LabRat 891If the audiophile marketing label were removed, and replaced with 'Minimal EMI Design' would y'all calm down?

Well, since the design makes the device not capable of utilizing spread spectrum on the pcie communication due to the custom clock, it arguably introduces more EMI, not less.

LabRat 891Every time I hear/read the phrase "Digital works, or it doesn't", I think about my experience with HDMI cables that would crash displays and occasionally a PC when you walked by them.
I've also experienced digital links 'malfunctioning' rather than 'work, or doesn't'.

In this case it didn’t work, correct? It barely worked in ideal conditions and when something happened it failed. The same is with other digital interconnects, it either works, or doesn’t in a very obvious way. The way people discuss them on the ”high end” forums makes it seem like the colours get punchier if you have the proper hdmi cable, which is utter nonsense.

Fry178@Steevo
then how can wapping out HDMI (1.4) cable on device that acted up (BD player)/not respond to remote commands,
with a 2.0 cable make a difference?
cables i tried (1.4) were working on other things, so i know the only difference is certification.

So one cable didn't work, but another one did? The cable could have been bad. If it just didn't work you are proving what I said, digital will either work or not work. There could have been a break in a conductor, a bad crimp on a pin, a thousand things that a sample size of one doesn't prove.

OldAndSlowDevActually the fact there are very expensive snake oil product is because there are a lot of very rich people who want "the best" and don't understand the physics laws but think a 8000$ speaker cable will bring a better sound fidelity to their 2m$ system. But there are also stuff that are expensive because they aren't produced to mass market but still relevant for very specific usage. I am not saying that this product is or isn't something that helps, to do so we need someone who REVIEW it using a bench and some measurement tools. Sadly appart a few serious reviews like audio science review, Audioholics who use a procedure and measurement tools, most of the time reviewers are hearing to something and saying "yes it's a very good product" :banghead:

Yeah, its really all marginal gains. With anything operating at the high-end of the market the gains are going to be small and likely to most people not worth it or detectable at all. And sometimes the gains aren't there at all and its all BS marketing like this thing.

With cables from a objective perspecitive (and of course this had to come up...) its about rejecting EMI and keeping signal integrity. Naysayers will say that the EMI operates at frequencies beyond human hearing and therefor can't have an impact. That EMI impacts everything in the process though. A cheap poorly shielded interconnect will be more susceptible to interference than a quality shielded one. You could use coat hangers or whatever ridiculous example you want to come up with but anything ferromagnetic is going to interfere with the signal, thats not really debatable. Super fancy braided multi-conductor cables cut down on that even more and people say they can hear a difference but whatever the gains are they are marginal and really the last thing you should be looking at.

OperandiYeah, its really all marginal gains. With anything operating at the high-end of the market the gains are going to be small and likely to most people not worth it or detectable at all. And sometimes the gains aren't there at all and its all BS marketing like this thing.

With cables from a objective perspecitive (and of course this had to come up...) its about rejecting EMI and keeping signal integrity. Naysayers will say that the EMI operates at frequencies beyond human hearing and therefor can't have an impact. That EMI impacts everything in the process though. A cheap poorly shielded interconnect will be more susceptible to interference than a quality shielded one. You could use coat hangers or whatever ridiculous example you want to come up with but anything ferromagnetic is going to interfere with the signal, thats not really debatable. Super fancy braided multi-conductor cables cut down on that even more and people say they can hear a difference but whatever the gains are they are marginal and really the last thing you should be looking at.

www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kimber-kable-do-high-end-usb-cables-make-a-difference.11272/

Read comprehend then post. EMI doesn't change the audio signal, its digital and thus can be corrupted, but too much corruption will result in CRC errors and... things not working.

If you or anyone wants to buy a better USB cable cause it has better looking ends, its shiny, it matches your color scheme, you want it for some subconscious primal reason.... feel free to do so. But don't try and sugar coat your personal preference as scientific truth without expecting pushback.

Steevowww.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kimber-kable-do-high-end-usb-cables-make-a-difference.11272/

Read comprehend then post. EMI doesn't change the audio signal, its digital and thus can be corrupted, but too much corruption will result in CRC errors and... things not working.

If you or anyone wants to buy a better USB cable cause it has better looking ends, its shiny, it matches your color scheme, you want it for some subconscious primal reason.... feel free to do so. But don't try and sugar coat your personal preference as scientific truth without expecting pushback.

