Jump to content
IGNORED

Best USB cable to use between computer and dac?


Recommended Posts

And to add if your spending thousands of dollars on audio equipment chances are you have a quality line conditioner somewhere on your rack. I understand and totally agree that 1. a better cable can reduce noise but is it audible and how common is it. 2. now knowing that error correction is part of usb how many times in your life have you heard bit errors? 3. a better made cable is going to have a higher rate of success and integrity. So how come no one can post something that shows its common and noticeable to microphones, sound editing software or spectrum analyzers? I would say the most important part of an over engineered cable is the shielding being in the audio business for 15 years I have had issues with audible interference less than 1% of my entire career but that is just my exposure. As far as crosstalk on communication lines out of the 60,000 cat6 lines i ran last year we re ran 3 due to cross talk and this was on a military base with more bicsi violations than the world combined.

 

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

Yes, it is always missed data in this case, just plain old fashioned S/N levels.

 

For sound differences, besides noise, the only mechanism I can even begin to postulate involves timing issues. (Jitter and its kin.) I don't have a lot of confidence in this theory though.

 

On the other hand, I know darn well that swapping two USB cables changes the sound I perceive using a very high quality, although not terribly expensive DAC. That just twists my jaw all over the place. But I believe it is real.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

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

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

"And I would really like an explanation from anyone, anyone at all, on how lengthening a cable carrying 'digital' signals can improve the sound."

 

I believe you're stretching the original statement a bit. Here is what I wrote in the Alpha USB review about a 1.5 meter cable.

 

"The balanced AES connection also offers common mode noise rejection. In addition to recommending the balanced AES output Berkeley Audio Design also recommends using a 1.5 meter AES cable and USB cable when possible. This recommendation has everything to do with reflected versus original digital signal energy caused by return loss. A cable and its connectors is not a perfect transmission line as it suffers from reflected energy. When a 1.5 meter cable, 3 meters round trip internally, is used this reflected energy is delayed enough to minimize confusion with the original signal at the data receiver. These may be small or insignificant details to some, but are important and critical details for those seeking the highest level audio reproduction."

 

 

I don't think Michael said a longer cable improves the sound. Period. End of statement. Rather, according to him a 1.5 meter cable has less affect on the signal than a shorter cable for the reasons stated above.

 

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

USB Interface Jitter Measurement (16 bits)

 

We have a keen interest in measuring the jitter of the USB interface because its level of jitter is typically much worse than the SPDIF interface. If left untreated, the degradation in sonic quality is readily audible. So we wanted to see if our multi-stage jitter reduction circuit would be effective on the USB interface. The FFT plot of the D1 DAC output (16-bit, 11.025 KHz signal) shows that there are no jitter sidebands visible above the noise floor, around -135 dB, which means that if they exist, they are buried under the 16-bit quantization noise. If there were a single jitter-induced tone at -135dB, the corresponding jitter would be 4 ps rms.

 

 

 

http://www.anedio.com/images/anedio/art_jittUSB1.png

 

Here is the same measurement, zoomed in along the frequency axis. Notice the slight spreading around the signal, about +/-20Hz. This spreading is a characteristic sign of low-frequency jitter. As mentioned above, such a low frequency jitter is masked by the presence of the strong nearby tone and is well below the threshold of audibility.

 

 

http://www.anedio.com/images/anedio/art_jittUSB2.png

 

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

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.

 

I would recommend thinking of a digital cable scientifically, as a cable, rather than using the reductionist (and I believe marketing-driven) model of a mere conduit for "bits." Would you ever think of saying it is a "last resort" to consider electronic noise in thinking of factors affecting the sound of an analog cable? Then why should it be so with regard to another length of wire whose only distinguishing feature is that the analog signal it carries represents bits, rather than being used directly as an analog signal?

 

 

 

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 a post yesterday, which obviously you did not read. I am not going to repeat it in full. Briefly, however, in a cable carrying 'analogue' signals the noise is indistinguishable from the signal and becomes part of the signal. In a cable carrying 'bits' that is not the case, due to what you might think of as 'triggering levels' in the receiving equipment.

 

It is not 'marketing'. Computers and similar devices would simply not work at all if this was not true. You answered that yourself with 'represents' and 'used directly'.

 

Link to comment

Computers and similar devices would simply not work at all if this was not true.

 

If what were not true?

 

What I said is that it is good not to lose sight of the fact that digital cables are subject to the laws of physics like any other wire, and that thinking of them *only* as a conduit for "bits" is too reductionist.

