# Your experience with USB cables...



## korzena

Anybody had experienced big differences with different USB cables?  How differently can they sound? How big are the improvements in sound quality using better USB cables?
   
  I've heard that Wireworld Ultraviolet or Wireworld Startlight USB cables are very good value. But some people recommend more expensive Wywires, Locus Design, Ridge Audio or Revelation Audio USB cables. Are they worth it or is it better to stay with something like Wireworld or maybe just with the stock USB cable?
   
  Please share your experiences if you've tested other than stock USB cables.
   
  Thank you!


----------



## DaBomb77766

Some people have reported it makes a difference.  But the fact is, unless the cable is broken or defective in some way, there's close to zero chance that it could change the sound in a uniform way.  Maybe it'll reduce the number of errors (that is, instead of being one in a billion bits it'll be one in ten billion, or something - but even then error correction can usually catch and fix most errors, and that's such a tiny error rate that it won't be discernible by humans) but it won't make any measurable difference once it actually reaches the headphones.

 I'm not trying to be a thread bomber or anything, but I'm just trying to be honest here - high-end USB cables are probably the biggest rip-off around.  I simply don't see how anyone can justify a $3500 USB cable.

 But if you want to spend a little more to have pretty audiophile-looking cable, by all means go right ahead - just, don't go too crazy on your spending, since all you're really buying is appearance.  But I really wouldn't spend any more than $50 (honestly if it were me I wouldn't spend any more than $10, maybe $20).
   
  There isn't really much more for me to say though, this has been debated to death a few times already in a few different threads...one thing I can point out though, is the actual guys who made the USB spec have said that audiophile-grade USB cables can't possibly make any difference.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> >There isn't really much more for me to say though, this has been debated to death a few times already in a few different threads...one thing I can point out though, is the actual guys who made the USB spec have said that audiophile-grade USB cables can't possibly make any difference.


 
  Hi DaBomb,
  Thanks for your reply.
  Analog and digital cables can also be to the specs, but sound differently, at least to me. This is why I believe that reasonably priced better USB cables could bring some improvement.
  I should be able to test one next week, so I will know more.


----------



## Syik

I definitely heard improvements when I replaced a generic $5 USB cable made for printer with a $35 99.9% copper + gold plated connectors USB cable made for hi-fi. I have no experience with other USB cables, however I doubt there will be much improvements comparing $35 and $1000 USB cables.


----------



## Sganzerla

I have 2 cables: DH Labs (Silver) and A&B Systems (Copper) and recommend both.
   Tried the Furutech GT2 and it kind of destroyed the sound of my system.


----------



## Lenni

the only usb cable I've tried is ACR cable silver reference, sold at Audiogon by acreyes. it had pretty good reviews, and it was in an auction, so I got it for a fraction of the rrp.
   
  I noticed an improvement over the stock usb; it was subtle, but an improvement nevertheless. the higher the resolution the system, the more likely you're to hear the difference.
   
  since then he's produced the siler reference II, and now has the new Reference 3 out.
   
  I will probably order the Reference 3 soon.


----------



## sonq

Quote: 





korzena said:


> Anybody had experienced big differences with different USB cables?  How differently can they sound? How big are the improvements in sound quality using better USB cables?
> 
> I've heard that Wireworld Ultraviolet or Wireworld Startlight USB cables are very good value. But some people recommend more expensive Wywires, Locus Design, Ridge Audio or Revelation Audio USB cables. Are they worth it or is it better to stay with something like Wireworld or maybe just with the stock USB cable?
> 
> ...


 
  I bought the Furutech Formula 2 to connect my HRT MSII+ to notebook. The improvement was so obvious I didn't bother to detached for A/B comparision with a generic USB cable.
   
  The dealer says much of the effect stems from shielding the signal from power connectors. The best solution is from the Audio Revive, which splits the signal and power to separate USB connector on the PC end.


----------



## korzena

>


 
  Thanks all for your reports.
   
  Can you tell in what areas was the biggest improvement?


----------



## Sganzerla

My Furutech GT2 was like more details, extension, space, dynamics, attack, but dry harsh highs sound, thin bass. I sold to a guy who didn't like it either. Well, he liked in a first moment... than the fatigue begin...
   
   DH Labs was like 70% of the same benefits without the problem with highs and the bass.
   A&B Systems I found was a much more relaxed sound, somewhat an opposite of the DHLabs, in a good way. Maybe in future I'll replace this cable with another DHLabs to see what happens.
   
   Try the DHLabs, the person who advised me on it, had a bunch other USB cables (much more expensive) and prefered it to the others.


----------



## sonq

The Furutech Formula2 increased the amount of harmonic details that make acoustic instruments sound more realistic and engaging; the bass is not just deeper but has more details.
   
  I used to feel the HD800 sounds spacious but diffused, now images is more specifically placed and has a little more "body".
   
  The improvement is more than what I had expected but the result may differ with different setup, and please note that the improvement is relative to what I had before, so temper expectation.
   
  My dealer said although conductor & dielectric material matters, a big chunk of the improvement comes from shielding the signal from power section within the USB cable. The Audio Revive cable is the most effective in this regard by separating the signal from the power section.


