USB cable
Hello, I’m aware that I may be revealing a sensitive subject, I’d like to know if any of you have tested a USB cable to a hifi DAC and what your feelings are and for you is there possibly a cable that would be more suitable than another.
Thank you for your feedback.
Nicolas GUILLOU
This is purely personal preference from fully sighted subjective listening. It’s also rather expensive if you add the cost of a good third party power supply. With those caveats, here’s what I’m using, with a Teddy Pardo “mini-Teddy” power supply:
1 Like
Hello Jud
Thanks for the feedback, maybe I’ll be able to try this cable sometime.
See you soon
1 Like
The optical USB cable that @Jud is using will provide isolation and provide long-distance signal transmission line with very good signal integrity, depending on some inherent factors in the optical system design architecture and the power-supply supporting the USB receiver topology… It is hard to imagine this not being a top-tier USB digital-audio transmission system.
However, how does this compare to a very short USB 3.0 cable transmission to a DAC that supports USB 3.0 input with galvanic isolation or to something like the iFi-Audio IPurifier3 that translates USB 3.0 to USB 2.0 output…?
This issue is inherent in the USB 2.0 cable design protocol that has the transfer request signals residing on the data-lines which precipitate request interrupt noise on the digital-audio signals… In the case of USB 3.0 the transmission request signaling is carried on separate conductors, isolated from the data-lines… Also the USB 3.0 protocol supports a higher throughput bandwidth which translates into lower latency in the signal transmission scheme. It is always best to use the shortest USB 2.0 cable possible… The iPurifier3 facilitates the high-speed USB 3.0 throughput and a clean signal-path from the computer to the DAC as possible via a very short USB 3.0 → USB 2.0 input and USB 2.0 → USB 3.0 request signaling output pathway.
Personally, I believe the Wire World cable design architecture dogma is the way to go in the context of short-path wire-centric transmission of USB signals along the lines of this reasonably priced cable:
2 Likes
good evening Algonear,
thank you very much for your feedback, I will test it and report back on my impressions.
see you soon
Nicolas Guillou
Am I the only one who has the feeling that different products are often advertised by users in this forum (not only in this thread) ?
There may be some who say that these are recommendations, not advertisements, but there is a fine line and an important difference between recommendations and advertisements.
Personally speaking, if I were going to spend xxx dollars on a cable I would rather get that advice from someone who has used the cable and has no reason to hype it other than he recommends the product personally… in my opinion probably more reliable than from any of the industry press. For me I like reading the about products people have used and recommend. Have more faith in the user’s on this forum than the industry media. Also, in light of the issues people have with endpoints and audiophile quality media players, getting information on some equipment I am considering from someone who uses it successfully with Audirvana is invaluable.
2 Likes
I agree with this view, but I still have the feeling of advertising that some users create in me 
I know what you are saying, have seen some posts on other forums which are clearly from marketing departments of companies. However have not seen that on this forum yet. Only recommendations from people who use the equipment and can vouch for it’s capabilities with Audirvana in their playback configuration (or sometimes not as the case may be).
1 Like
@Nicolas_GUILLOU
I can recommend this USB cable:
https://quartzacoustic.com/shop/gotham-gac-4-1-starquad-type-c-audiophile-usb-cable-with-improved-gold-plated-connectors/
It is very well made, reliable, sounds good (IMO) and isn’t very expensive.
I use USB-A to USB-C in 1.5m lenght and have no affiliation to this manufacturer in Singapore.
1 Like
If you take the time to analyze my post regarding this topic, you will see that my recommendation is related to my personal preference, based on technical criteria that is corollary to my description of the elements that affect signals transmitted via USB 2.0 cable design protocol versus USB 3.0 cable design protocol…
I use this Wire World Ultraviolet cable in my USB 3.0 transmission path to my DAC in which the signal flow is: Ultraviolet USB 3.0 → iFi Audio iGalvanic3 → UpTone Audio 4 inch USB A to USB B male ‘cable’ → DAC
You will find that I have described my system configuration in detail more than once in the Community forum…
A question.
If your USB DAC is 2.0, what would be the advantage of using everything in USB 3.0 if when you get to the DAC it only accepts 2.0?
It is explained quite plainly in my initial post in this thread…
But if the DAC only accepts USB 2.0, I can’t see where the improvement is.
I will differ to this Wikipedia article on Super Speed USB 3.0 protocol, as it makes comparisons to USB 2.0 protocol
In USB 3.0, dual-bus architecture is used to allow both USB 2.0 (Full Speed, Low Speed, or High Speed) and USB 3.0 (SuperSpeed) operations to take place simultaneously, thus providing backward compatibility. The structural topology is the same, consisting of a tiered star topology with a root hub at level 0 and hubs at lower levels to provide bus connectivity to devices.
In my USB 3.0 signal flow through iGalvanic3 (the USB 3.0 Hub input to output) the hierarchy reported in the macOS System Report (USB) goes like this, where the input to iGalvanic3 is USB 3.0 (Hub) and the output of iGalvanic3 is USB 2.0 (Hub) to the DAC via the UpTone Audio short ‘cable’ adapter (USB 2.0 Hub)…
> USB3.0 Hub :
**> **
> Product ID: 0x8113
> Vendor ID: 0x2109 (VIA Labs, Inc.)
> Version: 91.01
> Speed: Up to 5 Gb/s
**> Manufacturer: VIA Labs, Inc. **
> Location ID: 0x02610000 / 3
> Current Available (mA): 900
> Current Required (mA): 0
> Extra Operating Current (mA): 0
**> **
> USB2.0 Hub :
**> **
> Product ID: 0x8112
> Vendor ID: 0x2109 (VIA Labs, Inc.)
> Version: 91.00
> Speed: Up to 480 Mb/s
**> Manufacturer: VIA Labs, Inc. **
> Location ID: 0x02200000 / 2
> Current Available (mA): 500
> Current Required (mA): 0
> Extra Operating Current (mA): 0
**> **
> USB2.0 Hub :
**> **
> Product ID: 0x8112
> Vendor ID: 0x2109 (VIA Labs, Inc.)
> Version: 91.00
> Speed: Up to 480 Mb/s
**> Manufacturer: VIA Labs, Inc. **
> Location ID: 0x02210000 / 4
> Current Available (mA): 500
> Current Required (mA): 0
> Extra Operating Current (mA): 0
**> **
> TEAC UD-501:
**> **
> Product ID: 0x8043
> Vendor ID: 0x0644 (TEAC Corporation)
> Version: 1.00
> Speed: Up to 480 Mb/s
> Manufacturer: TEAC Corporation
> Location ID: 0x02211000 / 5
> Current Available (mA): 500
> Current Required (mA): 300
> Extra Operating Current (mA): 0
My interpretation… The advantage is reduced EMI due to USB 3.0 packetizing protocol and increased transmission speed, (recieve and transmit signaling speed) and bandwidth, which translates into dramatically reduced latency in packet transmission between iGalvanic and my USB 3.0 bus controller card hosted in my Thunderbolt 3 PCIe expansion chassis, where it resides along with my PCI power buffering and filtering card… The short USB 2.0 adapter card from iGalvanic3 to my DAC, reduces the potential for noise on that connection input and output due to the very short path length which translates into extremely low data/signaling latency while in the USB 2.0 domain.
This would make sense if every system was USB 3.0.
If the DAC is USB 2.0, everything else is running on USB 2.0.
The question really is about how the Host USB bus controller manages the transmit and receive signaling from iGalvanic or iPurifier3 USB 3.0 Hub output and how the data is packetized when a USB 3.0 Hub input is presented on the USB 3.0 connection, in this particular USB 3.0 → USB 2.0 connection scenario…
(Note)
What I can tell you is there is an audible difference when I connect iGalvanic3 to my USB 3.0 interface with a WireWorld Starlight 8 USB 2.0 cable. (possible cognitive bias)
(Note)
What you see in the macOS System USB report is the iGalvanic3 recognized as a USB 3.0 Hub, then you see within the iGalvanic3, an internal transition to a USB 2.0 Hub that is connected to the UpTone Audio USB 2.0 Hub (adapter) that connects to the DAC… In the case of iPurifier3 we would only see one (1) USB 2.0 Hub connection to the DAC.
By the way, I also liked the less expensive cable I was using previously, though not as much as the current one. If you would like to look at something more affordable, I have always liked the cables, including the USB cable, from here:
A great drawback of WW cables is that USB-C to USB-C termination is only possible up to a lenght of one meter, way too short for my application.
"USB 3.0 and 3.1 Gen 1 cables don’t have an official maximum length, but their recommended maximum is around 2-3 meters in length or around nine feet. Like USB 2.0, you can extend this with a powered USB hub, potentially linking a few together to extend your run, but there are far better solutions for longer USB 3.0 cable runs.
“The maximum length for USB 3.0 and 3.1 was maintained into the final USB 3.0 Type-A specification, known as USB 3.2 Gen 2. It was also mirrored in the higher-performing USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Type-C connections, which also had a nine-foot maximum cable length.”
…
“However, USB4 cables, which leverage the USB Type-C connector but can transmit data at up to 40 Gbps, only have a maximum recommended cable length of 0.8 meters or around 2.6 feet. That goes for both the existing 40 Gbps cables and the USB4 80Gbps spec cables which will see greater use in the coming years.”
2 Likes