jambaj0e
500+ Head-Fier
I see one uncorrelated screen shot claiming to see errors. No average failure rate, no analysis. If I missed those, please point out where they are in the article.
But did you actually read the article in its entirety?
I see one uncorrelated screen shot claiming to see errors. No average failure rate, no analysis. If I missed those, please point out where they are in the article.
But did you actually read the article in its entirety?
He did show it, in the article. Did you not read it?
Gordon Rankin and Darko are selling you something and neither are reliable to provide objective information.
The error rate over a 2m USB cable is extremely low under typical conditions and is simple to test. I have run a continuous USB cable test at 24-bit/192kHz stereo audio for over 24 hours from a laptop to an RME ADI-2 DAC without a single error reported. If there is a meaningful error rate being observed, the cable and/or the connections are problematic. This would not be normal. The error rate is irrelevant for digital audio, but that won't generate any sales for devices that claim to resolve this non-issue. An engineer with savvy marketing skills can gin up some fervor in an attempt to spike sales. I would not rely on Darko or Rankin to show me the light.
There is a USB specification that should be followed.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-bus/universal-serial-bus-specifications.html
I've read this article twice now. I also noted that the only times he mentioned audibility was in reference to music app faulting, not USB transmission.Ok, so did you read what Gordon Rankins wrote about isochronous USB audio transfer and how it is not error free? He's the engineer who created asynchronous USB (jitter clock in the DAC instead of the source) as well as created the Audioquest DragonFly. It's not "simple data transmission" because USB audio streaming is Isochronous (non error-correctin), not Bulk or Interrupt USB protocols (error-correcting).
Here's my problem with all of you naysayers: you say your thing without actually reading what he wrote in its entirety, nor do you even attempt to refute the technical things he said. Go ahead, you seem smart, read what he said starting halfway through this Darko Audio. I'd like to see you counter what he actually wrote:
https://darko.audio/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/
And you really don't think that Gordon, who professionally been an engineer at this for decades haven't done your test and any other tests for error packets? And this error, by the way, is jitter. Is that what you were measuring?
You really don't think he hasn't listened to hundreds if not thousands of USB cables in his career (He also developed the USB audio certification for Apple)? And yet, he and other engineers like him (Paul McGowan) had said there are differences in USB cables and they're audible.
I'm sorry, for all of you guys who summarily dismiss his experience, go ahead. I'd trust his words and experience, as well as the differences I've personally heard on the Chord Dave +LCD-4Z and my Hugo TT2 + Cayin HA-300 + LCD-3.
If you haven't heard a difference, it may just be the cables you've tried (or not tried) or how resolving your system is. On the two I've heard, as well as my friend's Innuos Zen to Innuos Phoenix to M-Scaler to TT2 to LCD-4, I've heard the differences.
This is going round and round to nowhere, so I'm done, we're clearly in an impasse.
Brick N2, after RMAF 2019 there was a lot of talk about this product. At the USB connector is a USB isolator which then goes to the Microchip processor with 20x the buffering of the TAS1020. The processor enumerates at 24/96 (44.1, 48, 88.2, 96KHz sample rates supported) with low jitter dual oscillators and full reclocking before it reaches the NOS DAC chip with resistor IV. The DAC output is then directly coupled to the 12AU7A reactor follower output buffering the NOS DAC and cap coupled to the RCA outputs. Two versions available, Copper reactor $2K and Silver reactor (4x larger) $7500, upgrades available for any previous version of the Brick for $500. New Callisto USB DAC which is a super set of the N2 available soon with silver reactors and wood trim, VT135 output tubes. $10,000 (silver only sorry!).
I've read this article twice now. I also noted that the only times he mentioned audibility was in reference to music app faulting, not USB transmission.
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that he intentionally left that part out, though. For all I know it's because he's an engineer and so he's more interested in overkill and redundancy than he is in audibility.
I think the reason others in this thread (myself included) aren't trusting Rankin's words is precisely because he's such an accomplished engineer. He's got a clear bias toward favoring the things he's worked on. Can you imagine working for decades at something only to realize that it didn't matter? Yeesh. That would suck.
But why do you think it doesn't matter, have you put in the amount of work that he has accomplished? Don't forget, he has also created many things, including the Dragonfly USB Dac. Like I said, just as you guys don't trust forum reader's words, I'd rather trust engineers with his resume, as well as Paul McGowan, and others whose job has been to test audio equipment every single day like Darren (designer at PS Audio) and Duncan (Testing tech at The Music Room). All who also said USB cables can make a difference.
https://www.thehifipodcast.net/about
Sorry, I don't quite understand— why do I think what doesn't matter? Audiophile USB cables? To be honest, I don't know enough to unequivocally come down on one side or the other, though I remain highly skeptical for the reasons outlined by others here.But why do you think it doesn't matter, have you put in the amount of work that he has accomplished? Don't forget, he has also created many things, including the Dragonfly USB Dac. Like I said, just as you guys don't trust forum reader's words, I'd rather trust engineers with his resume, as well as Paul McGowan, and others whose job has been to test audio equipment every single day like Darren (designer at PS Audio) and Duncan (Testing tech at The Music Room). All who also said USB cables can make a difference.
https://www.thehifipodcast.net/about
This is where you and I differ: for me, pudding is something that is cooked on the stovetop, not in the oven.well, hmmmm
I share a small part of that school of thought with him too.
World Is full of people who believe too much in their ownreasoning and lab measurements.
I am a firm "believer" that as yet we can not measure everything fully, and the proof of the pudding is not in the recipe or the temperature of the oven!
at the same time, I am a firm believer that cables can be made badly, but there is no magic for making proper cables.
...Also, to the regulars in the Sound Science forum: I really wish you'd watch your language a little more closely. I know you're not directly being uncivil, but phrases like "rip off," "overpriced," "hand waving" all carry negative connotations with them...It's what the kids call micro-aggressions.
On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc.
I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance). The whole thing is that a lot of people over 'there' are quite convinced that they, indeed, do.
Fair enough. But by calling him amoral you're implying that people that believe him are either also amoral (by knowingly believing him) or dupes (by unknowingly believing him). Also, you don't know that he's amoral. As I tried to explain above (maybe unsuccessfully), for all we know he's just a guy that's trying to get his job done as best he can. Or maybe he's amoral. We don't know!I consider charging what Gordon does for a DAC to be a macro-aggression. Perhaps direct your offense to the snake oil salesmen, not the people pointing out that it's snake-oil. After several posts on a topic about someone who I think is amoral, I'll call them as such.
Fair enough. But by calling him amoral you're implying that people that believe him are either also amoral (by knowingly believing him) or dupes (by unknowingly believing him). Also, you don't know that he's amoral. As I tried to explain above (maybe unsuccessfully), for all we know he's just a guy that's trying to get his job done as best he can. Or maybe he's amoral. We don't know!
Also, I wasn't taking offense. I honestly think that being as civil and understanding as possible is the best way to teach somebody something. Or, in keeping with the thread, to convince them.