Who has tried out different USB Cables?

[marce]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

 

 

I do believe, that ultimately, there will be very good DACs, with very good Ethernet interfaces built in, we are just not there yet, although the Linn Klimax DS is one DAC with Ethernet which is very, very good (but still somewhat limited in sample rate).

 

Yet other technology has evolved in leaps and bounds in the same time we have had digital audio! Whats holding audiophile audio back... maybe focusing on cables, fuses etc. 

[marce]

15 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, I know how it works. I also know that the bus was developed to connect keyboards and mice to computers. It’s relatively slow, was designed with interrupt protocols to facilitate bus sharing and was designed so that the computer, not the peripheral controls arbitration and priority. Not exactly ideal for transferring audio from computer to DAC.

It was an evolution of RS-232 to RS-485 to USB, it is a standard serial interface, that was not only designed to fasten keyboards and mice to PC's. but also provide a new standard serial interface....

[marce]

13 hours ago, Tintinabulum said:

I’m guessing you’re deliberately rude for effect?

What is the frequency of DC?

[marce]

21 minutes ago, barrows said:

@marce, I expect that kind of snarky comment from @mansr, but not you.  Of course DC is DC, but one of the issues with the USB output of, say, an ordinary consumer computer is that the USB power lines actually do have an AC (noise) component on them (noise, in other words).  This noise is easily measurable (easy enough so as not to need a spectrum analyzer to see it).  This is one of the reasons Audiophiles can get better performance by using a component with a purposely (for audio) deigned USB output which reduces the noise on the 0 VDC and 5+VDC lines.

 

Anyway, no one here has tried a Curious Evolved cable yet?  I am curious myself...

Having a going round in circles day, I am also getting fed up of everybody yapping on about digital being analogue, it is engineered as digital signals, this constant trying to associate the two (digital signal/analogue signals) gets to me, and today is one of those days.

And before everyone starts chiming in, a square wave is made up of a fundamental sine, with many harmonics, the level of harmonics we need to worry about being determined by the knee frequency and ultimately decided by the signal rise time... They are digital signals and are treated as such, even if they a]have an analogue content.

Sorry but sometimes it just makes my blood boil....

[marce]

Was the eye opening within the USB spec?

[marce]

On 10/18/2019 at 3:39 PM, barrows said:

@marce, Look it up and see for yourself.  I am sure some (audiophile, and cheap Chinese) cables do not meet spec.  But the spec is only for accurate data transmission.  I am sure in 99.99% of cases there is accurate data transmission, and that data errors have absolutely nothing to do with hearting different performance from different USB cables.  This has been discussed on this site over and over, and I am not going to bother to re-hash it all here again.  If you would actually like to learn some theories as why this may be (and no, I am not aware of any proof of these theories yet: measurements) search for John Swenson's posts on the topic..

If you would actually like to make a positive contribution here, with your considerable knowledge of high speed data transmission, as to why and how the different cables actually do result in different sonic results, that would be appreciated.  Otherwise, the constant badgering of people who already know that different cables do sound different contributes nothing, and is just more noise.

Wow tetchy, I only asked a question...

And have on many occasions mentioned stuff often to be pulled down😁.

 

[marce]

On 10/18/2019 at 7:56 PM, barrows said:

1.  I would suspect that the question is overly simplistic in nature: what is "fine" when looking at the eye?  If there is "noise" on the USB lines, at what frequencies and levels would/could this be problematic?  And, if that noise is problematic, could/would it be solved by those USB cables which separately shield the data lines from the power/ground lines?  

 

2.  My understanding of John Swenson's theories on USB issues also includes USB signal integrity itself as a potential problem for increasing noise in the USB receiver-that signal integrity may be a function of how well the USB hub chip is functioning (and they are not all equal...).  this signal integrity can be a separate issue from noise on the USB lines (data and power).

 

OK, off to the PO for product shipping now... 

EMC/Siganl integrity are two sides of the same coin...

To understand the effect of the signal on the receiver, requires a good look at the waveform at the receiver (the eye diagram is an overall view). From this waveform possible issues can be determined, such as monotonicity of the rising and falling edges, over shoot and ringing (something that does stress the receiver silicon, its over-voltage on the input. The way to do it properly is to simulate the circuit and wiring, as often the loading of the scope can skew the results. So simulate, model the scope lead, and simulate with scope model and compare the two waveforms to correlate the simulation. EMC testing will confirm the circuits and cabling work in the presence of external noise...

