opinion by the way, you are quite welcome to disagree. :)

 

-Paul

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...