I doubt there are any designers who don't have criteria they aim to meet. Typically, it's about achieving sound quality at a particular price point that beats the competition. Some go even further than that.
If someone is interested I can recommend this USB cable at a much lower price level:I appreciate your comments. Maybe you over analyze a tiny bit, but I do appreciate your curiosity. The great thing is that you don't necessarily have to spend a substantial budget to discover high-quality USB or Ethernet cables. There are excellent options available without breaking the bank.
Personally I will simply relay what I hear. And what others recommend.
Admittedly the Sablon website is a little abstract. Maybe better to read a little here: https://whatsbestforum.com/forums/sablon-audio.390/
You could contact Mark at sablonaudio@gmail.com. But I would keep it simple, do not start with the most high end USB cable. And give it some time, like 30 days ;-). It will give you at least a reference point.
If you like to read more I can recommend a few USB cable reviews by Christiaan Punter. Being skeptical himself, some time ago, over the years he compared many, many USB cables (no Sablon though). Very well written, he always explains clearly the whole setup and also compares with other similar devices/equipment/cables.
Computer Audio Design USB I
This cable offers a unique combination of technical accuracy and sonorous, full-bodied, natural and organic sound.www.hifi-advice.com
The following intro compares different digital connections and also what to ''hear for'' in a better USB cable.
Final Touch Audio Sinope USB cable
After all the USB cables that I reviewed, at some point, I truly felt that I had heard it all and there were no more surprises for me in store. Against this backdrop, it's an absolute joy to come across a new product that is so evidently superior to everything that came before it.
quartzacoustic.com
Are there any distinctive SQ features that set it apart from Chord, Belden, Supra, or BJC, as mentioned in this thread? I recall the GAC 4/1 'microphone cable' being quite popular a few years back for DIY DC cables due to its multiple shielding layers and the star quad design for excellent RF rejection. I'm curious to know if it shares similar attributes in its successful USB application. Does it tend to be on the stiff side?If someone is interested I can recommend this USB cable at a much lower price level:
Gotham GAC-4/1 Starquad Type C Audiophile USB Cable with Improved Gold-plated Connectors - Quartz Acoustic Pte Ltd
Our USB A/B connectors is now superior and thicker in the gold-plating, our improved Type C USB cable is looking good and sounding better.
It works very nicely in my system, btw I have no affiliation at all with this manufacturer.
Matt
I used to use a Sommer microphone cable like this some years ago as a speaker cable. This one is overkill, 0.34mm2 is cheaper.
shop.sommercable.com
I need USB-C at one end and this is somewhat difficult to get from the established audiophile manufacturers. These guys from Singapore make you the cable exactly as you need it and with excellent connectors. So my comparisons are somewhat limited but I like what I have. There is slightly torsional stiffness since at the source end is USB-A.
Cables do indeed exhibit variations in performance, and this distinction is often more noticeable in higher resolving audio setups. It's important to recognize that no single cable can excel in every application.I used to use a Sommer microphone cable like this some years ago as a speaker cable. This one is overkill, 0.34mm2 is cheaper.
Sommer cable
Using the Chord (cost £5) switching between a Lumin T3 and Holo May DACs, both streaming from the Lumin T3, the ability to reveal the difference between the two DACs was as subtle as a punch in the face. It got even better changing the Lumin T3 for Pulsar.
The Holo May and Pulsar gave a profound improvement in many ways to the Lumin T3 and a £5 cable did not act as a barrier in any way. The Holo May and Pulsar are just very well suited.
The £5 USB cable did not present any limitation to this system. The £100 cable is not noticeably better.
Rather than consider an expensive cable, a loan of the CAD filter will be a good test.
I had to look it up but I referred to the GAC-4/1 Ultra Pro Starquad balanced (each conductor Reussen shielded), probably more stiff than GAC-4/1? Maybe it will also make a great USB cable but for now I will stick with a Sablon 2020 (that I compared with a Lush^2 - and a Curious USB).
When I ordered my USB cable I asked Quartz Acoustic whether they can make mine from these but they told me it is impossible because of the tiny USB-C connector. They offer another Gotham two-cable USB but also without USB-C.
Honestly, USB-C connectors seem a bit too small and not as secure as I'd like for audiophile cables. In my opinion they might not be the best choice for this purpose and also less robust for audiophile cables. Their design is more focused on versatility and compatibility with various devices, including laptops, smartphones, and tablets. In that application we need just one (1) universal USB-C connection as by the end of next year in Europe (hello Apple?).
I don't think USB-C is worse than USB-A and USB-B. USB-C works perfectly in everyday use with most mobile devices where there is plug-and-play several times a day. This frequent connecting and disconnecting you don't have with audiophile cables. The problem is that nobody cares about real high quality USB-C connectors which allow soldering of AWG18 or thicker for example. When this problem is fixed I see no reason not to use them for audiophile gear. This might be one of the first steps into the right direction:
I am talking connectors, not the USB a,b, or c 'signal' if that is what you mean. Apparently we agree that USB-C connectors are fine for everyday use and probably that's why nobody cares. I never really looked into it, but it's possible that USB-C connectors could be more reliable than USB A or B connectors due to its higher bandwidth specs, even if we're not fully utilizing it for audio.I don't think USB-C is worse than USB-A and USB-B. USB-C works perfectly in everyday use with most mobile devices where there is plug-and-play several times a day. This frequent connecting and disconnecting you don't have with audiophile cables. The problem is that nobody cares about real high quality USB-C connectors which allow soldering of AWG18 or thicker for example. When this problem is fixed I see no reason not to use them for audiophile gear. This might be one of the first steps into the right direction:
Matt
Then why did you recommend your cable here in the first place?I am as well, but we are OT
Matt
. I just follow up on that post. It might be an advantage to know as USB cables for Pulsar users? Remember you started the discussion with your post #194 about USB cables north of 1k, I just wanted to show that there are alternativesThen why did you recommend your cable here in the first place?
Remember you started the discussion with your post #194 about USB cables north of 1k, I just wanted to show that there are alternatives
Matt
I tried a variety of USB and I was impressed enough with AQ Diamond to keep it for 3 years. I read about the Sablon 2020 cable and it turned out to be a clear sonic upgrade that was apparent after a few minutes of auditioning. Last year I purchased EVO. After a week of (necessary) break in I was knocked out by the ramp up of resolution, refinement and engagement the EVO brought to my system. Pulsar and the PhoenixUSB clearly reveal USB cable, power cord and fuse upgrades. With out these upgrades you’re definitely leaving a lot of performance on the table.Then why did you recommend your cable here in the first place?
I also have a Plixir on my modem...
Yes, I put a ground cable from the Pulsar output to my Entreq Silver Minimus box.
because this cable has been plugged in since I used the Pulsar.
