Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › USB cable and Sound Quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USB cable and Sound Quality - Page 9  

post #121 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The speakers can cost a million dollars and a $3800 USB cable is still gonna sound like one from Monoprice

 

but of cos....when the power switch is OFF. 

 

deadhorse.gif 

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #122 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorspeaker View Post

 

but of cos....when the power switch is OFF. 

 And when the power switch is ON, be prepared to feel the might of CFDCT-UP-OCC-Ag!

post #123 of 783

The following paper relates to RCA cable interconnects more than USB cables. It compares > $100 cables and ~ $10 cables. I would recommend to at least read the last paragraph on page 41:

 

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf

 

Hope this is useful.


Edited by ultrabike - 8/15/12 at 1:05am
post #124 of 783

back to earth....i am seriously considering snagging a wireworld usb cable...(within my usd100)

the powercord i had was amazingly detailed and airy on my setup...vs my other wires. 

http://www.wireworldcable.com/categories/usb_cables.html

http://www.apolloa-v.com/servlet/the-178/wireworld-starlight-usb-cable/Detail


Edited by Lorspeaker - 8/15/12 at 1:09am
post #125 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

The following paper relates to RCA cable interconnects more than USB cables. It compares > $100 cables and ~ $10 cables. I would recommend to at least read the last paragraph on page 41:

 

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf

 

Hope this is useful.


BS...these people are obviously biased towards science and are not audiophiles. They are researchers!

post #126 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post


BS...these people are obviously biased towards science and are not audiophiles. They are researchers!

 

Dude, you are right! The paper was done to partially fulfill the requirements for a BS degree!


Edited by ultrabike - 8/15/12 at 1:22am
post #127 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

The following paper relates to RCA cable interconnects more than USB cables. It compares > $100 cables and ~ $10 cables. I would recommend to at least read the last paragraph on page 41:

 

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf

 

Hope this is useful.


BS...these people are obviously biased towards science and are not audiophiles. They are researchers!


Nice find LFF

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
post #128 of 783

...tats....tats.... 1998 

 

it could be true,  way back then

 

but since then

 

we have landed on mars...?

 

blink.gif

 

 

yes...wireworld...usb3....deliciousssss.

post #129 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorspeaker View Post

...tats....tats.... 1998 

 

it could be true,  way back then

 

but since then

 

we have landed on mars...?

 

blink.gif

 

 

yes...wireworld...usb3....deliciousssss.

 

mars... usb cables... blink.gif Yup, I feel the magic, I think you've got something there.


Edited by ultrabike - 8/15/12 at 1:33am
post #130 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Number 5 assumes that jitter is audible. In the real world, it isn't.

 

What is the real world?  Is the limit of what is real defined by current scientific research - ie everything that can be known is already known?  This is a position of philosophy and not of science.  My personal anecdotal experience over numerous iterations is that the performance of digital transports affects audio reproduction, and numerous other people have similar anecdotal experiences.  In my opinion of existing experimental data does not show low levels of jitter to be audible, the experimentation is clearly flawed in some way from my perspective.  One reality cannot disprove or prove another reality, it can merely attempt to guess at what is happening in this other reality.  

 

To put it another way - One can point to a certain experiment testing the audibility and say "this is reality", or point to the magnitude of the distortion which a level of jitter will produce and say that this is below a threshold of audibility and say "this is reality" but in reality both of these are artificial analogues of reality and not reality itself.  Experiments are attempts to dismantle, reproduce and reconfigure reality, and are in this sense abstract and not ordinary or typical scenario.

 

Take for example a chair is in a room - while you are in the room you can perceive it with your senses, but once you leave this room you can no longer directly perceive the chair with your senses.  Is the chair still in the room?  Thieves might have broken in and stolen the chair and then returned it, or it might have spontaneously combusted and rematerialised for all you know.  What if another person was still in the room and said that aliens appeared and abducted the chair while you were out of the room.  Can you prove that this was not real?  You can create another room and a chair, bring in a second person and say "look this second person did not see the chair be abducted by aliens."  Maybe you could say "the room was too dark to see what was happening clearly" or "the chair was too big to be taken out of the room so it is impossible".  Perhaps you can construct an experiment with cameras in the room to show that the chair was in fact not taken from the room by aliens and therefore claim that the first instance was invalid?  Maybe you can repeat this experiment a thousand times over with the cameras and therefore declare that the chair cannot be removed from the room by aliens?  No amount of repetition or permutation of experimentation will provide evidence that in the first instance the chair was not taken out of the room by aliens.

 

For too often the line I see clung to is that there is some onus on the casual observer to provide evidence, because science has insurmountable evidence which is contrary to what they are observing.  My point from the above is to put into perspective what is being argued, and to show that there are practical limits on what we can declare to be real or not real, and limits also in the methods we might use to go about doing this.  One could do a blind test and get a negative result and still oneI can not prove that what someone else claims to have observed was not real or a valid observation.  At most one can claim that my observation was more credible because one took steps to recreate an artificial scenario which attempts to exclude certain problematic influences.  In other words "My experience does not match what you are observing, but I consider my methods of observation of similar but not identical phenomenon, along with the scientific theories  and observations of similar but not identical scenarios to be more reliable, therefore I do not consider your observation valid at this point."

