USB cables following the standard can be relied on to transfer data correctly in terms of bit content and timing. Yes a PC can yield common mode noise to the DAC via the USB cable but the cable itself can do nothing about it unless you add a common mode choke or one of those ferrite clamps that goes around the cable. But this method can actually risk degrading the data transfer reliability as the EOP (End Of Packet) signal is not differential. Still some people have success with such approach in reducing the noise. Also, always remember that any cable should be kept as short as possible as it can pick up common mode noise e.g. even 50/60Hz can be picked up by the cable. This phenomenon also has nothing to do with the cable quality itself.
USB cables can transfer noise that is on your ground into your equipment, and maybe even pick up electrical RF noise on the shield, but as far as transferring the actual "ones and zeros", the cable either does it or it doesn't. So, unless you have a ground loop, or other source of RF noise getting into your ground, and from there, into the analog stages that lead to your amplifier, then no, a USB cable, by definition, cannot affect the quality of your sound. If a USB cable is causing ones and zeros to get dropped, you'll have audio artifacts, dropouts, etc, but if the ones and zeros are all getting through, then no, one cable cannot sound better than another. That only happens in analog cables.
Agreed. Usb delivers digital signal information only. The general 'quality' of a USB connection has no bearing on the analog signal, that is created by the DAC. Sure there could be noise getting from the source, to the DAC through the USB cable and affecting the DAC output (unlikely), but that is not the fault of the USB cable. You cannot expect a cable to 'rid itself' if unwanted noise delivered to it through the input. RCAs can pick up noise from the air, and in that case shielding will help. But even in that case, relocating the cable is better than getting a different cable.
"a USB cable, by definition, cannot affect the quality of your sound. If a USB cable is causing ones and zeros to get dropped, you'll have audio artifacts, dropouts, etc, but if the ones and zeros are all getting through, then no, one cable cannot sound better than another. That only happens in analog cables." That would be true if USB audio transfer worked the same way as data transfer. It doesn't. USB audio is Isochronous. "Isochronous transfer mode uses error-checking but includes no re-transmission in case of Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) errors. Electrical noise on USB signals causes CRC errors and thus data loss, as does poor signal integrity. In mild cases, this leads to audio signal distortions. In the worst cases, clicks and dropouts. It means that a USB audio device can work correctly only if USB signal quality is excellent and no CRC errors occur." The differences between clean USB audio and dirty USB audio can be measured. However, those making the measurements claim that they are inaudible. The big differences come from cable length; the shorter the better. But we already knew that...
Not really. It directly contradicts your claim that "a USB cable, by definition, cannot affect the quality of your sound". The issue now is whether that degradation of quality is audible or not. I would test it given that I possess several USB cables, but there is a number of issues: 1. The easily accessible front USB ports on my HTPC don't play nice with my DAC. 2. None of my USB cables are certified as being compliant with the USB spec. 3. Even if I fail to detect an audible difference, that doesn't exclude the possibility that someone else might be capable of doing so. 4. I have in the past managed to hear "unmeasurable" and therefore "inaudible" differences. Transient Intermodulation Distortion for example. See: Otala and Leinonen 1976: pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3c0/a892a982ebde91f83f228905dac30186f827.pdf
Even the cheapest poorly made USB cable will provide 'bit-perfect' asynchronous transfer without an issue upto 200Mbps. A basic cable made to USB spec will of course transfer upto 480Mbps 'bit-perfect'. There is plenty of evidence for this being the case and cable cost doesn't change this. This is why a 99p cable built to USB spec, which most are, can transfer the same amount of data, in the same time from A to B just as well as a £999 cable. Also any spec USB cable, even the ones poorly made, usually have no problems coping with the relatively low Mbps required to stream simply audio. USB 2.0 at 480Mbps is more than any audio stream will ever need at any bit rate. e.g. A 24/192 stereo audio file will only require ~13Mbps to stream it bit-perfect on any USB cable or less than 3% of a USB cables capacity.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Any company charging hundreds of dollars per meter of cable should be able to provide data for their claims. Surely they ran tests to arrive at their final design. For example, what is the digital error rate at X signal strength with Y strength of ambient radio interference? If ANYONE had any data to that effect, they would produce it and the debate would end. So the actual debate is: Should companies be free to charge 10-100x for products with shaky claims without being criticized? If there is real data, I'm happy to stand corrected.
If I ever travel again to the US, it will mostly to visit PS Audio! I am listening to Paul to learn about life using audiophile topics as an excuse. Amazing stories, Paul. Thank you, sir!
I just turned 71, so I'll always be your senior, Paul. Thanks for the effort -- but I'm still pretty much in the "snake oil" camp. when it comes to USB (or other strictly digital) interconnects: if they're not outright defective, the differences between various USB cables used between a PeeCee and a DAC are minuscule with regard to what a mere human ear can actually detect. Of course, if you've already invested in a high-end DAC, it makes no sense to skimp on a cable -- just don't spend a three-digit price on one, because that also makes no sense!
From a cheap cable running from my Mac to the DAC I have I believe there was a major improvement with the Blue Dragon USB cable. The cable was also shorter than my other USB-A cables as well.
I think he's talking about the electrical noise because of the copper connections in the USB cable, not so much the quality of the digital signal itself. The digital signal will arrive fine it just arrives with I interference from a power supply of the connected devices.
@@Joshcom88 -- USB doesn't care about "interference from a power supply of the connected devices." As long as the "ones and zeros" that comprise a digital signal are distinguishable from each other by "the connected devices" any extraneous "interference" is irrelevant -- and if such "interference" is so severe as to significantly affect the flow of digital data, a supposedly better cable isn't going to remedy that.
The good news is that USB's digital nature does make it much more resistant, but not completely immune to EM noise. In real life, don't digital signals are not perfect square waves, but instead closer to capacitive charging a d discharge curves. What that means in practice is that as long as the interference is not bad enough to distort the actual voltage signal to mistake a zero to be a one and vice-versa and/or mess up timing. Contrast this to a purely analogue signal carrying cable where unless one resorts to measures such as balanced differential signaling to cancel out noise, every distortion gets passed straight into your sound. For reference, sensitive scientific equipment such as oscilloscopes must resort to measures such as shielded coaxial cables to minimize signal distortion and enable observation of GHz frequency signals.
I love Paul's videos because I click on a USB cable video and leave with a deeper understanding of the value of life and the philosophical implications of it. Thank you Paul and happy birthday.
Bought a very nice expensive usb cable, sounded fine but got signal dropouts all the time, bought a cheap Blue Jeans usb cable and everything has been working fine, no dropouts and no difference in sound quality.
Cheap would be 2.99usd from Wal-Mart. Blue Jeans operates on catching folks like you thinking snake oil terms about expensive cables and.... as knee jerk reaction looking to suppose cheap cables ... sorry 40usd for cables is not cheap , cheap is 5usd .
Please explain how a USB cable can transfer my files without error, bit-for-bit, between two storage devices, yet magically exhibits loss when you use it between a computer and a DAC? Boggles the mind. Snake oil, mythology and old wives' tales.
Actually, file transfer has error correction while USB audio doesn't. So just in theory you can experience bit flipping. It just doesn't happen nowadays because the outputs have become so good.
Curious Cable USB is 500USD... This is snake oil. In the digital audio world the signal is binary with redundant silent bits made for recovery and concealment of a potential digital error. Your cable is good if there's no burst or dropouts that can't be corrected. So to keep it simple, buy well grounded and insulated and short USB cable and that's it.
I bought four Audioquest USB cables and after weeks of listen, I returned all but the most expensive one. They all sound different. The more expensive sound better. I wanted to save money by going with the cheapest cable but the difference in sound quality is too big to ignore.
Paul, surely if there is an audible difference to you, there should be a measurable difference in some way with some tool to showcase the difference along the path that you are hearing, correct?
The result is exactly what i though it will be. The USB standard established by the computer world carry a lot more critical 0 and 1 than a CD content.
We may need EEG or MRI to measure human perceivable differences in sound... From there learn how to measure what the brain is perceiving in a way that isn't so expensive 😂😏 Personally I think we haven't figured out how to measure everything about sound yet... we would need a lot of Open Source collaboration to find out what in audio we can hear and perceive but can't measure. If you hear a difference, than there must be one. Why instead of using old standards to measure stuff, why are we trying to innovate and find new ways to measure sound and all the magical (😋 only magical because its not discovered yet) things it does. I think that we are the end-all-be-all and have all the information humans will ever know is asinine. I really think listening to music during brain scans using different equipment and seeing what the brain actually does during these perceived differences in sound will get us looking in the right direction. Until we do that we're going to be looking in the dark for solutions. I mean seriously instead of building something and seeing if it sounds good, why not backwards engineer it from the brain? There are many aspects to sound, I believe even some psychological... Otherwise chemical's wouldn't change the perception of audio... But they do. How could we manupulate the sound to trick the brain into letting more data past the filters between your ears😉 like the chemicals that humans ingest sometimes... That lead to an increase of perceived sound quality. I think too many people have their heads too far stuck in a math book to hear things right in front of their ears😏 Then there is the quantom computing thats up and coming... Imagine having one of those buggers where you don't only have one and zero, but 1, 0, 1 and 0, 1 or 0... Ect. Which is getting closer to a crossover of digital and analog (in my perception of the tec.) Furthermore, with the dynamic output of a quantom processer, I believe it will be able to beter utilise tubes in a true crossover computer.(idk what else to call something like that) but I believe a digital signal could be output to a tube, then manupulated in a way that would affect the quantom entanglement outcome of the signal. Feed that into the quantom processer, then back to tubes for audio output. ...on a side note... I find it fun to match equipment that has no place being with eachother for fun unexpected outcomes. Even if quantom computing doesn't merge with tubes as I suspect it eventually will in a true digilog... The amount of data able to be stored and process drees us from the endless format arguing, just make a maximum capable format, unrelated to just whats "needed"... It would be a fun experiment to see what happens.
Which begs the question why optical isn't the best connection method? Bypassing all that unwanted noise. Last i heard there is no audio quality limitation, the manufacturer can choose what data rates etc to run over it. I'm still yet to hear a convincing argument on why not to use optical...
Optical is a better alternative. Even Rob Watts, designer of the Chord Electronics DACs (also FPGA based like PS Audio's) has stated the optical cable is preferable to USB.
Optical can provide galvanic isolation from the source and in case of using a PC that can be a good thing of course. But as optical audio is one-way data with a sample clock that isn’t precise you will need a good quality ASRC (asynchronous sample rate converter) and data buffering to enable a constant (almost) jitter free clock into the DAC.
I believe I read somewhere that Optical will not produce 7.1 surround and that HDMI sound was the better option. Definitely not in noise filtering but in audio bandwidth applications.
There was an optical cable connection called ST in the early days of digital audio that was supposed to be hands-down the best there was. It used glass optical rather than the toslink plastic, and it had such a wide bandwidth that it could transmit over a dozen channels. I don’t know why it failed to catch on; often the best choice isn’t the one that makes it in the marketplace.
Hi Paul, can you recommend some good ,,sounding,, usb c to usb c and usb c to micro usb short cables for dongle usb amp/DACs? Like there are some really good usb cables from supra or curious cables but none of those are usb c or micro, only from audioquest ... Do you have some experience with good short usb Cs and micros? Thanks
Paul, I have a question. Do you meditate? We all create our own reality...period. I hear the "I"m a victim of circumstance" thing all the time from people...bullshit. You are where you are in life because of the choices you have made in life, end of story. Choose a different story and live it! Quit whining, lol. This cable discussion reminds me of the old "tube amps are no different than solid state amps" thing. BULLSHIT. They sound different like or not as you may, they may have the same slope on an oscilloscope but they SOUND different no question about it. Fantastic video! I applaud your total disregard for the nah sayers! thank you for that. I live in western Oklahoma and am planning a trip to Colorado hopefully soon, I would LOVE to come visit and see Music Room One while I'm there. Keep up the good work!!
