http://www.ghentaudio.com/part/e07.html It’s a digital signal, spending $4K is stupid. And no, you can’t “tune” sound by using a digital cable, it’s either clean, picks up noise, or drops out, it can’t alter the 1’s and 0’s in the feed that make up your audio. |
@uberwaltz I never said they had to sound identical, I did say that noise can be a factor, but one at a very low level. However, in terms of changing tonal balance, soundstage, imaging, etc. it’s all hogwash. Let’s say a portion of the audio is 0101111001010, tell me how the Nordost cable can actively alter that. |
@auxinput Unless it was double-blind and quick-switching, one cannot make factual statements, only subjective. Someone else could hear the same cables and yet hear no difference, and yet you can’t say he’s deaf, as you cannot prove on your own if you are hearing the “truth”. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d6/5a/ab/d65aabc7e63abc264549b9b36fbcef47.jpg Can you tell me the color of the center square of the front facing side (the side facing you)? However, your truth is your truth, so if you have the money to spend, buy whether cables/tweaks you want if you hear a benefit. However, be wary of recommending them to people, as your truth may not be their truth. |
@cleeds Ones going against data should offer up the proof. Can you find any studies that show a $30 digital cable and a $3000 digital cable have tonal differences? I’m unfortunately not well off enough to be able to spend $4K on a digital cable. Again, I grant that better made digital cables have better noise rejection, but a digital cable is impossible in increasing stereo separation, tonal balance, etc. A digital cable sends 1’s and 0’s, so as long as any noise picked up is below audibility, all will sound the same. And as I said, since sighted hearing is subjective, by all means buy a better cable if it sounds better to you, just don’t go out blindly recommending it to others, as you hearing a difference does not mean one exist, beck even if one does, one can have negative bias and hear them as similar. In terms of factual performance, getting a $4K BNC cable is just as silly as buying an external word clock for a DAC that reclocks internally anyway. |
@tomic601 One can easily say to ignore people who claim that one data cable sounds more toward sounding and Hi-Fi like than another data cable. Binary is binary, as long as noise isn’t picked up, that’s transmission is identical. It’s like saying the Mona Lisa would invoke different emotion if Da Vinci used paint that was 100x more expensive, despite being the same color, viscosity, etc. there are things that a data cable can alter, but making the music more toward sounding isn’t one of them, at least in actuality and not what you personally hear. I implore you to come up with one reason how a data cable can do such a thing. For any data cable of reasonable length, I have not seen any measurements where noise/jitter/frequency response/etc. is anything less than identical within -110dBFS. |
@geoffkait You mean the quality of the voltage/current? As I pointed out, noise-rejection is the only factor then. I ask how one digital cable can have more bass than another, or a more forward sound, or better instrument separation. These aren’t line/high level connections where capacitance, resistance, impedance, etc. are factors than can have effects if brought to extremes. And to others users, just like how I don’t need to travel around the world to know it’s not flat, I don’t need to listen to expensive data cables to know they can’t result in better stereo separation. |
@geoffkait Those potential other factors are what I’m trying to pinpoint. Let’s say better bass response, if one says “My Nordost USB cable has more bass over the AmazonBasics USB, which sounded thin.”, that means the loudness of the bass was different. Data is transmitted in binary packets and hopefully in discrete time (clock sync, or hopefully reclocked to better remove jitter), so for one data cable to have less bass, that means the data has to have been altered, as it’s not like in analog interconnects where simply using a different gauge can cause measurable differences. I’m no electrical engineer (I , so I could be wrong. |
@geoffkait Data cables using Star-quad wiring do have much better noise rejection. However, I doubt you have ever in your life heard a Toslink cable that caused audible noise/coloration/etc. to your music, unless you have Superman level hearing where distortion that’s over -100dBFS is audible to you. |
@cleeds If one argues against data, they don’t owe proof, but it should be provided if one wishes to best back up such a stance. I make no claims on whether or not you hear a digital cable as sounding better/different than another. I do make claims on whether or not such differences actually exist. I don’t excuse myself from having proof, mine are in the measurements and null testing that have shown any differences between digital cables are well below -100dBFS. If you hear a cable and it sounds better so you recommend it, that’s still a “blind” recommendation, as you cannot factor in the bias of the person you are recommending it too. Unlike with say recommending a computer, where there is no bias. Unless given evidence/explanation to refute the tests that has been conducted by others, saying a digital cable sounds better is no different than believing the homeopathy actually works and isn’t just placebo. |
@geoffkait So what, you are saying a USB cable between a source and DAC can make the sound warmer because it has more voltage? If a data cable doesn’t have sufficient bandwidth, the signal either drops out or stops to buffer. Transient response, soundstage, imaging, tonal balance, etc. are all impossible to alter with a digital transmission. Noise rejection & jitter are the only differentiating factors, and even then not by much (unless talking super long runs). Or, are you claiming that you can easily hear these differentiating factors which are lower than -100dBFS? @mahler123 In terms of digital connections, a better source device and DAC actually have less benefit from higher-end cables than cheaper/worse source devices and DACs. Better DACs reclock internally, so less need for a “low-jitter” cable or an external word clock. Better source devices have less noise, so less need for a cable with better noise rejection. |
@folkfreak We have differing definitions then. What you described I would mostly file under imaging. I define soundstage as the width/height/depth of the sound, and everything that happens within that in regards to the size and placement of voices/instruments as imaging. As for transient response and decay, digital transmission has nothing to do with this. A digital transmission can pick up noise, but it’s not like a speaker where it imparts delayed energy not inherent to the recording. My stance is thus: The only difference between an Amazon Basics digital cable a $5000 one, and everything in-between or similar length, is noise rejection. If I’m wrong, I would like to be proven wrong, and not just told so. |
