[Logistics]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't know, I got a 7ft Monster USB2 cable and it works just fine some ppl will disagree, mainly coz of the skin effect http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/si...6/#post3160410

Let's be realistic, here. Even if a person considers there to be better things than silver-plated OFC, whether the application is speaker-wire or data-cables, is the result really bad?

A person may argue that you would have to have a very high-quality rig to hear the differences, but in such a case, on such a respectable set-up, could the sound ever really be considered bad as opposed to just different or not quite as enjoyable, etc.

And, again since everyone hears different, one person claiming that silver-plated copper brings out detrimental effects does not set the standard for what will happen in another listeners case. I do think however, that posts like that should be used as a foundation for pushing the point that people really need to worry about the quality of their overall rig before trying to buy exotic IC's. Should one care about a 3.5mm to Stereo RCA cable made with silver wire and connectors when they are running off a $9.99 sound card to a bargain-brand reciever/set of PC speakers?

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logistics /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let's be realistic, here. Even if a person considers there to be better things than silver-plated OFC, whether the application is speaker-wire or data-cables, is the result really bad?

using silver in USB cables seems pretty ludicrous to me, and a pretty poor sales bs attempt

electricity is like air, it's lazy...hence the skin effect...and I put good credit to this guy's post, as I've noticed IRL some of the things he's talking about..

my point was that not everyone will agree about SPC being better than plain copper...and anyway he was talking about it in the analog world, not USB data

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefectiveAudioComponent /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, the movement of air is there, the sound is not. Sound is a percept. No people - no sound - but still movement of air.

What about bears? Dogs? Bats, trees, blah blah...?

What about a microphone? Seems you are saying that unless there is something that receives the sound wave energy there is no sound. Okay, the stimulus is there, whether received & interpreted or not.

What was the point again?

 

[obobskivich]

YouTube - Open-mindedness

 

[Auzner]

Watch the video a second time and replace "ghosts" with "audiophile grade usb cable". Then you have this thread in a nutshell.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefectiveAudioComponent /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, the movement of air is there, the sound is not. Sound is a percept. No people - no sound - but still movement of air.

My bad, I thought we were discussing the practicalities of audio, rather than the philosophy of Descartes.

G

 

[Auzner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 After 100 or so hours of burn-in time, I am now prepared to give some impressions on the new Wireworld Ultraviolet USB cable . If you are one that doesn’t believe in equipment or cable burn-in, you might as well just stop here, for I’m not looking for an argument on whether it’s real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 after numerous evenings reading every blog I could find on each, I ran across an inexpensive alternative, the UltaViolet ($55). Not much is written about the Ultraviolet, but Wireworld has made some nice cables in the past, and for the price? – I’ll give it a try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 Now I can’t definitively say that the Wireworld is dramatically better than the Kimber or how it compares to its more expensive counterparts, I haven’t tried them. I can say that the UltraViolet does make a nice improvement in detail retrieval and musicality over stock USB cables. It sounds less edgy and has no hint of brightness, like all the stock USB cables I’ve tried. It also has better left to right balance and places instruments in the soundstage much more accurately. For the money, it is a steal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 I am not a student of the digital realm and have far less an understanding of it. For this reason, I have no preconcieved ideas involving it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 When companies like Poeima, Kimber, and Wireworld proport to have made improvements in an area I have less of an understanding about, I don't let my ignorance stand in the way of trying something new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 This is, after all, what a hobby is all about. I stand by what I hear, and this cable makes a nice improvement in sound - for whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless1 I see the religious zealots have come out of the Church of Science to crap on another thread. Please ignore their rude behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless1 I'll take your impression over their sanctimonious behavior any day. If I want to hear these zealots preach I'll attend their church aka sound science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless1 It is nice to see a head-fier actually want to make their own decisions based on what they hear. Lately, there seems to be far too little of that. You researched the topic, entered with an open mind and listened. You heard a difference. Not a small difference based on your report. Great experiment and I would encourage you to continue to trust your ears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless1 I'm always reminded that we all hear differently when my wife listens to my gear. She will talk about subtle differences when changing gear or headphones. They are not subtle to me. There are clear and distinct differences. No, I don't have golden ears and I don't make changes for subtle differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry don't feed bob, he ain't worth it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 I asked the naysayers to remain on the sidelines and not enter this thread, but they just don’t get it. This thread was clearly for audiophiles who care about improving their sound. The science, or lack of it, was not the issue here, as there is a clear and distinct improvement in sound quality with this cable. Whether the science supports it or not – I do not care. And if you don’t believe there can be a difference, why get involved in this thread anyway? It simply isn’t for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 Obobskivitch - I pretty much know where you stand from other threads you post in so why get involved here? You don't believe, so why make the point over and over again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 I wonder what advancements in science we would have if everyone had the finite thought patterns I see here on HeadFi. If scientists didn’t think out of the box, would there be any advancements in drugs, disease prevention, or anything else? Probably not, for experimentation is just that – using different unknown and unproven ideas to advance science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 I believe that, like power cords, much of the reason a USB cable can sound better is RFI/EMI rejection. Whether there are other reasons, I don’t know or care at this point. I wonder how many audiophiles or (at least) audio hobbyists are really here. I’m positive that there are many that can’t really hear here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 And Obobskivitch, your suggestion that I need to understand digital before making listening observations is ludicrous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry well, if you run some quick google search you can find tons of testimonials from ppl who tried different types of USB cables and prefered one brand over another....the most important is indeed one's satisfaction in the end

