usb cables?

[fas42]

There will be never such a thing as a best USB cable - cables are just one of the areas where flaws in the reproduction chain integrity find it easiest to manifest; and the usual measurements of "performance" will never reveal themselves ... quick, give me a list of 10 things to measure which guarantees that a particular aircraft is safe to fly in ... .

 

Unfortunately, measurists are mesmerised by the beauty of being able to read off some numbers - their confidence that all is right in the world has been confirmed. Back in the real world, people just want their audio to sound better; and so experiment, experiment, experiment ...

 

Best cable? Will depend on the weaknesses in the particular rig - something like the Lush item makes it easy to vary the characteristics of the connecting link, and hence reveals the sensitivity of the connected components to the analogue qualities of the transmitted signal, and robustness in being able to reject interference and noise resulting from the nature of the link.

 

Truth is, best cable is no cable - a direct, high integrity, fully shielded connection from source to DAC will always be best - every floppy, plug in link only introduces more complications, more potential for degrading factors to play a part.

[fas42]

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 - 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. The goal should be to make the system completely impervious to doing this sort of mucking around; otherwise, it's just a form of DSP, tone controls.

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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

 

Yes, you went further into this than I ever did.

 

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

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

 

What I am always after is the sound of the recording alone; if I change something about the playback chain, or the environment that it's in, and the tonal qualities change, say, then I haven't succeeded in that goal.

 

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

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.

 

Every, every situation is different. I see it it, at times , like having a handful of elastic bands to tie it all together; as anyone who has tried to stabilise something with these beasties is probably familiar, this is an exercise in frustration - doomed to failure in the longer term. Only solid engineering at the right level of involvement with what's there, what has to be dealt with, is the 'right way' - a quick fix may prove a point, but is not a good solution, to leave indefinitely.

 

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

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.

 

It can always be brought under control, but radical re-engineering of everything, for the particular setup, may be necessary - the ol' ROI kicks in. My favoured approach is to get hold of gear that in intrinsic, raw form gets so much right, as is, and then do the extras that finish it off - being lazy by nature, and getting older, how could it be otherwise, .

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, luisma said:

If someone just would have the secret Formula on how to make the system perfect to start with then Peter and others won't have a business making USB cables, your hypothetical statement might be valid as that, a hyphotesis yet completely unpractical. 

 

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; for some rigs, the one missing piece may be a "good enough" USB cable, say Peter's Lush; if one is happy to experiment and can do that at low cost, then the chances are good that at the very least significant progress can be made.

 

I was extremely fortunate in that I lucked on a rig snapping into shape decades ago, and so know exactly what's possible; and can always pick the shortfall in what is being presented. The practical side comes in once you you have this "inner knowledge" - where is what I'm hearing 'wrong', and what are some of the likely suspects for causing this?

[fas42]

58 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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 ??

 

 

The knowledge does exist ... a number of individuals know that playback of recordings can be a spectacularly impressive experience; so any setup that fails to meet that standard is, yes, "flawed". This is a highly practical guide to moving in the right direction; the difficulty for many is understanding that what they call bad recordings is actually information that the system that they're listening to them on is damaging the SQ well beyond what is part of the recording - if they use the concept that 'difficult' recordings can tell them so much about the quality of the rig, then they will be well ahead.

 

If one desires to 'invent' a part of the whole that makes the whole perform better then simple feedback from what you're hearing is all the data you need - if you can hear more into the recording, it's more comfortable to listen to even at elevated volumes, the whole presentation is richer, fuller, more convincing - then you're doing well ...

 

To create a better cable, it needs to be closer to "no cable" - so you look at every area where the physical nature of it, in every possible way, could have some, unwanted, electrical impact. I have dressed how cables are set up literally thousands of times, with audible benefits over and over again - this is such effective tweaking, for close to zero cost - it's a waste of good gear not to get this sorted as well as one can.

[fas42]

If you "hate all cables" then most likely you are sensitive to the degradation caused the lack of integrity of the link overall; the quality of the connectors and issues arising from the construction of the cable proper. Buying specialist audiophile cables is highly unlikely to solve this, because they almost never address the actual underlying weaknesses - they are, a "rubber band" solution.

 

Many, many years ago I found the smartest solution is ditch these as a separate item - you hardwire everything in a sensible manner - and all the silliness then goes away ...

[fas42]

Have never used a USB link in audio, but everything I've read of people's experiences makes me very suspicious of the plug and receptacle arrangement - one of the first experiments I would do if I were to pursue this aspect of audio would be to remove this mechanism from the link entirely; that is, hardwire the cable to the circuitry at both ends ... does this make a difference?

[fas42]

3 hours ago, musicguy said:

 

current top performing usb cables?

 

musicguy

 

From where I'm coming from you're asking the wrong question - it's akin to having unbalanced wheels on your car, and asking people what are the best cushions to sit on so that you can't feel the vibration coming through the seat ...

 

IOW, it's vastly more effective understanding why there's a problem, and then doing something, perhaps quite trivial, which eliminates the issue completely - i.e. take the car to a tyre dealer, and get a low cost rebalancing.

