Do I need an expensive digital cable?


I have been using a fairly inexpensive optical cable to connect my CD transport to my Moon 280D streamer. I was told that an SPDIFcoax cable would sound better. For an experiment I purchased an inexpensive Pangea coax cable. It didn't sound at all because its terminator ends did not fit snugly in my equipment. I consulted chatgbt who often gives me audio advice. It advised that for the short run of 1 meter, an RCA interconnect would work. It did. And sounded much better than the optical. Chatgbt said that RCA interconnect was good enough.

Now, there is a twist to this story that might make those doubters think twice. A digital cable carries packets of information that are rechecked to assure that the streamer is recieving correct information. There is the timing concern, though. But my Moon 280D has an asynchronous DAC with a clock as part of the DAC. Any information sent by my transport, whether it is clocked by the transport or not, will go through the Moon's asynchronous DAC's clock. So ;there shouldn't be a timing problem. Should there?

Can anyone make a case that I should buy a "better" coax cable?

audio-b-dog

@audio-b-dog 

What Moon told you about your DAC handling clocking chores regardless of the cable type used from the source is increasingly the case now and was referenced in a recent post about streamers.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/why-in-some-instances-does-changing-streamers-makes-a-bigger-difference

I am trying out an enhanced version of ai right now (Sonnet 4.6), and this is what it had to say.  Past dogma on this subject is being replaced by a new reality in many modern DACs.

Question:  Does the source device clock always override the clock in the DAC when using a spdif cable?

Answer:  No, not always — it depends on the DAC’s design and its clocking architecture. Here’s how it works:


Typical S/PDIF behavior (source clock dominates)


In a standard S/PDIF connection, the clock is embedded in the bitstream itself. The receiving DAC must lock its internal clock to this incoming signal using a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL). In this common scenario, yes — the source device’s clock effectively governs the timing, and any jitter or instability in the source clock gets passed along to the DAC. This is a well-known weakness of S/PDIF.

When the DAC can assert its own clock


Some DACs are designed to minimize or eliminate source clock dependency:
    ∙    Asynchronous reclocking / reclockers: Some DACs have a high-quality internal oscillator and a buffer that accepts the incoming S/PDIF stream, then re-reads the data using the DAC’s own master clock. This effectively breaks the dependency on the source clock and can dramatically reduce jitter.
    ∙    Large jitter rejection / FIFO buffering: Some DAC designs use a large FIFO (first-in, first-out) buffer to decouple the input clock from the output clock. The data comes in governed by the source, but it gets read out by the DAC’s own clock. This is more common in professional gear.
    ∙    External word clock inputs: Some higher-end DACs have a word clock input, allowing a dedicated master clock to govern everything, completely overriding the S/PDIF clock.


The key contrast with USB


This is one reason why asynchronous USB audio is often considered superior to S/PDIF — in async USB mode, the DAC explicitly pulls data at its own clock rate, making the DAC the unambiguous master. S/PDIF has no equivalent standard mechanism for this, so it requires the workarounds above.
In short, whether the source clock “wins” depends on how sophisticated the DAC’s clocking circuitry is. A basic DAC will be at the mercy of the source; a well-designed one can largely sidestep it.​​​​​​​​​

kn

@bigkidz I no longer have a streamer and a CD transport.
Both were eliminated by a Meitner MA3i with a built in network/streaming card. 

Thanks for the offer though. 

@audio-b-dog 

You are going to try a $14, 75ohm cable as a starting point to determine whether a coax cable can improve the sound.  I don’t think this is going to reveal much.  I was skeptical of the value add for digital cables and did a blind test of a wide range of cables with another listener and there was a wide range of performance and the differences were not subtle.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/yes-digital-cables-matter-too/post?highlight=Knownothing&postid=2542107#2542107

The least expensive cable in the test was the bottom tier Pangea offering which did not perform well compared to all of the other cables tested. My reference at the time was the DHLabs D750 and I was disappointed in it’s performance compared with more expensive models from Nordost and Chord. I ended up finding a higher model in the Chord line up that cost as much used as my streamer did new and I have absolutely no regrets.

if you watch the YouTube video about streamers referenced in my last post, the narrator goes into great detail about the importance of electrical noise affecting analog circuits in your DAC and other parts of your system downstream.  I think one if not the main thing good coax cables do for sound quality is help keep noise out of the signal path.  If sound comes out, the digital signal has been preserved.  If one cable sounds better than another, it’s because it is likely doing something to reduce your system’s noise floor.  A $14 cable is not going to tell you very much about that.

kn

Get yourself a CeriousTech Lumniscate cable and specifically an AES/EBU cable if your SSP or preamp will support it. Utterly transformative. Not inexpensive but prices fair in the context of the massive bump in SQ. I use from my Antipodes K22 player out to my Lyngdorf MP-60 and out to my Accuphase A-80.