Do USB Audio Cables Make A Difference?

[Count Arthur]

It's somewhat ironic that moving towards USB-C as the universal and standard connector has solved one issue, but has opened up a whole new can of worms, whereby all the cables, superficially look the same, but can have very different capabilities in terms of power delivery and data transmission.

 

[Roland68]

So my recommendation is to use pure passive cables for audio (as some DACs seem to have issues with the ICs).

And how do you know? Most manufacturers won't tell you.
Some of my "USB C" cables were supposed to be very simple, but I was still able to read the eMarker.
Likewise, there are now plenty of cables with unidentifiable chips and even implanted transmitting antennas. You won't notice if you buy one of these cables from Amazon.

 

[Count Arthur]

And how do you know? Most manufacturers won't tell you.
Some of my "USB C" cables were supposed to be very simple, but I was still able to read the eMarker.
Likewise, there are now plenty of cables with unidentifiable chips and even implanted transmitting antennas. You won't notice if you buy one of these cables from Amazon.

I think in this instance, buy a cable from a known brand, UGreen, Anker, Cable Matters, Lindy, etc.. that actually specifies that information. If it's USB 2.0 or 3.0, it should be a "passive" cable, with no IC in the connectors.

 

[NTK]

Same connector, different capabilities, and don't forget, different maximum lengths. Certified cables should have the appropriate symbols on them to indicate what they are rated for (only data rates shown, power have their separate symbols). Certainly more will be added to the list below as technology "progresses".

 

[Roland68]

I think in this instance, buy a cable from a known brand, UGreen, Anker, Cable Matters, Lindy, etc.. that actually specifies that information. If it's USB 2.0 or 3.0, it should be a "passive" cable, with no IC in the connectors.

It was precisely because of my recommendation to use Lindy USB 2.0 cables with USB A/C connectors or USB C/C connectors for USB 2.0 DACs and my advice against USB 3.1 cables that I was essentially put up against a wall and my statement was questioned.
If you learn anything in this forum, it's that no good deed goes unpunished, no matter how well-intentioned.

 

[somebodyelse]

Same connector, different capabilities, and don't forget, different maximum lengths. Certified cables should have the appropriate symbols on them to indicate what they are rated for (only data rates shown, power have their separate symbols). Certainly more will be added to the list below as technology "progresses".

Which would be fine if they always had the logos. The A-C cable that came with my Samsung T7 drive has SS on the A end only. The C-C one from the same drive has no logos but achieves the same transfer speeds. Same for the C-C ones that came with my LG monitors. A-C and C-C from various Pixel phones I assume are USB3 as the A has a blue core rather than black, but none have a logo. In fact I don't think ANY of the C ends I have actually have one of those logos on. A few have the manufacturer's name instead, but most are blank.

 

[NTK]

Which would be fine if they always had the logos. The A-C cable that came with my Samsung T7 drive has SS on the A end only. The C-C one from the same drive has no logos but achieves the same transfer speeds. Same for the C-C ones that came with my LG monitors. A-C and C-C from various Pixel phones I assume are USB3 as the A has a blue core rather than black, but none have a logo. In fact I don't think ANY of the C ends I have actually have one of those logos on. A few have the manufacturer's name instead, but most are blank.

A manufacturer can only put on the logos when the cable is certified.

Compliance | USB-IF

www.usb.org

 

[somebodyelse]

A manufacturer can only put on the logos when the cable is certified.

For the end user that doesn't really help when even the major manufacturers aren't using the logos - back to guesswork or trial and error.

 

[Julf]

I was essentially put up against a wall and my statement was questioned.

If you equate a statement being questioned with being put up against a wall, then you might consider staying away from things with "science" in their name.

 

[Roland68]

If you equate a statement being questioned with being put up against a wall, then you might consider staying away from things with "science" in their name.

If you question something, you have to accept answers or at least allow for other opinions to exist. And I didn't see much of a scientific approach in your statements either.
Apparently, years of professional experience, nor, for example, the fact that such cables are sometimes not even recognized by a USB 2.0 analyzer, counts here anymore.

As I said, I was just trying to inform less experienced users and warn them about problems.
I don't understand your intention, but the communication problem is of course clear to me now. I simply assumed that the problem with the ICs in the USB-C connectors on 3.x and 4.x cables was known, as were the problems that have been occurring with them for over 10 years, especially in the area of compatibility with older devices and standards.

 

[Julf]

If you question something, you have to accept answers or at least allow for other opinions to exist.

How have I prevented other opinions from existing?

Apparently, years of professional experience, nor, for example, the fact that such cables are sometimes not even recognized by a USB 2.0 analyzer, counts here anymore.

Indeed, appeal to authority does not count for much here.

 

[Roland68]

How have I prevented other opinions from existing?

Indeed, appeal to authority does not count for much here.

I didn't say that, but it makes me realize that further discussion or conversation is pointless, at least for me.
So let's just stay out of each other's way.

