1. Home
  2. digital
  3. 197593-137065

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's avatar
audio-b-dog OP
874 posts
 

@audphile1 

I recently got "Waltz fo Debbie" too. Also just received Cassandra Wilson's "New Moon Daughter" on Pure Pleasure Analogue. It's AAA. i think all the Pure Pleasure albums are.

I pulled out Bob Seger's "Night Moves" which I bought used, but it's in great condition. I was curous about the sound and chatgbt gave me a whole rundown. My copy has a digital source. i don't like it enough to go out and buy an analogue recording. It's a bit bright and crispy this way but it works to throw a jolt of electricity in the room.

I'm working on an historical novel and chatgbt is very good at consolidating research for me. Now that it understands my point of view, it is kind of a friend. A strict academic would be questioning me left and right with questions I've already answered for myself. Chatgbt is smart enough to get with the program. It's also great at coming up with strong words when I can only find weak ones.

Not to say that chatgbt doesn't question my conclusions, many of which are presumptions, but that's why I'm writing a novel. Artistic liberty. 

audio-b-dog's avatar
audio-b-dog OP
874 posts
 

Here is a perfect answer from chatgbt when I asked it if my 2012 copy of Graceland was from an analogue source. Note how chatgbt tailors the answer for me:

Is the 2012 reissue of Graceland pressed from an analogue source

Graceland – 2012 Reissue Source

Short answer: No — it was almost certainly cut from a digital source.

Here’s why.

1. The Original Recording (1985–86)

Paul Simon recorded Graceland in multiple locations (New York, Los Angeles, South Africa, London).
It was tracked on analog tape, but:

  • Mixed in the mid-80s

  • Early digital processing was used in production

  • The final master prepared for CD in 1986 was digital

By that time, major releases were routinely mastered with digital steps.

2. The 2012 Vinyl Reissue

The widely available 2012 pressing (often labeled as a remaster) was cut from the 2011/2012 digital remaster files, not directly from the original analog master tape.

There is no indication it was an AAA (all-analog) cut.
If it were AAA, the label would have advertised it loudly.

3. What That Means Sonically

Graceland has always had:

  • Crisp, clean percussion

  • Very defined transients

  • A slightly “polished” top end

  • Leaner midrange compared to 70s rock

Even an original 1986 pressing has a somewhat digital sheen because of how it was produced.

So if you’re listening and thinking:

“This sounds clear but not lush like 70s tape,”
you’re not imagining it.

Bottom line

The 2012 reissue = digital master → vinyl cut.

Now the real question for someone with your ear:

Are you missing warmth on your system,
or does the rhythmic snap of those South African sessions still grab you?

That album is more about groove precision than tape bloom

richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
1,428 posts
 

Trying to get this thread back to digital (could have been my fault it got derailed). I came across this in a TAS review of the Bluesound Node Icon Streaming DAC, which offers a snapshot of why streamed sound can be different before cables even come into consideration.

I should also state that I find reviewing music servers fraught with uncertainty, to wit: How do you determine exactly what or what combination is responsible for the sound you are actually hearing? First, there is the original sound itself, then the source files themselves, that is, what the labels provide, how they were mastered and transferred. Third, the servers, none of which sounds exactly like any of the others. Fourth, the DACs, the chips, the filters, the output stages, whether you use Ethernet or Wi-Fi, or USB or optical—all this, by the way, without even going near the matter of connecting cables.

Without even consulting ChatGPT (or chatgbt, whatever that is)

audphile1's avatar
audphile1
8,078 posts
 

@richardbrand there are many variables in streaming with various factors, external and internal, impacting the end result. Streaming software is one of the biggest difference makers.

richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
1,428 posts
 

The Bluesound Node Icon Streaming DAC uses two ESS Sabre dacs, one per channel, which can natively handle DSD up to DSD1024.  

Nevertheless, I suspect the Bluesound down-samples DSD to PCM, thereby losing information.  It has a maximum input rate of DSD256.  Even reading the dac Data Sheet does not tell the whole story of how DSD is handled, though it can tell you how it is not handled

More to discover