Who are 'they?'
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Audioquest Pearl USB Cable Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
I've heard that too, about wine, and am also mystified how any cable company, not just AQ, "engineers" the sound. I'm pretty sure that the only real engineering is in the price.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Hey, I don't want to lose the will to live!A strong pre-dinner drink will level the playing field for all wines. When auditioning a cable, listen to some death metal on IEMs first. All cables will then be equally attractive.
MacCali
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2020
- Messages
- 1,136
- Likes
- 543
The people who bring subjective comments to every single review thread on the forum. I'm not against it, and I preach for others to leave them be rather than make any comments about it.
There exist specialized tools for detailed measurement and rapid factory qualification of USB and other type cables. For example, the one from TotalPhase ($15k). If you scroll to 4:14 into this video, you will see in the detailed test report how the eye pattern is tested against a configurable mask for a pass/fail result.
Testing USB, Apple Lightning, and Video Cables with the Advanced Cable Tester v2
Obviously, @amirm is not in the cable development or manufacturing business. However, a tool like that one would quickly determine the numerous characteristics associated with a USB and other cables (specs seem quite comprehensive).
If a relatively inexpensive cable passes the same arbitrarily stringent test as a much more expensive and hyped cable does, then there should be no difference in their ability to carry signals, hence no difference in the digital streams produced and recovered by capable transceivers, and so no difference in analog audio signals produced from these streams (assuming, of course, competent DAC design wrt noise immunity, etc.).
Testing USB, Apple Lightning, and Video Cables with the Advanced Cable Tester v2
Obviously, @amirm is not in the cable development or manufacturing business. However, a tool like that one would quickly determine the numerous characteristics associated with a USB and other cables (specs seem quite comprehensive).
If a relatively inexpensive cable passes the same arbitrarily stringent test as a much more expensive and hyped cable does, then there should be no difference in their ability to carry signals, hence no difference in the digital streams produced and recovered by capable transceivers, and so no difference in analog audio signals produced from these streams (assuming, of course, competent DAC design wrt noise immunity, etc.).
sam_adams
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 997
- Likes
- 2,415
There's no reason to test for correct USB function because the devices connect correctly and function properly. The only reason for the testing of cables like this is to validate manufacturer claims that the cable—by itself—improves the quality of the audio from connected devices. As tested, it does not. As I suggested in another cable test discussion.
In the early days of HDMI, there were differences in cables leading to the need for “officially” certified cables. What is great is that the results were pretty clear, not subtle because you either had clear artifacts like flickering or drop outs.
With infinitely precise measurements, you can measure differences between cables. The resistance, for example, varies linearly with length. A cable twice as long has twice the resistance.
What Amir is doing is testing if the difference which can be measured actually translates into different performance. And so far, we haven’t seen anything EXCEPT for the 6 dB difference on the Chord Mojo 2. If @amirm cannot identify the reasons, it’s possible that there was some corrosion on the connector somehow that a very tight cable tested was able to clean it. I am thinking of the old Monster Cable turbines…
Cables do matter for digital transmission.
Just not proven with audio so far.
We can see differences in digital transmission between running copper Ethernet cable at 10 Gb/sec versus 1, 2.5, or 5 Gbps. There is a lot of science behind that, especially since Ethernet has error correction but we have to remember that Ethernet is running much longer distances than the typical audio setup. Think about 40-conductor or 80-conductor IDE hard drive cables even though the pins were the same. Digital. Cable makes a difference.
Thanks for clarifying.
Ethernet does not have error correction, only detection. Frames have CRC checksums (FCS) and are simply dropped if one or more bits are corrupted. Error correction (through retransmission of entire frames, not by some computation at the receiver) is handled by upper-layer reliable protocols (e.g. TCP).
Also, when 20 years ago some semiconductor manufacturers introduced new Ethernet chips, they were able to support 1000BASE-T (gigabit) Ethernet over Cat 3 (i.e. telephone) cable. Yes, the echo cancellation in transceivers was that good. Which is why it is laughable when people claim Cat 5 or even Cat 5e or better is absolutely required at those speeds.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #170
It is not a big difference. USB interference is situation dependent and comes and goes. I will update the review thread when I get home. Note the well designed usb implementations don't have this issue. They always work right.
OP
Hello,
Thanks for the test.
I have two questions.
As a quick guide.
I use 2 cables from Audioquest myself.
One is the Nrg Y for the Dac. I don't know why but when the cable is plugged in it is better than the original to my ears.
And then another Rca cable.
I have the Forest and the Cinnamon.
Both for whatever reason give a blacker background compared to the standard cable even better the Inakustik standard cable.
I have stayed with the Audioquest.
What really bothers me about Audioquest are the terribly tight plugs, so that you almost need pliers.
Two cables have already broken and I was able to exchange them thanks to Amazon.
My question now is this.
With the Rca cable I understand that you make the measurement no matter how it turns out, what I don't understand is why do you do that with a Usb cable?
You can certainly leave it like that.
But a USB cable is a data transport cable, which doesn't necessarily have much to do with the noise, or does it?
It's primarily about how it behaves when data is delivered in transport, I have to measure that to determine differences, don't I? Whether there is noise, jitter etc...
The best example is that a normal Usb cable is probably limited in data transport and maybe manages 400 mbits per second, whereas a higher quality cable might already manage 1 Gb.
That alone should make a difference.
Which doesn't automatically mean that the more data that can be delivered, the better the music, that's not what I mean.
I mean music/data is transported from the PC to the Dac via a USB cable.
Something must happen if the signal is influenced when a data transport takes place.
This must be measurable so that I can see how the cable behaves in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, jitter, etc....
Also a 3D room representation like you see with headphones could help to bring more light into the darkness whether a cable really has an influence on the "sound".
