usb cables?

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Golden years bring golden ears. No?

 

But might we need something to slam at ...

 

I wondered how much sheer experience would bring to the table. Nothing to discuss for math or EE design or anything, but still, in the end it can even be brought down to that. For fun:

 

I always thought that opamps "sounding" was bull. Especially when I learned their characteristics, I knew it was BS. They just work at some speed, have some feedback, should not oscillate, be stable. Once that is met, what can go wrong. No, what can sound different (now ask Marce).

Well, ALL. A devastating all.

 

Then, working on this through the years, at least I am so that I want to know what the heck can go "wrong" for sound with these nasty little beasts. And from there you learn the characteristic behind the characteristic. Nothing for datasheets, but all combined data points and how they work out. Btw, nothing measurable either.

 

This is not really about golden ears, but it is about experience which consumes a lot of time. And this is one small aspect only.

We were talking about cables ? same thing. Without the vast experience I wouldn't hear a difference (U suppose). But with, and especially with the knowledge of what's applied and especially why that is applied, it is heard without a single doubt.

So I know what I did to the Lush. An explicit job which worked out as intended. I could only do that by first making the Clairixa, which (saying again) is that "best to spec" USB cable. Took 6 months (laugh) to get it there. Did it work out ? yes. Well, we (a few 100) thought so. Until again experience told it sounded the best digital ever. Not good.

 

So see, from there you can make it go the opposite way. It really worked (not to you 4 because you don't even attempt). But mere point: yes, you need those ears of experience - and especially an absolute "auditory" memory - to not mess up and end up with something which is subjective to your ears.

Not golden ears. I think that is something different. If I were 85 wearing hearing aids, I suppose I would still to better than today. Just more experience than today.

 

I will give you more argument for slamming:

This whole world of audio is one large virtual world. All what happens in there can not be measured (at least not by me and my gear) and thus can only be reasoned. If something needs more slam, it needs to be fed with more slam. In our world this is usually current (but not necessarily so). How to gee it there (where ? that's task #1). Is slam more bass ? is it in reality something else ? is it perhaps taking out highs ? an other frequency ?

That's the ears of experience. The application following is real. You could make it. Marce could make it. But the why comes first. Reject all of that and you're not an audiophile to begin with. A good EE undoubtedly.

 

I have said it quite some times before: the both don't go along well. An EE shouldn't try to be an audiophile because inherently he can't. But an audiophile can start to be an EE ...

 

The most challenging part is the explanation of things which can't be explained - not by today's knowledge and laws. First listen with whatever ears, and next reason whether it could be possible at all. You can't ? then it can't exist.

It is a bit problematic that not everybody can reason the same. This is related to base knowledge and also to the ability to "reason". Next up is making something out of it, which also is not for everybody.

 

Lastly, a best argument for slamming:

So Yes, the Lush was created to sound as it did when it was finished (that maybe took a month, which was mostly consumed by waiting for purchased parts, each day). The Lush^2, however, was created because people asked. I just did it. There was not listening involved (by me). Only buying some parts again and go for it. I did not care much. People asked and at the 3rd I could not say no. This was a year ago.

Up to this G-D date I am reasoning how the F cable can work as it does. I assume I will get there, but not so yet. It really does not need any ears to hear its working (you can feel it in the stomach already). But I need to know why because if you'd ask me, I have no real answer. A lot of blahblahblah, yes (I referred to myself yesterday).

 

Now aim.

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Btw, nothing measurable either.

 Not even to the N.S.  team who designed the LM4562(LME49720) series of opamps where they could hear clear differences in favour of the HA ( metal can version)

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Not even to the N.S.  team who designed the LM4562(LME49720) series of opamps

 

I am not familiar with particularly those, but read the datasheets of them. They can't be measured by normal means. It first needs attenuation and some more tricks and multiplication to "find out" the THD.

Still, people in here think that what we can hear, should be measurable. Well, I agree. Now the how-to.

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I am not familiar with particularly those, but read the datasheets of them. They can't be measured by normal means. It first needs attenuation and some more tricks and multiplication to "find out" the THD.

Still, people in here think that what we can hear, should be measurable. Well, I agree. Now the how-to.

 

 Several years ago Mark (Audioman54 IIRC) posted about this in DIY Audio. He was part of the original design team before they were made redundant.

 

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/132471-national-opamp-inflation.html

[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, .

[PeterSt]

No Frank ...

[fas42]

most audio engineering ...

[PeterSt]

Still No.

[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 ...

[AnotherSpin]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

Why is it called an "attack" when people with real knowledge on the topic share some of their expertise?

 

What makes you believe your "knowledge" is real?

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

What makes you believe your "knowledge" is real?

 

 He read it in a Textbook somewhere ?

I don't doubt that he has a great deal of knowledge, but knowledge needs to be updated regularly, and where there are NUMEROUS instances of people reporting things differently  to what is currently accepted, they should be fully investigated with an open mind, using their ears too, or better still the ears of people who report such things under correctly set up DBT conditions.

 I would be surprised if Manishander  wasn't able to demonstrate this to him with a DBT comparison of his  Lush USB cable and a USB certified cable of his own selection if they were both willing to try this.

[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.

[PeterSt]

Yes, so sad. And that while I warned for you guys.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, marce said:

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Careful, his side hobby is noise.

Back with the pathetic digs...

 

What else would you expect when you say this yourself as a response to a subject which is 100% about noise, to next claim it won't matter while it is so so easy to prove that it all matters.

You also could try to respond differently for once.

 

So you start this yourself. Not me. Not Alex.

[PeterSt]

I will give you a good laugh: my side hobby is not noise. It is my job, in audio. And so easy to prove / show (did that a 100 times already).

[PeterSt]

 

Can I help ?

[mansr]

4 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

What makes you believe your "knowledge" is real?

I wasn't (necessarily) talking about myself.

[mansr]

33 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Can I help ?

Based on your posting history, I'm inclined to say no.

[PeterSt]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

Ah, the old "audio is special" argument.

 

Audio *is* special. Small example: would a bit of jitter be irrelevant in telecommunications, with audio the same amount will be audible. I don't say I could qualify it (audibly) but a difference in somewhat higher and lower jitter (without quantification) is easily audible.

 

From here on, audio is special from most angles. The only bad thing is that people tend to come up with what they hear. They can't measure. And about the latter, you can't either;
 

Quote

 

It wasn't quite proper. Lots of things were not controlled. The outcome was surprising enough that I'd like to see it repeated. I'd also like to deploy some more sophisticated measurement gear than was available on the occasion. Neither is likely to ever happen.

 

 

Maybe you recall that in that thread of concern (blue/red pill) I warned a dozen times in advance about what you wanted to measure, couldn't. I am not sure whether this question got deleted by the cleanup Chris applied or that I never got around posting it, but here it is again: what would you bring these days ?

This is not a cynical or sth question. I only claim that

a. things are clearly audible

b. which can't be measured.

 

And remember, in advance of that pill happening, you thought differently. E.g. Marce will do too (I don't want to put words to his mouth, but I am pretty sure he will).

 

Btw, indeed back at the time it was not about USB cables at all. So not sure whether by now we can generalise things.

What would you bring that you possess for real ?

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Based on your posting history, I'm inclined to say no.

 

Who's derailing ?

[PeterSt]

48 minutes ago, marce said:

Back with the pathetic digs...

 

And what's pathetic ?

[AnotherSpin]

53 minutes ago, mansr said:

I wasn't (necessarily) talking about myself.

 

How would you know what others know or don't know? 

[AnotherSpin]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 He read it in a Textbook somewhere ?

I don't doubt that he has a great deal of knowledge, but knowledge needs to be updated regularly, and where there are NUMEROUS instances of people reporting things differently  to what is currently accepted, they should be fully investigated with an open mind, using their ears too, or better still the ears of people who report such things under correctly set up DBT conditions.

 I would be surprised if Manishander  wasn't able to demonstrate this to him with a DBT comparison of his  Lush USB cable and a USB certified cable of his own selection if they were both willing to try this.

 

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

[Arpiben]

21 hours ago, mansr said:

The USB 2.0 standard does not specify wire gauge for any of the conductors. The only requirements are regarding voltage drop, signal attenuation, and propagation delay. The voltage drop requirement – max 125 mV – can be met, assuming a maximum load of 500 mA, by choosing a wire with a resistance of at most 0.25 Ω. That's easy for any reasonable cable length. The attenuation requirements – 5.8 dB at 400 MHz – are also not particularly onerous. The maximum permitted propagation delay of a cable is 26 ns. With a typical propagation speed of 0.2 m/ns, the maximum length is thus 5.2 m. An ideal cable with propagation speed equal to the speed of light would have a maximum length of 7.8 m, and nothing in the known universe can get past that. In practice, hosts and devices often tolerate longer delays, so cable lengths exceeding these limits may still work.

 

For sake of accuracy only:

• Low Speed USB 2.0 cables  have a max propagation delay of 18ns (USB2.0 Spec. Rev2 ch 7.1.6 p166)
• Cable Mechanical Configuration and Material Requirements are provided in chapter 6.6 (USB20 Spec.Rev2)