Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

He’s been digging around inside digital gear for 25 years?! Well, that blows my theory that he’s only 15 years old all to hell. 

kosst_amojan"nobody owes anybody proof. But when they make statements all truth disagrees with, then they shouldn’t be offended when they’re called liars.

That is the sort of playground logic common amongst children it is the same type of reasoning that prompts the answer "I know you are but what am I?" what is especially silly is you’re inflated ego belief that posting anonymously here you’re silly demands and complaints someone might take you seriously enough to become insulted! You’re tantrums here are those of a toddler who needs a changing and a nap probably you have a little rash that is troubling you.

@markalarsen   Which cable are you using? Thanks.

I took my advice from the engineer who designed and manufactures the Bel Canto Black EX DAC. He made the suggestion that I should try a high-quality Ethernet cable, I was skeptical, I tried it and it increased the sound quality. He was right.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability have illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.

Do you own a streaming DAC?

No answer? How about another simple question: have you tested your premise that a high-quality Ethernet cable makes no difference on a high-end streaming DAC?

@kosst_amojan 
I asked you a simple question:  how many streaming DACs have you designed, manufactured and sold?  Dunning-Kruger effect. 

I hate to judge too harshly but it appears costco-emoji really enjoys his role as the resident Veg-O-Matic. 🍆

@kosst_amojan
Can you please tell me whose truth we have to believe, should it be yours maybe ? Tell me what about the people who depend most on their hearing, the musicians who have kindly produced the media that you listen to are you saying that they are not to be trusted because they may hear what you claim not to hear namely getting that little bit closer to what we are all searching for namely realism. These people have to trust their ears day in day out .Tell me can you tell an A minor chord from a B minor chord without looking at the keys when it is played. Many people I know can and I'd rather trust their ears than yours. So when some of them tell me that they have changed a piece of wire and they notice a difference in sound then I am going to believe them a lot quicker than you telling me there cannot possibly be because you know it cannot be true scientifically.
Well look what scientists in the nineteenth century were saying that we are all descended from apes and there could be no God. Well tell that to the billions who believe in him anyway.

kosst_amojan"Damn straight you have to prove it. I’m not delusional about the nature of my hearing and I know it’s not a measurement apparatus."

Of course we have to prove it and of course your not delusional! Also the world owes you a nice job a pretty girlfriend a house a new car and everything else you’re little heart desires and demands from people you don’t even know You are are special entitled exceptional and in fact deserve a medal and trophy just for making this post! Yup that’s damn straight fella no need ofr you to take any measurements or perform any tests or research damn straight everyone owes you that and more just keep demanding and maybe if you stomp you’re feet that will help too!

Clean up on aisle 3. Angst and anger spillage.

I am hearing that they do not want to try it because, they are so well qualified, they know it will not make a difference. 

@chrshanl37  Chris, PM sent.

Hair-loss prevention elixir is better analogy.

Thanks david_ten...but perhaps maybe you could explain your point then. I don’t see how shadorne’s statement showed a lack of empathy or sympathy. 

@chrshanl37 You miss my point, while making it.

Sorry to hear of your sister's and family's loss.

I just watched my sister go through this. Her husband who had never smoked a day in his life was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer. Refusing to accept the diagnosis from several doctors who told her all they could do for him was manage the pain, she took him to a cancer treatment facility in Mexico. The promise of a miracle cure was just too irresistible. After a month of coffee enemas and prayer they were told he was in remission and released. 

During that time I had spoke out against her decision on numerous occasions and my family was quite upset by my lack of empathy and compassion. Well a week after they returned to the states he was gone, along with $40,000 of their savings. Interestingly, so far not one friend or relative that encouraged them to take that gamble has offered to help repay the cost. Being pragmatic has nothing to do with empathy, sympathy or compassion.

@shadorne   You posted:

FYI I have a cure for cancer that works 100%. I sell my elixir for only $10,000 a bottle. This contains enough to treat any cancer for an adult. A friend tried it and the results are amazing, he even started running Marathons and entered an Ironman competition three weeks after the first dose (three doses will cure all cancer). Previously he was bed ridden for three years. Even his wife noticed a difference!!!

