Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

My proposal is that gear that is susceptible to a change in a short length of Ethernet cable is faulty.

Great, this is coming from a guy who conduct listening tests on a headphone.

“.... unsubstantiated claims you can't back up with any evidence.”

The scientific method is to develop a theory and then test it. The engineer who designed my Bel Canto Black EX DAC developed the theory – Ethernet cables from the wall mount to the Black EX DAC make a difference in sound quality – and I tested it. He tested it. His theory is correct.

I think your response suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect. I think John Stronczer may be more of an authority on this issue.

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.

Less a factor for what?

And in fact several of the improvements I and a number of others have referred to in this thread involved "upgrading" to inexpensive cables.

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.

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

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

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
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Would you care to list the components involved with these 3 boutique testing?

ethernet interface circuits commonly deviate from that idealized model to an audibly significant degree.

IMO there is a more than sufficient body of anecdotal evidence,

provided by audiophiles whom I consider to be highly credible

In addition to the effects of shielding on radiated emissions, shielding would presumably also affect the bandwidth, capacitance, and other characteristics of the cable, in turn affecting signal risetimes and falltimes (the amount of time it takes for the signals in the cable to transition between their two voltage states), in turn affecting the spectral composition of RF noise that may find its way past the ethernet interface in the receiving device. Also, small differences in waveform distortion that may occur on the rising and falling edges of the signals, as a result of less than perfect impedance matches, will affect the spectral composition of that noise while not affecting communication of the data.

Putting it all very basically, responses by those claiming ethernet cables won’t make a difference nearly always focus just on the intended/nominal signal path. The basic point to my earlier posts is that in real world circuitry parasitic/unintended signal paths also exist (via grounds, power supplies, parasitic capacitances, the air, etc.), which may allow RF noise to bypass the intended signal path to some extent, and therefore may account for some or many of the reported differences.

Finally, regarding the potential effects of RF noise on analog circuitry, the sonic character of whatever audible consequences may result from effects such as intermodulation of that noise with the audio signal, and demodulation of AM (amplitude modulation) spectral components of the noise, it seems to me could very well manifest themselves in either or both of the two categories you defined.

The Antenna Myth

It is a common myth that screens and shields can behave as antennas because they are long lengths of metal. The fear is that screens and shields can "attract" signals that are in the environment or radiate signals that appear on the twisted-pairs. The fact is that both screens and shields and the copper balanced twisted-pairs in a UTP cable will behave as an antenna to some degree. The difference is that, as demonstrated by the simplified loop antenna model, the noise that couples onto the screen or shield is actually 100 to 1,000 times smaller in magnitude than the noise that is coupled onto an unshielded twisted-pair in the same environment. This is due to the internal pairs’ well-defined and controlled common mode impedance to the ground plane that is provided by the screen/shield. Following is an analysis of the two types of signal disturbers that can affect the noise immunity performance of balanced twisted-pair cabling: those below 30 MHz and those above 30 MHz.

At frequencies below 30 MHz, noise currents from the environment can penetrate the screen/shield and affect the twisted-pairs. However, the simplified loop antenna model shows that the magnitude of these signals is substantially smaller (and mostly attenuated due to the absorption loss of the aluminum foil), meaning that unshielded twisted-pairs in the same environment are actually subjected to much a higher electric field strength.

The good news is that the balance performance of the cable itself is sufficient up to 30 MHz to ensure minimum susceptibility to disturbance from these noise sources regardless of the presence of an overall screen/shield

Also WRT to jitter. Everytime some one brings up jitter and asynch Ethernet and the DAC output you can safely place them in the "They have no idea what they are talking about" bin.

Acepilot71 4-27-2018
May I ask guys with The Ear to describe or qualify the difference you notice depending on the Ethernat cable?

I suggest two categories:
- Quality of a music
- Quality of a sound

First one relates to the purity of the instruments, voices, etc.
Second - presence/absence of parasite noises, distortions etc.

IMHO you should notice only second one.

One of the major difficulties in quantifying and explaining the consequences of jitter is that there are many sources of jitter. Also, jitter can be classed into three basic forms (all can coexist) where there can be periodic, correlated to audio and uncorrelated artifacts. Periodic jitter-related artifacts are further complicated as they can be linked, for example, to mains hum as well as the various clock signals present within equipment. Also, there can be correlated elements with the actual digital signals carrying the audio information. All these inter-related dependencies complicate the interpretation of jitter making it difficult for a simple jitter estimate or spectrum to be interpreted in terms of its subjective consequences. As well as the numerous sources of error, the system architecture itself can influence the way jitter affects the resultant audio signal. For example, the use of noise shaping and up-sampling [10] with linear pulse code modulation (LPCM) alters the spectrum of the jitter induced distortion. Whilst, as suggested in an earlier paper [11], the use of a multiplying digital-to-analogue converter (DAC) with a raised cosine reference signal can in certain circumstances reduce distortion and augment interpolation between samples prior to the low-pass filter reconstruction filter. There are also analogue amplifiers which when processing a sampled-data signal can produce distortion akin to correlated distortion [12]. Finally, the choice of 1-bit sigma-delta modulation (SDM) code [13], pulse-width modulation (PWM) code [14] or multi-level LPCM code [15] changes the nature of jitter distortion.

Jitter is an important aspect of digital audio system design and as suggested by the simulations described, it can result in distortion that has a relatively complicated form. As stated, there are several mechanisms that give rise to jitter where in practice it is the relationship between jitter and signal that is critical.

@geoffkait The essential thing that needs to be acknowledged it that irrespective of the cable, interface or component, each of us will draw a different conclusion according to the system being listened to.

In this case no natter of wires, fuses or components other will make an individual's ears change  from what they at used to. The introduction of X Cable against Y Cable is a subjective thing divorced from cable makeup.

Sure cable makeup is imperative in the physical, (and quantum physics, magnetics blah blah,,,,etc)  but that is the fine and  part of the enrichment of the hobby.

There is no absolute right or wrong now-days, Its perception, How it feels to your ears, your gut, your bank balance and your wife (if you have one). There are always a desire to improve components and cables.

YOU need to be comfortable with the sound you're listening to. Go ahead and read the forums, but go with what sounds best to you

I think the argument is if your are happy to spend the money on cables or componentry because YOU feel there is a difference in your listening environment, be free to do so because IMHO THAT is what HiFi is about. Yes there is the physics, chemistry and quantum....  but each of us is different and appreciate changes differently. The micro arguments and opinions are worthless really. Just ego chest pumping.

I have used CAT5e cable from my router from NAS to Amplifier, from streamer to Amplifier, then changed to Cat8. The sound was palpably cleaner. I put this to the superior cable insulation of Cat8 (each pair insulated). It is the quality of the signal, not the speed. Its how many packet rejects there is for the message stream not speed. Quality of the cable shielding makes 10GBs/100GBs/1000GBs irrelevant if the continuity of the message packets are interrupted. Quality of cable does mean quality to my ears. Maybe not to yours. I am not debating your hearing to mine. I like what I hear. I am not telling you what you need to hear from my experience. Get it?