usb cables?

[Ralf11]

7 hours ago, JanRSmit said:

So, enlighten us with some basics relevant for computer-dac communication.

For one i know that with usb cable use between computer and large format printers, the USB cable quality does matter.

 

I'll paraphrase what Peter said:

 

Noise cannot affect the digital signal itself (as a practical matter; if an EMF pulse bomb goes off near your USB cable then all bets are off).

 

A USB cable also has a ground wire, and noise can be transmitted to the DAC along the cable (optical does not have this problem).  Now, what happens to the noise once it gets into the DAC?

 

Once in the box, the noise can affect very low analog signals just after the digital to analog conversion occurs.

 

(There are some other possibilities, but this is the easy version).

 

When you isolate the DAC from any noise sources, you solve the problem.

 

Besides the USB cable, there are other ways that noise could possibly get into the DAC: radiation thru the air (highly unlikely i most situations), and via the AC power cable (AC line, aka mains).

 

Putting the DAC on a different AC circuit than the server (computer) attenuates the AC line noise to the DAC.  However, this may well not be a problem, tho it is good practice.

 

 

So... if you have isolated the DAC from all 3 possibilities of noise injection different USB cables (that meet the spec.) will not make a difference.

 

Differences are perceived either because of confirmation bias or because they actually exist due to lack of isolation.  Double blinded and properly conducted listening tests would tell you if the former was the reason, but are rarely done.  AND, it may be easier to buy an inexpensive isolation device than to conduct the test.

[Ralf11]

did you see the post today by John Swenson?  add his name plus 'silver' to pop it up

[Ralf11]

15 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

Nothing comes up with silver by him - not a 2019 post anyway.

 

his point was that silver conducts noise just as well as it conducts signal

[Ralf11]

15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I don't give a rat's rear end what you did.

As I said, I have seen 2 different wire gauges quoted that are almost universally used, perhaps for wire gauge suitability and availability, and commercial reasons.

 

do you have a rat's rear end to give?

[Ralf11]

It is certainly true that a little Expertise in analog does not translate to any expertise in digital electronics.

[Ralf11]

The song remains the same...

[Ralf11]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Perhaps it does to some non audiophiles with entrenched view points who would never invest in the higher quality equipment needed, including the speakers ?

 

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

[Ralf11]

14 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

What makes you believe your "knowledge" is real?

 

it is called experimental verification of an hypothesis

[Ralf11]

14 hours ago, sandyk said:

open mind

 

 

 

your mind is open like a screen-door in a submarine

 

no scientist is foolish enough to "fully investigate" well settled facts

 

you know, stuff that is in a Textbook

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

If knowledge is updated regularly it changes regularly. Whatever changes regularly does not exist in a first hand, and couldn't be real.

 

I can tell you aren't a scientist.  Perhaps you are a Sophist.

 

It is very difficult to show that experimentally verified theory is wrong.  Usually, what happens is that the theory is applied outside its ambit, and eventually modified for these extreme cases.  Examples include quantum gravity, the Lorentz Contraction, Evo-Devo, Fisher's Theorem of Natural Selection, Quantitative Genetics, and etc.

 

I do not have any examples of modern scientific theory being completely overturned.

 

The run of the mills electronics used in audio is nowhere near the knowledge frontier.

 

One might argue that psycho-acoustics is, but in audiophila there are far too many psychos running about unfettered.

[Ralf11]

I'm a scientist.  But I agree that you cannot specify or understand what that means.

[Ralf11]

13 minutes 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.

 

none of them were experimentally verified - that is the difference 

see above

 

I respond to posts in the spirit they were served up; if people want a rational discussion that is fine; if they want insults they get them back

[Ralf11]

Like I said - you have no ability to understand what that means.

[Ralf11]

I see that manis... egregious personal attack was deleted.

 

I suspect that explains why mansr doesn't want to have anything to do with him.

[Ralf11]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Ralf11]

are you going to tell him that he too has his head up his ...  ???

 

you are the one who is pathetic

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, marce said:

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

 

no, not at all

 

he specifically asked for all opinions, no matter how worthless or ill-founded

 

What you mean is: "We [should be] talking basic electronics and physics though here."

[Ralf11]

ok, send me "a good one" and I'll try it out in my system

[Ralf11]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Remind me again why this is any of your concern.

 

 

maybe he is an undercover member of the Snivility Police - Cable Division

[Ralf11]

is " a large number of members" equal to 6??