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 31  

post #451 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

 

On a side note.

 

A couple of days ago, I overclocked my PC processor to 4.4GHz. I use linux, when I booted after changing the settings, it was like, OMG...everything is faster......I'm in overclock nirvana....until I checked the cpu speed. 

The damn thing was running at 1.6GHz (on demand frequency scaling) and 1.6GHz is the lowest that CPU will run at. Until I changed it to performance (max speed, 4.4 GHz), at which point the difference was miniscule, if any, and my excitement had worn off.

 

Point being, the default speed was good enough. Same goes for cables.

 

Now I can say I trust my eyes and OMG I saw it!! Everything was fast. In reality it wasnt.

 

Nah, it was the scotch... biggrin.gif

post #452 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

 

So given this ^^ vs the USB standard, what do you think I'll trust more when it comes to the cable argument?

 

And the standard works well for what is required of it. In any case, the usb-cable-to-sound causation has been debunked.

 

I wouldn't suggest that anyone should trust what I am hearing, not only because we all have different standards for comparing audio and the whole trust issue that you raised, but also because we all hear things differently and have different equipment, music etc.  As ultrabike says there are also many possibilities for why someone might hear things differently when testing cables which are difficult to factor in.  All I am willing to say is that for computer audio I have found that things which one might not think make a difference appear to make a difference, for me at least.

post #453 of 783
I've found that the best way to improve the sound of your system is to understand how it works, identify problems, directly address them, and verify your results. That way you always move forward.

If you try random things that you don't really understand, you get random results. I've made huge improvements on my system over the years, and knowing why was a big part of what I achieved.
post #454 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

 

Nah, it was the scotch... biggrin.gif

 

Or was it Bourbon? wink_face.gif

post #455 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackbeardBen View Post

 

Or was it Bourbon? wink_face.gif

 

Neither...I'm a teetotaler...which makes it even more compelling....how_can_my_eyes_deceive_me ?? biggrin.gif

post #456 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I've found that the best way to improve the sound of your system is to understand how it works, identify problems, directly address them, and verify your results. That way you always move forward.
If you try random things that you don't really understand, you get random results. I've made huge improvements on my system over the years, and knowing why was a big part of what I achieved.

Agree.

Propose something, based on some level of existing theory, and then verify the result. Thing is, first of all we need to establish some form of performance metrics to test. And that cannot be done unless we know what to expect.

Most of the times when something random pops up, its more of a discovery. I'm hoping the cable faction is right, maybe they've discovered something we don't know. Until then, I'll view these claims with skepticism.


Edited by proton007 - 9/20/12 at 10:21pm
post #457 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackbeardBen View Post

 

Or was it Bourbon? wink_face.gif

post #458 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I've found that the best way to improve the sound of your system is to understand how it works, identify problems, directly address them, and verify your results. That way you always move forward.
If you try random things that you don't really understand, you get random results. I've made huge improvements on my system over the years, and knowing why was a big part of what I achieved.

 

This is one of the big problems in computer audio - people try to fix things that don't need fixing and make things worse in the process.  Then because we all have different tastes and random ideas of what jitter or noise sounds like there is a lot of journeys down the garden path and wasted money.  Unfortunately when it comes to computer audio and cables the knowledge and equipment needed to really understand what is going on is beyond most enthusiasts, but when some things are free to test, reversible etc. I don't see a lack of technical understanding or ability to empirically verify changes as reasons to abandon testing these components/variables.  Ideally it would be good to have enough technical understanding to know when something is doing more harm than good, but IMO if you train your hearing this is viable especially where changes can be quickly reverted back to the original setup.  If you really want to be sure of a change you could always do a blind comparison if you have somebody around who is willing to lend assistance in the test.

post #459 of 783

Random results often provide for the gestation of pure genius.

post #460 of 783
Ok, so i havent as of yet done the dbt and or posted the usb pic as of yet.
I will be doing the dbt today after i get off work and posting a pic today as well
post #461 of 783
Ive been super busy mixing and mastering a rap/techno album this week. I apologize to any that have been curious about the results. I did start using the usb cable and the directions say that there is a burn in stage of up to 150 hrs, i will also post this pic with the usb
post #462 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griploc View Post

I did start using the usb cable and the directions say that there is a burn in stage of up to 150 hrs

 

Wow, they even give you the USB cable burn in time!? blink.gif I only wished HP and Dell provided their laptop documentation with PCB traces, wiring, and inter-connectors burn in time! Neeed... mooore... dooos ... equis...

post #463 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

This is one of the big problems in computer audio - people try to fix things that don't need fixing and make things worse in the process.  Then because we all have different tastes and random ideas of what jitter or noise sounds like there is a lot of journeys down the garden path and wasted money.  Unfortunately when it comes to computer audio and cables the knowledge and equipment needed to really understand what is going on is beyond most enthusiasts,

I don't think a basic understanding of how digital audio works is all that difficult. I think people are just too lazy to do the googling, so they assume spending a lot of money will get them the sound they want without going to all that trouble. They're lazy and they pay through the nose for it. Audio is pretty straightforward, and once you know how your ears work, you can give them what they need. It isn't difficult or expensive.

It's been my experience that when technical explanations start turning to swamps of molassas, it's because someone is starting to count angels dancing on the heads of pins. For instance, I'd love to have someone explain to me what jitter actually sounds like. When I spent a few days puzzling it all out, I came to the conclusion that not only is it extremely rare in home audio, it occupies a time frame so tiny, ears would likely pass right over it. Repeating patterns of gross amounts of jitter might affect upper frequencies, but I have yet to hear anyone say it sounds like that. That's probably because jitter flat out doesn't affect sound in any audible way.
post #464 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

Random results often provide for the gestation of pure genius.

That's how evolution works! If you're willing to wait from the Pleistocene to the Paleozoic for your sound quality to improve, random mutation is the way to go. I'm just a little too impatient for that myself.
Edited by bigshot - 9/21/12 at 10:33am
post #465 of 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griploc View Post

I did start using the usb cable and the directions say that there is a burn in stage of up to 150 hrs

What fine commercial enterprise prepared these instructions, if I might ask?
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 › USB cable and Sound Quality