Given the age of the population here, there are undoubtedly members and readers of this forum that are waging their very personal battles with cancer, and most certainly have family members or other loved ones they are close to that may be at various stages of cancer related illnesses, including nearing death.

It may be wise and compassionate to show sympathy and empathy.

shadorne"There are in excess of 1000 posts on Audiogon alone making incredible wild claims similar to my cancer cure example"

I have not seen on any post within the Audiogon forums any claim that any substance device or protocal could cure cancer, bad breath pimples or warts and if you continue to insist otherwise then as you and others of your thinking are fond of repeating the burden of proof is on you it is easy for you to claim that any claim is a wild claim because you haven't actually had any first hand actual real world experience with the product about which you complain about.

@clearthink

There are in excess of 1000 posts on Audiogon alone making incredible wild claims similar to my cancer cure example. Tweaks that are better than “any component upgrade”. Testimonials that even the wife noticed a huge difference. Just peruse the multiple SR or TC threads for totally impossible implausible wild and completely ridiculous claims.

Since most folks here would obviously agree that an anecdotal claim of a miracle elixir cure for all cancer is totally ridiculous then it is laughable that the same folks believe similar wild claims on the SR, TC and countless audio wire connector threads?

Notice I never question the audible difference from tubes or tube rolling and from amplifier design and topologies...only the wildest claims where a silly tweak causes the reversal of interplanetary motion.

markalarsen"All I am suggesting is that you try it in your own home in your own system"

You will have to prove it to them first before they do any such thing that is they're approach to this matter that is what you owe them in exchange for you having the benefit of they're appearance and participation and in these forums.

All I am suggesting is that you try it in your own home in your own system. If you have not tried it, keep your uninformed opinions to yourself. I, for example, would be reluctant to express an opinion on a car I have not driven.  I would, however, listen carefully to the opinions from the automobile’s chief design engineer. 

shadorne"This is how most snake oil audio tweaks read....FYI I have a cure for cancer that works 100%. I sell my elixir for only $10,000 a bottle. This contains enough to treat any cancer for an adult. A friend tried it and the results are amazing, he even started running Marathons and entered an Ironman competition three weeks after the first dose (three doses will cure all cancer). Previously he was bed ridden for three years. Even his wife noticed a difference!!!

That has never happened hear this is an example of complete pure and unadulterated fiction nothing of that sort has ever been posted hear and now that you claim that it has the burden of proof that you so often site is on you to provide and not anyone else hear to refute but of course we know that you are not going to provide that proof because as I explained above you think the world owes you something and you are going to get what Americans call a "rude awakening" when you get in to the real world and find out for yourself that it does not work that way. In the interest of being polite I will not mention how many of the people who call themselves objective have admitted hear to they're passed drug use of pyschedelics and that this has compromised they're "normalcy" so they especially should be felt sorry for.

shadorne
geoffkait - “Naysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your proof? Didn’t you read my earlier post on the definition of pseudo skepticism? Hel-loo!”

I understand you and your condescending attitude very well.

>>>>I suspect you mean professorial attitude, not condescending.

Certain tweaks you refer to are things that have NOT been scientifically demonstrated but only anecodotally reported. Often by people with vested interests like yourself.

>>>>I never said they were scientifically demonstrated (whatever that even means). You’re not following. Besides, hearing IS observation. Thus, it’s scientific. Also, I have no vested interests in the tweaks under discussion. See the difference?

This is how most snake oil audio tweaks read....

FYI I have a cure for cancer that works 100%. I sell my elixir for only $10,000 a bottle. This contains enough to treat any cancer for an adult. A friend tried it and the results are amazing, he even started running Marathons and entered an Ironman competition three weeks after the first dose (three doses will cure all cancer). Previously he was bed ridden for three years. Even his wife noticed a difference!!!

>>>>Who cares? Anyone can make up silly and absurd fake testimonials.  The point is YOU can’t prove they don’t work. Capish?

