To add to my thoughts- I was so convinced there would be no difference I purchased a $30 cable. This was not some fancy audiophile cable.
I would equate the difference to swapping speaker cables. I have no idea what a test would show, but clearly different speaker cables sound different even using the same material and gauge. |
I indeed, regardless of a test, you did hear a difference, and that’s all that matters at the end of the day (for you). How condescending of you. However, tests tell us if there actually is a difference, rather than just hearing one. Not true. No testing equipment exists that can hear. It can only grab a moment in the musical event and analyze a fragment of it, not the complete event. Our ears take in info in a non linear fashion that no instrument can duplicate, on the fly. What equipment can discern organic vs. lean? Or separation vs. congealed? I could go on but it would be all for naught. I said this in my initial comments for this thread, but people describe differences in a amp even though it was the same unit, so differences are heard with the same system, since you changed the system by using a different cable, it’s easy to understand that you heard a difference.
You left out "some" between the words, 'but' and 'people' which makes your conclusion a faulty, but clever, one. This is one sly troll. He claims he can't hear all that well, is a whizz at math, and uses links and quotes to speak for what he, himself, can't hear or distinguish. Toss in some condescendingly obtuse insults and Bob's your uncle. This troll is not an audiophile by any measure.
All the best, Nonoise |
@chrisg1000 No measurements for that, but I do have for the Hugo 2: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/chord-hugo-2-dac-jitter-measurement-p... Excellent jitter reduction as well. Indeed, regardless of a test, you did hear a difference, and that’s all that matters at the end of the day (for you). However, tests tell us if there actually is a difference, rather than just hearing one. I said this in my initial comments for this thread, but people describe differences in a amp even though it was the same unit, so differences are heard with the same system, since you changed the system by using a different cable, it’s easy to understand that you heard a difference. |
I have a Chord Qutest ($1,800). And again, the point of the new cable was *not* an attempt at better sound. But the difference in sound was definitely there. And, no I wasn’t running the amp loud. 9:00 on a knob that starts at 7:00.
I was of the mindset that bits are bits, so I was mildly shocked.
Not trying to argue, but tests or no tests there was a difference.
Just sharing my unbiased opinion.
|
@chrisg1000 DACs do in fact have jitter reduction, and a J-Test is done when measuring them, Stereophile always performs one for instance. The test doesn’t introduce picoseconds/nanoseconds of jitter, but instead uses frequencies, so I don’t know the correlation but it’s stated as worst case scenario levels of jitter. Chord makes good DACs, not sure which model you have, but let’s look at their $500 Mojo: Stereophile: https://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-electronics-mojo-da-headphone-amplifier-measurements AudioScienceResearch: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-chord-mojo-dac... Both sources show it reducing jitter to below 120dB, enough for 24bit data to have zero jitter no matter how long or cheap your cables are (EMI is a different thing), and also well below your room’s noise floor. Also, take note the measurements are different as Stereophile does jitter tests for 44.1kHz and ASR does jitter tests at 48kHz, Stereophile also used a tone that’s -6dBFS and ASR does 0dBFS. And yes, that’s the only difference a digital cable can introduce, frequency response, THD, and everything else would be identical. So unless you are cranking your amplifier above full scale, there will be no difference no matter the digital cable. |
If you’re asking me, I have a Chord DAC.
While not cream of the crop, it’s not a piece of crap, or a Schitt.
And how is a DAC supposed to correct it? The DAC will do what’s it’s supposed to with the signal it receives.
|
@karmapolice
I just showed that USB cables can sound different. But I also showed if your DAC doesn’t correct it, then the DAC isn’t performing well. |
I think it's sad that people who dont believe cables make a difference troll audiophile boards....
Perhaps the bose forum or mp3 forum or bluetooth audio forum would be a better habitat
|
|
I’m late in responding to this, but I agree there is absolutely a difference in digital cables. I run USB from my PC to my DAC. I recently changed the cord due to relocation of my DAC. I did NOT do this in order to achieve better sound. I thought “bits are bits”.
I couldn’t have been more wrong. The difference was significant. Like listening to two different DAC’s head-to-head. Not going to say one was better, but they were CLEARLY different. As luck would have it I preferred the new cable.
|
|
Steve is not wrong. He is a very qualified engineer IME. He knows what all the problems in the entire system are, and how to solve them. I had the SMR with the latest improvements. I sold it because my Server is better, and of course, more convenient. I was able to beat the performance of the SMR, yes, but at multiple times the cost of that little magic box.... The SMR is a little monster, you can use any crap source you want in front of it, and get truly world class sound out of it.
