Can somebody explain why everybody wants to upgrade digital cables?

[Light - Man]

Guys, I am keeping out of this one for the moment - having thought about it for that moment, I have decided to make no meaningful comment - hence do not even bother reading my post.

 
Seriously, if you get a chance to hear a few different cables then give it a go, if you think it makes a difference and you can afford it, then go for it.

 

[Tadgh]

  Digital cabling doesn't need to be exotic or hyper-expensive. The 75-ohms spec (coaxial unbal) for the connectors, if it's met, is sufficient to get excellent results.
 
BJC has a good write-up on digital cabling:
 
 
What's the difference between analog vs. digital cables?
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/digitalanalog.htm

What is cable impedance and why is it important?
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/impedance.htm

Well, while I'm not sure I'll ever really buy into the idea of superior or inferior digital cabling (minus build, impedance and aesthetics) - I think the idea of not needing to throw money at something to achieve results is one we can call get behind
 
Interesting stuff! Thank you for citing sources!
 

 
In the end, if somebody says they hear an improvement with an expensive A-M cable, and that it gives their system a positive improvement that they enjoy, than so be it. No shame or shaming, in my book. It's their money. Who am I to chide anyone? Just saying.... 

There's wisdom in that, but that holds no weight in scientific discussion
 

 
True. Gold plating is done to resist corrosion, no? And for cosmetics. Not for transmission enhancement. Bling.

Spot on. I wouldn't even question the use of some gold plating - I managed to get some RAM modules in prolonged expose to an acidic liquid the last day, but the connectors (being gold plated, and hence highly unreactive) were fine!
 
The bling is nice though B)

  LOL, Grado has no "engineers". They tune their HPs by ear.

They should hire me, I'd listen to their cans all day for money
 

  Depending on what digital cable you're using. USB cables are not too important beyond having them rate at a 90ohm impedance so that the PHY chip runs within spec and creates as little noise from the IC as possible. The more it has to work then the more it will send noise into the DAC and translate to audible noise. From what I understand, it's called SI or signal integrity. Not just another buzz word, but a real thing. There is one device that helps boost the SI and it's called Uptone USB Regen.  Kinda defeats needing a decent USB cable. But this will actually help and pass DBT's.  I don't believe super fancy cables are needed as digital information being lost isn't the reason why one cable sounds better than the other. It's down to a few variables, SI being the most important and jitter being the second. read a little more here. Have copper, silver, rhodium or gold or whatever...whatever... keep the cable @ 90ohm end to end and within USB spec. most cable manufacturers miss this and create issues that could be audible and create that difference in sound that people mention. 
 
http://www.audiostream.com/content/uptone-audio-usb-regen#hc9VyLMxuEAmHsRD.97
 
 
other cables like coax should be 75ohm
 
and toslink, not really too sure on this subject. I figure as long as the cable is in good order and optically perfect and unscratched tips.
 
 
Another note about USB.... they have a power and a data side. Some of the better DAC's choose to self power their own USB inputs with on board linear power. This is a big improvement! But the USB cable can get some noise based off of dirty power being in the line. The packets are still being sent, yet this noise translates down through the system in the form of EMI/RF etc. Sometimes having a dual headed cable or DATA only USB cable can help ease the issue. Or LPS for both source and input.  If you're using a PC with low grade USB ports, the power source is super dirty and not ideal to be sending through a cable into a super sensitive DAC. Just some things to think about. 
 
I'm not saying go out and buy fancy pants cables. Just do a little more research when you're buying them and you'll find something that is cheap and performs well. 

Okay, congratulations, I've bought some of what you have to say (and thank you for citing!), so you win internet points for helping me get a little more rounded regarding this

I'll take your explanation about DACs and how they handle power delivery as being entirely reasonable. SI is indeed, a thing, but shouldn't have any impact on data delivery to a DAC. EMI is not something one should ever try to factor in to small scale transfers like what goes on between a digital output and a DAC. Data servers that hold petabytes of data in hundreds of 1U racks can worry about EMI due to it's implications with bit flip. It's effects on the quality of a DACs output would be (in the most extreme form) negligible. Not sure what RF stand for.
 
While I disagree with a lot you have to say, and will continue to until proven wrong, you've spoken the most sense out of all of the proponents of 'enhanced' digital transfer cables I've heard yet, so thank you!

 

[Tadgh]

You might just be the wisest here

 

[Light - Man]

  You might just be the wisest here

 
We try to set the bar very low here on Head-Fi

 

[bimmer100]

  Well, while I'm not sure I'll ever really buy into the idea of superior or inferior digital cabling (minus build, impedance and aesthetics) - I think the idea of not needing to throw money at something to achieve results is one we can call get behind
 
Interesting stuff! Thank you for citing sources!
 
