Who has tried out different USB Cables?

[gmgraves]

28 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Hey George: How can both those statements be true at the same time?  

What two statements. All USB audio is equally poor, in my estimation, regardless of what kind or price of cable it passes through. I see no inconsistency in that statement.

[Ralf11]

Let's stick to experiences with USB cables, mechanisms as to why they could degrade SQ, and whether a different interface may offer better SQ.

 

 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Yet more heavy handed censorship !

 

But yet you're okay with subjectivists limiting discussion in their threads to certain types of posts.

[kumakuma]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 We need to find out WHY various USB cables can sound different without them altering the received Binary Data.

 

 

Why not start a thread to discuss the subject then?

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I have NEVER made a request for OP privileges in any threads that I have started.

 

 

When was the last time you started a thread? Five years ago?

[gmgraves]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I have NEVER made a request for OP privileges in any threads that I have started.

My question above is completely valid too,. but is also likely to be removed .

 We need to find out WHY various USB cables can sound different without them altering the received Binary Data.

Removal of posts should only be used when the posts are a deliberate attempt to derail a thread, not to prevent genuine discussion.

Comparing digital audio USB cables is like comparing sewer systems, they’re all sh_tty, so who cares which is best? I suspect that if, indeed, USB cables alter the sound when the received data is unaltered, then either different cables “smear” that data enough to cause audible errors, or, it’s another case of listener bias.

[Superdad]

16 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I suspect that if, indeed, USB cables alter the sound when the received data is unaltered, then either different cables “smear” that data enough to cause audible errors, or, it’s another case of listener bias.

 

You do know that what travels on a USB is not "ones" and "zeros" data, right?  It is very high-frequency "analog" DC voltage, and inside that "noise," every 125 microSeconds comes a modulated packet in which the data is encoded.  Then, in every USB input--be it a printer or a DAC--is a PHY chip (these days integrated in the USB MAC processors, but its function is there nonetheless) whose job it is to determine what in that bursty/noisy high-speed signal is a "one" or a "zero."  

Study the function of a PHY for a bit (@JohnSwenson has actually designed PHY chips) and you will see they are filled with PLLs, clocking at various phases, and funky gain circuits to allow them to decode some rather piss-poor signals.  The harder the PHY chip has to work, the more noise (from bursty current demand) it puts on the ground plane--inside the DAC. And this is measurable inside the DAC.

 

This brings us back to the reason USB cables can "sound" different (as well as the raison d'être of our REGENs): Impedance match and signal integrity. This is measured on an eye-pattern, which will show amplitude, slew, noise, and jitter.  

And while yes, anything within the USB spec will allow the PHY to do its job, for audio it is bit like with other measurements.  That is, the measurement folks will say that below a certain threshold we can not hear differences of distortion, jitter, slew rate, transients, etc.--yet people hear plenty of differences, some of which probably have no correlation to present measurements.  So I don't care how good someone is at interpreting an eye pattern: it's just proving there are differences between the cables or the signal--it can not be used to characterize what will be heard.

 

So George, I question you when you say "All USB audio is equally poor"--while at the same time saying that all USB cables sound the same--because it demonstrates either your lack of technical understanding or a lack or curiosity. 

[davide256]

On 8/8/2019 at 2:56 PM, Ralf11 said:

Please give the number of USB cables you tried out in your system, and list your DAC.

 

Feel free to say whether you used a cable rental place, swapped with friends, or just bought several.

 

Also if you have any galvanic isolation devices in your system (or know that your DAC includes this) please state which one, or none.

I have a grab bag of USB cables that I have tried over time, with external asynch USB adaptors, different source devices

 

in order of preference

 

Lush 2

Wireworld Starlight

Supra

Pangea AG

generic

 

Differences are very obvious using my AQ Eagle Eye coax  from USB adaptor to DAC, much less so with ordinary coax cables.

Find it hard to believe anyone can't hear the differences unless downstream resolution is compromised. But everyone's had that experience

where they grit their teeth as someone shows off a well intended but not so good system.

