[ultrabike]

Quote:

 
 
If you are telling me the truth, please seek out Steve from Empirical Audio while you are there. He will be able to tackle anything you throw at him. Then again, I would guess any high-end digital guru could do that.

I've heard some of Steve's products and they did seem to work. He doesn't sell "uber" cables though. I liked his Off-Ramp USB Converter. But I hated it's mundane presentation and it's price.
 
I can also tell you that the USB converter will not turn an HD202 into an SR-009...

 

[ab initio]

Quote:

 
 
Proper specification? Any POS USB cable can have the proper computer specs.  What were talking about here with audiophile cables is minimizing jitter that is introduced within the cable, and minimizing extraneous noise as well as the noise from it's own +5v line. That is what accounts for sound differences. I know that is not what you want to believe, and you most likely won't research much into the subject, but if you wanted to you could certainly find the right answers to satisfy you.

I've been doing some personal research into jitter for the past 5 months to try and parse out fact from fiction. I do not deny the existence of jitter, nor the fact that it may have an audible impact in some cases. However, you can't say "Jitter, QED" to argue that you need $500+ USB cables. Jitter needs to be addressed in the DAC design to account for the tolerances in the transport specifications. If the DAC is designed correctly, it buffers enough data to absorb the jitter occurs within the USB specification, and the resulting bit stream that is being converted by the D to A will be clocked with a low-jitter onboard clock that is independent of the USB clock. As long as your USB components are within spec, the analog output is not affected by USB timing problems, let alone the timing variation introduced by regular cables.
 
The problem with USB and jitter is that USB transfer is clocked by a jittery computer clock. Only a low quality DAC would depend on a USB clock for the D to A timing. If this is the case, I'd be interested in any sources that can clarify the amount of jitter introduced only by the cable, and how it looks in relationship to the jitter of the CPU clock.
 
I'm very happy to be corrected if you can point me to the correct information.
 
Cheers

 

[bigshot]

You suggested to me that my experience in sound recording and post production was irrelevant, and you refer me to an internet forum and a company that sells high end computer cables. I'll offer you a bit of useful advice...

The people who know about a subject and are willing to honestly share their knowledge with you are the ones who use the technology on a daily basis. A salesman is going to just tell you what he thinks will get you to buy the product. That's his job. You would do a lot better to be a little skeptiical of what you are being told by sales reps. Fact check what they're telling you with people who work with the technology professionally, and organizations like AES (Audio Engineering Society) that operates controlled scientific tests to verify claims and identify the thresholds of perception.

You are posting in the sound science forum. This is the forum where it is all right to ask for controlled tests to verify anecdotal listening claims. We're not arguing with you. We're the ones that are trying to help you get the truth.

 

[anetode]

Quote:

 
 
If you are telling me the truth, please seek out Steve from Empirical Audio while you are there. He will be able to tackle anything you throw at him. Then again, I would guess any high-end digital guru could do that.

No, most engineers would disagree with your assertions. There's a way to test this too, ask a random sampling of electrical engineers with audio backgrounds who are not trying to sell you exorbitantly priced audio wares. Steve, as a digital guru, might agree - but then your phrasing has already turned him into an exalted authority and you're not even doing us the courtesy of properly reciting his dogma. You appear to be waving away any attempt at substantive discussion by pointing either to your own ears or other forums or to what amounts to little more than advertising literature.

 

[ab initio]

Quote:

 
I can also tell you that the USB converter will not turn an HD202 into an SR-009...

You mean there's no hope for my HD202's?

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

No, most engineers would disagree with your assertions. There's a way to test this too, ask a random sampling of electrical engineers with audio backgrounds who are not trying to sell you exorbitantly priced audio wares. Steve, as a digital guru, might agree - but then your phrasing has already turned him into an exalted authority and you're not even doing us the courtesy of properly reciting his dogma. You appear to be waving away any attempt at substantive discussion by pointing either to your own ears or other forums or to what amounts to little more than advertising literature.

 
LOL! The only thing approaching an "audiophile grade" USB cable from Steve seems to be his Short Block USB Filter... Which cannot be used with devices depending on USB for power since it severs the 5V supply. In other words, it does not "clean" the power source... I just don't see how a mere cable can do that with out damaging signal integrity.
 
I also don't like Steve prices...

 

[anetode]

Quote:

The problem with USB and jitter is that USB transfer is clocked by a jittery computer clock. Only a low quality DAC would depend on a USB clock for the D to A timing. If this is the case, I'd be interested in any sources that can clarify the amount of jitter introduced only by the cable, and how it looks in relationship to the jitter of the CPU clock.

 
According to USB 2.0 spec cable delay may be no more than 5.2ns/m (.64c). Worst case scenario, at the 5m max length, is then 26ns, which is near the tested audibility threshold. Of course this is prior to being processed by a PLL or ASRC. Maximum round-trip is 1.5 μs before the host considers it lost.

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

You mean there's no hope for my HD202's?

 
There is. You can tune it's frequency response by playing with the miniature bass port inside the enclosure. It helps with the bass and the lower mids. Something else needs to be done to fix the tremble though. It's not a bad headphone for the price IMHO.

 

[esldude]

Quote:

No, most engineers would disagree with your assertions. There's a way to test this too, ask a random sampling of electrical engineers with audio backgrounds who are not trying to sell you exorbitantly priced audio wares. Steve, as a digital guru, might agree - but then your phrasing has already turned him into an exalted authority and you're not even doing us the courtesy of properly reciting his dogma. You appear to be waving away any attempt at substantive discussion by pointing either to your own ears or other forums or to what amounts to little more than advertising literature.

 
 
So are you saying don't ask any smart engineers? 

 

 

[liamstrain]

Originally Posted by robertsong
 
There is no point in being a total weenie and try to rational everything when you can simply use your own ears and draw your own conclusions?

How can you argue against a "high end" $500+ cable if you have never heard one??? 

I have heard cables from several price levels and that is what I based my conclusion on.

 
 
1. Because our ears and brains lie to us (all the time). You must deal with various biases - DBT's and null tests will help inform your listening tests. If you think you hear a difference, but the measurements consistently do not show them, you need to re-evaluate what you think you heard. 
 
2. I have heard many of them. And I have done some objective testing (null tests). I did not hear or see differences in any properly functioning cable built to USB 2.0 spec. The $8 cable performed just as well as the $500 ones Wireworld Platinum, Audioquest Diamond, among them. This, both on my personal equipment, and with the big professional gear at the studio - lest you think my kit isn't resolving enough. 
 
But as for how to argue against them if you haven't heard one - again, objective tests. Also a solid knowledge of the way digital audio works. I don't need to drive a car that claims to get 500 miles to the gallon using the same spec as one that gets 25 to evaluate that claim. Even without a direct experience, I can evaluate the engineering and theory to see if it even CAN achieve the claim, never mind does. 
 
3. Good for you. Biased listening experiences are not considered evidence in this forum - nor would they be by many of your audio engineering buddies. 

 

[White Lotus]

Quote:

 
 
 I encourage you to talk a legitimate audio engineer. He/she will gun you down on every point.

Fully qualified, full time audio engineer here.

Fun fact: If you are linking two digital systems, all you need is a cable that will:
 

• Run at the required bandwidth 
• Be compliant with the required spec (In this case, USB 2.0)
• Not be broken (Each digital standard has a maximum loss rate, before it drops out completely)

 
I really hate to be so blunt, but hey - this is sound science. 

 

[Greenleaf7]

I have treated my cable connectors with Deoxit Gold, and I have added Isopod feet under my DAC. I believe both of those made some sound improvement, but I cannot be certain it wasn't "just in my mind".

With the Dual-Conduit it was not one of these cases. The improvement was not subtle in the least. It was a genuine smack me in the face difference from the Lacie Flat cable which I was using for six months. I did not "A/B" them, and if I actually felt a need to do that I would have returned the cable immediately. Why dish out $350 for a subtle improvement? I could just use that cash towards a better DAC, right?

I would have never even bothered to mentioned the dual-conduit here if I did not feel so strongly about the improvement. As I said before, it beat my expectations. I look for even further improvement when I add-on a dedicated +5V power supply ( many on HF praise this method).

I'm sorry to hear your experience with audiophile USB cables was completely unlike mine. I find this interesting. Can I ask which cables and DACs you heard that let you to your conclusion?

The other cables that seem to get alot of praise in magazines and internet are the WW Platinum Starlight, Acoustic Revive, King Rex Y cable, and the Locus Design Polestar, FWIW.

I had my $10 USB cable blessed by the pope. Now it sounds even better then my $500 one.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

 
 
This is mind-boggling erroneous and I can't even fathom arguing with you. I encourage you to talk a legitimate audio engineer. He/she will gun you down on every point. I have seen it many times before. Not likely to happen on Head-Fi, though.
 
Oh well, believe whatever you want to believe.

...um....some of us here are legitimate audio engineers here.  Not sure you really want to go down that road.  Though, it's odd.  You make claims about USB cables affecting sound without any engineering-syle proof, then direct those that disagree to talk to engineers.  
 
Why not save us all a lot of time and typing an just post your engineering data from your legitimate engineers? Or reference a paper, book, or article? That's one sure way to shut the rest of us engineers up for a while.

 

[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

 
 
Engineers as in people who actually design audio equipment. Not sound engineers. Go ahead and email some of the higher end DAC companies and tell them you can't believe that a USB can sound different. Report back what they tell you.

He must be a troll?

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

He must be a troll?

 
Possibly, but I hate to label. I don't think I'm being presumptuous in stating that several of us here still qualify.