 

If we return for a moment to the OP's original post however:

 

"Dare I put my toes into the water? I'm a physicist and audiophile (establish credibility!). I've been into living room system audiophilia for 20 years. This pc-audio is new to me and I'm just starting up. Now, about USB cables: I can hear a small difference between cables. If we assume the bits are transferred properly (and there is some debate  about that in USB-audio vs. USB-data), I think the issue is electromagnetic nosie getting through the circuits and into, in my case, the headphone amplier. All EM noise is immediately spread through an entire system, end-to end. Since at the end of the day, something is converted to analog to hear it, the cleaner the power and the better the shielding, the cleaner the final D/A will be. This will not be anything that affects data transfer, per se. All billion TB of information can be transferred with perfect fidelity; when you open your word document, all the correct words are there. But we don't listen to data files. There has to be analog conversion somewhere. In my living room system, it was always well worth the effort to clean up the power and have well shielded cables. Do any of the audiophile USB cables actually provide effective power filtering and shielding, such that the headphone amp is cleaner even though connected to the PC? I don't know. This can be properly done in a living room system. But there are snake-oil produccts there too, of course."

 

I see no need to delve into challenges of what is real and what is not real - or for some people what has evidence and what does not have evidence.  This would be counterproductive at any rate as nobody likes being told what they are or are not perceiving, and the discussion does not go anywhere.  My response to this question would be as follows:

 

There are several possible explanations for the difference you claim to have heard:

 

1)Jitter performance of the cable.

2)Noise or interference creeping through the DAC.

3)You were mistaken in hearing a difference.

4)Some as yet unknown magical influence.

 

You may take your pick, but there is no evidence to prove any of these decisively at this point IMO.  Here is some food for thought:

 

 


Edited by drez - 8/15/12 at 1:49am
post #131 of 783

700

post #132 of 783

Hi Everyone (again),

 

I don't run a subwoofer with my BM5A and am fully satisfied on the bass side. I'm not a bass head, but I like solid, tunefull, tight bass as much as the next guy. I borrowed a subwoofer once, and decided that the pros versus cons were not worth it to me. Placing them and adjusting them isn't child's play, especially when the Dynaudio bass is so lightning fast. The Dynaudio's on the floor are amazingly satisfying. They don't go down real deep obviously, but they really like hanging out on the floor and meet my requirments for bass and are more than satisfying to me all by themselves.

 

Can we please stop going around and around with the USB cables all sound like they came from Monoprice thing. I don't believe that is true and saying the same thing 10 times doesn't change anything. That is what I believe.... It is what I have experienced and tried first-hand. I you think USB cables all sound the same, then that's fine. Have you tried a good USB cable? If so and you found no difference, the perhaps it's your system, perhaps it is your ears, perhaps you can't rationalize it to be possible. Believe me, I get that it is really hard to comprehend. I'm thinking that there should be a new rule in the cable forum. If you have not heard first-hand what you are writing about then you should have to say that so everyone knowswhat you basing your comment upon, and on top of that you should probably think two or three times before writing any opinions at all. I'm not trying to be difficult, but how else can you know. The transmission of the one-and-zeros for high-end computer based audio is much more complex, much more subtle and much more important than it appears on the surface. I guess that's all from me. I've had my say on the debate. I was just trying to share my experiences of what made my system sing so that yours can too. I think most people who have invested into a reasonably good computer-based audio system will be happy they tried it. If not, just send it back. You have nothing to loose. Happy Listening

post #133 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifuguy View Post

Hi Everyone (again),

 

I don't run a subwoofer with my BM5A and am fully satisfied on the bass side. I'm not a bass head, but I like solid, tunefull, tight bass as much as the next guy. I borrowed a subwoofer once, and decided that the pros versus cons were not worth it to me. Placing them and adjusting them isn't child's play, especially when the Dynaudio bass is so lightning fast. The Dynaudio's on the floor are amazingly satisfying. They don't go down real deep obviously, but they really like hanging out on the floor and meet my requirments for bass and are more than satisfying to me all by themselves.

