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.” 😛
130 responses Add your response
mzkmxcv How 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. |
@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... |
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 |
@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 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 |
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 soThis 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." |
@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. |
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 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? |
@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. |
mzkmxcv 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? |
@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. |
mzkmxcv Ones 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. |
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. |
@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 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 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. |
mzkmxcv @geoffkait So what, you are saying a USB cable between a source and DAC can make the sound warmer because it has more voltage? >>>>No, I’m not saying that at all. If a data cable doesn’t have sufficient bandwidth, the signal either drops out or stops to buffer. >>>>>I’m not addressing a cable with insufficient bandwidth. Transient response, soundstage, imaging, tonal balance, etc. are all impossible to alter with a digital transmission. >>>>I obviously disagree. 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? >>>>>>No, I’m not claiming that. |
@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. |
I’ve noticed slight, barely perceptible effects of Digital cables but in my limited comparisons it seemed that the ceiling for improvement was quickly reached. Audioquest cables that cost perhaps five times the price of a generic cable worked as well in my system as cables that cost 10 times as much. Perhaps if I had a stack of dCS to connect them with it would be different... |
| Post removed |
mzkmxcv749 posts06-01-2019 11:21pm@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. Ah here we go again Idiot who has never tried something telling people who have tried it that they are wrong. There are HUGE tonal differences between cables, The original post did not ask you for your opinion like this anyway! You like the sound of your own tripe. To address the original question ... some players or kit have aes/ebu - which I find quite noticeably better. |
Why $4k? Why not $10k or $100k? There is no question that quality of the construction and the material make a huge difference in any digital cable. However, anything more than $1000 for a digital cable is beyond my listening capability. Kharma makes amazing digital cables. I happened to own two from authorized reseller. MSRP isn't justifiable, however. The market is flooded with China made Kharma counterfeits make purchasing (or selling) one way too difficult. Hope this helps |
