Fat USB cable vs. skinny USB cable.

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cupboy

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
4,885
Location
UT, USA
I bought a USB to USB-B cable at Radio Shack last year that has gold connectors and have been using to play my downloads.

Recently discovered I already had a cable, apparently included with something I bought, and it's twice as thick, but also twice as long, and has non-gold connectors.

Which would you think is better, and would have less jitter?
 
I bought a USB to USB-B cable at Radio Shack last year that has gold connectors and have been using to play my downloads.

Recently discovered I already had a cable, apparently included with something I bought, and it's twice as thick, but also twice as long, and has non-gold connectors.

Which would you think is better, and would have less jitter?

As long as they don't have any damage or other physical defects, I'm sure they're both fine. Neither the thickness nor the gold (or lack of same) has any predictable effect on any difference in jitter that might exist between the two. Plus, there's absolutely no solid research to indicate that any difference in any electrical characteristics between two properly functioning USB cables is ultimately audible, even if it's measurable.

Seriously, man: Beyond a few practical considerations (adequate gauge/length etc.), pretty much all this cable folklore (especially digital cables) is just nonsense. Plug it in and enjoy the music.

-- Jim
 
Thick cables can actually be bad. The tend to be more rigid and therefore imposing more strain on the connectors. It is certainly a problem for HDMI due to the bad design of its plugs. USB is more robust in this sense but I still always prefer a flexible cable over a stiff one.
 
Let me add that looking at skinny vs. fat cables, you are not necessarily looking at any change in the actual conductors. Many vendors simply cloak standard cables in fancy dress to impress.
 
Let me add that looking at skinny vs. fat cables, you are not necessarily looking at any change in the actual conductors. Many vendors simply cloak standard cables in fancy dress to impress.

I wonder if the dressing affects capacitance and stray interference, and is it applicable to USB cables like it is to phono leads.
 
I wonder if the dressing affects capacitance and stray interference, and is it applicable to USB cables like it is to phono leads.

I do not believe there is a general answer to this as it will depend on what the dressing construction is. It can be entirely passive.
 
I wonder if the dressing affects capacitance and stray interference, and is it applicable to USB cables like it is to phono leads.

USB (& HDMI) cables have twisted pairs and are often shielded - to improve upon the twisted pairs inherent rejection or suppression of emitted interference (they won't be perfect but need to meet EMC/EMI regulations - like FCC, CE). So if the pairs are individually screened, the dielectric effect of the insulating material coating of the individual wires in the twisted pairs will dominate over the effects of the overall coating. If the twisted pairs are grouped in a single shield then coated, the electric fields will be slightly effected by the dielectric material of the surrounding twisted pairs, so produce a small capacitive effect, but again not affected by the overall coating. If the twisted pairs were not shielded at all, then the outer coating will have an effect as the electric fields will pass through the outer coating altering the capacitance seen by the twisted pairs.
 
I bought a USB to USB-B cable at Radio Shack last year that has gold connectors and have been using to play my downloads.

Recently discovered I already had a cable, apparently included with something I bought, and it's twice as thick, but also twice as long, and has non-gold connectors.

Which would you think is better, and would have less jitter?

Here's the bottom line with digital signal cables. (And USB cables carry digital signals only.)

Regarding errors from poor or broken connections - it's either working or not. On or off.
A poor error riddled connection can work intermittently and the computer will try to deal with resulting errors and/or buffer underruns as best it can. But if you have a good enough connection and any noise picked up that is far enough below the signal level - the ones and zeros still come out ones and zeros on the other end.

Here's the point:
If you EVER see an advertisement for a digital signal cable with talk about subtle signal degradation issues associated with analog signals - it's flat out BS. No exceptions! Digital cables do NOT carry analog signals.

You want a quality cable that doesn't break. No more. No less.
A thicker cable can be a better made cable and hold up to handling and use longer.
If both the thicker cable and the thinner cable are working correctly there will be no difference in performance.

Anyone trying to tell you that some aspect of the analog signal is improved by different wire in a digital cable is either grossly misinformed on how the system works or (more likely) a snake oil salesman.

The whole point of digital is to reduce everything to be represented by strings of ones and zeros. Then when the circuits (built from analog components) see .9V or .8V on the other end instead of a perfect 1V, it's still interpreted as 1V. (And of course a .1V or .2V level = 0) Only when the connection gets bad enough that everything comes back as .5V does the system break down and fail.

If the digital signal makes it from one end to the other without error - you have 100% perfect success!
If it doesn't, you will either get an error message or very obvious dropout errors in the audio stream.


Now, errors like this CAN be difficult to troubleshoot at times with fast modern computers. They can detect errors and try multiple times to send data. If this happens quickly enough, you can have success with a partially broken cable and be none the wiser. Or just get the occasional crash that's hard to pin down immediately.

But if the digital audio gets through, there will never be analog domain effects like subdued highs or dynamic transients and so forth.

Buy quality cables so they don't just break.
If you see advertising touting analog domain concerns - they're intentionally lying and selling BS (and probably a cheaply made cable to boot).
 
According to this reviewer, you could get away with just spending $250 for a one meter cable, but it won't "nail the midrange" as well as a $1,195 cable will.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/art...sletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-409

Cable claims always make me want to get on a soap box and rant :confused:. So predictably after reading it, it was :flame & :nuke, especially after this snippet "The Clarus USB nails the middle range of the musical spectrum with a fullness of body, a timbral warmth, a transient alacrity, and an overall honesty that calms and relaxes the ear. As I listened to Laurel Massé’s luminous a cappella performance of “How Can I Keep From Singing,” I was struck by how persuasively warm and articulate the character of this cable was. Its balance and its light touch with vocal sibilance were excellent." Who says drugs don't do any harm, shouldn't have ingested a Thesaurus either. Undoubtedly the advertised manufacturer will be happy! ...........

..........I suppose it does keep people employed! :)
 
According to this reviewer, you could get away with just spending $250 for a one meter cable, but it won't "nail the midrange" as well as a $1,195 cable will.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/art...sletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-409

Ohh, man... I shouldn't read that stuff just before I try to turn in for the night. The only redemption to be found is in the comments section, where this "review" and its defenders are summarily (and correctly) ridiculed. I'm a bit surprised the editors haven't removed them, since they more than negate the article itself. I wonder if they feel a subconscious need for penance when they dump these little buckets of hogwash out onto the street.

-- Jim
 
I'm a little taken aback at how bold the bs is regarding digital signal cables. This kind of bs is usually written very subjectively for overpriced analog device snake oil.
But the projection of analog domain phenomenon on a digital device is either relying on a zero level knowledge of what digital even is or it's just laughable sloppy in its dishonesty.

You'd hear the sounds of a telephone modem if you listened to the signal flowing through a digital cable. Just ones and zeros going by. Nothing even remotely subtle. Which is exactly why the system was designed that way. Encode a subtle analog signal into easy to transmit ones and zeros with no chance of the subtle corruption that happens with analog signal transmission. And when digital signal degradation happens - it's usually pretty far from subtle. You won't maybe here some subtle change in the midrange. More like clicks/pops/distortion that makes you jump for the volume control!
 
Yes, some audiophiles just can't stand the thought of good sound attainable at an inexpensive level so they are compelled to muck it all up with their gobbledy gook. It's hilarious and sad (because they cause gullible audiophiles much money) at the same time.

Doug
 
The only difference in digital cables is the speed data can pass through them. If the cable does not check out when the connection is set up, it, it is downgraded to a slower bit rate that will check out.
 
Back
Top