 

So computers and similar devices would not work if the laws of physics applied to them? I'm confused.

 

Edit:

 

I found your post from yesterday, which as you supposed, I hadn't read. But now I am further confused:

 

I did NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT effectively 'improve' or 'alter' the cable. I powered the S/PDIF converter from a separate (battery) supply rather than the USB supply. It was simply convenient to cut the USB cable two inches from the converter and insert my power connection there rather than inside the converter. In fact you can now buy socket to plug USB adapters that do just this, so you don't have to touch the cable.

 

The converter was USB powered. So not only are you persisting in misreading what I originally did, it is completely irrelevant to my comment here, even had you not misinterpreted it.

 

You "powered the...converter from a separate (battery) supply rather than the USB supply," but "[t]he converter was USB powered." And you "did NOT..." alter the cable, but you "cut the USB cable two inches from the converter and insert[ed] my power connection there rather than inside the converter."

 

I'm sorry (truly), it's just confusing to me to think of cutting into the power lead of a USB cable and inserting a battery supply as not altering the cable in any way, particularly as related to the electrical noise transmitted through said cable. If you are saying this is not making any sort of change in the system, then to what do you attribute your report of a change in sound? If you are saying the change to a battery supply could have been made at other points in the system, fine, I agree. Is there something else you intend that I am just failing to catch?

 

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

Paul, Mark Powell, PeterSt, Gordon Rankin, Alex, etc., etc., you are already warned, your opinions are not wanted anymore in this forum!!!

 

From @pilgrum: "...I would never trust 50-80 year old ears in any hearing test of audio equipment i believe in science..." Then you are not allowed.

 

But me, yes, I'll be 92 next year and 'almost' a scientific.

 

Also, I still own and run a graph factory, I can graph everything, the size and colors you want.

 

BTW, the paper holds what you put on it.

 

Roch

 

Link to comment

In an 'analogue' system the signal is used directly, as you said. So noise becomes an inherent part of the signal. In a 'digital' system the signal is used as a represention only. The computer, DAC etc. designers know that noise cannot be eliminated so have designed a way around it. Not to reduce it, but to ignore it totally. The signal consists of a pretty rough electric representation of zeros and ones. By introducing level-sensitive 'triggers', sensitive only to signals WELL (say a hundredfold) above any conceivable (and well tested and understood) noise levels the presence of a zero or a one is distinquished. Always.

 

Just for you, I rewired the S/PDIF converter yesterday so that my external power goes directly into it rather than 'near' it via the USB cable, and went and bought a new USB cable exactly the same as the one I cut into. So now the USB cable is unmodified and "the change to a battery supply could have been made at other points in the system" has now happened. The improvement from using non-USB power is still there. So you caused 'action at a distance', approximately 5000 miles, just like your quantum stuff says you can :)

 

Link to comment

Just for you, I rewired the S/PDIF converter yesterday so that my external power goes directly into it rather than 'near' it via the USB cable, and went and bought a new USB cable exactly the same as the one I cut into. So now the USB cable is unmodified and "the change to a battery supply could have been made at other points in the system" has now happened.

 

Thank you. I was hoping you would do this, but did not want to presume.

 

The improvement from using non-USB power is still there. So you caused 'action at a distance', approximately 5000 miles, just like your quantum stuff says you can :)

 

Einstein's phrase (at least I think it was his) was "spooky action at a distance," so I think perhaps your actions were insufficiently spooky to qualify as quantum. :-) But they do form part of what I think is an interesting experiment.

 

I want to go through your system and see if we can come up with some ideas as to the cause of the improvement you've noticed.

 

In an 'analogue' system the signal is used directly, as you said. So noise becomes an inherent part of the signal. In a 'digital' system the signal is used as a represention only. The computer, DAC etc. designers know that noise cannot be eliminated so have designed a way around it. Not to reduce it, but to ignore it totally. The signal consists of a pretty rough electric representation of zeros and ones. By introducing level-sensitive 'triggers', sensitive only to signals WELL (say a hundredfold) above any conceivable (and well tested and understood) noise levels the presence of a zero or a one is distinguished. Always.

 

Agreed that the noise won't be a direct part of the digital representation. There are five possible ways I can think of at the moment that electrical noise or RFI might otherwise affect the analog sound:

 

- The noise might reach the analog circuitry of the DAC and the rest of the system through ground

 

- The noise might affect the analog electrical waves in the digital cable that represent the digital ones and zeros to such an extent as to cause dropouts

 

- The noise might affect the analog electrical waves in the digital cable that represent the digital ones and zeros insufficiently to cause dropouts, but sufficiently to impart jitter (e.g., by altering zero-crossing points)

 

- The noise might affect the converter or DAC's clock circuitry, causing jitter at that point

 

Let's go through your setup with the USB-to-S/PDIF converter as I understand it with regard to these possibilities. If I get something wrong, please tell me.

