Yes Virgina, There is a difference in USB cables - Page 2

nah, couldn't measure it at all, what if the wiring in the scope isn't premium quality, so it can't measure the "upgrades" of the cables being tested?

USB-cables, like other cables, also act like antenna's and pick up RFI and might pass it on to the recieving component.
Why couldn't it just be that cable A picks up les interference then cable B, and therefore give the receiving component less distortion?

This seems to me to be a problem with this so-called scientific approach of cable differences; theorising starting from too small a base.
Real science often (but not always) works different and uses an emperical approach; first a phenomen is discovered and isolated, then we try to explain it, and if we can't, obviously our theories are not complete yet.
Here you often hear it the other way round: what you hear is imagination because I cannot explain it from my theoretical base. Some people also add that cables measure the same and DBT-testing always shows people cannot really hear differences; nevermind in reality cables do measure different and I've read of a lot of DBT-testing were differences were heart.

we can't "isolate it" due to the subjective nature of the claims associated to it, therefore voiding your approach, ultimately the differences espoused by cables are variable depending upon the user (so are their amounts), and many users do not find such differences, in other words you're trying to take subjective perception into the realm of formal science, simply because you refuse to accept a reality other than your own delusion

don't feed bob, he ain't worth it
I use a Monster USB2 cable, bought on ebay for a couple of bucks...sounds great

as always, your maturity is an asset

Has anyone ABX'd 1800's Snake Oil?

wrt? taste or medicinal value?

So yeah guys, f = 1/t. If t is 5.2ns per meter, then for a 1m cable you'd need a 200 MHz oscilloscope to view the function it generates. If you were educated and knew about he metric system then you'd know 5.2ns is 5.2e-9, the inverse of that is 198M. You'd need a 630+ MHz scope for 1ft cables. The standard is 6ft, so that would be probably 9.5ns requiring a 150 MHz scope. A 750 MHz scope would let you compare all lengths from 1ft to 16ft. Measure the two data pins with two channels and two probes and observe the waveform. To make a waveform, simply connect a USB device and have it do something, like a memory stick transfer data. You'd see crazy square like things dancing around, which are 1's and 0's. It's a square wave. If there are slopes then it can no longer determine what's a 1 and what's a 0 and you get no data sent. No data sent means no file transfer or no sound. It's yes or no, if it's a maybe it doesn't work. It has to be able to see an up and down. A blob results in fail. The cable simply sends what it gets, it relies on the source devices for what it sends. The cable doesn't magically change the data because mr. metal has feelings or opinions about his job.

It's crazy how this forum has such a pre-renaissance view on engineering this day and age. These cost a lot more than others, therefore they only want to sell it to the learned who are aware of the true value. They would not price it as so for no reason, it's to prevent the serfs from ever risking their coin on product they deserve not. We shall relabel myths as science and look upon engineers as philosophers of counter-understanding. Their understanding we know naught, and outnumbering them we can shout louder than them to drone their lies. Now purse thine lips on ye goblet and quaff an elixir to seal the membership into the brotherhood of viral opinion. Even if we all be wrong, at least we be greater in number, and that's all that matter.

in the defense of cables as variable on the sound, the arguement is often that the cable allows a more pure or accurate reproduction of the signal, its more "faithful to source" (as has been argued by everyone from new head-fi members to Monster themselves), so assume for a moment this is neccisarily true, that a variation in cables will create a variation in the accuracy of 1's and 0's being sent end to end, that errors will either be removed or created, and that this relationship exists for all forms of cabling (be it interconnects, or the internal wiring/traces of your components)

now, based on that, the "fixing" or "unfixing" of the signal is more or less "random chance" ("this cable improves high end clarity" vs "this cable give crazy bass and low end definition"), now consider all of the arguements about jitter, and how cables will improve that scenario, lets take ALL of it as true (even up to the most insane tweaks you wanna think of, tice clock and all), now that we've got our deck stacked up, lets then consider:

if all of this is true, and all of this must apply, wouldn't the presentation be variable from instance to instance, in other words, playing back your music or movie or whatever in instance A will be a different presentation and sonic experience, "separate but identical" to instance B, or G, or F, and based on that reasoning (combined with some "textbook theory"), we can't actually say with any definitive proof "this is different" (as any attempt to recreate or measure the event, cannot be sure it is really measuring the event in question, are you simply witnessing the difference of the events, or some form of isolated change? and is the change going to be identical each time? (and if yes, how can this be, given that we're discussing entropic anamolies at the atomic level))