In terms of cables I was speaking of cables in general. I've heard bad analog interconnects but not USB. Not that I've really tried but I'm skeptical there is a difference to be heard so its not really on my list of things to spend money on. I have two nice'ish DACs in different rooms, I think one is an Amazon Basic and other is a Belkin.

As to USB, a DAC operates in the digital and analog domain its not just 1s and 0s, any noise introduced in the system an manipulate the system in terms of noise and jitter. There are design techniques to largely mitigate those issues but no system is perfect so the best solution is to not introduce those issues into the system in the first place. That would be the theory behind a high-end audio USB cable.

I don't own any high-end cables or advocate that anyone should buy them, I don't think my system is good enough or setup well enough nor do I think they worth the money spent on the potential benefit. I'm trying to draw a line but what is clearly a scam (this SSD) and what can make a difference, though through very high diminishing returns.

OperandiAs to USB, a DAC operates in the digital and analog domain its not just 1s and 0s, any noise introduced in the system an manipulate the system in terms of noise and jitter. There are design techniques to largely mitigate those issues but no system is perfect so the best solution is to not introduce those issues into the system in the first place. That would be the theory behind a high-end audio USB cable.

But a better shielded usb cable is simply more resistant to EMI for that cable run, i.e. less shit gets induced to the USB signals and ground. It however does nothing, absolutely nothing, to the noise that comes from the USB source.

Unless you are living inside a microwave oven, the 1m usb cable you use to connect your PC to the DAC is not long enough to introduce problems even if it was completely unshielded, regardless of the DAC.

@Dredi/Steevo
nope, just because its digital, doesnt mean it "works or doesnt".

im talking about switching the TYPE of hdmi cable (not brand/quality), one being 1.4, one being certified for 2.0.
customer had upgraded media room, and the new UHD/media player (running 4k/2k from disc or usb),
had issues with picture/sound, as well as not properly responding to remote input.
updated the customer tv and the bd player, no change.
Tried 2 different remotes (even one from 2k player), nothing, while the customers remote would work on my (demo) display.
then decided to run a "certified" 4k cable (2.0), and all problems were gone.

tested the same (1.4) cable with three different tvs (2k/4k) using 1080p BD player without single issue,
so i know it wasnt broken, and i actually kept it for demo use (swapped with customer).

Fry178@Dredi/Steevo
nope, just because its digital, doesnt mean it "works or doesnt".

im talking about switching the TYPE of hdmi cable (not brand/quality), one being 1.4, one being certified for 2.0.
customer had upgraded media room, and the new UHD/media player (running 4k/2k from disc or usb),
had issues with picture/sound, as well as not properly responding to remote input.
updated the customer tv and the bd player, no change.
Tried 2 different remotes (even one from 2k player), nothing, while the customers remote would work on my (demo) display.
then decided to run a "certified" 4k cable (2.0), and all problems were gone.

tested the same (1.4) cable with three different tvs (2k/4k) using 1080p BD player without single issue,
so i know it wasnt broken, and i actually kept it for demo use (swapped with customer).

So it clearly didn’t work, and then did work.
The customer location might have had tighter bends in the cable, more EMI or other stuff that made the difference to the other location.

what the ”high end” folk say, is that changing the cable changes how things sound or look, which is utter nonsense.

nope, as im doing this kinda stuff for 15y, and made sure it was not a broken cable,
by using another 1.4 later on (with a different player of same model with same outcome),
and even if it was, how do I have the same trouble/interference, 15 mls away from his home?

(if you read my post again) it DID work, as image/sound was coming up now and then,
so the "digital works or doesnt", is incorrect.

DrediBut a better shielded usb cable is simply more resistant to EMI for that cable run, i.e. less shit gets induced to the USB signals and ground. It however does nothing, absolutely nothing, to the noise that comes from the USB source.

Any interference / noise picked by the cable is going to go back into the DAC and that has to be dealt with so its going to affect it on some level the question is to what extent. High-end DACs go through a lot of trouble and expense to build very high-quality power supplies and source very accurate clocks for their DACs to ensure that the DAC chip is operating as cleanly as possible. A DAC is both digital and analog so yeah, the 1s and 0s get there from the source and converted into analog sound so it works in the sense you get audio with pops or clicks but internally there is more than just it working or not going on. A poor quality USB cable could certainly introduce enough noise to affect the operation of the circuit. The cable has to have some affect on the circuit, physics dictates it, to the extent that you can hear it? Idk, I'm not really convinced I would but on principle the idea that it could is sound (ahhaaha... punny). Otherwise there is a lot of engineers out there that have all fooled each into building crazy expensive DACs for no reason, nor would there be a reason for optical interfaces and cables exist.

