The Great USB cable debate poll

I just LOVE the Hoffman forums! I don't have an opinion on this, seems to me you would hve to compare for yourself a couple of different usb cables in order to do so. I guess not.

 

Trust me, I was aiming for rigor, not satire

I have only experience with a few USB cables, but from my experience with digital design, without knowing any reviews I would gravitate towards those with excellent shielding between the signal pair and power pair, tightly controlled geometry between conductor in each pair, excellent overall shielding, low capacitance (if published). Materials and other factors would be lower priority considerations for me, all other things being equal.

For me, even my #5 is too strong of a statement, since I'll hold out hope that some state of the art DAC somewhere has badass jitter reduction, super separate power supplies for everything, and super sweet shielding and ground handling, such that the output change with different cables is below measurable or audible threshold. From my experience so far, none have been that way yet, but I can't rule it out.

So much of the end effect is based on overall architecture and design, and if anyone is tired of theory, that got me thinking of a few analogies today while at work of systems that have analog endpoints and digital transmission:

As Vidiot mentioned earlier in one of these USB threads, digital video seems to hold up pretty well. I wonder if part of the reason is that the spatial location for the amplitude samples (color channels) is fixed, due to pixels being statically placed on the screen (unlike analog screens, where the position was controlled by analog signals to magnets bending an electron beam). If DACs had fixed temporal location for their amplitude samples (voltages->sound pressures) in the same way, due to DAC sourced clocks instead of source sourced clocks, that would help a lot. A few DACs do that.

Digital cellphones (2G, 3G, and up) use digital transmission and can illustrate effects on the signal that are not just working perfectly or not working. One can have muffled sounds, echo, or any number of analog-seeming effects because of a "bad connection".

Voice over IP calls or Internet videoconferencing use digital transmission and can also illustrate effects other than working perfectly or not working.

If you know anyone that administers a cell-based or packet-based network, you may want to ask them if they treat voice and video differently than other traffic (they do), and why.

 

Maybe the question should be ( how many have tried a handful of different USB cables in there system ? )

 

It all will come down to how the audibility test of different USB-cables are going to be performed, as I see it. So it´s not at all about structure in testing.

 

I've probably tried around a good dozen regular phono cables in my from £7 to £230. Forget that nonsense for USB. Might get an Audioquest Cinnamon at £50 or an Atlasfor fun, but that's where it'll peak out.

 

Only if I can get one made on a Tuesday. Surveys of company executives and firms like Account-temps
claim that workers are most productive and engaged in their work on Tuesdays........

 

No, that has nothing to do with it.

 

It doesn't say that. It says that over 70% don't think there's a difference in sound. Doesn't mean they've actually listened. In hindsight I wish I'd asked the question differently to only include people who have experimented with different cable. Problem of course is that there's no way to know if everyone is being honest.

 

If one has experience with different cables or not has nothing to with the outcome per se. If you are experienced at how this type of listening test must be performed, this is easy to see. There is a challange if taking a scientific approach, then one has to fulfill that approach, or else the results will not really mean anything.

 

How do you figure ? The question was "Can upgraded USB cables at various price points improve the sound of your system ".
If you haven't tried a bunch of USB's how can you competently give an answer ?

 

Not easy to see. I've performed the tests and thee is a difference. Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts here. I'm sure you and I would find ourselves in agreement on many things. This isn't one of them. Let's leave it here. Thx.

 

Because the outcome is to the largest part only depending on how the listening was done, it has nothing to do with the cables per se.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say "it has nothing to do with the cables ", there are of coarse other variables that are usually taken into account when doing any subjective listening tests. Those listening tests if done correctly, are repeated and qualified to help add some accuracy. As I mentioned earlier I use a spectrum analyzer to backup what I hear.

 

The question is; do we want to know if there can be an audible difference, when using different USB- cables? If yes, this will in the end result in very complex listening tests, if we really want to know. So if we want to know, the first that must be done, is to design tests that we can agree upon, the problem is that this will never happen, so we will never leave square one, where some say they hear differences, and some say they don´t.

