More stuff to google:
confirmation bias
crc
confirmation bias
crc
What's the best USB audio cable for the money?
- Thread starter Mediahound
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cables
It's not confirmation bias but rather science. Why not post some arguments and proof as to why USB cables don't make a difference? Confirmation bias is when you ignore information that is opposite from what you believe in. But I don't ignore those information, rather, please put some arguments and information out so that we can have a proper intellectual discussion.
There is a difference between data integrity and signal integrity. The data integrity is still there, there is not error in the digital data thus no need for redundancy. However, signal integrity is still compromised. For example, maybe +5V represents logic one. But in a real world system, the signal would vary at maybe around 4.9V. It is still recognized as logic one, but the signal is not perfect.
Ignoring the fact that there is a difference between data and signal integrity itself could be a confirmation bias.
There is a difference between data integrity and signal integrity. The data integrity is still there, there is not error in the digital data thus no need for redundancy. However, signal integrity is still compromised. For example, maybe +5V represents logic one. But in a real world system, the signal would vary at maybe around 4.9V. It is still recognized as logic one, but the signal is not perfect.
Ignoring the fact that there is a difference between data and signal integrity itself could be a confirmation bias.
This thread will be locked soon if these arguments keep showing...
The thread is supposed to be the best featured USB cable for a specific price range, not whether silver plated wires, etc, etc make a difference in sound.
The thread is supposed to be the best featured USB cable for a specific price range, not whether silver plated wires, etc, etc make a difference in sound.
I see. My bad. I didn't realize that this was supposed to be a debate free sub forum.
Personally have not tried a wide range of USB cables, so can't really comment on their cost performance.
But from my experience with China hi-fi/head-fi, their products (amps, cables, etc...) usually have amazing value for the money.
gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,793
- Likes
- 4,054
Quote:
I don't really understand why, when you did your research, you seem to have only researched the 15 or so year old marketing pseudo-science? If you're going to go to the trouble of researching in the first place, why not go that extra step beyond pseudo-science and try to understand the whole/real picture?
I agree entirely! It's relatively easy to see and measure the common and fairly significant degradation in the integrity of the square waves, no argument from me here at all! But where are the rest of the facts?
There is one type of marketing pseudo-science which is just completely made up nonsense, explained using scientific (or scientific sounding) wording/terminology but the type of marketing pseudo-science demonstrated here is more sophisticated and far more effective in my opinion. Jitter, noise, skin effect, etc., are all real scientific phenomena, not pseudo-science at all!! But (and it's a huge "but"!), by stopping there, by going off at a tangent from this point and not continuing with the rest of the actual facts, this real science is perverted into pseudo-science! The lies/falsehoods are not so much in what is actually stated but in what has not been stated, it's a lie of omission. This, in my opinion, is far more effective marketing pseudo-science than just the made up nonsense!
No! In a perfect ANALOGUE world that square wave would be perfect. In the analogue world there is only an analogue audio signal, any degradation in that analogue signal is a degradation which is output to the speakers/headphones. However, we're not talking about the analogue world, we're talking about the digital world. In the digital world, that analogue signal (square waves) is not the audio signal, it's just a representation of digital data and nothing directly related to the audio signal at all! These square waves can be distorted/degraded to hell and back, it makes no difference whatsoever. Provided the square waves are not obliterated entirely and can be recognised as being at least vaguely square shaped, the data they represent can be recovered perfectly, just as perfectly as if the square wave were perfect! This is the fact which is so conveniently missing from the marketing and is what makes it pseudo-science. And, what an absolutely astonishing fact to omit, because this fact is the WHOLE REASON WHY digital audio was invented in the first place!!! It's because we don't live in a perfect analogue world that digital audio was invented (to circumvent those imperfections), if we did live in a perfect world with perfect square (or any other shaped) analogue audio signals there would be no point/reason for digital audio to exist!
