Bub
Guitarhacker
it's digital... not audio on that USB cable.... it either is or isn't........ ones or zeros..... unlike an audio cable...
It's not quite that simple. There is such a thing as error's in the transfer of digital signals, then some kind of error correction comes in to play, and that could degrade the audio quality. I could see a high quality cable cause less errors between devices, but $3000 is crazy.
To give you an example, I ran in to communication error's bigtime when VoIP lines started to be 'trendy' and companies tried to hook their fax machines up to them. To resolve the issue, we turned off ECM (Error Correction Mode), and slowed the modem speed down on the fax end, and changed some other settings. There were compression settings they could adjust on the server modem end as well. I actually wrote a troubleshooting manual that the company I used to work for had distributed to their techs nationwide. As much as everyone wants fax machines to go away, it's not happening anytime soon, but that's another subject. Banks especially like them because fax machines are still the most secure way to electronically transfer a document.
Anyway, there is something to be said for decent quality USB and HDMI cables, but not $3000 grand worth. That's crazy.
I thought that data packet transmissions systems such as USB corrects it's errors by requesting a replacement packet. Yes? No?
http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb4.shtml I think the answer is Yes and that there is no way for a "audiophile" USB cable to improve some portion of the audio stream or spectrum. When you read the review on the guys web page that speaks of enhanced clarity in the bass and dynamics... that's the "marketing speak" that makes people look like fools.
If there is some uncorrectable error caused by a USB cable the buffer runs dry and you get nothing.
It's go-no go... if you have a problem you are going to hear a stutter or a splat... or silence.
Schemes like the Reed Solomon system we use with CD's actually "fixe" errors with statistically likely corrections... which seems to result in nearly perfect results as well.
At least the guys trying to minimize errors on CDs have a legitimate concern in that the data is being slightly altered to the extent that the Reed Solomon scheme may not guess if it's a 0 or a 1 on rare occasions.
BTW FAX is considered secure because the manufacturers have made it is easy to use an encryption appliance. Encryption is easy in email too... but there are so many options that the FAX appliances seems easier by comparison. Also email copies linger in places where people that have the time to break encryption can easily find the email and work at leisure. None of that has much to do with error correction.
best regards,
mike