Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Don't get why "Audiophile" USB Cable would improve sound quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't get why "Audiophile" USB Cable would improve sound quality - Page 48  

post #706 of 835

But objectively based on his comments and general attitude towards my comments that would indicate that he is more likely to smell then to not smell although it could be argued that my opinion on this is subjective.

post #707 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post

But objectively based on his comments and general attitude towards my comments that would indicate that he is more likely to smell then to not smell although it could be argued that my opinion on this is subjective.

 

no-hope-for-this-thread.jpg

post #708 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post

lol please carry on and block me I really couldnt care less... I was merely giving an opinion as to the probable reason why these people are hearing differences when there has been repeated proof of no measurable differences between usb cables. Infact please do block me beacuse I would prefer not to speak to you again if you are going to insult me for giving a perfectly reasonable explanation!

 

My intentions for my post was to possibly discourage people from buying from companies like wireworld which are clearly extorting customers with borderline illegal marketing and sales tactics... By all means carry on and buy it if it makes you happy I was merely giving another viewpoint.

 

 

Some people don't take kindly to being told they are "wrong". Some people don't realize just how easy your mind can make up things that are not there.. The mind is a wonderful thing. If I spent $1,000 on a cable, and it made a huge improvement to the sound I hear, I would be happy with that, even if it was in my mind. It is not wrong to hear differences, it is wrong however, to attribute them to the cable. I am a non-believer in cables, and would LOVE to do a DBT on all kinds, from $1 ones to $100,000 ones. Unfortunately I cannot afford the higher end ones. Most believers wouldn't do the DBT if I bought every cable, flew them to my place, and offered them $10 million dollars if they can pass the DBT. They would somehow find a flaw in the test, my gear, or something. No one wants to admit they've been duped into spending a huge sum of money for something that can be had from monoprice for pennies on the dollar. 

post #709 of 835

If it were the audio cable, there's a miniscule chance of debating the wire characteristics affecting the audio.

For USB, no chance. As long as your device runs error checking (bulk transfer) mode, which most devices do, there's no such thing as some data being better than the other. Either digital data is transferred correctly, or it isn't. END OF STORY.

post #710 of 835

Even in async, there is very little that can affect the cable aspect of the signal transfer. 

post #711 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

Even in async, there is very little that can affect the cable aspect of the signal transfer. 

+1

post #712 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

If it were the audio cable, there's a miniscule chance of debating the wire characteristics affecting the audio.

For USB, no chance. As long as your device runs error checking (bulk transfer) mode, which most devices do, there's no such thing as some data being better than the other. Either digital data is transferred correctly, or it isn't. END OF STORY.

 

Most all DACs don't run in that mode.  They're stream of consciousness bitstreams with no error correction.    A better quality cable could make tiny little differences in jitter far below what has been demonstrated to be audible but that's about it.

 

Voldemort said he was probably going to test the ODAC with some USB cables with and without ferrites and USB isolators.

post #713 of 835

The only jitter that really matters in the end is whatever that affects the DAC, making each output sample not be of exactly equal time duration (jittery).

 

If there's jitter on the USB connection, who cares, unless the DAC is clocked by the USB transmission?  Unless you're looking at a pretty low-end product, most DACs have a crystal-controlled oscillator on board and get the timing from that, right?

post #714 of 835

.


Edited by drez - 5/10/12 at 10:10pm
post #715 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

The only jitter that really matters in the end is whatever that affects the DAC, making each output sample not be of exactly equal time duration (jittery).

 

If there's jitter on the USB connection, who cares, unless the DAC is clocked by the USB transmission?  Unless you're looking at a pretty low-end product, most DACs have a crystal-controlled oscillator on board and get the timing from that, right?

Yep.

Once the data is reliably transferred, the jitter due to the cable should not affect the DAC sampling.


Edited by proton007 - 5/10/12 at 10:09pm
post #716 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post


Sir, I think perhaps you might be susceptible to a variety of cognitive distortions when you attribute the following audible effects to a physical change that evidence suggests is beneath the threshold of audibility.
vs.
You're an idiot and it's in your head and you smell bad.
One does not have to take any reference to psychoacoustics as an aspersion. Doing so, from this reader's point of view, reflects little more than insecurity.

