Friday, 21 June 2013

MUSINGS: About Those USB Cable Tests...
























  1. Way too much objectivity...again thanks for all your efforts for the demystification exercise.

    1. Thanks for the comment.

      "Way too much objectivity" - Well, that's just subjective ain't it :-)

      But seriously, that's the beauty of blogs. You get a sense of the idiosyncrasies and views of the respective authors. IMO, although I can respect the opinions and beliefs of subjective reviewers especially with regards to "look and feel", I've rarely in the last few years found subjective audio impressions all that useful. To me, reasonable objective analysis helps me *understand* the stuff, and that's something I've always valued more in life (not just audio).

  2. Good article and amazing blog, as a reader I hope you don't "kill" this blog like so many bloggers do. It's a source of good objective articles.
    Best wishes.

    1. Thanks for the note JT.

      Yes, I do intend to keep this blog up for reference. One of the thoughts I had when starting this was to have a source for discussions with friends around audio stuff; especially around some of the beliefs folks may have and what an objective take on it demonstrates.

  3. I haven't read the article nor do I intend to as to me (and my ears and far below par gears) the whole cable issue is irrelevant.

    regarding the remarks:
    1: Not mentioning the coax cable seems to be something they 'missed' out and seems a valid remark.
    The reason seems clear; USB to coax conversion with the MF which seems to be in high regard by the authors.

    2: because of it's pricepoint (12.000 MUST sound good) and the fact it is a powerful one box solution (it drives speakers directly which MF can't). The authors hold it in high sonic regards I assume. This all in one solution eliminates the need for audio interlinks.

    4: I don't think audiophiles dispute the data and samples wiould be different via cables, I think they know the data and bits that arrive the same, they just question timing (jitter). I do believe most of them 'think' USB is very 'analog alike' and simply sends continuous streams of 16 or 24 bit data. This causes them to think analog 'assets' can be applied as there is an analog waveform present (a voltage varying over time). They possibly do not understand the mechanisms involved with USB data transfer.

    In 'bad quality' DAC's jitter on the USB bus (which IS present) can be measured on the output IF large enough. Newer DAC's do NOT have this problem. Different types of jitter exist and some of them ARE related to risetime, bandwidth of the cable itself (eye-pattern) so can understand the reasoning behind it. I mean risetime AND eye-pattern being important for CERTAIN older DAC's that 'recover' the clock from the actual USB clock which subsequently is used to clock out the samples of the DAC chip.
    As you already mentioned modern DAC's all have nifty circuits in there that eliminate that jitter and thus the USB jitter problem is not relevant.
    What's still relevant with USB audio (and cables don't matter here) MIGHT be common mode garbage entering the audio chain but that's another topic and needs to be addressed in the power supply(ies) area.

    The strange part remains WHY subjective reports always seem to differ from measurements.
    The reasons for that I already touched in my reply here:

    keep up the good work...
    Secretly I hope in the future some technical minded subjectivist will connect the dots (link the 2 disciplines) that seem to divide the worlds. Honestly I reckon this won't happen as the link does not exist.


      Secretly, I suspect some folks who write subjective review material already know that what they're writing is in fact false :-).

  4. Just stumbled upon your site, and from the initial read have already learned much! I especially appreciate that you go deeper into the technical details of the protocol to describe the bandwidth of the USB and how it translates into requirements of higher bitrates. I'm still somewhat of a novice to the full on audiophile setup, and although I've invested in AudioQuest King Cobra interconnects between my DAC and Amp (both Cambridge Audio 851A/C), I can't convince myseful on spending money on an extended USB cable (from laptop to DAC). Your article clarifies a lot more, and now I plan on checking out the Bitperfect software pieces. Thanks again!



  7. Yes it's true in the market lot's of the data recovery software are available but the selection of the best software is really very difficult task and about the company I know that can help you in recovering your data easily.
    Source:Read More

  8. Loving your posts. Only came across them today, and although I'm fairly sure that in the past, my ears have fooled me into thinking digital coaxial cables sounded different, perhaps thats more the fault of a rather antiquated DAC by modern standards. I've yet to be convinced that any differences exist in USB cables. Most particularly because I work in IT for a living, and deal with enterprise level networking and data storage every day. The concept of a USB cable failing to get all the data from one end to the next is almost laughably ludicrous.

    Your tests here have only served to enhance my happiness at using the USB A to B cable that came with my last Dell Monitor. It seems to do a perfectly find job. For context, my system is a Mac Mini, connected via Asynchronous USB to a TEAC UD-H01. A combination that provides excellent sound far in excess of its total cost to me (around £300 total).

    If someone could have told me even 5 years ago that I could have 24/192 audio, bit perfect, from a system that allows me to use an ipad as a remote control, and that it would cost me £300, I'd have thought they were high. Having since back to back demo'd my little TEAC against DAC's in the four figure range, it seems to give nothing away, leaving me to believe that in 2013, digital has pretty much come of age and spending more doesnt necessarily get you any more performance.

    Keep up the good work


    High Voltage Testing