One thing that might be worth trying is an optical USB link, normally these things are used to greatly extend USB around something like a factory. (for telemetry, instrumentation etc.) but they could be a solution to keep computer (particularly ground) noise out of your audio setup. This way you get the isolation of toslink, but retain the ability to use async USB audio.
Audio science review did a great video on it. An basically the shorter the lenght the better (but there is very little difference between a 12m cable and a direct 10cm plug) and over all there is no difference. But some expensive gimmick cable might even make it worse.
simply: on async DACs there is no difference (except possible ground loop), but can be big difference on cheap DACs which sync clock to 1Khz of USB clock!
Cable A: 10110001 Cable B: 10110001 The first one sounds WAY better because it costs $1000! I AM trying to change your opinion, and I do NOT sell audio equipment. These cables are not supposed to transmit audio. If it does, you have a faulty cable or port. That simple. Quality control matters.
When the cables are used with your printer, it will make no difference (at least nothing a human would notice). When the department store quality cable takes 1% longer to correctly send the data to the printer, you will still get a perfect printout, and will not notice the delay. When the department store quality cable takes 1% longer to correctly send the data to your DAC, your ears will hear a degradation in the sound quality. When the department store quality cable bunches up the zeros and ones (does not transfer the data in unison), your printer will not care. Regardless of the timing of the reception of the data, by the printer, the printout will be unaffected. Not so, when your DAC gets data that is unevenly spaced. Have you ever downloaded a 3 minute song, but due to a poor connection, it took 5 minutes to complete the download? At the end of the 5 minutes, you have an exact copy of the file that was sent to you. How would that file have sounded if you were listening to it, in real time, as it was downloading? The answer is that you would have heard all manner of stammering. Yet, you received an exact copy of the file. Sound quality is not limited to receiving the exact zeros and ones. It also involves the precise timing of those zeros and ones. It also involves noise. It also involves retransmissions of data when a bad packet it detected (something that would not affect your printer, but would affect what you hear, due to the slight delay caused by the retransmission -- something unlikely to occur in a quality audio cable). I have swapped USB cables, between laptops and DACs. All of the cables worked. All allowed me to hear the song. The cheap USB cables, that came with a printer, or an external hard drive, when used between a laptop and a DAC, sucked the life out of the music. The cheap cables made a very good DAC sound like a complete waste of $$. Yet those cables work fine for their intended purpose.
Perhaps Interesting as i have tried cheap cables and expensive with my laptop running to my preamp/DAC and couldn't hear a difference. No life sucking so i do get confused. You all make sense right up untill I try it in the real world. Maybe my system is too cheap to care.
scottyo64, Yes, the quality of the DAC is important. Also, the quality of the USB cable is important. Expensive is not necessarily synonymous with quality. See if you can have your local audio store lend you the best Audioquest USB cable that you can budget (because you will probably want to buy it after you demo it). Also, you will want to play your music using a program that endeavors to send a bit-perfect data stream to you DAC. The program should attempt to not share computer clock resources with any other computer activity. JRiver's Media Center is one such program. Lastly, no other USB devices should be plugged into the computer that is feeding your DAC. You want the data stream, form your computer to your DAC, to have 100% control of the USB controller. Some computer's do not come configured as such on all ports. So try one of your other USB ports, to see if that helps. Good luck!
Ronald Thompson, I think that you are correct. As such, bad packets or dropped packets are simply lost, which results in missing samples. A quality USB cable will not have this problem.
Hi Paul, you often recommend Audioquest cables but they seem to come in many colour coded quality levels. I am aware that depending on the level of connected equipment, the differences in cable quality may or may not be audable. While I don't want to buy cables that impede the audio quality, I also don't want to waste money on top end cables that are so far above the performance level of my existing components that they offer no improvement over the lower priced cable levels. In other words, it's a question of matching HiFi performance level without wasting money. My existing speakers are Polk Audo 10B (tweeters replaced (silk dome), considering getting the crossovers recapped by a well respected professional here in Australia. I can't detect a problem but the detected tweeter issue was slight yet has made a huge difference to my audio pleasure, so maybee well worth doing. Amplifier is a Yamaha A 700 which has been recapped. There are a number of analogue sources connected directly to the amp. There are a few Digital sources connected to a DAC Essence HDACC TV is connected to DAC via optical, (PVR to TV via HDMI) BDP to DAC via HDMI passthrough. Hard drive to BDP via USB (I intend to replace this with a NAS via LAN) Despite the age of the speakers and amp, the audio performance is exceptional IMO and the best system I have ever put together. I know there are much higher end options available that I could afford but it's in a smallish open lounge dining area and there is no space in my house for a dedicated listening room. This system gives me a lot of pleasure and given the size and nature of available space, it doesn't seem appropriate to upgrade from this level. The RCAs I am using are fairly thick but they were relatively inexpensive. However the digital cables are all very very cheap and from what you are suggesting here this may be a mistake. Ken
I'm not sure I hear a difference in sound quality in DAC's, but then again I have no experience with really high end DAC's, the best I had was Musical Fidelity M1DAC and Asus Essence One Muses Edition. STILL, with a cheapo USB cable I hear buzzing and noise when I move the mouse and when HDD is doing something, or when I have a game turned I can hear a certain type of silent buzzing. With a better quality USB cable (Supra USB 2.0) there's zero buzzing and noise, it's always perfectly silent.
It doesn't high end, audio is a lie perpetuated by Paul and MANY like him for one simple reason, to rob you blind. ruclips.net/video/qXuBsdmEOAs/видео.html
I've actually used lots of different USB cables with my external sound card, including the cheapest 5 metre extension cable I could find, connected to a further 2 metres of cable. The result, absolutely no difference in sound whatsoever. 5 metres is the maximum recommended length, so 7 metres was really pushing it. But it worked absolutely fine. Hey Paul, please can you change that cable on your modem for me so that your videos sound better! Absolutely ridiculous, I can't believe this is even being debated lol.
With digital audio you have the same effect as with digital TV: You either have signal or don't. There's no "degradation" like in analog systems. If you don't have all the data you'll get full dropouts. If you get unrecoverable data corruption you'll get clicks and pops, and those are crazy loud to begin with. So much there is no way they'll be mistaken with "audio degradation". Sorry to be the sand in your KY but you've got a Fail on this one, Paul.
Not arguing on the cables, but anyone who uses an antenna for digital TV reception knows that some channels don't come in as strong as others. Frequently you get blocky parts on the screen but still see most of the picture, or video with no sound. Obviously that's broadcast and has nothing to do with USB cables. Just pointing out that it's not always a clear picture or a blank screen on the TV, even in this digital age.
@Dmitriy Getman maybe you should read what you're responding to before you go calling people fools. There is no optical cable option between your antenna and your HDTV, just plain old RG6 cable. Next time try reading first.
Dmitriy Getman not in every case, if you computer uses a decent platinum/titanium certification psu (like Superflower, Seasonic, etc) you wont have that noises youre talking about. I personally use my pc too with my stereo transfering signal from the dedicated GPU (vega 64 high end card) via HDMI to my AVR.. I cant tell any difference if connect it through spidf either jack to rca ... only thing jack to rca has lower volume :-) no noises at all
@@dimitrisouzounis7788 The power supply may be good at filtering electricity from the wall before it goes into the motherboard, but only to the degree that is required for stable DC power that the components may use. That will usually be the high-current drawing components hooked up to the 12V rail, like the GPU. The filtering is rarely done as much on the low power rails, because they don't need it. Furthermore, a good chunk of the noise doesn't come from the wall, but is actually picked up by electrical parts acting like antennae inside the PC. Also, the quality of the GPU doesn't influence the audio quality, as it is only a virtual sound device. It does nothing to the sound by its own, only transmits it digitally via HDMI, unchanged. So in other words, if your HDMI cable is sufficiently shielded or isolated against the analog circuits in your AVR, it will not transmit any noise whatsoever. As far as this video is concerned, that means it is mostly a question of the shielding inside the AVR, and whether the protocol that is used for Audio over HDMI has error correction measures.
standard EE isn’t high end audio. High end audio is to ameliorate playback systems beyond pure function towards the very best possible (for a certain budget bracket), which doesn’t make a difference to 98% of people. Unless of course they get a chance to actually listen to it.
I have run in to so many bad USB cable in my life time, I could filled a trashcan with all of them. Even ones that meet specs but brake in a year. I could see a difference just transferring files. And even see a difference doing firmware upgrades, some would just randomly fail if a bad cable was in the mix.
Well, if you want to avoid noise getting from the PC to the DAC, why not isolate it? That is, have a separate box that converts from USB to an optical signal (the box, being digital, would not be affected by noise and the output signal should have FEC), then send the optical signal to the DAC. Now you have is completely isolated in addition to possibly (depending on how the converter works) being able to have a cable that is longer than 5m.
probably one of the best episodes, thank you so much. and yes I do agree. noname usb cable sounds quite a bit harsh and edgy compared to an AQ forest, which again has no chance against an AQ coffee. On my transparent equipment, heard with my ears. I suggest trying it out.
NO! USB cables do not change the quality of audio/video passed through them AT ALL. This can easily be proven with computer software which proves that the date is identical regardless of the cable used. The differences that you THINK you can hear are exactly that, in your mind only (placebo). Any loss of data drops out the signal ENTIRELY, it does not change the sound quality EVER. In exactly the same way that if I sent you a digital music file, you would receive the EXACT same file that I sent, and it would would sound EXACTLY the same!
You sir are buying into digital miracle think. In the end there is only analog. Digital signals can be very noisy. Digital logic even more so. The fact that the bits get through reliably tells you nothing about any addition noise that may be carried on the wire. The question is not whether or not the USB signal can suffer from cheap or badly constructed cables, it surely can, and in ways that do not drive the digital compliance out of spec. The challenge is for the DAC maker to strictly isolate their digital and analog sections so that any injected noise is rejected before it infects the rest of the circuitry. If you reply that digital is not subject to this then you need to study up on parasitic capacitance. Signal quality is a huge subject in digital electronics and it only gets worse with higher speed.
Hi Hank. I can very easily prove your theory to be wrong. I would be more than happy to send you a digital music file, for you to send it back to me, for me to send it to you again... passing through many many miles of cheap cables. No matter how many times we do this it will sound EXACTLY the same! Digital is just a representation of an analogue signal in bits, if the bits are the same the sound is the same. No noise can be introduced into these bits, and any errors result in NO SOUND at all. I don't know Paul McGowan, but I suspect that he sells 'audiophile' digital cables and so has a vested interest in spreading such myths. That's a shame, because I enjoy his videos and would have considered purchasing his products. I certainly won't be doing that now. Again, I am more than happy to prove that digital cables have absolutely ZERO EFFECT on sound quality.
Chris, I think you miss my point. I agree that noise does not corrupt the digits. I don't think we are talking about transmiting digits from one storage medium to another digital storage medium. We are talking about transmitting bits to a DAC. The thing is that the cable can transmit more than the data bits. Digital logic is extremely noisy in an analog sense. The bits can ring and glitch and carry lots of other noise. What I suspect is that the bad USB cables are carrying this additional noise. It doesn't corrupt the bits but it can be picked up by the circuits on the receiver end. If the DAC is not carefully designed to isolate noise from the incoming signal the noise can be propagated to the analog reconstruction. This may say more for the quality of the digital receiver circuit than it does about the cable but bad cables can surely make it worse.
The bits will only carry noise if that noise is in the original signal though. I suppose a badly designed DAC circuit could add noise, but that's the fault of that circuit, not any cables. The only noise I could imagine it picking up in any case would be perhaps mains hum, or EMF from mobile phones and wifi routers, not USB cables. But then again I've never known any DAC pick up any of this noise, even the cheapest laptop ones. I bought a HDMI cable from a pound shop about a decade ago, and it still works perfectly to this day.
I've studied electrical engineering, and worked in audio engineering for my entire working life. Aside from that, as a consumer I've used and worked with USB cables for over 20 years. I've never seen or had one fail, ever. What an earth are you doing to them? I work alongside many highly qualified engineers who have a far deeper knowledge than I do though, and they all firmly agree that digital cables have ZERO effect on sound quality. I'm actually really surprised that anybody is even debating this. Do you guys sell cables for a living or something lol?
I've noticed that some quality USB products, e.g. decent webcams, have cables with ferrite beads, smaller versions of those found on old-fashioned VGA video cables -- I suspect adding these to a typical (but not cheap/flimsy) PeeCee-to-DAC USB cable would be beneficial.
The ferrite is there to suppress unwanted EMI/RFI emissions that's it. If you dont believe me you can remove it your self the cord will work exactly how it did before it was removed.
Surface Pro tablets and alike do NOT put out any real noise. So just use them for your streamer source and your good to go with a quality cable. FYI USB cable will have different sound so get a couple and test. We ended up with Audioquest Pearl for more detail all around vs SKW.
Paul P. A thanks. I'm always championing the room with many bookcases treatment, as it often was in the 50s through 70s HiFi listening room. I feel bookcases make great room treatments. Of course it depends on the speakers. Another nice treatment, Persian carpet on hardwood floors. I'm just saying we already have the answers.
Seeing that Asynchronous USB has *ZERO ERROR CORRECTION* present, unlike the normal data USB protocol, it's not a stretch at all to understand that cables matter. If ethernet didn't have EC, cables would matter there for very short lengths as well.
Although I can't afford the great equipment your company makes I do enjoy your videos as I usually learn something from them regardless of the "snake oil" claims.
I was all ready to cry snake oil, but your point actually makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of a USB cable acting as an antenna that could introduce RF interference into the analog portion of the amplifier, and it makes sense that a poorly shielded cable could pick up and carry carry this kind of radiation inadvertently.
Your initial instinct was correct. Any half decent modern solid-state dac will have zero audible changes in sound from using an audio quest cable. This has been measured and proven.
How about a using a 25 cent DVD composite rca cable that tests out at 75 ohm as a digital coax into a dac? I did it once, and for the first two minutes only heard about 30 percent of the recorded music. Once it was streaming fully, it sounded ok but was missing 20 percent of the sound.
He cant do it. Actually there is not a single passed AB test done. And will not be. There is this "the amazing meeting" where you can get a million dollars if you can pass (do anything unnatural event) it and no one has done it, why? COS IT CANT BE DONE hehe...
So I wonder what are the reasons that some USB cables any good than ather: a. Some USB cables provide filter / noise reduction from the source computer, so the noise from the computer can't affect the DAC while the others just passing the data as they are ? b. Some USB cable generate noise ? a or b , or a+b
As long as your cable meets the impedance of your source and load maximum power will be transferred. There are many techniques to deal with noise. Given they are practiced so religiously cables alone won't make a difference other than perhaps shielding them in noisy environments. They won't alone reduce noise passed into them from the source. If anything they'll add noise due to mutual induction or thermal agitation. The general rule to lower noise is to lower the temperature bandwidth, and resistance. One might think using silver in a USB cable would fix this but it's practically useless given the math. I say this because of Johnson Noise. The noise voltage (when Boltzmann's constant is multiplied by temperature, bandwidth, and resistance) created due to thermal agitation for copper is .0038 ohms per million ohms per degree Celsius. Silver is .003 ohms per million ohms per degree Celsius. The resistances and temps would have to be orders of magnitude higher for any of this to matter in the slightest! Over the temperature ranges that electronic equipment operates these differences are minute. That said Bandwidth (Frequency) is also a component. So of course lowering the bandwidth also lowers the noise.
I don't get it... why would you give the snake award to a tweak/item that you think works? Shouldn't that be for things that people spend money on that have no benefit (that are, you know, like snake oil?)
What about an optical USB cable? Like the one from Linus Tech Tips. He had a 100 ft optical USB 3.Optical cable. How (if any) would this affect sound quality? If Toslink spdif isolates the two devices connected, then an USB 3.Optical cable should do the same for a connected DAC, correct?
Digital interconnects can't make a difference pretty much by definition. True cheap crap is cheap crap and may cause drop outs or just won't last. so you want something decent. However if you're going to spend hundreds of dollars on cables anyway, I have some really nice sounding cables I can sell you. They're vintage and well broken-in.
Howdy. I wonder if feeding the USB signal through a USB hub to the DAC would deliver any noise reduction ? I understand a hub contains electronics that boost and shape the digital signal. Also, a hub uses a separate power supply which I think should help blocking the noise. Regards.
Thanks Paul. Some great points. Key point is that listening is where the rubber meets the road. Love the seniors moments by the way. At 58 I've also started to notice some minor delay in file retrieval times.
This seems like one of the easiest things to blind test, simply because cables are so easily swapped and can be hidden. A week or a month of daily or more swaps set up by someone else and a diary of what you think you are hearing should do it. At least then, the only one that a person could disagree with would be themselves.
I hear comments from people that say there is no difference, but they do not say what components they are using. The other thing not mentioned is how well the USB cable is shielded. Surely that must be of near equal importance and even nay sayers may accept that. Remembering that cables are all analog and the bandwidth required is pretty high, especially when dealling with the higher bit rates. The better the cable, the better defined the on and off which must make the job easier for any DAC. My experience has been that they have not made so much difference, but enough to make it worth using something just a bit better than the stock USB cables. Of course, if I were just using a cheap USB dac I would not bother, but for my hi-res system it is a different story. Regarding passing ground interference from a PC to a Hi-End DAC, I have wondered if it would be better to go from USB to Optical and then to a DAC to give total electrical isolation. I know that there can be compromises with optical, but PC's are just so full of noise that I wonder if it could be worth trying.
As somebody has mentioned, if you have the time to make these videos you have the time to video an a/b session using these different USB cables and let us see for ourselves how you choose the better cable based on sound using about 5 different cables. That's the only way that smart people will actually believe any of this stuff otherwise it's just words! Wouldn't it be a hoot if you chose the cheaper USB cable with a cheaper DAC with a cheaper amp. RUclips is littered with these type of a/b comparisons and what it shows is the total opposite of what you're saying! I recently saw a video using violinists. The violinists were blindfolded and played their million-dollar violins and then played cheap knock-offs. The cheap knockoffs were chosen more times as the real expensive models. That's just one little small example on how sound testing is not as absolute as you make it seem! The internet also has many speaker cable comparisons using $200 speaker cable vs $8,000 speaker cable and the Blindfolded listeners had no idea what was what and this was a high-resolution system as you mention all the time! Trying not to be a troll, just dealing with the facts, and the facts tell a different story.
Except it wouldn't prove anything because blind tests have been disproven for audio purposes back in the 1950's. Try to keep up, instead of repeating the exact same nonsense about blind tests on every single video
You sound like those flat earthers denying all the universally accepted proof that the earth is a globe. The evidence is there if you choose to accept it.
"... You have the time to do a video tape" number one, use the right term. Paul doesn't use video tapes to record the videos. Who does anymore in our digital world? Paul is sharing his knowledge with people and I think he has more to add to the subject than you. If you think you have more to share make your own "video tapes" and we'll see who is better. If you are happy with your radio shack stereo system and you can't hear any difference with anything, good for you! What youtube is really littered with, is with people like you. People like you are a society plague. Nothing good to add, all negative and empty thoughts. Go back to school and take some classes in critical thinking
There are too many hilarious comments for me to not add my two cents. How many people commented on this video basing their opinion on "Binary is just ones and zeros!" without ever considering what our complicated electronics accomplish with slight changes in voltage. I'm not a true audiophile. I probably can't be. My hearing likely doesn't qualify as professional grade, and my budget certainly does not. I buy very good quality equipment that I think sounds pretty darn good and stop there. I'll never spend $100+ on a USB cable because it doesn't fit into how I experience music. However, I do appreciate the monumental difference between a data transfer that allows time for error checking and one that does not. Every commenter who brought up the idea of comparing two digital versions of an audio file as a means to suggest that miles upon miles of questionable cabling along the way negates the need for high quality cabling to a DAC must have been unaware of how many times along the way that data was verified to be accurate before being passed to the next destination. In my opinion, the need for instantaneous playback without time for error checking in the audio data stream is really the cause for concern with cable quality because a variety of distortions of the signal can lead to a misinterpretation of the source material. Is your system of such a high quality as to reproduce these minute errors? Are your ears so well calibrated as to perceive these small differences? Maybe so, maybe not. But when errors lead to a slight distortion of the source material, and adding complexity to the circuitry for the purposes of measuring variations and correcting them takes precious milliseconds, sometimes it's just better to listen, make a design change, listen again, and subjectively judge what's better. In regard to digital transmission, a bit is not a 1 or a 0 until a threshold is established as to the voltage that makes it so. Binary isn't exactly black and white when it's subjected to being determined by a variance in voltage at fast switching speeds. Fully integrated systems do a great job, but without error checking along the way, the internet would be "noisy" and "jittery".
well, something which was not snake oil FPGA DACS are best but isolator makes huge difference long cable make difference but then cable is still snake oil......done blind, double blind testing....Sir. used audioquest cable and standard cable(same lenght) and both sounded same
Don't feel bad, Paul, I will be 70 next March, God willing, and I get mental lapses more and more frequently .. it's just that we have SO MUCH hardrive knowledge cluttering the ole cranium that sometimes it's hard to retrieve info at a moments notice !! LOL :D
The only way is to try it. I have a high end dac, American amps and speakers. The dac has been connected from a streaming device, not computer, using a cheap screened usb cable. It has been in place for years. The Project Stream Box Ultra was a significant move upwards from a laptop using Foobar. That difference was very noticeable. All my music files are on USB sticks. Even high bit rate Mp3s sound spectacular. The sound is fantastic even with the screened cheap USB cable. So those cheap cables do work well. For years I have believed it cannot get better with a better USB cable, and still think it can't. However, I'm going to give it a go with a C line USB from Chord Company. It's only 50 pounds so if that cannot better a cheap screened USB cable, nothing to worry about. Some may say 50 pounds USB is too little for a 9k pounds plus dac. I don't think it's worth spending large amount on a USB cable when a cheap screened one contributes to such a fantastic sound. It's the components that make the sound good in the first place. Too much hype about high res files too. If the equipment is good, even high bit rate Mp3s will sound superb as demonstrated by my setup. Almost all system demonstration are done using a basic music type track. Vocals and just a few instruments, jazz music etc etc. Any system can do that . There is a reason why dealers use those tracks. Even on RUclips, high end systems are recorded playing such tracks.
Well, I didn't know for sure if USB cables make a difference or not but I do know that computers infect every electronic device around them with noise. I know this from working with them in PA because I can see the RF interference registering -20dB on every channel of the dual band radio mic receiver. So in setting up the PC I wanted to isolate it from the sound system as much as possible within the existing very tight budget. So, on the basis of the 80/20 rule I bought a Zip-Lite USB cable as it at least has 2 ferrite beads and used it to connect a Radial USB Pro to run into the analogue PA via ground lifted, 95% shielded XLR cables. Radial gear has a good rep (Durability for sonic performance) in Pro audio & includes it's own inbuilt filters as well. This USB Zip-Lite cable is pretty darn cheap and at least has some filtering of it's own. On my home HiFi system using an Essence HDACC, it compares more than favorably against a much more expensive boutique USB cable (the only one I had available for comparison). So I think the Zip-Lite is an absolute winner for the price (about $6 from memory). So that's my story for what it's worth.
which analog output? you plug your optical cable at the output of the "dac" and the other end in the amplifier! why would you convert digital audio to analog on the wire?
@@Harald_Reindl What he is saying is plug the USB cable in to the DAC and take measurements of the analog output of the DAC. If there is no measurable difference between the cables, then there is no difference to the sound. Spoiler alert: USB cables do not make any difference. The cable either works or it does not. Check out: ruclips.net/video/qXuBsdmEOAs/видео.html
@@SlickBlackCadillac I work as software developer and system administrator, started programming with the age of 9 while I'm 43 now - any discussions about digital cables and noise are insulting for my intellect and when somebody comes up with an "audiophile ethernet switch with audiophile ethernet cables you can hear" I want to punch him straight into the face - the word audiophile became an insult itself over the years
@@Harald_Reindl I agree with you, man. Digital is digital. USB is NOT ideal for digital audio. USB is subject to jitter and crappy power characteristics. That said, this is NOT fixed with a "better" USB cable. This is fixed by how the receiving device implements USB, or by not using USB altogether.
USB audio transfer is isochronous which means it has a CRC check but no retry mechanism so how bad does a cable need to be to fail a CRC check? The packets just get dropped if the CRC fails so you would hear it for sure. 🐍
I'm going to agree with Paul on this one. But is a $300 USB cable right for you? Only you can answer that question. I have found that for most people the Amazon Basics USB cables are more then adequate. They are mechanically good and electrically sound. They are moderately priced but 3x -> 5x the cost of the cheapes. Once you get past a couple meters in USB cable length then things get complex. If your extending the length of something like a Logitech Webcam with a 6 meter USB cable you paid $10 for your going to have problems.
what you are actually saying is that the differences between USB cables are SHIELDING and NOISE, (ANALOG) influence your DACs ANALOG OUTPUT stage and the sound produced? while the digital input is actually IDENTICAL between a $ and $$$$ cable I that is your claim, then as a "snake oil howler" I can live with it, I use optical whenever possible.
Digital electronics engineer: USB cables do totally make a difference - if you use a bad cable that starts life or ends up failing to comply with the USB spec you will experience connectivity losses (basically the probability of a physical fault increases) You might also need a specialist cable with shielding if you’re in areas of high interference. However it’s not like analog where you get what you pay for: 99% of USB cables send perfect signals - that is to say are completely lossless. It’s just the 1% with faults that are the problem. So it’s not like there’s a difference between a $20 and $2000 cable in normal situations. But I’d be afraid of a $2 cable. Much more important to audio quality is the driver and software configuration of the USB device, and whether it’s configured for USB 1/2/3 correctly
Yeah, but what if you listen to one cable, and then another cable, and decide that one sounds better than the other... How do you know if the difference is due to degraded jitter due to more noise in the USB cable if you don't know if there is more jitter in the audio clock? You have the tools to measure this, but you never tell us what figures you see! If you don't measure jitter, the how do you know if jitter is the thing that causes the difference you believe is audible? Maybe you just like the sound of higher jitter.. How would you know if you don't know the level of jitter in the DAC you are listening to? So please.. Tell us what you know!
Jitter is a problem with A/D and D/A conversion, it should not be a problem for digital transmission. The USB signal carries its own bit timing information so jitter in transmission is not an issue. What is an issue is other modes of injected digital noise. Common mode rejection should be high because USB uses differential signaling and twisted signal pairs. Bad shielding or bad termination is probably the cause of the excessive noise Paul reports.
If your USB cable isn’t faulty then it makes zero difference. Nothing wrong with a nice thick and well shielded USB cable though. Chances of it becoming faulty down the track is greatly reduced.
Ronald Thompson The best way to test these types of things is with a good set of headphones. I test with a pair of Shure SHR1840’s with a NAD d3020 for use as a headphone amp. My recommendation is that if you are experiencing jitter or unexplained noise then try replacing the cable. Otherwise you’re better off spending your audio budget in other areas.
I'm using an uptone audio USPCB to link my streaming device and dac. I just wodner will replace the uspcv with curious cable give a small boost in sounds?
Yes, different cords have different character. If you have a resolving system, these differences are apparent. If your system or your hearing are not discerning, then you can save a fortune. :)
So basically poorly designed DACs mess up the analogue output because they are poorly designed and merge circuit noise into the analogue output during conversion, not because you dared to use a standard black plastic USB cable that perfectly meets USB specs and provides your DAC bit-perfect data 100% of the time anyway? You're basically spending money on cables to fix issues with DACs failings. There are DACs out there that simply take a 1 and 0, convert it to analogue and spit it out perfectly, they don't need to be 'fixed' with expensive cables.
Happy 70th Paul! Basically it's 1's and 0's. How could a cable possible change the binary output? The only possible way a usb cable could change the sound is with a filter for the power supply noise. Any high quality dac should be able to filter and isolate the digital data from any noise generated from the source. Timming and data rates are exact in the usb standard and a cable can't change this assuming the cable meets the usb specification for bandwidth and length. I would suspect that any dac that is sensitive to usb cables is not properly designed to isolate the usb input from the source. Although, Paul you are correct in the assumption that if you say it's so then it must be so. Anyway thanks for the time you take in attempting to de-mystify the complex world of audio equipment design's and all the snske oil out there.
I'm not an advocate of Epicurean digital cables. That being said, the real world is often not up to spec. So it's quite possible that these over spec. remedies will make a difference because they are helping overcome the failings of improperly designed, defective or failing equipment. On the other hand I'm always baffled by the argument that there are things going on in a system like the USB interface that we don't understand and can't measure. These aren't something we discovered in nature. USB is an engineered, human made system. Our understanding of it is not theoretical. The theories that were implemented in USB are the reality of the design and we know they are accurate because USB works. If the concepts were flawed then the designs wouldn't work. It seems the team that created the USB standard could settle this. If they say you need certain things for a perfect transfer, that must be all there is. Otherwise it's like telling a car company that there's something in their engines that they didn't know was in there.
You forgot the placebo effect. If someone buys a really expensive cable they WILL "hear" an improvement. Not because there is an actual difference, but because their brain says that they should because more expensive "should" be better.
"Timming and data rates are exact in the usb standard and a cable can't change this assuming the cable meets the usb specification for bandwidth and length." Many implementations of the USB spec differ from each other to the extent that some devices fail to work properly with some computers. Would a cable affect this? Dunno, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
@Dmitriy Getman Anything digital is good unless you have a lot of EMI in which case you either go optical or use shielded copper. Anyone who tells you that you can hear difference in tone by changing cables carrying digital signals, is full of shit. You either transfer the bytes or you dont. If you don't you either get no audio at all or very nasty audio artifacting such as pops and crackles but you never lose tone.
Every time this is discussed I think maybe people are debating the wrong things. The matter of whether or not USB produces bit-perfection of 1's and 0's really shouldn't be the question. It does. it always has, from the cheapest $1 to the most expensive cables made out of farm raised organic unicorns. However, I never see anyone ask or debate if a cable carrying a digital signal is capable of also carrying analog signal noise that does not disrupt the 1's and 0's, is read error free, yet the additional analog noise is then passed into the rest of the system affecting the analog playback of the previously perfect digital signal. Could something else matter about the cable or affect the end result? I don't know, but I think it's kind of silly to debate the same argument over and over again when it's settled by the intrinsic design of the system and responsible for things far more important and precise than audio playback.
On some VERY specific situations when you transfer your music ALIVE through usb cable and at the same time listen with some badly shielded analog ampliffier that happens to be very close to usb cable, a good shielded usb cable CAN make a difference. Indeed. Who does that anyway? USB cable is ment for transfering files or data communication. That's it. You transfer files, then unplug cable and listen to your music. BUT. When you hear people claiming that 'audio grade' USB cables will transfer your digital audio files to your PC with BETTER quality than ordinary usb cable (and such transfered files on your pc will sound better) and if you say, yeah it's ture... then it is 100% pure snake oil... no question about it. And this is what most people associate with usb cable. Just to transfer files and then unplug it. And if someone says "for music files you need to use audio grade usb cable". It's just logical that smart people will say, it's a snakes oil. No difference it makes to the files themselves if usb cable is ordinary shielded or double/tripple shielded with silver/gold inside it.
Happy Birthday 🎊 to you Paul, wishing you 70 more. We need you out here.
his birthday is in may lol! He's a taurus
I am not clicking like - let's keep it at 70 likes for 70'th anniversary :)
USB cables following the standard can be relied on to transfer data correctly in terms of bit content and timing. Yes a PC can yield common mode noise to the DAC via the USB cable but the cable itself can do nothing about it unless you add a common mode choke or one of those ferrite clamps that goes around the cable. But this method can actually risk degrading the data transfer reliability as the EOP (End Of Packet) signal is not differential. Still some people have success with such approach in reducing the noise. Also, always remember that any cable should be kept as short as possible as it can pick up common mode noise e.g. even 50/60Hz can be picked up by the cable. This phenomenon also has nothing to do with the cable quality itself.
Cluck, cluck, cluck..
Ronald Thompson Yeah, some 🐓 don’t like 🐍 oil
@@ThinkingBetter Only my measurements are the correct measurements and no measurements will ever exist that are not already known by me.
we have done blind testing and double blind testing and there was no difference
@@dhruvmeena96don't tell the audiofools...they will cry....
Thanks for the award Paul, I humbly accept - it was an honor just being considered! :)
Thanks for the question! I've sent in my own and hope to get it answered too.
USB cables can transfer noise that is on your ground into your equipment, and maybe even pick up electrical RF noise on the shield, but as far as transferring the actual "ones and zeros", the cable either does it or it doesn't. So, unless you have a ground loop, or other source of RF noise getting into your ground, and from there, into the analog stages that lead to your amplifier, then no, a USB cable, by definition, cannot affect the quality of your sound. If a USB cable is causing ones and zeros to get dropped, you'll have audio artifacts, dropouts, etc, but if the ones and zeros are all getting through, then no, one cable cannot sound better than another. That only happens in analog cables.
Agreed.
Usb delivers digital signal information only. The general 'quality' of a USB connection has no bearing on the analog signal, that is created by the DAC. Sure there could be noise getting from the source, to the DAC through the USB cable and affecting the DAC output (unlikely), but that is not the fault of the USB cable. You cannot expect a cable to 'rid itself' if unwanted noise delivered to it through the input.
RCAs can pick up noise from the air, and in that case shielding will help. But even in that case, relocating the cable is better than getting a different cable.
"a USB cable, by definition, cannot affect the quality of your sound. If a USB cable is causing ones and zeros to get dropped, you'll have audio artifacts, dropouts, etc, but if the ones and zeros are all getting through, then no, one cable cannot sound better than another. That only happens in analog cables."
That would be true if USB audio transfer worked the same way as data transfer. It doesn't. USB audio is Isochronous.
"Isochronous transfer mode uses error-checking but includes no re-transmission in case of Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) errors. Electrical noise on USB signals causes CRC errors and thus data loss, as does poor signal integrity. In mild cases, this leads to audio signal distortions. In the worst cases, clicks and dropouts. It means that a USB audio device can work correctly only if USB signal quality is excellent and no CRC errors occur."