 

Which is not to say USB cables add to the music.... rather poorer ones subtract information.

[davide256]

20 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Let's stick to experiences with USB cables, mechanisms as to why they could degrade SQ, and whether a different interface may offer better SQ.

 

 

Can't speak as to mechanisms,  but my chain of improving asynch USB adapters over time was

 

HiFace

John Kenny MKIII

iFi Nano

Gustard U12

Schiit Eitr

 

I've always found coax/toslink direct from source to be disappointing vs asynch USB, with the caveat that my budget doesn't encourage auditioning

source gear over $2k

[davide256]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Davide - I'm curious if you recall which cables you tried with which DACs?

All with a Metrum Octave I DAC, which I've only recently been able to find any fault with... Euphony and a JS-2 power supply has pushed it to its limits.

[Ralf11]

The Metrum Octave I DAC is a $600 unit, not that price is highly correlated with SQ...

 

It would be interesting to know if it has an opto-isolator circuit built in.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

You do know that what travels on a USB is not "ones" and "zeros" data, right?  It is very high-frequency "analog" DC voltage, and inside that "noise," every 125 microSeconds comes a modulated packet in which the data is encoded.  Then, in every USB input--be it a printer or a DAC--is a PHY chip (these days integrated in the USB MAC processors, but its function is there nonetheless) whose job it is to determine what in that bursty/noisy high-speed signal is a "one" or a "zero."  

Study the function of a PHY for a bit (@JohnSwenson has actually designed PHY chips) and you will see they are filled with PLLs, clocking at various phases, and funky gain circuits to allow them to decode some rather piss-poor signals.  The harder the PHY chip has to work, the more noise (from bursty current demand) it puts on the ground plane--inside the DAC. And this is measurable inside the DAC.

 

This brings us back to the reason USB cables can "sound" different (as well as the raison d'être of our REGENs): Impedance match and signal integrity. This is measured on an eye-pattern, which will show amplitude, slew, noise, and jitter.  

And while yes, anything within the USB spec will allow the PHY to do its job, for audio it is bit like with other measurements.  That is, the measurement folks will say that below a certain threshold we can not hear differences of distortion, jitter, slew rate, transients, etc.--yet people hear plenty of differences, some of which probably have no correlation to present measurements.  So I don't care how good someone is at interpreting an eye pattern: it's just proving there are differences between the cables or the signal--it can not be used to characterize what will be heard.

 

So George, I question you when you say "All USB audio is equally poor"--while at the same time saying that all USB cables sound the same--because it demonstrates either your lack of technical understanding or a lack or curiosity. 

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.

[mansr]

19 hours ago, Superdad said:

You do know that what travels on a USB is not "ones" and "zeros" data, right?  It is very high-frequency "analog" DC voltage, and inside that "noise," every 125 microSeconds comes a modulated packet in which the data is encoded.

Can you explain this concept of "high-frequency DC" a bit more?

[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....

[barrows]

Umm, it confuse me to no end why anyone who feels that: "All USB audio is equally poor, in my estimation", would even bother clicking on a thread regarding the relative performance of USB cables in an audio context?  The only explanation I can think of is that a person such this  just likes to hear themselves talk (type).  

 

Anyway, this thread is about different USB cables, and peoples' actual observations about them, why not we keep it there.  I would suggest that folks who have no experience testing various USB cables, actually have nothing to offer here.

 

To get back on track, here are some of my observations:

 

Lush (not Lush 2):  For me this was a bit rounded off on transients, and somewhat lacking in ultimate low level resolution (reverberation tails for example, could not be followed as far down in level as with some others).  It does have a relatively richer presentation, which might work for some people/systems.

 

Inakustik Referenz:  The opposite of the Lush, highly detailed, with very fast precise transients, and very, very good low level detail retrieval.  Definitely worth a listen for anyone looking to eek out the last iota of detail.

 

Nordost Tyr 2:  My current reference, very detailed, very low apparent noise floor, with no sense of over-etching.  Balanced

 

Source: Various Sonore Rendu models (which reduces the differences between USB cables)

 

DACs:  DIY, various Buffalo builds, all USB interfaces galvanically isolated (and I2S lines re-clocked) from the DAC (which also reduces the influence of the USB cable).

