USB cable and Sound Quality
Nov 4, 2008 at 7:24 PM Post #91 of 135
Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif
blame the dac or its stages. stop blaming cables in the digital world.


I'm just about to receive what will be my first high quality USB DAC, a Benchmark DAC1 PRE. IMHO, the cable induced jitter is probably small compared to the OS induced jitter with USB audio, so my guess is that, since the cable's contribution to total jitter is probably small, any gains made at this point might be swamped out by the jitter problems which still remain. Therefore, I think "blame the DAC" is probably the most fruitful view, hence my choice of Benchmark, a company who has put a lot of effort into eliminating the audible effects of interface jitter.
 
Nov 15, 2008 at 9:34 AM Post #92 of 135
usb

It looks like Benchmark doesn't really care, or at least recommend, more exotic digital cables; just look at what they sell at their website. I do like my DAC1 USB enough with stock cords, but I like enjoy the sound even better after I integrated the various tweaks, including digital cables. I'd like to think it as that Benchmark has got the part they care/can rationalize covered, but there are other elements to Hi-fi.
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 3:17 AM Post #93 of 135
People here seem to concentrate on the digital signal and how that is corruptable or not.
But there is more on that cable then just the ones and zeroes; all kinds of noise that also enters the receiving component and might disrupt analogue feedbackstages.
A perfect cable would only transmit the digital signal and no noise at all. All extra noise, like RF might give audible distortion further in the chain.
Of course this effect is as much dependent on the architecture of the receiving components as on the noise sent through the cable.
Seems to me an acceptable explanation of why
usb-cables can sound different; the noise might disrupt analogue stages further up in the chain.
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 3:28 AM Post #94 of 135
Saying that usb cables can affect the sound doesn't mean you need to get the most expensive one. I believe in sound differences and would just opt with a belkin 2.0 gold.

Interesting input dura, another possibility.

tps, why not try a different usb cable, such as a belkin, and see if you experience a difference, most of us try to get the most out of a system, and if there is a positive benefit within 25$ it seems worthwhile to me, especially on truly high-end systems.

Dave
 
Nov 21, 2009 at 8:46 AM Post #97 of 135
recentely getting into computer audio, and it sound really fantastic with a simple 10$ usb cable. but despite that,i still got myself a kimber usb cable,as i feel i owe it to my system.
for me, the solution for the cable "dillema" was always to get a decent (not the most expensive) cable,whatever it is digital or analog, just for peace of mind and knowing that my system gets a proper interconnecting.
it is too bad to let the interconnects be a bottleneck in a system.
 
Nov 21, 2009 at 9:26 AM Post #98 of 135
All I know is, the claim people pose that because an ordinary cable can transfer files intact without corrupting them, that it can stream audio just as well. That's a crock of crap, they're not the same method of data transfer.
 
Nov 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM Post #101 of 135
Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Does anyone have a link of where to buy the non ferrite kimber usb cable?


I bought one a short while ago and it came with removable ferrites so you could take them off and put them on again to try it both ways. I purchased mine from Music Direct. I ended up preferring it with the ferrites on.

Edit: This was the regular Kimber USB cable, not the newer silver version which appears to not have ferrites at all.
The one I got with removable ferrites is here:
http://www.musicdirect.com/product/81375
 
Nov 21, 2009 at 6:13 PM Post #103 of 135
Quote:

Originally Posted by scootermafia /img/forum/go_quote.gif
All I know is, the claim people pose that because an ordinary cable can transfer files intact without corrupting them, that it can stream audio just as well. That's a crock of crap, they're not the same method of data transfer.


True, however many people also claim that isochronous USB transfer (ie audio) is vulnerable to cable design because there is no error correction, unlike with data transfers used in external drives. However, isochronous does use CRC checks, although the specification does not guarantee that all packets sent can be checked on time. IIRC, one white paper I read said the typical bit loss in such applications is less than 1 in 10^10, basically irrelevant. It's also fairly trivial to test this in USB cables so I have to wonder why non of the audiophile cables don't just come out and say their cables have a bit error rate of 1 in X.
 
Nov 24, 2009 at 6:55 PM Post #104 of 135
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapwing /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Anyone who actually believes a fancy USB cable will sound better than a cheapo needs to go back to school.


okay, I edited the red all caps shouting out. it was causing jitters on my screen. :)

but joking apart: yes, there are upper limits in terms of physical properties. there often isn't as much improvement with higher expenditure. but nonetheless you do have to admit that there are shoddy cables, suffering from quality control issues or crimping or any number of other issues, so the fact is that many people have in fact experienced an improvement in going from free (or supercheap) cables, whether USB or power, to something that is put together well and to exacting standards.

please maintain a level of civil and rational discourse before turning on the all-shout fonts...
 
Nov 24, 2009 at 7:50 PM Post #105 of 135
I understand that there may be some benefits to a $30 USB cable. $2800 USB cables are just insane though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top