Why does my DAC sound so much better after upgrading digital SPDIF cable?


I like my Mps5 playback designs sacd/CD player but also use it as a DAC so that I can use my OPPO as a transport to play 24-96 and other high res files I burn to dvd-audio discs.

I was using a nordost silver shadow digital spdif cable between the transport and my dac as I felt it was more transparent and better treble than a higher priced audioquest digital cable a dealer had me audition.

I recently received the Synergistic Research Galileo new SX UEF digital cable.  Immediately I recognized that i was hearing far better bass, soundstage, and instrument separation than I had ever heard with high res files (non sacd),

While I am obviously impressed with this high end digital cable and strongly encourage others to audition it, I am puzzled how the cable transporting digital information to my DAC from my transport makes such a big difference.

The DAC take the digital information and shapes the sound so why should the cable providing it the info be so important. I would think any competently built digital cable would be adequate....I get the cable from the DAC to the preamp and preamp to amp matter but would think the cable to the DAC would be much less important.

I will now experiment to see if using the external transport to send red book CD files to my playback mps5 sounds better than using the transport inside the mps5 itself.

The MPS5 sounds pretty great for ca and awesome with SACD so doubt external transport will be improvement for redhook cds


128x128karmapolice
@geoffkait

I could be wrong, but I think the ~15sec statement which I’ve been told/have seen comes from this study
 
EDIT: That link seems to not work sometimes, try this one.
Post removed 
@paul79

I’m all for improvements and tweaks; I am not for placebo and snake oil. A $10,000 speaker wire won’t sound better than a $50 one, and a $2000 USB cable won’t sound better than a $20 one (all assuming same gauge/length/etc.). Claims being posted here, such as Steve Nugent saying that he heard a drastic difference going from 22psec to 7psec of jitter (>20Bit to <22Bit, which is >120dB to <132dB of dynamic range; and again, before the DAC, which reduces jitter) is just furthering already debunked myths, which leads people with fat wallets to spend thousands on cables and accessories that won’t fix these “issues”. One debunked myth is that silver cables sound brighter than copper cables, they don’t, they just conduct electricity a bit better so decibel loss is a tad less over the same distance, and yet going a single gauge better for copper will have even less loss and cost a heck of a lot cheaper.

I don’t care if people sell high-end cables for asthetics or better construction (I pay more for nice braided, pre-terminated speaker cables), I do care if they lie and say they are perform better (like solid core, which is worse than stranded; or cryo-freezing to align the crystalline structures).

However, as a I stated earlier, if someone bought such items and they did hear an improvement, then it was money well spent. Just keep in mind people sincerely claim to hear improvements using these.
mzkmxcv, It appears the article you linked to actually has nothing to do with aural memory as we audiophiles commonly refer to it. If aural memory of audiophiles was 15 sec. we would never be able to progress beyond the level of mid fi. No offense. That’s the equivalent of movie Memento, that exploited the issue of short term memory loss. As I already stated my aural memory is very long, at least days or weeks, if not even longer. In fact I remember in general terms, at least, what I heard on a system almost 50 years ago.
@geoffkait

You are using memory in the general sense, no one can recall if a stereo system they listened to 50yr ago was bright, had good imaging, etc., not even if you had an Eidetic memory (as that’s visual).

I’m am talking about the auditory recall to be able to differentiate frequency response, soundstage width, etc.

That’s why ABX testing has tone be done quickly.