usb cables?

[marce]

23 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

That you know of.

 

 

Uh, no.

A little thought on this, to alter the sound consistently the cable would have to either alter the bit pattern of the music buried in the transported data, or inject a certain amount of noise that interacts with the analogue output creating either a euphoric or disconsolate sound field. Totally ignoring the emotion I often find in music how large of an effect is this? 

[marce]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

2 questions:

1. For signals moving through a cable, how does a digital signal differ from an analog signal; looked at from the physics standpoint?

2. What are the physical attributes of noise in the context of audio systems and cables?

 Its not the signal as such its the information carried in the signal, this is where analogue and digital differ. In analogue the signal is the information a time varying waveform, noise is superimposed on the signal and becomes part of the signal especially noise in the same frequency range as the signal. 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.

[marce]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

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. 

Maybe you should look up the likes of Henry Ott or Ralph Morrison...

[marce]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

The packet noise is created by the USB receiver. Nothing to do with cables.

Thank you, these discussions do tend wander...

[marce]

2 hours ago, JanRSmit said:

So , to understand what you are saying, in the case of digital info, noise (which is always present) will not somehow interfere if it stays below a certain level. Then the questions i have:

How is this achieved in essence?

does the noise spectrum make a difference?

Is this true also for computer to dac communication?

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

The reference is to noise superimposed on the digital signal, not EMC engineering of a system. The comment is reffering ton the signals travelling down a wire and comparing an analogue signal to a digital signal and the effect of noise on these signals. If the eye opening of a digital signals eye diagram is within the required specification then the digital data will get through.

System noise problems comes under EMC engineering, well studied, very well studied, lots of information out there on EMC.

[marce]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

100% logical why this should be so ... almost all audio gear is far too sensitive to variations in noise and interference present in the electrical environment; and reacts just enough to make it clearly audible in the heard sound - change the spectrum and makeup of the unwanted electrical activity ==> the subjective SQ changes.

 

One way of looking at this is considering the very acceptable, , concept of dither; it's very easy to 'prove' to people that selecting different patterns of the dither applied to a digital waveform makes the sound more or less pleasant ... think of what you're adjusting with altering the shield as fiddling with the precise nature of the dither applied at that moment, .

So everything is badly designed yet gets CE and other compatibility markings!

[marce]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

So the CE and other compatibility markings directives have clauses very clearly specifying tests relevant to very high quality audio?

Audio is electronics... and not very taxing electronics, there are far more complex and sensitive designs that some how can be made to work without all the tom foolery we have in audiophile myth land.... they can even use SMPS's without issues!

[marce]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

Buy a Lush^2 and quit wasting time. It's like 100+ usb cables in one.

How?

[marce]

6 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

You're the expert.

Well I'm asking here because I can't think of any mechanism (other than noise) that could be at play... And as you are promoting a product I thought you might have more information.

[marce]

22 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Sorry, I didn't take it as a serious question. I'm not "promoting" a product. The OP asked about usb cables and I gave a recommendation based on personal experience. If you're seriously interested in reading more, there's a dedicated thread for Lush^2 without me trying to repeat it here.

I have read it all.

Its not just the Lush cables, its all USB cables... 

[marce]

Why does it explain a lot,  because I am trying to find an underlying mechanism that could cause a repeatable change in the analogue output caused by different USB cables used to transport a digital signal...

[marce]

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

 Maybe I misunderstood.

1) I thought you were asking for more information on the Lush^2 usb cable. I said there was a dedicated thread and based on your reply you were unable to find it. Yet "I have read it all".  I responded with "that explains a lot" because your response gave me some insight into a lot of your posts/comments/responses. Hopefully you'll be able to take it from there.

 

2) What does "because I am trying to find an underlying mechanism that could cause a repeatable change in the analogue output caused by different USB cables used to transport a digital signal..." have to do with the topic of this thread? Are you intentionally try to derail this thread with off topic posts? The OP asked in his first post: "its 2019. current top performing usb cables?" How are any of your responses in this thread in any way related to that? So again, my "that explains a lot" because I have to question your ability to understand what you read. Sorry to be so blunt but you asked.

Real your neck back in sherlock, its audio not cancer research...

[marce]

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

because I have to question your ability to understand what you read.

Why don't you understand what I wrote is stead of being such a clever... I said I am looking for a repeatable mechanism, nothing else, in the background I am looking at USB, the interface, common layouts of the interface, various methods of generating 5V_USB on motherboards and other equipment etc. As low noise and noise control in electronics is a bit of a side hobby for me. But I write something against your beliefs and bang...

 

[marce]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's considered not very taxing electronics by a large part of the manufacturing sector, which is why sound reproduction so much of the time is somewhat mediocre: boring, grey, a world where only the best recordings are listenable to - the systems are not capable of getting out of the way, and add far too much of their own signature; they don't do the job of revealing what's on the recording, and only the recording, and trip over themselves when asked to deliver realistic volumes, and to present complex mixes of sound without fuss ... they are, what's the word now - ah, yes, incompetent ...

Load of crap.

[marce]

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Careful, his side hobby is noise.

Back with the pathetic digs... Both yourself and Sandy K have again derailed a thread with your vitriol... So sad.

[marce]

10 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

I sure hope you aren’t actually saying that once something has been published in a textbook, that’s the last word on the subject. There are any number of “well settled facts” in the past that are now known to be false.

We are talking basic electronics and physics though here,.....

[marce]

Funny how all the other electronic seem to manage with these textbooks.... Even Heaviside's tome is still relevant as are Maxwell's equations!

[marce]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 You aren't the only member of this forum who is capable of designing high performance  multi layer PCBs either.

 

Why have a personal dig?

[marce]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Because you keep quoting your undoubted expertise in this  area, neglecting that others such as John are also well aware of RF/EMI control issues in this area too.

 Even between highly qualified E.E.s and S/W designers it is obvious that there are many areas of disagreement.

 Only with talking to and learning from other qualified people in this area, will these niggly implementation issues with USB be fully solved, instead of being dismissed as non existent. 

 Have you ever tried talking to John OTR via PM ? You may both have a great deal to learn from each other.

No I do not, I post comments then you chime in.

In fact I have had enough of your crap, your the very first person I am going to put on an ignore list, your petty little digs and monotonous posts on the same thing and referencing the same names every time is pissing me off, we cant have a discussion on here without you sprouting your rubbish and having digs...

Give it a rest.

[marce]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Then you give it a rest about what a great M/B designer etc. you are , and know everything there is to know about system noise reduction. USB cables do sound different, as many members keep reporting , but you still aren't listening.

Deleted.

[marce]

Apologies but I have enough...

Consider it my last and most angry post.

 

[marce]

12 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Geez marce. Pretty thin skinned for someone who can dish it out so easily. I'd take a break from this site for a while and enjoy life if I was you. Get some perspective back. 😀

The trouble is I don't dish it out....