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 reasin is likely RF. Like you I didn't suggest corrupted data, but interference in the DAC conversion and analogue circuits. However that was ignore 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 nkisy PC) a cabke 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.
Gregirio 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.
Ah, someone talking sense and in a reasonable way. I think you and I are more or less aligned in what we are suggesting. My demonstrations of the effect of BNC cables which filter RF noise are so obvious that anyone who hears them is in no doubt that there is a big difference. It is a bit like the change when someone alters the treble on an old tone control. No one ever asked to be shown the numbers on tone controls before they believe what they were hearing. The difference in the sound is enough to convince them that they work. Sure, at a theoretical level some people might like to attach numbers to satisfy themselves but numbers are not always needed when the difference is that big.
Anyway, I have had one sensible response and I thank you for your time in responding. I will go away and have a play with making some USB cables similar to my BNC cables and see what happens. You will know it has worked if you see my adverts in the HFi magazines.
I remember getting into EMF paper wrapped cables about 9 years ago. After doing some Google searches then there was some but not an amazing amount of research.
A short Google search now shows an abundance of interest in the suppression of EMF. We now have EMF wallpaper for your house, and you could completely enclose your listening room from external EMF.
As a general guide it seems the upper AQ USB cables all tout EMF shielding, though it seeems a rare subject to test EMF on data transfer. It has come from small pieces of paper being vary expensive to people covering their walls with the stuff. Also noted this year are fashionable science papers depicting EMF on the human organism.
EMF has now become the buzz word for equipment enclosure too, as it looks to be the ultimate audiophile bogeyman now-a-days.
Electromagnetic Fields or Electromagnectic Interference. Haha your right. But they call it EMF paper at least they used to and still do in some circles; simply nomenclature details. Could be the audiophile equivalent of slang?
I remember getting into EMF paper wrapped cables about 9 years ago. After doing some Google searches then there was some but not an amazing amount of research.
A short Google search now shows an abundance of interest in the suppression of EMF. We now have EMF wallpaper for your house, and you could completely enclose your listening room from external EMF.
As a general guide it seems the upper AQ USB cables all tout EMF shielding, though it seeems a rare subject to test EMF on data transfer. It has come from small pieces of paper being vary expensive to people covering their walls with the stuff. Also noted this year are fashionable science papers depicting EMF on the human organism.
EMF has now become the buzz word for equipment enclosure too, as it looks to be the ultimate audiophile bogeyman now-a-days.
Excepting few of us we are all surrounded by thousands of devices generating EMF. The number of such devices will increase exponentially in the coming years.
Manufacturers do play with people fears even if all this accounts for 0.0001 dB in the main cases.
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.
Let us take DAC case. It is not difficult to measure its susceptibility to DC/AC/ground noises. It is not difficult to measure its susceptibility to EMI/RFI with cables connected or not.
In principle those effects should be insignificant when translated into output audio levels. Now in case it is not one can easily measure the differences.
For obvious reasons no manufacturer will start publishing such values if competitors don't do or any organism forces them to do.
You raised quite correct points in your post. Nevertheless I do adhere to @bigshot and @gregorio approach in the sense that one should look at it widely ( general cases ) and not at exceptions.
EMI/RFI is not a topic everyone is dealing everyday with and it is quite easy to afraid or provide unclear information to listeners.
Despite the fact I once worked with those aspects in terms of components susceptibility versus Electromagnetic Waves, I have no better idea about how is it really when dealing with Audio items.
Since the power needed to interfere must be quite high I am doubtful until I am provided with null tests / output measurements / etc....
Anyhow a cable change is not the solution for tackling eventual issues. The first step is to identify the 'noise' source in case of any instead of adding band straps everywhere with more or less luck.
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.
Computers sure can be noisy... very curious if this may or may not shed some light on why some perceive an audible difference in their usb cables though I do find myself leaning towards what @Brooko has so nicely proposed.
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?
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"?
A hypothesis MUST have some [deleted wrong part] scientific basis to start with, say some [deleted wrong part] maths/physics which implies or indicates the hypothesis.
Uh huh, so if everyone here prefaced their comments with, "I have an hypothesis ..." and concluded with, "... however I have no data showing that's globally true" we'd be good!
Because speculation, no matter its basis (or the size of ego presenting it), isn't science, it's just guesswork. I understand why you're tempted to believe otherwise, but ask anyone who works in a field where misses kill people and they'll point you to the regulations that govern their work which basically say it's proven with data or it's speculation.
Maybe if we were all polite and humble enough to preface our speculation this thread wouldn't suck ...
... But in today's crazy mixed up world, asking for a little humility seems too big of an ask.
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?
Wow, I mostly agree with all of that, I would just rephrase it:
"why do USB cables make such a difference" can be summarised as some people have experienced a difference, others have not, and there is no data one way or another to prove either case. (just a lot of, "buy my speculation is really smart sounding and I have a giant needy ego so everyone should just agree")
The science part of this is, when there is observed phenomena, we have to prove why it happened one way or another or we still don't know.*
*Special Fun Related Nerd Topic
I hesitate to bring up the placebo effect because it also seems controversial, but in healthcare the data shows over the last decade the placebo effect is getting stronger with all kinds of drugs (and most that study it speculate the placebo effect isn't one thing, but many different things grouped together under that header). Nevertheless, double-blind drug trials are showing large increases in the placebo effect which sits at the nexus of biology, psychology, and chemistry (in the case of drugs). In general placebos seem to relieve the symptoms of an ailment but not the underlying cause.
Now for the really bizarre thing: there are randomized trials showing that some placebos still work even when you tell the person it's a sugar pill!
The ethical question in all of this could be, if a business goes to the trouble of creating a pill or procedure that it says won't cure your underlying condition, but may relieve (or eliminate) symptoms of pain, and it does for many people, is that a legit product? I'd say yes.
The point is that if hearing is viewed as a condition, and sound qualities as a symptom, then it's likely leisure audio has all kinds of placebo effects going on with all of it, both heard and unheard, and since sound quality is at the nexus of biology and psychology it's probably fruitless to tell someone an experience didn't happen. Note that even people who are told they're getting a sugar pill still experienced improvements.
What I'm not saying is that USB cables (or any component) are for sure totally completely placebo, but it's possible.
And also, there's no objective data to say it isn't happening, despite the fact that USB is just an electrical transmission coded and decoded with knowable computer software and presumably oodles of testing. Despite that, somehow we still don't know one way or another.
So, yes, we have no data to prove anything one way or another.
And also, there's no objective data to say it isn't happening, despite the fact that USB is just an electrical transmission coded and decoded with knowable computer software and presumably oodles of testing. Despite that, somehow we still don't know one way or another.
So, yes, we have no data to prove anything one way or another.
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?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
