[chef8489]

I am very happy with my Wireworld Starlight 7, it is more details than Supra but less bright than Chord Silver Plus. To my ears, the Chord Silver Plus lost something in bass and low-mid too.

This is is completely absured.

 

[gregorio]

[1] And of interest to me as well.
[2] Yet if you take on board that the digital noise that I am talking about is largely parasitical noise (emf noise etc) travelling from the data source of the computer/server in an analogue wave like manner, along with the bits and spaces of the digital signal, then a lot of this analogue theory to do with the effects of dielectrics, metal purity (six 9s copper, etc) and crystalisation, boundary joints (wire to plug to socket and so on joints), not to mention any interaction between the emf and the digital signal itself, all may have an effect on both the cable and the circuity at both ends that it is attached to. But again, as pointed out by Castlefargh, undoubtedly correctly, I am probably talking at the edge of my limits of knowledge here.

1. Apparently not.. You've been given the reason and if it really were of interest to you, you'd at least bother to go and research it or ask some questions about it but no, you've dismissed it as the explanation, even though you don't know much about it, simply because you don't like the idea of it. What you're really interested in is an explanation which doesn't challenge your belief that your perception is infallible. The problem is, that there is NO other logical/rational explanation. Excluding faulty equipment, every other explanation is ultimately based on audiophile USB cables having magical/irrational properties.

2. This has already been mentioned, several times: You explain clearly, you are applying "analogue theory" to digital audio and you can't, as digital audio was specifically invented to avoid analogue theory (it's limitations and susceptibility to noise)! You admit that you're "at the edge of your limits of knowledge" but neither that fact, nor the science, maths and most demonstrated of facts, seem to deter you from conflating analogue and digital theory/practise and steadfastly defending that position apparently unquestioningly. Why? Are you really so invested in your belief that your ears can't be fooled, that any explanation, no matter how ridiculous or how contrary to all the facts, is not just acceptable but preferable?

G

 

[Leo-]

I must have missed this class on Engineerings school where we were shown the crystalline structure of digital copper compared to the analogue one. In the microscope the looked very similar to my eyes, but perhaps there is a difference?

 

[theorist]

I must have missed this class on Engineerings school where we were shown the crystalline structure of digital copper compared to the analogue one. In the microscope the looked very similar to my eyes, but perhaps there is a difference?

Unfortunately, some people have a faith in what the believe in and nothing will challenge it. All we can do in this regard is to bless them and carry on trying to figure out why we hear (repeatably) what we do hear.

 

[gregorio]

Unfortunately, some people have a faith in what the believe in and nothing will challenge it.

True ... It comes down to what you believe in, do you believe the proven maths, the science and the facts which are demonstrated trillions of times a second across the globe or do you dismiss all of that and instead believe what is provably flawed human hearing perception? You therefore need to bless yourself, presumably while you're trying to figure out something which has already been figured out!

G

 

[Currawong]

Excluding faulty equipment, every other explanation is ultimately based on audiophile USB cables having magical/irrational properties.

Then almost every DAC with USB made since the very first is faulty, by your logic.

 

[Brooko]

Oh come on Amos. I've been silently following this thread, and even I'm finding it really hard to take the "blind faith" (nah, nah, nah fingers in my ears, I can't hear you talking logic, I (think) I hear it so it must be right) vs the well this is how digital audio really works approach.

The problem here is that you have people who think they hear something, and automatically attribute it to a cable. Whether they actually hear it, or whether it is expectation bias or something else - we cannot ascertain because this is the DBT free part of the forum. Which makes it frustrating because if people really want knowledge, then the actual tests are pretty easy to set up and run. But we can't do that because of the location in the forum.

For those who've been following this debate (and I hope Greg is Ok with me disclosing this), he is an audio engineer, and producer. He knows more about both digital and analogue audio than most of us will ever know or comprehend. And I understand his frustration. Broken it down to its simplest state - the USB cable takes an electrical signal to DAC. The signal contains the information in binary form - ie it is digital data in 1 or 0. When it gets to the DAC (ie past the USB connection) it is decoded to an analogue signal. If the signal is being sent without compromise (and you'd have to be pretty incompetent to build a USB cable in today's age which does not meet the correct USB standard), then the signal arrives correctly.

If you have noise or degradation or timing issues, it (correct me if I'm wrong please Greg) is going to result in pops, dropouts, and jitter. We already know that for most competently made devices, jitter is no longer an issue, and is basically inaudible on modern systems (check out Ethan Winer's audio myth series of videos where he intentionally introduces jitter, and at what level it is actually audible). The talk of USB cables increasing sound-stage (really - it's going to change your transducers or the way the recording was miked??) or warmth, bass, treble (so frequency response?) is actually ridiculous. And it doesn't matter how much you believe in it - it physically can't happen. That's what the objection is.

Unfortunately in this part of the forum - we'll never discover truth, and I really would invite people to take a good look at my sig line - I think it is apt here:
“Sometimes, the truths are those things you want to hear, and sometimes what we call truths are habitual lies we're comfortable with.”

I'll close with this bit of advice.
Greg - you are in a section of the forum which (sadly) will not allow both sides of the debate to be properly explored. Because of this, you're recent posts are starting to become aggressive, and it might be time to exit this discussion. In the end, it would be you who would be ejected from the discussion - regardless of the fallacy of the approach of the opposing side.

To the rest of you - if you are really serious about discovering truth with your systems, and open to the possibility of proper tests - why not take the chance and discuss with open intent in the Sound Science section. If someone does create a thread for this to be explored properly, I'm more than happy to come moderate it - and make sure neither side gets to ebullient. That means I'd make sure the "objectivists" respect your experience as long as you respect their right to challenge the "why". I'm all in favour of real discussion and real discovery of "why". You can't do that to its fullest extend in this forum section. If someone does this (sets up a new thread) - send me a link.

 

[chef8489]

Oh come on Amos. I've been silently following this thread, and even I'm finding it really hard to take the "blind faith" (nah, nah, nah fingers in my ears, I can't hear you talking logic, I (think) I hear it so it must be right) vs the well this is how digital audio really works approach.

The problem here is that you have people who think they hear something, and automatically attribute it to a cable. Whether they actually hear it, or whether it is expectation bias or something else - we cannot ascertain because this is the DBT free part of the forum. Which makes it frustrating because if people really want knowledge, then the actual tests are pretty easy to set up and run. But we can't do that because of the location in the forum.

For those who've been following this debate (and I hope Greg is Ok with me disclosing this), he is an audio engineer, and producer. He knows more about both digital and analogue audio than most of us will ever know or comprehend. And I understand his frustration. Broken it down to its simplest state - the USB cable takes an electrical signal to DAC. The signal contains the information in binary form - ie it is digital data in 1 or 0. When it gets to the DAC (ie past the USB connection) it is decoded to an analogue signal. If the signal is being sent without compromise (and you'd have to be pretty incompetent to build a USB cable in today's age which does not meet the correct USB standard), then the signal arrives correctly.

If you have noise or degradation or timing issues, it (correct me if I'm wrong please Greg) is going to result in pops, dropouts, and jitter. We already know that for most competently made devices, jitter is no longer an issue, and is basically inaudible on modern systems (check out Ethan Winer's audio myth series of videos where he intentionally introduces jitter, and at what level it is actually audible). The talk of USB cables increasing sound-stage (really - it's going to change your transducers or the way the recording was miked??) or warmth, bass, treble (so frequency response?) is actually ridiculous. And it doesn't matter how much you believe in it - it physically can't happen. That's what the objection is.

Unfortunately in this part of the forum - we'll never discover truth, and I really would invite people to take a good look at my sig line - I think it is apt here:
“Sometimes, the truths are those things you want to hear, and sometimes what we call truths are habitual lies we're comfortable with.”

I'll close with this bit of advice.
Greg - you are in a section of the forum which (sadly) will not allow both sides of the debate to be properly explored. Because of this, you're recent posts are starting to become aggressive, and it might be time to exit this discussion. In the end, it would be you who would be ejected from the discussion - regardless of the fallacy of the approach of the opposing side.

To the rest of you - if you are really serious about discovering truth with your systems, and open to the possibility of proper tests - why not take the chance and discuss with open intent in the Sound Science section. If someone does create a thread for this to be explored properly, I'm more than happy to come moderate it - and make sure neither side gets to ebullient. That means I'd make sure the "objectivists" respect your experience as long as you respect their right to challenge the "why". I'm all in favour of real discussion and real discovery of "why". You can't do that to its fullest extend in this forum section. If someone does this (sets up a new thread) - send me a link.

Thank you. I am all for proper tests.

 

[Brooko]

And for anyone who thinks there can never be a difference (because objectivists can do the nah, nah, nah I'm not listening thing too) - this article is pretty good.
http://archimago.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/demo-measurements-what-does-bad-usb-or.html

He touches on what (in the past) could have an affect - and how it would degrade the sound (cut-outs, pops, errors). Notice his comments regarding tonal changes and soundstage.

 

[gregorio]

[1] For those who've been following this debate (and I hope Greg is Ok with me disclosing this), he is an audio engineer, and producer.
[2] If you have noise or degradation or timing issues, it (correct me if I'm wrong please Greg) is going to result in pops, dropouts, and jitter.
[3] ... you're recent posts are starting to become aggressive, and it might be time to exit this discussion. In the end, it would be you who would be ejected from the discussion - regardless of the fallacy of the approach of the opposing side.

1. Yep, that's OK.
2. That's correct, as far as the digital data itself is concerned. There have been some DACs which have/had issues with improper isolation of the power supplied by the USB spec, which could introduce noise in the analogue side of the DAC and which in theory could be cured by a custom USB cable doing the isolation job that the DAC itself should be doing..I say in theory simply because I haven't investigated this specific issue in any detail.
3. It certainly getting to the stage where I've already stated the pertinent facts and logic and all that's left is expressing frustration that those facts can't apparently be comprehended (or are deliberately being misrepresented) and therefore as you advise, I'm just about at the point when I should exit the discussion.

Then almost every DAC with USB made since the very first is faulty, by your logic.

No, you've missed the context of the previous sentences to the one you quoted. It's every explanation other than faulty equipment and/or human hearing perception. Even if it were the case that "by my logic" all USB DACs must be faulty, I still don't understand why you chose to pull me up on that but not theorist, whose logic, that digital data transfer can never be perfect, would mean that all digital devices (not just USB DACs) must be faulty.

G

 

[Clive101]

For those who've been following this debate (and I hope Greg is Ok with me disclosing this), he is an audio engineer, and producer. He knows more about both digital and analogue audio than most of us will ever know or comprehend. And I understand his frustration. Broken it down to its simplest state - the USB cable takes an electrical signal to DAC. The signal contains the information in binary form - ie it is digital data in 1 or 0. When it gets to the DAC (ie past the USB connection) it is decoded to an analogue signal. If the signal is being sent without compromise (and you'd have to be pretty incompetent to build a USB cable in today's age which does not meet the correct USB standard), then the signal arrives correctly.

If you have noise or degradation or timing issues, it (correct me if I'm wrong please Greg) is going to result in pops, dropouts, and jitter. We already know that for most competently made devices, jitter is no longer an issue, and is basically inaudible on modern systems (check out Ethan Winer's audio myth series of videos where he intentionally introduces jitter, and at what level it is actually audible). The talk of USB cables increasing sound-stage (really - it's going to change your transducers or the way the recording was miked??) or warmth, bass, treble (so frequency response?) is actually ridiculous. And it doesn't matter how much you believe in it - it physically can't happen. That's what the objection is.

