[gregorio]

YOU SAY - You are professional sound engineers and you know what you are doing. If there was any RF or EMF noise issue you would have noticed it in the studio playback.
[1] I SAY - Really? Are you sure? It can be subtle and the music still sounds pretty good. Fantastic even. My Dave sounds fantastic. I just happen to think it sounds even better if I put RF filters on the input cables. [1a] When you are listening to playback I am assuming you have a job in hand concerning the mixing etc and if truth be told, the absolute quality of the sound is not going to affect your ability to do that job. [1b] I am sure the sound in your studio sounds magnificent but are you sure it is not a case of near enough is good enough?

YOU SAY - designing a DAC to be RF noise tolerant is ridiculously easy and cheap to do and any competently designed DAC should cope with this. You therefore say the professional DACs are not affected by any RF noise coming into them.
[2] I SAY - How do you know this is the case with the DACs you use? [2a] In any case is it not better practice to filter out the RF noise before it gets into a DAC or other equipment?
YOU SAY - If the Dave is affected by RF on it's inputs then it is either broken or badly designed.
[3] I SAY - It would be interesting to take one of the professional DACs you mention and see if filtering the inputs for RF noise makes any difference.

1. I frequently have to take a signal or part of a signal from my ADC/DAC and amplify it by 50dB or even more, then it goes through the usual round of further amplification for the speakers and out into an exceptionally quiet and accurate listening environment. So yes, I am pretty sure!
1a. It depends on the exact circumstances but "truth be told" a considerable amount of the time, the absolute quality of sound is going to seriously affect my job and is of paramount importance!
1b. My studio is not designed to sound magnificent, it's designed to accurately reproduce an audio signal. Whether or not someone thinks that sounds magnificent is down to personal preference and in my experience some/many audiophiles do not. It is though, always a case of near enough is good enough, as even spending tens of millions does not result in a perfect monitoring environment. Incidentally, my job sometimes requires me to manipulate/generate/manufacture the background noise/ambience of numerous different real life environments. It's for this reason that my monitoring environment needs to be exceptionally quiet, otherwise I wouldn't be able to tell what I'm actually putting into the audio files I'm creating and what is just the background noise of my monitoring environment.

2. I refer you to my response above, plus, I often have to take recordings from other pro ADC/DACs, recorded in a variety of non-optimal locations and do the same thing, massively amplify the signal or part of it. This amplification + my monitoring environment should make any interference (RF, EM or other noise) particularly noticeable or at the least, way more so than in any consumer scenario.
2a. A DAC has just one job, to convert digital audio data into an analogue signal as accurately as possible, and that obviously means without ANY audible interference (noise, distortion, interference). That could be achieved by the best pro audio ADC/DACs at least 25 years ago, today it can be achieved in any pro audio ADC/DAC, even the very cheap ones. Therefore, in a modern ADC/DAC, filtering out RF noise before it gets to the DAC should make absolutely no difference and if it did, it could only be because the ADC/DAC has defective isolation from RF noise.

3. It's one thing to have signal to noise ratio specs from a manufacturer in whatever controlled environment they did their testing and another to use one or an entire bank of ADC/DACs day in and day out in the interference rich and demanding conditions of pro studios. Any deficiency or susceptibility to interference would quickly be identified and that piece of equipment replaced or not purchased in the first place. This is true of any piece of studio equipment and has been for decades! So no, it wouldn't be an interesting experiment, it would be pointless. Even if there were any difference, it would have to be many, many times below audibility otherwise it would have already been identified.

[1] Analogue quoted to represent my situation. The Analogue part of my chain is amplifying the mains noise !
[2] Noise is often used but it's a term that is misleading as you cannot technically hear the noise but you notice when it has been reduced.
I am surprised you had not realised this coming from a Studio background.
[3] Quote "It's my experience and posted to help people, consider my experience or not, either way, no issues with me." does not imply what you suggest.

1. Quoting a whole studio worth of equipment, with hundreds of simultaneous audio paths which are summed together, is hardly "representative" of a single piece of audio equipment with just one (stereo) path. What you've quoted does not support your argument, it contradicts it! If the individual audio paths in any studio were to amplify mains noise to anywhere near audibility, then the cumulative effect would be utterly horrendous amounts of "mains noise" and a completely unusable, seriously defective product!