----------



## korzena

Thank you Guys for giving more details about the Furutech cables.
   
  Anybody tried Wireworld USB cables and how they compare to Furutech?


----------



## DaveBSC

You can find the top Acoustic Revive model on eBay imported from Japan at a significant discount from what it costs from a US dealer. Ridge Street Audio's higher end models are also a split power/signal "Y" design.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> You can find the top Acoustic Revive model on eBay imported from Japan at a significant discount from what it costs from a US dealer. Ridge Street Audio's higher end models are also a split power/signal "Y" design.


 
  Thanks for info, but I would rather go for a cheaper, but decent USB cable, especially because I use an asynchronous USB/SPDIF converter (JK HiFace MK3).
  I suspect that a use of such converter reduces the importance of a USB cable. However I would still like to have a good cable as I've heard that even with USB/SPDIF converters it can influence the sound.


----------



## Sganzerla

The A&B System copper USB cable I mentioned have separated signal from power too, and cost something around US 50.00 at eBay.


----------



## Zeebra

I used a 5m USB cable that came with my ages old printer with my Fast Track Pro, and it did drop out an awful lot. I changed back into the short one that came with the FTP and it worked perfect. I suspect the original long cable either didn't have enough shielding, or was meant to be used with a powered device like the printer that had a wallwart. I don't know the specifics of the USB standard, so I'm not sure can the signal be amplified on the other end of the cable, or was it just because the cable was barely adequate for higher bandwidth usage.

 I say stick to the cable you get with your device, it's supposed to be enough, and any defects are most certainly audible as clicks, pops, dropouts and the such.


----------



## sonq

korzena said:


> Thanks for info, but I would rather go for a cheaper, but decent USB cable, especially because I use an asynchronous USB/SPDIF converter (JK HiFace MK3).
> I suspect that a use of such converter reduces the importance of a USB cable. However I would still like to have a good cable as I've heard that even with USB/SPDIF converters it can influence the sound.




On the contrary, I bought an audiophile USB cable because my DAC has an asynchronous USB input and can potentially sound great. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.


----------



## korzena

Why?
  My understanding is that a better USB cable can give you more benefits when you have a synchronous USB and does not make such a big difference with asynchronous or with use of USB/SPDIF converter as they are more proof to errors.
  
  Quote: 





sonq said:


> On the contrary, I bought an audiophile USB cable because my DAC has an asynchronous USB input and can potentially sound great. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.


----------



## sonq

Quote: 





korzena said:


> Why?
> My understanding is that a better USB cable can give you more benefits when you have a synchronous USB and does not make such a big difference with asynchronous or with use of USB/SPDIF converter as they are more proof to errors.


 
  I think there are sound quality limitations on a synchronous USB interface which I doubt a good USB cable can overcome...there's more potential for improvement on asynchronous.


----------



## PhoebeFairchild

I am about to buy a used Audioquest Cinnamon 1.5 meter USB Type A to Type B cable for $39.94 USD through Amazon's Warehouse Deals. I am using a cheap generic USB 3.00 meter cable right now and it is producing skips and drop outs. I am note sure if the Audioquest will improve sound quality, but I am thinking about taking the risk and placing my order soon. Does anyone here use Audioquest USB cables and if so what are your results?


----------



## sonq

Here's a review:
  http://www.whathifi.com/review/audioquest-cinnamon-usb


----------



## kanonathena

Response from HRT CTO regarding USB cable for MS Pro:
   
  Thank you for your email.  In answer to your question, the USB cable can, under some circumstances have a small effect on the sound quality.  A good choice is the Belkin Gold Series of USB cable ([size=10pt]http://www.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?&Product_Id=608151&subid=17931[/size]) well made and not absurdly priced.
   
  Kevin Halverson
  CTO
  High Resolution Technologies, LLC
   
   
  Hopes that helps.


----------



## palchiu

Quote: 





lenni said:


> the only usb cable I've tried is ACR cable silver reference, sold at Audiogon by acreyes. it had pretty good reviews, and it was in an auction, so I got it for a fraction of the rrp.
> 
> I noticed an improvement over the stock usb; it was subtle, but an improvement nevertheless. the higher the resolution the system, the more likely you're to hear the difference.
> 
> ...


 

 ACR's SR3 is a nice cable, better than Transparent's Performance USB and Wireworld's Starlight that I've.


----------



## korzena

Finally I managed to borrow and test a better USB cable - Wireworld Ultraviolet.
  In comparison to my stock USB cable (included to my DAC) I haven't noticed any difference in sound.
  Maybe it's because I use a USB/SPDIF converter.


----------



## LizardKing1

Threads like this make me laugh.
  Quite some time ago, a member of our dear forum contacted USB.org, a website created by the inventors of the USB data transfer protocol. He asked if there might be any difference between 2 to-spec USB cables, if one used better materials. The question was an eloquent no. It's impossible. I can't remember on which thread it was, and I don't really want to look that hard.
  I'm not saying it isn't fun to believe that there are magic fairies in our digital cables, and that spending 500$ will make the fairies go away, I'm just concerned that a new member might see this and actually believe there might be something wrong with his Monoprice USB cable. Other than that carry on.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





korzena said:


> Finally I managed to borrow and test a better USB cable - Wireworld Ultraviolet.
> In comparison to my stock USB cable (included to my DAC) I haven't noticed any difference in sound.
> Maybe it's because I use a USB/SPDIF converter.