 

- You're using Toslink between the converter and the DAC, so electrical noise cannot reach the DAC and the rest of the system through ground.

 

- You're not hearing audible dropouts.

 

- Your USB-to-S/PDIF converter is async. My understanding is this should negate jitter arising in parts of the system prior to the converter's clock. Therefore, let's rule out jitter caused by effects of the noise on the signal in the cable.

 

- I wondered if cutting the cable might have somehow kept it from picking up RFI and feeding that into the converter's circuitry, but your latest "experiment" gave you the same improvement without cutting the cable.

 

- What's left, at least of the possibilities I can think of, is electrical noise causing jitter in the DAC's clock circuitry. So I'm conjecturing that providing battery power to the converter eliminated or reduced the noise and consequently improved the jitter performance of your USB-to-S/PDIF converter.

 

Regarding this possibility, I'm wondering whether you're running your laptop off battery power or mains power.

 

If electrical noise affecting the converter's clock is the reason you heard the improvement, then a cleaner power supply prevents the problem from occurring in the first place, so it is clearly the best solution. However, it is conceivable two USB cables might perform sufficiently differently regarding transmission of electrical noise to the clock as to cause audibly different resultant jitter. (Evidently the Carbon didn't do an appreciably better job than the other USB cable(s) you tried.)

 

In systems different from yours, some of the possibilities we eliminated above might come into play. For example, if noise getting into system ground were a factor, then USB cables with superior isolation between ground and the signal conductor might give an audibly better result.

 

So - I'm not trying to argue for "magic" or "subjectivity" here. I'm wanting to do a good, careful examination of the real, physical possibilities rather than dismissing even the thought of audible differences among USB cables out of hand.

 

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
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi to the community,

Is anybody here familiar with Viablue cables? From what I read they are designed in Germany, but I couldn’t find any review on the web. Aesthetically speaking they look cool, but that's not the most important. Any opinion?

Thank you so much! Marcelo

 

 

Link to comment

After hearing the Cardas Clear Serial Buss USB cable, I have to loan my wife's Macbook Air to listen music before the longer Cardas Clear Serial Buss USB cable comes. The difference is so big.

 

Levono T400 2.93Ghz T9800 128GB SSD --> Own player programmed against event style WASAPI driver / Mac Pro 2008 8 core 20GB with Sonnet Tango USB FireWire --> Own player programmed against the lowest level HAL / iPhone 5s --> Own player programmed against the HAL -->Cardas Clear Serial Buss (USB) 3m --> Wavelength WaveLink HS 24/192 USB to SPDIF converter --> Audioquest VDM-1 1m --> Densen B-410XS (Cardas Golden Reference Power 1.5m) --> Cardas Neutral Reference interconnect 1m --> Densen B-110 Plus (Cardas Golden Reference Power 1.5m) --> Cardas Neutral Reference speaker 3m --> Dynaudio Contour 1.1

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
What do you know about DH LABS USB cable?

I use a 0.5 meter DH Labs Silversonic USB cable, it works, and I think it sounds better than a $7 20" Belkin.

13.3" MacBook Air, 4GB RAM, 256GB SSD; iTunes/Bit Perfect; MacBook Air SuperDrive; Western Digital My Book Essential 2TB USB HD; Schiit Bifrost USB DAC; Emotiva USP-1, ERC-1 and two UPA-1s; Pro-Ject Xpression III and AT440MLa; AKAI AT-2600 and Harman Kardon TD4400; Grado SR80i; Magnepan MMG Magnestands; and, Rythmik Audio F12

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

I have just listened to a 1.5 meter QED Profile Precision USB cable up against my "no-name" 1.5m gold-plated cheap cable - both on my Cambridge DAC Magic Plus, using my Denon AH-A100 headphones.

 

I must say, there were no difference at all! Can't recommend the QED (wich is by the way funny as it is no were to be found on their website, might reflect the quality)

 

Last year I did the same with a AQVOX high-end USB cable and that made a very noticeable difference, but was only for testing so had to return it.

 

 

Now when I was at it anyway, I listened to the difference on iTunes and iTunes+Amarra Hifi and oh my, there is a huge differance - Amarra really cleared everything up and tightened my bass, gave me more in both ends of the signal.

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...