Best USB cable to use between computer and dac?

[ajay556]

Barrow,

You mentioned spdif is flawed, can you elaborate on that. I have a mini-mac via enopias USB cable to SonicWeld converter to harmonic Tec photon SPDIF to stahl-Tek DAC.

FYI...

I did compare my setup with playing a CD directly on the Ayon CD-5 and DCS puccini. There was no comparison. My setup was far far superior. Huge soundstage, more musical, excellent resolution, deeper and tighter bass. It was far superior in every aspect.

 

 

[barrows]

I am not as qualified as the real experts to explain the problems inherent in SPDIF/AES digital transmission, but I would suggest reading the following publication from Ayre Acoustics regarding asynchronus USB DACs and SPDIF, and its affect on jitter levels:

 

http://ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_USB_DAC_White_Paper.pdf

 

And, to repeat: I am not saying that all SPDIF DACs sound "bad", I have heard many that sound very good, but I am saying that if the SPDIF interface was replaced with a well implemented Async Firewire, Async USB, or I2S interface the dAC could sound better.

 

[solidsqual]

Hey Guys,

 

This thread has been an amazing read and given me some great brands and specs to consider. I really appreciate those of you with constructive commentary and experience.

 

I just received my final USB cable, the Silver Starlight. Without going into a major review, the Starlight easily outperforms the USB cable that came with my printer, which tells me cables matter. In addition, the Starlight sounds better than the regular fifty dollar Kimber. I didn't compare the Silver Starlight to the Silver Kimber, but I imagine there might be a more competitive comparison.

 

At any rate, the Starlight is much more transparent than the regular Kimber with ferrite beads and leaps and bounds better in every way compared to the Epson USB cord.

 

Thanks guys,

 

Mike

 

[hubsand]

Seconding the Starlight recommendation: I'm triying to audition every USB cable available (only the Ridge and high end Locus ones are missing from my list), and the Starlight is easily the best value: other cables below that price only make relatively subtle differences (the kind of difference, ironically, you need a really expensive system to discern), but the Starlight sounds as good as any cable I've heard (up to about $500): the kind of upgrade to cause 'Damascene moments' for cable skeptics, without them being able to moan about the price!

 

[JDFlood]

I recieved my Starlight Monday, and have about 100hours burn-in . Sounds great, I like the performance and the price point. Glad for the help I got through this thread. I'm not looking to personally get back in to the cable evaluation "hobby". Which I did for about a dozen or so interconnects, then speaker cable, and finally power cords about 10 years ago. I came up with list of sonic characteristics and rated them all on these. It was a lot of work, exhausting and expensive. Happy to have a very good performer at a reasonable cost with out several hundred hours of work. Life is too short. Thanks, JD

 

[Nicholas.Bedworth]

My exsperience with the Starlight has also been quite positive. Depending upon the source and destination components, you might consider trying various lengths. In my situation, shorter was better, and Wireworld can easily make up really short lengths, like 5-6 inches.

 

Where else can you get bright fuchsia cladding on a reasonably priced USB interconnect?

 

And be sure to try the Wireworld Supernova glass TOSLINK in case your source has a TOSLINK output. Some laptops have this capability, and it's even more common on CD players and media servers. With the particular DAC I'm using (the Lavry DA-11), TOSLINK rivals 1394, and is definitely better than USB in this case.

 

The Wireworld TOSLINK comprises 280 extremely fine glass fibers, and is even available with an integrated mini TOSLINK jack for use with Toshiba and other laptops.

 

Audioquest also makes a similar glass TOSLINK interconnect, the Opti Link 5, and offers a mini TOSLINK adapter jack as an accessory.

 

Dave Salz, the designer and engineer at Wireworld, at one atime actually soldered amps and preamps directly together to establish a "zero length" interconnect reference.

 

[Fyper]

A couple years ago, a friend told me "you'll see, some day they'll sell Hifi USB an Ethernet cables wich sound better" and we were laughing, sure that it wouldn't happen, that the IT world was immune to this, that no-one would dare saying that the 0s and 1s coming out of a cable were not as good as the same 0s and 1s coming out of another cable.

Well, we were wrong: today we have USB cable sounding better than others, Ethernet cables sounding better than other, even hard drives sounding better than others.

I don't dare to laugh anymore, what's next? The world has been created 8000 years ago?

 

 

[ajay556]

That is because the IT world does not care for the time variable. In the music world time places a critical role. Ideally to re-create a perfect signal from digital 16/44 data the clock has to accurately pulse 44100 times in One second.

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

... I vote this one to be most entertaining, potentially dangerous - you may die from laughter ...