Yes, jitter, noise, etc., does exist but the story/facts don't end there. We can't just say they "exist" period, let's buy a cable which removes/reduces them, for two reasons: 1. The more expensive cables don't actually reduce jitter or noise any better than cheap ones such as the AmazonBasics but whether they do or don't is irrelevant anyway because, 2. There's the rest of the story/facts: Even DACs 20 and more years ago employed circuitry which filtered out the jitter and noise to below audibility and DACs of the last decade or so have improved even further and filter it out to 100-1000 times below audibility! This is all relatively easy to measure, although a little involved and cable companies gamble on the fact that extremely few consumers will bother. Instead, they rely entirely on visual appeal, price and pseudo-science to affect your perception, so that you (hopefully) perceive an audible improvement where there is no difference anywhere even remotely approaching audibility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that once this perception has been experienced, some/many will believe it to be reality. Some will believe this so absolutely, that no amount of reason, logic or proven facts will shake their belief and, as their belief is so absolute, any justification of that belief is valid, regardless of whether or not it's actually true or even in some cases of how utterly ridiculous it is!
Everyone is entitled to their belief. If you are happy with appearance, price and marketing pseudo-science affecting your perception, then that's entirely your choice and I personally have absolutely no problem with that at all. But, why lie about it? When advising others, why regurgitate marketing pseudo-science and lie, at least by omission, to justify what you enjoy? Why not just tell the truth and say; "USB cables do not affect SQ but the experience of buying, owning and/or using expensive pretty cables can, for some people, enhance the enjoyment of their listening experience"? Obviously, we know why they don't generally say this, it's for the same reason as many religious extremists don't just go off and be a hermit somewhere but feel the need to recruit new members. Fortunately though, audiophile extremists don't go round killing those who don't agree with their philosophy, they just try to explain they have better gear and super-human hearing or failing that, flame or ignore them and go off in a huff!
G
I don't really understand why, when you did your research, you seem to have only researched the 15 or so year old marketing pseudo-science? If you're going to go to the trouble of researching in the first place, why not go that extra step beyond pseudo-science and try to understand the whole/real picture?
I agree entirely! It's relatively easy to see and measure the common and fairly significant degradation in the integrity of the square waves, no argument from me here at all! But where are the rest of the facts?
There is one type of marketing pseudo-science which is just completely made up nonsense, explained using scientific (or scientific sounding) wording/terminology but the type of marketing pseudo-science demonstrated here is more sophisticated and far more effective in my opinion. Jitter, noise, skin effect, etc., are all real scientific phenomena, not pseudo-science at all!! But (and it's a huge "but"!), by stopping there, by going off at a tangent from this point and not continuing with the rest of the actual facts, this real science is perverted into pseudo-science! The lies/falsehoods are not so much in what is actually stated but in what has not been stated, it's a lie of omission. This, in my opinion, is far more effective marketing pseudo-science than just the made up nonsense!
No! In a perfect ANALOGUE world that square wave would be perfect. In the analogue world there is only an analogue audio signal, any degradation in that analogue signal is a degradation which is output to the speakers/headphones. However, we're not talking about the analogue world, we're talking about the digital world. In the digital world, that analogue signal (square waves) is not the audio signal, it's just a representation of digital data and nothing directly related to the audio signal at all! These square waves can be distorted/degraded to hell and back, it makes no difference whatsoever. Provided the square waves are not obliterated entirely and can be recognised as being at least vaguely square shaped, the data they represent can be recovered perfectly, just as perfectly as if the square wave were perfect! This is the fact which is so conveniently missing from the marketing and is what makes it pseudo-science. And, what an absolutely astonishing fact to omit, because this fact is the WHOLE REASON WHY digital audio was invented in the first place!!! It's because we don't live in a perfect analogue world that digital audio was invented (to circumvent those imperfections), if we did live in a perfect world with perfect square (or any other shaped) analogue audio signals there would be no point/reason for digital audio to exist!
