[GrussGott]

Um - did you even read those links? That was objectively measured data which showed no differences. He also listened and heard no differences. That is a scientific approach - propose, observe, measure. As to your hypothesis that we can’t say if there is a measured difference with other people’s tests - well they keep giving anecdotal evidence, but refuse to measure. I wonder why?

I've read those and many many others. If you think a few tests, in a single environment, with some equipment, and some measurements, taken by a single person, and interpreted by that same person, is conclusive science for all ears, equipment, and environments ... then I guess you do.

Here's the point: USB is just a software-encoded electrical transmission that should be trivial for you to produce that code - the decoding algorithm - which would tell us all of the possible outputs regardless of transmission media.

Why have all the he said / she said junior science debate club stuff?

Just produce the code and testing data and we'd have a conclusion.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I've read those and many many others. If you think a few tests, in a single environment, with some equipment, and some measurements, taken by a single person, and interpreted by that same person, is conclusive science for all ears, equipment, and environments ... then I guess you do.

Here's the point: USB is just a software-encoded electrical transmission that should be trivial for you to produce that code - the decoding algorithm - which would tell us all of the possible outputs regardless of transmission media.

Why have all the he said / she said junior science debate club stuff?

Just produce the code and testing data and we'd have a conclusion.

There is a conclusion, and it is that there is no audible difference. You are simply being trollish and not fooling anyone.

 

[JRG1990]

I've read those and many many others. If you think a few tests, in a single environment, with some equipment, and some measurements, taken by a single person, and interpreted by that same person, is conclusive science for all ears, equipment, and environments ... then I guess you do.

Here's the point: USB is just a software-encoded electrical transmission that should be trivial for you to produce that code - the decoding algorithm - which would tell us all of the possible outputs regardless of transmission media.

Why have all the he said / she said junior science debate club stuff?

Just produce the code and testing data and we'd have a conclusion.

You've just dismissed all the objective data supporting theirs no audible difference between usb cables, but haven't provided any that supports your argument that there is.

 

[Brooko]

I've read those and many many others. If you think a few tests, in a single environment, with some equipment, and some measurements, taken by a single person, and interpreted by that same person, is conclusive science for all ears, equipment, and environments ... then I guess you do.

Here's the point: USB is just a software-encoded electrical transmission that should be trivial for you to produce that code - the decoding algorithm - which would tell us all of the possible outputs regardless of transmission media.

Why have all the he said / she said junior science debate club stuff?

Just produce the code and testing data and we'd have a conclusion.

You asked for objective evidence. I've linked an example. What you haven't shown is any objective evidence on the other side. If you can't, then unfortunately all you're doing is adding noise to the thread. How about adding some signal. In the words of Tom Cruise "show me the money".

The only one in this thread who is taking the "junior debate" approach stuff seems to be yourself. Until you start showing some evidence - I'm going to ignore further input from you.

 

[bigshot]

I asked him for objective evidence and he made up a story about doing a controlled test. When pressed on his story, he backpedaled and refused to provide any way to verify his findings. He's a thread crapper. He doesn't like what's said in this thread so he's pummeling it with hooey bombs.

There is absolutely no reason to expect that one properly functioning USB cable would sound different than another, regardless of price. But that doesn't mean that high end audio salesmen won't try to make you think that to sell you an expensive cable you don't really need.

I am interested in the possibility of deliberately colored USB cables. If someone knows of a USB cable that sounds clearly different from other USB cables, I would like to have a chance to test it.

 

[castleofargh]

modo stuff:

@GrussGott. a few pages back you wondered why bigshot was allowed to attack you and others. which is a legitimate question, and mostly the answer is a mix of 2 reasons:
1/ moderators don't read the posts. if someone doesn't behave correctly, you guys can bring the posts to the attention of moderators by reporting them with the dedicated function at the bottom of all posts. so long as that is not done, we tend to assume that everybody's fine.
2/ yes he attacks you, but you do the same on several occasions. so I either let you guys get it all out of your system, make fools of yourself in front of everybody else, and once it's done we move on. there are already a few pages above all that, today's a new day.
or I can treat the both of you like kids. go delete many of your respective posts, and start showing the stick to make you behave because I consider you incapable of having a proper conversation and the topic has to get back to following the rules at some point.

the section is clearly favorable to disputes, I can't just moderate all of them when most of the time they are the topic. but if after asking a few times for the eternal "argue the points made, not the people making them", and starting to remove more and more posts, people just keep having their personal battles and name calling anyway, my next step is to lock you out. it sucks, and I really don't like doing that(or deleting posts TBH), but if that's what it takes to keep a topic from turning into a street fight, I'll do it.

show that someone is wrong by attacking his arguments. that's what makes him wrong after all. on the other hand, using the skilled technique of "you dumb!", "no u!", the only thing demonstrated to all readers is how immature you guys can be. also it's against Head-fi's rules and I can turn a blind eye only for so long. ultimately it's a lose lose strategy to attack people.
if you are attacked, report the post and don't reply. I'm not the fastest modo there is(I sleep like 20hours a day 9days/weeks), but at some point I'll hopefully be there to react if I think I should. like now. just for the lolz, this time it's your ass that got reported, not bigshot. it takes 2 to tango.
and @bigshot, same thing. discuss USB, that's the topic.

