will
|
I don't know what to think of this. But different DAC receivers, DAC chips, etc, etc are aspects of what make different DACs sound different. So it is hard to say if these comments are somewhat influenced by old school non-belief in the efficacy of good cabling, or describing and standing behind very advanced tech that might overrule cabling. I can imagine how Bryston could have their digital output and input sections (and all the rest) so well designed that cables matter less, especially drive to server. But basing this on 1s and 0s "accurate" enough to make a signal, seems a little general to me. A basis of this whole conversation seems to be that a functional signal can be audibly corrupted by noise and jitter.
Opinions on cables get confusing for me, knowing that there are people who hear a lot, and those who's listening is influenced by belief that if a theory makes sense based on current measuring tech, then that is the end of it. And this may be true in some cases. But too often, theory becomes ideology, closing doors to heightened perception, discernment, and learning. To me, it is always in the listening finally, and I can't really recall hearing two things that sound alike, whether cables, wires, resistors, caps, connectors, tubes....
I think very high quality audio is generally, and quickly, becoming more and more attainable for more and more people. And as our tech and prices offer more complete sound potential, including better DAC and cable tech, if we make the right selections, we hear more, making many old school ideologies more obsolete.
But better access to better tech does not necessarily create more complete and complex sound. As many of us here know, if we have weak links, they can cause us not to hear subtle things that our systems are otherwise capable of. And if you can't hear it, it is not there. As far as I can tell, many audio "controversies" are mainly controversial because some folks believe and uphold ideologies that are becoming obsolete, accepting them so fully that it closes doors to finding ways to reveal more complete musical information as home audio improves.
Here, there is no doubt... as I find and resolve weak links, the same system/room can become capable of revealing more completeness, more complexity. Subtler information growing more "audible," in balance, an optimal musical experience is more accessible, while also potentiating hearing and discerning things that may not have been as noticeable before. And depending on need, a more fully resolving cable with good spectral balance, one that does not truncate or damage anything, is a good example for resolving weak links in my experience.
But even now, it seems many people are still just coming around to how better considered and made parts and implementation can improve everything. I can't really fathom the "belief" that there is little or no difference in wire sounds. But there are still folks who believe that if wires or cables spec correctly, they will sound alike. So why buy more expensive cables, even ones that are reasonable for what they are but are more expensive because better materials and design can convey the sound better!
Similarly, many folks still don't believe how much power quality can change the sound....or related, vibration....or how different vibration mitigation schemes have different sounds.
But in electronic systems, why wouldn't the purity of energetic quality and flow matter? Little jaggy bumps on a sine wave or on DC currents that are ideally smooth (noise), EMF/RF interference, vibration induced distortions, truncation from parts that diminish aspects of the sound, etc. ...when subtle energy creates the chain of power and signal in a component, how could these "irritants" to an easy, undamaged energetic flow not effect the sound?
A good example to me is how energy can be influenced by the purity and smoothness of conductivity of wire... Think about smaller gauge, solid core, UP-OCC wire using dielectrics that do less harm. Having the purest metal, the most clear and continuous crystal structure, minimal skin effect and dielectric interference...it simply does not mess with the electrical character and flow like wire where the current has to work through metal impurities, fissures in wire runs, complications from jumping across strands of wire, or increased dielectric modification....Seems to me that less negative effects on the current potentiates a purer signal.
Same with caps and resistors, connectors and all...the easier it is for the power and signal to do their things without impediments, the more fluid, easy, and revealing what they convey can translate into real seeming sound from our speakers. But it still seems a balancing act, many noise mitigation methods and implementations, even with pretty "pure" materials, can impose sound degradation along with mitigating noise.
Having played a lot with these things in my system, they seem pretty obvious. But my system/room is quite revealing, and I have spent a long time listening carefully as I tune it. And out of necessity, my ability to discern more subtle differences has made improving my system/room more compelling, possible, and efficient. If I hear something off that I can't recognize or identify clearly, it is harder to address. But if, having explored lots of causes and effects, I am able to hear something more discretely, it is easier to solve. And each solution potentiates deeper hearing.
Naysayers will often say the ability to create and hear completeness in music is based in "psychoacoustic" wishful thinking. But unable to hear what others can clearly hear could be in part that "psychoacoustics" can work both ways.
More complicated than "belief," we all hear differently, and on subtler levels, we all perceive differently. I say perceive rather than hear since what we "hear" is only an aspect of the effect of our systems filling our rooms with energy waves, so it is more than hearing that creates our musical experience. Also, we all discern what we perceive differently, where one person, often due to more practice, might "hear" what another with equally good perception doesn't "hear."
And as we all experience, improvements add up...each good solution improving the whole. Subtle things become more obvious, eventually potentially taking our setup into areas of resolution, revelation, and musicality we could not have imagined at times in the past.
So I don't have an answer, or mean to pack this advice about USB into an old school camp...just thinking out loud about how many things play into whether something "works" or not. I can conceptualize that a tonier USB cable, in that position, might make little difference. Who knows how this might translate between different environments and systems...
At the same time, I know that between my drive and tuned up Mac Mini, the Firewire cable makes some difference. And between the computer and tuned up Gustard x20Pro DAC, different USB cables matter notably to me. Also, with my Singxer USB bridge between computer and DAC, every HDMI cable I have tried for I2S between Singxer and DAC sounds different enough to be a real choice. Coming from the also tuned up Singxer, all I tried sounded pretty good, but after getting so deeply into full spectral balance and complexity, if the very fine detail and space are not there, my musical enjoyment is seriously diminished. So this has been a primary read for me for some years in all choices, and it is not just fine detail in space that matters. I am pretty sure this subtler information is the most difficult information not to damage, so if it is there, everything is less damaged, making the sound across spectrum better.
|
Pages: 1
High grade USB cable? (Read 21758 times)