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 Hey OboBSkivich, I finally get it. There really is no one hear that cares about audio. Just people like you that love to hear themselves talk. YAK YAK YAK, you just can't stop. Your opinions are the most important in every thread, or you'll make sure they are by hijacking the thread with hundreds of responses. Let’s just count your replies here. I've asked you nicely to drop out, but you just won't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgun5 These are my non-audio observations: 1) You are self-important. 2) You must have been bullied as a child. 3) You must not hold a job, or should be fired for taking entire days to write to a blog. 4) You are rude by design, but love to post quotations to prove that everyone else really is. I’ve only been involved in one thread with you and have had enough.

 

[olblueyez]

Later Fellows, I am ditching my cable thread subscriptions. Good Luck.

 

[mbd2884]

The OP seems to me an April Fool's joke.

 

[mape00]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The OP seems to me an April Fool's joke.

My thought too. It was so over the top.

 

[krmathis]

I think someone have had a couple of these.

 

[AudioPhewl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The OP seems to me an April Fool's joke.

But on my monitor, it was posted 04-02-2009, 04:33 AM. So I guess the fool is on him...

~Phewl.

 

[hybris]

In a futile hope of ending this (an similar discussions about HDMI cables and the like) I actually contacted the guys behind the USB standard with this issue.

I got the following reply:

"(..)Every data component moved via USB is "protected" by a CRC16 calculation that detects random bit changes and causes the entire altered payload to be discarded. Of course if data is being discarded on transfer and is never delivered source-to-sync there will be at least degradation in the sound quality, but it really is a matter of "if there are no transmission errors the signal is the signal" and we (the USB developers) have worked very hard to ensure that any data transmitted via USB is valid -or- we know an error occurred.

As for timing/latency concerns, you need to look into the USB audio specification details and how audio signals are digitized in order to see that momentary signal latency in a USB cable has nothing to do with audio timing -- the time base is also carried in a digital way and the audio waveform is not dependent on "now" (generally it's encoded in the signal or derived from the manner in which the digital samples are handled).

For a really good discussion on how USB "works" (that's easier to read than the specifications) try looking at "USB Complete" by Jan Axelson <http://www.lvr.com/>.

BTW, any digital transmission that does not include the capability to determine error/non-error transmission is fundamentally broken.(..)


As far as I can see this means that
a) in practice an invalid data packet is discarded and resent - and
b) there is no timing issue in USB cables that affect the audio signal
c) as a result of a and b, any functional USB cable will give you a perfect transmission

EDIT: It's also interesting to note that a regular high speed USB cable is capable of transmissions up to 480Mb/s, while a full PCM audio signal is what, 1.3Mb/s? So it would be a bit weird if regular cables had serious problems with transmitting this information correctly.

 

[hybris]

Synchronisation and reliable transfer of audio is also a basis for the USB spec:
"An essential issue in audio is synchronization of the data streams. Indeed, the smallest artifacts are easily
detected by the human ear. Therefore, a robust synchronization scheme on isochronous transfers has been
developed and incorporated in the USB Specification. The Audio Device Class definition adheres to this
synchronization scheme to transport audio data reliably over the bus"

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybris /img/forum/go_quote.gif EDIT: It's also interesting to note that a regular high speed USB cable is capable of transmissions up to 480Mb/s, while a full PCM audio signal is what, 1.3Mb/s? So it would be a bit weird if regular cables had serious problems with transmitting this information correctly.

But USB 1 is only 80Mb/s which is a lot slower, would this make my music sound slower? Could this ruin my large collection of Happy Hardcore by slowing down the BPM, lowering the pitch and making it sound like proper music?

G