He is also not wrong about "claimed" resolving systems, and he clued you all in on perhaps the biggest offender in the system chain, the preamp. One would be wise to listen. The damage a volume control causes alone, is just insane, and ANY volume control, no matter, is a compromise. There are very few active preamps that can make the claim of being truly transparent and resolving.
Getting a preamp with no mechanical connections, no switch contacts, no traditional volume control, no wires (all circuit board), is completely 100% electronic from input to output, changed my world.
I just hope you stick around Steve, and not let people burn you out.
|
MW - There are several techniques. Lets address each of them: Synchronous buffering: With synchronous buffering, the same clock is moving the data in and out of the FIFO buffer, so the incoming clock jitter matters. Local PLL clock: If you have a local clock that is locked to the incoming clock with a PLL to clock the data out of the FIFO, then the PLL filter loop is affected by the jitter. Bang-Bang bracketing system: If you have a bang-bang system that clocks the data out of the FIFO using a local clock which moves the frequency slightly up and down to bracket the frequency of the incoming clock, then this has the potential to minimize the effects of incoming jitter. IT is actually not meeting the spec. for sample-rate frequency though. This is one of two techniques that can actually be immune to incoming jitter. The problem is that it takes 12 custom oscillators, all with low jitter to pull this off. If one designs it any other way, then the jitter of the local clock is the problem. There are a couple of DACs out there that do this, but their jitter is not very low. Resampling system: A resampler uses separate local clocks to reclock the data at a new frfequency after it is synchronously buffered to achieve a small delay. Resampling is the second technique that in theory has the potential to be totally immune to incoming clock jitter. It maintains the proper sampling frequencies. The reality is that even the best reclockers, including mine are still slightly affected by incoming jitter. This is likely due to the implementation of the resampling chips. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
We are not talking about dropping bytes or getting bit-errors here. This is about timing inaccuracies. The timing of the digital signal must be extremely accurate, from word to word, in order for the D/A to reproduce a low-distortion waveform.
How does timing affect things if there is buffering? I still don't quite get this. |
As is the case with nearly all threads here, contributors come in a variety of forms: bias confirmationers, naysayers, impartialists, fiction writers, humorists, trolls, truth-seekers and educators.
@audioengr should be recognized as a patient saint-educator on this one. |
rocknss8 posts11-24-2018 5:34pmAre there any studies showing the cable improvements by placing a instrumentation microphone at the listening position? I am not aware of such results, but I too strongly believe that it would make things a lot clearer for everyone if there was a way to identify a type of "distortion" related to jitter for which the amplitude could be measured based on the resulting acoustic signal and compared for different components. In the end, audibility is no voodoo or placebo, but refers to the sensitivity of our sensory apparatus and processing abilities, which have finite bandwidths and thresholds for the auditory illusion to happen when listening to sounds reproduced by a stereophonic audio system. In my experience, reducing jitter in digital audio systems lets us experience reproduced music in a way that ressembles more the output of a turntable (whatever the words to describe this subjective effect are). |
As one person noted, a digital cable actually carries an analog signal. However, the magic is the software. When a digital signal is sent it is sent with what are called stop bits and a checksum. The hardware at the other end recalculates these values and compares them. If they don’t match, it requests the sender to re-send it. This way it is VERY rare, and i mean VERY rare for an incorrect packet to be get by this protocol.
At both ends the data is buffered (stored) to accommodate a fair number of error/resend cycles. After all the transmission speed is MUCH higher than required for high definition audio or even HD video. If you have a LOT of errors, then you will run out of buffered data and get ’skipping’ or some other sort of artifact.
If you find that cables made a difference, then you either had defective cables or ones that were insufficiently shielded, allowing enough errors to empty the buffer. We are not talking about dropping bytes or getting bit-errors here. This is about timing inaccuracies. The timing of the digital signal must be extremely accurate, from word to word, in order for the D/A to reproduce a low-distortion waveform. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
I love threads like this . People telling you what you can and can not hear. Even though they have never listened to your system . And then they quote a test that they didn’t hear either . That is followed by the phrase “ Placebo Effect “. So when you throw out that rationale, it’s called the “ Bullshit Effect “. Sometime that’s followed by the “ Butthurt Effect “, which leads to the “ Get Even Effect “. Think I’ll go outside and play ..... |
Julian,
Yep, I spend my evenings enjoying test tones on my audio system.