 
   
  Maybe it's because it's a USB cable.


----------



## Stormfriend

I'll post a proper review later but I tried the Audioquest Carbon and compared it to a generic cable with ferrite ring, connecting both to an M2Tech EVO. The generic cable had more presence, attack and slam. The Carbon was richer, smoother and easier to listen to, but it was too polite for my tastes. On my HD800s the difference was very noticeable and I've now returned the Carbon.

I was sceptical about USB cables making a difference, but the last week has taught me that they're as different as interconnects. Now begins the hassle of finding demo cables...


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





stormfriend said:


> I'll post a proper review later but I tried the Audioquest Carbon and compared it to a generic cable with ferrite ring, connecting both to an M2Tech EVO. The generic cable had more presence, attack and slam. The Carbon was richer, smoother and easier to listen to, but it was too polite for my tastes. On my HD800s the difference was very noticeable and I've now returned the Carbon.
> I was sceptical about USB cables making a difference, but the last week has taught me that they're as different as interconnects. Now begins the hassle of finding demo cables...


 

 The problem is there is really no such thing as "generic cable."  They may not have brand names, but they are made by different companies all over the world, and there is a large difference in sound among the many "generic cables."


----------



## Stormfriend

Quote: 





jon l said:


> The problem is there is really no such thing as "generic cable."  They may not have brand names, but they are made by different companies all over the world, and there is a large difference in sound among the many "generic cables."


 

 Absolutely, I just used the term to imply a freebie cable I had lying around - I'll be more specific in my review.


----------



## korzena

lizardking1 said:


> Threads like this make me laugh.
> Quite some time ago, a member of our dear forum contacted USB.org, a website created by the inventors of the USB data transfer protocol. He asked if there might be any difference between 2 to-spec USB cables, if one used better materials. The question was an eloquent no. It's impossible. I can't remember on which thread it was, and I don't really want to look that hard.
> I'm not saying it isn't fun to believe that there are magic fairies in our digital cables, and that spending 500$ will make the fairies go away, I'm just concerned that a new member might see this and actually believe there might be something wrong with his Monoprice USB cable. Other than that carry on.


 
   
  It doesn't hurt to try and listen the cable. In my opinion it's the best way to know. Measurements and science come second - after experience (at least for me).
  Remember, there was a time when people claimed coaxial digital cables cannot sound differently...well I have 3 different digital cables and I can hear differences between each of them.


----------



## burnspbesq

I haven't compared the WireWorld and Furutech cables, but I can tell you that the Wireworld Starlight was a big improvement over the base-level Kimber Kable USB cable. Much more clarity, better soundstaging. Pure speculation on my part (I'm a lawyer, not an engineer), but I think that the physical separation of the signal and power conductors is the reason.


----------



## burnspbesq

lizardking1 said:


> Threads like this make me laugh.
> Quite some time ago, a member of our dear forum contacted USB.org, a website created by the inventors of the USB data transfer protocol. He asked if there might be any difference between 2 to-spec USB cables, if one used better materials. The question was an eloquent no. It's impossible. I can't remember on which thread it was, and I don't really want to look that hard.
> I'm not saying it isn't fun to believe that there are magic fairies in our digital cables, and that spending 500$ will make the fairies go away, I'm just concerned that a new member might see this and actually believe there might be something wrong with his Monoprice USB cable. Other than that carry on.




That seems logical, but my ears tell a different story.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





burnspbesq said:


> That seems logical, but my ears tell a different story.


 


  I think it's your brain that's telling the different story, not that it makes any difference in the end I guess.


----------



## sonq

korzena said:


> It doesn't hurt to try and listen the cable. In my opinion it's the best way to know. Measurements and science come second - after experience (at least for me).
> Remember, there was a time when people claimed coaxial digital cables cannot sound differently...well I have 3 different digital cables and I can hear differences between each of them.




There was a time when people claimed all amps with similar power rating sounds alike and even preached by the now defunct High Fedility magazine. Not too long ago people even assumed all CD players sound alike since the slogan says "perfect sound forever".

To some, differences that can't be measured does not exist. Let's not forget what can't be measured today doesn't mean it can't be measured tomorrow. 

Edit: should be high-fidelity mag


----------



## Lil' Knight

burnspbesq said:


> That seems logical, but my ears tell a different story.




That's exactly what 'audiophile' cable companies want to hear.


----------



## Chris_Himself

Quote: 





lil' knight said:


> That's exactly what 'audiophile' cable companies want to hear.


 

  
  I dunno I swear my Canon printer sounds better through my particular USB cable


----------



## scootermafia

My advice is to figure all this out from personal experience rather than assuming that printers or mobile hard drives use USB in the same capacity as DACs.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





korzena said:


> It doesn't hurt to try and listen the cable. In my opinion it's the best way to know. Measurements and science come second - after experience (at least for me).
> Remember, there was a time when people claimed coaxial digital cables cannot sound differently...well I have 3 different digital cables and I can hear differences between each of them.


 

 Well literally thousands of people all over the world say they speak with their dead relatives. If we take personal experience over science, we have to account for everything everyone claims to have happened, from alien abductions to sightings of the Holy Mary. Now I'm not saying you should listen to graphs, obviously enjoyment is a subjective thing. But if we know there isn't the physical possibility of a difference, then whatever nuance you might enjoy more in one of the cables is only present in your head. If you do a blind test with 30 trials this should be pretty obvious. It's not like USB is a miracle of nature, it was created by mankind. It's extensively studied and beyond any doubt that it simply can't create a better or worse sound unless you use +50ft cables in something like an airport.
   
  Some of things here are plainly hilarious. Reading that a USB cable can increase soundstage for example. Soundstage is an aural perception of space, our body interprets differences in frequency response that it associates with a certain space. It is completely dependent on the stereo recording, the headphone's driver and the shell (wether it's open, how large it is). It is completely impossible that a USB cable can improve soundstage. Now some people report that it did. All I'm saying is, this difference is completely psychological. It just kind of saddens me to see companies like AudioQuest actually making fortunes out of people's imagination.


----------



## skamp

korzena said:


> It doesn't hurt to try and listen the cable. In my opinion it's the best way to know. Measurements and science come second - after experience (at least for me).




In my experience, the earth is flat. If the earth was round, when walking for a really long time in a straight line, you would start experiencing a downward slope.

I'm a walker, alright? I've walked hundreds of miles. I have never, EVER, experienced a downward slope, except when walking down a hill.

Valleys are flat. The earth is flat. It's my personal experience from many years of walking. No measurement can change my mind. You better believe me.

:rolleyes:


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Well literally thousands of people all over the world say they speak with their dead relatives. If we take personal experience over science, we have to account for everything everyone claims to have happened, from alien abductions to sightings of the Holy Mary. Now I'm not saying you should listen to graphs, obviously enjoyment is a subjective thing. But if we know there isn't the physical possibility of a difference, then whatever nuance you might enjoy more in one of the cables is only present in your head. If you do a blind test with 30 trials this should be pretty obvious. It's not like USB is a miracle of nature, it was created by mankind. It's extensively studied and beyond any doubt that it simply can't create a better or worse sound unless you use +50ft cables in something like an airport.
> 
> Some of things here are plainly hilarious. Reading that a USB cable can increase soundstage for example. Soundstage is an aural perception of space, our body interprets differences in frequency response that it associates with a certain space. It is completely dependent on the stereo recording, the headphone's driver and the shell (wether it's open, how large it is). It is completely impossible that a USB cable can improve soundstage. Now some people report that it did. All I'm saying is, this difference is completely psychological. It just kind of saddens me to see companies like AudioQuest actually making fortunes out of people's imagination.


 
   
  Personally I don't buy audio stuff that doesn't make a distinct difference in sound to my ears (not only to my psyche).
  I agree there are lots of psychological biases we should be beware of especially in audio world. But it's really up to the individual what decision one makes. If someone is foolish enough to buy audio gear on marketing hype or hot 'reviews' that don't really find reflection in reality that's his/her problem (and I suppose this problem won't relate only to audio products for such a person).
   
  I myself like to read many reviews and get to know opinions and personal impressions about gear to know what to try and test myself. I did this in regards to USB cables. I found out that some people said they could tell the difference, some they didn't.
  I finally managed to borrow a better USB cable and listen to it in order to decide for myself. The cable appeared not to make any audible difference in my system so I decided not to buy it.
  But I still don't exclude possibility that in some systems some USB cables can make difference. Well, I don't really know this as I haven't heard this myself, but I prefer to keep my opinion in the 'gray zone' than completely exclude this possibility only because scientific measurements don't support it.
   
  Science proved false many times, too. Every few/several years scientists make new discoveries and change their opinions, too. This is why in this hobby, and especially in this hobby, which is about pleasure and experience for me, I put subjective opinions and my personal impressions before science.


----------



## sonq

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Some of things here are plainly hilarious. Reading that a USB cable can increase soundstage for example. Soundstage is an aural perception of space, our body interprets differences in frequency response that it associates with a certain space. It is completely dependent on the stereo recording, the headphone's driver and the shell (wether it's open, how large it is). It is completely impossible that a USB cable can improve soundstage. Now some people report that it did. All I'm saying is, this difference is completely psychological. It just kind of saddens me to see companies like AudioQuest actually making fortunes out of people's imagination.


 
  If what you mentioned is a fact, then all forms of digital cable should sound the same, and every major cable manufacturers out there are making a fortune out of people's imagination.


----------



## skamp

I don't know about every manufacturer, but some of them, sure...


----------



## Stormfriend

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> All I'm saying is, this difference is completely psychological.


 

 I thought my generic cable had more air than the Carbon, but it turns out my memory was deceiving me and compared back to back they were the same.  They also had identical soundstages.  But they had different amounts of presence and bite.  Which of those observations is psychological, and which was real? 
   
  Was the identical soundstage psychological or real?
  Was the identical air psychological or real?
  Was the difference in presence psychological or real?
  Was the difference in bite psychological or real?
   
  If all my observations are purely psychological then I can never know what's real and what isn't (I'm insane).  If they're not all psychological then which ones should I believe and which ones should I dismiss?  If my hearing, health, mood, environment, pride of ownership and other factors are identical for all these observations then how can I make a judgement as to which of my observations must be wrong, except through repeatedly testing them?  How would science function if we discarded any observation that didn't match our accepted wisdom?  You're asking me to accept the divine revelation of the USB spec!
   
  Talking of which, how do you know that your _interpretation_ of the spec wasn't psychologically influenced by your current beliefs?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





stormfriend said:


> If all my observations are purely psychological then I can never know what's real and what isn't (I'm insane).  If they're not all psychological then which ones should I believe and which ones should I dismiss?  If my hearing, health, mood, environment, pride of ownership and other factors are identical for all these observations then how can I make a judgement as to which of my observations must be wrong, except through repeatedly testing them?  How would science function if we discarded any observation that didn't match our accepted wisdom?  You're asking me to accept the divine revelation of the USB spec!
> 
> Talking of which, how do you know that your _interpretation_ of the spec wasn't psychologically influenced by your current beliefs?


 
   
  Observation is great, but it has limitations. This is where well constructed ABX and double blind testing can help illuminate, along with objective measurements. All these methods work in concert, and you determine facts by a preponderance of evidences. We know and have amply demonstrated that sighted listening tests are subject to large amounts of unconscious bias. That doesn't mean you cannot learn anything from the listening - but it does mean you need to check your experiences against objective data to corroborate, before considering it evidence of anything. If the observation does not match up with the measurements and theory - then you need to find out why (and known bias is a big problem) ... this is not the same as discarding observation.


----------



## Stormfriend

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Observation is great, but it has limitations. This is where well constructed ABX and double blind testing can help illuminate, along with objective measurements. All these methods work in concert, and you determine facts by a preponderance of evidences. We know and have amply demonstrated that sighted listening tests are subject to large amounts of unconscious bias. That doesn't mean you cannot learn anything from the listening - but it does mean you need to check your experiences against objective data to corroborate, before considering it evidence of anything. If the observation does not match up with the measurements and theory - then you need to find out why (and known bias is a big problem) ... this is not the same as discarding observation.


 

  
  I agree completely, I just wish someone had got hold of the Audioquest Carbon, Cardas Clear and Wireworld Starlight and done those A/B tests for me!
   
  My comments were directed at those who say there _cannot_ be a difference because the specification precludes it, without even doing any testing.  That's where discarding observation comes in.


----------



## liamstrain

There should not be a difference. There is no theory that supports that there could be. But I would be curious to see a well run ABX on these cables as well.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> There should not be a difference. There is no theory that supports that there could be. But I would be curious to see a well run ABX on these cables as well.


 
   
  ABX is not an ideal solution, too. It has been discussed so many times in so many threads that it does not even make sense to start the discussion again. If anyone is interested just search the forum.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





korzena said:


> ABX is not an ideal solution, too. It has been discussed so many times in so many threads that it does not even make sense to start the discussion again. If anyone is interested just search the forum.


 


  There is a current thread in the Sound Science forum, but to date, there have been few compelling arguments against them. If you have additional comments to share in that discussion, it would be appreciated.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> There is a current thread in the Sound Science forum, but to date, there have been few compelling arguments against them. If you have additional comments to share in that discussion, it would be appreciated.


 
   
  Thanks for the info. However I am not going to get into discussion regarding this topic as it is not so exciting to me anymore


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





korzena said:


> But I still don't exclude possibility that in some systems some USB cables can make difference. Well, I don't really know this as I haven't heard this myself, but I prefer to keep my opinion in the 'gray zone' than completely exclude this possibility only because scientific measurements don't support it.
> 
> Science proved false many times, too. Every few/several years scientists make new discoveries and change their opinions, too. This is why in this hobby, and especially in this hobby, which is about pleasure and experience for me, I put subjective opinions and my personal impressions before science.


 

 I can't reply to everyone who quoted me, but here I need to clear something up.
   
  There's a gigantic difference between a discovery and an invention. When you say "science has been wrong before" you're talking about *discoveries*. They are a thing of nature that we study. For example, I can analyze a certain chemical compound and through my results "this is molechule X". And later, though better means and new procedures, another scientist takes an identical sample and determines "the previous observations are incorrect, this is in fact molechule Y". This has happened lots of times along science, a good example is the belief that atoms were spheres with little electrons stuck to them, we now know that model is wrong. All of these things already existed and we simply investigated them, drawing better conclusions each time.
   
  However, with USB it's an *invention*. It's man-made. I don't think it's quite possible for us to invent something like a data transmission protocol and use it without understanding how it works. I don't know if you ever compiled a program in a computer, but it only works if absolutely everything is perfectly correct, so it's not something that you can type by accident and get any results. What I mean is, these things don't come from throwing science at a wall and see what sticks, they only work because we understand them completely. We know it's impossible for a USB cable to actually change the sound in terms of things like frequency response (or soundstage!) because the way it was intentionally designed does not support that kind of change. It's like saying a car might turn into a transformer, that can't happen by accident, only if you added the machinery for that process.
   
