[bigshot]

I lived for 29 years in an apartment with my nice big speakers. It helps to just not care about the neighbors!

 

[liamstrain]

I'm building some new full range back loaded horns... but I had to get clearance from the wife first.

 

[TickleMeElmo]

Quote:

Sighhh... A good USB cable really does sound better.... way better. This phenomenon isn't caused by bit errors. It goes beyond our expertise here to talk about it with any degree of authority. If the issue were simple bit errors, the difference between an average USB cable and a high-end USB cable would not be manifested as a loss in sound-staging, frequency response, dynamics, pace, (add your own here) and the subtle nuances that make music so enjoyable to us. If a most-significant bit error occurred, then such errors would result in a click/pop artifact. That not what happens between run-of-the-mill and high-end USB cables. If bit errors were responsible, the musical integrity would come and go, it would be intermittent. That doesn't happen either.
 
Please move past the theory and try it on a nice system... preferably not a Yamaha receiver. Go visit a good dealer (or perhaps find a nice company with a  trial period), bring your nice $20 Belkin USB cable and ask them to swap it out with a really good USB cable. Start to finish, it should take less than 15 minutes (well maybe an hour, because like all of us who have done this, you'll go back and forth 3 times in disbelief)..If you have invested in computer-based music, and you don't do this, then you're leaving musical performance that you paid for on the table. That's sad... and that's why I took the time to share my experiences with all of you. Don't let the lack of explainable theory keep you stuck in the land of mid-fi. Once you hear the difference, you can enjoy your music more than ever, and then still go back and try to understand it... but good luck... you'll need it. If any of you really do take the challenge,  then report back what happens. That would make me happy. Better yet, PM me as I don't expect to participate in this discussion any further..Bye guys. Happy Listening... I tried my best...

 
Who are you to say it is beyond our expertise to talk about? If you can't understand basic protocols of computer science, it doesn't mean that nobody else can. Please don't bring everyone to your level if you don't understand something by trying to obfuscate and mystify it.
 
Your experiences are invalid. It's like going to a chemotherapy ward and telling the patients there they should stop taking treatment because you know of this really good homeopath down the road that can heal them for next to no money.

 

[dleblanc343]

Here's a facebook post I made just now:
 

"Nerdiest thing in the world. Testing the difference in sound of usb cables through a semi-high end audio system. With digital cables, the signal either passes to the next component or it doesn't; there's no in between or "better" transmission. It's one or the other, therefore it should sound the same.

BUT IT DOESN'T"

 
I am being serious, no intent to troll or stir up trouble/ be a sower of discord. I can't really accept it either, I was 95% expecting no difference and 5% expecting the slightest lifting of a veil across the audio spectrum... but what did I get? More than that. Well, an hour of A/B'ing between 4 songs and each time I could tell the same differences. I have great ears, but I still believe anyone would be able to hear it.
 
My mind is not playing tricks, I HEAR IT. I am mad, because the audioquest cable is inferior compared to the tellerium cable I loaned from a dealer. I can't believe the difference because 1. it's a digital cable and 2. it's being processed by the dac and then the amp; after the dac, it should sound the same.
 
I will elaborate on each track I tried and what exactly sounded different later on. I'm startled by my testing and don't feel like typing now. (I already feel it's a waste of time to write about this but I will do it).
 
Two things I need to consider though. The audioquest carbon cable uses copper, the tellerium is pure silver. Also, the tellerium is about 1 meter, whereas the audioquest is 1.5 meters.
 
I also used SoX resampler to upsample to 192 even though CD rips are at 44.1 bitrate. All songs are in wav format. I noticed songs clipping more often, while being upsampled, when using the audioquest.
 
I would actually consider paying the 350$ for the tellerium if I can sell the audioquest for what it cost me. And my coworkers and I at the Hi-Fi boutique were laughing about the ludicrous price of this cable just earlier today.
 
I don't want to create any hype, but I think I'm a believer now

 
Daniel
 
(more to come)
 

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

Here's a facebook post I made just now:
 

"Nerdiest thing in the world. Testing the difference in sound of usb cables through a semi-high end audio system. With digital cables, the signal either passes to the next component or it doesn't; there's no in between or "better" transmission. It's one or the other, therefore it should sound the same.

BUT IT DOESN'T"

 
I am being serious, no intent to troll or stir up trouble/ be a sower of discord. I can't really accept it either, I was 95% expecting no difference and 5% expecting the slightest lifting of a veil across the audio spectrum... but what did I get? More than that. Well, an hour of A/B'ing between 4 songs and each time I could tell the same differences. I have great ears, but I still believe anyone would be able to hear it.
 
My mind is not playing tricks, I HEAR IT. I am mad, because the audioquest cable is inferior compared to the tellerium cable I loaned from a dealer. I can't believe the difference because 1. it's a digital cable and 2. it's being processed by the dac and then the amp; after the dac, it should sound the same.
 
I will elaborate on each track I tried and what exactly sounded different later on. I'm startled by my testing and don't feel like typing now. (I already feel it's a waste of time to write about this but I will do it).
 
Two things I need to consider though. The audioquest carbon cable uses copper, the tellerium is pure silver. Also, the tellerium is about 1 meter, whereas the audioquest is 1.5 meters.
 
I also used SoX resampler to upsample to 192 even though CD rips are at 44.1 bitrate. All songs are in wav format. I noticed songs clipping more often, while being upsampled, when using the audioquest.
 
I would actually consider paying the 350$ for the tellerium if I can sell the audioquest for what it cost me. And my coworkers and I at the Hi-Fi boutique were laughing about the ludicrous price of this cable just earlier today.
 
I don't want to create any hype, but I think I'm a believer now

 
Daniel
 
(more to come)
 

Not being rude, mean, or trolling you. I actually sit in a neutral camp.
 
Why if no one has ever successfully DBT cables do you find your ears to be the exception, if not for placebo?

 

[dleblanc343]

It's not placebo because there is one bird cry in a song I can literally not hear with one cable and barely hear at all with the other.
 
I can't explain this scientifically, but I can hear it!
 
And this is after inter-changing cables at least 12 times

 

[bigshot]

The fact that it took you an hour of back and forth A/Bing tells me that the difference is likely very small, if a difference exists at all. Once you've line level matched and set up the switcher, the actual comparison shouldn't take a lot of time.

 

[bigshot]

It's not placebo because there is one bird cry in a song I can literally not hear with one cable and barely hear at all with the other.

Did you set up a preamp on each and line level match? I bet that's your problem here.

If you didn't have a switcher to directly compare, it's no good. Auditory memory for similar sounds won't hold up more than a second or two.

 

[Griploc]

 playing any music through my apogee symphony io is definitely a boost in quality when it comes to sound big shot. if you are curious to how my room is set up i am using mackie hr 824 mk2's. a well acoustically treated environment, mapleshade audio mounting system for my apogee symphony io  and mapleshade audio isoblocks under my imac. i have much more gear, just giving you an idea of the signal chain from computer to dac to nearfield monitors. mogami cabling throughout system as well
 
 
 
 

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

Did you set up a preamp on each and line level match? I bet that's your problem here.
If you didn't have a switcher to directly compare, it's no good. Auditory memory for similar sounds won't hold up more than a second or two.

x2 ^ I don't mean to belittle your finding or anything. It's almost impossible to do a legitimate A/B switch.

 

[Citan]

Quote:

Did you set up a preamp on each and line level match? I bet that's your problem here.
If you didn't have a switcher to directly compare, it's no good. Auditory memory for similar sounds won't hold up more than a second or two.

Winner!

 

[bigshot]

 playing any music through my apogee symphony io is definitely a boost in quality when it comes to sound big shot.

I've done production sound recording and editing, and I've supervised sound mixes. I had a 24 bit ProTools workstation on my desk at work. I did a lot of testing, because I was the recording and post production supervisor and was responsible for every single track.

What I found was that for recording, ProTools kicked ass. I could take an off mike vocal or a soft guitar lick and boost it as far as I wanted and there would be no noise. But once a mix was done and the track was bounced down to redbook, I could play it on ProTools or on a $150 Yamaha CD player and it sounded the same. The improved quality of the equipment only applied to raising the volume of quiet stuff. At normal listening volume it was identical.

Try a direct A/B line level matched comparison yourself. With a mixing board, it's easy to do. Yu'll find out what I'm talking about.

 

[drez]

Quote:

 
If something runs counter to accepted and already proven theories it is the responsibility of the former to prove the existence and/or validity of the claim. Just as lack of proof doesn't necessarily imply falsehood, lack of proof to the contrary is not equivalent to truism.
 
If A is true and any such B contradicts A, proving B is true would mean A is untrue. Inductively if B cannot be proved true we can say A is true in the general case. If no arbitrary B can be produced we can say that A is true and B is false.
 
To me (correct me if I am wrong), to prove there is a difference in sound one would have to:
 
A) Show quantitatively that an average (working) USB cable is unable to transport data as well as a high end cable. This can be done through monitoring packets or otherwise. Since it is a digital signal it should be bit perfect, this is quite easily to verify unlike analog signal that can depend on the sensitivity of the testing instruments. If the data is verified as having no errors it is unequivocal proof that cables make no difference.
 
