marce Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 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. Link to comment
Popular Post Summit Posted October 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2019 On 10/17/2019 at 11:57 PM, barrows said: I use Sonore Renderers which have very, very clean USB outputs (measured), the entire thing is running only on ultra low noise linear supplies, including a dedicated LT 3045 for the USB bus power, and most of my regular DACs also have full galvanic isolation on their USB inputs. Still, the USB cable used matters, now that cable does not make as big a difference as it does if I try a standard MacBook Pro as a source for testing, but it does still matter. What do you know, I am not really surprised that in the context of a high end audio system the USB cable matters, hell, video folks see differences in video from different HDMI cables... John Swenson has repeatedly (why I will not ping him here, he does not need to waste his time on this anymore) explained how/why USB signal integrity matters, and HiFi News has published eye diagrams of various USB cables which show significant variances in signal integrity. My experience is the opposite, that the SQ difference between cables as well as other gear is more noticeable in a better audio system. The smaller the system noise is and the more revealing the system is the easier it is to hear difference between equipment. To hear the difference between USB cables in a good audio system is not very hard, to determine which cable that sound most “accurate” is much harder. numlog, RickyV and AnotherSpin 3 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted October 22, 2019 Author Share Posted October 22, 2019 summit, post which cables you found differences in and the DAC used Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted October 22, 2019 Author Share Posted October 22, 2019 Blakmo - I will delete trolling posts numlog 1 Link to comment
Popular Post barrows Posted October 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Summit said: that the SQ difference between cables as well as other gear is more noticeable in a better audio system I agree with this POV, when we are talking about a system as a whole. My point was, that the USB output of some products is many times cleaner than that of a standard computer, and some DACs have well implemented galvanic isolation of their USB receiver sections. When these two things are applied in the same system context, the differences between USB cables are less obvious, but still audible, sometimes. Certainly these differences are audible enough that I have spent considerable time auditing various USB cables. For example, if I use a standard computer (say a MacBook Pro) as the source in my system (keeping the rest of the context the same), the differences between USB cables are more acute than when I use the Sonore Signature Rendu SE. But certainly, a system with more resolute speakers, amp(s), etc will reveal more of the differences between USB cables. Blackmorec and AnotherSpin 2 SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers. ISOAcoustics Oreas footers. SONORE computer audio | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 27 minutes ago, Blackmorec said: Your system on the other hand is seemingly saturated in EMI and noise sources, which I can guarantee will destroy its ability to reveal subtle or even fairly major differences between components, cables etc which clearly explains why you can’t pick up differences between various USB cables. From your description, I would guess that your system is literally swamped in noise, which in my experience is a killer of exceptional sound quality and subtle detail Well, no, what I described was my office system. That's where I measure things and where I listen mostly using headphones. My main system is in the basement, on its own AC run from the circuit breaker, with power regeneration, battery-powered devices where possible, Wi-Fi isolated from the rest of the network in the house and a couple of floors away from the 'noisy' office. Still can't hear any difference between USB cables. daverich4 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post barrows Posted October 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2019 4 hours ago, marce said: 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. This is the weird thing for me. For example, I see measured differences in jitter spectrum, where the differences are often at -120 and lower. And I agree that these differences Should not be audible, at least in what we see in the jitter measurements. I have participated in listening tests of different levels of jitter, say when just replacing the master XO with one of lower phase noise, where the measured jitter level differences are at such levels that one would conclude they Should be inaudible, but the differences are clearly audible. I have a very hard time believing that the difference which is heard is anything occurring below -120dB, as that does not make sense. Nevertheless, the difference is clearly audible, and does not require a microscopic focus to perceive. And the tests were confirmed with no knowledge of which XO was which, and were repeatable (essentially "blind" although I hate that term). I do not know how to explain where one needs to look to find the what is really affecting the sonic differences, I do not believe in magical qualities of audio playback. In my system, on a quiet night at home, I can perceive test tones at -100 and maybe -110, but not lower than that. So how can something at -120 or lower be affecting what I do hear? Is it possible for an artifact of jitter at -120 to be producing an IM product at an audible level? There is something there, but I admit to being not able to technically know what it is. sandyk and RickyV 2 SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers. ISOAcoustics Oreas footers. SONORE computer audio | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted October 22, 2019 Author Share Posted October 22, 2019 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) Link to comment