  I'm not at all trying to patronize any of you, and I'm sorry if I sound arrogant. I'm not an engineer or a programmer. It's your money to spend of course. Along my time here ended up reading reviews of things like "warm" USB cables and it made sense. But I'm glad someone educated me back then, and I don't think it would be fair of me to let a new member waste his budget on things that can't make a difference.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> However, with USB it's an *invention*. It's man-made. I don't think it's quite possible for us to invent something like a data transmission protocol and use it without understanding how it works. I don't know if you ever compiled a program in a computer, but it only works if absolutely everything is perfectly correct, so it's not something that you can type by accident and get any results. What I mean is, these things don't come from throwing science at a wall and see what sticks, they only work because we understand them completely. We know it's impossible for a USB cable to actually change the sound in terms of things like frequency response (or soundstage!) because the way it was intentionally designed does not support that kind of change. It's like saying a car might turn into a transformer, that can't happen by accident, only if you added the machinery for that process.


 
   
  We've mentioned coaxial digital cables before. There was a time when people claimed that digital cables can't make any difference in sound. As far as I know today we have consensus that different digital cables can differ in sound. The cables were man-made invention.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





korzena said:


> We've mentioned coaxial digital cables before. There was a time when people claimed that digital cables can't make any difference in sound. As far as I know today we have consensus that different digital cables can differ in sound. The cables were man-made invention.


 


  Consensus among who, exactly? I have yet to see any objective data (measurement or DBT/ABX) to indicate that any properly made (not malfunctioning) coaxial cable (or any other cable of roughly equivalent resistance) can affect sound.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Consensus among who, exactly? I have yet to see any objective data (measurement or DBT/ABX) to indicate that any properly made (not malfunctioning) coaxial cable can affect sound.


 

 I have three different digital cables. The manufacturers of each of them claim they are made up to the specs (75 Ohm, etc). One of them is Blue Jeans Cable, another one is a silver cable (DIY by my friend who makes headphone amplifiers and cables), third one is the latest cable from Black Cat - Silverstar 75.
  I can hear that Blue Jeans sounds more grainy and has more 'weight' than silver DIY which sounds smoothest and is more spacious than Black Cat cable which has one specific characteristics for me which is has a very tight bass.
   
  Please use the scientific methods and measurements to convince me I don't hear these differences and it's probably only my imagination


----------



## liamstrain

The burden of proof, unfortunately, is the other way around - please prove to me what you are hearing is not the result of your own biases - even if unconcious (whose affect on sighted listening is well documented). Show me that you can identify them (or at least identify differences between them) in a volume matched ABX.  
   
  For my own part, I have also tried digital cables by different manufacturers (USB and Coaxial), and have not been able to detect any difference between them - as a result I returned the expensive ones and kept the $3 monoprice cables. Preferring to invest the extra money into things that actually have been shown to affect the sound quality. 
   
  But alas - this is a debate free forum. We should probably break off and part as friends. Sorry for taking this down the rabbit hole.


----------



## skamp

liamstrain said:


> this is a debate free forum




Now that's a subversive way of saying it


----------



## LizardKing1

Well should I really make a big post about what binary is composed of to have you just repeat that "science has been wrong before"? True, I don't have any experience with coaxial cables, and I'm trying to read up a bit on it. In the case of USB or HDMI I'm 100% sure you can't change the sound in the ways here described. Hell, not even an analog cable can change the soundstage. I suggest reading a bit on how the USB data transfer protocol works. It's not magic, it's fully understood. And there is definitely no consensus that digital cables change sound, I don't know where you read that but it's simply not true.
   
  I don't think a double-blind test really matters. I mean if I take a piece of rope and a decent cable and ask you to ABX them both, do the results show anything new? Of course it's a great way to show people that they can't tell apart a few-thousand-dollar Locus Design USB cable from a Monoprice one.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> The burden of proof, unfortunately, is the other way around - please prove to me what you are hearing is not the result of your own biases - even if unconcious (whose affect on sighted listening is well documented). Show me that you can identify them (or at least identify differences between them) in a volume matched ABX.
> 
> For my own part, I have also tried digital cables by different manufacturers (USB and Coaxial), and have not been able to detect any difference between them - as a result I returned the expensive ones and kept the $3 monoprice cables. Preferring to invest the extra money into things that actually have been shown to affect the sound quality.
> 
> But alas - this is a debate free forum. We should probably break off and part as friends. Sorry for taking this down the rabbit hole.


 

 Agree that we should not enter this debate.
  Well, maybe some day I will try some kind of ABX tests, just out of curiosity. For the time being I prefer to believe in my self-deception and enjoy myself. Sometimes ignorance can be quite blissful
  Thanks for the discussion!


----------



## Currawong

Masochist that I am, I'm going to post.
   
  Get binary out of your head. You're a layer too high in the system. 
   
  USB cables have 4 wires. Two wires carry power and two carry data. You can effectively say that the data transmission is an analogue transmission of a square wave of a certain frequency.
   