There's wisdom in that, but that holds no weight in scientific discussion
 
Spot on. I wouldn't even question the use of some gold plating - I managed to get some RAM modules in prolonged expose to an acidic liquid the last day, but the connectors (being gold plated, and hence highly unreactive) were fine!
 
The bling is nice though B)
They should hire me, I'd listen to their cans all day for money
 
Okay, congratulations, I've bought some of what you have to say (and thank you for citing!), so you win internet points for helping me get a little more rounded regarding this

I'll take your explanation about DACs and how they handle power delivery as being entirely reasonable. SI is indeed, a thing, but shouldn't have any impact on data delivery to a DAC. EMI is not something one should ever try to factor in to small scale transfers like what goes on between a digital output and a DAC. Data servers that hold petabytes of data in hundreds of 1U racks can worry about EMI due to it's implications with bit flip. It's effects on the quality of a DACs output would be (in the most extreme form) negligible. Not sure what RF stand for.
 
While I disagree with a lot you have to say, and will continue to until proven wrong, you've spoken the most sense out of all of the proponents of 'enhanced' digital transfer cables I've heard yet, so thank you!

I didn't say that SI impacts data delivery. data delivery is not what is the end all and be all in a USB cable. Rarely is it even the problem or the reason there is audible differences. It's due to the PHY chip and it's required amount to work to translate packets of information. Keeping that PHY chip at it's quietest is the most ideal. So SI must be improved to do this. The less a cable is engineered within spec, the lower the SI and the more the PHY chip has to work. The more the PHY has to work then the more noise it makes. The more noise it makes, the more audible distortions you hear. So it's rather basic. So hopefully you see that i'm not claiming audio is affected by data packets being sent.... they have to be translated or processes by the PHY chip. A USB cable can increase or decrease signal integrity that directly affects the sound quality in the end. Too bad nobody has made any PHY ic's that run more efficiently and effectively. This process is directly affected by how the PHY IC receives these packets with the intended or ideal SI.  the Less IC noise, the better audible sound. 
 
EMI is not a big deal, but certain parts of a DAC are affected by EMI or forms of Eddy current that can be formed from transformers. Proper shielding does make a difference, or absorption films can be used to help tremendously. this is a whole other subject.
the RF is radio frequencies. so many cables are improperly shielded and can act as antenna as you know. So this is relevant to a certain extent. Keeping noise down is the key to good sound, and spending more money doesn't need to be done to achieve it. Just simply do some research and don't throw money at the problem.
 
i'm not sure what you mean by "enhanced" digtal transfer cables??
 
If you have ever used i2s HDMI cables you'll find right away that using a quality cable no longer than .5 or .3 meters is ideal. Trying a 5foot or 10foot HDMI cable will produce audible issues that are easily noticeable with DBT's. 
 
I hate the cable debate, Instead of talking about it, you need to experience it. Some, if not all, misunderstand and think all that happens is packets being transmitted and whether they are received or not with or without errors is the ONLY contributing factor to sound quality. The cable does have more factors at play than just transmitting correct packets of information. Seriously.

 

[bimmer100]

I will side with most in saying that the importance of a cable is based on a few variables and none of them being the amount of money you need to spend on it.
 
 
Unless you want something pretty looking and durable, or.... maybe something with blinky lights or reflective sleeving. I don't know. DON'T CARE.
 
 
I have many nice cables for many reasons. But nothing i've spent money on is an astronomical amount of income. I keep it reasonable. I spend much more on analog cables than digital. Most of my digital cables are no more than 40-50bucks. that's the most anyone would want to spend for a perfectly ideal usb cable. and likely most digital cables.

 

[bimmer100]

  Digital cabling doesn't need to be exotic or hyper-expensive. The 75-ohms spec (coaxial unbal) for the connectors, if it's met, is sufficient to get excellent results.
 
BJC has a good write-up on digital cabling:
 
 
What's the difference between analog vs. digital cables?
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/digitalanalog.htm

What is cable impedance and why is it important?
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/impedance.htm

I'm a big fan of Blue Jeans cables. They know their stuff. They produce quality cables for sure. I own and have owned a couple of their products. But currently the only cable I have of theirs is for my definitive audio supercube 2000. Subwoofer cable. 

 

[icebear]

USB not only transports the digital signal but usually also DC, that's why you can charge small devices via a USB connection.
The DC connection can potentially cause ground loop issues. Cables that omit the DC connection will eliminate that chance.
That can be a simple reason for differences in sound that is not even touching the digital signal.