RickyV Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 53 minutes ago, barrows said: This is the weird thing for me. For example, I see measured differences in jitter spectrum, where the differences are often at -120 and lower. And I agree that these differences Should not be audible, at least in what we see in the jitter measurements. I have participated in listening tests of different levels of jitter, say when just replacing the master XO with one of lower phase noise, where the measured jitter level differences are at such levels that one would conclude they Should be inaudible, but the differences are clearly audible. I have a very hard time believing that the difference which is heard is anything occurring below -120dB, as that does not make sense. Nevertheless, the difference is clearly audible, and does not require a microscopic focus to perceive. And the tests were confirmed with no knowledge of which XO was which, and were repeatable (essentially "blind" although I hate that term). I do not know how to explain where one needs to look to find the what is really affecting the sonic differences, I do not believe in magical qualities of audio playback. In my system, on a quiet night at home, I can perceive test tones at -100 and maybe -110, but not lower than that. So how can something at -120 or lower be affecting what I do hear? Is it possible for an artifact of jitter at -120 to be producing an IM product at an audible level? There is something there, but I admit to being not able to technically know what it is. maybe it’s because of music, the rhythm of music that makes the difference. More sensitive to our ears/brain. Meitner ma1 v2 dac, Sovereign preamp and power amp, DIY speakers, scan speak illuminator. Raal Requisite VM-1a -> SR-1a with Accurate Sound convolution. Under development: NUC7i7dnbe, Euphony Stylus, Qobuz. Modded Buffalo-fiber-EtherRegen, DC3- Isoregen, Lush^2 Link to comment
gmgraves Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 8 hours 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 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”. George Link to comment
sandyk Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Ralf11 said: a complex waveform might be perceivable at lower SPLs than test tones That I can agree with, and both John Kenny and myself discussed this as recently as yesterday in another forum. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
mansr Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 23 minutes ago, gmgraves said: 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! I'd say it's more comparable in effect to painting racing stripes on a car. gmgraves 1 Link to comment
Speedskater Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Ralf11 said: a complex waveform might be perceivable at lower SPLs than test tones That statement seems upside down. Link to comment
gmgraves Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 1 hour ago, mansr said: I'd say it's more comparable in effect to painting racing stripes on a car. I like it! Yes, it’s a much better analogy! George Link to comment
sandyk Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Speedskater said: That statement seems upside down. A complex waveform is likely to have more harmonics. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
marce Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 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... Link to comment
Speedskater Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 9 hours ago, sandyk said: A complex waveform is likely to have more harmonics. That would make it less likely to hear below the noise floor than a mid-frequency tone. Link to comment
marce Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 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... Speedskater 1 Link to comment
gmgraves Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 3 hours ago, marce said: 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... Agreed! George Link to comment
John Dyson Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 Deleted comment -- it was another frustrated response about apparently poorly designed audio equipment causing the audiophile/frustrated engineer to have motivation to tweak their cable arrangements... Nothing that I say will correct the problem -- other than more integrity wrt manufacturers and salesmanship, and better information to the consumer. Sorry if anyone read the comment (no expletives, just no benefit in further exposing the frustration about sad quality that need not be so very sad!!!) Link to comment
Popular Post EdmontonCanuck Posted October 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 23, 2019 I've tried an LHLabs Lightspeed V2 USB cable and a generic $5 USB cable, coming out of a SOtM USB port or built-in motherboard USB port on my CAPS Pipeline music server, to my DAC8 DSD and I can't hear any differences between USB ports or cables. daverich4 and k-man 2 CAPS Pipeline with HDPlex Linear PSU running Win10 64 bit, AO 2.0, RoonServer, HQPlayer -> T+A DAC8 DSD -> Linear Tube Audio's MicroZOTL2 Headphone Amp with Mojo Audio's Illuminati Linear PSU -> Focal Utopia/Audeze LCD-3 Link to comment
barrows Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, John Dyson said: it was another frustrated response about apparently poorly designed audio equipment As you seem to have some expertise in this area, please describe the details of how a properly designed piece of audio equipment would make all USB cables sound the same. SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers. ISOAcoustics Oreas footers. SONORE computer audio | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted October 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 23, 2019 28 minutes ago, barrows said: As you seem to have some expertise in this area, please describe the details of how a properly designed piece of audio equipment would make all USB cables sound the same. Conceptually, it's simple. The receiving equipment would have to reject all noise entering the USB port to a sufficiently high degree. Ralf11, marce and daverich4 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post barrows Posted October 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 23, 2019 55 minutes ago, mansr said: Conceptually, it's simple. The receiving equipment would have to reject all noise entering the USB port to a sufficiently high degree. Well, that is a nice "concept". In practice how would this be achieved.. Anyone can suggest the concept, actual engineering of the USB interface is an entirely different thing. This is my point, @John Dyson's comment makes it sound like he believes DAC (and perhaps USB source) manufacturers are inept because the USB cable matters. I do not agree (at least not that all manufacturers are, there are some DACs with very well implemented USB receiver sections). In my view, it is not OK/fair for a lay person with no knowledge of such to call out manufacturers just because that lay person's personal view is that the USB cable should not matter, as they do not know what they are talking about. . sandyk and Sonic77 1 1 SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers. ISOAcoustics Oreas footers. SONORE computer audio | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
mansr Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 32 minutes ago, barrows said: Well, that is a nice "concept". In practice how would this be achieved.. Anyone can suggest the concept, actual engineering of the USB interface is an entirely different thing. Do you agree that if such a device were successfully designed, the cable would make no difference? Or do you believe that cables imbue the signal with some kind of metaphysical properties beyond the reach of science and engineering? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now