cheeseboy said:
I believe some USB cables said to be 'audiophile' don't have the power connections, so they only carry data, the claim being that this reduces the potential for interference.
I believe some USB cables said to be 'audiophile' don't have the power connections, so they only carry data, the claim being that this reduces the potential for interference.
spiny norman said:
lovecraft works well
spiny norman said:
It's a way of testing that files are the same - data integrity, which is what people want for their music I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5spiny norman said:
If it wasn't passing the correct information in real time, you would hear drop outs, not a difference in the tone, volume or soundstage or whatever Hi Fi terms you want to use. The point of the test is to prove that the usb cable is passing through the same information from one end to another. Most devices will have a buffer anyways, so it's not "real time" that you are listening to.
spiny norman said:
Defensive yes, when people don't want to believe something like proof, yes!
shafesk said:
:doh: Cables have to adhere to those standards though. Providing it meets standard 1, 2 or 3 is how fast you will be able to transfer the data.
shafesk said:
Power delivered depends on a whole host of other factors as well.
shafesk said:
but what is it that makes it specifically designed to carry info from a pc to dac that makes it different from other cables? Are you able to answer this or are you just going to keep talking about "audiophile" usb cables when you can't even tell me the difference?
Andrew Everard said:
thank you Andrew (seriously) for actually trying to help describe what some "audiophile" usb cables may have a difference from a "normal" usb cable. I'm off to have a butchers..
cheeseboy said:lovecraft works well
Not something I've ever felt the need to study. Guess I'm naturally gifted in that department. Or it may just be the spines.
cheeseboy said:
I do not know what makes it different from other usb cables, just like I do not know what goes into my QED performance 2s which make it sound different from my Belkin Pure Avs. I do not need to as long as it makes a difference to my setup. I also do not care that power depends on a whole host of other factors but they do vary from cables hence a cable is atleast different from another in that regard even when connected to the same port/charger. Some cables I have claim to adhere to usb 2 standards yet they vary in the amount of time it takes to charge a device. Like I said, we can get bogged down with details or specs but the fact is none of us are cable designers and unless you happen to work for Furutech I just want to know whether you have tried one and share your experience.
Can we just get on with the topic, please read the original post where it says I don't want a cable debate...lots of other usb cable threads on the forum where you can argue the facts...I just want to know whether you have experienced a difference. My apologies if I'm being rude but I specifically did ask. Cheers.
shafesk said:
Ok, so we've established that you have absolutely no idea what the difference is between an "audiophile" usb cable and any normal usb cable should that not ring a few alarm bells with what you are asking? If somebody asks what the difference is between the cables, and then sombeody else says here's a test to prove there are no differences for what you are asking, surely that's not a debate, but it's actually an answer to your question isn't it?
Other than that the answer to your question will be a) I've tried cables and heard a difference or b) I've tried cables and haven't heard a difference. Either way both of those are so subjective that they bear no worth whatsoever, so again, we go back to the main thing which is try for yourself and if you hear a difference great, and if you don't that's fine.
You are right, I don't know what is the difference and neither do you. It doesn't ring an alarm bell, I know which cd player A is better than cd player B but I don't need to know why. Just out of curiousity, how did you exactly prove anything? There are some folks on this forum who genuinely make a compelling argument and know what they are talking about but yours is utter bull, I had to tell you 4 times that I was talking about cables and not usb 1 2 3 before you got it. Nor did you prove anything "scientific" and not anything that we haven't heard before. Just btw, the program you sent is for testing usb ports but I suspect you mixed it up with cables again. Subjective is fine, I wanted subjective and that is what I wanted to know if you actually had the patience to read my opening comment.cheeseboy said:
shafesk said:
oh dear, you really are digging yourself in a bigger hole here aren't you. :help:
1) I know that there is actually no difference between "audiophile" usb cable and normal cables. That's why I asked you as you were the one banding the term about as if it had some significance - it doesn't. Some "audiophile" cables as Andrew pointed out have the power lines remove to possible reduce interference (even though it's still there when it comes out of the device, so kind of a moot point)
2) I'll tell you again, hopefully you will understand this time. At the moment there are 3 standards of USB. 1, 2 and 3. Each of these levels up to standard, just like cat 4, 5, 5e, 6 network cables and standards. The whole point of having these standards is to say that if you want to use usb 2, then you must have a) a USB 2 compatible device and b) a cable that conforms to USB 2 standards in order for it to work as advertised. That is why some cables move data at a different rate. If you plug a usb standard 1 cable in to a usb 2 device, it's not going to be able to transfer at full speed. I sent a link for the testing of usb ports as I was giving an example of how you can test USB devices. It's not just the cables you might want to test, but the things you are plugging them in to as well.
