Cable Quality coming from interface to Daw? Is there a difference?

[AcousticDreams]

Cables are an interesting subject matter.

For analog I absolutely believe they make some kind of difference. Microphone cables...and even speaker wire. I use to work for a high end Stereo store back in the 80's and 90's and we did a lot of testing. There is of course a break point...where the return is so little not worth the extra amount to be paid.

But what about Digital cables? Cable from Interface to Daw?
Do you believe there is a difference?

Got my Midi and symphonic programs hooked up today..and I will swear the plug in quality sounds a tad better on my Mac Studio. Listening through the same headphones. Probably because the Mac Studio can handle more plug ins at the same time. Maybe I was loosing some data as my old Imac 2009 could not handle the extra plug ins I would have open at one time. Or maybe it is my updated Logic Pro. I was using 10.1 before.

So this has me thinking about Cables for my Daw to Interface. Have any of you done any tests in this area? the cable that came with my ID44 is pretty thin and flimsy.

And what about Long thunderbolt or USBC cables? I am running a new second monitor that is powered by one cable. Even though it is just a USBC cable, I have to go through the Thunderbolt ports to get the dual function. There is talk that more than two meters and there can be problems.

Apple thunderbolt cables are $38 for two meters. But they Jump to $159 for 3meter Thunderbolt cables. Which leads me to believe..they must have to put higher quality in the cable for the longer length. Anybody know anything about longer cables problems. Maybe it is just because it is a cable that transports AC as well as video?

[jim1960]

There's no audio difference. The two differences in cables will be in shielding and durability.

Let's cover shielding first. If your system is simple (just a few cables) and you're confident it will remain so, shielding isn't a big deal. But if you're planning on adding outboard gear as you grow your studio, then you're going to have multiple cables in close proximity to each other and crossing over each other. That's when RFI/EMI can become an issue. Cables with better shielding can make you immune to that issue where cheap cables usually do not.

Durability was the main reason I stopped buying cheap cables. For years I bought ProCo cables. They were cheap, they worked, and my system was a lot smaller than it is now so RFI/EMI noise wasn't an issue. But every once in a while one of those cables would fail and I'd have to hunt down the source of the problem. That's not fun and I don't like having to stop what I'm doing to troubleshoot a problem. I started buying cables from Redco (Mogami cable, Neutrik connectors) about 10 years ago and haven't had a cable fail since then.

The issue of durability will have a lot to do with your own studio behavior. If you're careful with your cables and you don't do a lot of re-cabling of your gear (and you have a small system), you can probably get away with the cheaper cables. If you plan to grow your system, the investment in better quality cables now can save you money and headaches in the long run.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by jim1960

There's no audio difference. The two differences in cables will be in shielding and durability.

Let's cover shielding first. If your system is simple (just a few cables) and you're confident it will remain so, shielding isn't a big deal. But if you're planning on adding outboard gear as you grow your studio, then you're going to have multiple cables in close proximity to each other and crossing over each other. That's when RFI/EMI can become an issue. Cables with better shielding can make you immune to that issue where cheap cables usually do not.

Durability was the main reason I stopped buying cheap cables. For years I bought ProCo cables. They were cheap, they worked, and my system was a lot smaller than it is now so RFI/EMI noise wasn't an issue. But every once in a while one of those cables would fail and I'd have to hunt down the source of the problem. That's not fun and I don't like having to stop what I'm doing to troubleshoot a problem. I started buying cables from Redco (Mogami cable, Neutrik connectors) about 10 years ago and haven't had a cable fail since then.

The issue of durability will have a lot to do with your own studio behavior. If you're careful with your cables and you don't do a lot of re-cabling of your gear (and you have a small system), you can probably get away with the cheaper cables. If you plan to grow your system, the investment in better quality cables now can save you money and headaches in the long run.

Agreed!

[ChuckS]

I mostly agree with the above, and I've also switched to getting my cables from Redco. However, you do need to match digital cables to the application. In particular, a cable with a USB-C connector is now being used for a multitude of applications and communication standards. Since power can be delivered through that cable the current being drawn by the load (the load is the device connected to the power source) as well as the cable length have an effect on the voltage delivered to the load. Digital transmission speed also places requirements on the cable. In particular, the cable's capacitance places a limit on its speed of transmission as well as allowable cable length (capacitance is usually specified per foot or per meter).

