[Badas]

   
You might be missing out, depending on your gear. My Vega DAC has an excellent USB implementation that, to my ears, sounds noticeably better than SPDIF (via co-ax or toslink - doesn't matter).
 
The USB is asynchronous, allowing the Vega to do it's magic in it's own time with the femto clocks and other goodies packed under the hood - result - audibly better sound. At least, that is my understanding - could be wrong in the details - don't care really - what matters is the sound, and for the Vega and my ears, USB trumps SPDIF everytime.
 
I'd suggest you try both SPDIF and USB on your gear and let your ears decide.
 
Not wanting to add more fuel to the cable debate, but I have tried a 1m $300 audiophile USB cable and a 5m $10 USB cable - and I can't hear a difference at all. No difference in drop outs or SQ or anything else using the Vega in 'Exact' clock mode. I believe what I can hear - and fancy USB cables don't make the cut.

So would I just go from my Arcam DrDock to my Oppo? I don't use a computer.
 


 
Edit: I just remembered I can't do that. The USB is a power supply on the Arcam Dock.

 

[Stereolab42]

Just one.

Your description above is largely correct though there are a few oversimplifications, but for the sake of argument, it's accurate enough.

How does that support the conclusion that a 6' audiophile digital cable will resolve any of them in a way a 6' properly constructed "utility grade" cable would not?

 
Because the audiophile cable may be constructed in a way to resist (the uncorrectable) packet errors. Better shielding, thicker wire, better connection points. My rule-of-thumb is you should spend about 10% of the cost of your system on accessories... specifically, those accessories for which there is some argument that SQ could be improved (even if completely theoretical). Why take the risk of invalidating the immense cost of an expensive system because you didn't foresee or forestall an issue in some other part of the chain? Pascal's wager.

 

[BirdManOfCT]

   
Oh I agree. I never buy cheap cables and most cables that come with gear get thrown away (Oppo is the exception, their cables are excellent). I think we are on the same page. Just those super expensive cables are a joke. Just like super expensive tubes on fleabay. Shop around and you get the same thing cheaper.
 
For the record I don't use USB on any of my audio. Coax, Optical and Analog only.

Why not?

 

[Badas]

 
Why not?

Because I don't use a computer for audio playback.

 

[BirdManOfCT]

 
Because I don't use a computer for audio playback.

Duh. LOL!

 

[bbophead]

 

 
Why not?

Because I don't use a computer for audio playback.

+1

 

[bpcans]

Oh I agree. I never buy cheap cables and most cables that come with gear get thrown away (Oppo is the exception, their cables are excellent). I think we are on the same page. Just those super expensive cables are a joke. Just like super expensive tubes on fleabay. Shop around and you get the same thing cheaper.

For the record I don't use USB on any of my audio. Coax, Optical and Analog only.

I only ask this question because of the recent discussion. I purchased an AQ Carbon USB cable today for use with my Peachtree DAC•ITx. Did I get ripped off? Full disclosure, I paid $130 for a 3m cord which usually retails for about twice that.

 

[bfreedma]

Just one.

Your description above is largely correct though there are a few oversimplifications, but for the sake of argument, it's accurate enough.

How does that support the conclusion that a 6' audiophile digital cable will resolve any of them in a way a 6' properly constructed "utility grade" cable would not?

 
Because the audiophile cable may be constructed in a way to resist (the uncorrectable) packet errors. Better shielding, thicker wire, better connection points. My rule-of-thumb is you should spend about 10% of the cost of your system on accessories... specifically, those accessories for which there is some argument that SQ could be improved (even if completely theoretical). Why take the risk of invalidating the immense cost of an expensive system because you didn't foresee or forestall an issue in some other part of the chain? Pascal's wager.

I don't see how better shielding, thicker wire, or improved connections can resist packet errors in a normal home environment, but those can be had for less than $20. No issue with whatever you choose to spend, but the claims of improved performance are where I get off the bus. Using Pascal's wager to validate the cost is a losing proposition in this example as theoretically, no element in an audio setup is perfect so you end up in a Pascal loop, forever seeking the next theoretical "weakest link in the chain".