 

I see Curious has a new model, The Evolved, I would love to hear some impressions of it if anyone has one yet.  Although I tend to be suspicious of USB cables which appear to be hand made (as I doubt they actually can meet the spec).

[Superdad]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Can you explain this concept of "high-frequency DC" a bit more?

 

Of course I was referring to the data rate. But you knew that...

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Of course I was referring to the data rate. But you knew that...

Now you're making even less sense. Quite a feat.

[xyzzy1]

On 10/13/2019 at 12:29 PM, Superdad said:

 

You do know that what travels on a USB is not "ones" and "zeros" data, right?  It is very high-frequency "analog" DC voltage, and inside that "noise," every 125 microSeconds comes a modulated packet in which the data is encoded.  Then, in every USB input--be it a printer or a DAC--is a PHY chip (these days integrated in the USB MAC processors, but its function is there nonetheless) whose job it is to determine what in that bursty/noisy high-speed signal is a "one" or a "zero."  

Study the function of a PHY for a bit (@JohnSwenson has actually designed PHY chips) and you will see they are filled with PLLs, clocking at various phases, and funky gain circuits to allow them to decode some rather piss-poor signals.  The harder the PHY chip has to work, the more noise (from bursty current demand) it puts on the ground plane--inside the DAC. And this is measurable inside the DAC.

 

This brings us back to the reason USB cables can "sound" different (as well as the raison d'être of our REGENs): Impedance match and signal integrity. This is measured on an eye-pattern, which will show amplitude, slew, noise, and jitter.  

And while yes, anything within the USB spec will allow the PHY to do its job, for audio it is bit like with other measurements.  That is, the measurement folks will say that below a certain threshold we can not hear differences of distortion, jitter, slew rate, transients, etc.--yet people hear plenty of differences, some of which probably have no correlation to present measurements.  So I don't care how good someone is at interpreting an eye pattern: it's just proving there are differences between the cables or the signal--it can not be used to characterize what will be heard.

 

So George, I question you when you say "All USB audio is equally poor"--while at the same time saying that all USB cables sound the same--because it demonstrates either your lack of technical understanding or a lack or curiosity. 

 

Thank you... thank you... thank you...!

 

I have had so many similar discussions On circuitry that’s involved and that it’s not so simple as just 1’s and 0’s. It takes careful design of electronics and good cable to reduce electrical noise that will leak into the dac and it’s analogue amp and that there is no perfect isolation.

 

 

 

[cjf]

As to the question on why someone would use USB at all compared to Ethernet/WiFi the answer depends on what one is doing with their system. At this stage there are no Eth/Wifi solutions that work well or at all for room correction purposes so this leaves USB and then only a few USB implementations can do multiple channels in a Bi-Directional manor. I would prefer hard wired Ethernet if the option was there but at this point its not so USB it is, for me.

 

At the end of the day any SQ differences between ETH/USB/Wireless are so small in the grand scheme of other things that bring real value add to ones listening that its almost not worth discussing USB cables at all. Let's not forget also the loss of hearing that goes along with the long term effects of the audiophile hobby in general. Unless your listening to your system at 65db all the time (why bother) any SQ changes between the various interfaces/cables will be wiped out easily by a months worth of 90db plus jam sessions....where the real fun begins. I myself prefer 105db or so. You gotta feel it to get a sense of "Being there"..IMO

[marce]

13 hours ago, Tintinabulum said:

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

What is the frequency of DC?

[mansr]

3 hours ago, marce said:

What is the frequency of DC?

Regular DC or high-frequency DC?

[barrows]

@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...

[mansr]

13 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.

Superdad "clarified" that he was referring to the data rate. Tell, me what is the Vbus data rate?

[jtwrace]

On 10/13/2019 at 12:29 PM, Superdad said:

 And this is measurable inside the DAC.

When can we see these?  Oh, wait, never-mind.  That's not happening - ever   🤣

[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....