I correctly understood you stating that you could not discern the jitter level differences with authentic music in the stream. And you then concluded what I stated in my previous post. |
Could do without the political references. Everyone enjoy some good groves this evening and be thankful for our many blessings. |
@celander
You again misinterpret what I said. I said even on my phone all the jitter values with the test tone were audible, except one of them. So, I invited Steve to take the test with the music samples to see if he could hear it. I never suggested that if I couldn’t hear it on my phone, that it wasn’t audible. |
Consider me biased, but one’s opinion that one can’t discern differences in audio SQ from audio streams with different levels of jitter—based upon listening for such differences with an iPhone—does not carry much weight to draw the conclusion that such differences in SQ would not be readily heard in a decent audio system in an open air environment. |
@audioengr
”This is a fact supported by hundreds of reviews in Stereophile where the measurements werevery poor and yet the review with music was stellar.”
Because the review was good the measurements must not show the whole picture (even though JA’s don’t, like no distortion measurements)? The reviews are done sighted with knowledge of the company and price. To suggest the reviews being positive must only correlate to performing better than the measurements suggest is just silly.
Also, saying the Toslink measurements aren’t valid because they are taken after the DAC thus shows you agree the DAC can reduce jitter to below audibility. And no, it is valid for my argument, as any differences that would show up would indicate that the differences between them is large enough that the DAC couldn’t reduce the jitter to the same amount. |
All this noise about digital cables. As one person noted, a digital cable actually carries an analog signal. However, the magic is the software. When a digital signal is sent it is sent with what are called stop bits and a checksum. The hardware at the other end recalculates these values and compares them. If they don’t match, it requests the sender to re-send it. This way it is VERY rare, and i mean VERY rare for an incorrect packet to be get by this protocol.
At both ends the data is buffered (stored) to accommodate a fair number of error/resend cycles. After all the transmission speed is MUCH higher than required for high definition audio or even HD video. If you have a LOT of errors, then you will run out of buffered data and get ’skipping’ or some other sort of artifact.
If you find that cables made a difference, then you either had defective cables or ones that were insufficiently shielded, allowing enough errors to empty the buffer.
Truly analog signals like those from your pre-amp to your amp are different story, of course. Those signals are sent in real time. No buffering. No error correction.
If you have extra money to spend on your digital sources, spend it on the DAC, because the output from your DAC is analog, and there are lots of ways to screw that up.
|
I find that Tidal hi fi sounds different than CD. I've grown to prefer it.
But I would think having an all in one CD player would minimize jitter.
All-in-one player is no magic bullet. Still has the same jitter problems as separates. I had a modified sonos connect streaming Tidal, and I could never tame the splashy treble. It was running on a switching power supply.
Digital signals are only about jitter, nothing else. Sonos jitter is reduced 100X using a Synchro-Mesh. Jitter plots: https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154310.0 Steve N. Empirical Audio |
Am I right to think that gold connectors for digital cables are pointless? The contacts are the important part in a BNC or RCA. If both the shield and center conductor contacts are gold-plated, this is good enough. Any non-oxidizing conductor material will do. The shield is usually not gold-plated or having 360 degree contact unless you get a high-end connector, like the Neutrik BNC. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
Maybe the paper referenced below will shed some light on the complexity of jitter for those that believe that a simple value in some clock or DAC datasheet can Trump this effect for good.
Audibility of some forms of jitter on DACs and ADCs have been investigated, but I believe that the improvements that most of us hear when jitter is reduced tend to indicate that audibility thresholds are not so easy to define and greatly depend not only on the technology used inside the chips, but also on the implemented circuitry around those chips (e.g. power supply management).
My 2 cts worth, /patrick
https://statics.cirrus.com/pubs/whitePaper/WP_Specifying_Jitter_Performance.pdf
A good start. I agree with: "It follows that specs such as "Jitter 200 ps RMS" are
practically meaningless. Jitter specs should always
identify what measure of jitter they are referring to,
as in "Period jitter 200 ps RMS" for example." All of my jitter measurements are direct and of the period. "Period jitter was introduced in section 3.1.2. Unlike
wideband jitter and baseband jitter, it can be measured
directly in the time domain, i.e. without filter hardware.