3) I don't need to prove anything as I have given the information for you all to be able to carry out the tests yourselves. You seem to have missed that bit, yet feel the need to have a go - not sure if it's because you don't understand, or maybe you don't want to. See the bit about copying files and checking the MD5 hash. Anybody can do it and you don't need a webpage or a youtube video, you can try it yourself. It's the most scientific test you are going to get to prove that cables a, b and c are all transmitting the same information from point a to b. You can do it on differenct computers and different drives and different cables, doesn't matter, the results will be the same, unless the cable is faulty, then there will be an error.
If you need me to repeat any of the above as you don't udnerstand please just ask and I'll try and expand a bit more, but please don't say that I'm talking bull because I've given plenty of evidence about how to look at these things yourself. maybe you should try them yourself, then come back with the results and then we can discuss if I'm talking bull or not? How does that sound?
I completely agree with the poster here. I dont want to debate usb tech as theres more to usb than just the cable - and theres more to life than usb lol. There's software drivers on the pc and software and hardware implementations on the dac. I know that my beresford DAC has a buffer of 1ms. As someone that works in IT - 1ms is not a great buffer! I dont think its an accident that Beresford have dropped USB on the latest bushmaster dac, either. This is of course completely my opinion.
In short i dont have the time/inclination to look any further at usb tech but am interested in what people are finding.
It would be helpful for me at least that if you can hear a difference can you state on what dac/cable. Even if you dont hear a difference, just state the dac and cable. Its really that simple
Maybe dacs with a good usb implementation dont benefit from a good cable, whereas dacs that have a poor implementation or use USB for power do. I honestly dont know the answer to these questions and like the poster dont care that much - but opinions are useful.
In short i dont have the time/inclination to look any further at usb tech but am interested in what people are finding.
It would be helpful for me at least that if you can hear a difference can you state on what dac/cable. Even if you dont hear a difference, just state the dac and cable. Its really that simple
Maybe dacs with a good usb implementation dont benefit from a good cable, whereas dacs that have a poor implementation or use USB for power do. I honestly dont know the answer to these questions and like the poster dont care that much - but opinions are useful.
cheeseboy said:
1) You didn't know what was a usb cable till Andrew told you 10 mins ago. So all of a sudden you know that there are no differences between them without trying one?
2) Who on earth doesn't know about usb standards? Stop boring me with them. I have repeatedly said that 2 usb 2.0 cables I have charge at different rates and it is obviously not the device's fault and the device doesn't need to be tested.
3) Have I not made it clear that I do not care to test usb cables? I have also agreed that cables transmit all information or none at all but I am talking about the TIME IT TAKES FOR THEM TO TRANSFER THE DATA AND THE POWER THEY SUPPLY to the connected device. Honesty, you are just repeating yourself.
