What's a good USB A to USB B cable?

I was talking to a friend that works at a high end audio video shop. Says he auditioned some headphones that were good but not great until a usb line conditioner was inserted between the computer and the DAC. He said the difference was amazing. I asked who made it and he said Audioquest but he could not remember its name. I searched on the internet and found out it is the Jitterbug for $49 coming soon. He latter confirmed that it was the Jitterbug. I know this guy and he does not blow smoke. Much will be revealed as we dive deeper into digital.

msg wrote: »

EndersShadow wrote: »

Additionally eBay is a good place to find those cables...
I paid 40, 80 & 60 for my 3 3m Cinnamon HDMI cables and STOLE a 5m in wall Cinnamon for 46....

are you concerned at all for counterfeiting? know anything about it? I don't, I just see warnings from cable manufacturers about it.

I was but I find Audioquest cables HDMI wise are harder to counterfeit and get the packaging right and the correct cable with it.

I also bought from individuals (minus the last cable) in the U.S. and would ask where they bought it from. They could of course lie to me.

And after getting it I double checked the packing and whatnot to make sure it all matches as they have gone through 3 different iterations of cinnamon cables. So far they appear legit.

If I really wanted to I could send them to Audioquest to verify they are legit. If they find they are not however they would destroy them.

I'm confident enough they are to have not done that.... Yet lol

EndersShadow wrote: »

If I really wanted to I could send them to Audioquest to verify they are legit. If they find they are not however they would destroy them.
I'm confident enough they are to have not done that.... Yet lol

hehe, sounds like you're at least "conscious" of the possibilty lol
re: sending into AQ - I laughed when I read that.

bryantspaint wrote: »

http://www.achtungaudio.com/?product=ag82-pure-silver-usb-interconnect-power-data-input-independently

woh, one lead for power and one for data?? how do you like this? impressions?

I changed the USB cable that came with my external Korg DAC to a Starlight 7 and love it. I then changed the USB cable that came with my external hard drive to a Starlight 7 and it sounded awful. I changed back to the cheap cable and the sound came back. Then I got smart and removed my laptop from the docking station and moved the cables from the docking station to the laptop. The sound improved. Then I changed the drive cable back to the Srarlight 7 and wow! Now it sounds fantastic. I am hearing details that I did not know existed.

Cables do make a difference and once again the least complicated circuit yields the best SQ and this is true with analog or digital.

I guess it must be more difficult to transmit 1s and 0s than one might think.

xcapri79 wrote: »

No doubt that machone appears to be confused. I would surmise that the sound improved coincident with the volume control setting.

.....and you came to that conclusion how....exactly ?

I forgot to mention that the SQ is better at any volume.

Also while using the docking station the cheap USB cable was superior to the Starlight. This was a quite a letdown because I was hoping for an improvement. I was forced to go back to the cheap cable and wonder what was going on. It was the next day that I decided to remove the docking station and try it again.

Why the sonic difference?

xcapri79 wrote: »

With digital sound, it one cable "sounds" worse than another, I would say that cable is defective.

If that were true, a lot of defective cables are being sold and should warrant a class action law suit.

comfortablycurt wrote: »

What is the consensus on digital cables today? Is it worth spending more on a nicer USB?

As with all things audio, it depends on your ears, music, and equipment. In my experience, better USB (and coaxial) cables made a difference in some cases. I went into more detail, with listening evaluations and measurements, in this thread:

digital-interconnect-cables-whats-your-experience

It wasn't until I moved up to RAL's digital cables, and aggressively reduced jitter by installing a digital master clock, that I began hearing differences in digital cables in my two channel system. Prior to that, the AudioQuest and Pangea USB cables sounded no different from each other and no different from generic computer grade USB cables.

xcapri79 wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Prior to that, the AudioQuest and Pangea USB cables sounded no different from each other and no different from generic computer grade USB cables.

DSkip wrote: »

Really? My system is not up to your level but I've heard differences between generic, aq forest, and aq cinnamon USB cables.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Really.

There was probably something synergy-wise, and jitter-wise, between digital sources, DAC, and digital interconnect, that was masking the ability to hear the differences. I'll take time to nail it down...in the future...when I'm more dedicated to audio than I am now.

There you go, with a little patience, the audio myths are self-exposed here. That is why I need not make any immediate response to the questions, whether they like it or not, the questioners themselves here make it for me.

The Darqueknight did privately acknowledge that there are audio myths and snake-oil involved with analog and digital cables yet publicly denounced them in this forum "What are they?!", because it doesn't fit the general "group-think" of several members of this forum.

Anyways, don't argue with little old me, argue with CBS News as they recently published, "When are expensive cables worth it?". Pertaining to usb cables, here is what they had to say to the general public.

http://www.cbsnews.com/media/when-are-expensive-cables-worth-it/3/

Believe it or not, there is common sense about cables in this forum too.
I found it.
http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/105722/inside-the-hdmi-cable-scam/

You just don't know when to quit do you ? I think we all can admit to some degree that snake oil is involved in most any consumer product but you seem to want to define a whole industry by it.....constantly.

Your mission to debunk these so called audio myths fall back on internet articles here and there but you always fail to post the articles in favor of. Which are a lot more for than against imho. You can find information that would back up any belief you have on the internet, Ghosts....yeah, lots of believers and internet articles. Aliens....you betcha, but the naysayers in most anything lack 2 things. Experience and a willingness to explore. Without those 2 things opinions are pretty much worthless.

LOL. A link to a CNET opinion piece is a technical treatise on cable technology. What an (imaginary) engineer.

xcapri79 wrote: »

You people can't bring yourself to admit it that the report was published by none other than CBS News!
Didn't mean to ruin your day, but there it is - a major national broadcaster publishing to a national audience the real truth that you just can't admit.

Wasn't CBS News the media organization who had to fire there main anchor man for making stuff up...

Nope never mind that was NBC News.

So your right if its from CBS News it must be spot on.

xcapri79 wrote: »

The Darqueknight did privately acknowledge that there are audio myths and snake-oil involved with analog and digital cables yet publicly denounced them in this forum "What are they?!", because it doesn't fit the general "group-think" of several members of this forum.

I have also said the same thing many times on this forum. You should know that because the quote below is a response to you on May 18, 2015:

DarqueKnight wrote:

Yes, I agree that some cable manufacturer's claims are not grounded in scientific validity. There are scam artists in every field of commerce. However, you make yourself look like someone on a hysterical witch hunt by claiming that all high performance audio cable manufacturers are peddling snake oil.

I don't say one thing privately and then take an opposite position publicly. The quote above is from this thread:

forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/comment/2137059#Comment_2137059

I don't appreciate you attempting to twist my words to fit your psychotic and delusional obsession with discrediting the entire audio cable industry. You obviously are willing to go to the same dishonest extremes as your "friend" Jinjuku/Habanero Monk in order to make your case. If you people have to resort to lying, misrepresentation, and creating multiple personnas to "validate" your claims, you must not have much confidence in what you are saying. As for you personally, if you are unwilling or unable to represent me accurately, you need to keep my name out of your mouth and off of your fingertips.

It will be good when you guys get a stereo system you really enjoy. Maybe then you won't be so bothered about the cables and equipment that other people enjoy.

drselect wrote: »

Wasn't CBS News the media organization who had to fire there main anchor man for making stuff up...

Nope never mind that was NBC News.

So your right if its from CBS News it must be spot on.

Maybe back in the days of Uncle Walter. More recently, CBS News has had their fair share of "manufactured journalism":

huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/dan-rather-lara-logan-bengazi-scandal-cbs-news

nbcnews.com/id/6055248/ns/politics/t/cbs-news-admits-bush-documents-cant-be-verified

mantis wrote: »

Is it going to be every single time someone talks about audio or video cables this bull crap will go on?

I am thinking....yes.

xcapri79 wrote: »

You misrepresent yourself with a big flip/flop my friend. Why ask for examples for something you previously agreed to? It doesn't make sense.
One day you agree that there are audio myths and snake-oil, then another day you ask for examples of audio myths noting only I, and not you, make this claim.

I see.

You are butthurt because I asked you for examples of audio cable claims you believe to be unscientific or mythical and you don't want to do it. I would think you would be enthusiastic about complying with my request considering your obsession with this topic.

If I say I know some doctors are quacks and you say all doctors are quacks...and I ask you to provide examples of what you consider medical quackery...how is that flip/flopping? You are the one with the extreme position. You should be able and willing to provide examples of what you consider quackery. You are trying to duck substantiating your claims by saying someone partially agrees with you. That is not rational.

Again, can you provide an example of an audio cable ad THAT YOU consider to be unscientific and mythical?

xcapri79 wrote: »

Now you do agree there are audio myths and snake-oil. So which is it?

Of course there are audio myths and snake oil. Roger Russel's website and the Audioholics website are full of them. Roger Russel is selling his IDS 25 speaker system with internal Cardas wire, not because he says he knows Cardas wire to be better, but because he is "out to sell speakers". If he has evidence that Cardas wire is no better than generic wire, shouldn't he should stand by his "convictions" and "principles" and not go along with "evil audio cable manufacturers".

xcapri79 wrote: »

Talk about multiple personalities. I'm not the one with kooky audio theories that are without a properly proven scientific basis.

You and anyone else are always welcome to offer scientific rebuttal. Simply ranting and raving and calling something you don't agree with "kooky" is not scientific.

xcapri79 wrote: »

You bring up examples of ridiculously priced cables as an example of "respectful and constructive discourse".

- Magnum M1.3 balanced ($4,699)
- Oracle V1.3 balanced ($11,749)
- Oracle V1.3 on Audiogon for $5,000

I view this as three examples of the absurd. There is no scientific theory (mathematics and performance measurements) and scientifically conducted listening tests published in a recognized peer review scientific publication to justify the construction and ridiculous cost of those cables.

Are you claiming expertise in cable manufacturing?

This thread has an explanation for you:

Why Are You Mad At Cables You Can't Afford?

xcapri79 wrote: »

As Carl Sagan has said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

The quantitative evidence is actually quite basic:

1. Measure two cables and see if there are measurable differences between them.
2. Evaluate the measured difference to see if it falls within the range of human perception (hearing, sound localization, and tactile sensation).

Once a quantitative difference has or has not been established, you can do subjective listening evaluations with trained listeners.

xcapri79 wrote: »

If you think CBS is so wrong, why not use your credentials to challenge them?
Do you claim that CBS is on the similar witch hunt as you claim I am on?

What do my credentials have to do with whether or not CBS News reported inaccuracies? The two articles I provided were cases where CBS admitted error. You look insane asking me to challenge someone who has already admitted they were wrong.

xcapri79 wrote: »

Or is it that we are after the truth and the truth hurts?

The only truth that matters to me is the sound coming out of my various audio systems.

Good luck taking down all those evil, evil, evil expensive, esoteric audio cable manufacturers.