You simply use a scope, and examine the waveform
one period after the trigger point. Many scopes can plot
period jitter histograms and extract RMS values." I do not agree with this however: "We saw in section 3.1.2 that period jitter is entirely
appropriate for some purposes. We see here that it is
entirely inappropriate as a general measure [14]. This
is because it is basically blind to low-frequency jitter." This depends on the measurement system and how it measures the jitter. Mine measures the jitter of the data, not the clock, so it factors in the fact that the period changes. It selects one period and locks onto this. "it can be useful to make N-period jitter
measurements with very large N. Modern digital scopes
are excellent for such measurements." I do not believe my measurement system can do this easily, but it is important. "A key point is that it is not just the basic audio signal
that gets modulated. It is everything that crosses the
boundary between the continuous-time domain and
sampled-signal domain. This can include out-of-band
interference (in ADCs), incompletely attenuated images
(in DACs), and "zero-input" internal signals such as
shaped quantization noise and class-D carriers." "Even low-level components can
cause problems if they are up at high frequencies." "Jitter bites equipment designers most deeply when it
causes a converter that should have more than 100 dB of
dynamic range to deliver e.g. only 80 dB. In such cases
the jitter is interacting not with the audio signal but with
an internal signal such as shaped quantization noise.
Early one-bit DACs were particularly sensitive to this.
More-recently the inclusion of switched-capacitor filters
and the move to multi-bit designs has eased things.
Above ~200 kHz, the quantization noise is largely white
at its point of injection. When you factor in the DAC's
sin(x)/x frequency response and the effect of the internal
switched-capacitor filter stage, its spectrum becomes
more like the upper trace in figure 10 (taken from [17]).
By applying the already-mentioned 6dB/octave tilt,
one can estimate the region of greatest jitter sensitivity.
It is typically somewhere around ~0.5 or ~1 MHz for
DACs that use high-order noise shaping." "The jitter performance differences that we have seen
relate entirely to signal components that are above the
audio band." So as you can see, the DAC itself is sensitive to jitter that is way out-of-audio band. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
I’ve got a comparably modest digital source setup:
Allo Digione RPi
to Schiit Modi Uber 2
to NAD C316BEE
to Tekton Lore speakers
Did an a/b test with each cable upgrade:
no-name cheapo rca analog interconnect to ZU audio mission from dac to amp = huge improvements.
Then the same with digital rca:
monoprice 1.5 meter to amplifier surgery 1.5 meter from Digione RPi to dac = huge improvements.
Here are jitter measurements of your Digione. I also have one, not the latest premium version BTW: https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=g252r6cln0acu9kqv4f29356n6&topic=154299.0 Steve N. Empirical Audio
|
Am I to understand that the cable is causing jitter to a flashing pulse of light and that the digital info being received by the amp is not totally correct? Or is jitter to do with extra devices and connections and distance between the source and the amp? The info is correct, but the timing of the info is not optimum. Everything adds to the jitter a little, the optical to electrical converters, the cable and every active device inside the components. If the cable delivers a less than optimum signal, this will affect jitter because the receiver will have a slower risetime in reponse to the optical signal transitioning states. Why don't you just try this excellent inexpensive cable and hear the difference: https://btpa.com/TOSLINK-XXX.html Steve N. Empirical Audio |
Also, here are some measurements of different Toslink cables: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html?m=1
Including a freebie one, an intentionally poorly made one, an all glass one,etc.
Guess what? They are 99.9% identical, and jitter all below 100dBFS. So yeah, I stand further by my claim that the poster simply fell prone to placebo.
Worthless measurements. Why? Because they are woefully insufficient to characterize the system, much less the jitter difference. Most classical analog measurements are insufficient to show small differences in dynamics or soundstage. This is a fact supported by hundreds of reviews in Stereophile where the measurements were very poor and yet the review with music was stellar. The ONLY accurate way to make jitter measurements on a digital source is to do it directly, not through a DAC or analog system. This requires a 5-10GHz B/W measurement system, not an AP. Steve N. Empirical Audio
|
Are there any studies showing the cable improvements by placing a instrumentation microphone at the listening position? |
Words of truth, jerrybj.
The term “placebo” is often used by those who actually know the difference between two or more substances, of which one causes a “non-effect” and another that causes an “effect.”
It seems to me that one cannot have a placebo unless one acknowledges something actually does bring about an “effect.” So one must first acknowledge the existence of a cable, for example, as having a bona fide change in SQ, before a placebo can even exist.
So it’s more than arrogance. It’s stupidity to suggest another’s experience is false or that another is being deceived when the poster typically has no experience with the product(s) in question, let alone the context in which the product(s) resides.
And there are are others who base their arguments on test results that they would likely admit their don’t fully comprehend to even critically adjudge the test construct’s legitimacy. Even more amazing are those who believe not hearing such differences when listening for them on an iPhone proves their point as being universally applicable to all audio systems...well, don’t get me started. |
|
What a bunch of fools a whole bunch of posters are.
Is it arrogance maybe?
Denying others’ experiences smacks of ’holier than thou.’
