usb cables?

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, marce said:

Totally ignoring the emotion I often find in music how large of an effect is this? 

 

Zero.

 

2 hours ago, marce said:

alter the bit pattern of the music buried in the transported data

 

Since you seem to be serious, would you care to give an example of how this would alter sound as such ?

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

something like the Lush item makes it easy to vary the characteristics of the connecting link

 

But Frank, what characteristic would you be referring to then ?

[PeterSt]

@musicguy, apologies to you. But this will be turning out badly. Your thread was derailed at post #2.

#1 actually. How dare you to ask the question. This is digital, man (with a twist so our century ago "this is TV man" commercial, someone selling a best tooth paste by means of a former radio commercial which would work, without sight).

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The goal should be to make the system completely impervious to doing this sort of mucking around;

 

yea yea yea - hear hear

 

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The Lush makes it easy to alter how shielding of the signal is configured, which alters the qualities of the noise and other interference seen by the receiving circuitry

 

prove it !

 

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

otherwise, it's just a form of DSP, tone controls.

 

That can't be so because I am all NOT in for that.

[PeterSt]

@The Computer Audiophile, could there be some kind of rule that stops this non-sense in advance ? I mean:

 

- Someone puts a fairly normal question in audio realm;

- Not only he, but the community is bashed at because the question isn't even supposed to be legit;

- The remainder is known and history (on-going).

 

I have fun with it all right, but the OP really isn't helped with it, nor is the hobby. he asked a normal question, and a 100 people may have - for them - valid answers. All different answers, but that is part of this hobby.

 

Meanwhile I will try to continue with sarcasm with possibly buried truth. That too is a way, but I feel sorry for the OP. But hint:

 

4 hours ago, mansr said:

All that meet the spec.

 

Any Clairixa owners around ? If so, how does it compare to an other cable of your choice ? The Clairixa possibly is the best USB 2 compliant cable around.

(I don't expect many answers because most were sold in "some" context of the Phasure community and the intent is negative (as an opposite of an advertisement).

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, musicguy said:

current top performing usb cables?

 

A serious response for a twist ?

 

That does not exist. Literally mansr could be right. The top performing cable should be a compliant one. But what is top performing ? zero data error in one month of time ?

I suppose so.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

and is in a good position to remove unwanted commentary. 

 

Ah OK. Then now I know where my first post went to.  

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, musicguy said:

current top performing usb cables?

 

An other answer:

USB for audio never should have been invented; In the good old S/PDIF days we could at least blame all to jitter. With USB this is 100x more difficult (it is still the same, but it requires this thread to be 2000+ posts first with numerous people banned and a closed down thread in the end with still no clear consensus).

 

So top performing USB cables exist, but I myself would have no clue about how such a cable would emerge. This is different from "having" one (as in: producing one). Believe it or not.

Maybe one day ...

[PeterSt]

32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I've done primitive experiments playing with shielding with some of the rigs over the years, and everything you do to alter the arrangement of this changes the sound.

 

A more serious response (respecting yours, this time ) - Yes. I tried to do that too. Bought measurement gear for it - bought the most various shielding materials (for the various radiations types) for it. But

 

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The goal should be to make the system completely impervious to doing this sort of mucking around;

 

all I can say from my experience is: I guess so.

Point is that the measurement devices will tell you that this is an undoable job. This is because this is not particularly about the shielding, but way more about the impeded radiation. People with NOS1a and Mach III will know that both contain a switch which is related to grounding and protective earthing respectively. I myself obviously have them too. And well, I still have no clue (that I can learn by heart) how to set which. This, while the differences in radiated noise are enormous, with the only  4 different possible settings of the both *IF* one would leave the power cords without change. Small problem: they can change everywhere for PE, polarity, dedicated mains ring and more. And that per device in the audio chain use.

So radiation is the thang, but quite out of control and beyond "logic" that I can tell.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Does it give a lower bit error rate than others?

 

Of course not. They all run error free for any amount of days. Unless "galvanic isolation" is involved. Then it becomes more tricky. But if all is right, still "forever".

[PeterSt]

If you are really interested:

 

 

4 days and 6 hours in this case (with said isolation).

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The secret formula is understanding that every system that's assembled from bits without any extra thought is imperfect, from the POV of the subjective SQ;

 

In my view it is more difficult.

 

Assembling a rig "with thought" requires knowledge which actually does not exist. So take me myself, literal "inventor" and pioneer of more than one quite important ICT (computer) aspect, from a time when even computer monitors did not exist yet. What do you expect me to think when "I am going to create a better USB cable". Well ??

Officially / normally / formally this can't exist. It is complete rubbish. However ... once I really start working on it, you can bet I can justify it myself. Wait ... to myself (avoiding the 2000+ posts). Now it is no rubbish any more. Not to me and it shouldn't be to anyone. This is not audiophile idiocy. But the physics of it comprise of a way long complicated chain (most of it was dealt with and challenged in the Lush^1 thread).

 

Now if we can continue with the OP's question ...

 

[PeterSt]

23 minutes ago, marce said:

Digital carries the analogue signal as packets of information in binary format, noise can be superimposed on the signal but does not become part  of the analogue information and within easily achived tolerances the noise will not alter the transmitted information.

 

Too bad that 8KHz packet noise is right in the audio band. So via the backdoor it *does* become part of the "analogue information". If anything is easily measurable it is that.

And this is just one aspect (but IMO the easiest to see and understand).

Then even this one is already complex because it is about what the digital information including noise IMPLIES. And that "at the other end" (behind or even within the USB receiver).

 

As long as these aspects are not understood, all USB cables will sound the same. Especially if you don't attempt listening to a couple.

[PeterSt]

15 minutes ago, JanRSmit said:

How do i as enduser know the always present noise is not interfering? 

 

Oh, but you do know. I just tell you. Hahaha.

 

The key is in the "always present" because although it is, it is always different (incurred for by environmental settings and even explicit settings (like in-software)). And btw, although a lot is USB specific, an other lot is not related to USB at all.

The skill about controlling it and slowly we get further and further with that. According to some, however, nothing happens. 

[PeterSt]

56 minutes ago, mansr said:

Are you implying that marce doesn't have real-life experience of electronics design?

 

Everything sounds the same.

[PeterSt]

Of those 4 guys. Yes.

[PeterSt]

Careful, his side hobby is noise.

[PeterSt]

Perhaps ?

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

is a non audiophile somebody 85 years old with hearing loss?

 

We need a poll.

[PeterSt]

Careful. Golden hearing aids don't depict golden ears.

[PeterSt]

Hearing aids.

[PeterSt]

I use ^2.

[PeterSt]

We finally agree.

[PeterSt]

So now there is some consensus, what's next ?

[PeterSt]

Frank, HiFi is from 1972.