I am sure USB.org will have lots of relevant info pertaining to the USB bus.

Sunday morning going to do something with my life/Wife now... Shopping....😫

[marce]

Conducted immunity tests on the DAC's... 

[marce]

14 hours ago, barrows said:

Wow!  Really, as mentioned so many times before: no one is claiming there is any problem with losing data!

That does not change the fact that different USB cables sound different.  If you do not believe so, that is your opinion, but trying to convince people of such who knows better than you is a lost cause, a waste of your time, and mine.  I would your posts if they actually had anything to offer, but they do not.  You just keep stating your opinion, which is wrong according to my own direct experience testing such.  I have no time for wrong opinions, they are just more noise.

The proposed theory is that different levels of signal integrity give rise to different noise results in the USB receiver circuitry, and this noise makes its way to the important sections of the DAC circuitry (perhaps clock ground plane, perhaps analog stage, etc) where they create distortions/artifacts in the analog output.  this is just a theory at this point, as an explanation for what many people actually hear.

 

Again:  Who has listened to the Curious Evolution cable, in an attempt to get back on track.

You are starting to attack people's opinion who don't share your views a lot, me now gmgraves, and call it worthless... Who is to say you ( with a stake in audio sales) is correct, maybe you should respect others views a bit...

[marce]

3 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

 

So Ralf, here’s your chance to prove that you actually do know something about hi-fi rather than just operating like some autonomous forum NAND gate. 

Did you read my post...

Conducted immunity... a good place to start.

[marce]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Yes I did. Would that test cables? Or DACs? 

Both you would test the DAC with the cable in position, you could also blast RF at the cable as well to do radiated susceptibility.

They are the basic EMC tests that would be a good place to start...

[marce]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Hi GM,  seems you have a lot of variables there. There’s Toslink vs USB cable, the MacBook Pro’s clocks, interfaces and power supplies and the receiving end’s clocks, interfaces and power supplies, all of which have the possibility of influencing the signal. As far as I can see, the only conclusion you could reliably reach from your example would be in relatIon to your exact implementation of USB and Toslink...which is why people are advised to try stuff in their system.  As far as I can see, you are just as likely to see the opposite result in terms of SQ in a system where USB has been optimised throughout.   I am 100% certain that USB cables affect the sound although I don’t know why. I do accept that the USB cables are unlikely to modify the bitstream per-se but I do think that clocks, PSs and interfaces on either side of the cable could have a major influence as can EMI picked up by a cable

As I have said, it shouldn't happen... Its bad design in my book if anything is susceptible to the noise to such an extent, it should be 130-140dB down.

[marce]

13 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I appreciate your comments, but I have heard USB vs optical (and coaxial) SPDIF in other systems as well as in my own. Remember, I have lots of USB cables, including (AudioQuest Diamond, with that ridiculous 72 volt “bias” battery hanging off of it*) as well as USB cables from Kimber, Nordost, Pangea, and various generic cables too numerous to count. 1) In my system, they all sound the same. 2) They all sound inferior to either optical or coaxial SPDIF.

 

* AudioQuest’s cable bias system is patented, but if you look at the patent, it was only granted for analog interconnects, not for digital. Putting an “active shielding system” on a digital cable such as the Diamond USB is like putting an expensive Borla exhaust system on a Model T Ford. It might look interesting, but it won’t do anything to enhance the Model T’s performance!

IOW it’s a “gimmick”.

And putting a dielectric bias system on analogue systems isn't going to do much...

Its not active shielding its 72V DIELECTRIC-BIAS SYSTEM and proof that in the USA you can patent anything...

[marce]

18 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

a complex waveform might be perceivable at lower SPLs than test tones

 

might

 

never tested AFAIK

 

that's why I usually say -140 dB is fine by me (tho -110 is fine too)

-60 mixed in Sousa Band, Pano, DIYAudio, I believe...

[marce]

Stated probably because you make audio replay equipment design sound like the pinnacle of electronic design, when in reality its pretty mundane these days... And if high end audio is effected by a bit of copper wire ,to the extent the interference is audible, between to units, well something is wrong.

