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

Showing 9 responses by geoffkait

A common misconception is that blind tests are proof of anything. Another common misconception is that measurements are proof of anything. They are both effective marketing ploys, however. You know, like, “measures flat 25 to 20 kHz +- 2 dB.” Or, “THD below 0.000%.” And, “blind tests will prove that aftermarket fuses are a hoax.” 😬
No, actually I’m not using my memory in the general sense. Only for the 50 year example of my memory. Even then I recall details like midrange, Dynamic Range and bass response, mainly because it was so, uh, memorable. Some memories remain fresher than others. But I can recall what I heard three weeks ago at a friend’s house with more specificity. Sorry about your hearing. What concerns me quite a bit more than aural memory is the fact that so many people don’t know what they are listening to or how to compare two sounds that are subtly different.
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.
Sorry to inform, but there’s no such thing as proof in this game. Evidence, yes. Proof, no.
mxkmxcv
“And no, you don’t have to listen for days to begin to appreciate the difference, our recall ability is about 15sec to my knowledge, so if you can’t immediately hear a difference, than any difference you hear latter on is not real.”

>>>>I did not know that. Do you have anything to support the 15 sec rule? I swear my aural memory is a lot longer than 15 sec. Perhaps even weeks or months. Of course I might have a photographic memory.
Somebody’s been following the wrong sheep, obviously. 

🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑  🚶‍♂️
If placebo effect means better sound what’s wrong with that? 😳 I’ll take two at twice the price.