You haven't really given me evidence that I haven't heard before and I repeatedly asked NOT to give me any evidence. If you don't have any comment on a usb cable you have tried which has made a difference to your setup just stop discouraging others from commenting on this thread. Like I said there are plenty of threads which argues the scientif reasons for them making/not making a difference. Me, I just want to know what consumers who have tried such a usb cable have found.
shafesk said:
:rofl: Oh dear. No of course I didn't. I forgot that you know everything about me, silly me. All those years working in studios and recording albums, not to mention all of the years of IT, silly me, I didn't know what USB cable is. doh!
shafesk said:
So now it's just down to charging... what's that got to do with audio??? The point I was making that unless a cable has been certified to work at a certain standard then yes, there will probably be differences in the rate it allows power through, but that still makes no odds to what we are talking about.
shafesk said:
eh? You brought up my links to USB testing, now you say you don't care. make your mind up for gods sake. :help:
shafesk said:
I'm not discouraging any others, I'm replying to you as you keep taking umbridge with what I'm saying. If you're going to say I'm talking bull, I'll reply in earnest. :type:
Ben123 said:I completely agree with the poster here. I dont want to debate usb tech as theres more to usb than just the cable - and theres more to life than usb lol. There's software drivers on the pc and software and hardware implementations on the dac. I know that my beresford DAC has a buffer of 1ms. As someone that works in IT - 1ms is not a great buffer! I dont think its an accident that Beresford have dropped USB on the latest bushmaster dac, either. This is of course completely my opinion.
In short i dont have the time/inclination to look any further at usb tech but am interested in what people are finding.
It would be helpful for me at least that if you can hear a difference can you state on what dac/cable. Even if you dont hear a difference, just state the dac and cable. Its really that simple
Maybe dacs with a good usb implementation dont benefit from a good cable, whereas dacs that have a poor implementation or use USB for power do. I honestly dont know the answer to these questions and like the poster dont care that much - but opinions are useful.
It's a good point as buffering and clocking play a very important part. Hence you may have a totally seperate clock source that all devices link up to to when in a recording studio to make sure there aren't any latency errors.
Therefore, if you have a dac with hardly any buffer, you're going to need to make sure that the cable you use is quality enough to shift the data across otherwise it will be drop out city.
Not dignifying you with answers to someone who doesnt even get a point of the thread. Suggest you look at other threads to get ur jollies....good work annoying 3 people in a single day. Goodbye to you.
Clocking might be a problem on my beresford (which is why i use optical for the beresford and i am now happy with its performance). My rpac is asynchronous usb so if the blurb is to be believed its acting as a master clock so latency shouldnt be (or much of) an issue.
I have been reading (i know how dangerous this is!) that people have been finding a change of cable has improved the bass on the rpac. When i say 'people', i mean fairly well respected people on other forums that as far as i can see how no reason to lie. As the rpac is asynchronous the data should be taken care of, which leads me to think that maybe power over usb is a factor.
I find it interesting that different cables charge devices at different speeds though
The bottom line is I can get a short kimber for 50 notes, and if it makes no improvement i can hopefully sell it for half, meaning to answer this question is going to cost me 25 notes and a bit of hassle.
Anyone who has changed the standard cable on the rpac with a kimber one and not finding a difference would save me this hassle and money!
I have been reading (i know how dangerous this is!) that people have been finding a change of cable has improved the bass on the rpac. When i say 'people', i mean fairly well respected people on other forums that as far as i can see how no reason to lie. As the rpac is asynchronous the data should be taken care of, which leads me to think that maybe power over usb is a factor.
I find it interesting that different cables charge devices at different speeds though
The bottom line is I can get a short kimber for 50 notes, and if it makes no improvement i can hopefully sell it for half, meaning to answer this question is going to cost me 25 notes and a bit of hassle.
Anyone who has changed the standard cable on the rpac with a kimber one and not finding a difference would save me this hassle and money!
idc
Well-known member
The_Lhc said:
Details on the make up of USB here
http://www.usb.org/home
There are varitaions between cables but certain standards have to met. The issue is can those differences account for differences in sound quality? So far the evidence is no they cannot, there is no causal link between how a USB is made or how it measures and subjective reports of sound quality. Like all other cables, USB fail ABX tests.
SteveR750
Well-known member
What about jitter?