The differences between clean USB audio and dirty USB audio can be measured. However, those making the measurements claim that they are inaudible. The big differences come from cable length; the shorter the better. But we already knew that...
Exactly...
Not really. It directly contradicts your claim that "a USB cable, by definition, cannot affect the quality of your sound". The issue now is whether that degradation of quality is audible or not. I would test it given that I possess several USB cables, but there is a number of issues:
1. The easily accessible front USB ports on my HTPC don't play nice with my DAC.
2. None of my USB cables are certified as being compliant with the USB spec.
3. Even if I fail to detect an audible difference, that doesn't exclude the possibility that someone else might be capable of doing so.
4. I have in the past managed to hear "unmeasurable" and therefore "inaudible" differences. Transient Intermodulation Distortion for example. See: Otala and Leinonen 1976:
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3c0/a892a982ebde91f83f228905dac30186f827.pdf
Even the cheapest poorly made USB cable will provide 'bit-perfect' asynchronous transfer without an issue upto 200Mbps. A basic cable made to USB spec will of course transfer upto 480Mbps 'bit-perfect'. There is plenty of evidence for this being the case and cable cost doesn't change this. This is why a 99p cable built to USB spec, which most are, can transfer the same amount of data, in the same time from A to B just as well as a £999 cable.
Also any spec USB cable, even the ones poorly made, usually have no problems coping with the relatively low Mbps required to stream simply audio. USB 2.0 at 480Mbps is more than any audio stream will ever need at any bit rate. e.g. A 24/192 stereo audio file will only require ~13Mbps to stream it bit-perfect on any USB cable or less than 3% of a USB cables capacity.
"That's the story I tell myself." At least we agree on something.
That's a perplexing comment. :)
Video starts at 4:30
thank you very much lol
lol 👍
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Any company charging hundreds of dollars per meter of cable should be able to provide data for their claims. Surely they ran tests to arrive at their final design. For example, what is the digital error rate at X signal strength with Y strength of ambient radio interference? If ANYONE had any data to that effect, they would produce it and the debate would end. So the actual debate is: Should companies be free to charge 10-100x for products with shaky claims without being criticized? If there is real data, I'm happy to stand corrected.
Did you watch Paul's video?
If I ever travel again to the US, it will mostly to visit PS Audio! I am listening to Paul to learn about life using audiophile topics as an excuse. Amazing stories, Paul. Thank you, sir!
I just turned 71, so I'll always be your senior, Paul. Thanks for the effort -- but I'm still pretty much in the "snake oil" camp. when it comes to USB (or other strictly digital) interconnects: if they're not outright defective, the differences between various USB cables used between a PeeCee and a DAC are minuscule with regard to what a mere human ear can actually detect. Of course, if you've already invested in a high-end DAC, it makes no sense to skimp on a cable -- just don't spend a three-digit price on one, because that also makes no sense!
thanks bruce. i feel this way about many of the topics of audio products.
From a cheap cable running from my Mac to the DAC I have I believe there was a major improvement with the Blue Dragon USB cable. The cable was also shorter than my other USB-A cables as well.
I think he's talking about the electrical noise because of the copper connections in the USB cable, not so much the quality of the digital signal itself. The digital signal will arrive fine it just arrives with I interference from a power supply of the connected devices.
👍
@@Joshcom88 -- USB doesn't care about "interference from a power supply of the connected devices." As long as the "ones and zeros" that comprise a digital signal are distinguishable from each other by "the connected devices" any extraneous "interference" is irrelevant -- and if such "interference" is so severe as to significantly affect the flow of digital data, a supposedly better cable isn't going to remedy that.
The good news is that USB's digital nature does make it much more resistant, but not completely immune to EM noise.
In real life, don't digital signals are not perfect square waves, but instead closer to capacitive charging a d discharge curves. What that means in practice is that as long as the interference is not bad enough to distort the actual voltage signal to mistake a zero to be a one and vice-versa and/or mess up timing.
Contrast this to a purely analogue signal carrying cable where unless one resorts to measures such as balanced differential signaling to cancel out noise, every distortion gets passed straight into your sound. For reference, sensitive scientific equipment such as oscilloscopes must resort to measures such as shielded coaxial cables to minimize signal distortion and enable observation of GHz frequency signals.
Most companies that sell usb cables have a 30 day return policy. You can try a few out without soliciting opinions
Well said.
70?!? Wow man looking good, I wouldn't give you more than 61-62.
I love Paul's videos because I click on a USB cable video and leave with a deeper understanding of the value of life and the philosophical implications of it. Thank you Paul and happy birthday.
Yes the philosophical implications of not spending over $100 on a USB cable. Very valuable information, indeed.
Bought a very nice expensive usb cable, sounded fine but got signal dropouts all the time, bought a cheap Blue Jeans usb cable and everything has been working fine, no dropouts and no difference in sound quality.
Cheap would be 2.99usd from Wal-Mart. Blue Jeans operates on catching folks like you thinking snake oil terms about expensive cables and.... as knee jerk reaction looking to suppose cheap cables ... sorry 40usd for cables is not cheap , cheap is 5usd .
Please explain how a USB cable can transfer my files without error, bit-for-bit, between two storage devices, yet magically exhibits loss when you use it between a computer and a DAC?
Boggles the mind. Snake oil, mythology and old wives' tales.
Actually, file transfer has error correction while USB audio doesn't. So just in theory you can experience bit flipping. It just doesn't happen nowadays because the outputs have become so good.
Curious Cable USB is 500USD... This is snake oil. In the digital audio world the signal is binary with redundant silent bits made for recovery and concealment of a potential digital error. Your cable is good if there's no burst or dropouts that can't be corrected. So to keep it simple, buy well grounded and insulated and short USB cable and that's it.
I bought four Audioquest USB cables and after weeks of listen, I returned all but the most expensive one. They all sound different. The more expensive sound better. I wanted to save money by going with the cheapest cable but the difference in sound quality is too big to ignore.
@@allansh828 It's just your brain playing tricks on you.
Paul, surely if there is an audible difference to you, there should be a measurable difference in some way with some tool to showcase the difference along the path that you are hearing, correct?
Only if you assume every aspect of the human listening experience is measurable, which it's not.
Marc Dostie Some time ago, I've found something that might catch your eye: bit.ly/2NyadBX
The result is exactly what i though it will be. The USB standard established by the computer world carry a lot more critical 0 and 1 than a CD content.
We may need EEG or MRI to measure human perceivable differences in sound... From there learn how to measure what the brain is perceiving in a way that isn't so expensive 😂😏
Personally I think we haven't figured out how to measure everything about sound yet... we would need a lot of Open Source collaboration to find out what in audio we can hear and perceive but can't measure.
If you hear a difference, than there must be one.
Why instead of using old standards to measure stuff, why are we trying to innovate and find new ways to measure sound and all the magical (😋 only magical because its not discovered yet) things it does.
I think that we are the end-all-be-all and have all the information humans will ever know is asinine.
I really think listening to music during brain scans using different equipment and seeing what the brain actually does during these perceived differences in sound will get us looking in the right direction.
Until we do that we're going to be looking in the dark for solutions.
I mean seriously instead of building something and seeing if it sounds good, why not backwards engineer it from the brain?
There are many aspects to sound, I believe even some psychological... Otherwise chemical's wouldn't change the perception of audio... But they do.
How could we manupulate the sound to trick the brain into letting more data past the filters between your ears😉 like the chemicals that humans ingest sometimes... That lead to an increase of perceived sound quality.
I think too many people have their heads too far stuck in a math book to hear things right in front of their ears😏
Then there is the quantom computing thats up and coming... Imagine having one of those buggers where you don't only have one and zero, but 1, 0, 1 and 0, 1 or 0... Ect.
Which is getting closer to a crossover of digital and analog (in my perception of the tec.)
Furthermore, with the dynamic output of a quantom processer, I believe it will be able to beter utilise tubes in a true crossover computer.(idk what else to call something like that) but I believe a digital signal could be output to a tube, then manupulated in a way that would affect the quantom entanglement outcome of the signal. Feed that into the quantom processer, then back to tubes for audio output.
...on a side note... I find it fun to match equipment that has no place being with eachother for fun unexpected outcomes.
Even if quantom computing doesn't merge with tubes as I suspect it eventually will in a true digilog... The amount of data able to be stored and process drees us from the endless format arguing, just make a maximum capable format, unrelated to just whats "needed"... It would be a fun experiment to see what happens.
Which begs the question why optical isn't the best connection method? Bypassing all that unwanted noise. Last i heard there is no audio quality limitation, the manufacturer can choose what data rates etc to run over it. I'm still yet to hear a convincing argument on why not to use optical...
Optical is a better alternative. Even Rob Watts, designer of the Chord Electronics DACs (also FPGA based like PS Audio's) has stated the optical cable is preferable to USB.
Optical can provide galvanic isolation from the source and in case of using a PC that can be a good thing of course. But as optical audio is one-way data with a sample clock that isn’t precise you will need a good quality ASRC (asynchronous sample rate converter) and data buffering to enable a constant (almost) jitter free clock into the DAC.
I believe I read somewhere that Optical will not produce 7.1 surround and that HDMI sound was the better option.
Definitely not in noise filtering but in audio bandwidth applications.
Punkn Punt
I use optical for my 2 channel set up. My theater is a different story.
Regular TOSLINK optical doesn't have the bandwidth for HD/Surround audio USB does.
There was an optical cable connection called ST in the early days of digital audio that was supposed to be hands-down the best there was. It used glass optical rather than the toslink plastic, and it had such a wide bandwidth that it could transmit over a dozen channels. I don’t know why it failed to catch on; often the best choice isn’t the one that makes it in the marketplace.
The glass is why
Hi Paul, can you recommend some good ,,sounding,, usb c to usb c and usb c to micro usb short cables for dongle usb amp/DACs? Like there are some really good usb cables from supra or curious cables but none of those are usb c or micro, only from audioquest ... Do you have some experience with good short usb Cs and micros? Thanks
Paul, I have a question. Do you meditate? We all create our own reality...period. I hear the "I"m a victim of circumstance" thing all the time from people...bullshit. You are where you are in life because of the choices you have made in life, end of story. Choose a different story and live it! Quit whining, lol. This cable discussion reminds me of the old "tube amps are no different than solid state amps" thing. BULLSHIT. They sound different like or not as you may, they may have the same slope on an oscilloscope but they SOUND different no question about it. Fantastic video! I applaud your total disregard for the nah sayers! thank you for that. I live in western Oklahoma and am planning a trip to Colorado hopefully soon, I would LOVE to come visit and see Music Room One while I'm there. Keep up the good work!!
One thing that might be worth trying is an optical USB link, normally these things are used to greatly extend USB around something like a factory. (for telemetry, instrumentation etc.) but they could be a solution to keep computer (particularly ground) noise out of your audio setup.
This way you get the isolation of toslink, but retain the ability to use async USB audio.
The simple answer is NO.
Audio science review did a great video on it. An basically the shorter the lenght the better (but there is very little difference between a 12m cable and a direct 10cm plug) and over all there is no difference. But some expensive gimmick cable might even make it worse.
simply: on async DACs there is no difference (except possible ground loop), but can be big difference on cheap DACs which sync clock to 1Khz of USB clock!
Yup, on USB audio 2.0. They must have some old $hit DAC that cant do it. He's so wrong.
Cable A: 10110001
Cable B: 10110001
The first one sounds WAY better because it costs $1000!
I AM trying to change your opinion, and I do NOT sell audio equipment. These cables are not supposed to transmit audio. If it does, you have a faulty cable or port. That simple. Quality control matters.
When the cables are used with your printer, it will make no difference (at least nothing a human would notice).