 

[bimmer100]

I would recommend a quality cable such as the Supra USB cable.
it's properly engineered for maximum performance 90 ohm impedance.
cheap for it's quality too.
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-SUPRA-USB-Cable-USB-A-USB-B-1m-Made-in-Sweden-What-Hi-Fi-/281236730115?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item417b03f103

 

[CanadianMaestro]

  I'm a big fan of Blue Jeans cables. They know their stuff. They produce quality cables for sure. I own and have owned a couple of their products. But currently the only cable I have of theirs is for my definitive audio supercube 2000. Subwoofer cable. 

They make very good Canare BNC cables, and a superb optical (like jewelry!).  I don't like their RCA analog cables, though. Very lean sound, on my system.
 
Here's a USB cable for under $60 (0.5m) that looks and feels great, and seems to do the job:
 
http://www.partsconnexion.com/prod_pdf/ftech_formula2.pdf

 

[bimmer100]

They make very good Canare BNC cables, and a superb optical (like jewelry!).  I don't like their RCA analog cables, though. Very lean sound, on my system.

Here's a USB cable for under $60 (0.5m) that looks and feels great, and seems to do the job:

http://www.partsconnexion.com/prod_pdf/ftech_formula2.pdf

Interesting you say that. The lc-1 sub cable is RCA essentially. Yet I have had good results with it. I haven't tried more than three cables for it yet the Blue jeans cable was best.

The USB cable you mentioned is the same ones used or same wire used for Pangea USB cables and I have several of them. They are pretty good yet same thing is the impedance isn't too tight as it varies about 15% either way as it says in the specs. They still are leaps and bounds better than most USB cables. And I still recommend them to most, yet still prefer supra cables over them. It's splitting hairs but going from basic USB cables with poor manufacturing specifications and lazy engineering... They are quite an upgrade as they allow the PHY ic to create less audible noise in our sensitive high end dac's. You need higher quality headphones/transducers, cleaner power etc to really hear the difference a good USB cable makes over a poor one. They both share the ability to transmit packets of data without error, but.... One had better signal integrity and impedance matching. One may have a fuller or filled out sound than the poor cable. Which usually sounds thin or kids are recessed, bass or just not as defined. The data is all there, but the PHY IC is overworking so much and creating so much noise that it pollutes our Dac with audible disgrace. An average setup you likely won't hear nearly as dramatic differences. They still will be audible enough in some cases.

 

[Light - Man]

 
They make very good Canare BNC cables, and a superb optical (like jewelry!).  I don't like their RCA analog cables, though. Very lean sound, on my system.
 
Here's a USB cable for under $60 (0.5m) that looks and feels great, and seems to do the job:
 
http://www.partsconnexion.com/prod_pdf/ftech_formula2.pdf

Thats the one I have for a about a year now: Furutech Formula 2 USB Cable, mine is 1.8 meter long and I am happy with it.
 
I paid about £55 UK (special price) on Ebay UK from Japan. It is durable and well made and is silver plated and is well reviewed by mags (if you believe the hype and marketing etc.)
 
I had previously tried the Atlas Element USB cable and I found it was lacking a bit of body to the sound???

 

[CanadianMaestro]

@bimmer: Cool. Just as an aside, for my system, the cables that made the biggest improvements are in the following order of significance:
 
1. Power (the metallurgy of the plug blades and IEC make the difference, not the purity of the copper wire).
2. Analog ICs between preamp/poweramp and DAC/line preamp.
 
Digital cables don't make a sharp impact in my system.
 
cheers,

 

[bimmer100]

They make very good Canare BNC cables, and a superb optical (like jewelry!).  I don't like their RCA analog cables, though. Very lean sound, on my system.

Here's a USB cable for under $60 (0.5m) that looks and feels great, and seems to do the job:

http://www.partsconnexion.com/prod_pdf/ftech_formula2.pdf

Here, check out these Pangea cables. The designer makes tons of cables for many manufacturers. It's a good cable overall.

http://www.amazon.com/Pangea-Audio-cable-PCOCC-silver/dp/B005AWQ47G/ref=pd_sim_147_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=121D9RZD3W8DCC45XGRV

 

[CanadianMaestro]

Here, check out these Pangea cables. The designer makes tons of cables for many manufacturers. It's a good cable overall.

http://www.amazon.com/Pangea-Audio-cable-PCOCC-silver/dp/B005AWQ47G/ref=pd_sim_147_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=121D9RZD3W8DCC45XGRV

Looks the same as the Furutech USB Form-2.  Betcha I can't hear any difference.