 

 

[marce]

By mundane I mean it is not cutting edge electronics's we've been reproducing music for many years now and had digital for 30 years... look at the advances in electronics in the same period.

As to do I know what brilliant sound is, yes and I have had numerous systems over the years, my first given me by a rich Aunt when I was only 14, a valve system with some 12" Tannoy drivers I believe. Through a variety of systems over the years. Also dabbling in playing various instruments over the years, piano when young (4-10) Trombone in a youth brass band (my Mum was once lead trombonist with Ivy Bensons Dance band, her sister played Trumpet, so I was brought up surrounded by musicians and played and sang myself) bass guitar as a teenager to early 20's and again started just recently on the bass again as arthritic old man. So I have an inkling on sound quality.

What I find interesting is there are so many more threads on cables and their magic abilities than room treatments or other things that would have much more effect on the sound field...

 

[marce]

I can't use desirable and cable in the same 😁....

Are we referring to the Laws of Physics believers and non-believers?

[marce]

4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

For me its more a case of ‘blind obedience’ vs a questioning mind . 

The one thing we do know about Quantum Mechanics is that they don’t follow the laws of physics as we currently understand them. 😯

For open minded people contradictions of nature are grounds for investigation but as history shows only too well for the closed minded its also grounds for ‘flat earth’ denial. 

 

Closed-minded people don't want their ideas challenged. They are typically frustrated that they can't get the other person to agree with them instead of curious as to why the other person disagrees. Closed-minded people are more interested in proving themselves right than in getting the best outcome.

Yet the close minded people you mention are the ones working at the forefront of science and on cutting edge technology...

Your last paragraph describes the cable believers in perfect detail.

Science is all about challenging ones beliefs otherwise it would not move forward and we would not have the likes of CERN or LIGO...

A signal travelling down a wire can be covered by basic physics, Maxwells equations, Heavisides work etc. no need to go quantum.

And always remember anecdotal is not empirical....

[marce]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

why do you ask me? How would I be qualified to look into it? All I know is that cables make a difference, which I can clearly hear, reproduce and reverse.  I don’t know why and I don’t have the means to find out. I even wish it wasn’t the case and I have a nasty sneaking suspicion that the solution doesn’t need to be anything like as expensive as it currently is.  In 40 years experience I’ve heard some fairly dramatic improvements, most coming from fairly simple changes. Those changes were made by engineers who heard differences that shouldn’t be there and went on to discover what was making them. Denying that cables make a difference when they actually do simply cuts off discovery and progress 

We can measure cable differences down to 130-140 dB, can we hear them.....

[marce]

47 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

I agree, however there is a problem with this concept. Components are used within systems so whether a component sounds neutral or not depends on the rest of the system. Lets say that a certain pair or speakers have a rolled off top end, but sound perfect in a particular system. Replace those speakers with a pair having a flat response and the system will suddenly start sounding overly bright and toppy.  Many set-up faults will cause loss of resolution in the high end, making the system sound a bit harsh. People buying speakers for such a system will naturally gravitate to units having a more ‘comfortable’  top end. For them those speakers sound neutral. 

Regarding your last sentence, don’t you want to know when a components offers less noise and greater detail and resolution? I sure do, so please keep up your subjective reviews. These websites would be utterly 😴 otherwise

Tone controls...

[marce]

Your choice... No one is stopping you enjoy the hobby as you see fit.

 

[marce]

Do I detect a sniff of "system not being revealing enough".

I do think that mentioning "expectation bias" may be interesting...

 

[marce]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

And of course the group that uses such junk-ass meters & measuring tools that don't reflect any difference in any cable...

You are a bit out of touch with how electronics are designed...

There are many sets of measurements for analogue cables showing the differences they do impart to the signal... The same regarding digital signals, there is a big difference with transporting the information as an analogue signal or transmitting it encoded as a digital package and thus as digital signals... The use of cables in electronics is not something new and is well studied and has been for many years... A cable is basically a bit of wire with some parasitic passive elements, resistance, conductance, capacitance and inductance. The insulation (dielectric) has little to no effect for low frequency signals and only really effects velocity of propagation for high speed signals and when they get really high or are RF then some effects from VA can be an issue.