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
777 posts
 

@audphile1 

Okay, for science's sake, let's take an obvious example. I used an RCA analogue interconnect to connect my transport to the Moon 280D. It worked in that the sound came through and I didn't hear any breaks or blips. When I changed to the $14 75 ohm digital cable, the sound tightened up considerably. Anybody could have heard it. It didn't take a refined ear. The difference between the $14 and $249 digital coax cables was more subtle, but it was there. I think that had to do with the cables' shielding and electrical interference. Although, scientifically I have no idea how electrical interference can affect digital information. A bit is either on or off. Maybe I'll try testing the $14 cable again just to make sure it wasn't my expectations I was hearing.

​​​​​​

richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
1,362 posts
 

@audio-b-dog

scientifically I have no idea how electrical interference can affect digital information

I suspect you also have your own unique interpretation of what science is ...

audphile1's avatar
audphile1
7,824 posts
 

@audio-b-dog 

What happened to your friend chatgBt? These types of questions can easily be answered by AI. 

jjss49's avatar
jjss49
6,920 posts
 

Pangea XL Digital Cable

just for fun, i bought a few different lengths of this ’upper’ pangea rca spdif cable to try ... core is copper cardas wire with 6% silver plate conductor, very nice connectors that grip tightly

compared to my xlo, kimber d60, straightwire silver, aq coffee and dh labs silver sonic they sound pretty much the same, nice open balanced detailed sound without any notable sibilance or dulling

audio advisor must have made way too many of these, they are selling for under a hundred bucks for a meter, half of msrp

philliprcook
24 posts
 

So the answer is; are you interested in the technical quality of the audio signal being processed or the admiration and bragging rights of your system? If you're interested in true quality of sound, spend your money on things that affect sound quality, not cables, power cords, etc.  If your DACs use "asynchronous" transfer and "re-clocking," which effectively isolates the audio from cable-induced timing issues, you only need good quality compliant cables. Bits are bits. I've heard all the arguments about the digital signal being analog and subject to noise, amplitude, and jitter but that's why you spend your money on a good DAC. The only exception to spending a lot of money on a set of cables is if your in an electrically noisy envirenment, and if so fix that problem first. Don't get me wrong, I understand wanting a system that's the best of everything but it's not necessary for sound quality. Each to their own. Some hear "Yanni" and some hear "Laurel, and some pay over $16 million for a Pokemon card.

More to discover