Yes, jitter, noise, etc., does exist but the story/facts don't end there. We can't just say they "exist" period, let's buy a cable which removes/reduces them, for two reasons: 1. The more expensive cables don't actually reduce jitter or noise any better than cheap ones such as the AmazonBasics but whether they do or don't is irrelevant anyway because, 2. There's the rest of the story/facts: Even DACs 20 and more years ago employed circuitry which filtered out the jitter and noise to below audibility and DACs of the last decade or so have improved even further and filter it out to 100-1000 times below audibility! This is all relatively easy to measure, although a little involved and cable companies gamble on the fact that extremely few consumers will bother. Instead, they rely entirely on visual appeal, price and pseudo-science to affect your perception, so that you (hopefully) perceive an audible improvement where there is no difference anywhere even remotely approaching audibility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that once this perception has been experienced, some/many will believe it to be reality. Some will believe this so absolutely, that no amount of reason, logic or proven facts will shake their belief and, as their belief is so absolute, any justification of that belief is valid, regardless of whether or not it's actually true or even in some cases of how utterly ridiculous it is!
Everyone is entitled to their belief. If you are happy with appearance, price and marketing pseudo-science affecting your perception, then that's entirely your choice and I personally have absolutely no problem with that at all. But, why lie about it? When advising others, why regurgitate marketing pseudo-science and lie, at least by omission, to justify what you enjoy? Why not just tell the truth and say; "USB cables do not affect SQ but the experience of buying, owning and/or using expensive pretty cables can, for some people, enhance the enjoyment of their listening experience"? Obviously, we know why they don't generally say this, it's for the same reason as many religious extremists don't just go off and be a hermit somewhere but feel the need to recruit new members. Fortunately though, audiophile extremists don't go round killing those who don't agree with their philosophy, they just try to explain they have better gear and super-human hearing or failing that, flame or ignore them and go off in a huff!
G
chry5alis
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2015
- Posts
- 218
- Likes
- 73
My two cents based on personal experience..
Really unimpressed with my 2m supra usb cable, I find it unwieldy, flat, muddy, and boring. This is after about 50hr burn in.
A great alternative is the yulong cu2 usb cable I bought from a fellow head-fier. Its more difficult for me to use due to the shorter length 1m, but I persevere with it because there is a noticable difference in sound quality. More sparkle, sharper definition
Really unimpressed with my 2m supra usb cable, I find it unwieldy, flat, muddy, and boring. This is after about 50hr burn in.
A great alternative is the yulong cu2 usb cable I bought from a fellow head-fier. Its more difficult for me to use due to the shorter length 1m, but I persevere with it because there is a noticable difference in sound quality. More sparkle, sharper definition
Take this with a grain of salt since he is reviewing a $400 USB cable here but:
"The signal that moves along a USB cable isn’t digital – it most definitely is NOT ones and zeroes – but an electrical-pulse representation of those ones and zeroes. This analogue signal is therefore prone to disturbance from EMI emanating from the host computer and electrical noise arrive over the air, otherwise known as RFI. Greater vulnerability to noise can degrade a cable’s ability to do its job: transfer data from computer to DAC.
Digital audio transfer from computer host to DAC uses the isochronous transfer method that doesn’t specify the error-correcting data packet resends of the bulk transfer method used for moving files i.e. when data packet arrival timing is inconsequential to the outcome.
In the digital audio world, meeting the USB cable specification is only part of the ‘better sound’ equation. The cable geometry, materials used – the conductor, the dielectric and termination plugs – and shielding all influence the cable’s immunity to electrical noise pollution, the rise times of the electrical pulses being carried and the arrival timing of those pulses."
From: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/09/curious-for-the-curious-a-knockout-usb-cable-from-australia/
gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,793
- Likes
- 4,054
I'm not sure you correctly read my post. If you had, then you would realise that I agree with all of what I've quoted, with the exception of the sentence I've underlined! 1. In any normal situation, even up to fairly extreme situations, an AmazonBasics cable is NOT vulnerable to noise, etc., and 2. Even if there were more noise and the analogue square waves were degraded, it does NOT affect sound quality, that's the whole point of digital audio! A USB cable's job is to transfer data from computer to DAC, not transfer a perfect square wave. These are two different things! A cable which allows electrical noise pollution and inaccurate rise times can still do it's job, perfectly! So even if we assume the AmazonBasics cable does allow more noise pollution and inaccurate rise times, we still end up with NO audible SQ differences. And, just to rub salt into the wound, there's no evidence presented to support the assumption that the AmazonBasics cable is more vulnerable to noise, etc., unless of course you consider pseudo-scientific innuendo to be "evidence"!
G
Quote:
I don't really understand why, when you did your research, you seem to have only researched the 15 or so year old marketing pseudo-science? If you're going to go to the trouble of researching in the first place, why not go that extra step beyond pseudo-science and try to understand the whole/real picture?
I agree entirely! It's relatively easy to see and measure the common and fairly significant degradation in the integrity of the square waves, no argument from me here at all! But where are the rest of the facts?
There is one type of marketing pseudo-science which is just completely made up nonsense, explained using scientific (or scientific sounding) wording/terminology but the type of marketing pseudo-science demonstrated here is more sophisticated and far more effective in my opinion. Jitter, noise, skin effect, etc., are all real scientific phenomena, not pseudo-science at all!! But (and it's a huge "but"!), by stopping there, by going off at a tangent from this point and not continuing with the rest of the actual facts, this real science is perverted into pseudo-science! The lies/falsehoods are not so much in what is actually stated but in what has not been stated, it's a lie of omission. This, in my opinion, is far more effective marketing pseudo-science than just the made up nonsense!
No! In a perfect ANALOGUE world that square wave would be perfect. In the analogue world there is only an analogue audio signal, any degradation in that analogue signal is a degradation which is output to the speakers/headphones. However, we're not talking about the analogue world, we're talking about the digital world. In the digital world, that analogue signal (square waves) is not the audio signal, it's just a representation of digital data and nothing directly related to the audio signal at all! These square waves can be distorted/degraded to hell and back, it makes no difference whatsoever. Provided the square waves are not obliterated entirely and can be recognised as being at least vaguely square shaped, the data they represent can be recovered perfectly, just as perfectly as if the square wave were perfect! This is the fact which is so conveniently missing from the marketing and is what makes it pseudo-science. And, what an absolutely astonishing fact to omit, because this fact is the WHOLE REASON WHY digital audio was invented in the first place!!! It's because we don't live in a perfect analogue world that digital audio was invented (to circumvent those imperfections), if we did live in a perfect world with perfect square (or any other shaped) analogue audio signals there would be no point/reason for digital audio to exist!
Yes, jitter, noise, etc., does exist but the story/facts don't end there. We can't just say they "exist" period, let's buy a cable which removes/reduces them, for two reasons: 1. The more expensive cables don't actually reduce jitter or noise any better than cheap ones such as the AmazonBasics but whether they do or don't is irrelevant anyway because, 2. There's the rest of the story/facts: Even DACs 20 and more years ago employed circuitry which filtered out the jitter and noise to below audibility and DACs of the last decade or so have improved even further and filter it out to 100-1000 times below audibility! This is all relatively easy to measure, although a little involved and cable companies gamble on the fact that extremely few consumers will bother. Instead, they rely entirely on visual appeal, price and pseudo-science to affect your perception, so that you (hopefully) perceive an audible improvement where there is no difference anywhere even remotely approaching audibility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that once this perception has been experienced, some/many will believe it to be reality. Some will believe this so absolutely, that no amount of reason, logic or proven facts will shake their belief and, as their belief is so absolute, any justification of that belief is valid, regardless of whether or not it's actually true or even in some cases of how utterly ridiculous it is!
Everyone is entitled to their belief. If you are happy with appearance, price and marketing pseudo-science affecting your perception, then that's entirely your choice and I personally have absolutely no problem with that at all. But, why lie about it? When advising others, why regurgitate marketing pseudo-science and lie, at least by omission, to justify what you enjoy? Why not just tell the truth and say; "USB cables do not affect SQ but the experience of buying, owning and/or using expensive pretty cables can, for some people, enhance the enjoyment of their listening experience"? Obviously, we know why they don't generally say this, it's for the same reason as many religious extremists don't just go off and be a hermit somewhere but feel the need to recruit new members. Fortunately though, audiophile extremists don't go round killing those who don't agree with their philosophy, they just try to explain they have better gear and super-human hearing or failing that, flame or ignore them and go off in a huff!
G
It isn't just a few people making claims that USB cables do make a difference. My ears just can't lie. Many of my friends, both head-fi and hi-fi have tried and could hear a difference. The difference is not subtle and I am confident of passing a double blind test. I too was puzzled, so I am researching and trying to get to the bottom of this debate that is going on forever. Digital electronics is not as simple as you think it is. You will probably need to read Computer Science or Computer Engineering for you to understand digital electronics. That is why I am researching into things like USB receiver designs, how DAC works, etc...
Unlike analogue electronics, digital electronics are more complicated and are made up of many components. Controllers in digital electronics (the one that handles your digital bit data) are made up of logic gates, which are in turn made up of transistors, which are analogue components. You must understand that the data will still maintain its integrity as its easy to represent data in analogue terms. But when this imperfect signal goes through your digital circuits (which are made up of analogue components), the output will not magically become perfect.
Hard drives etc don't need a perfect signal as eventually the output is stored as + and -. However, this is different in a DAC's case. The output is not just max voltage and min voltage, it can be anywhere between the two. This imperfect output will eventually be fed into your amplifier and headphones. Even though much effort has been done to reduce jitter, etc... it will not be perfect. It is nature. You can only reduce it with your anagloue circuits but you cannot eliminate it 100%.
This is why a digital cable is still a analogue cable.
But I do believe that if the DAC can be designed to minimise the differences between USB cables. If the data can be stored at the DAC and the signal reconstructed, I believe that the USB cable will not make much of a difference, However, this will probably make the DAC design even more complicated and expensive, which will not go well with cosumers.
Now that I have understood why DACs are affected by imperfect signal integrity. My next step would be to research into material sciences to understand how different cables affect the signal integrity.
FunkyMonkey909
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Posts
- 18
- Likes
- 12
From personal experience - having moved from a stock USB to 400USD DH Labs cable, there was *some* improvement but very, very light. Tried it both in my dac and usb/spdif interface.
I'm a cables guy - I can vouch for a difference quality speaker cables, interconnects, and power cables make. With USB cables, I'm not so sure about the value added, so I don't plan to spend my $$$ in this area.
I'm a cables guy - I can vouch for a difference quality speaker cables, interconnects, and power cables make. With USB cables, I'm not so sure about the value added, so I don't plan to spend my $$$ in this area.
gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,793
- Likes
- 4,054
Your post typifies a number of the most common audiophile misconceptions:
Quote:
The number of people who believe in something fallacious does not affect whether it's actually fallacious or not. At one time many thought the earth was flat, even more thought the earth was the centre of the universe.
Quote:
This is a really big one. Your ears lie ALL the time. Every piece of audio content you have ever purchased (music recordings, TV or films) depends on the fact that your ears lie! Stereo itself is an illusion, which means it depends on your ears lying and stereo is just one of a considerable number of illusions which me and thousands like me around the world have employed for many decades. When you listen to a rock or pop recording do your ears lie to you and make you think you are listening to some sort of group performance or do they tell the truth, that none of the musicians performed together? When you watch a film, do your ears lie to you and make you think that what you're hearing actually occurred during the filming or do your ears tell you the truth, that probably more than 90% of what you're hearing was manufactured weeks/months after the film was shot, in completely different locations and by (mostly) different things and people?
Quote:
I do understand that. What you don't seem to understand is that it makes no difference! The quality of the zeros or ones passing through say a logic gate is irrelevant, as long as the quality is sufficient so that a "zero" can be distinguished from a "one" (or an "on"/"off" state) it does not matter whether those ones and zeros are high quality, poor quality or anywhere in between, the data itself will still be perfect (!) regardless of the quality/condition of those zeros and ones.
Quote:
Here you are confusing the digital input of the DAC with the analogue output. The input to the DAC chip is digital, it's a discrete set of values defined by binary data (+ and - or ones and zeros). The quality of those ones and zeros is irrelevant, the only thing which is relevant is that it can be recognised as a one or a zero. These discrete values are then converted into a continuously varying voltage (waveform) by the DAC chip and from that point on, this signal is no longer digital data and is subject to the usual rules of analogue audio signals (where any distortion/interference in the analogue signal is distortion/interference in the audio output passed down the chain). Obviously, a USB cable's job is completed before this conversion takes place, it is transferring digital data (via a square wave), NOT the analogue audio signal which will be output to your amplifier and headphones!
Quote:
Although I completely agree with this statement, it is exactly as I mentioned earlier, only half the story/facts, in fact it's really only a third of the story!
Jitter does affect the accuracy with which the DAC can convert the digital data into a continuously varying voltage and it can't be eliminated perfectly. The question is therefore; How much do we need to reduce jitter? The answer, if we're talking about perfect sound quality, is to below an audible level. Even fairly cheap DACs are able to achieve this, in fact, even fairly cheap DACs commonly achieve jitter reduction many times below audibility. Notice that this jitter reduction occurs in the DAC, after the signal has exited the USB cable, so any jitter occurring in the cable is subject to this same jitter reduction! The other third of the story/facts, is as I've mentioned before; although there is always pseudo-scientific hyperbole/marketing explaining why a particular "boutique" USB cable should reduce jitter they never any provide comparative measurements which prove they reduce jitter relative to say an AmazonBasics or any other cheap but well made USB cable.
So, one third of the story is that jitter does exist and does degrade audio fidelity, one third of the story is that it's inaudible and therefore doesn't matter and the last third is that boutique USB cables don't reduce jitter anyway! And, just in case some are concerned about the second "third" of the story. Even if you believe you do have hearing 100 or so times better than an average normal person, that doesn't change anything because the amount of USB cable caused jitter (after reduction in the DAC) is below the resolution of even the best speakers/headphones to reproduce.
G
Quote:
The number of people who believe in something fallacious does not affect whether it's actually fallacious or not. At one time many thought the earth was flat, even more thought the earth was the centre of the universe.
Quote:
This is a really big one. Your ears lie ALL the time. Every piece of audio content you have ever purchased (music recordings, TV or films) depends on the fact that your ears lie! Stereo itself is an illusion, which means it depends on your ears lying and stereo is just one of a considerable number of illusions which me and thousands like me around the world have employed for many decades. When you listen to a rock or pop recording do your ears lie to you and make you think you are listening to some sort of group performance or do they tell the truth, that none of the musicians performed together? When you watch a film, do your ears lie to you and make you think that what you're hearing actually occurred during the filming or do your ears tell you the truth, that probably more than 90% of what you're hearing was manufactured weeks/months after the film was shot, in completely different locations and by (mostly) different things and people?
Quote:
I do understand that. What you don't seem to understand is that it makes no difference! The quality of the zeros or ones passing through say a logic gate is irrelevant, as long as the quality is sufficient so that a "zero" can be distinguished from a "one" (or an "on"/"off" state) it does not matter whether those ones and zeros are high quality, poor quality or anywhere in between, the data itself will still be perfect (!) regardless of the quality/condition of those zeros and ones.
Quote:
Here you are confusing the digital input of the DAC with the analogue output. The input to the DAC chip is digital, it's a discrete set of values defined by binary data (+ and - or ones and zeros). The quality of those ones and zeros is irrelevant, the only thing which is relevant is that it can be recognised as a one or a zero. These discrete values are then converted into a continuously varying voltage (waveform) by the DAC chip and from that point on, this signal is no longer digital data and is subject to the usual rules of analogue audio signals (where any distortion/interference in the analogue signal is distortion/interference in the audio output passed down the chain). Obviously, a USB cable's job is completed before this conversion takes place, it is transferring digital data (via a square wave), NOT the analogue audio signal which will be output to your amplifier and headphones!
Quote:
Although I completely agree with this statement, it is exactly as I mentioned earlier, only half the story/facts, in fact it's really only a third of the story!
Jitter does affect the accuracy with which the DAC can convert the digital data into a continuously varying voltage and it can't be eliminated perfectly. The question is therefore; How much do we need to reduce jitter? The answer, if we're talking about perfect sound quality, is to below an audible level. Even fairly cheap DACs are able to achieve this, in fact, even fairly cheap DACs commonly achieve jitter reduction many times below audibility. Notice that this jitter reduction occurs in the DAC, after the signal has exited the USB cable, so any jitter occurring in the cable is subject to this same jitter reduction! The other third of the story/facts, is as I've mentioned before; although there is always pseudo-scientific hyperbole/marketing explaining why a particular "boutique" USB cable should reduce jitter they never any provide comparative measurements which prove they reduce jitter relative to say an AmazonBasics or any other cheap but well made USB cable.
So, one third of the story is that jitter does exist and does degrade audio fidelity, one third of the story is that it's inaudible and therefore doesn't matter and the last third is that boutique USB cables don't reduce jitter anyway! And, just in case some are concerned about the second "third" of the story. Even if you believe you do have hearing 100 or so times better than an average normal person, that doesn't change anything because the amount of USB cable caused jitter (after reduction in the DAC) is below the resolution of even the best speakers/headphones to reproduce.
G
You can't seem to understand my explanation. All your understanding on digital electronics are wrong. Please understand properly how digital electronics work before writing about incorrect facts.
You must understand that everything digital is actually an analogue circuit. 0 and 1 is just a way of encoding data. We usually represent this using voltages (for ex 1 = 5V. 0 = 0V)
A transistor cannot recognise what is 0 and 1. It will take an input voltage and output accordingly.
Let me give you an example.
A transistor takes a 0V-5V input with a 9V supply.
In a perfect world, 0V input will result in 0V output, 5V will result in 9V output.
But as the world is not perfect, your logic 1 will not be 5V, but could be 4.7V, sometimes 4.6V, etc...
If you feed it 4.6V, it will output 8.28V.
If you feed it 4.7V, it will output 8.46V.
Which is why the quality of the 0s and 1s matter.
Digital circuits are made up of logic gates. Logic gates are made up of transistors.
A transistor cannot differentiate between 0 and 1. It cannot understand and read 0 and 1.
It only takes an input and output based on the input.
I hope you can understand this before we go on with discussions on anything else.
You must understand that everything digital is actually an analogue circuit. 0 and 1 is just a way of encoding data. We usually represent this using voltages (for ex 1 = 5V. 0 = 0V)
A transistor cannot recognise what is 0 and 1. It will take an input voltage and output accordingly.
Let me give you an example.
A transistor takes a 0V-5V input with a 9V supply.
In a perfect world, 0V input will result in 0V output, 5V will result in 9V output.
But as the world is not perfect, your logic 1 will not be 5V, but could be 4.7V, sometimes 4.6V, etc...
If you feed it 4.6V, it will output 8.28V.
If you feed it 4.7V, it will output 8.46V.
Which is why the quality of the 0s and 1s matter.
Digital circuits are made up of logic gates. Logic gates are made up of transistors.
A transistor cannot differentiate between 0 and 1. It cannot understand and read 0 and 1.
It only takes an input and output based on the input.
I hope you can understand this before we go on with discussions on anything else.
gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,793
- Likes
- 4,054
If you feed it 4.6V, it will output 8.28V. = 1
If you feed it 4.7V, it will output 8.46V. = 1
and
If you feed it 5V, it will output 9V which also = 1
Which is why the quality doesn't matter!
G
8.28V is not = 1. It is = 0.92. The resulting signal will be inaccurate, that is why it is important to feed a signal with good quality into your transistors.
Let's use a simple R2R DAC design.
The output of these transistors will be fed into the R2R DAC, which are made up of just resistors.
This will result in an inaccurate analogue signal, which will be fed into your amplifier and headphones.
That is why it is important to have a good quality signal!
Users who are viewing this thread
