Do you hear differences between different digital SPDIF cables?

[Lee]

Recently I got into a heated discussion with pro engineers and audiophiles on facebook on the sonic differences between DACs. I have gotten in a Synergistic Galileo SPDIF which I noticed improved the sound a lot. The pro engineers that I know jumped in and said I was hearing things as you only need a 75 hm SPDIF to get it right. Their claim is that with Phase Lock Loop tech, any well-engineered receiver should be able to handle the jitter and error correction properly.

I did some more A/B testing and sure enough, I still heard the Galileo presenting more music detail and a richer sound all around.

At this point, noted digital expert and designer Gordon Rankin (Wavelength Audio, Audioquest, etc.) jumped in and said it was not right for those commenting to assume it was a bad cable when they had not heard it. It seems Gordon feels digital is very complex but cables can matter. He feels the same about usb. There is some speculation about only a handful of cables producing a good "eye pattern" when tested on a TDR device but I think it is safe to say, we may not actually know why these cables sound different.

So I was curious what you think of digital SPDIF cables? Do they sound different or is it all snake oil?

 

[DaveC]

Yup, they definitely matter. And I don't think coax works that well but I'm biased as my S/PDIF is a litz type cable.

 

[Kingsrule]

I can say that the differences between the clock cables connecting the dCS DAC and Upsampler is significant, so yes I hear differences

 

[Lee]

Thanks guys for the replies so far.

One thing that Gordon stated which was interesting was that he feels that RCA connectors cannot be 75 ohm due to their design.

 

[ack]

I posted under the my system thread a while ago that with a Transparent Reference XL SPDI/F cable the Alpha DAC and the Vivaldi were losing sync; this was not the case with a cheap Canare or an older MIT I have (wildy different price points too). Noise is a factor, but otherwise, a well engineered SPDI/F cable (which apparently the Transparent isn't) like the Canare should be all one needs. I personally have a very hard time telling any difference between the Canare and MIT, though with the much more expensive MIT MA-X AES/EBU version there is more bottom end control, but it could also be the balanced AES/EBU interface vs SPDI/F.

Overall, I tend to agree with the pros, however, "well-engineered 75 ohm cable" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Do they sound different or is it all snake oil?

They sound different, and we can feel tempted it is all snake oil. But there is some knowledge behind this snake oil - some cable manufacturers can manipulate sound quality using these cables with some predictability.

What puzzles me is that sometimes they manage to have the same sound signature in analog ICs and digital cables - cables that work in completely different domains!

 

[DaveC]

They sound different, and we can feel tempted it is all snake oil. But there is some knowledge behind this snake oil - some cable manufacturers can manipulate sound quality using these cables with some predictability.

What puzzles me is that sometimes they manage to have the same sound signature in analog ICs and digital cables - cables that work in completely different domains!

Yup, my D4 analog and S/PDIF are very similar and have the same sound signature. There are definitely some differences in the areas the cable effects the sound but overall it's very similar and I have no good explanation for it.

 

[DaveC]

Thanks guys for the replies so far.

One thing that Gordon stated which was interesting was that he feels that RCA connectors cannot be 75 ohm due to their design.

There's a few that claim 75 ohm impedance, Canare and WBT...

 

[Lee]

There's a few that claim 75 ohm impedance, Canare and WBT...

Yes, but Gordon claims they don't measure this way. Kind of interesting.

 

[RogerD]

I have A/B'd about 5 different SPDIF cables and only the claimed 75 ohm cable produced a significant difference which was in micro detail and spatial footprint, both are markers for low noise. As I have reduced noise levels in my digital chain this cable has yet to prove to be a restriction.

 

[BMCG]

I can say that the differences between the clock cables connecting the dCS DAC and Upsampler is significant, so yes I hear differences

Similar experience with clock cables between dCS Vivaldi DAC and Clock....

 

[Elberoth]

Tell them that they know **** and should be ashamed of calling themselves 'pro' anything. Here is the original article written by Rémy Fourré* on interface jitter that was published in Stereophile in the mid 90s:

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/

*At the time of writing this article, Rémy Fourré was Vice President of Engineering at UltraAnalog. Born and educated in France, Dr. Fourré earned the US equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in computer design, a Master's degree in electronics, a Ph.D. in mathematics and mechanics, and a Ph.D. in applied mechanics. Dr. Fourré joined the fledgling UltraAnalog in 1988, developing the company's high-resolution 20-bit A/D and D/A converters.

 

[RogerD]

Jitter is way overblown.

 

[Elberoth]

Shure, it doesn't matter when you stream music from the Apple Airport Express to an el cheapo receiver

 

[Lee]

Jitter is way overblown.

My experience suggests otherwise.

 

[RogerD]

My experience suggests otherwise.

We have different experiences.

 

[opus112]

Jitter is way overblown.

I do tend to agree here. What has passed for 'jitter' in audiophile circles turns out in the main to be common-mode noise.

How I discovered this was finding a definite difference in sound quality between digital transports. Normally that's a difference attributed to 'jitter' because audiophiles aren't (yet) fluent in common-mode noise, that's an EE term. However on investigation I found the SQ difference was correlated with the presence of a switching power supply. Also the SQ difference was substantially reduced when I took noise reduction measures involving re-routing ground currents within my DAC.

 

[RogerD]

I do tend to agree here. What has passed for 'jitter' in audiophile circles turns out in the main to be common-mode noise.

How I discovered this was finding a definite difference in sound quality between digital transports. Normally that's a difference attributed to 'jitter' because audiophiles aren't (yet) fluent in common-mode noise, that's an EE term. However on investigation I found the SQ difference was correlated with the presence of a switching power supply. Also the SQ difference was substantially reduced when I took noise reduction measures involving re-routing ground currents within my DAC.

Bingo...this man wins the prize....thanks

 

[ack]

I do tend to agree here. What has passed for 'jitter' in audiophile circles turns out in the main to be common-mode noise.

How I discovered this was finding a definite difference in sound quality between digital transports. Normally that's a difference attributed to 'jitter' because audiophiles aren't (yet) fluent in common-mode noise, that's an EE term. However on investigation I found the SQ difference was correlated with the presence of a switching power supply. Also the SQ difference was substantially reduced when I took noise reduction measures involving re-routing ground currents within my DAC.

My experience is quite similar, in that noise tends to be less addressed than jitter

 

[ddk]

I've mentioned this before in other threads the digital link in whatever form is an integral part of the digital playback system. I found huge differences among digital wires and terminations a good sounding digital wire is essential!

david