 

[bigshot]

The subject of whether there are audible differences between USB cables has been asked and answered. One properly functioning USB cable should sound exactly the same as any other properly functioning USB cable. This can be verified by data rate tests and performing checksums to document errors. I was interested in the discussion of RF interference, but it appears that RF interference is caused by a design error in the DAC, not any property of the cable itself. So it appears that the discussion of RF is a cul-de-sac. I am very interested in the possibility of deliberately colored cables. I have never encountered one, and no one has ever been able to provide me with one, but I am open to the possibility that a deliberately hobbled cable exists. For a while I was led to believe that the other poster had cables that fit this description and had verified the fact through a controlled test. But it turned out that his controlled test was likely "purely theoretical" and was only mentioned as a rhetorical point to reach a conclusion about USB cable audibility, not as factual data open for review and analysis by others.

Is that better Castle? I'm trying.

 

[Arpiben]

The subject of whether there are audible differences between USB cables has been asked and answered. One properly functioning USB cable should sound exactly the same as any other properly functioning USB cable. This can be verified by data rate tests and performing checksums to document errors. I was interested in the discussion of RF interference, but it appears that RF interference is caused by a design error in the DAC, not any property of the cable itself. So it appears that the discussion of RF is a cul-de-sac. I am very interested in the possibility of deliberately colored cables. I have never encountered one, and no one has ever been able to provide me with one, but I am open to the possibility that a deliberately hobbled cable exists. For a while I was led to believe that the other poster had cables that fit this description and had verified the fact through a controlled test. But it turned out that his controlled test was likely "purely theoretical" and was only mentioned as a rhetorical point to reach a conclusion about USB cable audibility, not as factual data open for review and analysis by others.

Is that better Castle? I'm trying.

Curious USB cables https://curiouscables.com/ may be a good choice to start with.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Curious USB cables https://curiouscables.com/ may be a good choice to start with.

Pure, unadulterated, slithering reptile lube.

https://curiouscables.com/faq

Run in
Like most audio cables and components, the Curious usb will start to sound its best after 50-100 hours of use.


Run in has two parts:
1. Conditioning the cable itself on your system – with music.
2. Conditioning your ears to a new sound.


This second point is often overlooked. Most usb cables provide a flat wall of sound, with “up front” detail.

The Curious separates the instruments and vocalists into a three dimensional space. The way music was recorded. And just like the real thing.


The Curious isn’t adding anything. There’s no trick. The cable simply preserves the spatial cues within the recording. The depth and space may take some time to appreciate. I call it “run in” for your ears!

 

[castleofargh]

The subject of whether there are audible differences between USB cables has been asked and answered. One properly functioning USB cable should sound exactly the same as any other properly functioning USB cable. This can be verified by data rate tests and performing checksums to document errors. I was interested in the discussion of RF interference, but it appears that RF interference is caused by a design error in the DAC, not any property of the cable itself. So it appears that the discussion of RF is a cul-de-sac. I am very interested in the possibility of deliberately colored cables. I have never encountered one, and no one has ever been able to provide me with one, but I am open to the possibility that a deliberately hobbled cable exists. For a while I was led to believe that the other poster had cables that fit this description and had verified the fact through a controlled test. But it turned out that his controlled test was likely "purely theoretical" and was only mentioned as a rhetorical point to reach a conclusion about USB cable audibility, not as factual data open for review and analysis by others.

Is that better Castle? I'm trying.

much better. now keep it up and you'll get a cookie. and who knows, maybe an actual conversation on this topic where we learn something(don't hold your breath though).
in terms of signal, most of the time when we consider something to be eliminated, it's actually that we have attenuated it down to some ludicrous level where it's accepted that nobody slightly sensible would care. the difference between legit issues and laughable nonsense, is a matter of magnitude. how much attenuation or rejection is achieved by the DAC? how effective is the shielding on the cable? how effective is the planet's atmosphere? how strong is the solar wind? how close are you from a detonating EMP bomb or a lightning strike? just a few examples making sense mostly because we have no concept of quantity whatsoever. ^_^
that's why it seems like such a waste of time for everybody to discuss all this without measurements.


and for those who believe that because they can feel a subjective improvement, it is evidence of objective improvement(lower noise, increased fidelity...), you guys might want to start by reading the definitions of objective and subjective. we're probably not getting anywhere before that much is clear for everybody.
about convincing me that someone is hearing a difference, all I need is being told that the differences remained in a blind test. I'm trusting like that. doesn't mean I will suddenly start believing all the other stuff because of it. or that a USB cable should cost more than 20 or 30$ no matter what it does. one step at a time and the correct experiment to get the correct answer.

Curious USB cables https://curiouscables.com/ may be a good choice to start with.

a bald blue eyed guy can't possibly be wrong.

 

[bigshot]

about convincing me that someone is hearing a difference, all I need is being told that the differences remained in a blind test.

There are people who are so desperate to win at any cost that they identify the magic words they need to say to prove their claim, and they say it... even though it isn't true and it never happened. We're pretty good at rooting those people out here, but shaming them is a lot harder. I guess internet anonymity has insulated people from having to take responsibility for their words and actions. It's kind of sad because by propping themselves up, they tear down the truth.

 

[WoodyLuvr]

I was interested in the discussion of RF interference, but it appears that RF interference is caused by a design error in the DAC, not any property of the cable itself. So it appears that the discussion of RF is a cul-de-sac.

Thank you that was very informative; makes perfect sense.

 

[GrussGott]

is a matter of magnitude. ... that's why it seems like such a waste of time ... to discuss all this without measurements.

Heeeyyy ... I agreed with all of that! Cool.

As for measurements, FWIW, I haven't read anyone summarize it better than @KeithEmo :

Let's just say it this way.....
There is nothing that can be heard that cannot be measured; if it's real then it can be measured.

However, that's not to say that we always measure everything that's important, or that we necessarily know how to interpret all the measurements we make.

I agree with you about most Sabre DACs... to me they all, to some degree, tend to sound "bright and over-detailed - and as if they emphasize the upper midrange".
(And, no, that perceived difference in sound is not visible in their frequency response measurements.)
However, I would disagree that they deliver "immaculate measurements".

Most modern DACs, including Sabre DACs, deliver exceptionally flat frequency response, exceptionally low noise, and very low THD and IM distortion.
So, in terms of those three or four particular measurements, their response is indeed "exemplary".

However, they vary widely in terms of other performance metrics, including things like the impulse response of their oversampling and reconstruction filters.
Therefore, the reality is that Sabre DACs measure very well, and very much like other high quality DACs, on certain commonly used measurements.
They also measure very differently on other measurements.

But, since those other measurements are more difficult to perform, and their correlation with how a DAC sounds is less well understood, those differences tend to be overlooked.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, if you sum and subtract the outputs of two DACs that sound different, you will find that they ARE in fact different.
And, that being the case, obviously it is possible to measure those differences (probably in a variety of different ways).

However, that doesn't mean that I can tell you which specific measurements will show those differences the best, or enable us to interpret them in a meaningful way.​

 

[jagwap]

Heeeyyy ... I agreed with all of that! Cool.

As for measurements, FWIW, I haven't read anyone summarize it better than @KeithEmo :

Let's just say it this way.....
There is nothing that can be heard that cannot be measured; if it's real then it can be measured.

However, that's not to say that we always measure everything that's important, or that we necessarily know how to interpret all the measurements we make.

I agree with you about most Sabre DACs... to me they all, to some degree, tend to sound "bright and over-detailed - and as if they emphasize the upper midrange".
(And, no, that perceived difference in sound is not visible in their frequency response measurements.)
However, I would disagree that they deliver "immaculate measurements".

Most modern DACs, including Sabre DACs, deliver exceptionally flat frequency response, exceptionally low noise, and very low THD and IM distortion.
So, in terms of those three or four particular measurements, their response is indeed "exemplary".

However, they vary widely in terms of other performance metrics, including things like the impulse response of their oversampling and reconstruction filters.
Therefore, the reality is that Sabre DACs measure very well, and very much like other high quality DACs, on certain commonly used measurements.
They also measure very differently on other measurements.

But, since those other measurements are more difficult to perform, and their correlation with how a DAC sounds is less well understood, those differences tend to be overlooked.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, if you sum and subtract the outputs of two DACs that sound different, you will find that they ARE in fact different.
And, that being the case, obviously it is possible to measure those differences (probably in a variety of different ways).

However, that doesn't mean that I can tell you which specific measurements will show those differences the best, or enable us to interpret them in a meaningful way.​

Yes. He put that well. So many here think the only audable factors are frequency response and THD & IM distortion. With the exception of class D amplifiers, most electronic audio equipment has nailed those specs down. We are now working at understanding the next level of performance.

 

[Steve999]

Yes. He put that well. So many here think the only audable factors are frequency response and THD & IM distortion. With the exception of class D amplifiers, most electronic audio equipment has nailed those specs down. We are now working at understanding the next level of performance.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT USB CABLES. FRICKING USB CABLES. NOT DACs. NOT AMPLIFIERS.

Peace out.