[Prog Rock Man]

With regards to earlier discussion about the idea that there is an unknown factor in cables that causes sund quality differences we should consider -
 
 - no cable company has found a new property in cables, all the properties they discuss have been known since the 19th century, even skin effect.
 
 - no cable company has had their science peer reviewed or accredited by any authority, such as a university.
 
 - no cable company has published any ABX or even blind test results, so they miss out part of the evidence as to the audiblity of cable differences
 
 - no cable company can explain the inconsistency in how each has its own design of cable, often criticises other's design and yet all improve sound
 
- no cable company can link measureable differences in cables to changes in sound quality (one that tried had to withdraw that claim as there was insufficient proof when challenged)
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
 
With regards to USB cable blind testing, Milosz has conducted one and it was negative (results and test description to be published on his website) and I did one, in as much I set one up and then stopped after about 5 changes as I knew I was guessing and could not tell any difference. So it is not rigourous enough for me to have ever published it, but I tried and see no reason to so so again, especially since I have two available DACs and various USB cables and have never heard a difference with any cable changes.
 
 

 

[dvw]

Quote:

 
 
 - no cable company can explain the inconsistency in how each has its own design of cable, often criticises other's design and yet all improve sound
 
 
 

Actually, if they can provide an example of how a bad design of a spec compliant cable can ruin the sound, that will be a good start. If R&D is actually done there should be plenty of failed designs.
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Yes, a cable either works or it does not. It cannot affect sound quality such as treble, bass etc.
 
Thing is, some cable companies claim extensive R&D and some have been on the go since the 1970s. Surely after all that time and research we would have a clear idea as to how a cable, any cable affects sound quality. But we don't.

 

[tkteo]

I admit to buying "audiophile" quality power cords and interconnects to connect my equipment ever since I got started into hifi audio.
 
I have held off on getting the higher end cables. But the more I read, the more question whether, at the least, paying the often exorbitant prices really make a difference, as compared to upgrading disc player, amp, and headphone.
 
Well maybe I am paying more for the more expensive cables because of the materials used (e.g. copper with more "nines" or silver) but that is me paying more for materials and not better sound.
 
The idea of a USB cable costing hundreds to thousands of dollars is really scary.

 

[drez]

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of digital cables affecting audio quality outright.  Jitter is a real scientific phenomenon in digital signal transmission and it can have real effects no the distortion of a piece of equipment.  The degree of error is dependent upon the sampling rate the higher the frequency, AFAIK, the lower the jitter tolerance of the receiver chip.  A cable that works fine at 44.1 kHz might start introducing artifacts at 192 kHz - I have witnessed this with an overpriced coax I just bought.  The artifacts tend to be most noticeable in the treble, don't ask me why.  Having witnessed this I think it is perfectly reasonable that some USB cables in some setups might improve sound quality.
 
Problem is that cable manufacturers don't seem to need to publish any actual performance figures for their cables, so it is down to audiophiles to try and tell them apart with their ears (and unfortunately often their eyes and little brains).  Until someone actually does some concrete testing we are, I'm afraid stuck with this form of imprecise "research," which to be honest seems to be how many cable manufacturers seem to develop their products also, along with plenty of creative [mostly fictional] writing for marketing campaigns.  It's not an appealing prospect but for the time being we have to put up with it, or not...

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of digital cables affecting audio quality outright.  Jitter is a real scientific phenomenon in digital signal transmission and it can have real effects no the distortion of a piece of equipment.  The degree of error is dependent upon the sampling rate the higher the frequency, AFAIK, the lower the jitter tolerance of the receiver chip.  A cable that works fine at 44.1 kHz might start introducing artifacts at 192 kHz - I have witnessed this with an overpriced coax I just bought.  The artifacts tend to be most noticeable in the treble, don't ask me why.  Having witnessed this I think it is perfectly reasonable that some USB cables in some setups might improve sound quality.
 
Problem is that cable manufacturers don't seem to need to publish any actual performance figures for their cables, so it is down to audiophiles to try and tell them apart with their ears (and unfortunately often their eyes and little brains).  Until someone actually does some concrete testing we are, I'm afraid stuck with this form of imprecise "research," which to be honest seems to be how many cable manufacturers seem to develop their products also, along with plenty of creative [mostly fictional] writing for marketing campaigns.  It's not an appealing prospect but for the time being we have to put up with it, or not...

The problem is that jitter in the quantities in even half-competent gear has not once been shown to be audible, and there has been at least one extensive study (perhaps more) showing that it has to be orders of magnitude higher than in normal competent gear to become audible.
 
Anecdotal accounts are not acceptable evidence.

 

[jackmccabe]

Quote:

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of digital cables affecting audio quality outright.  Jitter is a real scientific phenomenon in digital signal transmission and it can have real effects no the distortion of a piece of equipment.  The degree of error is dependent upon the sampling rate the higher the frequency, AFAIK, the lower the jitter tolerance of the receiver chip.  A cable that works fine at 44.1 kHz might start introducing artifacts at 192 kHz - I have witnessed this with an overpriced coax I just bought.  The artifacts tend to be most noticeable in the treble, don't ask me why.  Having witnessed this I think it is perfectly reasonable that some USB cables in some setups might improve sound quality.
 