So, longer length cables often need to grow in diameter to accommodate (1) powering the load without significant voltage loss and (2) accommodate high speed transmission without degradation of the signal to the point of affecting its reliable data transfer. It's often not obvious what cable is necessary and what is overkill.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

And what about Long thunderbolt or USBC cables? I am running a new second monitor that is powered by one cable. Even though it is just a USBC cable, I have to go through the Thunderbolt ports to get the dual function. There is talk that more than two meters and there can be problems.

Apple thunderbolt cables are $38 for two meters. But they Jump to $159 for 3meter Thunderbolt cables. Which leads me to believe..they must have to put higher quality in the cable for the longer length. Anybody know anything about longer cables problems. Maybe it is just because it is a cable that transports AC as well as video?

Tb3 cables of 0.8 meters and 2 meters (the usual lengths you'll see from Apple) are passive cables. Only the short 0.8 cable will give you the advertised 40Gbps data transfer rate. Going to 2 meters cuts the rate in half, bringing it down to 20Gbps, which is still fine for our purposes.

To go longer than 2 meters, you'll need an active TB3 cable. Those are expensive and you can expect to pay $300 or more.

[KevWind]

Others have addressed the cable situation.

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Got my Midi and symphonic programs hooked up today..and I will swear the plug in quality sounds a tad better on my Mac Studio. Listening through the same headphones. Probably because the Mac Studio can handle more plug ins at the same time. Maybe I was loosing some data as my old Imac 2009 could not handle the extra plug ins I would have open at one time. Or maybe it is my updated Logic Pro. I was using 10.1 before.

Well as you no doubt know , it could simply be expectation bias ??

The only tech difference I can think of that could (possibly if not probably ) effect the sound is if your old system OS and associated software was still 32 bit and this new one is all 64 ?

Generally all things being equal and if you are using the same interface now as on your old system, and plugging the HP's into that, then there should be no actual difference in the sound of the plugins. As it is being generated in the interface converters and analog out .... Now of course More plugins or different plugins is an entirely different story. Or perhaps you are now using a 96k sample rate ? (some claim that plugins run better at 96K , I honestly do not know one way or the other ) I tend to run everything at 24 bit 48k

ON the other hand , if you are talking about plugging the HP's directly into the computers analog out . Then is entirely possible that the Mac Studio sound card and conversion is of a better performance level than the old iMac which might be reflected in the sound...Or not .......... Bottom line is if you are pleased with the new system then it does not matter ..

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

The two differences in cables will be in shielding and durability.

cables in close proximity to each other and crossing over each other. That's when RFI/EMI can become an issue. Cables with better shielding can make you immune to that issue where cheap cables usually do not.

Durability was the main reason I stopped buying cheap cables..

My brother who is not a musician, but a big computer user programmer also mentioned that he stopped buying cheap cables because of durability.

Originally Posted by ChuckS

you do need to match digital cables to the application. In particular, a cable with a USB-C connector is now being used for a multitude of applications and communication standards. Since power can be delivered through that cable the current being drawn by the load (the load is the device connected to the power source) as well as the cable length have an effect on the voltage delivered to the load. Digital transmission speed also places requirements on the cable. In particular, the cable's capacitance places a limit on its speed of transmission as well as allowable cable length (capacitance is usually specified per foot or per meter).

So, longer length cables often need to grow in diameter to accommodate (1) powering the load without significant voltage loss and (2) accommodate high speed transmission without degradation of the signal to the point of affecting its reliable data transfer. It's often not obvious what cable is necessary and what is overkill.

And boy have I been learning about this in the last couple of days. As you said, It is just not obvious what is exactly needed and what is overkill.

I got many statements from various sources, dismissing the value of Thunderbolt. Even calling it trendy.

But what I have learned is there is real value depending on the application.

The most important thing I learned was that Thunderbolt 4 was backwards compatible. Meaning it could be used for needs of Thunderbolt 3 and USBC.
As an example for my brand new 15.6 portable monitor I am using a USBC cable out of the Thunderbolt ports of the Mac Studio into the USBC dual function port of the monitor. This one cable delivers power and Video signal. No separate AC is needed. This is a valuable function for my purposes. it allows me to move my small monitor when I will be recording.

Originally Posted by jim1960

Tb3 cables of 0.8 meters and 2 meters (the usual lengths you'll see from Apple) are passive cables. Only the short 0.8 cable will give you the advertised 40Gbps data transfer rate. Going to 2 meters cuts the rate in half, bringing it down to 20Gbps, which is still fine for our purposes.