When the department store quality cable takes 1% longer to correctly send the data to the printer, you will still get a perfect printout, and will not notice the delay.
When the department store quality cable takes 1% longer to correctly send the data to your DAC, your ears will hear a degradation in the sound quality.
When the department store quality cable bunches up the zeros and ones (does not transfer the data in unison), your printer will not care. Regardless of the timing of the reception of the data, by the printer, the printout will be unaffected. Not so, when your DAC gets data that is unevenly spaced.
Have you ever downloaded a 3 minute song, but due to a poor connection, it took 5 minutes to complete the download?
At the end of the 5 minutes, you have an exact copy of the file that was sent to you.
How would that file have sounded if you were listening to it, in real time, as it was downloading? The answer is that you would have heard all manner of stammering. Yet, you received an exact copy of the file.
Sound quality is not limited to receiving the exact zeros and ones. It also involves the precise timing of those zeros and ones. It also involves noise. It also involves retransmissions of data when a bad packet it detected (something that would not affect your printer, but would affect what you hear, due to the slight delay caused by the retransmission -- something unlikely to occur in a quality audio cable).
I have swapped USB cables, between laptops and DACs. All of the cables worked. All allowed me to hear the song. The cheap USB cables, that came with a printer, or an external hard drive, when used between a laptop and a DAC, sucked the life out of the music. The cheap cables made a very good DAC sound like a complete waste of $$. Yet those cables work fine for their intended purpose.
Perhaps
Interesting as i have tried cheap cables and expensive with my laptop running to my preamp/DAC and couldn't hear a difference. No life sucking so i do get confused. You all make sense right up untill I try it in the real world. Maybe my system is too cheap to care.
scottyo64,
Yes, the quality of the DAC is important. Also, the quality of the USB cable is important. Expensive is not necessarily synonymous with quality. See if you can have your local audio store lend you the best Audioquest USB cable that you can budget (because you will probably want to buy it after you demo it).
Also, you will want to play your music using a program that endeavors to send a bit-perfect data stream to you DAC. The program should attempt to not share computer clock resources with any other computer activity. JRiver's Media Center is one such program.
Lastly, no other USB devices should be plugged into the computer that is feeding your DAC. You want the data stream, form your computer to your DAC, to have 100% control of the USB controller. Some computer's do not come configured as such on all ports. So try one of your other USB ports, to see if that helps.
Good luck!
Except that there's no data correction in the audio stream to your DAC. I think there's a parity check, but no request/resend for bad data.
Ronald Thompson,
I think that you are correct. As such, bad packets or dropped packets are simply lost, which results in missing samples.
A quality USB cable will not have this problem.
Hi Paul, you often recommend Audioquest cables but they seem to come in many colour coded quality levels. I am aware that depending on the level of connected equipment, the differences in cable quality may or may not be audable. While I don't want to buy cables that impede the audio quality, I also don't want to waste money on top end cables that are so far above the performance level of my existing components that they offer no improvement over the lower priced cable levels. In other words, it's a question of matching HiFi performance level without wasting money.
My existing speakers are Polk Audo 10B (tweeters replaced (silk dome), considering getting the crossovers recapped by a well respected professional here in Australia. I can't detect a problem but the detected tweeter issue was slight yet has made a huge difference to my audio pleasure, so maybee well worth doing.
Amplifier is a Yamaha A 700 which has been recapped.
There are a number of analogue sources connected directly to the amp.
There are a few Digital sources connected to a DAC Essence HDACC
TV is connected to DAC via optical, (PVR to TV via HDMI)
BDP to DAC via HDMI passthrough.
Hard drive to BDP via USB (I intend to replace this with a NAS via LAN)
Despite the age of the speakers and amp, the audio performance is exceptional IMO and the best system I have ever put together. I know there are much higher end options available that I could afford but it's in a smallish open lounge dining area and there is no space in my house for a dedicated listening room. This system gives me a lot of pleasure and given the size and nature of available space, it doesn't seem appropriate to upgrade from this level.
The RCAs I am using are fairly thick but they were relatively inexpensive. However the digital cables are all very very cheap and from what you are suggesting here this may be a mistake.
Ken
I'm not sure I hear a difference in sound quality in DAC's, but then again I have no experience with really high end DAC's, the best I had was Musical Fidelity M1DAC and Asus Essence One Muses Edition. STILL, with a cheapo USB cable I hear buzzing and noise when I move the mouse and when HDD is doing something, or when I have a game turned I can hear a certain type of silent buzzing. With a better quality USB cable (Supra USB 2.0) there's zero buzzing and noise, it's always perfectly silent.
how ? . what going on ? is it jitter related or are there a lot of error corrections, audio does not need a lot of speed, why does it matter ?
It doesn't high end, audio is a lie perpetuated by Paul and MANY like him for one simple reason, to rob you blind. ruclips.net/video/qXuBsdmEOAs/видео.html
I've actually used lots of different USB cables with my external sound card, including the cheapest 5 metre extension cable I could find, connected to a further 2 metres of cable. The result, absolutely no difference in sound whatsoever. 5 metres is the maximum recommended length, so 7 metres was really pushing it. But it worked absolutely fine. Hey Paul, please can you change that cable on your modem for me so that your videos sound better! Absolutely ridiculous, I can't believe this is even being debated lol.
what “sound card” are you using? Does it even accept bit-perfect input?
@@allansh828 hahahaha
With digital audio you have the same effect as with digital TV: You either have signal or don't. There's no "degradation" like in analog systems. If you don't have all the data you'll get full dropouts. If you get unrecoverable data corruption you'll get clicks and pops, and those are crazy loud to begin with. So much there is no way they'll be mistaken with "audio degradation".
Sorry to be the sand in your KY but you've got a Fail on this one, Paul.
Not arguing on the cables, but anyone who uses an antenna for digital TV reception knows that some channels don't come in as strong as others. Frequently you get blocky parts on the screen but still see most of the picture, or video with no sound. Obviously that's broadcast and has nothing to do with USB cables. Just pointing out that it's not always a clear picture or a blank screen on the TV, even in this digital age.
@Dmitriy Getman maybe you should read what you're responding to before you go calling people fools. There is no optical cable option between your antenna and your HDTV, just plain old RG6 cable. Next time try reading first.
Dmitriy Getman not in every case, if you computer uses a decent platinum/titanium certification psu (like Superflower, Seasonic, etc) you wont have that noises youre talking about. I personally use my pc too with my stereo transfering signal from the dedicated GPU (vega 64 high end card) via HDMI to my AVR.. I cant tell any difference if connect it through spidf either jack to rca ... only thing jack to rca has lower volume :-) no noises at all
@@dimitrisouzounis7788 The power supply may be good at filtering electricity from the wall before it goes into the motherboard, but only to the degree that is required for stable DC power that the components may use. That will usually be the high-current drawing components hooked up to the 12V rail, like the GPU. The filtering is rarely done as much on the low power rails, because they don't need it.
Furthermore, a good chunk of the noise doesn't come from the wall, but is actually picked up by electrical parts acting like antennae inside the PC. Also, the quality of the GPU doesn't influence the audio quality, as it is only a virtual sound device. It does nothing to the sound by its own, only transmits it digitally via HDMI, unchanged.
So in other words, if your HDMI cable is sufficiently shielded or isolated against the analog circuits in your AVR, it will not transmit any noise whatsoever. As far as this video is concerned, that means it is mostly a question of the shielding inside the AVR, and whether the protocol that is used for Audio over HDMI has error correction measures.
oh man
i can suffer through a lot of videos for the great engineering that sometimes pops up
but this is getting ridiculous
standard EE isn’t high end audio. High end audio is to ameliorate playback systems beyond pure function towards the very best possible (for a certain budget bracket), which doesn’t make a difference to 98% of people. Unless of course they get a chance to actually listen to it.
I have run in to so many bad USB cable in my life time, I could filled a trashcan with all of them. Even ones that meet specs but brake in a year. I could see a difference just transferring files. And even see a difference doing firmware upgrades, some would just randomly fail if a bad cable was in the mix.
Get a $400 cable, a good quality $25 cable and do a blind test. Easy.
Well, if you want to avoid noise getting from the PC to the DAC, why not isolate it? That is, have a separate box that converts from USB to an optical signal (the box, being digital, would not be affected by noise and the output signal should have FEC), then send the optical signal to the DAC. Now you have is completely isolated in addition to possibly (depending on how the converter works) being able to have a cable that is longer than 5m.
probably one of the best episodes, thank you so much. and yes I do agree. noname usb cable sounds quite a bit harsh and edgy compared to an AQ forest, which again has no chance against an AQ coffee. On my transparent equipment, heard with my ears. I suggest trying it out.
NO! USB cables do not change the quality of audio/video passed through them AT ALL. This can easily be proven with computer software which proves that the date is identical regardless of the cable used. The differences that you THINK you can hear are exactly that, in your mind only (placebo). Any loss of data drops out the signal ENTIRELY, it does not change the sound quality EVER. In exactly the same way that if I sent you a digital music file, you would receive the EXACT same file that I sent, and it would would sound EXACTLY the same!
You sir are buying into digital miracle think. In the end there is only analog. Digital signals can be very noisy. Digital logic even more so. The fact that the bits get through reliably tells you nothing about any addition noise that may be carried on the wire. The question is not whether or not the USB signal can suffer from cheap or badly constructed cables, it surely can, and in ways that do not drive the digital compliance out of spec. The challenge is for the DAC maker to strictly isolate their digital and analog sections so that any injected noise is rejected before it infects the rest of the circuitry. If you reply that digital is not subject to this then you need to study up on parasitic capacitance. Signal quality is a huge subject in digital electronics and it only gets worse with higher speed.
Hi Hank. I can very easily prove your theory to be wrong. I would be more than happy to send you a digital music file, for you to send it back to me, for me to send it to you again... passing through many many miles of cheap cables. No matter how many times we do this it will sound EXACTLY the same! Digital is just a representation of an analogue signal in bits, if the bits are the same the sound is the same. No noise can be introduced into these bits, and any errors result in NO SOUND at all. I don't know Paul McGowan, but I suspect that he sells 'audiophile' digital cables and so has a vested interest in spreading such myths. That's a shame, because I enjoy his videos and would have considered purchasing his products. I certainly won't be doing that now. Again, I am more than happy to prove that digital cables have absolutely ZERO EFFECT on sound quality.
Chris, I think you miss my point. I agree that noise does not corrupt the digits. I don't think we are talking about transmiting digits from one storage medium to another digital storage medium. We are talking about transmitting bits to a DAC. The thing is that the cable can transmit more than the data bits. Digital logic is extremely noisy in an analog sense. The bits can ring and glitch and carry lots of other noise. What I suspect is that the bad USB cables are carrying this additional noise. It doesn't corrupt the bits but it can be picked up by the circuits on the receiver end. If the DAC is not carefully designed to isolate noise from the incoming signal the noise can be propagated to the analog reconstruction. This may say more for the quality of the digital receiver circuit than it does about the cable but bad cables can surely make it worse.
The bits will only carry noise if that noise is in the original signal though. I suppose a badly designed DAC circuit could add noise, but that's the fault of that circuit, not any cables. The only noise I could imagine it picking up in any case would be perhaps mains hum, or EMF from mobile phones and wifi routers, not USB cables. But then again I've never known any DAC pick up any of this noise, even the cheapest laptop ones. I bought a HDMI cable from a pound shop about a decade ago, and it still works perfectly to this day.
I've studied electrical engineering, and worked in audio engineering for my entire working life. Aside from that, as a consumer I've used and worked with USB cables for over 20 years. I've never seen or had one fail, ever. What an earth are you doing to them? I work alongside many highly qualified engineers who have a far deeper knowledge than I do though, and they all firmly agree that digital cables have ZERO effect on sound quality. I'm actually really surprised that anybody is even debating this. Do you guys sell cables for a living or something lol?
I've noticed that some quality USB products, e.g. decent webcams, have cables with ferrite beads, smaller versions of those found on old-fashioned VGA video cables -- I suspect adding these to a typical (but not cheap/flimsy) PeeCee-to-DAC USB cable would be beneficial.
The ferrite is there to suppress unwanted EMI/RFI emissions that's it. If you dont believe me you can remove it your self the cord will work exactly how it did before it was removed.
Surface Pro tablets and alike do NOT put out any real noise. So just use them for your streamer source and your good to go with a quality cable. FYI USB cable will have different sound so get a couple and test. We ended up with Audioquest Pearl for more detail all around vs SKW.
I’m with you Paul. Turning 66 soon here. I forget everything brother. Your not alone. Cheers!
Paul, does carpeted floors sweetens the high end for a horns?
yes
Yes. So can a sofa.
A bookcase certainy does.
But I'm not sure everybody knows what that is....
Paul P. A thanks. I'm always championing the room with many bookcases treatment, as it often was in the 50s through 70s HiFi listening room. I feel bookcases make great room treatments. Of course it depends on the speakers. Another nice treatment, Persian carpet on hardwood floors. I'm just saying we already have the answers.
Seeing that Asynchronous USB has *ZERO ERROR CORRECTION* present, unlike the normal data USB protocol, it's not a stretch at all to understand that cables matter.
If ethernet didn't have EC, cables would matter there for very short lengths as well.
But AUSB protocol probably doesn't run on 480Mbps like USB 2.0.
@@thePavuk And yet it does.
Although I can't afford the great equipment your company makes I do enjoy your videos as I usually learn something from them regardless of the "snake oil" claims.
I was all ready to cry snake oil, but your point actually makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of a USB cable acting as an antenna that could introduce RF interference into the analog portion of the amplifier, and it makes sense that a poorly shielded cable could pick up and carry carry this kind of radiation inadvertently.
Your initial instinct was correct. Any half decent modern solid-state dac will have zero audible changes in sound from using an audio quest cable. This has been measured and proven.
How about a using a 25 cent DVD composite rca cable that tests out at 75 ohm as a digital coax into a dac? I did it once, and for the first two minutes only heard about 30 percent of the recorded music. Once it was streaming fully, it sounded ok but was missing 20 percent of the sound.
hey paul ... why not just do an A-B test in front of us. try out three different cables with all settings the same and we will hear for ourselves ?
He cant do it. Actually there is not a single passed AB test done. And will not be. There is this "the amazing meeting" where you can get a million dollars if you can pass (do anything unnatural event) it and no one has done it, why? COS IT CANT BE DONE hehe...
so if I download a file I get less data , please explain
So I wonder what are the reasons that some USB cables any good than ather:
a. Some USB cables provide filter / noise reduction from the source computer, so the noise from the computer can't affect the DAC while the others just passing the data as they are ?
b. Some USB cable generate noise ?
a or b , or a+b
If you ask a guy that sells a $220 USB cable if they'll make an audible difference over sub-$10 options the answer you get shouldn't surprise you.
As long as your cable meets the impedance of your source and load maximum power will be transferred.
There are many techniques to deal with noise. Given they are practiced so religiously cables alone won't make a difference other than perhaps shielding them in noisy environments.
They won't alone reduce noise passed into them from the source.
If anything they'll add noise due to mutual induction or thermal agitation.
The general rule to lower noise is to lower the temperature bandwidth, and resistance.
One might think using silver in a USB cable would fix this but it's practically useless given the math.
I say this because of Johnson Noise. The noise voltage (when Boltzmann's constant is multiplied by temperature, bandwidth, and resistance) created due to thermal agitation for copper is .0038 ohms per million ohms per degree Celsius. Silver is .003 ohms per million ohms per degree Celsius.
The resistances and temps would have to be orders of magnitude higher for any of this to matter in the slightest!
Over the temperature ranges that electronic equipment operates these differences are minute. That said Bandwidth (Frequency) is also a component. So of course lowering the bandwidth also lowers the noise.
I don't get it... why would you give the snake award to a tweak/item that you think works? Shouldn't that be for things that people spend money on that have no benefit (that are, you know, like snake oil?)
terrywho22 the award goes to the touchiest subjects.
OK, I thought that would be something like a chicken award.
Well said Paul.
What about an optical USB cable? Like the one from Linus Tech Tips. He had a 100 ft optical USB 3.Optical cable. How (if any) would this affect sound quality? If Toslink spdif isolates the two devices connected, then an USB 3.Optical cable should do the same for a connected DAC, correct?
I bet optical cable performs worse because light-to-electricity conversion is very noisy.
Digital interconnects can't make a difference pretty much by definition. True cheap crap is cheap crap and may cause drop outs or just won't last. so you want something decent. However if you're going to spend hundreds of dollars on cables anyway, I have some really nice sounding cables I can sell you. They're vintage and well broken-in.
Howdy.
I wonder if feeding the USB signal through a USB hub to the DAC would deliver any noise reduction ?
I understand a hub contains electronics that boost and shape the digital signal. Also, a hub uses a separate power supply which I think should help blocking the noise.
Regards.
Thanks Paul. Some great points. Key point is that listening is where the rubber meets the road. Love the seniors moments by the way. At 58 I've also started to notice some minor delay in file retrieval times.
This seems like one of the easiest things to blind test, simply because cables are so easily swapped and can be hidden. A week or a month of daily or more swaps set up by someone else and a diary of what you think you are hearing should do it. At least then, the only one that a person could disagree with would be themselves.
I hear comments from people that say there is no difference, but they do not say what components they are using.
The other thing not mentioned is how well the USB cable is shielded. Surely that must be of near equal importance and even nay sayers may accept that.
Remembering that cables are all analog and the bandwidth required is pretty high, especially when dealling with the higher bit rates.
The better the cable, the better defined the on and off which must make the job easier for any DAC.
My experience has been that they have not made so much difference, but enough to make it worth using something just a bit better than the stock USB cables. Of course, if I were just using a cheap USB dac I would not bother, but for my hi-res system it is a different story.
Regarding passing ground interference from a PC to a Hi-End DAC, I have wondered if it would be better to go from USB to Optical and then to a DAC to give total electrical isolation. I know that there can be compromises with optical, but PC's are just so full of noise that I wonder if it could be worth trying.
Hey Paul, I think you were referring to Curious Cables Australian company.
happy birthday Paul, have a nice glass of wine , thanks.
I thought that's a real snake on your desk for a second. Paul you should work on those hollywood movies. :)
As somebody has mentioned, if you have the time to make these videos you have the time to video an a/b session using these different USB cables and let us see for ourselves how you choose the better cable based on sound using about 5 different cables. That's the only way that smart people will actually believe any of this stuff otherwise it's just words! Wouldn't it be a hoot if you chose the cheaper USB cable with a cheaper DAC with a cheaper amp. RUclips is littered with these type of a/b comparisons and what it shows is the total opposite of what you're saying! I recently saw a video using violinists. The violinists were blindfolded and played their million-dollar violins and then played cheap knock-offs.
The cheap knockoffs were chosen more times as the real expensive models. That's just one little small example on how sound testing is not as absolute as you make it seem! The internet also has many speaker cable comparisons using $200 speaker cable vs $8,000 speaker cable and the Blindfolded listeners had no idea what was what and this was a high-resolution system as you mention all the time! Trying not to be a troll, just dealing with the facts, and the facts tell a different story.
Buc, buc, buc .. bwak, bwak, wac, wac, buc, buc buc ...
Except it wouldn't prove anything because blind tests have been disproven for audio purposes back in the 1950's. Try to keep up, instead of repeating the exact same nonsense about blind tests on every single video
How were they disproven?
You sound like those flat earthers denying all the universally accepted proof that the earth is a globe. The evidence is there if you choose to accept it.
"... You have the time to do a video tape" number one, use the right term. Paul doesn't use video tapes to record the videos. Who does anymore in our digital world? Paul is sharing his knowledge with people and I think he has more to add to the subject than you. If you think you have more to share make your own "video tapes" and we'll see who is better. If you are happy with your radio shack stereo system and you can't hear any difference with anything, good for you! What youtube is really littered with, is with people like you. People like you are a society plague. Nothing good to add, all negative and empty thoughts. Go back to school and take some classes in critical thinking
Curious Cable is the name Paul. I have it here ... it's funny they use a different conductor just for the ground and that's make a difference.
There are too many hilarious comments for me to not add my two cents. How many people commented on this video basing their opinion on "Binary is just ones and zeros!" without ever considering what our complicated electronics accomplish with slight changes in voltage. I'm not a true audiophile. I probably can't be. My hearing likely doesn't qualify as professional grade, and my budget certainly does not. I buy very good quality equipment that I think sounds pretty darn good and stop there. I'll never spend $100+ on a USB cable because it doesn't fit into how I experience music. However, I do appreciate the monumental difference between a data transfer that allows time for error checking and one that does not. Every commenter who brought up the idea of comparing two digital versions of an audio file as a means to suggest that miles upon miles of questionable cabling along the way negates the need for high quality cabling to a DAC must have been unaware of how many times along the way that data was verified to be accurate before being passed to the next destination. In my opinion, the need for instantaneous playback without time for error checking in the audio data stream is really the cause for concern with cable quality because a variety of distortions of the signal can lead to a misinterpretation of the source material. Is your system of such a high quality as to reproduce these minute errors? Are your ears so well calibrated as to perceive these small differences? Maybe so, maybe not. But when errors lead to a slight distortion of the source material, and adding complexity to the circuitry for the purposes of measuring variations and correcting them takes precious milliseconds, sometimes it's just better to listen, make a design change, listen again, and subjectively judge what's better. In regard to digital transmission, a bit is not a 1 or a 0 until a threshold is established as to the voltage that makes it so. Binary isn't exactly black and white when it's subjected to being determined by a variance in voltage at fast switching speeds. Fully integrated systems do a great job, but without error checking along the way, the internet would be "noisy" and "jittery".
well, something which was not snake oil
FPGA DACS are best
but isolator makes huge difference
long cable make difference
but then cable is still snake oil......done blind, double blind testing....Sir.
used audioquest cable and standard cable(same lenght) and both sounded same
Don't feel bad, Paul, I will be 70 next March, God willing, and I get mental lapses more and more frequently .. it's just that we have SO MUCH hardrive knowledge cluttering the ole cranium that sometimes it's hard to retrieve info at a moments notice !! LOL :D
The only way is to try it. I have a high end dac, American amps and speakers. The dac has been connected from a streaming device, not computer, using a cheap screened usb cable. It has been in place for years. The Project Stream Box Ultra was a significant move upwards from a laptop using Foobar. That difference was very noticeable. All my music files are on USB sticks. Even high bit rate Mp3s sound spectacular. The sound is fantastic even with the screened cheap USB cable. So those cheap cables do work well. For years I have believed it cannot get better with a better USB cable, and still think it can't. However, I'm going to give it a go with a C line USB from Chord Company. It's only 50 pounds so if that cannot better a cheap screened USB cable, nothing to worry about. Some may say 50 pounds USB is too little for a 9k pounds plus dac. I don't think it's worth spending large amount on a USB cable when a cheap screened one contributes to such a fantastic sound. It's the components that make the sound good in the first place. Too much hype about high res files too. If the equipment is good, even high bit rate Mp3s will sound superb as demonstrated by my setup. Almost all system demonstration are done using a basic music type track. Vocals and just a few instruments, jazz music etc etc. Any system can do that . There is a reason why dealers use those tracks. Even on RUclips, high end systems are recorded playing such tracks.
Well, I didn't know for sure if USB cables make a difference or not but I do know that computers infect every electronic device around them with noise. I know this from working with them in PA because I can see the RF interference registering -20dB on every channel of the dual band radio mic receiver. So in setting up the PC I wanted to isolate it from the sound system as much as possible within the existing very tight budget. So, on the basis of the 80/20 rule I bought a Zip-Lite USB cable as it at least has 2 ferrite beads and used it to connect a Radial USB Pro to run into the analogue PA via ground lifted, 95% shielded XLR cables. Radial gear has a good rep (Durability for sonic performance) in Pro audio & includes it's own inbuilt filters as well. This USB Zip-Lite cable is pretty darn cheap and at least has some filtering of it's own. On my home HiFi system using an Essence HDACC, it compares more than favorably against a much more expensive boutique USB cable (the only one I had available for comparison). So I think the Zip-Lite is an absolute winner for the price (about $6 from memory). So that's my story for what it's worth.
Have you been able to measure the difference on the analog audio output?
which analog output? you plug your optical cable at the output of the "dac" and the other end in the amplifier! why would you convert digital audio to analog on the wire?
@@Harald_Reindl What he is saying is plug the USB cable in to the DAC and take measurements of the analog output of the DAC. If there is no measurable difference between the cables, then there is no difference to the sound. Spoiler alert: USB cables do not make any difference. The cable either works or it does not. Check out: ruclips.net/video/qXuBsdmEOAs/видео.html
@@SlickBlackCadillac I work as software developer and system administrator, started programming with the age of 9 while I'm 43 now - any discussions about digital cables and noise are insulting for my intellect and when somebody comes up with an "audiophile ethernet switch with audiophile ethernet cables you can hear" I want to punch him straight into the face - the word audiophile became an insult itself over the years
@@SlickBlackCadillac and what I was saying is that it's idiotic doing digital-analog conversion that early in the chain to begin with
@@Harald_Reindl I agree with you, man. Digital is digital. USB is NOT ideal for digital audio. USB is subject to jitter and crappy power characteristics. That said, this is NOT fixed with a "better" USB cable. This is fixed by how the receiving device implements USB, or by not using USB altogether.
USB audio transfer is isochronous which means it has a CRC check but no retry mechanism so how bad does a cable need to be to fail a CRC check? The packets just get dropped if the CRC fails so you would hear it for sure. 🐍
Ok snakeoil man…. So how do you design a USB cable the “right way”? It’s a standard, not sure what this even means.
If there are sonic degradation through lower quality USB cable, the digital signal that is.... then can you quantify the errors?
No, they aren't data errors, they are elctromagnetic.
I'm going to agree with Paul on this one. But is a $300 USB cable right for you? Only you can answer that question. I have found that for most people the Amazon Basics USB cables are more then adequate. They are mechanically good and electrically sound. They are moderately priced but 3x -> 5x the cost of the cheapes. Once you get past a couple meters in USB cable length then things get complex. If your extending the length of something like a Logitech Webcam with a 6 meter USB cable you paid $10 for your going to have problems.
You should read this. There will be a test Monday morning: sdphca.ucsd.edu/Lab_Equip_Manuals/usb_20.pdf
Curious Cables: 31.5 inches $350, up to $590 for the 78.7 inch for USB cables.
I connect my pc to my soundsystem via a shielded Soundblaster Z Soundcard through optic cable. So no emi.
what you are actually saying is that the differences between USB cables
are SHIELDING and NOISE, (ANALOG)
influence your DACs ANALOG OUTPUT stage and the sound produced?
while the digital input is actually IDENTICAL between a $ and $$$$ cable
I that is your claim, then as a "snake oil howler" I can live with it, I use optical whenever possible.
Digital electronics engineer: USB cables do totally make a difference -
if you use a bad cable that starts life or ends up failing to comply with the USB spec you will experience connectivity losses (basically the probability of a physical fault increases)
You might also need a specialist cable with shielding if you’re in areas of high interference.
However it’s not like analog where you get what you pay for: 99% of USB cables send perfect signals - that is to say are completely lossless. It’s just the 1% with faults that are the problem. So it’s not like there’s a difference between a $20 and $2000 cable in normal situations. But I’d be afraid of a $2 cable.
Much more important to audio quality is the driver and software configuration of the USB device, and whether it’s configured for USB 1/2/3 correctly
Very sensible comment. Paul is off his rocker that you need "Curious Cable"
Yeah, but what if you listen to one cable, and then another cable, and decide that one sounds better than the other... How do you know if the difference is due to degraded jitter due to more noise in the USB cable if you don't know if there is more jitter in the audio clock? You have the tools to measure this, but you never tell us what figures you see!
If you don't measure jitter, the how do you know if jitter is the thing that causes the difference you believe is audible?
Maybe you just like the sound of higher jitter.. How would you know if you don't know the level of jitter in the DAC you are listening to?
So please.. Tell us what you know!
Jitter is a problem with A/D and D/A conversion, it should not be a problem for digital transmission. The USB signal carries its own bit timing information so jitter in transmission is not an issue. What is an issue is other modes of injected digital noise. Common mode rejection should be high because USB uses differential signaling and twisted signal pairs. Bad shielding or bad termination is probably the cause of the excessive noise Paul reports.
As Paul said, take this for it's comedic value and please don't spend more than $5 on a USB cable.
the point of a USB connected DAC is to have an optical digital output and no longer a physical connection from your computer to the hifi environment
If your USB cable isn’t faulty then it makes zero difference. Nothing wrong with a nice thick and well shielded USB cable though. Chances of it becoming faulty down the track is greatly reduced.
Which cables have you auditioned and how resolving/accurate/well set up is your system?
Ronald Thompson that would be letting the cat out of the bag.
Ronald Thompson The best way to test these types of things is with a good set of headphones. I test with a pair of Shure SHR1840’s with a NAD d3020 for use as a headphone amp. My recommendation is that if you are experiencing jitter or unexplained noise then try replacing the cable. Otherwise you’re better off spending your audio budget in other areas.
I'm using an uptone audio USPCB to link my streaming device and dac. I just wodner will replace the uspcv with curious cable give a small boost in sounds?
Yes, different cords have different character. If you have a resolving system, these differences are apparent. If your system or your hearing are not discerning, then you can save a fortune. :)
Audio Science Review has a Video on this topic on his channel. It can't hurt do hear the opposite opinion to compare.
So basically poorly designed DACs mess up the analogue output because they are poorly designed and merge circuit noise into the analogue output during conversion, not because you dared to use a standard black plastic USB cable that perfectly meets USB specs and provides your DAC bit-perfect data 100% of the time anyway? You're basically spending money on cables to fix issues with DACs failings. There are DACs out there that simply take a 1 and 0, convert it to analogue and spit it out perfectly, they don't need to be 'fixed' with expensive cables.
Happy 70th Paul!
Basically it's 1's and 0's. How could a cable possible change the binary output? The only possible way a usb cable could change the sound is with a filter for the power supply noise. Any high quality dac should be able to filter and isolate the digital data from any noise generated from the source. Timming and data rates are exact in the usb standard and a cable can't change this assuming the cable meets the usb specification for bandwidth and length. I would suspect that any dac that is sensitive to usb cables is not properly designed to isolate the usb input from the source. Although, Paul you are correct in the assumption that if you say it's so then it must be so.
Anyway thanks for the time you take in attempting to de-mystify the complex world of audio equipment design's and all the snske oil out there.
Steven James if people hear the differences, it can't just be what you say.
I'm not an advocate of Epicurean digital cables. That being said, the real world is often not up to spec. So it's quite possible that these over spec. remedies will make a difference because they are helping overcome the failings of improperly designed, defective or failing equipment.
On the other hand I'm always baffled by the argument that there are things going on in a system like the USB interface that we don't understand and can't measure. These aren't something we discovered in nature. USB is an engineered, human made system. Our understanding of it is not theoretical. The theories that were implemented in USB are the reality of the design and we know they are accurate because USB works. If the concepts were flawed then the designs wouldn't work. It seems the team that created the USB standard could settle this. If they say you need certain things for a perfect transfer, that must be all there is. Otherwise it's like telling a car company that there's something in their engines that they didn't know was in there.
And if I saw an oasis in the desert it doesn't mean it so. It could be an mirage.
You forgot the placebo effect. If someone buys a really expensive cable they WILL "hear" an improvement. Not because there is an actual difference, but because their brain says that they should because more expensive "should" be better.
"Timming and data rates are exact in the usb standard and a cable can't change this assuming the cable meets the usb specification for bandwidth and length."
Many implementations of the USB spec differ from each other to the extent that some devices fail to work properly with some computers. Would a cable affect this? Dunno, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
Paul, you are a great person, do not let certain people stain you, in my opinion my Analysis plus usb make a difference against the $2 usb cable.
Happy birthday to you❤️ . How i can set my gain without damaging my speakers ,if i have a big power amp .
Absolutely lovely! THANK YOU!
Happy 70th Bday Paul! All the best in the years to come!
Next up, do optical cables make a differce and will snake oil make your DAC sound better?
@Dmitriy Getman Anything digital is good unless you have a lot of EMI in which case you either go optical or use shielded copper. Anyone who tells you that you can hear difference in tone by changing cables carrying digital signals, is full of shit. You either transfer the bytes or you dont. If you don't you either get no audio at all or very nasty audio artifacting such as pops and crackles but you never lose tone.
Young nerd from UK, London. Loving the videos; wealth of knowledge.
Everything makes a difference, everything creates a difference... smaller or bigger. Audiophile audiofool philosopher audiophile
Hello Paul, I thoroughly enjoy your candour and demeanor. I like the example you set.
Totally great answer!
When I heard 'Only you' ... I thought 'can prevent forest fires' should go next.
Every time this is discussed I think maybe people are debating the wrong things. The matter of whether or not USB produces bit-perfection of 1's and 0's really shouldn't be the question. It does. it always has, from the cheapest $1 to the most expensive cables made out of farm raised organic unicorns. However, I never see anyone ask or debate if a cable carrying a digital signal is capable of also carrying analog signal noise that does not disrupt the 1's and 0's, is read error free, yet the additional analog noise is then passed into the rest of the system affecting the analog playback of the previously perfect digital signal.
Could something else matter about the cable or affect the end result? I don't know, but I think it's kind of silly to debate the same argument over and over again when it's settled by the intrinsic design of the system and responsible for things far more important and precise than audio playback.
Why nobody connected HIFi 100$ cable to signal analyzer and compare it to 10$ cable? (not 0.5$).
On some VERY specific situations when you transfer your music ALIVE through usb cable and at the same time listen with some badly shielded analog ampliffier that happens to be very close to usb cable, a good shielded usb cable CAN make a difference. Indeed. Who does that anyway? USB cable is ment for transfering files or data communication. That's it. You transfer files, then unplug cable and listen to your music.
BUT. When you hear people claiming that 'audio grade' USB cables will transfer your digital audio files to your PC with BETTER quality than ordinary usb cable (and such transfered files on your pc will sound better) and if you say, yeah it's ture... then it is 100% pure snake oil... no question about it.
And this is what most people associate with usb cable. Just to transfer files and then unplug it. And if someone says "for music files you need to use audio grade usb cable". It's just logical that smart people will say, it's a snakes oil. No difference it makes to the files themselves if usb cable is ordinary shielded or double/tripple shielded with silver/gold inside it.
Hey, Happy Birthday Paul. Here is to many, many years of wonderful music.