  For a USB cable to have an effect on an audio USB device compared to another cable, it would require that the USB audio device be susceptible to either noise in the power component or imperfections (jitter and reflections) in the data and that USB cable to significantly reduce the noise in the former or cause significantly less distortion during transmission in the latter.
   
  However, if you're using a USB-powered audio device, you'd be better off getting a USB hub with a better power supply (eg: the lab-grade Vaunix) or possibly building a small DIY power supply and using that with a  powered hub. My subjective experience has been that better USB power improved how my system sounded with an Audiophilleo 1. I might see if the person who measured the AP1 could do so again when using a separate power supply, as it would be interesting, as it would if they measured with some "audiophile" USB cables.
   
  Oyaide has pictures on their web site showing what they claim to be better transmission of the data. Whether or not this would matter again must depend on whether the device used would be affected by it sufficiently enough to cause changes in the analogue output. In that case, if it was for a DAC that has both USB and coax S/PDIF inputs, I'd still be more inclined to spend the money on a good USB to S/PDIF converter if the USB implementation in the DAC was poor. My impressions have been that it makes more difference. Well-designed electronics are always going to best well-designed wire in what they can achieve IMO.


----------



## LizardKing1

But that would account only for enough interference to actually distort the square wave beyond recognition by the decoder, right? In a normal USB interface there's still error recognition that would require for the data to be re-sent, so even in the described situation a bit-perfect transmission is possible. Of course if there was enough interference to distort it in the first time, chance are it might happen in the second, and so on ad-infinitum until finally you get pops or mute parts of a song. This may look like a statement, but it's actually a question =)


----------



## Currawong

As I understand it, USB audio is streamed and doesn't have error correction.


----------



## sonq

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Hell, not even an analog cable can change the soundstage.


 

 Have you actually tried out a few cables or is this all theoretical?


----------



## skamp

Any kind of interference with an effect on USB data transmission would affect *bits* (zeros and ones), *indiscriminately*.

I don't think I've ever heard errors in USB data transmission, but I suppose they would sound like glitches (like clicks and pops or scrambled audio), because of the randomness of the errors, thereby breaking the coherency of the data. They definitely wouldn't selectively choose which bits to change so as to keep the audio signal's coherency (i.e. no glitches) and alter some property of it (warmth, soundstage and whatnot). You would need some pretty smart "alteration" with lots of _coherent_ (i.e. selective) changes for that to happen.

In other words: if you change a single bit in a packet of structured (meaningful) data, you _break_ it. It turns into gibberish. It's not a _slight_ or subtle alteration. It can turn the number 127 into 255 [*], double the original value. In contrast, if you superimpose a 60Hz hum on an analog signal, well, you still get the original music, with an added bass hum.

P.S. I just thought of an example of digital transmission errors that you might have had the occasion to witness: Over The Air digital TV. Every now and then, you get errors. What do you see and hear? Warmer colors? Constricted soundstage? Nope. What you see is blocks of pixels that look completely wrong. When the transmission is really bad, the image is completely garbled. Sound also gets affected, and it sounds like, well, glitches. Nothing subtle about it.

If that doesn't convince you, or at least makes you doubt your beliefs, I don't know what will.

[*] 127 (base 10) is 01111111 in binary (base 2). Change the 0 into 1 and you get 11111111, which is 255.


----------



## korzena

Originally Posted by *LizardKing1* 




 Hell, not even an analog cable can change the soundstage.

  Quote: 





sonq said:


> Have you actually tried out a few cables or is this all theoretical?


 

 I am starting to suspect that some people enjoy READING audio gear more than LISTENING to it


----------



## Currawong

The OP is asking for "your experience" not the science.


----------



## LizardKing1

I'm pretty sure USB has error correction for audio.
  
  Quote: 





korzena said:


> Originally Posted by *LizardKing1*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Of course it's much easier to assume I'm just ignorant than to actually say something with any kind of intelectual weight =)
  None of the cables I ever tried ever came close to changing soundstage. Maybe I'm just more honest about what I hear, I believe in burn-in and never heard in difference after 100 hours in my gear. And no, I never tried any 100$ unobtanium cables, maybe only those change soundstage. What a coincidence, huh? I guess if you told us that your USB cable changed the lyrics to your favorite songs, I'd have to justify how impossible that is with testing multiple cables (How awesome would that be. Just standing in an audio shop, trying all cables, yelling "No, it's still _Come as you are_ on this one!")
  In stead of assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, how about you explain how is it possible that copper wire can change a visual interpretation of sound. Then please move on to explain how does binary code manage it.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> I'm pretty sure USB has error correction for audio.
> 
> Of course it's much easier to assume I'm just ignorant than to actually say something with any kind of intelectual weight =)
> None of the cables I ever tried ever came close to changing soundstage. Maybe I'm just more honest about what I hear, I believe in burn-in and never heard in difference after 100 hours in my gear. And no, I never tried any 100$ unobtanium cables, maybe only those change soundstage. What a coincidence, huh? I guess if you told us that your USB cable changed the lyrics to your favorite songs, I'd have to justify how impossible that is with testing multiple cables (How awesome would that be. Just standing in an audio shop, trying all cables, yelling "No, it's still _Come as you are_ on this one!")
> In stead of assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, how about you explain how is it possible that copper wire can change a visual interpretation of sound. Then please move on to explain how does binary code manage it.


