Ruark MR1's & Musical Fidelty v90 DAC

Associate
Joined
5 Apr 2014
Posts
1,476
Hey all :). Thought id post my question here also after I posted on sound city. After different views on cabling. I recently got cables for my speakers and DAC. One optical cable and the other A to B usb cable. Now after different views I've seen cheaper cable makes no difference to sound aslong as its good material. The cable I purchased was nikkia f4om maplins. Whats other's views many thanks.
 
Not the cheapest but something about £5-10 is what I get when it comes to digital cables. I like a bit of braiding and sometimes I get them for colour reasons so I can tell which one is which in all the spaghetti at the back.
 
This is going to upset a lot of people....

On Wednesday last week I listened to a demo of a system with two different USB cables....... and they did sound different.

The source with a medium spec laptop with USB 3.0 out. I think the software player was iRiver, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Music files ripped as WAV.

The audio hardware was

Teac UD501 DAC running on 44.1kHz LINK £600

Onkyo P-3000R 2 ch pre-amp via analogue in on phono/RCA LINK aprx £1000

Onkyo M-5000R 2 ch power amp LINK £2,500

KEF Reference 203/2 speakers LINK £4000/pr

The two cables heard were:

Chord USB SilverPlus (£45) LINK and the Chord Signature USB Tuned ARAY (£400!!) LINK

Now, before the usual chorus chime in their disapproval, some other background info....
I wasn't looking to hear this as a demo. I'm not looking for any kind of USB cable for audio, so I have no interest in either. This was something that happened to be going on in the store as I came in to calibrate a projector. The listening was being done on the sales floor of the shop, so there was a bit of street noise. The shop floor had loads of other speakers and TVs around. i.e. this was not some kind of specialist dem room. The mains was as dirty as you like. The pre-amp volume was left set, as were the DAC settings. The only change in the system was pausing the music and swapping the cable.

The music selection was varied. Some Blur, Beatles, Miles Davis, Mary Chapin Carpenter amongst others.

I haven't heard the £45 Chord cable against a bog standard USB cable, so I can't comment on that.

The first track up was Blur's Boys & Girls from the album Park Life. It was played on the £45 Chord. Then the cable was changed to the £400. TBH, I was quite shocked at the difference. Suddenly notes and sounds had a shape and layering effect that at first was quite jarring. There was positional space between each thread in the mix, and instruments had a very defined position both in width and height. There was no real sense of front/back depth to the soundstage from either cable. That may be more to do with the environment though.

At first I found the sound too brittle, too unrelenting. It was possible to pick out all the faults in Albarn's vocal. There was a strong sense that this was a multi-tracked recording where each player's contribution was recorded solo to a backing track and then mixed together in post production. The cheaper cable was less ruthless but also lacked the precision. The vocal wasn't as pin point and the small details in the sound weren't there.

Later we tried the Miles Davis track So What from the album Kind of Blue. The recording is from 1959. This would have been recorded as a single pass with all the more expensive cable was somehow allowing a cleaner signal through that offered more insight in to the recordings.

I have some sympathy with those who say digital is digital. In the wrong system then I think it would be easy to come to that conclusion. This goes for the differences in a lot of electronics too. Even as I listened to and fro on the same tracks I got accustomed to the two different sounds. Speakers make such a big difference to the presentation of the sound that any system would have to be very broken to mask those differences. But I can see how the differences between electronics can be glossed over. So I fully expect there'll be a lot of folk who'll say this was all placebo. It's pointless wasting time on the same old arguments. The other often quoted line is "It makes no difference to my printing". Quite correct. If the data flow for printing was as fast as for music then a document would be sat ready in the print tray before the finger bottoms out the print key or mouse click. They're two very different things.

USB has just two connections for the data signal (Data +ve and Data -ve) and uses differential signalling which is the same principle as balanced audio to get rid of noise picked up on the line. That doesn't eliminate data errors though. So my gut feeling is that the error correction inherent in USB can be heard. The less hard it has to work then the the cleaner the signal.


[Dons flame-proof suit and awaits the onslaught :D ]
 
Wow, did you know the other cable was more expensive or was it a double blind test?

Unless you take away the knowledge and remove the placebo effect...then I honestly can't take any comments like that seriously, even I don't trust myself when it comes to stuff like that after I know the name and label on the packaging.

Another point is that "it is only as strong as the weakest link", so unless every connection is of the same quality of the £400 cable, which I seriously doubt, otherwise every amp and CD player would costs £50k or something, then I can't see how a digital cable can make things sound better. All it takes is one solder joint not using the same quality component.
 
Last edited:
USB cables? Sound?

Having done a lot of USB based software development:
1) USB is a loss-less protocol that has retries if the packet is corrupted. This is done at the framing layer. The USB loss-less protocol can transfer data fast enough for sound - although there is a streaming mechanism that can drop frames.. there's no need to because the current rate is fast enough..
2) Therefore it's why data is transferred and not corrupted.
3) There is only ONE mechanism where a cable could cause a problem - NOISE - where the cable allows noise that causes packet time-sensitive packet streaming.
4) USB cables and devices must provide to a minimum spec to have the brand of USB and the Full Speed / High Speed / 2.0 / 3.0 etc. That spec has noise maximums.

Therefore- I can see only one of three logical explanation:
a) a cable is being sold as USB that does not comply to the USB standard for noise and electrical characteristics.
b) a device is being sold as USB that does not comply to the USB standard.
c) device design has a flawed design.

[pats the Vorlon planet killer]
 
Last edited:
Lots and lots of words to explain why magic might happen

Apply Occam's razor. It's not the cable, it's not your ears, it's the bit between them which is getting confused.
 
Wow, did you know the other cable was more expensive or was it a double blind test?
No, it wasn't a double blind test. Try to live in the real world a bit, eh? I walked in to a store to calibrate a projector. The guy I had arranged to see was doing this when I walked in. He said "Here, have a listen to this". That was it. I worked out they were USB cables from looking at the PC and reading the front display of the DAC. I had no idea about cost nor even that they were the same brand until after we got on to the second track.

Another point is that "it is only as strong as the weakest link", so unless every connection is of the same quality of the £400 cable, which I seriously doubt, otherwise every amp and CD player would costs £50k or something, then I can't see how a digital cable can make things sound better. All it takes is one solder joint not using the same quality component.
I'm not sure your point is being made very clearly here. Both cables worked. I suspect that a Poundland USB cable would have delivered a signal too.

I don't think the "weakest link" argument holds so well with Hi-Fi. I know from experience that there's usually scope to improve the quality of the signal going in, and at least some of those benefits will be heard in the signal coming out. The weakest link argument negates that possibility. You can put it forward as a theory. But like all good theories then doesn't it have to correspond with observed behavior?
 
£400 USB cable. The mind boggles. Surely 1's and 0's are the same regardless of what cable they go down *shrug*
 
what length was the cables?

i heard someone talking about this the other day and basically the shorter the cable the better when it comes to USB due to timing errors.

so if it was like a 10m+ then that is why you could hear a difference, if your looking to buy a 1-2m cable then anything under £10 from a decent manufacturer would suffice I imagine.
 
No, it wasn't a double blind test. Try to live in the real world a bit, eh? I walked in to a store to calibrate a projector. The guy I had arranged to see was doing this when I walked in. He said "Here, have a listen to this". That was it. I worked out they were USB cables from looking at the PC and reading the front display of the DAC. I had no idea about cost nor even that they were the same brand until after we got on to the second track.

I'm not sure your point is being made very clearly here. Both cables worked. I suspect that a Poundland USB cable would have delivered a signal too.

I don't think the "weakest link" argument holds so well with Hi-Fi. I know from experience that there's usually scope to improve the quality of the signal going in, and at least some of those benefits will be heard in the signal coming out. The weakest link argument negates that possibility. You can put it forward as a theory. But like all good theories then doesn't it have to correspond with observed behavior?

I don't subscribe to the thinking that one can improve the signal at all by using some cable.

The signal is complete, finished and 100% the moment it leaves that CD player or HDD or SSD, everything else after it is equal or lower than 100%. Where does it improve from? And does it improve to 110%? If that works then why not put rusty iron in all components and then solid gold for the last mm of the connection?

What I subscribe to is you pick the best component to minimum signal degradation and keep it as close to the original as possible from one end to the other.

I am starting to get into Guitar gear and in some respect, it has some similarity to HiFi, except they don't' go the whole 9 yards of £400 USB cable, they like the idea of a good quality cable but when they describe a component, they call it "tone suck" when it makes their tone worse. They don't think any component can make it better (in terms of signal), the best and cleanest is when plug direct from Guitar to Amp. Adding pedals in between has the potential to "suck" tone. I would apply the same logic here to HiFi. There is no improvement, but mere minimise loss. The weakest link totally applies here and you can actually tell by taking a pedal in and out of the chain.
 
Last edited:
USB cables? Sound?

Having done a lot of USB based software development: [Lucid: Interesting. How does that translate to the physics and mechanics of cables? Were you working to the the standard or doing something to recognise and correct issues with signal loss in cables?]
1) USB is a loss-less protocol that has retries if the packet is corrupted. [Lucid: So what you're saying is that the data transmission method doesn't introduce any additional compression, but if something is broken then it goes back and has another go. So unlike analogue and HDMI which have to get the signal transmission right the first time, USB can keep going back until a point where it runs out of time to get that particular bit right?] This is done at the framing layer. The USB loss-less protocol can transfer data fast enough for sound - although there is a streaming mechanism that can drop frames.. there's no need to because the current rate is fast enough..
2) Therefore it's why data is transferred and not corrupted. [Lucid: I'm not so sure about that.]
3) There is only ONE mechanism where a cable could cause a problem - NOISE - where the cable allows noise that causes packet time-sensitive packet streaming. [Lucid: So capacitance, inductance and resistance can't change the shape of the wave form?]
4) USB cables and devices must provide to a minimum spec to have the brand of USB and the Full Speed / High Speed / 2.0 / 3.0 etc. That spec has noise maximums. [Lucid: Isn't that just a way of saying that as long as it conforms to a minimum acceptable standard then it's okay?]

Therefore- I can see only one of three logical explanation:
a) a cable is being sold as USB that does not comply to the USB standard for noise and electrical characteristics.
b) a device is being sold as USB that does not comply to the USB standard.
c) device design has a flawed design.

[Lucid: Can't rule out any of the above, but then again I can't rule out the possibility either that certain products are made that exceed the standard]
 
Last edited:
Correct me if i am wrong but I think the USB standard means 100% signal transmission, meaning, all 1's and 0's makes it to the other side.

The standard isn't at 80% and some better cables is at 85%.

Otherwise none of these USB cd players would work, all the software that loads from it will be corrupted.

That's the whole idea of all digital cables being the same and there are no "better" digital cable that can improves signal. Since there is nothing to be improved upon, it is not a wave form, it is not a curve, it is a long list of 1's and 0's.
 
I don't subscribe to the thinking that one can improve the signal at all by using some cable.

The signal is complete, finished and 100% the moment it leaves that CD player or HDD or SSD, everything else after it is equal or lower than 100%. Where does it improve from? And does it improve to 110%? If that works then why not put rusty iron in all components and then solid gold for the last mm of the connection?
Ah, yes, I see the confusion. Just let me clarify. What I meant was that by changing something in the signal chain such as using a better CD player, turntable, cartridge etc then it's possible to get closer to the original signal from the media source.

,<SNIP>Adding pedals in between has the potential to "suck" tone. I would apply the same logic here to HiFi. There is no improvement, but mere minimise loss. The weakest link totally applies here and you can actually tell by taking a pedal in and out of the chain.
I think we have different views here. Maybe it's the language? Adding/changing various elements contributes to the overall sound. But sticking a £100 pedal in between a £3000 Rickenbacker and £2000 Marshall stack wouldn't make it all sound like £100 guitar in to £100 practise amp, would it?
 
Correct me if i am wrong but I think the USB standard means 100% signal transmission, meaning, all 1's and 0's makes it to the other side.

The standard isn't at 80% and some better cables is at 85%.

Otherwise none of these USB cd players would work, all the software that loads from it will be corrupted.
Well from what NickK was saying USB includes provision for "drop frames". i.e. it's acceptable to lose parts of the data stream is the signal is too corrupted and it's unable to be corrected in the time allowed. Wouldn't that constitute something less than 100% of the signal?
 
I should qualify by saying putting a BAD pedal into the chain can suck tone.

Price doesn't really matter, as long as it has true bypass, the ability to bypass the entire circuit when not in use.
 
what length was the cables?

i heard someone talking about this the other day and basically the shorter the cable the better when it comes to USB due to timing errors.

so if it was like a 10m+ then that is why you could hear a difference, if your looking to buy a 1-2m cable then anything under £10 from a decent manufacturer would suffice I imagine.

1m and 1.2m
 
Well from what NickK was saying USB includes provision for "drop frames". i.e. it's acceptable to lose parts of the data stream is the signal is too corrupted and it's unable to be corrected in the time allowed. Wouldn't that constitute something less than 100% of the signal?

It would go back and fetch the data until it gets it, or your video will have weird artefacts, and none of your program will install.
 
If only the OP had known before hand what he was letting himself in for by starting this thread in the Hi-Fi section. He should have stuck to what replies he got from the thread in the Sound City section.

It was simple: Do more expensive cables make a difference? No. Seeking answers to the same question from audiophiles, was always going to ask for trouble. :p

Hearing is unique. No one else is able to hear exactly what any given person is hearing. If someone says that they can hear a difference by introducing so called 'better' cables to a system, are they wrong? If someone else says they hear no difference, are they right? Who decides?

Having an endless debate over whether or not expensive higher end cables make a difference to a sound system based on scientific approach, is a waste of time. People go round and round until it turns into a flame war. The only to find out for sure, is to compare cables in a blind test and stop one's 'beliefs' from coming into it. If person A can tell expensive cable is better after a blind test and person B says that he/she cannot distinguish any difference, then it comes down two people having unique hearing from one another and not any beliefs or placebo.
 
It would go back and fetch the data until it gets it, or your video will have weird artefacts, and none of your program will install.
Programmes.... sure. Transfering and storing a data file for a programme or photo isn't time sensitive. So of course the two devices will communicate until the file is either complete or the transfer fails.

Moving data to stream music or video doesn't offer the same time advantage though. Is a DAC going to buffer the entire music file stream before playing ot out?
 
Back
Top Bottom