USB type Interconnect quality for a Mac or PC to a DAC ?

I do not have any 'audiophile' cables but I was astonished to find two specific cables making a difference to the sound of the DAC-V1. I normally use it via SPDIF on a desktop, but now have it on a laptop. I used a Belkin 'gold series' USB cable and thought the frequency balance was 'dark' with pronounced bass. I had another cable that came with a Maxtor HDD. Using this one I immediately heard a more balanced presentation (the way I am used to hearing it)! Funnily enough the Belkin works very well with another DAC I have - so I can't point to the cable as such. Moreover they both give bit-perfect results with the DAC-V1. It must have something to do with the DAC design itself (a little beyond my understanding).

I would not spend too much money on a USB cable but I would certainly try a few within my budget to see which one (if any) worked best with the DAC!

For the record my experience, observations and thoughts on the matter are similar to the above post.  I did buy an audio grade USB cable in the end, and felt there was a significant gain to the performance, I would describe it as bringing a richer and more full bodied sound, and with more punch.  However, this change was made at a time when i wasn't completely happy with the sound from the system, and ever hopeful that the latest tweak would rectify the situation.  And with this and many other tweaks, for a couple of days in some cases, I'd believe I was there, but then this same feeling that something was lacking would return.  I therefore wonder if, I'd done things a different way round, such as adding an SN2 (that was what I call an upgrade in SQ,,,,oh yes) into the mix before messing around with cables, whether the idea would have even occurred to me.

However, if the curiosity is already there, and you're anything like me, the wallet is already wide open, and the inevitable purchase will follow.  If USB cables do make a difference, well, an audio grade cable from the manufactures you mention are unlikely to perform worse than your current cables, and if they don't, at least your system will be as good as was before.

For information I chose the Furutech Formula 2, which has had some really good reviews, is really well made, and I believe does make a subtle, but worth having improvement.

I went through some USB cables in the lab and found one that snaps everything into focus for the DAC-V1. It is a cable that I suspect came with an old HP printer . It has markings: AWM 2835 30V 60 deg C UEI  E-177865 Cheng  USB 28 1P/24 AWG 2C . I suppose that is a twisted pair for data and  2 bigger conductors for power made by Universal Electronis Inc.?

I've put a new tag on it 'DAC-V1'.

Hah yes I'd agree that when it comes to assembling a new setup, especially Naim audio for the very first time, the wallet is already wide open for anything else that comes along afterwards.  It could be a case of 'in for a penny in for a pound', as I found out when choosing the optical interconnect from a Mac to a DAC. The WireWorld Supernova 6 came highly recommended on this forum and others.  This was to try out as a substitute for a QED equivalent (mini-TOSlink to TOSlink). Sound quality seemed different, with the WireWorld being more detailed and creating a darker tone.

A startling revelation! Old printer cables or other peripheral cables hanging around seem to be the best bet to start with. One type of cable design for audio- USB cabling which appears different to others are the 'flattened' WireWorld cables.

+1 for the Chord USB Silver Plus.

Excellent cable, marked improvement over the ones that come as standard in the box.

For connecting a computer to a Naim DAC via USB I have found the impact of USB to S/PDIF converters on sound quality to be more significant than the impact of USB cables, please see https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...nverter-for-naim-dac. I use SUPRA cables for USB and optical Toslink connection (computer to USB to S/PDIF converter and computer to Naim DAC, respectively). SUPRA cables are well made and not terribly expensive. I use Naim DC1 (BNC-BNC) for connecting the USB to S/PDIF converter to the Naim DAC. I am not sure the DC1 is better than the Mark Grant cable I had before (and which is now too short for the current setup). Best, nbpf

I had this dilemma so I decided for what a Mit audiophile USB cable cost it was worth a punt. It stops you wondering but as to the sonic improvements I'd say they are marginal.

i run a auralic Aries into a chord Hugo 

This is the cable I use from my iMac to a v-link192 (originally into the DAC)

It completely isolates the data conductors from the power conductors and allows you to connect a separate power supply which vastly improves sound quality.

I did try connecting both dabbles to the iMac, but the separate supply sounded much better

Regards...