 

Some people are just amazingly cute. Thank you guys . Please go on, sure I'll come back soon (after I stop laughing).

 

WL

 

[ajay556]

What is your point? What do you find so funny?

 

 

 

[Guest]

Ignore him mostly WL is just a troll looking for attention with nothing useful to ad to any discussion.

 

 

 

[hubsand]

First: in a computing context, timing is not a factor: as long as the binary data arrives intact, it's all good. For audio, that data is decoded to voltage in (roughly) real-time . . . so the regularity of the intervals between those zeros and ones becomes significant: well designed cables reduce jitter.

 

Second: on a PC motherboard, (almost) all the signal paths are digital. Interconnects between the the PC and peripherals are all digital. Hash on these lines is irrelevant: you could use a USB cable as a radio antenna while you're printing a document, and the hard copy would look the same. But if you allow mechnical, electromagnetic and radio frequency interference into - and out of - a cable connected to a DAC, the corruption is clearly audible.

 

It's not 'just zeros and ones' for audio: the gaps between them matter, and all the junk piggy-backing down the cable with those zeros and ones needs to be eliminated.

 

It's understandable that IT professionals would scoff at a $200 USB cable, and react with skepticism to the idea that different digital audio cables produce audible differences. But only a little insight is needed to see why they matter, and only a moderately sensitive ear is needed to experience those differences for yourself.

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

quote >>>

It's not 'just zeros and ones' for audio: the gaps between them matter, and all the junk piggy-backing down the cable with those zeros and ones needs to be eliminated.

end quote

[hubsand]

A water filter is intelligent: water good; chorine bad . . .

But a cable can 'swallow' jitter no more than I can swallow my water filter.

 

You might find this definition of jitter helpful:

http://searchunifiedcommunications.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid186_gci213534,00.html

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

Looks your knowledge about water and water-filters sucks as well.

 

You can not filter out Chlorine with water filters ! Back to school ?

 

WL

 

[hubsand]

There's nothing I can do for you: sorry.

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

No problem.

 

Never hoped you could do anything for me ...

 

Have A Nice Day

 

WL

 

[Fyper]

Hi Hubsand,

 

Quote:"First: in a computing context, timing is not a factor: as long as the binary data arrives intact, it's all good. For audio, that data is decoded to voltage in (roughly) real-time . . . so the regularity of the intervals between those zeros and ones becomes significant: well designed cables reduce jitter."

 

I understand that time is a factor in the case of synchronous and adaptative connections because those somehow use as a basis the usb transmission frequency. But from what I understand the USB frequency is not at 44,1Khz and therefore must be reclocked. There are buffers, the ASRC method, etc. to help reclocking and/or perfecting the clock. That issue is, by the way, true whatever usb cable you use: this issue is not linked to quality of the transmission of the clock but to the concepts synchronous and adaptative connection and the quality of the clock of the source.

The asynchronous method should not be concerned: only data is transfered through the cable and with data it's pretty simple: either there is no error or there are errors. The IT usb cables are also used to transmit data : there simply can't be any difference. Again any difference would mean errors : you wouldn't be able to send a file to your printer. Now if you told me, yes it shouldn't affect it yet it somehow does, it would not only be acceptable for the discussion but would also worry me regarding the credibility of any explanation given onthe superiority of async usb.

 

Quote"Second: on a PC motherboard, (almost) all the signal paths are digital. Interconnects between the the PC and peripherals are all digital. Hash on these lines is irrelevant: you could use a USB cable as a radio antenna while you're printing a document, and the hard copy would look the same. But if you allow mechnical, electromagnetic and radio frequency interference into - and out of - a cable connected to a DAC, the corruption is clearly audible."

 

This issue is common to all cables: unless you use optical (non electrical) signal, you can be subjected to electromagnetic disturbances. In the case of digital cables it can potentially affect the data transmitted but it's uncommon and would result in data not transmitted (gaps). Regarding the time dimension, we are back to the first paragraph. If it's audible (and you can somehow confirm that it's coming from that) then I suggest you to change your DAC, not your cable.

 

Quote "It's not 'just zeros and ones' for audio: the gaps between them matter, and all the junk piggy-backing down the cable with those zeros and ones needs to be eliminated."

 

No the gaps between them don't matter only the 0s and 1s matter this is the beauty of digital vs analog, but I understand what you're saying. The cleaning and wording work, if needed, is done by the DAC. Nowadays all the DACs have very efficient to systems to do that.

 

Now if you and many others hear differences with golden USB cables and are happy to buy them, that's fine with me

Just consider that there is a good chance that these differences may be in your head only

 

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

Correct to the point.