 

[Yachats]

I bought this SMSL Raw Pro-DAC1 and absolutely love it. However, I have a question about USB cables from my laptop to the DAC. The DAC has two inputs - USB-B and USB-C. My laptop has the following ports:

• 1x USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 (Power Delivery 140W ad DisplayPort 1.4)
• 1x USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 (DisplayPort 1.4) 10Gbps
• 1x USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 (always on)
• 2x USB-A 3.2 Gen 1

Presently, I'm using the cable supplied by SMSL which runs from one of the USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 ports to the DAC USB-B input. I've been reading that USB-C to USB-C is the way to go for higher speeds but I've also been reading that USB-B is good enough for audio files. It's all very confusing for a newbie like me and I'd love to have some good recommendations regarding which type of connection I should use for hi-fi and if someone wanted to throw in cables I should consider (by brand and model), that would be wonderful. Thanks!

 

[rcstevensonaz]

I've been reading that USB-C to USB-C is the way to go for higher speeds but I've also been reading that USB-B is good enough for audio files. It's all very confusing for a newbie like me and I'd love to have some good recommendations regarding which type of connection I should use for hi-fi and if someone wanted to throw in cables I should consider (by brand and model), that would be wonderful. Thanks!

How many concurrent channels and will you be transmitting video simultaneously over that USB connection?

USB 2.0 is perfectly fine for high resolution stereo audio. Can you cite the sources for USB-C being the way to go for audio since I've seen the opposite. For example, RME sticks with USB 2.0 until they are forced to jump up in the cases were USB 2.0 simply cannot support the number of required concurrent channels (e.g., 128 concurrent channels won't fly on USB 2.0).

 

[lini]

As I said, I was just trying to inform less experienced users and warn them about problems. (...)

Roland, do you happen to know, whether the aforementioned (potential) problems in case of USB 2.0 usage also apply to the Lindy Anthra line cables number 36910 to 36913 (0.5 to 2 m) & 36919 (3m) as well as the 15 cm adaptor cable 36895 (of which the former five would appear to show "PD 5A" on the USB-C plug and the latter "5A" (referring to the product pics of the Lindy shop web-site), while the "technical details" descriptions would rather imply no PD support - which to me seems somewhat confusing. Not sure, whether the 10 Gbit capability alone would already require an integrated IC or some other form of additional coding, though...)?

Reason for asking is, that there is no 1.5 m variant in their USB 2.0 USB-C <-> USB-A cables (36885 to 36888; 0.5 to 3m), and these cables as well as the USB 2.0 variant of the 15 cm adaptor cable (36897) also have smaller conductor diameters for the power wires compared to the USB 3.2 USB-C <-> USB-A cables and adaptor cable.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[Yachats]

How many concurrent channels and will you be transmitting video simultaneously over that USB connection?

USB 2.0 is perfectly fine for high resolution stereo audio. Can you cite the sources for USB-C being the way to go for audio since I've seen the opposite. For example, RME sticks with USB 2.0 until they are forced to jump up in the cases were USB 2.0 simply cannot support the number of required concurrent channels (e.g., 128 concurrent channels won't fly on USB 2.0).

Unlocking the Power of USB-C: Using Your USB-C Port as Audio Output - Audio Champs

In an age where connectivity and versatility are key features of our digital devices, the USB-C port has gained significant attention. This modern connection

audiochamps.com

Here's a link. All very confusing to me. I'm porting audio from my laptop to my DAC. I will not be transmitting any video. What you say is what I've heard too.

My friend is saying I should use this cable to connect: AudioQuest 0.75m Carbon USB-C > B High-Definition Audio Cable. It's $130 on Amazon. I can go higher in price but don't necessarily want to, nor do I want to pay more for something when something lower cost will do just fine.

 

[NTK]

Roland, do you happen to know, whether the aforementioned (potential) problems in case of USB 2.0 usage also apply to the Lindy Anthra line cables number 36910 to 36913 (0.5 to 2 m) & 36919 (3m) as well as the 15 cm adaptor cable 36895 (of which the former five would appear to show "PD 5A" on the USB-C plug and the latter "5A" (referring to the product pics of the Lindy shop web-site), while the "technical details" descriptions would rather imply no PD support - which to me seems somewhat confusing. Not sure, whether the 10 Gbit capability alone would already require an integrated IC or some other form of additional coding, though...)?

Reason for asking is, that there is no 1.5 m variant in their USB 2.0 USB-C <-> USB-A cables (36885 to 36888; 0.5 to 3m), and these cables as well as the USB 2.0 variant of the 15 cm adaptor cable (36897) also have smaller conductor diameters for the power wires compared to the USB 3.2 USB-C <-> USB-A cables and adaptor cable.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

The USB-C (officially USB Type-C) cable spec is enormously complicated and confusing. It is an almost 400 page document plus more than a dozen ECNs (engineering change notices, i.e. addenda).

