2. digital
  3. 139886-13434

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
mzkmxcv
777 posts
 
@boxer12

Prove me wrong then; you state they do with no proof so far, yet I have shown proof, and it shows the audible differences can be treated as minimal to non-existent. I’ve never seen the Sun in person without Rayleigh scattering, but I know it will look white instead of the normal yellow/orange. 
 

boxer12
8,656 posts
 
So no then? Doesn't seem very proper for someone who rests on science. No double blind tests, no peer reviews, no measurements. Really it's just an uneducated authoritarian opinion. I've never heard any of that equipment so will not comment on which is better. If you supply the equipment I'd be delighted to run the comparison though.  
mzkmxcv
777 posts
 
@boxer12 
 
Don’t need double blind tests when measurements exists, and those measurements are well below human audibility, which is found via scientific blind testing.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
6,011 posts
 
mzkmxcv
Don’t need double blind tests when measurements exists, and those measurements are well below human audibility, which is found via scientific blind testing.
This is an illogical circular argument, a.k.a. "begging the question." Either you believe double-blind testing is valid for establishing audio differences, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
mzkmxcv
777 posts
 
@cleeds

Please re-read what I said. I believe in double-blind tests, but they are not needed to compare DACs when measurements exists and such tests have been done to analyze the thresholds or human hearing.

It’s like how I don’t need to race a Tesla Model S against a Toyota Camry to find which is faster, there are recordings of their 0-60 and 1/4 mile performances.
More to discover