[bigshot]

You should think about being more discerning with your attentions.

 

[Triode User]

Oh, dear. What just happened after I went to bed then got up this morning?

Anyway, I earlier put forward a hypothesis about why different usb cables might make a difference to the sound. It quickly got the standard sound science mantra of show us numbers before we can discuss it. I thought the way science worked was that one had a hypothesis which was discussed and then one set about putting numbers to it to upgrade it to a theory which was then proved or otherwise. You guys seem to want the proof before you will discuss it.

 

[Redcarmoose]

No you prove one usb cable makes a difference. Then you can kill the thread.

Yes, I will attempt to learn what’s up here. I’ve been surprised in the world of audio often.

 

[Steve999]

Oh, dear. What just happened after I went to bed then got up this morning?

Anyway, I earlier put forward a hypothesis about why different usb cables might make a difference to the sound. It quickly got the standard sound science mantra of show us numbers before we can discuss it. I thought the way science worked was that one had a hypothesis which was discussed and then one set about putting numbers to it to upgrade it to a theory which was then proved or otherwise. You guys seem to want the proof before you will discuss it.

We’re on page 93 and post 1382. That’s not enough?

 

[Steve999]

I read fast.

 

[Triode User]

We’re on page 93 and post 1382. That’s not enough?

But nowhere else in the thread that I recollect was a similar hypothesis to mine put forward and discussed.

Or are you meaning that you think the content of the thread demonstrates a consistent unwillingness to discuss hypotheses and I should have realised that before venturing one?

 

[Redcarmoose]

I can only offer one highly illogical and subjective truth.


If you have my exact same equipment, and you are actually me; if you change to the AQ Carbon, you will notice a sighted and profound improvement every time you listen.



The true value of this individual post is up for debate.

 

[Brooko]

Oh, dear. What just happened after I went to bed then got up this morning?

Anyway, I earlier put forward a hypothesis about why different usb cables might make a difference to the sound. It quickly got the standard sound science mantra of show us numbers before we can discuss it. I thought the way science worked was that one had a hypothesis which was discussed and then one set about putting numbers to it to upgrade it to a theory which was then proved or otherwise. You guys seem to want the proof before you will discuss it.

I read your hypothesis, and I'm afraid the one thing I don't get is this. If there is an issue with HF noise in the digital signal, under error checking the USB protocol will reject, and will result in dropped packets. So the DAC experiences drop-outs. For RF noise to have an audible effect (ie changing frequency or timing), surely it would need to affect the analog stage - because for the effects you put forward (harshness etc), the USB cable cannot possibly cause these pre-conversion in the DAC. I posted this link earlier - https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/rowe-s-and-columns/4421042/Can-You-Hear-the-Difference-
Martin is an EE with extensive knowledge of USB (easy to look up his credentials - https://www.linkedin.com/in/measurementblues/)

As you stated earlier - differences with BNC cables were easily audible, and changes were "no harshness". If this is so, it must be measurable. Can you please measure these easily heard changes, so we can compare the digital outputs, and that would make a good place to start further debate.

 

[Steve999]

I can only offer one highly illogical and subjective truth.


If you have my exact same equipment, and you are actually me; if you change to the AQ Carbon, you will

But nowhere else in the thread that I recollect was a similar hypothesis to mine put forward and discussed.

Or are you meaning that you think the content of the thread demonstrates a consistent unwillingness to discuss hypotheses and I should have realised that before venturing one?

.

I’m not ignoring you, I’m just at a loss as to what to say.

 

[Brooko]

I can only offer one highly illogical and subjective truth.
If you have my exact same equipment, and you are actually me; if you change to the AQ Carbon, you will notice a sighted and profound improvement every time you listen.
The true value of this individual post is up for debate.

So then the answer to the original thread question - "why do USB cables make such a difference" can be summarised that the difference exists in the imagination of the individual. Because that is essentially what has happened. In your sighted tests, you have introduced expectation bias, and that is why you "hear" a difference. Because your brain has coloured the output. And that's fine if you are happy with that. But being in Sound Science - the question we want to know is if there is a real audible and measurable change - with the emphasis on real and the expectation that the output should be both audible and measurable. Hint here - if it is actually audible, it will be measurable.

I totally accept that you hear it - ie audible to your perceptions.

Yet to prove - is it measurable, and is it actually real?

 

[Redcarmoose]

So then the answer to the original thread question - "why do USB cables make such a difference" can be summarised that the difference exists in the imagination of the individual. Because that is essentially what has happened. In your sighted tests, you have introduced expectation bias, and that is why you "hear" a difference. Because your brain has coloured the output. And that's fine if you are happy with that. But being in Sound Science - the question we want to know is if there is a real audible and measurable change - with the emphasis on real and the expectation that the output should be both audible and measurable. Hint here - if it is actually audible, it will be measurable.

I totally accept that you hear it - ie audible to your perceptions.

Yet to prove - is it measurable, and is it actually real?

Yes. This is the best post maybe in a week here..........to me.

 

[gregorio]

[1] USB being balanced will not help prevent it picking up the noise I am discussing because much of it is created by the audio device creating the digital signal.
[2] It is possibly not an issue with many systems because they might mask the problem sound and as I mentioned
[3] Design digital sources need to be quieter with respect to the noise they have in their digital circuits.
[4] The USB cable only needs to comply with the USB transfer standards in order to work properly in terms of digital transfer.
[4a] The question would be whether anything can be done to a USB cable to filter the noise.
[5] And magnitudes are fine but there is life outside of numbers.

1. In which case the USB cable is not "picking up the noise" it is simply transferring what it's being given.

2. It's also often not an issue with many systems because many systems do not produce enough noise to be audible in the first place and even when that isn't the case, even cheap ($80) DACs manage to isolate their analogue section from source noise to levels far below audibility. So are you saying that audiophile DACs can't manage noise leaking into their analogue sections as well as cheap DACs?

3. Why and how? If the source is a computer, then there's going to be significant noise, from the CPU, hard-disks, GPU, etc., suppressing the noise from each of these components within a computer would be a big and expensive task. A DAC which is designed to be connected to a computer obviously needs to address the fact that computers always produce noise and some of it will find it's way into the computer's USB output and it's obviously not particularly difficult or expensive to address this fact as cheap units easily manage it.

4. Correct.
4a. No, the question would be: Is there audible noise leaking into the analogue section of a DAC in the first place and if so, is the DAC faulty or just incompetently designed?

5. Where? What apart from numbers do you think there is in digital audio? Even the analogue electrical signal is just numbers, as proved by Maxwell over 150 years ago.

[1] Why has nobody ever actually produced proof the wire can't affect sound quality?
[1a] Do you have proof beyond conjecture and guesswork?
[2] I'm not a digital signals processing scientist and nobody should buy a spendy USB cable unless they can try it risk-free and they definitely shouldn't take my experience as predictive for them. See? No claims whatsoever in there.
[3] I post here purely to provide a counterpoint to your bogus information of speculation stated as facts.
[4] And your antics make me laugh -
[4a] are you seriously this obsessed over a leisure hobby detail?? That's pretty astounding.

1. No one has said that cables can't affect sound quality. Analogue audio cables do affect the electric signal, just nowhere near enough to be audible. However, that's not relevant to USB cables because USB cables do not carry any sound in the first place!
1a. Sure, there's even a thread in this forum going back about a decade, which shows that different analogue cables affect the electrical signal by only a few thousandths of a dB and there's copious amounts of proof/evidence that this is way below audibility. Look-up for example the ABX protocol, which stipulates volume matching to a tenth of a dB, as that was found to already be below audibility and therefore would not affect the test results.

2. So you're not a digital signals scientist/expert but you CLAIM "nobody should buy a spendy USB cable unless they can try it" and then you say "no claims whatsoever in there"? Your antics make me laugh!!

3. So hang on, you don't claim to be an expert, you obviously don't know the facts (as demonstrated by the fact that you are denying there is any evidence/proof when in fact there's loads) but you're going to counterpoint the information here anyway. On what basis, that you don't know the science/facts and therefore you can make-up anything you want?

4. If you bothered to learn some facts and then looked in the mirror, maybe you'd stop laughing and instead be embarrassed? Until you do, we'll just have to laugh at your antics!
4a. It's not just a leisure hobby, for some it's what we do for a living or do you think the entire recording industry (and the science behind it) is just a hobby?? That's pretty astounding!

Are you just going to ignore these refutations again, carry on posting bogus information and falsely accuse others of doing exactly what you yourself are doing?

[1] Funny to note also, we are not ever reading about most of the people here doing any style of tests.
[2] It seems their opinions are cast and they have nothing more to learn. They are fully opinionated to the point of cement. I’m saying I know nothing.
[3] How could a cable have a sound signature.
[3a] Well this is SS and the question as been burning out monitor pixels for over a decade here ...

1. That's not true, I've done tests and I've discussed them in this very thread!
2. It's fine for you to say you "know nothing" BUT it's NOT fine to say that just because you know nothing that everyone else must also know nothing and are therefore wrong to be opinionated about it. I've seen the evidence; my own and the scientific and engineering evidence, plus I have a pretty decent knowledge of how digital audio works and I've NEVER seen a single ounce of reliable evidence to the contrary. It's for this reason that I'm "opinionated" about it, which is exactly the same reason that I'm opinionated about gravity existing and the Earth not being flat.

3. Obviously a USB cable can't have a sound signature, because USB cables do not carry any sound!
3a. No it hasn't, there is no question here in SS. The "question" as you put it, is brought here by those who "know nothing" (except maybe for some marketing BS) and then SS has to repeat the same facts and logic all over again, just as it has for over a decade! Clearly though, some people are not interested either in the facts or in employing any logic, which begs the question of why they come to SS in the first place?

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

@https://www.head-fi.org/members/gregorio.69811/

“Clearly though, some people are not interested either in the facts or in employing any logic, which begs the question of why they come to SS in the first palace?”


I hope you don’t mind taking your quote slighly out of full context here? I truly don’t know about USB cables and that’s why I’m here. I will find your tests. Thank-you.

 

[gregorio]

I thought the way science worked was that one had a hypothesis which was discussed and then one set about putting numbers ...

Ah, then you're mistaken because that is not the way that science works! A hypothesis MUST have some logical and scientific basis to start with, say some proven maths/physics which implies or indicates the hypothesis. A hypothesis is not just any idea that anyone dreams up without any evidence, and it's certainly NOT just any old dreamt-up idea without any supporting evidence of it's own that ALSO CONTRADICTS all the existing facts/science/evidence! If that were "the way science worked", then science would spend all it's time "discussing and setting about putting numbers on" unicorns, flying pigs, mermaids, faeries and anything else that anyone could dream-up and it wouldn't have any time left to do any actual science!

A large part of why this thread (and many others here) goes round and round in circles is not just because people don't know the specific science involved (which is understandable) but because they don't even seem to know the fundamental basics of how science works. One can't just assume that because they don't know the science/facts then the facts/science doesn't exist and even if the science/facts didn't exist (which they do) then STILL you can't just make-up anything you want and claim it's a hypothesis (or in anyway factual). In other forums you certainly can but in this forum you're going to be called out on it if you do, and will be considered a nutter or a troll if you refuse to provide any reliable supporting evidence and just keep repeating the claim/"hypothesis".

G

 

[jagwap]

Oh, dear. What just happened after I went to bed then got up this morning?

Anyway, I earlier put forward a hypothesis about why different usb cables might make a difference to the sound. It quickly got the standard sound science mantra of show us numbers before we can discuss it. I thought the way science worked was that one had a hypothesis which was discussed and then one set about putting numbers to it to upgrade it to a theory which was then proved or otherwise. You guys seem to want the proof before you will discuss it.

I think I put forward a similar hypothesis many pages ago, but it was treated similarly. I'm not going to trawl through all this to find it or the details. I agree that if there there is a difference between USB cables, the primary reason is likely RF. Like you I didn't suggest corrupted data, but interference in the DAC conversion and analogue circuits. However that was ignored I think by those how do not want to hear alternative possibilities.

Nothing is entirely immune to RF. A cable's length can resonate at different frequencies as an antenna just on its sheild braid. A source (RF noisy PC) a cable and a DAC are a system,and in EMC terms need to be treated as such. All of them contribute to the overal result.

The problem here is the fence between standpoints and no one is prepared to move to the middle and knock the fence over.

Bigshot thinks everthing digital related sounds the same, and doesn't realise there is analogue in digital equipment. If you send him cables I find it unlikely he will try to hear a difference. He is not open to the idea.

Gregorio thinks pro audio equipment is better than consumer, because they only measure it, never listen to it. This is the exact reason why much consumer equipment can be better that pro gear. But of course, not always.

I've worked in both sides of the industry, pro and consumer, and I dispare at the pro sides lack of listening tests outside of accoustic equipment. Equally I dispare the audiophile industry's reliance on voodoo. Both could learn from each other.

Final point. If the USB system is asynchronous, i.e. XMOS, TI or CMedia done right, and the DAC clock is the master, the cable CANNOT add jitter. It is not lost data. It is not unobtainium. It is most likely the RF interaction of the whole system causing interference in the analogue sections of the audio circuitry. This could get all the way to the power amps, where the PN junction of the input stage can demodulate the RF into audio. Edit: so can the PN junctions in the cheap opamps in DACs. JFET input opamps are reassuring in this area, but more than pro is prepared to spend.