@folkfreak you have to believe that superior clocking can improve the performance of a digital systemI do believe it needs to be of sufficient quality to avoid audible jitter. can improve soundstaging and definition“Definition” is a non-descript term, so I won’t touch that. I do not believe that a better clock improves soundstaging. Since you do, I would like to know how, what’s happening to the 1’s and 0’s that is altering the soundstage? Maybe we have different definitions, but I define soundstage on the as the width/height of the sound, which on the reproduction side is based of the off-axis characteristics of the speakers and the amount of reflections in the room (soundstage depth is inherent to the recording, the production, and can only be altered on the reproduction end with phase/channel mismatch which also would damage imaging. A speaker cannot have better soundstage depth than another if both have similar imaging and both are properly setup). then does it not follow that improving the accuracy of transmission of the clock signals in between the different components is also audible? Yes, a lower jitter transmittion results in a lower jitter output if the data is not reclocked. If the data is reclocked, then the amount of jitter caused by the cable or the source is irrelevant as long as the clock doesn’t lose lock. Reclocked standards such as USB behave differently and I have limited experience in this use case. Besides difference in noise rejection, what differences exist between USB cables of similar length? |
@cleeds So, I have to hear it to believe it? No explanations as to how? @almarg Thanks for the detailed response. This assumes that the reclocking circuitry performs in a theoretically ideal manner. Meaning that it reduces jitter to zero, or at least to below the threshold of audibility, whatever that threshold may be Even the $9 Apple dongle has a J-Test result of better than -110dBFS. I say that’s audibly transparent. For most modern setups, jitter is a non-issue. And it assumes the circuitry is able to do that despite the presence of noise or other spurious high frequency spectral components that it may be exposed to. True. Most DACs already filter RF and power supply noise though. The quoted statement furthermore assumes that such noise or other spurious high frequencies that may be introduced into the component receiving the signal will not find a path by which some of their energy may bypass the reclocking circuitry altogether. For example via grounds, power supplies, or stray capacitances. Thereby potentially affecting jitter at the point of D/A conversion, or even affecting analog circuitry further downstream as a result of effects such as intermodulation or AM demodulation.I touched in some of this above, but let’s talk about the effect the digital cable has. As an example: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-wireworld-star... The USB cable that costs 20x did reduce the mains/harmonics compared to the generic cable (although it did add some high frequency noise). However, look at the scale, the mains/harmonics with the generic cable is already -130dBFS (cause the DAC already has filtering). |
@cleeds So, you are unable to explain how a digital cable can sound different? I assume you are thus stating your stance is not faith-based? How can you state your stance is factual, with just experience/testimonial, did the people who believed their Balance Bracelet actually worked having a factual experience? @rbstehno The “truth” I am using are the measurements that show no audible differences and my knowledge/logic of how digital data works. I’m not so stubborn that I would blind refute valid data... |
@cleeds Why would I need to do such testing when measurements can be done? Listening tests for audibility thresholds are one thing, but as the data hasn’t shown the differences to be anywhere near audibility thresholds, it would be mostly a worthless exercise as the results can be accurately predicted. It’s like saying one television looks better than another, yet measurements show near identical performance, and yet you say I can’t claim they look identical if I haven’t personally seen both. Just like how one digital audio cable can’t widen the soundstage or music, one HDMI cable can’t have a more vivid image than another. The quality of the HDMI can’t effect pixel data, so visual testing is unnecessary, unless one claims differences do exist. |
@cleeds As I’ve continually asked, what contradicting data, other than testimonial? Testimonials are subjective, so I would like quick-switching and double-bling testing of such digital cables if one suggests the objective data (measurements) are incorrect. I’ll use the same analogy, what makes such a claim by those that have heard differences in digital cables any different than testimonials for Balance Bracelets? Our brains are easily tricked, visually (what color is the dress), audibly (Yanny vs Laurel), physically (hammer on the fake hand), and mentally (pharmaceuticals and homeopathy). |
@pokey77 well, seems this has turned into the devolving topic of "prove it works to me". Well, the only way it can be proved to anyone is to listen with your own ears. A few have suggested that in a polite manner. That’s not proof though, that’s a subjective evaluation. It shouldn’t be that hard to explain if a digital cable can sound different than another other than “You have to hear it to believe it.” I don’t have to see televisions in person to know which is better, resources like Rtings take the guesswork and faith/belief out. The factor of electrical noise has been given, and I agree different digital cables have varying levels of noise rejection, but if for normal length even Amazon Basics puts the noise well below audible thresholds, then we kind of have an answer. |
@geoffkait Sighted listening tests are useless data unless combined with double-blind, quick-switching, and level-matched, as a way to demonstrate bias. @pokey77 An answer to OP was pretty much given by others (who believe in differences), in that it is so heavily a system/personal dependent, that one cannot say which is best, only giving their testimonials on what they have heard, or simply listing everything that is available and telling OP to audition. There is no actual answer to which digital BNC cable is the “best” for <$4000. My recommendation would be the BJC Belden 1694A BNC cables. |