 

Can we please stop going around and around with the USB cables all sound like they came from Monoprice thing. I don't believe that is true and saying the same thing 10 times doesn't change anything. That is what I believe.... It is what I have experienced and tried first-hand. I you think USB cables all sound the same, then that's fine. Have you tried a good USB cable? If so and you found no difference, the perhaps it's your system, perhaps it is your ears, perhaps you can't rationalize it to be possible. Believe me, I get that it is really hard to comprehend. I'm thinking that there should be a new rule in the cable forum. If you have not heard first-hand what you are writing about then you should have to say that so everyone knowswhat you basing your comment upon, and on top of that you should probably think two or three times before writing any opinions at all. I'm not trying to be difficult, but how else can you know. The transmission of the one-and-zeros for high-end computer based audio is much more complex, much more subtle and much more important than it appears on the surface. I guess that's all from me. I've had my say on the debate. I was just trying to share my experiences of what made my system sing so that yours can too. I think most people who have invested into a reasonably good computer-based audio system will be happy they tried it. If not, just send it back. You have nothing to loose. Happy Listening

 

You do know there is something called science that overrides what you "feel"? It's not that we THINK that all USB cables sound the same, it is because binary data transmission and associated CRC protocols are the foundation of computer science. To deny what is correct is to admit that there is a magical element to computers that is beyond our comprehension.

 

I have not tried a "good" USB cable and there is no point in trying a USB cable. The onus is on the party saying it does make a difference to prove the validity of his or her statement. If it can be proved (and it has) that any functional USB cable is equivalent to any other for transferring data (and that is all that a USB cable does), then the responsibility is for others to prove that there is a measurable difference resulting from use of a "better" cable. By your logic there is a point to trying to jump to escape the earth's orbit because there is no harm in not doing it. That line of reasoning is vacuous at best.

 

The transmission of 1's and 0's is extremely well understood, there is no mysticism. There is no subtlety in methods of applying fourier transforms to sinusoidual waveforms to approximate square waveforms. Nor is there any subtlety in the fact that USB has a raw error rate of less than 10E-9. With 14000kbps (about what lossless 16/44.1 audio comes out to) and at an effective transmission rate of about 240mbps (after overhead) that is one raw error on average per TWO minutes. With error correction the error rate is for all intents and purposes ZERO.

 

The fact that you think that USB cables make a difference lends about as much credence as the homeopath telling the terminal cancer patient that her special treatment can cure her. It is no different than the lady who won the lottery and thinks that "7" is her lucky number.

post #134 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by TickleMeElmo View Post

 

You do know there is something called science that overrides what you "feel"? It's not that we THINK that all USB cables sound the same, it is because binary data transmission and associated CRC protocols are the foundation of computer science. To deny what is correct is to admit that there is a magical element to computers that is beyond our comprehension.

 

I have not tried a "good" USB cable and there is no point in trying a USB cable. The onus is on the party saying it does make a difference to prove the validity of his or her statement. If it can be proved (and it has) that any functional USB cable is equivalent to any other for transferring data (and that is all that a USB cable does), then the responsibility is for others to prove that there is a measurable difference resulting from use of a "better" cable. By your logic there is a point to trying to jump to escape the earth's orbit because there is no harm in not doing it. That line of reasoning is vacuous at best.

 

The transmission of 1's and 0's is extremely well understood, there is no mysticism. There is no subtlety in methods of applying fourier transforms to sinusoidual waveforms to approximate square waveforms. Nor is there any subtlety in the fact that USB has a raw error rate of less than 10E-9. With 14000kbps (about what lossless 16/44.1 audio comes out to) and at an effective transmission rate of about 240mbps (after overhead) that is one raw error on average per TWO minutes. With error correction the error rate is for all intents and purposes ZERO.

 

The fact that you think that USB cables make a difference lends about as much credence as the homeopath telling the terminal cancer patient that her special treatment can cure her. It is no different than the lady who won the lottery and thinks that "7" is her lucky number.

 

Data transmission over USB and the way in which A DAC streams audio from a computer are different.  Data transfer uses bulk mode which does not care about the timing at all.  Cheaper USB transports and DAC chips use adaptive transfer mode in which the USB receiver is reveives the clock from the computer, and attempts to fix any timing errors (jitter).  Some more recent or expensive USB transports use asynchronous tranfer where the USB device controls the rate at which the packets are tranfers with it's own clock, usually with some sort of buffer to attempt to ensure that if a packet is not sent in time the stream is not interrupted.  The Hiface uses bulk mode transfer which in theory means packets can be resent if they are not received correctly.  Bear with me if I have not described things correctly.

 

Some USB transports draw power from the USB port, so the cable may contribute the the rective impedance of the power being supplied, or pick up noise from the surroundings, or crosstalk between the conductors.  Most USB cables are effective enough to ensure that non-timing critical transfer modes work without error.  At this point people who beleive they can predict how equipment will behave for whatever reason will say "but asynchronous USB is buffered to compensate for variation in the latency between when when the USB transports requests a packet and when it arrives, and they are correct in theory.  In practice things are not that simple in my experience and you may feel free to take my experience with a grain of salt if you think you know everything there is to know about digital audio.

 

Me personally I know enough to know that I in fact do not understand everything to do with digital audio, and to trust my ears and judgement instead of my limited understanding of the technologies at hand, or what studies I have not actually closely studies might be used to make claims about what will or will not affect sound quality.  

post #135 of 783

dang, jusr realised my mcbook air doesnt hv usb3......confused_face.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › USB cable and Sound Quality