Your view point that it isn't audible is totally valid view point but for those that claim they can hear a difference and purported reasons why are equally valid view points. Its not the same as this audiophile SSD or a audiophile network switch, that stuff is nonsense.

Again I'm not promoting the idea of high-end digital audio cables, my NuForce DAC on my desktop and my Pioneer A9 are both USB DACs and are connected via Amazon and Belkin cable respectively, they are shielded and seem well made so they seem good enough to me. At some point I'll see if I can get a deal on "high-end" USB cable on the used market because I'm intellectually curious about it but I need to build some better speakers first and do some room treatments. My expectations are low.

Fry178nope, as im doing this kinda stuff for 15y, and made sure it was not a broken cable,
by using another 1.4 later on (with a different player of same model with same outcome),
and even if it was, how do I have the same trouble/interference, 15 mls away from his home?

(if you read my post again) it DID work, as image/sound was coming up now and then,
so the "digital works or doesnt", is incorrect.

so basically the cable wasn't capable of the bandwidth needed to run 2/4K content is what your saying then

Athloniteso basically the cable wasn't capable of the bandwidth needed to run 2/4K content is what your saying then

In this case it actually is "works or it dosn't", and in this case it doesn't. There isn't enough bandwidth to push video, audio, and control signaling through the cable. It works sorta but stuff gets dropped intermittently, thats just how HDMI works and handles errors. It would be like forcing a CAT5 cable to do what only a CAT6, if that were possible, which it isn't because nobody wants useless corrupt data.

This is completely different than the implications of cable quality between a source and DAC.

OperandiYour view point that it isn't audible is totally valid view point but for those that claim they can hear a difference and purported reasons why are equally valid view points.

Yup. Although I’ve yet to see any studies that show the usb cables influence to be audible. For whatever reason the premium cable manufacturers never show in practice (i.e. With an independent abx double blind study) that their products are better.

fluxc0d3rI can hear differences in USB cables, that's why I use a Chord USB cable rather than a generic one. Yes, everyone will tell you a digital cable does not make difference- it either works or it doesn't. I am firm believer that better cables do make a difference. Even isolation feet, things you would usually ignore, actually bring out a difference in sound as well. Every little thing brings out a difference in sound, that's why hi-fi is frustrating to those who have can hear a difference and that's why you see many changing out their equipment often- much more often than someone who upgrades their PC components often.

It sounds like snake oil, but even I can see and hear differences between different HDMI cables on my brand new Samsung QLED TV. I went with AOC (optical) HDMI cables in the end as it delivered a punchier, more vibrant, and smoother picture. You can say all these are waste of money, some even say it is money well spent even if the gains are small.

Like X-files
"I want to Believe"

I would guess a large cache might help avoid stuttering.

You really need to get an SSD my friend

Of course cables can make a difference, even in the digital domain, just one example off the top of my head is Nyquist rate and bandwidth. High frequency response can be reduced and even completely nullified by a cable with poor bandwidth.
An oscilloscope probe measuring a digital signal can only measure up to its rated frequency before its sensitivity is reduced, they have a -3dB rating where the probe is rated to have lost half its sensitivity by the stated frequency.

It works until it doesn't, not, it works or it doesn't.

skoolsellaOf course cables can make a difference, even in the digital domain, just one example off the top of my head is Nyquist rate and bandwidth. High frequency response can be reduced and even completely nullified by a cable with poor bandwidth.
An oscilloscope probe measuring a digital signal can only measure up to its rated frequency before its sensitivity is reduced, they have a -3dB rating where the probe is rated to have lost half its sensitivity by the stated frequency.

It works until it doesn't, not, it works or it doesn't.

It either works for a given bandwidth (in a given environment), or doesn’t.

the important thing is that in reality it is extremely easy to know if it works or not, where as these ”high end” people think that changing a digital interconnect will affect the colours on your tv, or how the music sounds.

Dredithe important thing is that in reality it is extremely easy to know if it works or not, where as these ”high end” people think that changing a digital interconnect will affect the colours on your tv, or how the music sounds.

Not trying to make this argument here but this statement is arguing the point on the wrong merit.

The signal is digital, if it gets from the source to the destination without errors then its all the same regardless of what cable you use, thats not in for debate. Drawing comparisons with a TV is not applicable because thats digital all the way through from your source to the processor driving the pixels in the panel. A audio DAC is operating in the analog domain and thats why the cable is a factor. The cable is just another component of the DAC really and any cable that is susceptible to picking up noise and interference is going to have some kind of impact. DAC chips can and will sound differently (better / worse than one or the other) based on how the chip is implemented. It all comes down to how well the circuit is designed, how good the power supply is, and how much noise you are or are not introducing into the system.

Is it going to make a huge difference?, no but it would be similar to the differences of one ESS Sabre power with cheap switching PSU and one that uses and analog toroidal PS. Diminishing returns, marginal gains for sure and probably the last thing anyone should look at but simply saying there can't be a difference because is all 1's and 0's is also wrong.

OperandiNot trying to make this argument here but this statement is arguing the point on the wrong merit.

The signal is digital, if it gets from the source to the destination without errors then its all the same regardless of what cable you use, thats not in for debate. Drawing comparisons with a TV is not applicable because thats digital all the way through from your source to the processor driving the pixels in the panel. A audio DAC is operating in the analog domain and thats why the cable is a factor. The cable is just another component of the DAC really and any cable that is susceptible to picking up noise and interference is going to have some kind of impact. DAC chips can and will sound differently (better / worse than one or the other) based on how the chip is implemented. It all comes down to how well the circuit is designed, how good the power supply is, and how much noise you are or are not introducing into the system.

Is it going to make a huge difference?, no but it would be similar to the differences of one ESS Sabre power with cheap switching PSU and one that uses and analog toroidal PS. Diminishing returns, marginal gains for sure and probably the last thing anyone should look at but simply saying there can't be a difference because is all 1's and 0's is also wrong.

The colours you see on your display are also analog. A bad PSU on a display can cause the colours to flutter, and it is completely plausible that one could design a display so bad that the HDMI input would change how the picture is presented. Luckily tv manufacturers seem to be more or less on top of circuit design when it comes to things like this. And no-one has been able to differentiate even basic quality DACs in blind studies where the signal levels have been matched. For the digital interconnects to bleed some interference (that exceed in amount the human ability to hear) to the analog side just indicate that the device was not designed well.

Your claim that people can differentiate (modern) DAC chips is completely unfounded. The current ones have snr so good that it really is impossible to differentiate them by using hearing alone.

Badly designed products can be identified, but it requires non-flat frequency response, or snr of less than 90 dB (and it gets easy only after 70 dB). Some DACs also do some unnecessary digital processing that can be heard, and there are test methods for determining if that is the reason people hear differences between given DACs.

Steevowww.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kimber-kable-do-high-end-usb-cables-make-a-difference.11272/

Read comprehend then post. EMI doesn't change the audio signal, its digital and thus can be corrupted, but too much corruption will result in CRC errors and... things not working.

If you or anyone wants to buy a better USB cable cause it has better looking ends, its shiny, it matches your color scheme, you want it for some subconscious primal reason.... feel free to do so. But don't try and sugar coat your personal preference as scientific truth without expecting pushback.

Just seen this. Wow. I remember the thing with £50 HDMI cables. I buy the cheapest DP and HDMI cables i can, pretty sure they are fine. I have seen USB cables that are $100/metre, i don't know how they justify it, or who the fuck buys them.

Incidentally here is my favourite DAC, not cheap like.
www.whathifi.com/nagra/hd-dacmps/review

DrediThe colours you see on your display are also analog. A bad PSU on a display can cause the colours to flutter, and it is completely plausible that one could design a display so bad that the HDMI input would change how the picture is presented. Luckily tv manufacturers seem to be more or less on top of circuit design when it comes to things like this.

A modern LCD or OLED's pixels are operating in the digital domain. Maybe the back light is an analog circuit but if its PWM then thats digital too. If the display is "fluttering" then its not working properly, this comparison dosn't make any sense.

DrediYour claim that people can differentiate (modern) DAC chips is completely unfounded. The current ones have snr so good that it really is impossible to differentiate them by using hearing alone.

Badly designed products can be identified, but it requires non-flat frequency response, or snr of less than 90 dB (and it gets easy only after 70 dB). Some DACs also do some unnecessary digital processing that can be heard, and there are test methods for determining if that is the reason people hear differences between given DACs.

All modern DACs are pretty good I agree. 90 dBA or greater is kinda considered what you want to look for, frequency response is relatively easy to get flat but if its not thats tell tail sign that is not a good source. The biggest distinction between DACs is the tonality and distortion they produce and there are many forms of it, different ways to measure it and more ways to interpret the results.

DrediAnd no-one has been able to differentiate even basic quality DACs in blind studies where the signal levels have been matched. For the digital interconnects to bleed some interference (that exceed in amount the human ability to hear) to the analog side just indicate that the device was not designed well.

About the only thing you can safely say is the differences are small compared other changes you can make. The differences exist, thats not debatable, whats audible is but whats the point of that, as that varies from subject to subject and can also be subjective.

Its super hard to just isolate just a DAC and do a blind test and have people hear the differences between different sources (or any other single component for that matter) when they are not familiar with the rest of what they are hearing and/or what they are listening to/for.

I think the best test I've seen is from Archimago's Musings is super long and detailed but I think its really about the only way to do a test like this if you want statistically meaningful results.

OperandiI think its really about the only way to do a test like this if you want statistically meaningful results.

Transparency tests are another great method. I.e. you place different DACs in the audio path, with a reference grade ADC just after, and try to figure out if you can determine in a blind study whether you can spot the ’extra’ DAC in the signal path or not. These can also done remotely, as the output from the ADC can be recorded bit-perfectly.
This test is super hard to pass even with the shittiest of DACs in the signal path. I can post some examples later if you are interested.

OperandiA modern LCD or OLED's pixels are operating in the digital domain. Maybe the back light is an analog circuit but if its PWM then thats digital too. If the display is "fluttering" then its not working properly, this comparison dosn't make any sense.

Light isn’t digital, and modern DACs are basically just some DSP and PWM anyway.

DrediTransparency tests are another great method. I.e. you place different DACs in the audio path, with a reference grade ADC just after, and try to figure out if you can determine in a blind study whether you can spot the ’extra’ DAC in the signal path or not. These can also done remotely, as the output from the ADC can be recorded bit-perfectly.
This test is super hard to pass even with the shittiest of DACs in the signal path. I can post some examples later if you are interested.

It is hard to pass but its also really hard to setup and conduct properly. The test in my link above is one of the few to really do it right and you can see the effort that went into that.

From my perspective the difference between any good DAC is going to be small to begin with so if you aren't familiar with the rest of the system and reference material its pretty close impossible. You need to be familiar with the rest of the gear, the room, and material so that means people listening on their or stuff in their own room (or at least one they are very familiar with) and with music they know well. There is also a threshold in quality to the rest of the system that determines whether or not you are going to be able to hear a difference, a $500 setup from Best Buy isn't going to be good enough to resolve any difference.

I am interested, but I'll be more interested after I've done more testing on my own. Right now I have three DACs (all USB) a Burr-brown in my Pioneer integrated in the living room, a nuForce Icon on my desktop setup and I have a cheap Behringer UCA202 to move around with. I've tested the Behringer against the built in DAC in the Pioneer which is powering custom DIY TriTrix MTs and I don't really hear anything different but I didn't spend alot of time with it either. The TriTrix are also a budget design and while they sound better than anything I've heard sub $500 I plan on building better stuff in the near future. I recently just got some KRK monitors and a JBL sub for my desktop setup so it might be worth trying between the Behringer and Icon in that setup.

DrediLight isn’t digital, and modern DACs are basically just some DSP and PWM anyway.

No the light isn't digital but all the processing is digital until the light gets emitted from the pixels.

With audio the DACs output is analog, which is going to a analog pre-amp, an analog amplifier, and then the transducer (speakers or headphones). The DAC is operating in the analog domain which is why all of this matters.

OperandiNo the light isn't digital but all the processing is digital until the light gets emitted from the pixels.

With audio the DACs output is analog, which is going to a analog pre-amp, an analog amplifier, and then the transducer (speakers or headphones). The DAC is operating in the analog domain which is why all of this matters.

And in a modern DAC all the processing is essentially digital until the signal is output to the preamplifier.

OperandiFrom my perspective the difference between any good DAC is going to be small to begin with so if you aren't familiar with the rest of the system and reference material its pretty close impossible. You need to be familiar with the rest of the gear, the room, and material so that means people listening on their or stuff in their own room (or at least one they are very familiar with) and with music they know well.

And still, these people can’t differentiate between good quality DACs in a controlled blind study (level matched and no other clear faults in how the test is done). Even if it is conducted with their own setups, in their own rooms with music of their choice.