To go longer than 2 meters, you'll need an active TB3 cable. Those are expensive and you can expect to pay $300 or more.

Ah this is just the kind of explanation that I wanted to know. Cutting the rate in half because it is twice as long. Now it all makes sense. And further...why the 3 meter cord is so expensive as it is active.

Yes for my second small monitor the lesser rate from the 2 meter cable should be fine. I originally wanted a 10 to 15 foot cord.

*This then still does bring back questions of quality. After all if length creates a problem, would not quality also come into play? (this is problems with an old analog guy like myself. Years and years of training in analog process, make it hard to understand the differences between analog and digital

Originally Posted by KevWind

Well as you no doubt know , it could simply be expectation bias ??

The only tech difference I can think of that could (possibly if not probably ) effect the sound is if your old system OS and associated software was still 32 bit and this new one is all 64 ?

Generally all things being equal and if you are using the same interface now as on your old system, and plugging the HP's into that, then there should be no actual difference in the sound of the plugins. As it is being generated in the interface converters and analog out .... Now of course More plugins or different plugins is an entirely different story. Or perhaps you are now using a 96k sample rate ? (some claim that plugins run better at 96K , I honestly do not know one way or the other ) I tend to run everything at 24 bit 48k

ON the other hand , if you are talking about plugging the HP's directly into the computers analog out . Then is entirely possible that the Mac Studio sound card and conversion is of a better performance level than the old iMac which might be reflected in the sound...Or not .......... Bottom line is if you are pleased with the new system then it does not matter ..

I honestly do not think it is expectation bias...as I was not expecting there to be a difference. I had heard over and over that there would not be a difference.

However it could very well be a time-laspe-memory difference. Meaning...it had been a couple of months since I last turned on my programs. Just like we often think that our acoustic guitars sound better from one day to the next. Memory, our body wellness, mood can fool us. Of course, there are also very real reasons such as differences in humidity.

What I remember previously is not really liking my violins from Symphonic programs. Violins have some extra high end sizzle as compared to cellos. Violins just don't sound right to me unless Reverb is added. That comes from my Chamberlain, Mellotron days. Without reverb everything sounded so dry. Previously with my old computer, if I opened a Symphonic program and couple of reverbs...I would get glitches and problems. Maybe there was interactive loss from multiple programs being open? (with the old system). No problems with the new system and the violins now sound good to me.

* Question
My ID44 has a USBC out. It came with a couple of cables...USBC to USBC and USBC to USBA. My old mac only had the A . So currently that is still the cable I am using. USBC to USBA input on my Mac Studio.

I would think, that if I changed over to USBC to USBC that I would get faster transmission rates? Thus is there a small possibility that quality of sound could go up? As the signal is transferred over faster? Is that a possibility. Or is it a mood point?

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

*This then still does bring back questions of quality. After all if length creates a problem, would not quality also come into play?

No. This is simply about how fast data moves, not the quality of that data. For our purposes, 20Gbps is fine.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I honestly do not think it is expectation bias...as I was not expecting there to be a difference. I had heard over and over that there would not be a difference.

However it could very well be a time-laspe-memory difference. Meaning...it had been a couple of months since I last turned on my programs. Just like we often think that our acoustic guitars sound better from one day to the next. Memory, our body wellness, mood can fool us. Of course, there are also very real reasons such as differences in humidity.

What I remember previously is not really liking my violins from Symphonic programs. Violins have some extra high end sizzle as compared to cellos. Violins just don't sound right to me unless Reverb is added. That comes from my Chamberlain, Mellotron days. Without reverb everything sounded so dry. Previously with my old computer, if I opened a Symphonic program and couple of reverbs...I would get glitches and problems. Maybe there was interactive loss from multiple programs being open? (with the old system). No problems with the new system and the violins now sound good to me.

* Question
My ID44 has a USBC out. It came with a couple of cables...USBC to USBC and USBC to USBA. My old mac only had the A . So currently that is still the cable I am using. USBC to USBA input on my Mac Studio.

I would think, that if I changed over to USBC to USBC that I would get faster transmission rates? Thus is there a small possibility that quality of sound could go up? As the signal is transferred over faster? Is that a possibility. Or is it a mood point?

Good question I do believe that USBC has a larger data transmission ability which I assume also means faster . Now if that will make any noticeable difference speed wise , between the computer and interface I do not know.
But if it were me AND you have still an available TB4 /USBC port on the Studio I would use the USBC to USBC cable from the interface to the Studio and use the USB-A port on the Studio for say a USB-A hub and things like a keyboard, or mouse, or iLok (if you use one ) ( BUT It all depends on exactly how many, and what type input connections you will need).

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Good question I do believe that USBC has a larger data transmission ability which I assume also means faster . Now if that will make any noticeable difference speed wise , between the computer and interface I do not know.
But if it were me AND you have still an available TB4 /USBC port on the Studio I would use the USBC to USBC cable from the interface to the Studio and use the USB-A port on the Studio for say a USB-A hub and things like a keyboard, or mouse, or iLok (if you use one ) ( BUT It all depends on exactly how many, and what type input connections you will need).

Yes this is exactly what I was thinking. It certainly could not hurt. I want to buy a better, more durable cable anyway. The one that comes with the ID44 are super, super thin. I am currently only using One of the Thunderbolt ports and that is for my small 15.6 monitor.

Currently I am using a USBA hub for My Ilok and my Midi to USBA Hub. I don't think there would be any benefit buying a Midi to USBC cable over my Midi to USBA cable that I am currently using. I believe There is only transmission of commands from this cable.

So does the Half speed of transmission transpose to all digital cables performances? Or is it only with those that transmit both Power and video.
For instance...I would not mind buying a two meter USBC to USBC cable for my interface. But in this case, I don't absolutely need it.

I do need a two meter cable my small portable monitor.

[Cocobolo Kid]

I realize that there are smart people on both sides of the "Do cables make an audible difference debate?" Most people are also not willing to change their mind once they have formed an opinion. I am not interested in debating and am only trying to give the OP some information to consider.

Nordost is one reputable company that sells very expensive digital cables, and here is their explanation for how digital cables can make a sonic difference:
https://www.nordost.com/downloads-he...-info-tips.php (second download)

I personally use WireWorld digital cables in my playback setup. I use a WireWorld Platinum Starlight USB cable between my PC and my RME FireFace 802 audio interface. I also use a WireWorld Gold Starlight AES digital cable between my RME audio interface and my Bryston BDA-2 DAC.

I did not do an A/B listening comparison of the WireWorld digital cables versus my old studio grade cables. I am a self-confessed cable junkie and just enjoy quality cables. I have weighed their expense versus putting that cost into a component upgrade. I believe cables are extremely system dependent, and the same cable my make a large difference in one system but a small difference in another. The listener and room, of course, make a huge difference. I also believe quality cables are a lifetime investment and can last through many component upgrades.

I suggest that the OP select a digital cable in the price range he/she is comfortable paying (I definitely recommend Audioquest or WireWorld cables). You can purchase the cable from a company like MusicDirect that will let you audition the cable for 60 days and offer a full return if you are not satisfied. You just pay the return shipping cost. This way, you can make a judgment for yourself.

https://www.musicdirect.com/Return-Policy

The Cable Company also has a lending library of cables if you are really interested in auditioning many different high end cables:

https://www.thecableco.com/cable/index/borrowform

There aren't many high end Thunderbolt cables available, but here is one:
https://www.musicdirect.com/cables/a...nderbolt-cable
Unfortunately, for 3 meters, it's nearly as expensive as your Audient ID44.

Forgot to mention I would definitely upgrade speaker wire and analog interconnects before upgrading digital cables.

Good luck in whatever you choose, and enjoy the journey!!!

[AcousticDreams]

Well, well, well. I feel like I am back in school again studying for a major test..ha ha..Like anybody else...was never fond of studying to hard. Especially frustrating when what you are studying is not totally clear. Physics was that way for me. Took a while. Had to learn to think in a different format.

To top it off, I have always been a bit of a worry wart. Wanting to make sure everything is as perfect as possible. So while I do not like studying, it becomes a lot more fun when everything starts to make sense..and the fog starts to lift.

Thanks to a big discussion with my brother, and questions still left unresolved, I googled the question at hand and found a great article from Audient. They must have been hammered by others with the same questions I am asking. They went to great depths to explain using calculatons to back up there claim.

They had four major explanations for justification as Why the ID44 uses USB2.0 speeds(which I did not know):
1.*Why does iD44 use USB2.0 speeds and a USB-C connector?
2.*But isn't USB 3.0 better?
3.*Okay, but what about Thunderbolt?
4.*Cool, but whats with the USB-C connector?