Problem is that cable manufacturers don't seem to need to publish any actual performance figures for their cables, so it is down to audiophiles to try and tell them apart with their ears (and unfortunately often their eyes and little brains).  Until someone actually does some concrete testing we are, I'm afraid stuck with this form of imprecise "research," which to be honest seems to be how many cable manufacturers seem to develop their products also, along with plenty of creative [mostly fictional] writing for marketing campaigns.  It's not an appealing prospect but for the time being we have to put up with it, or not...

You mean they can't because they would show there isn't a difference.
All cable measurements ever taken have shown that cables make no difference.
 
 

 

[Willakan]

I remember nick_charles naming some jitter studies - there are quite a lot of them. (following is from memory, unable to locate the study again, but should be largely correct) I read a paragraph at the end of one of them which summarised the results of the study and various others - this includes studies conducted with random people, trained listeners (which are generally a helluva lot better at hearing things than your average "golden ears") and some with a mixture. Quite a lot of them found that even with trained listeners, hundreds of ns (one was 300ns if I recall) of jitter was required to be audible - this is a gigantic amount of jitter.
 
The study which involved people listening to square waves to try to hear jitter (as opposed to actual music) found they could only hear 30ns of jitter - still much more than most digital equipment - and this from listening to tones chosen for their ability to show up jitter! Just to put things in perspective, the not-particularly-special clock in the Asus Essence ST "audiophile" soundcard at £140 is rated at 200ps of jitter - that's ps, not ns, a picosecond being a thousandth of a millisecond.
 
The bottom line is IMO, the salesmen trying to sell digital equipment discovered a problem - getting all the specs pretty decent wasn't too difficult - how do they make their product stand out? AHAH! We shall go to great lengths to eliminate jitter, which isn't really much of a problem to start with, and then rely on the general fallibility of the human ear to make up differences in sound signature! 
 
Suggesting that CABLES would have an audible effect due to jitter is faintly ridiculous - the effect this would have on a problem that is probably already inaudible (unless your equipment is crap) is utterly minute.
 
Besides, most half-decent DACs reclock and oversample to make the problem that's not even a problem even more irrelevant.
 
As usual, talking about cables, jitter and audibility as if this cable will make it better is a horrible abuse of science (not that cable manufacturers would ever publish totally misleading BS to sell their products that do nothing aside from demonstrate just how well the audio-based equivalent of the placebo effect works)

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of digital cables affecting audio quality outright.  Jitter is a real scientific phenomenon in digital signal transmission and it can have real effects no the distortion of a piece of equipment.  The degree of error is dependent upon the sampling rate the higher the frequency, AFAIK, the lower the jitter tolerance of the receiver chip.  A cable that works fine at 44.1 kHz might start introducing artifacts at 192 kHz
 
A bog-standard 75 ohm coax cable has a bandwidth of 100s of MHz if not a few gigahertz, normal digital audio signals at whatever sampling frequency are easy-peasy and Toslink has an even higher bandwidth ! - what you are getting mixed up with is the effect of jitter on audio frequencies not sampling frequencies, jitter does have a greater effect on higher frequencies and on higher bit-rates - jitter at the same magnitude will be more damaging on a 20K signal than on one at 1K, however as mentioed elsewhere jitter has to be at absurd levels (several 10s of ns) to create audible distortion. Jitter is just not something to worry about. There is not one verifiable case of jitter in the sub-ns level being audibly detected  - ever.  Worry about the government, the economy or the state of British tennis if you wish but not jitter, it is wasted worry

 
- I have witnessed this with an overpriced coax I just bought.  The artifacts tend to be most noticeable in the treble, don't ask me why.  Having witnessed this I think it is perfectly reasonable that some USB cables in some setups might improve sound quality.
 
You've verified this with some controlled tests right ?
 
Problem is that cable manufacturers don't seem to need to publish any actual performance figures for their cables, so it is down to audiophiles to try and tell them apart with their ears (and unfortunately often their eyes and little brains).  Until someone actually does some concrete testing we are, I'm afraid stuck with this form of imprecise "research," which to be honest seems to be how many cable manufacturers seem to develop their products also, along with plenty of creative [mostly fictional] writing for marketing campaigns.  It's not an appealing prospect but for the time being we have to put up with it, or not...
 
Wavoman did some blind tests on digital audio cables, nobody could tell them apart !
 

 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Wavoman did some blind tests on digital audio cables, nobody could tell them apart !

 

I was there for one of the tests.  It was with a $1000 usb cable and Wavo's esoteric rig.  No one could tell it from a really cheapie (freebie) looking cable.  So what!
 
Please stop confusing us with the facts. 

 
 

 

[High_Q]

Guys.  I'm gonna need a break down of what when into the building of the $1000 usb cable(labor, parts, marketing, holy water etc).  Thanks.
 
High_Q
 
Quote:

I was there for one of the tests.  It was with a $1000 usb cable and Wavo's esoteric rig.  No one could tell it from a really cheapie (freebie) looking cable.  So what!
 
Please stop confusing us with the facts. 

 
 

 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Guys.  I'm gonna need a break down of what when into the building of the $1000 usb cable(labor, parts, marketing, holy water etc).  Thanks.
 
High_Q
 

Hi High
 
The only thing I remember was that it was very thick and heavy.  I remember remarking that it looked like it would put a lot of strain on a usb port.
 
USG
 

 

[High_Q]

^Cost breakdown please.  

 

[jackmccabe]

Quote:

^Cost breakdown please.  

$5 - materials
$5 - labour
$990 - profit

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

$880 - Ingenuity, Design and Marketing
$5 - materials
$5 - labour
$110 - profit

 
FIFY