USB audio cracked... finally!

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

Dude, the glitch is gone now.....they patched the firmware to get rid of it.

 

I know. But there is no relevance to that in this context. Anyway, good that it is solved.

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

The trouble with eye diagrams is that even if they are obviously different, it proves nothing about the audibility.

 

Well, we will know that the jitter (signature) has to be different. But as dealt with extensively earlier in this thread, in this case it happens purely in the digital domain. So its net effect has to be indirect but can be reasoned out (guestimated). I must stress again though, that I don't think that jitter (higher or lower) is what we audible perceive here. Thus also not for indirect effects.

 

We will also know how the rise time and fall time of the signal are excessive or just not. The former implies unnecessary impact on the receiver and with that beyond it, further down the chain. This is how I implied not to be surprised when we like the smaller eye to be the better sounding (it just implies less noise down the chain). As long as no errors occur.

The rise/fall time can be made visible but I don't expect it to be easy to show differences with other cables. There will be a difference all right, but too variable to properly register / analyze without something which puts that into numbers. An eye diagram is perfect for this because on the long term (say 10 seconds) it shows the opening in two dimensions (horizontally and vertically) and that is representative for rise and fall time (the latter implies something like a third dimension and is in my view quite crucial).

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Would two captures be audibly different if played back on a decent system?

 

You would say they 'd have to. But then sauced with what's "squeezing" in that playback system anyway and always.

It's a bit similar to those MQA captures Mani made which always remain subject to your filtering etc., even if no filtering during playback and then how the DAC behaves. Mani did a lot of this kind of comparison (for the public) but I always find it to fail somewhere.

So yes, the differences should be audible, but not more than that (no absolute quality assessment possible).

[CuteStudio]

14 hours ago, mansr said:

How about something showing a difference in output from the DAC?

 

I think this can be the only relevant measurement because people report a clearly audible difference, and we don't see dropouts reported which would indicate digital errors - so any EYE diagram would have to confirm that yes, the digital is good enough to get through unmolested. 

 

Visual 'scope based measurements of DAC output may not be enough - a scope ADC is often quite low res (8bits is common IIRC) and the resolution of the screen can make a 1% variation just visible so a scope may be better used in FFT mode (which even my cheap 20MHz/48MSa/s Hantek scope has) to spot any change in RF coming out of the DAC - because that - modulated by the preamp/amp maybe what people are hearing appear/disappear rather than any variation in conversion.

 

I've spotted RF on that scope from poor switching PSUs before that appeared on the speaker terminals as tiny spikes loaded with RF as the switch rang so I know it can be seen. The amount of RF from a DAC can be significant anyway - enough to swamp many non-passive filters - so the RF story is in my view rather important.

 

Interesting stuff !

[fas42]

Gearslutz has done quite an extensive thread where interested parties have posted captures of a particular file after it's passed through a whole variety of 'professional' DA/AD loops, https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/607481-evaluating-ad-da-loops-means-audio-diffmaker.html, and tried using DiffMaker to give meaning to those. Of little value in itself, but I'm trying an exercise of examining the waveforms to see what's interesting there - and indeed there is. Some "pro" converters make a right mess of the audio HF content, others do it almost perfectly - so, "transparency" ain't a given ...

 

Now, precisely what's happening is another story ... but it does demonstrate that one can see misbehaviour in supposedly correct circuitry.

[Nikhil]

 

Looks like the initial excitement has died down and a couple of "sales" have taken place in the Buy/Sell Section on here.   

Is the Lush still holding it's own among all the USB cables out there?

 

Specifically, I would be interested if anyone has a comparison with the Totaldac USB Filter/Cable.

 

Best Regards

[rickca]

5 minutes ago, Nikhil said:

Specifically, I would be interested if anyone has a comparison with the Totaldac USB Filter/Cable.