An analogy would be; if I state that I, at my morning walk, met an alien, the right question would not to be asking what language he/she spoke.

 

If the equipment measures the same, I doubt I would be able to make a distinction.

In an earlier post, I related my experience of comparing a tube amplifier with a solid state model between which, I could not make a distinction in direct A/B real time comparison. I had also initially believed the tube amplifier was far superior sounding when I first listened to it prior to the direct comparison.

The difference between two completely different amplifiers of two completely different circuit topology - by definition - is far greater than the difference between two different cables - carrying digital signals no less(!) - on an incalculable order of magnitude.

If Johnny can run faster than Sam and Sam can run faster than Frank, it can be declared with absolute certainty that Johnny can run faster than Frank, a priori.

 

I'm afraid I must again respectfully disagree.
Are audio club frequently does such tests and all perimeters and variables are chosen and agreed upon before the listening tests begin. It's actually a lot of fun and gives us some insight into what are hard earned dollars may be going toward, or not.

 

Or offered the third option: "I don't know" - and then I could have voted.

 

But we're not talking about a square wave, which is an analog phenomenon. We're talking about a digital baseband signal, that has no zero crossing. Comparisons of a DC pulse train to an analog signal just confuse the issue IMHO.

 

Have You done blind tests with USB-cables that have shown differences in sound?

 

Absolutely, most tests are done in rooms such as mine ( my avatar ) where the changes cannot be seen as all the cables are in the room behind the front wall. All tests are repeated for accuracy. Whether those changes are positive or negative is always a debate between members but when sonic change's are heard it's almost always unanimous. The members did hear differences with USB cables all though we all agreed those changes were small and a consensus to which was superior could not be found.

 

Were the comparisons instantaneous or only made after disconnecting and reconnecting equipment?

In any case, you pretty much admit there was no discernible difference between the cables yet you state, "...members did hear differences..."

If differences were heard, why were they unable identify one cable over the other?

 

Some of @tmsorosk 's experiences mirror my own when doing ABX testing of higher sample rate digital vs. Redbook. While I got pretty good at spotting the higher resolution files, I can't say with any certainty that it sounded better than the Redbook version. Different? Yes. Better? Can't say.

 

How were the tests designed, and what differences were heard?

 

Rather a lot I'd imagine.

The perceived wisdom that you need a certain kind of system to notice an improvement completely throws the logic that's often thrown at us that says "upgrade, upgrade, upgrade". Apparently, not all upgrades are what they seem. Yet, even when test evidence is shown, there's still a small but thankfully dwindling number that says that this upgrade path is worth pursuing as far as USB cables, or even digital cables in general, are concerned. Go figure.

If I was a new entrant to this forum I'd be very careful about reading what passes for advice on here from some quarters.

Upgrade? Sure!

Cables? Sure!

USB Cables? Sure!

I don't hear a difference? Ah, you're system's not good enough.

 

A lot of this discussion reminds me of a conversation with my brother-in-law, and engineer. We were waiting for my sister at a restaurant to have dinner. My sister was a half hour late and explained that she had left the interior light on in her car while at work, and the battery died. He discussed numerically about the power draw of the bulb and the power of the battery and concluded that it was impossible for the bulb to kill the battery. The problem with the discussion was that the reality of the situation was that the battery was dead, I am sure he was convinced he was right but, unfortunately, that does not affect reality. There are too many variables in the real world. Theory and reality very rarely perfectly align as most theory is a necessarily over-simplified approximation of reality and cannot possibly take into account all possible variables.

I, myself, am somewhat skeptical, but a lack of empirical evidence either way on my part prevent me from opining. I lack the arrogance of those that claim their knowledge of theory trumps the empirical knowledge of others.

Those who have tried and heard no difference have just as valid a view IMHO than those that did hear a difference, but these things can be system specific (and that doesn't necessarily infer such a system is inferior, just different).