 

Well I would suggest you use some more advanced comprehesnsion skills in order to appraise the tone of Nicholar's posting.

 

I am very willing to note that my observations may be affected by cognitive bias, on the other hand many freshling objectivists are not willing to concede that they are merely regurgitating second or third hand opinion and are clearly not familiar with either the technical or scientific foundations of these viewpoints.  This is not constructive.

 

Consider this:  A person has read the Bible and find it to be a very convincing body of evidence that a Judeo-Christian God exists.  Someone else reads George Orwell and decides that there is no God and all Christians are wrong.  If this fan of George Orwell goes around telling Christians that they are foolish because George Orwell has some convincing arguments is this polite?  I am more than willing to accept the viewpoint of skeptics who have actually tested and experimented with the technology, who have a good understanding of the technical concepts, and who have taken time to properly understand the precepts of the scientific basis for arguments against the audibility of jitter.


Edited by drez - 5/10/12 at 10:28pm
post #717 of 835

So... just to clarify. You are ok with unverifiable opinions, as long as it is subjective and biased. Someone citing actual research and data (or someone else's analysis of those) must be fully fluent in the field before doing so? Or you just want them to admit that is what they are doing?


Edited by liamstrain - 5/10/12 at 10:18pm
post #718 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

 

Well I would suggest you use some more advanced comprehesnsion skills in order to appraise the tone of Nicholar's posting.

 

I am very willing to note that my observations may be affected by cognitive bias, on the other hand many freshling objectivists are not willing to concede that they are merely regurgitating second or third hand opinion and are clearly not familiar with either the technical or scientific foundations of these viewpoints.  This is not constructive.

 

Most of us are not even citing some research or data, we're just explaining how these things are actually designed and work. Their design objective is totally independent from their end usage. USB is used in much serious and sensitive scenarios than audio, and has been designed just to transfer data reliably. What you do with that data is your problem, not the cable's.

I doubt it can be made simpler than that.

post #719 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

Yep.

Once the data is reliably transferred, the jitter due to the cable should not affect the DAC sampling.

 

As far as I know it is not that simple.  It depends how effective the digital input section is at eliminating jitter [and whether upsampling is used] - some good DAC's use asynchronous USB with galvanic isolation (controlled by it's own clocks), or otherwise SPDIF input with galvanic isolation or a ferrite choke to stop any noise being transmitted further downstream.  After this a DAC will typically have an SPDIF receiver such as WM8805 which uses an oscillator but to my knowledge is an adaptive process and does not reclock the signal, and this chip typically outputs I2S signal.  From here many DAC's will upsample the signal with various digital filters to shift the jitter distortion out of the audible spectrum (typically controlled by a separate clock.)  Some DAC's will output I2S directly from the USB input rather than outputting SPDIF to an SPDIF receiver chip which is more direct but skips a possible stage of jitter reduction.

 

An oversampling DAC with a well designed digital input section with galvanic isolation of the digital inputs will care little about the performance of the USB cable - and reviewers have already picked out these DAC's for example the Anedio D1, Antelope Zodiac, Calyx DAC and PSAudio Perfect Wave DAC.  Some well designed USB to SPDIF converters such as those from Audiophilleo also show little change between USB cables.


Edited by drez - 5/10/12 at 11:10pm
post #720 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

 

Most of us are not even citing some research or data, we're just explaining how these things are actually designed and work. Their design objective is totally independent from their end usage. USB is used in much serious and sensitive scenarios than audio, and has been designed just to transfer data reliably. What you do with that data is your problem, not the cable's.

I doubt it can be made simpler than that.

 

digital data is not 1's and 0's it is in fact an electrical waveform.  Most USB equipment uses bulk mode transfer which has the ability to check incoming packets and resend them if necessary, and as far as I know there is only one DAC that uses this technology.  Most use either adaptive or asynchronous transfer modes which are fundamentally different both from bulk mode and from each other.

 

If you are appraising a technology from an theoretical basis, you had better be familiar with the technology otherwise the discussion is pointless.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Don't get why "Audiophile" USB Cable would improve sound quality