B) ABX testing with statistically valid sample sizes. Since with any statistical test even as n goes to infinity one cannot state with true certainty ABX testing is only useful if case A) is inconclusive. It A proves there is no data degradation or otherwise but ABX testing shows statistically valid differences the analytic solution will always take precedence over statistical and numerical methods. 
 
This argument cannot be necessarily extended to analog signal because then you are limited by the accuracy and precision of measuring equipment.

 
My point was not to equate evidence, proof and reality but rather the opposite - to bring into focus the tacit belief that in order for something to be real it must first have evidence or proof withing a commonly acknowledged theoretical framework - in this case science.  My point is that there should be distinction between what is considered real and what is considered proven or evidenced by science, otherwise one ends up in a state of hopeless nihilism unable to operate or make progress without the assurance of veritable evidence or proof.  In my previous post I took this philosophy to an extreme case to show that we necessarily consider things which we do not have direct evidence of to be real usually if they agree with our own experiences or understanding of what is possible or likely - but in effect these are best-fit extrapolations reliant on faith in our own experience and understanding of the natural world.
 
Regarding what you are proposing to be necessary to provide evidence of the influence of USB cables of sound quality for:
 
A)  The USB specification provides the requirement of 90 Ohms +/- 15% between the digital conductors in order to minimise the signal reflectoins due to impedance of the USB sender and receiver chips.  This impedance is a product of capacitance and inductance in the cable.  One can achieve impedance withing this tolerance with a range of consuctor sizes, shielding arrangements etc but most standard USB cables use a 28 AWG copper conductor twisted or parralel pair with foil shielding and braided tinned copper shield.  Many of the aftermarket cables use  larger gauge for the digital pair or +5V and Gnd conductors in order to minimise resistive losses.  Different shielding and damping arrangements can reduce RF and EM interference as well as crosstalk and microphonics between the wires.  The aim of all this is to transmit the cleanest square waveform possible, however one cannot reduce characteristic impedance past the 90 Ohms +/- 15% otherwise you might increase signal reflections, therefore at most you can possibly reduce resistive loss and noise/interference making the square wave harder to read.  Possibly one could tune the relationship between capacitance and inductance to reduce phase distortion also.  One manufacturer showed a square wave pattern from their cable as part of marketing but in general most manufacturers don't bother with emprirical measurements and rely instead on marketing and reputation/reviews.  The only possibility for USB cable to make an influence is by affecting jitter (resulting from uncertainty in reading the square waveform) and noise of the USB signal.  There is however one sure-fire way to reduce all of these losses which is to use a shorter cable - and unsurprisingly the more expensive USB cables tend to come in shorter lengths than the cheaper models - is this a coincidence?  IMO probably not.
 
B)  ABX testing - if USB cables to perform significantly differently then yes ABX testing might be able to show a difference.  Problem is that in most ABX tests people have not been able to discern very small differences in sound quality - the one possible exception being the blind tests that ESS conducted when developing the SABRE DAC.  IMO blind testing is very difficult - even for very obvious differences the test can be confusing.  On the other hand cognitive biases make sighted testing problematic.
 
My opinion is that people do hear differences, but unfortunately it is difficult to tell good from bad.  IME jitter does not always cause a harsher or more grainy sound - in fact it can sound euphonic in my experience.  Because of this it is difficult to tell which audio cues people are responding to.  On the other hand - eye diagrams and distortion plots may not tell you whether the resulting sound will be to your taste.  ABX testing might be an answer if it were less prone to produce null results IMO.

 

[Griploc]

i dont think i agree with your statement. i am also a protools user and i notice improved sound quality on a pro tools session rather than being bounced down to iTunes or downs-ampled from 24 to a 16 bit on a cd to a cd player and a/bing it with my apogee symphony io through my imac or even through my earlier apogee ensemble. huge differences. i am sorry but i do not agree.

 

[danne]

Quote:

I've done production sound recording and editing, and I've supervised sound mixes. I had a 24 bit ProTools workstation on my desk at work. I did a lot of testing, because I was the recording and post production supervisor and was responsible for every single track.
What I found was that for recording, ProTools kicked ass. I could take an off mike vocal or a soft guitar lick and boost it as far as I wanted and there would be no noise. But once a mix was done and the track was bounced down to redbook, I could play it on ProTools or on a $150 Yamaha CD player and it sounded the same. The improved quality of the equipment only applied to raising the volume of quiet stuff. At normal listening volume it was identical.
Try a direct A/B line level matched comparison yourself. With a mixing board, it's easy to do. Yu'll find out what I'm talking about.

 
I really do think you should source out your local dealer and ask them to demo some sources for you, couse unlike USB cables, DAC's and CDplayers are well known for making a big diffrence in sound (more or less anyone could tell you this).