now based on that reasoning, you've got far too many variables and questions to definitively say "this must be", not to mention you're quite close to arguing "I KNOW THE POSITION OF AN ELECTRON"

the second approach assumes that the complexity of material science and engineering along with our understating of physics and electromagnetism ultimately make it impossible to answer the question

so in other words, you can either choose to accept the philosophy that cables make a difference, which accepts uncertainty theory as a postulate basis for "no proof", although they'll argue there is proof (but its illogical); or you can choose to accept the philosophy that there may or may not be a difference, although it would be generally imperceptable and variable from scenario to scenario, and ultimately not something which we can isolate or factually support


honestly, since there is no definitive, factual answer available (we can squabble all day over how to measure, but when it comes down to it, what are we actually looking for wrt measurements? frequency variation? amplitude? resistance? we can get all of those to "perfect" or "better than perfect" and differences are still claimed (i.e: does anyone believe that VD Judge vs VD Genesis is purely a matter of which one can conduct "more cleanly"?)), I would answer in the negative

why is spelling my name apparently so damned hard for you?! (especially given that you managed zero spelling errors throughout your entire post) ctrl + c and ctrl + v are your friend (or apple + c and apple + v if memory serves) that in and of itself seems to make the majority of my point (if you, catch my drift)

regarding "you're a deaf moron because you don't agree", real mature there bro, notice how I didn't actually say you're wrong, I said I disagree and defended my point with logical reasoning (but like you said, this thread is for "serious audiophiles", and "ignorance can't get in your way")

you're talking about unproven concepts, so am I, I'm saying we have no proof either way (your subjective opinion is not fact, you DO hear a difference, and I never said otherwise, I did say however, that there is no difference to the machines (from the viewpoint of the hardware you're using, nothing has changed, however from your frame of reference, something has changed)), now apparently, because I don't agree, that makes me evil, and I should just stick to talking about tires (which ironically is still materials engineering, and they do make quite a difference, why bother posting the analogy if you're gonna discredit it with a qualification?)

and my point about digital audio was not one of you needing to understand it (I question if such a thing is possible, given your subjective nature, you would likely prefer to argue with the governing body that the spec is merely their "opinion of how it should be put together"), it was more along the lines of:

"just because you're able to say "oh look at me, ignorance won't get in my way! watch me prove it!" does not make your obsevation a fact, it simply makes it another observation, which is accurate merely to your frame of reference"

how that was neccisarily hard to understand, is quite beyond me (and did you also notice how it was more of a request that we not degrade into a flame-war, purely because I was meaning to provide the actual facts, regardless of personal interpretation relative to our own individual realities?)

Heh Heh Heh. Made my day. I can't even add anything. Brilliant.

I'm sorry but this isn't a matter of "belief systems", please, try to see my point:

you can hear something that others can't, does this make your hearing factually better? it may, it may not (find an audiologist, we'll go compare ), and you're arguing basically "and if I can't win out that I have better hearing than you, which makes my point objectively true, I have a better system than you, which makes my point objectively true" (now have fun with proving what defines "a more resolving" system, remember where you are)

this is really not a matter of human ability to hear, but instead one of human perception (prove that what you heard and felt is valid, and not your mind playing tricks on you, and prove this objectively, with only your ears, bet you a nickel you can't)

fact of the matter is, factually, we're talking about something that "doesn't exist", but because "ignorance means nothing to [Tgun5]" and "[Tgun5 doesn't] care about the facts", tgun5 is delcaring something as an objective truth, based on tgun5's subjective opinion (is it a matter of vocabulary not matching here?)

by no means is this thread "not for me", because that implies a casted system of those who can and those who can't, and just because I butter mine on the bottom doesn't mean we have to go to war

ultimately what this arguement comes down to is:
"you don't believe in cables, and I do, and because I have a better system, or better ears, or am somehow better than you, that makes my opinion and belief a fact, and yours a fleeting fantasy"

X2

yeah, that would be so wrong on so many levels