This is a review and detailed measurements of the AudioQuest 1.5 meter micro USB cable. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $41 on Amazon.
Marking on the cable says that it is "low jitter." The cable is a bit thinner than the generic USB cable I compared it to. The cable feel is a bit nicer though.
Major advertising is about reduction of distortion and improvement in clarity (noise?):
Audioquest Pearl Review
Micro USB is not a common connector these days. Fortunately I still had the Chord Hugo 2 on hand which I had recently reviewed which uses the same connector for data and charge. Let's test it with generic USB cable first:
Now with AQ Pearl:
Other than very tiny run to run variations, performance is identical as far as noise, distortion, output voltage and frequency.
I broadened the measurement bandwidth to 1 Mhz (25X audible band) and ran a spectrum analysis with both cables:
The analyzer is able to detect all manner of artifacts, noise spectrum, etc. Yet the two cables show identical results.
Company's claim of lower jitter doesn't translate into the same as far as DAC output is concerned:
Again the analyzer is sensitive enough to detect tiny jitter components at -145 dB (30 dB lower than threshold of hearing). The result is the same with both cables.
Let's run a 32-tone to test "music like" signals:
The two land right on top of each other down to smallest detail.
We could run more tests but it is clear that there is no objective difference in the sound signal coming out of Chord Hugo 2 DAC.
Audioquest Pearl Listening Test
I plugged my Dan Clark Stealth Headphone into the Hugo 2 DAC and started to listen. The Stealth is a sealed back headphone with the lowest distortion I have measured in a headphone. So if there is a difference, this is the most ideal way to hear it.
I queued up a track with lots of ambiance and delicate sounds and started to play with AudioQuest USB Cable. The sound was as wonderful as I remembered it. I then switched to Generic cable and instantly the sound was louder and there was better clarity all around! This effect quickly faded though in a few seconds indicating typical faulty sighted listening test effect. From then on, I could not detect any difference between the two cables.
Conclusions
I know many of us consider these results "as expected" but it is always good to verify how time after time, very accurate measurements show no difference between generic/cheap and premium cables. That premium is not a lot in the case of AudioQuest Pearl USB cable. So if you want to get it, there is no major harm done. Just don't expect any audible improvements from it.
I can't recommend the Audioquest Pearl Cable if you are buying it for audio performance.
P.S., for those of you who have not seen this, here is a recent video I did on USB connection for audio transmission. I explain there why things like "jitter" on USB are immaterial to performance of audio devices:
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
Marking on the cable says that it is "low jitter." The cable is a bit thinner than the generic USB cable I compared it to. The cable feel is a bit nicer though.
Major advertising is about reduction of distortion and improvement in clarity (noise?):
Audioquest Pearl Review
Micro USB is not a common connector these days. Fortunately I still had the Chord Hugo 2 on hand which I had recently reviewed which uses the same connector for data and charge. Let's test it with generic USB cable first:
Now with AQ Pearl:
Other than very tiny run to run variations, performance is identical as far as noise, distortion, output voltage and frequency.
I broadened the measurement bandwidth to 1 Mhz (25X audible band) and ran a spectrum analysis with both cables:
The analyzer is able to detect all manner of artifacts, noise spectrum, etc. Yet the two cables show identical results.
Company's claim of lower jitter doesn't translate into the same as far as DAC output is concerned:
Again the analyzer is sensitive enough to detect tiny jitter components at -145 dB (30 dB lower than threshold of hearing). The result is the same with both cables.
Let's run a 32-tone to test "music like" signals:
The two land right on top of each other down to smallest detail.
We could run more tests but it is clear that there is no objective difference in the sound signal coming out of Chord Hugo 2 DAC.
Audioquest Pearl Listening Test
I plugged my Dan Clark Stealth Headphone into the Hugo 2 DAC and started to listen. The Stealth is a sealed back headphone with the lowest distortion I have measured in a headphone. So if there is a difference, this is the most ideal way to hear it.
I queued up a track with lots of ambiance and delicate sounds and started to play with AudioQuest USB Cable. The sound was as wonderful as I remembered it. I then switched to Generic cable and instantly the sound was louder and there was better clarity all around! This effect quickly faded though in a few seconds indicating typical faulty sighted listening test effect. From then on, I could not detect any difference between the two cables.
Conclusions
I know many of us consider these results "as expected" but it is always good to verify how time after time, very accurate measurements show no difference between generic/cheap and premium cables. That premium is not a lot in the case of AudioQuest Pearl USB cable. So if you want to get it, there is no major harm done. Just don't expect any audible improvements from it.
I can't recommend the Audioquest Pearl Cable if you are buying it for audio performance.
P.S., for those of you who have not seen this, here is a recent video I did on USB connection for audio transmission. I explain there why things like "jitter" on USB are immaterial to performance of audio devices:
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/