@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. |
Tomic
I too bought Nordost Silver Shadow from Buff, great deals he has on them.
However I can state without question that the move up to the Heimdall 2 was huge...…..
|
One post from Tatyana seemed to get buried but I will pick up on it.
I have found on my C.E.C transport that I much prefer the sound using the AES/EBU over regular coax or BNC connections.
Do not have a hugely expensive AES cable but will likely be trying one out very soon to see if I can discern any further increase in sonics.
|
Better not let your wife find out that you spent $4K on a cable! Mayhem may ensue! |
mzkmxcvOnes going against data should offer up the proof. No one here owes you proof of anything.
I don’t need to listen to expensive data cables to know they can’t result in better stereo separation.
So you not only exempt yourself from providing the proof you demand of others, but you won't even go so far as to listen before rendering your pronouncement? You're a pretty funny guy.
... by all means buy a better cable if it sounds better to you, just don’t go out blindly recommending it to others ... Actually, if we've listened to the cable, we're not making a blind recommendation at all. It's armchair theorists like you that make the blind recommendations.
I’m unfortunately not well off enough to be able to spend $4K on a digital cable. Ahhh, there's your bias.
|
To mrc4u:
Audio Bacon has just published an extensive report on the Chord M Scaler and the sonic differences using several different connecting cables. This should give you valuable information for your question.
David Pritchard
|
David.
Thank you
Some nicely documented information there that should be hard to argue against. |
@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. |
@davidpritchard
Wow, he trashes (won’t even rank them, places them in the “graveyard”) the BNC cables from Mogami, Canare, Belden, BlueJeans, and Amphenol. I almost stopped reading right there. Those are some of the most trusted brands out there, in both the consumer and the pro world. |
I was waiting for the term pro audio to raise its ugly head. When it comes to cables I suspect there can be no proof, only evidence. Like most things in audio, actually. |
mzkmxcv
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.
There’s plenty of data on both sides of this issue. You’ve selected one set of second-hand data, and then chosen to ignore other data that you find inconvenient. You take this to the extreme of not even listening for yourself, which is pretty odd for someone posting to an audiophile site. So what's your hobby? Golf? Gardening? |
I have heard $250,000 systems was scooped off the curb. If the data is identical at either side of the cable, there will be no sonic difference. Don’t waste your money unless it makes you feel happy! |
It might help to travel to understand it ain’t perfect round.....in the extremes
the view from Kansas might lead one to the wrong conclusion.....
|
@cleeds
What evidence, other than testimonial, has been offered to suggest digital cables can be sonically different (exempting noise rejection)? |
Good question. All you have to do if listen to any digital cable first one direction, then the other. The 1s and 0s sound better one way. |
@mzkmxcv. While I know I’m beating my head against a wall let me try...
first you have to believe that superior clocking can improve the performance of a digital system. If, as is the case in my system or any other dCS rig, adding an off board clock (or in turn a 10MHz Reference to that clock) can improve soundstaging and definition then does it not follow that improving the accuracy of transmission of the clock signals in between the different components is also audible?
The same logic holds for other non reclocked transmission paths such as AES/EBU and redbook over 75ohm as the OPs case. Reclocked standards such as USB behave differently and I have limited experience in this use case.
If on the other hand you believe that all digital connections are indistinguishable from one another and that CD=perfect Sound forever, then we are wasting our time and you can happily believe that none of this stuff matters and hoard your precious pennies for whatever else you want. |
@folkfreak you have to believe that superior clocking can improve the performance of a digital system I 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? |
Soundstaging is actually all about definition, ie the relative accuracy of the timing of different sounds reaching the ears. Superior clocking improves the ability of the digital system to render all of the elements of the mix, including the reflected sounds in the mix, and hence recreate the original soundstage. The same holds for leading edges of sharp percussive sounds, or trailing decays, both of which are also aspects of definition.
The description above holds true for all system improvements, but it is something you’re likely to hear with improved clocking.
As to USB as I do not use this interface I have no opinion, I reserve my shared opinions for things I have actual experience of. |
@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. |
mzkmxcv
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 This is really a circular and futile conversation. You're not even willing to listen to the product under discussion, yet at the same time you claim you "would like to be proven wrong, and not just told so." |
Mzkmxcv 6-2-2019 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.
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. 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. And in my earlier post in this thread I cited several ways in which such exposure can occur, that would be cable sensitive. 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. Now, can I prove that these possibilities can be great enough in degree to account for many or most of the reported perceptions of differences between digital cables? Of course not. It would seem to be a safe bet that no one here is in a position to either prove or disprove such explanations. But one thing I certainly learned during my career designing high tech analog and digital circuits (not for audio) is that circuits do not necessarily perform in an idealized manner, and signals and noise do not necessarily only have influence on circuit points to which the schematic shows a path. There have been many occasions here over the years in which I’ve expressed skepticism about effects that have been reported which strike me as being technically implausible and/or impossible. And in which I’ve expressed the view that the claimed effects were likely the result of either inadequately thorough methodology, failure to recognize and control extraneous variables, or misperception. But when anecdotal evidence reaches the point of seeming to me to be overwhelming, as it does in this case, and when a considerable amount of that evidence comes from members whose perceptions I have come to respect over the years, and when the credibility of technical explanations that can be envisioned comes down to uncertainty about matters of degree, I no longer feel skeptical about the existence of differences. Which is not to say, however, that the existence of differences necessarily means that a $4K cable will sound better than a much less expensive cable, even in a very high quality and resolving system. That is a different question altogether. Regards, --Al |
And as always Al puts it into words much more succinctly than I ever could with some excellent view points.
Thank you sir!
|
@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). |
This sounds like the story, "The Emperors new Cloths." This is hilarious! Maybe you could buy a $30 cable and label it $5,000 and show your friends how much you spent. |
Next thing they’ll be saying Ethernet cables all sound the same and HDMI cables all sound the same. The more things change the more they stay the same. |
mzkmxcv - 2 flaws in your logic/posts: you can’t afford an expensive cable so you will never be able to buy 1 and compare it to your $30 cable, so you have to bad mouth a product you can’t afford or put down people who can afford 1.
2nd- you state to someone that if they hear a difference in cables, don’t state it publicly because that isn’t the truth, so that means only you state the truth! Pure BS! Until you can physically audition a $4000 cable in a system that allows you to hear the difference, leave your truth at home
|
mzkmxcvSo, I have to hear it to believe it? Certainly not. You can continue to refuse to listen, and still maintain your faith-based convictions.
|
@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... |
mzkmxcvHow can you state your stance is factual, with just experience/testimonial ... I never stated that. Please don’t put words in my mouth. The “truth” I am using are the measurements that show no audible differences ... Are they your measurements? How can your correlate your measurements with listening tests that prove "no audible differences" if you refuse to listen to the product under discussion? I’m not so stubborn that I would blind refute valid data.. You’re stubborn enough to refuse to listen to the product under discussion. That tells many of us here all that we need to know about you. Incidentally, I have no issue with your faith-based convictions. Faith needs no justification or substantiation. That’s the nature of Faith. Unless it was double-blind and quick-switching, one cannot make factual statements, only subjective. You pronounce this requirement and then exempt yourself from your own rule. That is what’s called "blind faith." And it’s fine to embrace blind faith. But what you’ve done is insist that your special brand of Blind Faith is supported by Science. |
For one thing by the time the data gets to the digital cable it’s already been corrupted by the scattered laser light and the vibration of the CD while the data is being read in the transport. So, who cares if digital cables sound different? The damage has already been done. Look for the root cause. 👀 Garbage in, garbage out. I know what you’re thinking 🤔...”But the Reed Solomon codes fix any errors during the data reading process.” 😛 |
@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. |
mzkmxcvWhy would I need to do such testing when measurements can be done ... You don’t need to do anything at all. You’re free to embrace some data collected by others while ignoring other data that conflicts with your blind Faith. There's absolutely no need for you to actually listen to the product under discussion here, or to perform your own measurements. No problem, I respect your Faith. What’s odd - other than the fact that you don’t seem to much care for listening - is this proclamation that you insist others observe: Unless it was double-blind and quick-switching, one cannot make factual statements, only subjective. |
@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). |
@mzkmxcv - 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. @mrc4u - I'd suggest you talk to Steve at Empirical Audio. He makes several BNC cables including his reference cable at $510 and a lesser cable to for $285; so they are well within your budget. Though I've not heard either one, Steve has a deep understanding in the digital realm. See this page. http://www.empiricalaudio.com/products/synchro-mesh |
Thank you Pokey,
It does appear this topic stirs passions? I would like to say I never claimed to have paid $4K for a cable, but if I decided to that would be my personal business. My quest is to find one that is considered the best based on others experiences. For those who believe there isn't a difference, I don't begrudge them of their beliefs but it seems a bit counterproductive to come on a thread and assume others do not based on data that they believe is the gospel.
