It *cannot* just be about 1's and 0's - surely?

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

I am as puzzled as anyone else (perhaps more so, lacking technical background) regarding the loudness change.  But regarding the perceived increase in sound quality, my speculation would be that it's directly due to the volume change.  It's a well known effect that louder sounds better, and though you may think you can somehow mitigate the subjective SQ improvement by some mental feat like intense concentration, it really isn't so.  That's just how our ear-brain system is wired.

Yes. In psychoacoustics, it has been found  that people always believe that the louder of two musical presentations is the better sounding. That is good thinking on your part. Unfortunately it still doesn't explain how a USB cable can cause a measured 2 dB increase in volume!

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

What's in this thing?  USB has power, so perhaps this is an active device, and not that battery-attached-to-a-shield-or-whatever thing AQ does on their analog interconnects and speaker cables.  Apple and Google pack a DAC and HP amp into the end of a tiny USB-C headphone adapter.  This thing is enormous by comparison.

 

It could be anything. I know what AQ says is in it; a 72v battery to "bias" the shield, but who knows? After all, as you point out, they pack a decent sounding USB DAC into a package that is about the same size as a "thumb drive" memory stick! It could easily have a circuit that acts to re-clock the digital volume by +2 dB, although I'd hate to think that they would do that. 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

I think that may still be the same battery/shield setup as the analog cables.

That's what AQ says anyway.

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

It could be anything. I know what AQ says is in it; a 72v battery to "bias" the shield, but who knows? After all, as you point out, they pack a decent sounding USB DAC into a package that is about the same size as a "thumb drive" memory stick! It could easily have a circuit that acts to re-clock the digital volume by +2 dB, although I'd hate to think that they would do that. 

I'd think it is something they would do.  I'd like for someone to test it and see if that is what is going on. 

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

Except in this case George there is a big electronic box on it.  Larger than some portable DACs like the Dragonfly.  Would be easy to have some chips that provide a digital boost to the data making it 2 db louder.  So in this case maybe it isn't just two power wires and two differential data wires. 

Agreed, but when I wrote that I didn't realize that he was talking about AQ cables with external circuitry box attached. I would hope there's just a 72 v battery in that enclosure. 

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'd think it is something they would do.  I'd like for someone to test it and see if that is what is going on. 

Me too!

 

 

[crenca]

30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

There is no harmonic structure or any dynamics. The USB cable is passing DATA. The USB cable has no way of knowing what the data represents; it could be e-mail messages, video, 3-D rendering, anything!

 

It's probably this:

 

 

 

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

It could be anything. I know what AQ says is in it; a 72v battery to "bias" the shield, but who knows? After all, as you point out, they pack a decent sounding USB DAC into a package that is about the same size as a "thumb drive" memory stick! It could easily have a circuit that acts to re-clock the digital volume by +2 dB, although I'd hate to think that they would do that. 

A device that intercepts and alters USB audio data while otherwise being completely invisible to the endpoints would not be difficult to create. Although I wouldn't put it past AQ to do that, I still think some other explanation is more likely.

[STC]

10 hours ago, Mazza said:

So I checked this by swapping cables and measuring dbA levels on a sine-sweep test track that I use to calibrate levels. I was right and there was just under a 2dB vol increase when using the shorter, 'higher grade' cable over the longer 'lower grade' cable

 

 I have taken part in the so called AB test where the difference was audible. IIRC, Dr. Aix too confirmed the level difference.

 

IMO, I would expect some difference when comparing those cables from the same manufacturer otherwise no one would be buying their expensive cables.

 

What you can do to confirm your measurements is to compare a standard similar length USB cable to the AQ* and see if you could record the level difference. Also take into consideration, even with the same cable when measured multiple times they tend to show some difference if the sound is captured the acoustics transmission from the speakers. Ideally, put the microphone on a tripod and make multiple recordings with each cable* (as mentioned earlier). Make sure you remain in the exact position or set it in repeat mode and leave the room during the recording.

[Hugo9000]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'd think it is something they would do.  I'd like for someone to test it and see if that is what is going on. 

AQ is a company with zero integrity.

 

Take a look at this page:

 

https://www.audioquest.com/cables/digital-cables/usb-a-to-b/diamond

 

And this bit from that page:

Quote

In 1982 Sony gave us "Perfect sound forever," along with the attitude that, "it's just digital, so all CD players sound the same." That was disproved and qualitative differences between players became accepted truth. Next came separate transport and DAC combos, which brought with it the attitude that "all S/PDIF digital audio cables sound the same..." until that too became disproved. Now the frontier has moved once again. Is digital audio really just ones and zeros? We don't believe so, and once you've had a chance to listen to Diamond USB, you won't think so either...

 

First of all, it was Philips that came up with the "pure, perfect sound forever" marketing phrase, not Sony.  Second, that "attitude" that they ascribe to or blame on Sony is pure b.s., as Sony and Philips each claimed to have better-sounding CD players than the competition.  Either AudioQuest is abysmally lazy, or willfully dishonest, or both.  At any rate, before slandering another company, they had the responsibility to fact check their own claim.

 

As far as the marketing of "pure, perfect sound forever" goes, in their ad copy this was accompanied by comparisons to LP, which suffered wear with every playback.  It was marketing, with a bit of hyperbole/wishful thinking (there was no way of knowing if a CD would truly prove to be archival, but it was certainly superior to an LP for longevity/imperviousness to wear and tear through playback).

 

Here is some marketing material from Philips.  Compare what Philips claimed back in the day to AQ's dishonest representation of that era:

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Unlikely, but, then, even an unlikely explanation is better than none. USB 1.1 is fast enough to pass 96 KHz audio (IIRC), but if he were listening to 24/192 or DSD over USB1.1 (for some reason), I suspect that SOMETHING will happen!

Yes, USB 1.1 supports up to 96/24 stereo. If the source file has a higher resolution, something would have to downsample it, and that something could well introduce a slight attenuation.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Mazza said:

To clarify... my original AQ cable (cinnamon) does not have this, the new AQ cable (Diamond) does.   They fit it to a number of their various cable range inc analogue cables. It is some form of dialelectric bias system. Don’t claim to understand how it works. 

 

 Mazza

 Do you have a suitable USB Female to Female adaptor that you could plug a USB memory stick into ?

 You could then save the outputs of the different USB cables and look at the checksums to see if they are still identical. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Mazza

 Do you have a suitable USB Female to Female adaptor that you could plug a USB memory stick into ?

 You could then save the outputs of the different USB cables and look at the checksums to see if they are still identical. 

That is not a bad idea.  However, they could be altering only the Asynch signal and not others. 

A simpler test might be to try the AQ Diamond on a printer and see if it prints. No adpapter needed. Maybe the fonts will be 2 db thicker and darker.

[elcorso]

32 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yes. In psychoacoustics, it has been found  that people always believe that the louder of two musical presentations is the better sounding. That is good thinking on your part. Unfortunately it still doesn't explain how a USB cable can cause a measured 2 dB increase in volume!

 

Less noise = more music reaching the ears / brain system?

 

I do not know if it will be an additional 2dB of loudness, I do not do these kind of measurements, but I do know the noise that the USB cables emit (to the near environment), particularly USB 3.00

 

The above regarding the Lush ^ 2 USB cable shielding.

 

Roch

[Hugo9000]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

That is not a bad idea.  However, they could be altering only the Asynch signal and not others. 

A simpler test might be to try the AQ Diamond on a printer and see if it prints. Maybe the fonts will be 2 db thicker and darker.

I'd be more impressed if it could correct typographical and formatting errors.

 

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'd think it is something they would do.  I'd like for someone to test it and see if that is what is going on. 

 

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

AQ is a company with zero integrity.

 

Take a look at this page:

 

https://www.audioquest.com/cables/digital-cables/usb-a-to-b/diamond

 

And this bit from that page:

 

First of all, it was Philips that came up with the "pure, perfect sound forever" marketing phrase, not Sony.  Second, that "attitude" that they ascribe to or blame on Sony is pure b.s., as Sony and Philips each claimed to have better-sounding CD players than the competition.  Either AudioQuest is abysmally lazy, or willfully dishonest, or both.  At any rate, before slandering another company, they had the responsibility to fact check their own claim.

 

As far as the marketing of "pure, perfect sound forever" goes, in their ad copy this was accompanied by comparisons to LP, which suffered wear with every playback.  It was marketing, with a bit of hyperbole/wishful thinking (there was no way of knowing if a CD would truly prove to be archival, but it was certainly superior to an LP for longevity/imperviousness to wear and tear through playback).

 

Here is some marketing material from Philips.  Compare what Philips claimed back in the day to AQ's dishonest representation of that era:

I also notice AQ in their USB copy saying:

All insulation between two or more conductors is also a dielectric whose properties will affect the integrity of the signal. When the dielectric is unbiased, dielectric-involvement (absorption and non-linear release of energy) causes different amounts of time delay (phase shift) for different frequencies and energy levels, which is a real problem for very time-sensitive multi-octave audio. The inclusion of an RF Trap (developed for AudioQuest’s Niagara Series of power products), ensures that radio frequency noise will not be induced into the signal conductors from the DBS field elements. (DBS, US Pat #s 7,126,055 & 7,872,195 B1)

 

While audio is multi-octave the transmission of data about that is irrelevant.  This is just balderdash to sound technical to those not thinking about what this means. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Less noise = more music reaching the ears / brain system?

 

I do not know if it will be an additional 2dB of loudness, I do not do these kind of measurements, but I do know the noise that the USB cables emit (to the near environment), particularly USB 3.00

 

The above regarding the Lush ^ 2 USB cable shielding.

 

Roch

I know if it will be an additional 2 db of loudness from noise reduction.  The answer is no it will not. 

 

Plus you are thinking about it wrong.  Less noise would actually measure as less signal even if it somehow sounded more clear.  The OP is saying it sounds louder, and measures louder.  That isn't from less noise. 

[elcorso]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

I know if it will be an additional 2 db of loudness from noise reduction.  The answer is no it will not. 

 

Plus you are thinking about it wrong.  Less noise would actually measure as less signal even if it somehow sounded more clear.  The OP is saying it sounds louder, and measures louder.  That isn't from less noise. 

 

Your brain can fool you by making it look like loudness ...

 

Not mine (now). I just feel the music more clearly now, but at the beginning I got confused too !

 

Roch

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Your brain can fool you by making it look like loudness ...

 

Not mine (now). I just feel the music more clearly now, but at the beginning I got confused too !

 

Roch

So did the Behringer measurement mic get confused?

[mansr]

31 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Do you have a suitable USB Female to Female adaptor that you could plug a USB memory stick into ?

 You could then save the outputs of the different USB cables and look at the checksums to see if they are still identical. 

That's not how USB works. Not at all.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's not how USB works. Not at all.

 Do you have any better ideas on how to save the exported data for comparison purposes, and perhaps uploading for analysis if the binary data is different ?

Dennis didn't have a problem with this suggestion.

[elcorso]

11 minutes ago, esldude said:

So did the Behringer measurement mic get confused?

 

I don't know. That's why in many cases I'm out of measures...

 

Finishing with ...ringer this is the only I know, and it is loud:

 

If the brain can be confused, imagine a Behringer microphone ??

 

Roch

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

causes different amounts of time delay (phase shift) for different frequencies and energy levels, which is a real problem for very time-sensitive multi-octave audio.

 

Exactly (the bold).

Luckily you won't find any of this BS from me about this stuff, anywhere. But,  this doesn't prohibit me selling it.

 

We can forget about any (active) device altering the signal as such as I can guarantee you that no such thing is there in the Lush^2 while the differences in volume are easily more than 2dB (not that I really tried to measure it).

 

If I had to say anything with some sense, I'd say that the total energy stays the same (isn't it always), but that the emphasis to frequency ranges can change, that implying the triggering of room nodes and the like, and that in itself being captured by the microphone which catches it as 2dB more or less of just that one frequency (range). If that were test tones indeed, pulling it through an FFT should easily show that (record the sequences and people will be happy to try and show it).

In other words: The change in (RMS) volume is not 2dB at all, but the room makes it come across like that and it may even matter where you put the microphone. Thus, difference of the frequency in question may be +0.1dB (and elsewhere it is 0.1dB less and net it is 0dB) but a room mode makes it 2dB.

 

I never thought of using frequency sweeps to show what is so easily audible, but I will admit that only by now it is quite well documented which configurations of the Lush^2 sound totally disco-bass and dull and which sound crazily too much forward (to name two extremes).

 

More than the BS above you won't find from me, as I don't have the explanation of the working myself. That it is related to the shielding is totally obvious to me, but how this turns out to be a multi-PEQ is yet beyond me (multiple frequency ranges, including higher and lower Q). Not that we really can control the PEQ's (not at all), but the behavior is like it and in an even more natural way, I'd say). Funnily enough I could come up with "multi octave audio" too, but it really makes no sense when this all would happen in the USB data (which is a protocol and not an analog audio signal), so we can not say that. Still via some back door it works out like that, and the filtering effects seems to relate frequencies. With this I mean that it seems to be so that the harmonics of a base tone can be emphasized, just like the base tone can be underwhelmed. The net effect is that the whole song is transitioned to something not recognizable from before, while you never know the truth because all seems as good and better than it was before. Of course this is highly subjective, but ask Lush^2 owners. Here's only a last response from a customer, whom I keep anonymous but who can announce himself if he likes. Just from 8 hours or so ago:

 

The Bryston amp always had lots of power but last night it was as if I had upgraded to more like a 1000 wpc amp at least. The sense of power and ease of the music, as well as the clarity from top to bottom was something I had no idea my system was capable of.

 

That was Lush^2. Here's a text from a digital interlink (also a ^2) used in S/PDIF setup, also from today:

 

Once the Blaxius warmed up enough to be flexible enough to make connections, I installed it. Right away there was just so much more of everything good. The bass/lower range actually sounded overwhelming (for lack of a better word) at first listen but it wasn't bad bass. Just more.

 

I can easily show a 100 of these kind of reports and many of them you will find online just the same (including CA). The creepy thing is that there's complete consensus on the shielding configurations and how each sounds. And this is always about emphasis of frequencies and how they inter-relate. Normally we can't have *and* more/better bass *and* more clarity. They kind of contradict. Tweak this in the other direction and you'd have my mentioned disco dull thing (with at least perceived way lower volume on top - that volume now concentrated in the lower bumpy/slamming ranges without transient to detect).

How ?

All I know is I should be the most biased of us all. But that is not the explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

[esldude]

Perhaps  @Mazza could remeasure with white noise or pink noise using REW and report if the values are about 2 db different with that signal.  Displaying the REW graphs would be nice too even for the tones if you kept them.