Can you be more specific as to how cable construction could reduce packet errors?

 

[bonesnv]

Science forum is thattaway.

 

[Badas]

I only ask this question because of the recent discussion. I purchased an AQ Carbon USB cable today for use with my Peachtree DAC•ITx. Did I get ripped off? Full disclosure, I paid $130 for a 3m cord which usually retails for about twice that.

I would say and guess you did good. I don't think that is un-reasonable for a long good cable.

 

[bpcans]

I would say and guess you did good. I don't think that is un-reasonable for a long good cable.

Wooh, I feel like I dodged a bullet there. And right as I typed the last sentence SRV starts to play "Crossfire". Badas, your the best my friend! Now I can get some sleep if this ballgame doesn't go too late. Go Frisco!

 

[koiloco]

   
Nope, not that simple. This is where a deeper understanding of the digital protocol comes in handy. USB audio streaming is typically implemented using the isochronous transfer type, which has error detection but not error correction. This means corrupted packets are not resent, and the DAC must cover for them, to the detriment of SQ.
 
In contrast if you have an external USB SATA drive, that uses the bulk transfer type, which does have error correction. (This also applies to internal SATA cables, which is why audiophile SATA cables are, in fact, bunk.) So while the music data coming off your HD may be reaching your motherboard just fine, the data going back into your DAC may run into issues.
 
Combine this understanding with the fact that the longer and cheaper your USB cable, and the higher bandwidth of the data being transferred (for example, high-res audio), the more likely you'll see errors. There's a reason the USB 2.0 specification provides for maximum cable lengths. I would also point out that video over HDMI does not have error correction, so the above discussion applies to HDMI cables as well. Try running a cheap HDMI cable 75' and see what I mean... it's not going to cut out all at once, I'm afraid.
 
Any more questions?

Not really! I have seen answers like yours over and over for way too many years.  In HP related context, we are not talking about 75' cable and cheap/non functioning digital cable here.  A well constructed $30 Belkin USB cable will be just as good and error free as a $500 one.  I am a computer hw/sw engineer so my understanding of both digital and analog protocols are quite decent. There's no need to appeal to knowledge authority,oversimplify things and point to extreme cases which are often not applicable in the common HP related usage to strengthen and support your hypothesis.  This practice often confuses non technical people very much and has the exact intended influence when used by individuals promoting the sales of these "audiophile" components. 
 
Btw, I am also in the bay area.  If you are up for it, let's do some blind tests between your digital cables and mine (under 15' of course).  Maybe, both of us will learn something.  
We can even make it more interesting.  If you can tell that your cable is in the chain 8/10 times, I will pay for your cable.  If you fail, you pay for mine.  

 
 
I know we are all passionate about what we believe in but let's stop and not turn this thread into another cable debate.  

 

[Stereolab42]

Enough. Jude has made it clear that DBT and ABX discussion in the context of cables is restricted to the Sound Science forum because the discussion always goes exactly where it's gone above -- nowhere. 

 

[koiloco]

I don't see how better shielding, thicker wire, or improved connections can resist packet errors in a normal home environment, but those can be had for less than $20. No issue with whatever you choose to spend, but the claims of improved performance are where I get off the bus. Using Pascal's wager to validate the cost is a losing proposition in this example as theoretically, no element in an audio setup is perfect so you end up in a Pascal loop, forever seeking the next theoretical "weakest link in the chain".

Can you be more specific as to how cable construction could reduce packet errors?

+1.  Let's stop cuz you know where this discussion will end up and you won't get an answer that really does any good.

 

[koiloco]

  Enough. Jude has made it clear that DBT and ABX discussion in the context of cables is restricted to the Sound Science forum because the discussion always goes exactly where it's gone above -- nowhere. 

+1.  
Not taking my wager?  we can just do it for lunch instead of paying for each other's cable.  You sound like an interesting guy.  I'll be happy to buy you lunch and have an opportunity to expand my understanding about digital protocols.  Never stop learning is my life directive.