It is not a matter of faith or belief you guys have it all wrong it is a matter of how younger people today think the world owes them something this is the result of them getting medals and trophys in they're youth just for showing up! Companies that must hire this demographic and my companies are included in this quickly discover that this is an overriding and consistent characteristic of this specific age group that is difficult to address in many various circumstances the issue hear is simple because those who hear these things have no reason to submit to the incessant and endless demands of those who think they are owed something from those reporting what they hear and those repeating the demands just continue to do so while denying that they are making demands and of course they are not going to do any testing themselves because they feel they are owed these test results just by the mere simple fact of them registering for this site and participating hear in the forums! the final and end result of this of course is that there is no final and end result because those who are listening will continue to listen and to report they're experiences hear which is of course valid and the very purpose of this group and at the same time the "naysayers" will just keep naysaying because it is what they do and they are not going to change! And that is why one of the loudest voices in this specific forum for some kind of valid testing required IN ADVANCE agreements with lawyers and a $25K USD wager because he is "owed" that by us yes they think the world owes them!

“Naysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your proof? Didn’t you read my earlier post on the definition of pseudo skepticism? Hel-loo!”

I understand you and your condescending attitude very well.

Certain tweaks you refer to are things that have NOT been scientifically demonstrated but only anecodotally reported. Often by people with vested interests like yourself.

This is how most snake oil audio tweaks read....

FYI I have a cure for cancer that works 100%. I sell my elixir for only $10,000 a bottle. This contains enough to treat any cancer for an adult. A friend tried it and the results are amazing, he even started running Marathons and entered an Ironman competition three weeks after the first dose (three doses will cure all cancer). Previously he was bed ridden for three years. Even his wife noticed a difference!!!

geoffkaitm

I would probably call it pseudo faith or pseudo belief.

I think the faith of the "pseudo-skeptics" is the genuine article. Consider the vitriol that follows when their faith is challenged - they respond just like fundamentalist evangelicals.

I would probably call it pseudo faith or pseudo belief. 

geoffkait

Naysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your proof?

Their "proof" is their belief, i.e. their faith. By definition, faith requires no proof. That's why attempting to provide them with proof is futile; faith always trumps science.

shadorne, you’re not following. Naysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your proof? Didn’t you read my earlier post on the definition of pseudo skepticism? Hel-loo!

shadorne

... ABSOLUTELY NONE of the snake oil claims have been proved in the usual manner - for example an AES publication with measurements or double blind listening tests to demonstrate audibility.

There have been some proposals here to design and conduct such testing. But they were met by the forum's self-proclaimed objectivists with some odd preconditions, including a $25,ooo wager and agreements prepared by attorneys for "protection."  It seems that those who clamor the loudest for scientific testing are actually those who are least serious about it.

In any event this is a hobbyist group, not a scientific forum, so demanding scientific proof here is misplaced.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded

+1 And ABSOLUTELY NONE of the snake oil claims have been proved in the usual manner - for example an AES publication with measurements or double blind listening tests to demonstrate audibility. That some equipment run by imaginative listeners with high expectations is faulty enough to anecdotally produce audible differences randomly or with any slight change hardly constitutes evidence for new phenomena.

Your appeal to science couldn’t be more misplaced.

Great post, Geoff. Thanks!

kosst_amojan
@geoffkait
I love how you constantly use the oxy-moronic term "pseudo skeptic" to describe me. What’s that mean anyways? I really believe your snake oil? It’s about the stupidest conjugation of terms one could invent. For the record I’m most definitely a skeptic of snake oil. I’m NOT faking it in the slightest.

>>>>>Costco-emoji, I can certainly understand your confusion and misunderstanding of the term pseudo skeptic. Hopefully the comments below will help clear it up for you.

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one’s opponents’ points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one’s own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."

and this by Marcello Truzzi,

“Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard" skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.”

and,

“While Truzzi’s characterization was aimed at the holders of majority views who he considered were excessively impatient of minority opinions, the term has been used to describe advocates of minority intellectual positions who engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a preexisting belief. Thus according to Richard Cameron Wilson, some advocates of AIDS denial are indulging in "bogus scepticism" when they argue in this way.[12] Wilson argues that the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".”