1+ They Claim USB2.0 is the most widely used format and will work on most any unit.
2+ They claim that even using 44 tracks with 96hz and 24 bit...you still would only be using 1/4 of the space available over the cable. Basically claiming there is not need for faster as there is still plenty of room.
3+ While they agreed that Thunderbolt was faster, they used both answers of 1 & 2 for justification.
4+ They used the USBC connector out of the interface because you do not have to check which way you are plugging the C connector in. Just makes it easier.

Anyway that is there take. I am sure others would debate this. I certainly don't have the knowledge to debate it.

For myself..at least it eliviates the worries that I might be loosing something going out USBC to USB2.0 port in. True or False, at least my worries are over. ha ha.
https://support.audient.com/hc/en-us...B-C-connector-

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by Cocobolo Kid

Nordost is one reputable company that sells very expensive digital cables, and here is their explanation for how digital cables can make a sonic difference:
https://www.nordost.com/downloads-he...-info-tips.php (second download)

Huh. I can't even read their explanation, as you have to enter personal info to download it.

USB protocol has built-in error detection. Every packet has a CRC (cyclic redundancy check) that is used to flag a bad packet. And while it doesn't do actual error correction on the fly, any corrupted packets are flagged for re-transmission. That may slow things down, but ensures that the bits going in are the same as the bits going out. A cable isn't going to change the accuracy of those ones and zeros.

[Cocobolo Kid]

Here is a direct download link for the Nordost article:

https://www.nordost.com/downloads/Di...Difference.pdf

I am not arguing that better digital cables make an audible improvement. I think everyone should make their own judgment, whether that be by technical reasoning or critically listening to different cables in your own system.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Well, well, well. I feel like I am back in school again studying for a major test..ha ha..Like anybody else...was never fond of studying to hard. Especially frustrating when what you are studying is not totally clear. Physics was that way for me. Took a while. Had to learn to think in a different format.

To top it off, I have always been a bit of a worry wart. Wanting to make sure everything is as perfect as possible. So while I do not like studying, it becomes a lot more fun when everything starts to make sense..and the fog starts to lift.

Thanks to a big discussion with my brother, and questions still left unresolved, I googled the question at hand and found a great article from Audient. They must have been hammered by others with the same questions I am asking. They went to great depths to explain using calculatons to back up there claim.

They had four major explanations for justification as Why the ID44 uses USB2.0 speeds(which I did not know):
1.*Why does iD44 use USB2.0 speeds and a USB-C connector?
2.*But isn't USB 3.0 better?
3.*Okay, but what about Thunderbolt?
4.*Cool, but whats with the USB-C connector?

1+ They Claim USB2.0 is the most widely used format and will work on most any unit.
2+ They claim that even using 44 tracks with 96hz and 24 bit...you still would only be using 1/4 of the space available over the cable. Basically claiming there is not need for faster as there is still plenty of room.
3+ While they agreed that Thunderbolt was faster, they used both answers of 1 & 2 for justification.
4+ They used the USBC connector out of the interface because you do not have to check which way you are plugging the C connector in. Just makes it easier.

Anyway that is there take. I am sure others would debate this. I certainly don't have the knowledge to debate it.

For myself..at least it eliviates the worries that I might be loosing something going out USBC to USB2.0 port in. True or False, at least my worries are over. ha ha.
https://support.audient.com/hc/en-us...B-C-connector-

I went through some of these explorations when connecting my ULN-8 to my Dell laptop (USB-C to USB-A connectors). It seems that USB-C is only a connector specification, but it has a lot of pins assigned which can support many standards and applications. The explanation of your interface using the USB-C connector with the older USB 2 communications makes a lot of sense (backwards compatibility with older computers) but it's not always obvious what's going on and what is needed.

There are also confusing, and non-obvious difference in USB-A connectors. The older ones have fewer pins (4 I believe) and the newer ones 9 pins. I think USB 3.x requires the 9 pins. The cables used for USB 3.x also have more internal conductors (more lanes of communications and more power conductors). However, the higher speeds are only realized when both connected devices support USB 3.x and if the corrected cable with the correct connectors are used; else it automatically reverts back to a slower speed.

I was also surprised when I did calculations on required bandwidth to accommodate 16 audio channels at 96KHz at24 bit depth. USB 2 easily handled that. So, in my case I could use the cheaper USB 2.0 cable with USB-A on one end and USB-C on the other end.