"I don’t experience what you do, so I must be right."
99% of the time though, it’s "I haven’t heard the particular equipment but I’m going to express my biased opinion anyway."
Placebo is a word that is thrown around whenever anyone expresses their subjective experience of equipment, upgrades, tweaks. More used as an accusation, blatantly questioning intelligence.
This year I have upgraded speakers, cables, DAC/Power supply, fuses, power cables, mains filters, and a few other pieces/items.
On most of them, I have noticed a change in my musical experience for the good.
People who then state as fact that my experiences are false, are in my mind shallow, judgemental and not worth taking seriously. |
|
cakyo,
One would have to be delusional to believe they only have to spend $1000 to become superhuman... |
Wrong again, Joyboy. Electrons don’t move. Remember?
|
Yet again, superhumans have taken over this site claiming they can hear electrons grinding at each other trying to race in a wire trying to reach the other end :). No need to argue with super beings. They will never admit that spending thosands on a DIGITAL cable is a waste of money. It would make them sub superhuman otherwise.
|
I cue everything up so I can switch between the CD and the Sonos source
playing the same track. The added clarity and detail via Steve's rig is
easy, obvious to hear. It just sounds better.
I find that Tidal hi fi sounds different than CD. I've grown to prefer it. But I would think having an all in one CD player would minimize jitter. I had a modified sonos connect streaming Tidal, and I could never tame the splashy treble. It was running on a switching power supply. |
Am I right to think that gold connectors for digital cables are pointless?
|
Somebody’s been following the wrong sheep, obviously.
🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑 🚶♂️
|
Good post dyna. there is actually a third group of which I was one. When I started in this hobby I bought into all the cabling nonsense but as I learn more about how things work now I realize 90% of its bs. I’m not sure why people find it so difficult to admit they made mistakes. |
|
If placebo effect means better sound what’s wrong with that? 😳 I’ll take two at twice the price.
|
Dyna, Only 2 groups?
I'd add one more more... The group that actually can hear a difference. |
@dynaquest4: very quick AB lets you pick up changes but it may be advisable to validate that by switching after longer periods of time, typically several days with interruptions and sleep to get a fresh ear on it.
Another thought: if heavily processed electronica music is used to optimize your system, you will never end up with an accurate result. It is sometimes shocking to realize that loved albums are really not that good...
|
A thought.... who praises the significant, if not impressive, improvements in sound quality that can be achieved by buying very expensive "high end” cables? Two groups. One - Those that manufacture, distribute and sell these products at a serious profit and Two - those who were talked into drinking the Kool Aid and would NEVER fess up to being fleeced. Actually there is a third group. This group are consumers who gulped the Kool Aid and are victims of the insidious audio placebo effect that causes you to believe you hear the advertised, albeit impossible, sound quality enhancements. Since virtually no consumer does, or has the capability to perform, an instantaneous AB test (the only kind that are really valid) on the old/new equipment, his (now biased) expectation will allow him the pleasure of experiencing superior performance – even when there is none.
|
1. The power of suggestion2. Noise - One cable may be better at rejecting noise than another3. You had a dirty plug and this cleaned it out4. Better impedance matching. Not all cables are up to spec.
While lots of people pooh pooh optical cables, they are ideal for PC outputs as they utterly reject ground loops as well as EMI/RFI noise.
One hidden issue in digital transmission is ground loops which can and do occur and seem to increase jitter levels so high that it causes audible degradation. In an ideal world, all DAC's are isolated from this but not all are. This is also made much worse with switching power supplies like a laptop's wall wart or PC. Sadly, DAC's do not have any indicator of this. There's no light that says "ground loop" or "excessive jitter" and honestly I'd feel a little comforted if they did.
There's no reason to believe that any coaxial cable would be better than any other at reducing ground loops though, my comment was just about how and why Optical can be far superior.
Best,
E
|
riccitone,
I've experienced that look from my wife as well, LOL.
Running Tekton speakers myself & absolutely love them. |
Maybe the paper referenced below will shed some light on the complexity of jitter for those that believe that a simple value in some clock or DAC datasheet can Trump this effect for good. Audibility of some forms of jitter on DACs and ADCs have been investigated, but I believe that the improvements that most of us hear when jitter is reduced tend to indicate that audibility thresholds are not so easy to define and greatly depend not only on the technology used inside the chips, but also on the implemented circuitry around those chips (e.g. power supply management). My 2 cts worth, /patrick https://statics.cirrus.com/pubs/whitePaper/WP_Specifying_Jitter_Performance.pdf |