Also there you could see if the hearing impression is deceiving or not with cable X versus cable Y.
Enlighten me otherwise because I think Rca cable versus a data transport cable is a difference.
Where I am at peace with myself is that a super expensive usb data cable has zero impact on the sound for me.the $50 cable from Inakustik has had no sonic impact for me compared to a normal cable.only an advantage when I have pushed data over the usb port with the cable.
Thanks for the test.
I have two questions.
As a quick guide.
I use 2 cables from Audioquest myself.
One is the Nrg Y for the Dac. I don't know why but when the cable is plugged in it is better than the original to my ears.
And then another Rca cable.
I have the Forest and the Cinnamon.
Both for whatever reason give a blacker background compared to the standard cable even better the Inakustik standard cable.
I have stayed with the Audioquest.
What really bothers me about Audioquest are the terribly tight plugs, so that you almost need pliers.
Two cables have already broken and I was able to exchange them thanks to Amazon.
My question now is this.
With the Rca cable I understand that you make the measurement no matter how it turns out, what I don't understand is why do you do that with a Usb cable?
You can certainly leave it like that.
But a USB cable is a data transport cable, which doesn't necessarily have much to do with the noise, or does it?
It's primarily about how it behaves when data is delivered in transport, I have to measure that to determine differences, don't I? Whether there is noise, jitter etc...
The best example is that a normal Usb cable is probably limited in data transport and maybe manages 400 mbits per second, whereas a higher quality cable might already manage 1 Gb.
That alone should make a difference.
Which doesn't automatically mean that the more data that can be delivered, the better the music, that's not what I mean.
I mean music/data is transported from the PC to the Dac via a USB cable.
Something must happen if the signal is influenced when a data transport takes place.
This must be measurable so that I can see how the cable behaves in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, jitter, etc....
Also a 3D room representation like you see with headphones could help to bring more light into the darkness whether a cable really has an influence on the "sound".
Also there you could see if the hearing impression is deceiving or not with cable X versus cable Y.
Enlighten me otherwise because I think Rca cable versus a data transport cable is a difference.
Where I am at peace with myself is that a super expensive usb data cable has zero impact on the sound for me.the $50 cable from Inakustik has had no sonic impact for me compared to a normal cable.only an advantage when I have pushed data over the usb port with the cable.
1) The question is if a better cable can help with poor implementations? In other words, has it always been snake oil, was there ever a point where USB implementations may have been more susceptible? Before asynchronous USB?
Great point. I was thinking TCP/IP over Ethernet.
Right, I can run 10GbE over short distances with Cat5e. But would you run 10GbE for 100 ft over Cat 3?
Isn't the big difference between digital and analog cables the same as the difference between digital and analog wireless radio transmission? The difference is how failure is handled. As you drive your car away from an AM radio station, the signal is gradually lost to noise. With digital radio, I believe it becomes reception becomes intermittent with distance, where reception is 100% or nothing (I had digital radio only briefly).
Digital and analog cables are the same: USB will never give you less than bit perfect data, in theory at least. But it gives nothing at all when something goes wrong. Analog cables pick up noise if too long or improperly shielded.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #175
Only if you are at the edge of the distance supported by the standard. In 6 foot length, that's not going to be the case.
I found this blog post which is helpful. Presumably recommended is where good and bad cables make a difference.
How to Beat the Maximum USB Cable Length Limit
All USB cables have a maximum length, but a variety of cables and extenders are available that allow you to reach much longer distances without losing signal quality – learn more.
blog.tripplite.com
USB Standards, Speeds and Cable Length Limits:
| USB Specification | Max. Data Transfer Rate | Recommended Cable Length | |
|---|---|---|---|
| USB 1.0 (Full Speed) | 12 Mb/s | 3 m (9 ft.) | |
| USB 2.0 (High Speed) | 480 Mb/s | 5 m (16 ft.) | |
| USB 3.2 Gen 1 | 5 Gb/s | 2-3 m (6-9 ft.) | |
| USB 3.2 Gen 2 | 10 Gb/s | 3 m (9 ft.) | |
| USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (USB-C only) | 20 Gb/s | 3 m (9 ft.) | |
| USB4 (USB-C only) | 40 Gb/s | 0.8 m (31 ins) |
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2021
- Messages
- 679
- Likes
- 377
JSmith
Master Contributor
Due to the false claims marketing... it is claimed this cable is better than a normal cable, it isn't.
JSmith
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,095
- Likes
- 1,377
From what I've read of the reviews here for questionable products like boutique cables, filters, reclockers, power supplies and power conditioners, variations of your question come up consistently in those threads.
But isn't the right question how to identify poor devices, not how to fix the problems they introduce? A correctly designed device is very tolerant. A poor one requires special upstream and downstream care.
Really, the market for boutique cables and other junk can't help but suggest your question. That market revolves around products that target the subpar, the suboptimal, the broken, etc. which at best have zero postive effect in an adequate system despite charging a premium.
"How good is your product?"
"It's really good."
"It's worth the extra money?"
"Yeah."
"I have XYZ device. Will it improve its performance?"
"No, not for that one, but if you own other stuff like ABC or DEF or, you know, have a lot of electronic interference around the house, it will definitely do the job."
"Definitely?"
"Well..."
"Are you saying I can save money down the line by buying cheaper, shittier stuff because your product will make sure it works better?"
"I can't guarantee that."
"... Is your company owned by an insurance company by any chance? This sounds like one of those 'in case of earthquake' addendums."
"Um."
"At least you don't have a subscription model."
DonR
Major Contributor
This is also diametrically opposed to the notion that your other stuff needs to be sufficiently "resolving" to hear improvements. So either the gear needs to be broken or exemplary.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll