Furutech GT2 USB Cable (Playback 26)
Making the Most of USB
December 21st, 2009 -- by Chris MartensSource: Playback
.jpg)
In October, 2009 I posted a blog on the AVguide.com Web site describing my initial reactions to Furutech’s GT2 high-performance USB cable, which were favorable. I thought then, and think now, that the cable made positive differences that most any listener with a reasonably decent sound system could hear and enjoy.
Little did I know at the time that the blog would become a magnet for critical commentary from self-proclaimed “real electrical engineers” eager to stamp their feet, make disparaging comments, and to argue (or even to “prove”) that high quality USB cables can’t possibly make an audible difference. My thought: perhaps engineers—like politicians—would be better creative problem solvers if only they were not blinded by what the late President Reagan might have termed “the things they know that just aren’t so.”
Thus far, my practical observations have been that A) there are indeed sonic differences between USB cables (despite what some techno-pundits would have you believe), and that B) good digital audio cables can and do make beneficial sonic differences you can easily hear. Can I explain why the cables make a difference? Not necessarily, but that doesn’t change my observations.
Thus, my challenge to skeptics is a simple one: set aside your preconceptions and carefully compare USB cables playing actual music through your preferred reference USB DAC in a good sound system. See what (if any) differences you observe. If one cable does consistently sound better to you than another, then you’ve found a good thing. If not, then no real harm has been done (apart from having enjoyed a good evening of music, which is surely not a bad thing).
Having lived with the Furutech GT2 USB cable for several months now and having tested it with a number of USB DACs, I’ve decided to expand my original blog comments into the review you’re reading now. But before I go any further, some background is in order.
USB for Digital Audio: Terrific Convenience, But What about Sound Quality?
Millions of music lovers have found it desirable to store their music collections is on the hard drives of their computers (or on attached outboard storage devices), and more often than not USB has become the digital audio interface of choice for those PC-based music systems. Most if not all of today’s computers sport USB ports, so it comes as no surprise that, among audiophiles who favor computer-based music systems, there has been an explosion of interest in USB DACs. There’s no denying the appeal of having all your music stored in one place, neatly cataloged, and ready to play at the click of a mouse button—provided, of course, that there’s no penalty in sound quality. Ah, but there’s the rub.
Many audio reviewers and other music lovers have discovered that when you play identical digital audio files through USB and then through S/PDIF interfaces on the same audio DACs, the resulting sounds you’ll hear through those interfaces are not identical. While user comments vary somewhat, many listeners perceive that the “S/PDIF sound” is typically smoother, more focused and refined, and more three-dimensional than the equivalent “USB sound”—differences that might be attributable either to the interfaces themselves or the quality of the cables used to carry the digital audio signals (or perhaps both).
Some readers will find these statements unbelievable—or perhaps the products of overactive audiophile imaginations. But again, I would encourage skeptics or really anyone interested in PC-based audio systems to conduct the experiment for themselves. Get a DAC that has both USB inputs and S/PDIF inputs and then try playing identical lossless audio files through one interface and then the other. Take notes on what you hear. My bet is that you’ll find differences that are real, easy to observe, and that follow roughly the pattern I’ve sketched above.
Helping USB Be All It Can Be
On one hand, USB interfaces are extremely convenient and more or less ubiquitous. On the other hand, it seems the sound quality of digital audio as played through USB interfaces, though admirable in many ways, is really not all that it could or should be—and typically not as good as what you’d hear through S/PDIF interfaces. Now obviously few of us are in a position to influence or improve the USB interface specification, but one thing we can control is the quality of the USB cables we use—essentially trying to remove the cable as a potential source of noise, jitter-inducing internal reflections, or other digital audio data transmission problems. Furutech believes USB-based audio systems are potentially “capable of smooth and detailed sound,” but contends, “you need quality, well-engineered and built USB cables to get there.” This, of course, is where the Furutech GT2 USB cable comes in.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
This is the kind of black magic that makes me shake my head and cry. I make peace with it by reminding myself that freedom of religion is a fundamental part of a civil society.
Hey, I've wasted more than $100 and hookers and booze ... who am I to criticize Chris? ;-)
I don't buy these claims either. Reads like an advertisement.