2. I've no idea where you got that from, it's completely backwards! It's because I work in a studio that I DO know that noise can be heard. In fact, as I stated above, I often have to manipulate/process or create environmental noise floors, which would obviously be impossible if I couldn't actually hear what I was doing!

3. Again, you did not just post your experience/observations, you posted your assumptions on the cause of them!!

G

 

[Clive101]

1. I frequently have to take a signal or part of a signal from my ADC/DAC and amplify it by 50dB or even more, then it goes through the usual round of further amplification for the speakers and out into an exceptionally quiet and accurate listening environment. So yes, I am pretty sure!
1a. It depends on the exact circumstances but "truth be told" a considerable amount of the time, the absolute quality of sound is going to seriously affect my job and is of paramount importance!
1b. My studio is not designed to sound magnificent, it's designed to accurately reproduce an audio signal. Whether or not someone thinks that sounds magnificent is down to personal preference and in my experience some/many audiophiles do not. It is though, always a case of near enough is good enough, as even spending tens of millions does not result in a perfect monitoring environment. Incidentally, my job sometimes requires me to manipulate/generate/manufacture the background noise/ambience of numerous different real life environments. It's for this reason that my monitoring environment needs to be exceptionally quiet, otherwise I wouldn't be able to tell what I'm actually putting into the audio files I'm creating and what is just the background noise of my monitoring environment.

2. I refer you to my response above, plus, I often have to take recordings from other pro ADC/DACs, recorded in a variety of non-optimal locations and do the same thing, massively amplify the signal or part of it. This amplification + my monitoring environment should make any interference (RF, EM or other noise) particularly noticeable or at the least, way more so than in any consumer scenario.
2a. A DAC has just one job, to convert digital audio data into an analogue signal as accurately as possible, and that obviously means without ANY audible interference (noise, distortion, interference). That could be achieved by the best pro audio ADC/DACs at least 25 years ago, today it can be achieved in any pro audio ADC/DAC, even the very cheap ones. Therefore, in a modern ADC/DAC, filtering out RF noise before it gets to the DAC should make absolutely no difference and if it did, it could only be because the ADC/DAC has defective isolation from RF noise.

3. It's one thing to have signal to noise ratio specs from a manufacturer in whatever controlled environment they did their testing and another to use one or an entire bank of ADC/DACs day in and day out in the interference rich and demanding conditions of pro studios. Any deficiency or susceptibility to interference would quickly be identified and that piece of equipment replaced or not purchased in the first place. This is true of any piece of studio equipment and has been for decades! So no, it wouldn't be an interesting experiment, it would be pointless. Even if there were any difference, it would have to be many, many times below audibility otherwise it would have already been identified.



1. Quoting a whole studio worth of equipment, with hundreds of simultaneous audio paths which are summed together, is hardly "representative" of a single piece of audio equipment with just one (stereo) path. What you've quoted does not support your argument, it contradicts it! If the individual audio paths in any studio were to amplify mains noise to anywhere near audibility, then the cumulative effect would be utterly horrendous amounts of "mains noise" and a completely unusable, seriously defective product!

2. I've no idea where you got that from, it's completely backwards! It's because I work in a studio that I DO know that noise can be heard. In fact, as I stated above, I often have to manipulate/process or create environmental noise floors, which would obviously be impossible if I couldn't actually hear what I was doing!

3. Again, you did not just post your experience/observations, you posted your assumptions on the cause of them!!

G

Again you quote studio equipment again I have no interest so will not respond.
I quoted Torus as it was used to treat for mains noise as I had noise.
I have nothing more to add and no longer wish to respond to your posts.

 

[gregorio]

Again you quote studio equipment again I have no interest so will not respond. ... I have nothing more to add and no longer wish to respond to your posts.

Sorry, but you sound like you've lost your marbles! You state "I quoted Torus as it was used to treat for mains noise as I had noise." - Yes indeed, you quoted the use of Torus with a whole bunch of STUDIO EQUIPMENT! You are the one who quoted the studio equipment and used it to "represent" your situation/DAC and now you're saying you have no interest and will not respond to what you yourself stated/quoted?!

In any event, it's a wise decision to not respond any further and dig an even deeper hole yourself.

G

 

[castleofargh]

arrrgh. Y U do dis, admin? now that it moved to sound science I have to care again.
most arguments are based on unreliable listening tests and at best anecdotal evidence used to jump to conclusions. it makes the heart of the debate pretty much irrelevant for this sub section's tentative standards of objective based arguments. I can't just tolerate fallacies and "I know what I heard" as evidence, just to keep the general tone of the topic. but if everybody becomes accountable for what they claim overnight, some will be very frustrated because it's not what they signed for when joining the topic(where was it initially, cable section?). I've been given a poop sandwich. ^_^

 

[Ike1985]

Can someone give me an answer, yes or no. I have Hugo2 and I'm running Zeus XR and A18 with it. I currently just use a cheap cable to micro-b to usb-c cable to connect it to my phone. Would I benefit from dropping coin on some audiophile style cable if I'm just using it in this manner?

 

[bigshot]

No need for a fancy cable. If a USB cable is bad, you know it. It either works or it doesn't. If you aren't getting skipping and dropouts, your current cable is as good as any other cable, regardless of price.

 

[Leo-]

@castleofargh, not sure if I get the whole of your cryptic post but...

No need for a fancy cable. If a USB cable is bad, you know it. It either works or it doesn't. If you aren't getting skipping and dropouts, your current cable is as good as any other cable, regardless of price.

here we go again

 

[castleofargh]

Can someone give me an answer, yes or no. I have Hugo2 and I'm running Zeus XR and A18 with it. I currently just use a cheap cable to micro-b to usb-c cable to connect it to my phone. Would I benefit from dropping coin on some audiophile style cable if I'm just using it in this manner?

it's easy to reply something, but you must realize that nobody has what it takes to make a confident reply. we don't know your circumstances, we don't know the state of the cable you're using, we don't even know if you have any significant issue to begin with.
so just dropping a "yes" or a "no" answer would be irresponsible. I get the insecurity and desire to be reassured by definitive answers, but the real world isn't that simple. also "benefit" can be interpreted anyway we like from hardly measurable improvement on a variable, to clearly audible improvement. can a better cable marginally improve something, yes, of course. does it matter? that's subjective. will it be audible? well we'd first need to know what's going on right now and we don't.

 

[bigshot]

I'll take responsibility. I've had bad USB cables in the past. I knew I had them. Errors that cause audible artifacts are generally huge and obvious. If it sounds OK, it probably is OK. No need to worry about it.

 

[Strangelove424]

I bet a person could make a lot of money selling giant Faraday cages to audiophiles. And the same business could also cater to the celebrity "safe room" market.

 

[theorist]

I bet a person could make a lot of money selling giant Faraday cages to audiophiles. And the same business could also cater to the celebrity "safe room" market.

Makes sense, any ideas how best these Faraday cages be properly grounded and isolated from the RF/EMI noise of mains power?

 

[castleofargh]

Makes sense, any ideas how best these Faraday cages be properly grounded and isolated from the RF/EMI noise of mains power?

get some of Elon Musk's big batteries for solar stuff, and put it inside the Faraday cage with the rest of the system and yourself. with some mean to disconnect the battery from it's power source when listening to music. I would suggest doing that underground in a bunker for better sound isolation. it can also serve for other paranoia and survival concepts.
but I'm afraid even the batteries will have measurable noise. it's really hard to make perfect stuff even for irrelevant reasons.

 

[theorist]

but I'm afraid even the batteries will have measurable noise. it's really hard to make perfect stuff even for irrelevant reasons.

What about putting some solar panels on top of the bunker then? Do solar flares cause noise?

 

[castleofargh]

the charging process probably does and the panel could act as an antenna I guess. I have a fair amount of imagination but not a lot of actual knowledge on solar panels. ^_^

 

[JaeYoon]

I think it's very important to have Digital Data classes possibly implemented in U.S Educational system in future.

It will at least help reduce level of scamming on audiophile USB cables. We don't even know if audiophile usb cables conforms to the USB Standards. What if they intentionally drifted away from the standard to add noise or some junk to make the consumer think because it sounds different from a bitperfect cable you can get from Amazon Basics for 99c, "it's better cuz it's audiophile"

The minute I see "audiophile" labelled on any product, I avoid.

Edit: lol. I meant the second I see it. Don't need to think twice before I think something is wrong with the product.