 
   
  Sorry if you felt offended in any way. It was not my intention.
  The point of this thread is, what Currawong correctly reminded, people's experiences and their listening impressions.
  Although I appreciate the scientific input from you and other guys, it is not what I asked about. If I would like to know the science behind the cables, I would have asked about it.  I've made a mistake by not reminding about it earlier in the thread and letting the discussion go off topic.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> I'm pretty sure USB has error correction for audio.


 
  I checked. Regular USB data transmission uses CRC, but USB audio doesn't.
   
  This has been discussed here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/364565/usb-cable-and-sound-quality/120
  and here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/417785/yes-virgina-there-is-a-difference-in-usb-cables/150#post_7254553
   
  Unfortunately the only experiment I've done so far was switch the longer and shorter lengths of my Oyaide USB cables that go from my computer to USB PSU to Audiophilleo. I did it for convenience, wanting the PSU closer to my computer instead of with my rig, but I felt the sound was worse. Who knows if it wasn't just all in my head, but the longer length is 5m and the shorter 70cm, so it could have had something to do with the cable passing a bunch of power boards and cables for my computer gear on the way to my audio rack.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





korzena said:


> Originally Posted by *LizardKing1*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 This is a significant statement!  I do enjoy reading about audio stuffs, but I also enjoy listening to it!
   
  My experience with USB cables is that i have some that seem to work better than others when used as interconnects between my DAC and the digital source.
   
  All of my USB cables seem to work equally well for data transmission.  This would fit with what Currawong said about the nature of streaming digital audio vs. data transmission.
   
  The better the quality of data, i.e. 32kb/s vs. 320kb/s, etc, it seems that artifacts which seem to be attributable to the cable become more apparent.  Program material also seems to be important in being able to hear artifacts.  Very well recorded analog string and wind instruments seem to be much more discriminatory than do percussive type recordings for the most part.  Another thing is the character of the artifacts that I encounter are not at all musically, or frequency based, related, or correlated.  They all present themselves more like subtle dropouts and the like.
   
  This is my experience.  I offer no absolute theory as to why.  That's another discussion and another thread.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





skamp said:


> ....... They definitely wouldn't selectively choose which bits to change so as to keep the audio signal's coherency (i.e. no glitches) and alter some property of it (warmth, soundstage and whatnot). You would need some pretty smart "alteration" with lots of _coherent_ (i.e. selective) changes for that to happen.





> .........


 

 Exactly. A lot is being attributed to a bit of cable by claims it can inherantly alter SQ. How is wire able to do such and very cleverly and selectively alter data to say 'improve bass'?


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Exactly. A lot is being attributed to a bit of cable by claims it can inherantly alter SQ. How is wire able to do such and very cleverly and selectively alter data to say 'improve bass'?


 

 Please, not again. There are other threads dedicated to this topic. Pleeeaaase)


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





korzena said:


> Please, not again. There are other threads dedicated to this topic. Pleeeaaase)


 

 OK, I shall potter back to my cave and say no more on the subject.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





korzena said:


> Please, not again. There are other threads dedicated to this topic. Pleeeaaase)


 
   
  Thanks
  Currawong mentioned before the following two threads about the topic. If you'd like to, here they are:
   
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/364565/usb-cable-and-sound-quality/120
 and here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/417785/yes-virgina-there-is-a-difference-in-usb-cables/150#post_7254553


----------



## LizardKing1

I'm not trying to re-ignite this, but all those links seem to prove (and in one of them a computer engineer says audio does have CRC) is that there is no error correction for audio streaming. This still means that up to a threshold of distortion, which in a shielded spec cable is still high, the signal comes out bit-perfect. And still, like Skamp and Prog Rock Man said, even if the information is so distorted it can't get decoded properly, this would never reveal itself in things like frequency response changes, more warmth or (I'm sorry, but I love mentioning this) soundstage. It would show up as pops and mute parts of songs. I won't post again in a way that can lead to a debate, I understand this thread is for personal observations and not science discussion, but I thought I should clear up what those links meant. And thanks to Currawong for posting them.


----------



## korzena

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> I'm not trying to re-ignite this, but all those links seem to prove (and in one of them a computer engineer says audio does have CRC) is that there is no error correction for audio streaming. This still means that up to a threshold of distortion, which in a shielded spec cable is still high, the signal comes out bit-perfect. And still, like Skamp and Prog Rock Man said, even if the information is so distorted it can't get decoded properly, this would never reveal itself in things like frequency response changes, more warmth or (I'm sorry, but I love mentioning this) soundstage. It would show up as pops and mute parts of songs. I won't post again in a way that can lead to a debate, I understand this thread is for personal observations and not science discussion, but I thought I should clear up what those links meant. And thanks to Currawong for posting them.


 

 OK, I am out of this thread.
   
  Thank you all for their input!


----------