@grmThat test you conducted is I feel a good way to do it, have non audiophiles help you out. That way they are using their ears only and as far as I am concerned the only way to go. I remember in the 70s there was a raging debate over sound versus science and the two protaganiste were Peter Walker of Quad and some of the staff of Hi Fi News and Record Revew and the gist of it was that Mr Walker said that specifications would win over percieved sound quality. Now we know that Mr Walker did make good products in his time but no one I know have ever said that his 405 current dumping amplifier was in the upper eschelons of the best amplifiers of the day. I myself had one and although it drove my ESL57s well when I changed to dynamic loudspeakers it was dull and lack lustre but it had superb figures on the test bench. The upshot was that HFN tested the 405 against an amplifier which didn't measure up anything like the Quad did and I am sorry but I don't remember which amplifier that was used but when they did their extensive tests this other amplifier was way above the Quad in terms of sound quality and enjoyment thereof. Mr Walker declined to participate in the test.The amplifier I switched to was made by Meridian and it was altogether a different beast where it had better sound quality and far more believable dynamics. Just as today Quad in their day had a lot of zealous followers who would not believe that their Quad products could be beaten by another brand. So today we have people who will not attest the fact that something as stupid as a piece of wire can make an improvement to the sound quality of an audio system . Another analogy that I put forward is people spend vast amounts of money on amps and speakers today and only to put cheap wire between the components is anathema to me. Would you put Ford Focus brakes on a Maseratti or cheap petrol in a Ferarri Testarossa no I don't think so. So lets just keep our better sound quality to ourselves and leave the people who think it is all in our imagination to go home and close their doors and be blissfully unaware of the improvements that they could make.
Jim.

@grm, Try Supra CAT 8

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Supra-CAT-8-STP-patch-cable-1-meter-Made-In-Sweden-THE-BEST-FOR-NETWORK-AUD...

Sounds best in my system and least expensive.

@grm Thanks for posting your results. The test isn't lame. It is realistic. Could it be published in a respected scientific journal? Nope. Does that really matter? Not at all. Will others criticize it? Undoubtedly. But, the critics may have biases that will not allow them to ever admit hearing a difference that they zealously contend is empirically impossible to hear.   

@grm. Good test. You may want to try a Cardas, AudioQuest or Wireworld Ethernet cable. They run around $200. If the one you buy fails the test, sell it here on Audiogon. 

Good test! 

OK,
Last evening I performed a listening test with a non-audiophile friend of mine to learn if he perceived a difference between a CAT5e and my CAT7 cable. The test was lame and am sure not up to the standards of most on this forum, but I'll let it be up to you to decide.

Streaming Source - TIDAL Hi/FI/Master
Gateway - Arris
CAT5e and CAT7 10' runs directly connected to Arris Gateway
Music - Keith Urban, Graffiti U, Track 7 (TIDAL MASTER)
PC - Built myself Gaming rig
Service - Xfinity 175mbps copper coax to home
Audio System - Krell and Sonus Faber

I repeated the test below three times, and all three times he selected the CAT7 cable. The way I performed the test is I told him there were two different Ethernet cables I was trying and wanted his opinion if one sounded better to him, I called them cable 1 and cable 2, Cable 1 being the CAT5e and cable 2 the CAT7.

I played the entire track with each cable starting with cable 1 and I told him it was cable 1, I asked him to keep his opinion to himself until we repeated the test 3 times, telling him each time I repeated the track what cable I had in the system, either 1 or 2.

Results:
My friend preferred cable 2, the CAT7 consistently. I asked him how substantial the difference was and he said without reservation that he could hear a difference, and that difference was the CAT7 cable sounded "smoother". Now though my friend is not an "Audiophile", I agree with his assessment. So, in the end, either I have a system problem, or, just maybe, there is a difference in Ethernet cables for reasons I can not explain.

Thanks for reading and please do not bash my non-scientific cable test, it was the best one evening, one person test I could pull-off.

The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural sciencesince the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".[1]

That is the scientific method. How many DACs have you designed, manufactured and sold? Bel Canto Design is a top brand, and the Black System is one of the best ever. Check Stereophile.