With that stated, I hope we can get back on topic and leave the point-counterpoint banter and simply give helpful advice (and ignore it altogether if you can't). |
Dear Op
There is no best cable for everybody.
It depends on system and personal taste.
Also, law of diminishing return applies.
It is not the case that 2,000$ cable is always better than 1,000S cable.
I had got my Dave and M scaler only one week ago.
But I am in the process of comparing pairs of Blackcat Silverstar II and Sablon Panetta BNC cables between Dave and Mscaler.
You had better try out some cables in your system to find out what you like.
.
Thomas |
I am told that WireWorlds new Series 8 coax is extremely close, yet ic compatible with more kit. |
@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. |
Can this thread go back to the ops original question, meaning folks giving their views on specific cables instead of this current line of measurements blah blah blah blah.
|
There is no proof of anything in audio. There is evidence, though. Empirical evidence such as listening tests appear to support the proposition that there are differences between all types of cables. Speaker cables, interconnects, digital cables, power cords, Ethernet cables, HDMI cables. And there are audible difference in plain old wires, too. If someone can’t hear differences in any of those things he’s in the very small minority and is therefore an outlier. And thus can be thrown out. We’re all quite familiar with the Juror no. 3 from 12 Angry Men, “You can’t prove it!”
|
So far "pro-audio", "confirmation bias" and the Mona Lisa have been mentioned in this thread. I ask you fellow ’goners, has "expectation bias" slipped through the cracks? Someone needs to cite "expectation bias" soon or it will feel left out.
|
@mzkmxcv - please stop with the "that's not proof though". The only proof needed is for you to hear a difference that is worth paying for. See @geoffkait comment above.
Agreed, please, please stop with all this off-track discussion and get back to the OPs question. I did address this with my last post and hope it was in some way helpful to the OP. Let's be helpful to the OP, not hi-jack therir
|
Arggh. Hate when that happens. Meant to say "Let's be helpful to the OP, not hi-jack their thread." |
@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. |
mzkmxcv765 posts06-04-2019 9:36pm@geoffkait
Sighted listening tests are useless data unless combined with double-blind, quick-switching, and level-matched, as a way to demonstrate bias. >>>>If you can’t tell the difference between a change in the sound and some sort of psychological hobgoblin then I probably can’t help you. |
Mzkmxcv765 has indicated that to his ears, the Belden cable is the best. I have compared belden cables to other brands and belden has been on the bottom of my list. Belden is usually priced on the low side, so if $$$ are a big concern, by all means, audition them. If you have $400 to $4000 to spend, there are many other cables that will be better, sonically and physically (IMO). I haven’t seen WBT connectors on Belden or on other cheaper cables and connectors can/do make a difference. In fact, wbt cable ends probably will cost much more than the Belden cable itself. |
To the OP, I would move up to Digit 75. To the several folks that say it’s only carrying ones and zeroes please cut open the cable and tell me if 1’s and 0’s fall out. Digital cable is carrying analog electrical pulses that represent digital. |
axeis1
To the several folks that say it’s only carrying ones and zeroes please cut open the cable and tell me if 1’s and 0’s fall out. Digital cable is carrying analog electrical pulses that represent digital.
>>>>That’s so true. CDs don’t contain 1s and 0s either. The laser reading process is strictly analog. I.e., it’s not only the sequence of reflections and non reflections that’s important but also the length of each, which varies, both of which are predetermined. It’s a little complicated. The conversion to a digital stream occurs downstream. So, whoever said timing is critical is correct.
|
I fell in LOVE with the Grover Huffman: Pharaoh!
Triode Wire Labs: Spirit 75 I'd also VERY GOOD!
These of course; referring to integration with my components:
Simaudio Moon 260D(T) to Schiit Gungnir Multibit DAC.
A lot of the reputable Cable Vendors have a good exchange/trial policy.
Test and keep the cables that are the right sound for you.
|
A four thousand dollar digital cable for preserving an unimprovable sequence of 1s and 0s, You guys are hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment. |