I'm pretty sure my DM+ sounds better vua USB than it does using the toslink connection, which mostly due to a limited understanding of how the data is streamed down have assumed because there is inherently more jitter using optical than async USB. Of course, how the device (DAC in this case) handles jitter, and how the streamer is presenting it must play a big part.
I admit I really struggle to understand the concept of timing error due to flattening or rounding of the pulse wave which presumably is the only way a cable could have some influence. Not that I'd spend any money an expensive cable even if proven to be better, as I can't hear any difference....
I'm pretty sure my DM+ sounds better vua USB than it does using the toslink connection, which mostly due to a limited understanding of how the data is streamed down have assumed because there is inherently more jitter using optical than async USB. Of course, how the device (DAC in this case) handles jitter, and how the streamer is presenting it must play a big part.
I admit I really struggle to understand the concept of timing error due to flattening or rounding of the pulse wave which presumably is the only way a cable could have some influence. Not that I'd spend any money an expensive cable even if proven to be better, as I can't hear any difference....
Covenanter
Well-known member
Maybe the DM has a great USB implementation - theres no way we can tell, thats the problem.
Optical is my connection of choice, no electrical connection to the dac and nice thin cable if nothing else. As for jitter, yes tried to get my head round that myself but apparently you need 2 atomic clocks and a flux capacitor to measure it between 2 devices lol.
If only USB used buffering and data acknowledgements (like ethernet) the usb cable debate would be a short one. Unfortunately, it doesnt to my understanding. The only reason why ethernet is so successful is because the protocols that govern the data transfer are rock solid. Data gets through, even over some clapped out cable.
Optical is my connection of choice, no electrical connection to the dac and nice thin cable if nothing else. As for jitter, yes tried to get my head round that myself but apparently you need 2 atomic clocks and a flux capacitor to measure it between 2 devices lol.
If only USB used buffering and data acknowledgements (like ethernet) the usb cable debate would be a short one. Unfortunately, it doesnt to my understanding. The only reason why ethernet is so successful is because the protocols that govern the data transfer are rock solid. Data gets through, even over some clapped out cable.
SteveR750
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure the implementation in the device is more critical than the USB cable by some margin. The Chord DAC, and for that matter the NAD and the M-DAC sounded best via optical (if only because the M-DAC was somewhat user unfreindly via USB in my opinion).
idc
Well-known member
SteveR750 said:
There have been a few studies on the audibility of jitter, but as it is measured in pico seconds, or onr trillionth of a second and there are many calims of virtually eleiminating it, how audible is that realistically going to be?
In any case, there is still the issue of the massive gaping hole of a missing link, a causal link between electrical properties of transferring a digital signal and subjective reports of sound quality. There is no evidence that a certain level of jitter affects bass, or treble, or soundstage or anything like that.
SteveR750
Well-known member
idc said:
I'm sure I've read somewhere that (at sufficient levels) jitter adds a level of harshness / lack of treble smoothness and clarity. I thought that this was one major reason why cheap DACs (think phones / PCs) sound so inferior, because of their poor quality clocks.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm
chebby
Well-known member
SteveR750 said:
Even at 50 nano seconds, sinusoidal jitter was concluded to be subjectively inaudible (between 30Hz - 16KHz) to 95 percent of listeners according to this 1974 BBC R&D report...
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1974-11.pdf
If jitter is still causing audible problems - after 36 intervening years of progress - then i'd be amazed.
SteveR750
Well-known member
chebby said:
(I edited my post in between your reply)
Who knows? Steve Nugent isn't sure, though seems was was right about USB becoming the prevalent choice of streaming protocol.
El Hefe
Well-known member
This is my 2 cents on this subject....shoot or dont shoot me...but thats what I experienced with this USB cable.
http://notanotherhifiblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/kingrex-unanimous-u-art-y-usb-cable_25.html
http://notanotherhifiblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/kingrex-unanimous-u-art-y-usb-cable_25.html
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram