XXHighEnd

I read this through CA today. Seems interesting !

http://www.slashgear.com/optical-cables-by-corning-brings-thunderbolt-cables-to-the-budget-crowd-07263926/

The article talks about Thunderbolt, but also USB 3 optical cables.

" If Thunderbolt ports aren’t your thing at the moment, don’t worry because Corning also has full USB 3.0 options available as well. Corning and Optical Cables states Thunderbolt will be available in lengths of 12ft, 18ft, 10m, 30m, 50m and 100m (last is longest available) while USB 3.0 will come in 5.5m, 10m, 15m and 30m. As fart as pricing is concerned, we aren’t sure at the moment. Corning stated that they’ll be releasing further pricing details soon, as well as their respective retail partners. "

Alain

I know, this isn't your text Alain ...
:swoon:

;)  Now I understand why someone commented "Fart price ?" after...

There are not much details about how it would be implemented, but I hope this involves some kind of isolation against noise from the PC... 

It makes me think about the Adnaco... Did yoy have the chance to make some tests with the Adnaco (the S3B if I recall correctly) ?

Alain

http://www.corning.com/CableSystems/OpticalCablesbyCorning/where-to-buy/default.aspx#.UcFqRJzgxhE

No such isolation helps against the noise we talk about.

Let me be ignorant for a while.

You know what ? As soon as someone comes up with a "hey, no single XXHighEnd dial influences anymore !!" ... then you have the isolation you want.

So, who ?
:)
Peter

Well yes.. I mean no ;) The noise incoming through the signal (data) path has to be taken care of - of course... But at least nothing would add "between" components no ?

The noise will always need to be cut from the start, or "filtered"...

Alain

That's what you pray for Alain. But think Adnaco and you get the picture.

Btw, didn't look at the supply at the PC end (when this is about disks), but I think the light won't go in there for free.

Peter

Yes I know... I still read some people seem to praise Adnaco (re: Jplay forum)... Did I or do they miss something ? Unless they are not talking about the S3B...

Alain

Fairly easy answer : because everyone without good reference thinks that when something sounds different, it also sounds better. Placeboes work nicely here.

And for the literal Adnaco : More bass, less sharp highs. Great.
But for people with a more accurate source it comes across as less defined bass and blanketed highs.

Look at that forum, and imagine yourself to be part of it, asking a question like people do here.
No.
Nothing can be trusted there, but no different than anywhere. Phasure really is different and I think it stands out.

And for you Alain, you are the first to understand what I mean because you are so that when you don't hear something or are not sure whether it's consistent, you say nothing. This counts for many here and also for myself.
But this is exactly how all what *is* said in Phasure can be trusted. At least I do and for 100%.

:love:
Peter

Thanks Peter :)

Have I mentionned somewhere (I am not sure) that since I felt the sound was not good (with the S3B), I trie connecting it between  my external music hard drive and the PC ? This was an attempt to make it useful... But I finally agreed that it was not (useful for me), so I decided to return it...

I had always tried to apply the simplest path between 2 components, but nowadays (with the SMPS), it can get complicated...

From what I see now, a "almost perfect" decicated music PC should have different power supplies, have a simpler operating system, isolated sections (physically and electronically)... Maybe 2 CPUs - one for peripheral operations and one aimed at audio and audio only ?... I am thinking loud...

But to "all" have the same pc could be a nice thing... Even if I feel this would be controversial...

Alain

The Adnaco I guess has a PCIe card and a wall wart; it appears the Corning will be bus powered.  I hope the Corning is cheap enough to be in "Heck, let's try it" territory, though at least at first I'm not optimistic.  (The ads for it appear to be aimed at the pro market, A/V productions studios, etc.)

Latest I've seen on availability is 3rd quarter 2013, which is now, so we'll see....

LOL Jud, imagine me thinking that USB bus power isn't possible because that won't go through glass. But I never thought about power from both (USB bus) sides ...
:fool:
But still. All we do these days (OK, I am) is preventing such things. That too will imply noise.
So, not much different than people externally powering USB disks and such (never mind this is the PC side and not the DAC side).

Peter

The benefit of an optical USB-cable is that it breaks the ground loop between PC and DAC/Hi-Fi. This is good news, especially for those with wideband transistor amps. The bad news is that in each end of the optical cable, there is an opto-converter driven by typical switch mode wall warts, which themselves introduces distortion. So, in this field there is no guaranty for success.

I wonder about whether there is a wall wart in this case.  From Corning's FAQ:

No of course there is not. But not everybody reads all (hi Pedal) and not everybody's brains work at full throttle always (hi PeterSt).

What I wonder though is how this will/can work on low powered USB ports. I do this by heart :
150mA is normal and I don't think it will be sufficient for this application.
600mA is "extra" and if you'd ask me, designed for charging devices - even when the PC is shut off (but power switch still on). This should be sufficient for this application or otherwise nothing works.

But it is the very first I shut down (BIOS) because no way I will allow 600mA spikes by any by accident requiering device.

If you understand this, you also understand why in my view such applications (also USB powered disks) never work (out). Only "no power" is OK. Like the NOS1. But now there's a normal linear supply in there and regulated such that (hopefully) it is harmless. And STILL any optical to electrical conversion implies current spikes we don't want.

Hey, it is all not soo easy ..
haha
Peter

For what little information it may provide (not much), this from the specs for the cable:


Edit: I suppose the additional wattage is needed for USB 3 because the higher transfer rate requires more push to make the light go faster.  ;-)

I don't know where I took that a device could be powered by the Corning optical USB cable... It's kind of confusing since they mention in their FAQs that as long as a peripheral does not require more than 2.25 watts, it will power that peripheral, but I guess that 2.25 watts reduces the choices...

Alain

Edit: 2.25 watts (thanks Jud). I will take my morning coffee now, maybe it will help me to read better ;)
Edit 2: "to make the light go faster" Ha ! :)

2.25 Watt eh ?
I don't see a way that this will work.
Again I didn't sort out a single thing. If the 2.25W is provided on the PC side, ok (but with external supply). But what about the other side ? That should be devices made for the job. This isn't "fair".

For fun :
I think his would take/need 0.45A and I assume continuous load.
(Adnaco brick supply shows 0.5A).
For comparison (again by heart), the USB interface of the NOS1 uses 20mA (0.02A).

Hmm ...

If I recall this correctly, to know about the amperage, we need to know the voltage and the wattage: dividing the wattage (2.25w) by the voltage (5v) should then be .45 amps ?

V * A = W
W / V = A
W / A = V

As long as it is simple, I understand ;)

Alain

Alain, you talk like I made a mistake ?

So yes, 2.25 / 5 = 0.45.

It could depend a bit on whether we're using 5V indeed, because it could be 3.3V. So, USB standard is 5V but take your NOS1 and 3.3V would be sufficient. In that case 2.25 / 3.3 = 0.68.

But maybe the mistakes are all over, because that text I think spoke about provide 2.25 Watts. So, it's "in there" as a max maybe and don't ask me whether this is needed for the conversion from optical to electrical and whether the receiving end also has spare to provide a 5V of any normal kind.
Nah see, this is already stupid because now I talk like this whatever 0.45A comes from the sending side, which can't be so.

It all sounds a bit strange, so I better stop guessing.

Peter

Of course not :grin: Many years ago, I did not know the relation between the wattage, the power and the output :) It was more an explanation for others...

But depending on the cost of a simple optical cable, I would still be interested in trying one... Just for fun of course, as long as I don't have to renegociate my mortgage...

Regards,

Alain

Now *there* are wise words for all of us!

I wrote to Corning, asking “I would like to know if, as an optical transmitting device, this eliminates the frequency spectrum that USB 3 cables are emitting while transferring ?”.

While they attached a technical paper from Intel about "USB 3.0* Radio Frequency Interference Impact on 2.4 GHz Wireless Devices
(White Paper, April 2012), they also added this:

"We see from Intel’s April 2012 white paper that noise can radiate from the USB 3 peripheral device, the cable, & the PC.  While the transmission in our cable takes place over 2 fibers, our cable also contains 2 copper conductors for power."

I guess this means that there are also copper cables...

Alain

And I guess nothing. :)
But so much for eliminating noise from the PC ... me thinks.

See ? *something* had to be going on !

Haha, I "guessed" too much the last time ;)

Alain