Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

IMO, whether Ethernet cable a factor is function to DAC buffer size. Bigger the buffer, less factor.

Less a factor for what?

Problem is most DACs buffer's ~6 seconds and I can easily hear a difference between Ethernet cables.   If you in my neck of woods, I would love to demonstrate in my system.

I can set JRiver for 6 seconds. So an Ethernet cable will effect that 6 second buffer but if I set JRiver for 60 minutes of buffer it won't?

What about all the other operations going on? CPU caching operations, Interrupts, DMA transfers, Memory Paging, SMPS? This is why I don't buy into Al's argument. 

With all this going on what ever variation of cable is going to be swamped by the system wide operations going on continuously. 

What is your neck of the woods and what is your setup? 

Jinjuku 4-27-2018
What about all the other operations going on? CPU caching operations, Interrupts, DMA transfers, Memory Paging, SMPS? This is why I don't buy into Al's argument.

With all this going on what ever variation of cable is going to be swamped by the system wide operations going on continuously.

Note that I said as follows in a post dated 4-23-2018:

Regarding the OP’s specific question, though, I would expect that an Ethernet cable that is upstream of his PC would have less chance of making a difference than one that is directly connected to an audio component, where it would presumably be more likely to couple RF noise into sensitive circuit points within the audio system.

Note that I also said as follows in a post dated 4-24-2018:

Member Bryoncunningham, who IMO is an especially astute and perceptive listener, and is very thorough in his evaluations, described realizing a substantial sonic improvement by changing from a garden variety unshielded ethernet cable to an **inexpensive** shielded type.

....It should be noted, though, that Bryon’s experience involved an Ethernet cable that was connected directly to one of his audio components, not to a computer that was in turn connected to the audio system.

Regards,
-- Al

Here is a windows system that I optimized to only 37 background tasks running. CPU was running at 2-4%

I turned on all the cache performance counters. 

I'll also do you one better: I'll start playback over the network of a 24/192 file and capture it into my ADC. During the capture I'll also transfer a large file of ~ 1 GB in size. 

I'll do it with a short 10 foot patch cable and a 100 foot $13 cable. 

Anyone is free to listen and tell me which track is the 10 footer and which is the 100 footer and when the 1GB file is also being transferred over the same cable that is playing the 24/192 track. 

Note that I also said as follows in a post dated 4-24-2018:

Member Bryoncunningham, who IMO is an especially astute and perceptive listener, and is very thorough in his evaluations, described realizing a substantial sonic improvement by changing from a garden variety unshielded ethernet cable to an **inexpensive** shielded type.

....It should be noted, though, that Bryon’s experience involved an Ethernet cable that was connected directly to one of his audio components, not to a computer that was in turn connected to the audio system.

Regards,
-- Al

Question is, do "Audiophile" Ethernet cables make any difference/ improvement in sound quality?

Jinjuku 4-27-2018
Question is, do "Audiophile" Ethernet cables make any difference/ improvement in sound quality?

I stated as follows in a post dated 4-24-2018:

As I’ve said in a number of past threads, the existence of differences does not necessarily mean that more expensive = better results.

I have never said or implied anything that would be suggestive of a high degree of correlation between cable performance and cable price, when it comes to ethernet cables. And in fact several of the improvements I and a number of others have referred to in this thread involved "upgrading" to inexpensive cables.

Regards,
-- Al