 

People in the audio game either believe that there has to be a magic solution, preferably ridiculously expensive, , or thump the table ferociously, declaring that it's impossible for there to be a problem in the first place! It's a nutter's world, and most sane people steer well clear of it, . Rationality plays only a small part in the mix, and so the Days of Our Lives continues ...

 

If I was determined to make having the 'right' USB cable The Solution, I would buy every single cable that was out there that had a money back guarantee, hundreds if necessary, and try them out one at a time, to find the particular item that just happened to be most effective in that rig, for whatever reasons completely unique to that setup and environment. If half a dozen happened to be a good match, pick out the prettiest ... and send all the rest back, .

[fas42]

3 hours ago, RickyV said:

Sorry I have just tried two, the lush and the lush^2, oh and a 1$ cable.

The lush^2 is the best of cause  but what amazes me is that the different shield configurations changes the sound.  Some give a more articulated bass, some are better  in highs or just overall more spacial. It is clearly audible.

Did you read the lush thread?

 

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, .

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, marce said:

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

 

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

[fas42]

11 hours ago, marce said:

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!

 

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 ...

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Speedskater said:

Yes, they do!  Why would noise and interference not be relevant to very high quality audio?

 

Of course it is. My point is that the tests specified are nowhere near stringent enough to be meaningful to people desiring to achieve optimum SQ ... let's see, we'll plug in that crude SMPS wall wart power supply, clearly adorned with all the right markings, right next to that premium preamp - those labels guarantee there will be zero audible impact ... .

[fas42]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

This appears to be a lonely world that only you live on as I've never heard anyone else here ever say this.

 

That's because audiophiles chuck out all the recordings that "aren't good enough!" - natural selection working as it should, .

[fas42]

8 hours ago, marce said:

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...

 

 

The mechanism is in the same category as the other things I concern myself with: the USB cable is a weak link in the integrity of the playback chain, because of its physical makeup. The best solution is to remove the USB link entirely, by the design of the system; next best is engineer the linkage to the point where it becomes audibly invisible - if a decent number of people can hear the sound change when they interact with that resulting link in any manner ... then the engineering has failed.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You need to spend more time out in the real world.

 

The amusing thing is that 35 years ago I did this very thing ... I tripped over achieving convincing sound - most people have come across a rig at some point in this hobby which took their breath away; it just produced music, with zero excuses in any areas whatsoever - and this happened to me by my own efforts. I just happen to have a " I want to know what's going on!!" attitude, so I spent years trying to listen to every ambitious rig, every demo I could organise, to see where other people were at ... Nope! Essentially a 100% failure by everything out there, not even getting close most of the time.

[fas42]

People ignore me, because I'm not part of the pack ... there has been decades of a buildup of a belief system about how to go about getting good sound reproduction - and I cut right across that, at almost a perfect right angle. People much prefer to ignore something which 'offends' their thinking - or to fantasise about magic solutions which make all their audio 'difficulties' disappear; without having to put real effort into understanding why they are not getting closer to their goal.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

The principle at work here is similar to this:

 

In other words, the common denominator in all of those systems was the person evaluating them.

 

Ah, so you're one of the people who can't distinguish the sound of a hifi from live music - or who has never heard a system that didn't do that for you?

[fas42]

It's not hearing aids, it's the short term memory thing that's really peeing me off at the moment - the slightest distraction, and I've lost the, ummm, thread ...

[fas42]

Just now, PeterSt said:

Frank, HiFi is from 1972.

 

Umm, still here in all its glory - I torture myself now and again by visiting the high end dealers in town, and seeing what sort of show they can put on ... you know, I reckon it's getting worse, .

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

 

Your assumption doesn't follow from what he wrote.

 

Disagreeing with your "Essentially a 100% failure by everything out there, not even getting close most of the time" is not the same as saying that there is 100% success.  lol

 

It is much easier these days to acquire gear at reasonable cost, which if hooked up without thought gets a lot right - but it's still the computer project, etc, type of analogy: it takes 10% of the time to get 90%, and 90% and much more to get most of the last 10%.

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

but maybe this is better still:

 

 

 

Let's get real ...

 

 

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This is not supported by evidence. 

 

The beliefs of folks here are all over the map but there is universal consensus that you are full of it.

 

The core of my thinking is that audio reproduction usually fails to deliver the impact of live music making because flaws in the integrity of the audio system generate audible anomalies which disturb the listening brain - and a convincing illusion doesn't happen. If that is a sign that I'm "full of it", perhaps you should advise all airlines to dismiss the staff that concern themselves with keeping their craft airworthy, .

[fas42]

There are no mysteries ... .

 

Opamps have a sound, because they have clearly defined, mostly, limitations - if one reads the spec sheets with knowledge, then it becomes pretty easy to pick likely good ones, the duds, and the ones that will need a lot of babying to give of their best. PSRR is one of the juicy ones; usually the first thing I look at - yes, numbers are magic, but you need to know how to interpret what they mean, or may imply .

 

Trouble with most audio engineering is that the thinking is in small boxes - if one number looks especially good, then it's Hallelujah!! time - ummm, no ... everything has be in place, and then one can celebrate, .

[fas42]

most audio engineering ...

[fas42]

Ahh, so it's all about the addition of audio guru fairy dust, say some of PeterSt's magic, to make it pop out of the oven, beautifully cooked ...