I think you have nailed this.

I have no idea why different USB cables sound different to me ( some sound the same others do not ), I am sane and keep an open mind and prefer a normal cable for cost effect reasons unless my brain as suggested is playing tricks on me..?

For others the sound of a USB cable make no difference as all they only carry zeros and ones to the DAC.

Unless people try to understand there could be a difference no one will be able to find why they sound different only to some people...?

Perhaps the new thread should be "Why do some people hear a difference in USB cables" ..?

 

[Brooko]

Like I said - create a thread in SS, PM me the link, and I'll make sure both sides behave themselves so we can actually make progress on finding the why

 

[castleofargh]

one person with those clear differences could very much decide to conduct a few tests objectively, and maybe learn a thing or two about his own specific situation. for general answers here or in the sound science section, there will always be the issue of sample size.

 

[theorist]

1) The talk of USB cables increasing sound-stage (really - it's going to change your transducers or the way the recording was miked??) or warmth, bass, treble (so frequency response?) is actually ridiculous. And it doesn't matter how much you believe in it - it physically can't happen. That's what the objection is.

2) Unfortunately in this part of the forum - we'll never discover truth, and I really would invite people to take a good look at my sig line - I think it is apt here:
“Sometimes, the truths are those things you want to hear, and sometimes what we call truths are habitual lies we're comfortable with.”
.

1) I have never had an USB cable effect perceived soundstage or frequency response. What I hear is in differences in 'palpability', for lack of a better term, more solidity in the presence of the music, ie more there there. A printer or freebee USB cable generally has a lack of substance in the music being-there compared to a better sounding cable. Whereas a better USB cable, at least for me, presents the music with better solidity, timing and space around the notes, hence its more palpable.

Sometimes in comparing USB cables this increase in 'realness' jumps out immediately on hearing it with one cable over another, other times the difference is much less apparent and it takes considerable time and reflection to work out the difference between them, but there is always some variation between different USB cables to my ears, or at least my mind. But if this is expectation bias, why then when asked to beta test two Tellurium Q USB cables (that looked identical and were not for sale), the first sent me I considered rather less than great and the second I perceived sounded great -- ie really palpable sounding music -- from the first moment I heard it, and I understand that this later version is now the one in production?


2) So true!

 

[Brooko]

Did you test the two cables side-by-side, ensuring the output was completely volume matched, and completely blind - so all you are judging is on sonics. And this means multiple times with no uniformity in which cable being presented so you actually have no visual or other cues? Because without that - you can't say they sound different. People always say they trust their ears. Its the filter their brain puts over everything that I don't trust.

Sometimes in comparing USB cables this increase in 'realness' jumps out immediately on hearing it with one cable over another, other times the difference is much less apparent and it takes considerable time and reflection to work out the difference between them, but there is always some variation between different USB cables to my ears, or at least my mind.

Its the second part (I highlighted) that is the telling part. That's what you need to establish because the mind is a hugely powerful influence.

At the end of the day - when I'm using my iDSD on my system at home, I upscale to DSD playing from my computer - and a little blue light comes on the unit. Here's the kicker - I know with the same recording, same master, volume matched, and transcoded to : DSD, 24/192, 24/96, redbook, and aac256 (lossy) - if I've done the transcode right, I can't tell a difference in a proper volume matched double blind test. I've done the tests - and I really can't tell the apart. I know of no-one who has performed a proper test that can either. But it doesn't stop my brain telling me that upscaling sounds better. And if you took that blue light away I would never know.

So at home, I upscale, and it makes me happier. But I don't make claims about one sounding better - because I know that it can't (and indeed it doesn't). It doesn't make me a poor listener, it doesn't make me a snake-oil believer. it just proves I'm human. What I'd love to see is more of the myth and mystery removed. If we can actually know where our own limits are, then we can at least understand some of the claims properly. I'm all for enlightenment.