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 55  

post #811 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonears View Post

 

44.1 kHz x 16 bits per sample is 705 kilobits per second, plus overhead for error correction/detection, packetization and transfer protocols over USB. I don't know the actual amount of overhead, but for the sake of discussion, let's say it doubles the amount of data. That would still require less than 1.5 megabits per second. USB 2.0 is specified to handle up to 480 megabits per second. For CD grade audio playback, USB frequency isn't a limiting factor

 

 

frequency is measured in hertz

usb frequency is 12mhz

 

usb bandwidth.. well, that one's measured in bytes.

and as far as i know nobody ever sad that usb bandwidth is it's limiting factor in case of audio.

 

it's just like if we would be speaking about speed highways - it's usually not about their width, but about their quality that matters.


Edited by kr0gg - 11/2/12 at 6:15am
post #812 of 835

Originally Posted by kr0gg View Post

 

as far as i know nobody ever sad that usb bandwidth is it's limiting factor in case of audio.

The very post I was responding to was implying that USB bandwidth was a limiting factor for CD-level audio, although the poster didn't word it that way. I probably should have put the word "frequency" in quotes, as I used it in response to the poster's use of that word.

 

Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

Enjoying your music in mono?  I think you need to multiply by 2 somewhere in there.  tongue_smile.gif

I've got a nice Beatles box set that way. wink.gif

But for everything else, I did indeed miss that multiplier.

post #813 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonears View Post

The very post I was responding to was implying that USB bandwidth was a limiting factor for CD-level audio, although the poster didn't word it that way. I probably should have put the word "frequency" in quotes, as I used it in response to the poster's use of that word.

I've got a nice Beatles box set that way. wink.gif
But for everything else, I did indeed miss that multiplier.

Come to think of it I must have made a mistake there - I was under the impression that all USB audio uses bulk mode transfer, but if the USB operating frequency is 12 MHz then I don't see why this would need to be the case. My bad, I blame confusion from an earlier discussion.ph34r.gif
post #814 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonears View Post

The very post I was responding to was implying that USB bandwidth was a limiting factor for CD-level audio, although the poster didn't word it that way. I probably should have put the word "frequency" in quotes, as I used it in response to the poster's use of that word.

 

I've got a nice Beatles box set that way. wink.gif

But for everything else, I did indeed miss that multiplier.

 

I think you got it right the first time. 44.1kHz is ~ 2 x 22040Hz stereo. So it's all good by my observations.

 

Meanwhile back in looney land I ordered a Furutech iD30PA 30 pin to USB A for the HP-P1. I interested to see if it makes any discernable difference, better or worse, anything will do me. Then I'll decide what the future will be. Maybe it will charge and transfer data to my iPod faster!deadhorse.gif


Edited by AJHeadfi - 12/25/12 at 5:46am
post #815 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJHeadfi View Post

 

I think you got it right the first time. 44.1kHz is ~ 2 x 22040Hz stereo. So it's all good by my observations.

 

Meanwhile back in looney land I ordered a Furutech iD30PA 30 pin to USB A for the HP-P1. I interested to see if it makes any discernable difference, better or worse, anything will do me. Then I'll decide what the future will be. Maybe it will charge and transfer data to my iPod faster!deadhorse.gif

 

...and yes, better transparency, a subtle improvement that grows on me. I don't know why, it's just the way it sounds. There is a mysterious weakness being overcome somewhere in the link between the iPod and the HP-P1 (my imagination! no, no). 

post #816 of 835

Perhaps your shoes will seem just a little bit shinier.

post #817 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Perhaps your shoes will seem just a little bit shinier.

 

Everything is just better now. Mind over matter.  blink.gif

 

I use the ADL iD-30PA on a HP-P1. The difference between stock and ADL could be compared to the kind difference between digital filter position 1 and 2. Scientific I know, but that's what it boils down to.


Edited by AJHeadfi - 12/28/12 at 8:23pm
post #818 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJHeadfi View Post

 

...and yes, better transparency, a subtle improvement that grows on me. I don't know why, it's just the way it sounds. There is a mysterious weakness being overcome somewhere in the link between the iPod and the HP-P1 (my imagination! no, no). 

I recently borrowed a couple of aftermarket USB cables to try with my Solo -dB.  Used them with my iPhone 4s and my Macbook Pro.  I too experience increased transparency along with better textures in cymbals and bass.  With the stock cable, the iPhone 4s > Solo combination was good, but IMO left something to be desired.   The music was much more engaging using the aftermarket cable - pretty satisfying actually.  The Macbook Pro > Solo with the stock cable performance was already a notch above that with the iPhone, yet I also heard a noticeable improvement using that combo with the aftermarket cable.

 

As a curiosity, I asked two of my co-workers to do blind tests with the cables.  One is a cable believer, the other a complete skeptic.  They both correctly identified the stock versus aftermarket cables.  The skeptic left shaking his head in disbelief....

 

I don't claim to understand why, but they can make a difference.  Probably somewhat equipment dependent.  I have a USB cable on order....

post #819 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Perhaps your shoes will seem just a little bit shinier.

And my shoes do seem a bit shinier too! wink_face.gif

post #820 of 835

I have a usb keyboard. I used to connect it to my computer with a stock usb cable. On a whim I decided to use this cable instead: 

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AQMUSBDIA%20.75

 

It costs a mere $548 dollars, which, given that I have about $2000 in my computer, seems like a good deal.

 

Wow! The difference in my typing is amazing!

My nouns and adjectives agree with more precision!

My verbs stand out with greater action, and my nouns are free from hash and jitter.

The words I write have better flow and pace.

 

Anyone who can't tell the difference must not have golden ears. A better usb cable makes anyone a better writer.

post #821 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by noahbickart View Post

I have a usb keyboard. I used to connect it to my computer with a stock usb cable. On a whim I decided to use this cable instead: 

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AQMUSBDIA%20.75

 

It costs a mere $548 dollars, which, given that I have about $2000 in my computer, seems like a good deal.

 

Wow! The difference in my typing is amazing!

My nouns and adjectives agree with more precision!

My verbs stand out with greater action, and my nouns are free from hash and jitter.

The words I write have better flow and pace.

 

Anyone who can't tell the difference must not have golden ears. A better usb cable makes anyone a better writer.

 

That cable is plain snake oil, to lure the unsuspecting. I thought it was obvious. 

post #822 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by noahbickart View Post

I have a usb keyboard. I used to connect it to my computer with a stock usb cable. On a whim I decided to use this cable instead: 

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AQMUSBDIA%20.75

 

It costs a mere $548 dollars, which, given that I have about $2000 in my computer, seems like a good deal.

 

Wow! The difference in my typing is amazing!

My nouns and adjectives agree with more precision!

My verbs stand out with greater action, and my nouns are free from hash and jitter.

The words I write have better flow and pace.

 

Anyone who can't tell the difference must not have golden ears. A better usb cable makes anyone a better writer.


I can EASILY explain the Night-and-Day difference you are experiencing in your typing depending on the connection-type ..

However, I must start by telling you that you have everything backwards !!!

 

PS/2 keyboards function by IRQ's (Interrupt Requests) . When you press a key it is immediately registered  by the CPU, because there is actually a DIRECT electrical connection

between your keyboard and the CPU .

USB-keyboards work, obviously, via the USB-protocol . USB works by 'polling' the bus every 1000ms or so .

This is like the difference between 'Bit-perfect WASABI'  and the dreadful Windows-mixer !!

 

OBVIOUSLY this is jitter-prone and a big fat USB-cable with sexy-looking sleeving has much lower jitter than 'satandart' El-Cheapo cables .

If you switch to a Gold-USB cable it ads the benefit of your Love-letters sounding 'warmer' !!


Edited by AKG240mkII - 12/30/12 at 4:58am
post #823 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by noahbickart View Post

I have a usb keyboard. I used to connect it to my computer with a stock usb cable. On a whim I decided to use this cable instead: 

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AQMUSBDIA%20.75

 

It costs a mere $548 dollars, which, given that I have about $2000 in my computer, seems like a good deal.

 

Wow! The difference in my typing is amazing!

My nouns and adjectives agree with more precision!

My verbs stand out with greater action, and my nouns are free from hash and jitter.

The words I write have better flow and pace.

 

Anyone who can't tell the difference must not have golden ears. A better usb cable makes anyone a better writer.

 

I got about 20 words in before the sarcasm hit me =) nicely done

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKG240mkII View Post


I can EASILY explain the Night-and-Day difference you are experiencing in your typing depending on the connection-type ..

However, I must start by telling you that you have everything backwards !!!

 

PS/2 keyboards function by IRQ's (Interrupt Requests) . When you press a key it is immediately registered  by the CPU, because there is actually a DIRECT electrical connection

between your keyboard and the CPU .

USB-keyboards work, obviously, via the USB-protocol . USB works by 'polling' the bus every 1000ms or so .

This is like the difference between 'Bit-perfect WASABI'  and the dreadful Windows-mixer !!

 

OBVIOUSLY this is jitter-prone and a big fat USB-cable with sexy-looking sleeving has much lower jitter than 'satandart' El-Cheapo cables .

If you switch to a Gold-USB cable it ads the benefit of your Love-letters sounding 'warmer' !!

 
Didn't you mean polling every 1ms? If you poll every 1000ms, that's every 1 second.
post #824 of 835

Afaik, the default refresh rate for PS/2 mice is 40 fps (25 ms), my USB mouse uses refresh rates up to 2000 fps (0.5 ms).

 

Data to USB DACs is sent each millisecond. My mouse doesn't need a special USB cable and neither does any USB DAC.

post #825 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Afaik, the default refresh rate for PS/2 mice is 40 fps (25 ms), my USB mouse uses refresh rates up to 2000 fps (0.5 ms).

 

Data to USB DACs is sent each millisecond. My mouse doesn't need a special USB cable and neither does any USB DAC.

 

Woah a new business idea just hit me, should sell these jitter-free exotic USB cables to gamers and claim that it reduces mouse and keyboard lag and increase aiming accuracy!  biggrin.gif

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