Moderated Post:  No unauthorised commercial links in here please, thank you.

if using a USBisolator of any kind (and there's amother thread discussing those of the SPDIF convertor kind), then it is doubly hard to see shy the USB cable should make any difference.

I prefer to think of the v-link as an extremely good USB interface implementation - just so happens it has a SPDIF output  - i.e. rather than as an "isolator"

- it provided much better sound quality than the Schiit Bifrost USB interface (mk II)

Granted - it does "pass through" the digital signal - but if that signal is degraded in some way it effects SQ

This is where cable architecture is very important especially on a USB cable.

Believe it or not - the various conductors inside the cable itself are responsible for induced RFI/EMI noise across to other internal conductors... 

- if that noise gets into the power conductors it pollutes the USB fed power supply of either the DAC or the SPDIF converter (whichever is connected to it)  - which is not that good to start with - and in turn it effects the USB interface circuits and ultimately the digital output signal. .

- alternatively,  if that noise gets into the signal conductors it will degrade the signal

Either way the digital signal is effected and degraded SQ is the result

NOTE: this only effects those components whose USB circuits utilize the power supply from the USB port on the computer

- If the component provides  power to its USB circuit via it's own power supply the above is not a factor

I have tried a few "standard design" USB cables...

- Computer USB cables - were the worst

- DH Labs USB - very much better than above

- my own Spiral design cables which provides much better internal  RFI/EMI protection and superior to the DH Labs cable

I have also tried them straight into the DAC and via the v-link and the results were very similar - the SQ was degraded

Using a "twin cable" USB solution provided the best SQ by far...

- mainly because the  power and data conductors are separated

- But the cleaner power via a standalone supply also made a significant SQ improvement

For cables like the onw I use just Google "Power supply and USB cable separate audio signal cable"

Please note - I have no affiliation to the cable provider - I'm just making this info available to members so they can maximize their own personal sound quality.

Hope that clarifies things a little :-)

 i should perhaps have clarified, if an isolator/SPDIF convertor is used, as discussed on the other thread, and is worth its salt by having its own power supply, then the USB cable to it from the computer or whatever is irrelevant. And that gives the benefit of isolating unwanted RF etc from the computer...

Originally Posted by Innocent Bystander:

IB - I would not consider any cable connected to a quality audio system to be "irrelevant"

Even if the "Converter" has it's own power supply, the choice of a cable using quality copper like the DH Labs or perhaps the Chord USB SilverPlus can make a significant difference.

Combine poor construction/architecture with mediocre materials and the ability of the cable to transmit an error free digital signal is severely compromised due to it's inability to respond quick enough to the rise and fall of the digital signal and can make a hi-res file sound more like internet streaming from a very low-res source.

What complicates this issue further is the fact that a DAC is designed to "fill in the blanks" (within reason) - so if a cable drops a few "bits" we never really know it -  until we hear what's missing :-)

But - having a very good converter with it's own power supply may appear to mitigate the shortcomings of the usb cable - when compared to a more "affordable" model.

Just sayin :-)

"may appear to"? Does that mean a more expensive one could make the sound 'right' without actually fixing anything? that's probably not what you meant, though if it is then I'm not familiar enough with different ones to make any comment about magical effects like this, however do know that it is not just expensive ones that have their own power supplies, as some of the cheapest do.

regardless, the effectiveness of any convertor/isolator will depend on the state of signal it receives - and as suggested in other threads not all computer outputs have detectable deficiencies, when compared with a Naim source, while where they do, whether from the computer or from the cable, or both, some less expensive convertors can extract the signal adequately, again referenced to a Naim source.

And and there are numbers of responses in other threads that suggest that pretty 'bog standard' USB cables are capable of passing a signal un-degraded, making the value of esoteric cables even more debatable than some other cables in the audio system.

...or too long. A 5m USB1.0 certified cable will usually suffer degraded performance and not meet the maximum throughput requirement.

In fact, in testing, I find that at 5m, Almost no USB cable is able to deliver the maximum data rate of the USB standard it was certified for (1, 2 or 3). Rarely run into problems at 3m except for the cheapest crap, but at 5 even the expensive ones struggle. This is both a problem with attenuation of the signal and the fact that the USB port has trouble driving the cable.

Hmmm, I've taken a gamble and ordered a Furutech ADL Formula 2, partly for its recommendations but also to give a 'just right' fit at 1.2M in my layout.  The bog standard(?) USB cable that comes with a Chord 2Qute is 3.0M and leaves an untidy heap when laid from Mac to DAC, so perhaps for the sake of a less shabby view it will give some returns.

I've used plenty of Furutec stuff and it is serious good quality. Naim also use the odd Furutec component here and there. In fact, they use Furutec plugs on the non UK PowerLine. I would be surprised if the USB cable was anything other than excellent. Though, I would expect any USB cable of 1.2m to allow a perfect data transfer. How good the shield the receiving end from getting unwanted vibration and RFI on the other hand is another matter.

I'm sure the cable will be excellent.

No - A more expensive converter has a better USB interface circuit which in turn allows more expensive cables to transfer more of the data (and maybe all of the data) - the DAC is the thing that makes it sound "right" - that is , as right as it is able to.

Very Basically...

A DAC takes the data stream and "connects the dots" to recreate the waveform.

However - if the DAC encounters a brief "gap" in the samples, due to dropped bits during transmission, it will use the surrounding samples and interpolates a "best approximation", hence avoiding pops, clicks and dropouts.

How do the "Gaps" come about - a USB connection to a DACs uses isochronous transmission - basically the computer creates CRC's but because it's "real time" transmission the DAC ignores them.

- so if a problem is indicated by the CRC and data is lost there is a gap between two or more samples - but the DAC fills in those gaps with an "approximation".

Whereas when transferring data from a hard drive to a computer - if a CRC error is detected the data packet is re-sent until the CRC flags the data packet as "correct" - hence a complete file is ALWAYS transferred.

If you want more detail see this PDF file

https://download.xmos.com/XM-0...c3MjMtV1AtMS5wZGYiXQ==

The converter basically only takes what data it receives and "re-packages it" into a SPDIF format with the correct timing bits etc... - if there are  errors in the data packets sent - they are still in the SPDIF data stream and then the DAC performs its  "best approximation".logic.

so - if your cable transfers data successfully to and from a USB hard drive - it is NOT a guarantee that using that cable for USB transfers from a computer to a DAC (or converter) via a USB link will result in a complete data stream being transferred down that cable.

- you are just not hearing what's missing :-)

If you want more detail see this PDF file

https://download.xmos.com/XM-0...c3MjMtV1AtMS5wZGYiXQ==

The converter basically only takes what data it receives and "re-packages it" into a SPDIF format with the correct timing bits etc... - if there are  errors in the data packets sent - they may still be in the SPDIF data stream and then the DAC performs its  "best approximation".logic.

A really good converter may also have logic to "approximate" dropped samples - making the audio waveform sound better - but it does do a better job of correcting things like jitter and timing issues.

Regards...

Oh dear, I think our wavelengths are far from attuned here...

What I was challenging was 1) that expensive USB cables are necessarily any better than relatively cheap and cheerful ones, especially if a USB isolator is used following it (yes, of course with its own PSU so corrupt power doesn't pass on the problems); 2) that with a USB / SPDIF isolator/convertor any rf interference from whatever source, the computer or the linking USB cable is irrelevant; and 3) that a more expensive USB / SPDIF isolator/convertor is necessarily any better than a "more affordable" one.

This has nothing to do with DACs. Meanwhile, whilst you are right that excessively long runs can cause problems - which is why many longer cables come with inbuilt repeaters - I am moved to wonder if many people have such a long distance between their renderer and DAC, as key components in the replay chain, though maybe some do. That aside, patently data loss by USB cables is a potential problem in any use, albeit that in some data transfers checksum errors are used to identify and resend until integrity is assured, however of some relevance is that the data transfer rate of audio streaming even of the highest resolution files is low compared to many other data uses, low even compared to USB 1.1 standard, let alone 2.0 and 3.0, so is less demanding of the cable than many other data uses, insofar as data integrity is concerned.

I managed to use a 9 metre USB cable betwixt 'puter & DAC, via an iFi supply, for years without problems. I was initialy worried about this so went to the bother of buying a Mac Mini, optimising it for audio replay, and having an 0.75m cable connecting it to the DAC. Result? No different.

Because I use my 'puter for photographic work rather a lot these days I've recently gone back to the Mini and started to use the iFi supply's Gemini cable. The latter certainly made a positive difference to sound quality, much to my surprise.

OK - let me address the following from your post...

1) that expensive USB cables are necessarily any better than relatively cheap and cheerful ones, especially if a USB isolator is used following it (yes, of course with its own PSU so corrupt power doesn't pass on the problems);

The isolator/converter addresses some of the issues that arise from using affordable cables - but a  quality cable will always sound better because more, if not all, of the data stream is getting down that cable unaltered

2) that with a USB / SPDIF isolator/convertor any rf interference from whatever source, the computer or the linking USB cable is irrelevant; and

You may well be right - but RF is everywhere and may impact the isolator/convertor itself - also the additional SPDIF cable that links it to the DAC itself may be impacted by RF

3) that a more expensive USB / SPDIF isolator/convertor is necessarily any better than a "more affordable" one.

I cannot speak to all expensive isolators/convertors, but from what I have read Empirical Audio's Off-Ramp is supposed to be extremely good at what it does. Having said that - expense does not guarantee effectiveness :-)

My experience...

I have tried connecting all of the different USB cables I have mentioned directly into the DAC, and found audible improvements based on "cable quality"

When I introduced the V-link192 I tried those same cables again to see if something magical would happen specifically using the more affordable "computer based" cables

-  again I found that a  better quality cable still made an audible difference.

However - I have not tried isolators like the Off-Ramp - so you may be correct :-)

Regards...

I was surprised as well that USB cables can affect how the DAC-V1 'sounds' (all testing bit perfect). USB is a specification which goes into detail on how a cable is to be made and what parameters it must meet (propagation delay, signal shape/loss, interface, etc). If a cable is tested to meet spec - it is unlikely to 'lose' bits in use unless it is subject to extreme EMI.  USB standard shielding and twisted data pair may not be adequate in some cases (e.g. in industrial settings) but should be okay in most homes. Of course there may be  cables from cost savers out there that ignore the spec altogether. IMO - as a courtesy the vendor should include a standard certified cable that they approve for audio use with their DAC. Could it be that NAIM does not do this guessing that most people will chuck it and go buy a 'boutique' one?

For the record, my USB cable between Mac Mini and Gustard U12 XMOS isolator/convertor is the standard one supplied with the Hugo (possibly not a lowest-grade 50p cable, but nothing very exotic either), and as I have previously mentioned, the sound now from Audirvana on MM into Hugo is at least as good as ND5XS into Hugo, so any USB artefacts/degradations arising from source and/or cable are negated (unlike before inserting the isolator/convertor). 

And there I shall leave it as I think I've made my points. The important thing is that we all find what works for us in our systems - and hopefully some bits from these exchanges might help, if they echo what seems to be happening in any individual setup. 

I posted the following onto another thread, so apologise for the dupe, but suspect it was off-topic for the other thread, and that may have gone cold anyway. It seems on-topic here.....

If we are talking about the iFi Gemini cable, or equivalent, I am still struggling to "get" the concept behind this.  Well, I partially get it, but not fully.....

The idea of separating the USB power from the signal seems sensible enough (I assume this is achieved by removing some connector strips within the two 'A' plugs ?).  BUT, is it fair to assume the USB bus goes to the same lengths of isolation/separation ?  I would guess not, and if the upstream section allows for potential interference between power & signal, to what extent can that be mitigated downstream (in the cable) ?

Also, at the B plug end of the cable, the 2 components seem to be merged again.  Would that not simply cancel out the 'benefit' brought by the cable itself, and carry any USB power noise into the DAC ?  A DAC which, incidentally, may not even need USB power at all.  I can see a case for offering another cable design which picks up and carries signal only, for use with self-powered DACS.

Appreciate any further insight to the technical goings on with this cable, which might allay my concerns above......

PS  I'm not suggesting that the Gemini doesn't work, or doesn't sound better, etc.  I'm just wondering about how/why it works.

^Don't they ultimately want you to buy the iUSBPower for the Gemini? -a presumably 'cleaner' than your computer power supply