Data is data, is data, is data. USB cables making a difference in music, hogwash.
commenter,
I once thought as you do, in the sense that I was convinced that "bits is bits" and "data is data." But several experiences (comparison tests) forced me to re-evaluate some of my core assumptions. Since the comparisons I made are tests you, too, can easily try, let me list some of them for you to consider.
1) Try listening to the exact same digital audio data (fed, say, from a universal disc player playing a garden variety CD) through the S/PDIF, Toslink, and HDMI digital inputs on an A/V receiver. Since the data is always the same, and so is the DAC, you'd think the sound quality would be identical through all three interfaces, right? But do they sound identical? Try it and see what you think.
2) If you happen to have access to an iPod, a Wadia Model 170 iTransport (which can accept digital audio files directly from the iPod), and a decent DAC, try capturing a couple of music files in WAV format and then Apple Lossless Encoding (ALE) format and loading them on your iPod. Now try playing them through the Wadia iTransport and DAC. In theory, these files should be bit-for-bit identical when played back and should therefore sound the same, right? But do they sound identical? Try it and see what you think.
I've tried both these experiments and heard differences where I didn't expect there would be any. I'm left to conclude that something is causing audible playback differences, even in circumstances where the digital audio data, itself, should be a constant.
Your thoughts?
Best,
Chris Martens
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
Dude, digital data is either on or off. It can't be more on or more off, just because you paid $100 for a cable.
Analogue cables I get, but $100 digital snake oil cable? Try another one.
This utter lack of understanding of how digital signals work makes me queasy. I can't believe a self-respecting publication would allow tripe like this review to tarnish its name.
I will give $10,000 to the reviewer if he can correctly identify the Furutech USB cable in a double-blind test with an off-the-shelf USB cable from Monoprice.com, if he agrees to give me $1000 if he cannot.
If Chris accepts, and Scott is interested, I'll help front the $$$. Chris has my email address.
Well, I should reread before posting, as I left out a part of my offer. I didn't mean a single test, as that's just a 50/50 proposition. If he can make 10 guesses, and have at least 8 of them be correct, then I will pay. Same ratio ($10,000/$1000) as before.
Again with the reread. 9/10, not 8/10.
Scott,
Try parking your arrogance at the door.
I actually do understand digital signal transmission (and packet data schemes, and error detection/correction methods, and signal clocking issues, etc., etc.) fairly well. In fact, I used to work in the high performance storage industry, working with what were (at the time) cutting edge, high-speed digital data interfaces. Given my background, I am--in a sense--just as puzzled by my review findings as you are offended by them.
For what it's worth, I came to this review with some strong technical biases, but not the ones you might expect. Frankly, I was more than half convinced the cable would not (and probably could not) make any discernible differences in sound quality, but that is simply not what I observed.
My guess is that you probably have not tried the comparisons I outlined in my review. So here's my suggestion: try the comparisons (double-blind or not--whatever floats your boat) and see if you hear any sonic differences, small or large. If you don't, then feel free to dismiss the review (I'm OK with others not hearing what I hear, although it doesn't happen very often). But if you do hear differences, and I think that you will, then you'll have learned something worth knowing--more or less for free.
Look, I don't want your money, and I certainly don't have enough to give you any of mine. So, let's not talk about wagers. Instead, let's do what audiophiles and music lovers have always done; let's try some reasonably well-organized listening experiments (you in your house, me in mine) and see what we can learn.
If it helps any, let me say that some part of me really didn't want to believe the Furutech cable could make a difference. But the fact is that it did and USB audio in my system sounds better for it. Is that so wrong?
Best,
Chris Martens
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
Chris, i think that most (almost all?) people would agree there are some rather well-established principals that explain why the phenomena you've described shouldn't occur. Why don't you take a shot at providing a thesis for why they might? This would be a huge improvement on the pseudo-mystical descriptions you've provided.
I think a key issue is a difference in understanding of what is "known". Some would say that because of timing differences in the data potentially caused by cables, coupled with the sensitivity of inputs and D/A converters and filters to data timing, it seems more accurate to say there are well-established principles that suggest there might be sonic differences resulting from cables.
I would add that I don't read a description of sound as pseudo-mystical -- it is just a description of what is happening and thus less removed from experience than all the attempts to posit theories (models) for why things occur. Maybe I'm missing the part that concerns you.
There are, I suppose, different epistemologies here. One could say "I have a theory, and when experience differs from theory, I trust the theory". One could also say "I have a theory of how things work, and when experience differs from theory, I recheck my experience and examine my theory for possible improvements." The latter, as I read it, is the way of scientific progress. One could also say, as I think reviewers do (and probably should) "My job isn't to have a theory, my job is to make observations; others can use those observations to develop a better theory."
I'm tired of all the posts about "bits are bits". Discman is right - there are all sorts of issues, like timing (jitter) and filters, that can make digital audio sound different in different setups.
The only "religion" here is the worshipping at the simplistic "bits are bits" church.
I, like many others, am convinced you can't hear a difference. Rather than back-pedal and claim there's no 'time' for such a test, take one or admit your own confirmation bias is enabling you to hear what you think you should.
Charlatans of all stripes – psychics, water diviners, astrologists, chiropractors – reject testing because they don't want to live in a world where facts are immutable, not agreed on. Pick a side. It's fine to be a 'believer' but it's also fine for us to ignore those who ignore the scientific method.
My read is that Chris has done a test (he describes what he did). My read of your comment is that you want him to do a test using a different methodology. My read is also that he is inviting you to try his method, which I believe you are rejecting. If Charlatans reject testing (your premise not mine), then that would seem to make you a Charlatan. Since I doubt that's the case, why not drop the heated language?
Perhaps a simple description of a practical additional test would be useful? With some explanation of what that method does that contributes to our knowledge beyond what listening to equipment does.
There is no mystery about the general correct methodology to use for a controversial psycho-acoustic claim. It must be double-blind. A century of acoustic research has, if nothing else, demonstrated that.
For someone to wave their hands and say "double blind or not, who cares" shows they don't understand how hearing works at all. Period. I'm not saying anything that's controversial or obnoxious. It's simply objectively true.
Whether you were "surprised" or not isn't the issue. It is well established that only double-blind evaluation is valid as a methodology. And it IS wrong for you to publish articles based on merely your "perceptions."
My understanding is that there is room for disagreement about double-blind testing; in any event, I assume Chris didn't do that, so we don't know what he would have found.
OTOH, I will say I think there is good reason to challenge the idea that "perceptions" are not valid. The most basic of these is that observations are the closest methodology to what we really do when we're listening. All other methodologies move farther away from that condition. That increased distance doesn't render other methodologies useless, it just means that there could be (and probably are) multiple methods for acheiving useful data. To act like some methods are useless and others perfect or singularly useful just doesn't make sense. Most science involves using multiple methodolgies because there simply isn't a singular or perfect approach. Trying to deny this tends to move us out of science and into dogma. I don't see how that helps.
Horses**t. Do you want your airplanes, pacemakers, pharmaceuticals, etc designed based on perceptions?
THere is NO WAY that substituting one (working) USB cable for another will influence sound quality. Period. Any magazine that publishes this crap isn't worth reading, and I won't read this one in the future.
We have a name for those that act only on inner perception, and ignore reality. Crazy.
If the objective of a device or system is to create a perception, then the use of perception as a testing method can make sense. When perception is the objective, then restricting "reality" only to phenomena other than perception is questionable (there are reasons to use non-perceived measurements, but this has to be done carefully and -- interestingly -- almost always with reference to perceptions). Not trying to criticize your strongly held beliefs, just pointing out what makes sense as I think about it.
The examples you supply mostly have different objectives. Though, truth to tell, I would like my airplane seats designed with quite a bit more perception as test method and a lot less use of rulers and medieval torture manuals!
I'll contribute another $5000 if he agrees to give me $500 if he is proven wrong. It may not be enough though, Scott, because Furutech may have upped you and I combined!
I am with you...this is the kind or articles, if condoned, that justified people laughing at us "audiophiles" as snobbish dumb bastards. Chris' opening paragraph trying to justify his previous article is either totally meant to mislead, or he has just shown how clueless he really is. How can we trust AVGuide on reviews on real high end equipment, if they condone ridiculous items like this?
Data is intact or it isn't. It's either correct or rejected. Have you ever used an external hard drive and compared its performance with and without a "premium" USB cable? You'll probably find that your files don't get any more smooth and three dimensional with an expensive cable. That being said, there could possibly be a noticeable difference between SPDIF and USB since the device sending SPDIF data is also sending the clock signal (unless externally synced). USB is packet data. It is not sent in realtime. Therefore, the interface/converter receiving the data is (unless externally synced) generating the clock signal. It all depends on your particular device(s). Neither SPDIF nor USB automatically have better quality than the other.
