New rugged USB 3.0 cables: testers wanted

[Daniel (Intona)]

We just made new USB 3.0 cables. Double shielded, full metal type and with isolated handles.

See lab photos attached.
Available in 0.2m, 0.5m, 1m, 1.5m and 2 meters.

If you want to test the cables, you are welcome to reply here.

[oslo]

I would very much like to try your new cables.

[Daniel (Intona)]

Which length do you prefer?

[oslo]

1 meter.

[Daniel (Intona)]

1 meter.

->PM

[Minimalist]

Although I'm using the 7054, I'd certainly like to give the cables a test. 0.5m should do it.

[Daniel (Intona)]

Do you happen to have an USB 3.0-B port? Look at the shape on the first photo above. You cannot use the cable if you don't have such a port.

[Minimalist]

CORRECTION: Yes, my Matrix X-SPDIF2 that the Intona is feeding does have the USB 3.0-B port. I'd actually love to try the 0.2 m version to keep the link as short as possible.

[Minimalist]

Hoping to buy the 7055-C soon as well, once the exchange rate improves.

[Daniel (Intona)]

Hoping to buy the 7055-C soon as well, once the exchange rate improves.

-> PM

[Minimalist]

Received cable and 7055C - many Thanks - and am in the process of testing.

With particular regard to the conductors carrying the USB 2.0 signals, are you using stranded or solid-core wire?

Thanks, Thom.

[Daniel (Intona)]

With particular regard to the conductors carrying the USB 2.0 signals, are you using stranded or solid-core wire?

Stranded wire. I am eager to learn about the background of your question. What difference would you expect if it was solid-core?

[Minimalist]

With respect to digital signal transmission, I can't say one way or the other, although companies like Audioquest often suggest solid is better.

I personally experimented with audio interconnects and speaker cable years ago, building identical cables with mil spec silver plated wire of identical gauge in both solid core and stranded. To my ears in my system, the stranded interconnects and speaker cables were un-listenable due to glare and harshness. The solid core versions were much nicer. It suggested to me that strand interaction was an issue for audio signals..

[Daniel (Intona)]

But there is no audio on the USB data lines, just coded data which is decoded as audio in the receiver. USB transmission failure cannot affect audio in sense of sound balance but in another way.

If data was corrupted on the cable, the receiver will throw a checksum error. In the normal case of USB, a retransmission will be followed and issue is solved. Every USB hard disk or flash drive does this sometimes thousand times a minute without bothering the user. Unfortunately, this does not happen when audio is transmitted using the isochronous UAC protocol. Retransmission does not happen here and usually, the receiver even does not care at all and just plays the corrupted data out. This can be heard as crackling, zipping, or drop-outs.

Btw, I don't get why DAC-manufacturers don't care about corrupted data in their products. It's a trivial thing. (Except for real time fixed-latency usage in live situations, but then you can solve this with redundancy or just live with it.)

Back to solid- vs stranded-core. There are some physically aspects on the cable that can weaken data transmission integrity.

There is impedance vs. position (should be flat, hard to hold on contacts and solder pads, but doable). Any impedance-step can cause reflections of the high-to-low or low-to-high transition. Then you get bit errors, thus corrupted data as explained above. We take care of this fact by measuring S-parameters using differential network vector analysis and reject outliers.

Then there is shielding. Any change in electromagnetic field near the cable puts a common-mode (that is on both data lines the same amount) hitch on the signal which also can lead to bit errors. A tight shielding, seriously coupled 360° around each connector side is able to solve this. If this builds a tabular conductive extension between both enclosures, you are perfectly screened.
That's it. Nothing more.

There you are: solid-code data lines don't affect anything on USB, but solid-metal shielding and flat impedance characteristics make it more robust. We are happen to have really solid outer shielding on the rugged USB 3.0 cables (in addition to the inner shieldings of both data and power lines)

[Minimalist]

You raise a point I've never understood: why don't they include some form of error correction in audio DACs like the other devices you mention? Then all data cables that met the standard for the application would/should sound the same.

Your point on impedance consistency along the cable and shielding are well taken. Several years ago I switched in a iFi Gemini 2.0 cable , which claimed consistent 90-ohm impedance and great shielding (they split the data and vbus/ground lines in separate cables) and the improvement in sound was striking. And I'm sure yours and others out there are even better; I love the shielding on your USB 3.0 cable btw, which is surprisingly more flexible than one would think by looking at it.

But you haven't made an argument for completely disregarding strand interaction in USB cable. As noted above, I have heard this myself in audio cables, so why can't it also affect data cables given the lack of data correction in audio DACs and the far higher frequencies involved? Couldn't small amount of noise generated by electrons jumping between strands be enough to cause errors is certain instances, and wouldn't this be exacerbated by long cable runs? This seems logical to me and is marketed by companies like Audioquest and iFi.

And the amount of strand interaction would be influenced by whether the strands are plated or not, and the type of plating (silver or nickel or whatever) used. Unplated stranded copper might be particularly problematic over time, as the outer layer will eventually oxidize and my understanding is that copper oxide has erratic conductivity and causes a diode-effect between strands. (Older copper wire usually exhibits some degree of oxidation.) Whereas solid core wire would not be susceptible to this.

The main problem I see with solid core wire is deterioration from flexing over time, particularly in larger gauge wire.

Because of this, I could see a litz wire like Cardas being a good option for minimizing strand interaction while remaining flexible. (Although it is a total pain-in-the-butt to work with.)

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

[Daniel (Intona)]

But you haven't made an argument for completely disregarding strand interaction in USB cable. As noted above, I have heard this myself in audio cables, so why can't it also affect data cables given the lack of data correction in audio DACs and the far higher frequencies involved? Couldn't small amount of noise generated by electrons jumping between strands be enough to cause errors is certain instances, and wouldn't this be exacerbated by long cable runs?

Well, there are no long cable runs on USB. An air plane has long cable runs or an industrial production plant. They surely don't use USB. If you can prove signal integrity, that is every bit exactly sampled in the right time window, there is no need to making things more complicated, because:

The main problem I see with solid core wire is deterioration from flexing over time, particularly in larger gauge wire.

Yet the small gauges tend to break.

as the outer layer will eventually oxidize and my understanding is that copper oxide has erratic conductivity and causes a diode-effect between strands.

This is an issue if you do outdoor electrical wiring. This isn't an issue at all if in hermetical sealed computer cables.

In general, there is a lot of confusion with non-academic derivations in this audio business. This smells to me a bit snake-oily when audio companies claim such arguments for serious business.
But no worries, your questions and arguments are extremely welcome.

[godmax]

Here is my feedback for the rugged cable (many thx @Daniel).
The metal sleeving feels valuable and weighty. Its still very flexible, but stays is position very well once laid out. The metal sleeving around the usb cable inside is not fixed, so it will expand and contract slightly, but is fixed at both ends.
Type A USB 3.0 plug feels very nice and has a good grip especially with the ribbled bulge (possible disadavantage: it might partly overhang into the adjacent USB port when used e.g. with a PC mainboard).
Once pluged into both ends, it has a snug fit with USB 3.0 type B and A ports.
I could not detect any measurable or sonic improvements using this cable, since the Isolator cleans any noise anyway, but I guess that it is not the sole purpose of this cable.

Verdict: Very well-built cable that is worth using over a plain USB cable! Highly recommended!

...and your cat will for sure think twice before messing with this cable

Tested length: 1,5m
Used with: 7055-C for connection to PC mainboard

[avdsor]

I can test these out if still available. I currently use a 7055-B that I connect for audio. I use a Topping D90 DAC connected to a Topping A90 amp in a balanced configuration. I believe that I would hear any issues with these cables. I would need 2X 1.5m cables as HighSpeed USB 2.0 A to B; one from my PC to the 7055-B and one from the 7055-B to my DAC. Feel free to reach out to me.

Edit: Not sure if you have these in USB 2.0, but that is all my current set up uses.

Thank you for your time!

[Daniel (Intona)]

Edit: Not sure if you have these in USB 2.0, but that is all my current set up uses.

Unfortunately, this is available in USB 3.0 configuration only. Look at first photo in this thread, the B-Connector is somewhat higher and only fits into 3.0.

Although, this cable can of course transmit both USB 2.0 and 3.0. So if you had an 7055-C or -D type isolator, you could use this between PC and isolator.

[Lucky7777star]

Thanks Daniel for giving me a chance to test the Intona USB 3.0 A-B Cable with IDS technology.
The cable is shipped with the recently ordered Intona 7055D .

The cable is 1 meter in length, embossed with the Intona logo on the USB 3.0 A plug. The cable is well built, with metallic shielding throughout the entire length. This rugged cable is flexible and looped 2.5 rounds when shipped inside the box, and the cable can readily return to a straight line out of the box. [A quick estimation, diameter excluding the plugs => (100-10 )cm / 2.5 / pi ==> ~ 11.5 cm] I am not going to test on physical ruggedness on this aspect.

The USB3.0 B plug fits smoothly into the 7055D, and the USB 3.0 A plug fits into the PC motherboard USB 3.1 Gen 2 port (from Intel Z390). The LED indicator turned green when the 7055D connected to the PC motherboard via this double shielded USB 3.0 A-B cable.

Initially I tested the 7055D and the cable at home. There are some advanced analytical instrument in my workplace utilizing 4Ghz or 5Ghz ADC. When come to this acquisition rate, the instrument design need to consider the electronic noise/spike at nano second time scale. Usually the ADC conversion is real-time and factory optimized, and end-user handles the processed digitalized data but not the raw analog data. It is kind of difficult to test the latest USB 3.0 isolator and newest rugged USB 3.0 cable in full swing. Before I getting new parts, I will make a simple functional test on these two gears with a readily available USB thumb stick in the next post.

[Lucky7777star]

Following is a direct and basic test at user level.

The below photo shows the USB 3.0 thumb stick plugged into the USB 3.0 A port on the 7055D and performing the data transfer test.

Data transfer test performed by CrystalDiskMark 7.
Connection is as follows:
USB thubstick <-> 7055D isolator <-> Intona USB 3.0 A-B duble shielded, rugged cable in 1 m <-> USB 3.1 Gen 2 port on PC (intel Z390)

PC configuration
Gigabyte Aorus Elite Z390
Intel M2 SSD 660P (512GB)
Intel i7 - 9700K
64GB ram

7055D isolator and the rugged duble shielded cable remains intact , while the thumb stick becomes very hot . The transfer speed is limited by the USB thumbstick.

Then the USB thumbstick is plugged into the motherboard directly.

There is no speed loss when connected via 7055D and the new rugged USB 3.0 cable. Actually the numbers are slightly better when 7055D and the cable are used (may be the USB thumb stick is too hot).

The cable and 7055D worked excellently.

[cyber]

seems that usb dac don't need usb 3.0 cable