Hold on to your wallet ...

https://www.audiostream.com/content/barn-totaldac-usb-gigafilter

[Nikhil]

8 minutes ago, rickca said:

Hold on to your wallet ...

https://www.audiostream.com/content/barn-totaldac-usb-gigafilter

 

Thanks Rick but the Gigafilter is not in my consideration

I am using the Totaldac USB Filter/cable that retails for Euro 330 excl VAT

 

Regards

[CuteStudio]

After looking at some measurements showing that susceptible DACs worked better with short cables I saw a suggestion to eliminate the cable entirely. As this also tidied up the HiFi area I now use one of these:

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-Adapter-female-male-to-male-plug-type-A-B-micro-mini-coupler-gender-changer/282418030187

 

It sounds very sweet, clear and detailed indeed (exactly the same as the previous cable in fact), and the cable doesn't influence the sound because there is no cable.

 

QED, now I can use that $300 digital cable budget to buy some more CDs with

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

After looking at some measurements showing that susceptible DACs worked better with short cables I saw a suggestion to eliminate the cable entirely. As this also tidied up the HiFi area I now use one of these:

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-Adapter-female-male-to-male-plug-type-A-B-micro-mini-coupler-gender-changer/282418030187

 

It sounds very sweet, clear and detailed indeed (exactly the same as the previous cable in fact), and the cable doesn't influence the sound because there is no cable.

 

QED, now I can use that $300 digital cable budget to buy some more CDs with

 

What's the world coming to?!! Gosh, solving an issue by eliminating the bits that cause it, rather than spending large amounts of time, effort, and money fiddling with umpteen variations of those bits ... that's the sort of thing that wrecks hobbies, you know!!

 

Who knows when it will end!!! God forbid, one day someone will put everything into one box, and it will work beautifully with no extra fussing required - The Day the HiFi Died ...

[CuteStudio]

@fas42LOL  

[Doak]

4 hours ago, Nikhil said:

 

Looks like the initial excitement has died down and a couple of "sales" have taken place in the Buy/Sell Section on here.   

Is the Lush still holding it's own among all the USB cables out there?

 

Specifically, I would be interested if anyone has a comparison with the Totaldac USB Filter/Cable.

 

Best Regards

 

The comparison would be interesting, particularly since the price differential is approx 10/1.

(ps: still loving my Lush)

[barrows]

Anyone looking to purchase a LUSH, try sending me a PM, as I am selling mine.  I really like the LUSH cable, but I have found some other USB cables (at $895 and $1500, so way more expensive) which are a better match for my system.

The LUSH has very rich, musical sound, and eliminates any digital sounding nasties.

[firedog]

On 9/18/2017 at 8:09 PM, rando said:

Rather blunt attack there for a legal eagle.  

How is that an attack? He was basically asking if on paper design  worked as expected in practice. 

[Dev]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Anyone looking to purchase a LUSH, try sending me a PM, as I am selling mine.  I really like the LUSH cable, but I have found some other USB cables (at $895 and $1500, so way more expensive) which are a better match for my system.

The LUSH has very rich, musical sound, and eliminates any digital sounding nasties.

 

@barrows, which USB cable are you using ? After living with lush for sometime, I too find other USB cable (wireworld/curious) a better match in my system as well - my system also has gone a number of changes in between.

[rando]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

How is that an attack? He was basically asking if on paper design  worked as expected in practice. 

 

You politely disregarded the  in your quote of me.  From 4 months and 10 pages ago.  For which you provided no contextual reference that would explain how you deemed this of any current relevance.  Jud is a big boy capable of not only replying for himself, he did, but establishing tone, which he also did.

 

???

[elcorso]

12 hours ago, CuteStudio said:

After looking at some measurements showing that susceptible DACs worked better with short cables I saw a suggestion to eliminate the cable entirely. As this also tidied up the HiFi area I now use one of these:

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-Adapter-female-male-to-male-plug-type-A-B-micro-mini-coupler-gender-changer/282418030187

 

It sounds very sweet, clear and detailed indeed (exactly the same as the previous cable in fact), and the cable doesn't influence the sound because there is no cable.

 

QED, now I can use that $300 digital cable budget to buy some more CDs with

 

When there are connectors (Input / output) there is a cable, even if our eyes do not see it (do not want it) see it like this ...

 

The smaller length of the USB cables, regardless of the DAC used, does not necessarily imply a better SQ. If you want to use measures to analize a USB cable (or any) I suggest the inexpensive and infallible instrument, your own ears. Using electronic instruments will only tell you how close you are to the standard, and for now I do not believe there are standard ears, until we are all cloned 

 

Roch

[elcorso]

12 hours ago, Nikhil said:

 

Looks like the initial excitement has died down and a couple of "sales" have taken place in the Buy/Sell Section on here.   

Is the Lush still holding it's own among all the USB cables out there?

 

Specifically, I would be interested if anyone has a comparison with the Totaldac USB Filter/Cable.

 

Best Regards

 

This is very normal in audio. It's like when your partner is a beautiful and affectionate woman and at the time you see walking in front of you another very beautiful and you want to try to see if it is better. Something like the catch of the day 

 

I remain faithful to my Lush, it gives me the musicality and free of noise that I like so much.

 

I had the Totaldac USB Filter / Cable before, but I do not think I need any USB filter.

 

Best,

 

Roch

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, elcorso said:

I remain faithful to my Lush, it gives me the musicality and free of noise that I like so much.

 

 

 

This is one part of competent sound, and an essential one - if the "musicality" is lost at the expense of some other "gain", then you're going in the wrong direction; or, you've elected to try and attain competency from a different direction, which most likely will require another, alternative set of optimising and tweaking procedures to recover the "musicality".

[elcorso]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This is one part of competent sound, and an essential one - if the "musicality" is lost at the expense of some other "gain", then you're going in the wrong direction; or, you've elected to try and attain competency from a different direction, which most likely will require another, alternative set of optimising and tweaking procedures to recover the "musicality".

 

Of course! I used the term "musicality" on purpose. I have tried many USB cables that can be preferred by some audiophiles because it emphasizes "detail", being more "detailed" than what music can be. This produces me, in a very short time, auditive fatigue. And instead of enjoying music, it tortures me.

 

Of course (again), being all the other musical components chosen for their musicality and not to impress (for a short time) a visitor!

 

Roch

[Ralf11]

On 12/9/2017 at 6:28 AM, OldBigEars said:

 

.. banging on ...

 

 

is that Brit-speak?

[OldBigEars]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

is that Brit-speak?

 

Yes 

[Nikhil]

8 hours ago, elcorso said:

 

I remain faithful to my Lush, it gives me the musicality and free of noise that I like so much.

 

I had the Totaldac USB Filter / Cable before, but I do not think I need any USB filter.

 

 

Thanks elcorso  ... appreciate the feedback.

 

[semente]

On 30/01/2018 at 12:09 AM, elcorso said:

 

Of course! I used the term "musicality" on purpose. I have tried many USB cables that can be preferred by some audiophiles because it emphasizes "detail", being more "detailed" than what music can be. This produces me, in a very short time, auditive fatigue. And instead of enjoying music, it tortures me.

 

Of course (again), being all the other musical components chosen for their musicality and not to impress (for a short time) a visitor!

 

Roch

 

Detail is realism and that in my view is the same as musicality.

That being so there is no such thing as too much detail where the system is concerned.

 

"Emphasised" detail is either distortion caused by artifacts or colouration, or is the result of near mic'ing.

In the first case one can deal with the problem by identifying which element in the system is causing it and optimising or replacing it, but unfortunately there's nothing we can do about the latter.

I don't think that choosing equipment which masks detail is the right way to go about it.

[mansr]

34 minutes ago, semente said:

"Emphasised" detail is either distortion caused by artifacts or colouration, or is the result of near mic'ing.

In the first case one can deal with the problem by identifying which element in the system is causing it and optimising or replacing it, but unfortunately there's nothing we can do about the latter.

I don't think that choosing equipment which masks detail is the right way to go about it.

A little high-frequency roll-off can to an extent simulate a more distant microphone due to how sound is attenuated in air. Perhaps this is (part of) the reason many prefer such a frequency response over flat.