 

Regards

 

WL

 

[hubsand]

Glad to have some more meat on the bones of this discussion: it was getting boring! I take your point that, in theory, async USB connections should be less (or even not) prone to cable-induced variation. In reality, they are.

 

Manufacturers like to claim that their DACs are 'jitter-immune', which, if true in the strictest sense, would make your choice of cable, computer and software unimportant - even irrelevant. Again, in reality, jitter is very tough to control: hence the improvements wrought by upgrading the clock in the Benchmark DAC1. Better clocks sound better; better power supplies to those clocks sound better, and better cables sound better.

 

In the case of a USB connection to a very good DAC, perhaps the sole difference a cable makes is that of isolation from interference (point 2, which you have not addressed at all); perhaps there are other factors yet to come to light.

 

What seems incontrovertible is the listening experience: naysayers in this regard are invariably willfully ignorant of what a good cable sounds like in a revealing system. Just listen!

 

[hubsand]

Your comments re: async USB were germane, and highlight good reasons why USB cables are likely to sound better with synchronous (typically lower cost) DACs. QED.

 

But your comments re: interference issues were garbled, contradictory and entirely missed the point. Interference issues are of course common to all cables. But audio equipment - literally - amplifies them!

 

If I send electromagnetic contamination via USB to my keyboard, it doesn't care. If I send all manner of non-digital junk along with data to the printer, it still prints. But send the same grunge to a DAC, and you will hear it.

 

Again, audio equipment places greater demands on specification than the IT industry. It's for precisely the same reason that you can get away with very cheap and nasty switching PSUs for a motherboard, and not for a DAC. Or do you not believe in power supplies, either?

 

[ggking7]

"If I send electromagnetic contamination via USB to my keyboard, it doesn't care. If I send all manner of non-digital junk along with data to the printer, it still prints. But send the same grunge to a DAC, and you will hear it."

 

Very interesting. Would anyone dispute this? So far, this is the only argument in the "USB cables matter" camp that makes sense to me. Can anyone with an intimate knowledge of DAC chips say whether or not an inputted non-digital signal will affect the output?

 

[Fyper]

 

Hi,

Sorry if I'm not clear, English is not my first language.

I start from the principle that digital transmission is about data transmission and therefore that it's either immune to interferences or destroyed by interferences, there no middle point (I know there is time too, but we have discussed this already). What a lot of audiophiles have difficulties to admit is that digital audio is effectively IT until converted to analog.

A said, unless you use optical transmission, there will be a level of interference transmitted by cables. However I think it doesn't affect the data itself, as you said also.

Where we probably don't agree is on the impact of these interferences on the sound and if a cable can affect this.

Regarding the interferences created by the source, and therefore transmitted to the cable from within, I don't see how a cable can filter any of this. It is the DAC which should have some kind of filter.

If it's coming from outside, I guess there are ways to protect the cable and the flow from these interferences. Here, from one cable to another there may be differences. Can we hear these differences? You say yes, I say I don't think so (because they are mostly eliminated by the DAC).

 

Regarding analog transmission, I'll agree with you on the fact that interference can affect significantly the signal, therefore, clean power supply has an impact, and cables probably as well.

 

I think that this is where this misunderstanding comes from : analog is subject to interferences, digital much less so.

 

[barrows]

Do you have any experience whatsoever with listening to different USB cables in a decent audio system? While speculating about the "possibility" of different USB cables having any effect on SQ may be interesting as an intellectual pursuit, the fact is: Different USB cables do sound different! These differences are not all that subtle either. Anyone who doubts this should compare a generic USB cable to something generally regarded as better sounding-perhaps the Wireworld Starlight for instance-anyone who makes this comparison, in a good system, will hear the difference right away-it is not subtle at all.

Regarding the transmission of noise (RFI) from the computer to the DAC-of course cables can act as filters, no cable has 0 ohm resistance at all frequencies, and cables can be tuned for how much attenuation they have at different frequencies by their design. Cables can have different R, L, C values at different frequencies, and, in the case of USB cables, the individual runs (USB has 2 data lines, a ground, and a power) can be tuned differently.

Does RFI brought form the computer into the DAC affect sonics: of course it does (the DAC may be designed to try and reject this interference, as in Ayre's use of optocouplers between the USB receiver and DAC section), this noise can couple into the clock circuitry, resulting in an increase in jitter, and can couple into the analog circuitry, increasing noise/distortion.

It is (not) interesting to hear people (who apparently have not bothered to listen) debate whether USB cables matter. As anyone who has listened just accepts the fact they do, and moves on.

 

[ggking7]

"As anyone who has listened just accepts the fact they do, and moves on."

 

Unless they want to know why.