Spent a day at the local HiFi shop a while back comparing HDMI cables...I'd picked up the cheapest cable that Best Buy sells, along with what I would consider a decent product....compared it to every HDMI cable that they had in the Shop, the only cable the $$$$$ hi priced cables beat was the cheap Best Buy cable, sorry boys, but I'm not buying the USB cable voodoo either.....IC's and speaker cables, I'm all in, but not these.
Where does it end? How can you truly see the potential of your audiophile USB cable if you're still using a pedestrian SATA cable? I bet gold-plated hard drive platters would increase the soundstage tremendously!
The funny thing is this article (which if done in April would make a good April fools joke) undermines the whole magazine. How can I trust any other article after this one?
What you would test with digital data is to make sure the data comes through correctly. A REALLY bad cable may cause the data to get corrupted. But as long as the data one the end is the same 1's and 0's as the beginning it does not matter if it is a $10 or $100 cable. Now certinaly the D/A conversion can make sonic differences, but a cable? Impossible...
Most of the comments posted here, to the effect that "bits is bits" so a cable cannot make a difference, are based on two assumptions: (a) the handshaking routines employed in USB data transmission guarantee that the correct bits get through, even if a packet has to be resent and (b) the timing of the bits is irrelevant. However, from my reading on the PC Audio forum in the audioasylum these assumptions are not valid. The USB audio protocol is different from that for USB data transmisison and it does not call for handshaking routines to ensure that the correct bits get through. Also, timing does make a difference. It would not do so if the data were captured in a large buffer and reclocked back out to the DAC chip or other, intermediate processing. Howver, from what I have read, the buffering in most implementations is fairly minimal, so that timing differences (jitter) are at least partially transmitted. Keep in mind that the transmission of the zeros and ones is an analogue process, with zeros and ones being indicated by different voltage levels. Since these voltage levels do not change instantaneously, in practice the receiving end has to monitor those changes to determine when the bit has arrived. To the extent to which the voltage change happens quickly, the determination of the timing is more accurate. However, to the extent to which noise on the USB power wires induces noise on the signal wires, this noise is added to the signal and interferes with the accurate determination of the timing of the bits. A good USB cable for audio applications will therefore isolate or otherwise shield the power wires from the signal wires, to minimize this cross-over effect.
I realize that not all will be convinced by what I have shared. That is OK. But those who can hear the difference in the cables may find it reassuring that there is theory to support the differences that they hear.
I suggest that the blind test be conducted with a highly resolving, low jitter system, such as one using a Wavelength or Ayre DAC using asynchronous USB or with an Empirical Audio USB DAC. Once jitter (i.e. timing inconsistencies in the arrival of the bits) from other sources is minimized, differences in cable-related jitter will be much easier to detect. I am not familiar with the Futuretech USB cables, so I might suggest using top-of-the-line USB cables from Locus Design or Ridge Street Audio, as they are the leaders in the field. The cable skeptics should not object, since if the test goes their way, they would not want the cables-make-a-difference crowd to complain that it was not a good test. And, assuming the test shows no difference, using really expensive cables would heap much more scorn on the cables-make-a-difference crowd.
Now feel free to flame me! But do the test!
Bill
Bill,
you offer some cogent points worth testing... of course, Chris Martens didn't do any tests. Data transmission, regardless of what's being carried, can still be tested and a joint like this should be doing that. AVguide, though, is like most crap audio web sites and they do no testing of anything. We're expected to believe that what some jackass claims to have heard is gospel truth.
I'm not drinking that Cool-Aid.
All the best of the season,
jeff
Let me explain this in terms that might be easier to understand:
If there was a difference between your "data grade" cable and the Furutech GT2 cable, and you used them both to hook up a USB hard drive and copy files between your computer and the hard drive, you would not end up with the same file on both ends of the copy operation. Your documents, JPGs, audio files, etc would be corrupted. Copying a file is way more demanding on a cable than audio is, since more data is transferred in a shorter amount of time. Think about it: If you copy a five minute audio file, it takes what, about 10 seconds? If you play the same file, it takes five minutes to transfer the same data.
Also, if we're going to go through all of this for nothing, why don't we take the extra step and build the computer using audiophile-grade SATA cables? What about the motherboard traces? You do know that when the audio data comes out of the cable and goes into the computer, it does so over bare wires that are soldered onto a board, right? No gold, no fancy acronym'd copper production technology. Plain old copper soldered using RoHS solder. Once it leaves the connector and goes into the motherboard, it's transferred along the surface of the motherboard on a thin strip of copper that is coated with a thinner film of resin. How does that color your music? :)
Once again, I stand appalled at the lack of basic critical thinking skills exhibited by certain audio reviewers.
Posters: Data isn't music. Data -> music involves a conversion process. There is an analogue component to D<->A conversion, read up on D<->A conversion theory and have a think about why a digital cable *might* influence the end anologue output. And please stop using the terms 'data' and 'ones and zeros' interchangeably with 'music' as though they are the same or that flawless movement from one domain to the other is somehow a given thing.
Anonym, your illustration shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how this process works. A usb cable ONLY transfers _data_ from point a to point b; if doesn't matter if it's excel files, pron, or music. The D->A conversion happens entirely at the endpoint. If the data is delivered correctly (and usb ensures that it will be) the cable has absolutely no other impact on the end result of the process.
Seriously, this article has to be a troll intended to generate hits that the publishers can show to advertisers. If that's the intent, they should be careful; this kind of cr*p pushes me close to the point of never reading again.
No, your fundamental misunderstanding, Transferring digital files from one place to another is a 'yes' or 'no' procedure they get there or they don't. Jpeg, word document, whatever, D->D involves no D->A conversion. D->A is another matter. I'm not going to spoon feed this to you, do some reading and try and understand the process. Here's a clue, cable quality doesn't make any difference when transferring the realtime output of an A->D converter to a computer (unless it's so poor as to be to the point of data loss), but it does affect the sound quality when converting realtime in the opposite direction. Now why might that be?
You say 'do some reading' and I'm all for that, but I think 'do some listening' should be added. Some of the comments posted here are making me laugh out loud - I just hope AVguide doesn't hear that a reader or two has had a stress related MI after reading this article.
I used to read the same cable war articles way back when I used a CD transport and DAC and wondered why some folks wasted so much time typing when they could be hearing what a phenomenal improvement a decent digital cable can make to MUSIC reproduction. I was a skeptic at first, so I asked my audio dealer to loan me a few cables to try out and I was shocked at how much a cable can affect the listening experience. I now firmly believe that cables are components unto themselves and now use them to 'tune' my system.
I don't know whether it's the quality of the wire or the connector or the design of the cable, but in my experience, the cable is just as important as the components they are connected to, even in the digital realm.
Thanks, Greg.
It's been well documented that double blind tests are required due to the subjective nature of music.
Did you do a double blind test?
I'll bet you $1,000 you couldn't tell the difference if a true scientific test was setup.
If you *know* that you are using these cables, they *will* sound better. That doesn't prove that they do sound better, it proves that when you know it, they sound better.
Now I doubt the rest of the magazine, I'm going to probably unsubscribe. Total waste of time.
== John ==
I now use a USB DAC and headphone amp. If this device is hooked up to a USB port directly on the computer, with NO cable, is this not even better?
The self-righteousness in the comments is impressive but unjustifed. I'm an objectivist engineer and agnostic about cables myself, but come on people. To belabor the obvious, copying a file creates a bit image. Like most networks USB is packet-oriented and data is delivered in discontinuous chunks to be reassembled at the far end. A file copy doesn't care when the next packet arrives. But I doubt even the bits-are-bits crowd would argue that timing of audio signals is less than critical or that cables can't possibly affect timing. Microseconds make a big difference to your ear. Different DACS use different strategies of varying effectiveness to reconstruct the disjointed bitstream without undue jitter. Reasonable people disagree on how much is too much, but saying there isn't any effect is simply ignorant.
Every time one of these reviews of a USB or HDMI cable show’s up, the reviewer, after immersing himself in the slick literature then uses the product, knowing he’s using an expensive and superior product declares how wonderful the product actually is. Then come the postings about how the reviewer is self deluded. When is someone going to do a review based on a real double blind test? It should be that hard to do, hide the cable, and have someone swap the cable on a random basis, listen to the system and write down the results. Then publish the results. You actually should do this on a lot of the snake oil that passes for high end audio.
Chris,
Here's a completely objective way of comparing the two cables, and one you should appreciate as someone who has a background in storage. Select a test file. We'll make it a music file, just for kicks. Install this program:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/841290
It's the Microsoft File Checksum Integrity Verifier (FCIV) utility. Use it to generate an MD5 hash of your FLAC file. Now, copy the FLAC file to an external USB hard drive using your "data-grade" USB cable. Using FCIV, generate another MD5 hash for the file that has been copied to the USB hard drive. If the MD5 hash is the same, the data that went into the cable came out exactly the same on the other end.
Repeat the same process using the Furutech GT2 USB cable. You'll find that the MD5 hash is the same as the one generated after the file copy with the "data-grade" USB cable.
This test confirms that digital data (which is what is being transferred when you play audio from a device through a USB cable) is identical going into the cable and coming out of the cable, regardless of whether it's a $5 Monoprice.com cable or an expensive Furutech cable.
I would advise you to see an audiologist or neurologist if you are hearing a difference between two identical sounds.
-Ivan
Ivan,
The methodology you propose is an interesting one and I may give it a try to see what I find.
But, here's a creative problem-solving question you might be able to help with: can you think of a way to use the checksum verifier integrity utility (or something like it) to examine the data stream directly as it comes off the cable (i.e., without first passing the data to a hard drive)? That would be a very interesting test.
Thanks for replying. You're thinking is running along much the same lines as my own on this subject.
Open-ended question: Have you tried comparing sonic results when using various purportedly lossless audio compression algorithms vs. uncompressed files? I've talked with colleagues who have done checksum integrity verifier tests to see if the resulting data is really bit-for-bit identical to the uncompressed files (and I'm told that it is, though I've not personally conducted those tests). Even so, when compared side by side, do you find the files actually sound the same? Your thoughts, findings?
Best,
Chris Martens
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
I may misunderstand the test (probable!), but does this only check data or does this test also verify that the two cables passed the data with exactly the same timing?
Please, just borrow the cable or one like it, grab a tumbler of your favourite beverage and listen to some music for a while. If you don't hear any difference then return the cable and move on.
In your last sentence you say ' two identical sounds' but in every previous sentence you are referring to data. Perhaps this is where there is a disconnect. Again, I urge you to LISTEN to MUSIC.
BTW, last time I checked, journalists who review audio equipment are professionals with perhaps thousands of hours of listening experience and who are paid to give their opinion. Perhaps some of them have spent thousands of hours using checksum integrity verifier utilities, but I doubt it.
Thanks, Greg.
Chris has actually listened and heard differences. I've also compared a generic USB cable vs the Kimber and the Transparent USB cables. All three sound different from one another and it is not subtle on a high resolution audio system. I suggest you naysayers do some empirical research -actual comparison listening- before offering conjecture based on incomplete theories alone. If you can hear a difference but can't measure it, you aren't measuring it completely or are measuring the wrong thing. Trust your ears if you can hear, acknowledge the differences honestly, then do some actual research work to explain the phenomenon if it bothers you that you can't figure it out yourself. Dig further: ask a seasoned, credentialed electrical or digital engineer or a physicist and you will be surprised at the reasons they offer that could explain these differences. If any of you bother, then post them and we'll compare notes.
It has always driven me a little nuts when I've read reviewers comments that have attributed analog qualitities to digital equipment that does no D/A conversion, especially, when they have heard differences that cannot exist. I'm agreeing with the majority, here.
As stated earlier, in a fashion, prior to the D/A, it's all just data. I realize the problems with USB interfaces ( hey, guys, Firewire has none of these and that's what us pro's use), but, a well-designed buffer/accumulater should render these problems moot. Benchmark has worked it out, but, then, they actually design & build their own circuits (spare the final D/A). Most of the non-pro companies feign proprietary circuits, but they get most of the stuff off the shelf and, maybe, give it a tweek.
Anyway, back to the subject... Furutech sells all kinds of voodoo crapola that they claim makes a night and day difference in your audio experience without offering one shred of evidence that it works. That Chris Martens wants to promote this means he is either a shill or a moron. If he'd like to refute this, do a real review and actually run some measurements on the cable (bandwidth, data integrity, error rate, etc.). Of course, that would mean doing work and it could prove that he's heard no difference at all.
Honestly, this has always been a crap web site for objective opinions and testing of equipment. This latest embarrasment for them shouldn't suprise anyone who visits here often.
AVguide sucks!
jeff
If you think this website is so crappy, then the obvious question is why do you continue to read it? This couldn't be the first time you visited because you refer to other articles and you even take time to create a meandering long-winded diatribe that gets a little too personal. Take these insults over to youtube - they live for this kind of stuff.
Please read my comment above and try it - if you don't hear any difference then at least you got to hear some music.
Thanks, Greg.
With respect to differences in timing, I'd be curious to know how many of you are utilizing bitrates on your audio that are pushing the limit of the 480 Mbps USB 2.0 protocol. Uncompressed CD audio (which I know isn't the end-all/be-all of audio quality, but it's certainly higher than a lot of the audio most people are pushing through their digital audio devices) has a bitrate of 1.411 Mbps, so even at CD quality, there is way more than enough overhead in the USB 2.0 connection for it to resend packets numerous times without falling behind with respect to timing.
If bullshit would be a web page, than this is it! Haha, lovely to read a story by a guy who belives that the usb cable changes and cures an overly bright treble!
Merry Christmas! Yes, Santa exists!
Lasse,
As you can see from some of my comments above, I didn't come to this review thinking, expecting, or believing the cable could affect sound quality one way or the other. But once I plugged the darned thing in and gave it an open-minded listen, I had to admit it made a beneficial difference.
It's not like I **wanted** that outcome: it's just what happened.
So about this "open-minded listening" thing: my thought is that you should give it a try some time.
Best,
Chris Martens
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
Hi Chris
The issue is most of the world (those without unlimited budgets) NEEDS you to be wrong. The more digital elements in the audio food chain, the greater the opportunity for the masses to experience the joys of high end audio. If we could keep the source digital all the way to the speakers, the world of competitive, low cost, digital electronics should make high quality sound available to many more people.
So back to the problem. If you can hear a difference (and I'm not doubting you can) then we have to know why. The fundamanetal principals (and promises) of digital says this should not be so. Nor should it be solvable purely by making it cost more. One possible explanation is the cable you are testing is "masking" the true problem. Perhaps it's electrical interference on the cheaper cable causing a downstream problem in your DAC? Perhaps the buffering technique in your DAC is insufficient to overcome the timing problems of packet based data transfer.
The weakest link in the food chain is where digital meets analogue. When speakers themselves can move speaker cones by digital servos fed by the original digital music file, then perhaps expensive analogue components will be forever banished. Until then, we need to focus on the handover point. The DAC must be engineered to receive the transferred digital file into a data buffering solution - within the boundaries of transfer rates and timing - that ignores all other electrical pollution. If this were true in your current setup, then the cable argument should be moot.
I also come from the world of end data storage but at this point, I'll hand back to the qualified engineers amongst us to help explain why you can hear a difference on a USB cable and more importantly, what has to be fixed to ensure you can't.
Wayne
Wayne -- interesting post. Thanks. As for what engineers say, from what I read above, this seems important (from an engineer):
"We tend to think of digital processing as on – off and nothing in between. However, modern sigma delta DACs are configured with analog comparators and filters that operate with an environment of continuously changing voltages or currents. When jitter is introduced to clocks or the internal timing of the DAC is not good, the outputs and decision states from these analog functions become cast in stone before or after the time when responses would have been correct. Now a tally or sampling command produces an artifact or error. The jitter not only propagates as itself to cause some distortion but also produces conversion error and both are memorialized in filters involved with ongoing samples."
I don't fully understand how jitter causes these errors, but there is a strong statement from a guy who designs digital product that it does. Now, all the discussion above about error correction and data accuracy and so on seems reasonable until you read this, but since the data discussion seems to ignore the timing of the bits, which I believe is what jitter is, it seems like something is missing.
As you say, if the engineers have explained why timing can matter, then we need to know if different cables cause timing errors, if we're trying to follow (one of) your thoughts.
You should have had someone else plug it in and hide it from you, then randomly swap it with other cables, from the $10 standard cables, to the what I consider the overpriced one for people with more dollars then sense. See want the statistics actually are, then report back.