Below are the listed cable assemblies (only passives and no Thunderbolt). From Table 3-2, there are two USB-A to USB-C cable types, one work at USB 2.0 speed (480 Mbps, max length 4 m) and one works at USB 3.2 speed (10 Gbps, max length 1 m). The Lindy cables you listed are a mix of USB 2.0 and USB 3.2 cables, and electrically they are different (but the 3.2 cables should be backward compatible). The 3.2 cables have extra conductors for higher speed data and have a "full featured Type-C connector". I don't think "legacy" cables have electronically marking chips in them. I think identification chips are only for C-to-C cables (mandatory for >3A current or ≥3.2 data speed). Thunderbolt and active cables are 2 other cans of worms.

Am I confusing you even more now?

 

[Roland68]

I bought this SMSL Raw Pro-DAC1 and absolutely love it. However, I have a question about USB cables from my laptop to the DAC. The DAC has two inputs - USB-B and USB-C. My laptop has the following ports:

• 1x USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 (Power Delivery 140W ad DisplayPort 1.4)
• 1x USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 (DisplayPort 1.4) 10Gbps
• 1x USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 (always on)
• 2x USB-A 3.2 Gen 1

Presently, I'm using the cable supplied by SMSL which runs from one of the USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 ports to the DAC USB-B input. I've been reading that USB-C to USB-C is the way to go for higher speeds but I've also been reading that USB-B is good enough for audio files. It's all very confusing for a newbie like me and I'd love to have some good recommendations regarding which type of connection I should use for hi-fi and if someone wanted to throw in cables I should consider (by brand and model), that would be wonderful. Thanks!

Your SMSL Raw Pro-DAC1 only has one USB 2.0 port, and the included cable is also USB 2.0.
USB-C is just a connector, not a USB or cable standard. USB 2.0 always has the same speed, regardless of whether it's a USB A, B, or C connector, or any combination thereof.
Physically, USB A and B are the more stable, durable, and less sensitive connectors.

I recommend the simplest USB port on your computer and a USB 2.0 cable.

How many concurrent channels and will you be transmitting video simultaneously over that USB connection?

USB 2.0 is perfectly fine for high resolution stereo audio. Can you cite the sources for USB-C being the way to go for audio since I've seen the opposite. For example, RME sticks with USB 2.0 until they are forced to jump up in the cases were USB 2.0 simply cannot support the number of required concurrent channels (e.g., 128 concurrent channels won't fly on USB 2.0).

In the hi-fi sector, you'll almost exclusively find DACs with a USB 2.0 interface, even with a USB-C connection.

In the pro audio sector, it makes more sense to focus on the device and its features, number of channels, etc. I personally recommend Thunderbolt, but many devices also have USB 3.0 or 3.1 ports; MOTU has even released a device with a 4.0 connection.

 

[Roland68]

Roland, do you happen to know, whether the aforementioned (potential) problems in case of USB 2.0 usage also apply to the Lindy Anthra line cables number 36910 to 36913 (0.5 to 2 m) & 36919 (3m) as well as the 15 cm adaptor cable 36895 (of which the former five would appear to show "PD 5A" on the USB-C plug and the latter "5A" (referring to the product pics of the Lindy shop web-site), while the "technical details" descriptions would rather imply no PD support - which to me seems somewhat confusing. Not sure, whether the 10 Gbit capability alone would already require an integrated IC or some other form of additional coding, though...)?

Reason for asking is, that there is no 1.5 m variant in their USB 2.0 USB-C <-> USB-A cables (36885 to 36888; 0.5 to 3m), and these cables as well as the USB 2.0 variant of the 15 cm adaptor cable (36897) also have smaller conductor diameters for the power wires compared to the USB 3.2 USB-C <-> USB-A cables and adaptor cable.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Hello Manfred, I haven't had one of these cables yet, so I can't contribute anything from personal experience.
Since Lindy is very careful about compatibility, I would personally assume that these cables work with USB 2.0 DACs. I'd be interested too.

In my experience, power lines with a larger cross-section in USB cables don't offer any advantage for DACs.
We once did a test with two C100s and two PO100 AKs, both bus-powered DACs. One was a 2m long Lindy USB 2.0 cable and a self-made cable with a 1mm² cross-section (power only) and a length of 1m. Neither of us heard a difference.

Normal DACs with a power supply draw a maximum of 50-200mA, so it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[lini]

Normal DACs with a power supply draw a maximum of 50-200mA, so it doesn't matter anyway.

That may be, Roland, but the same doesn't seem to go for quite a few of the current USB audio interfaces.

For example, Universal Audio specifies 4.2 W max. / 2.5 W typical for their current Volt 2 model - the latter power at the limit for USB 2.0, the former near the limit for USB 3.0. And while the Volt 2 sports an additional barrel jack for external power (and a USB-A to barrel plug cable), it nevertheless is primarily intended for bus-powered operation (with the included cable being USB-A to USB-C (host to device)), with its port being specified as USB 2.0 port (in form of an USB-C jack).

So all in all, that seems quite confusing to me.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini