I stream music via TIDAL and the only cable in my system that is not an "Audiophile" cable is the one going from my Gateway to my PC, it is a CAT6 cable. Question is, do "Audiophile" Ethernet cables make any difference/ improvement in sound quality?
Any and all feedback is most appreciated, especially if you noted improvements in your streaming audio SQ with a High-End Ethernet cable.
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".”
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.
... 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.
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!
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.
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.
“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!!!
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
@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.
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?
In the field ofpsychology, theDunning–Kruger effectis acognitive biaswherein people of low ability haveillusory superiority, mistakenly assessing theircognitive abilityas greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from themetacognitiveinability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without theself-awarenessof metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.
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.
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 is your Ethernet cable directly connected to your DAC? If so - can you please provide your understanding how digital data becomes analog inside your DAC?
What is the source of your data on the other side of the Ethernet cable?
Toward the end of this thread a member having a very high end system reported that to his amazement inserting a cheap network switch between his router and his Bricasti M1 Special Edition DAC (ca. $10K) + optional network interface resulted in a substantial improvement in sonics. Another member who had suggested to him that he do that had experienced similar benefits in a different high quality system, after having done so based on a number of experiences that were reported by others at a different forum.
Why would that be? Certainly not because adding the switch would improve the accuracy with which 1s and 0s are communicated, which was undoubtedly perfect to begin with. As I stated in that thread:
Almarg 12-25-2017 ... the benefit that might result, if any, [would] depend on the particular router and perhaps also on the ethernet cabling that is being used, as well as on the particular switch and DAC. Presumably any sonic difference that might occur would result from differences in the waveform characteristics (e.g., risetimes, falltimes, and distortion) and also the noise content of the signal received by the DAC. Which in turn may affect the degree to which the RF content of that signal may find its way around the ethernet interface in the DAC and affect DAC circuitry that is further downstream.
Almarg 12-25-2017 My point is that no matter how good a job the DAC does in cleaning up the signal it receives, and no matter how good the design of the DAC may be, signals and noise don’t necessarily just affect or entirely follow only their intended pathway. And the waveform characteristics and the noise characteristics of the signal that enters the DAC will affect how and if RF energy present in that signal may to at least a small degree find its way via unintended pathways to unintended circuit points "downstream" of the ethernet interface and the internal reclocker you referred to.
Steve N. of Empirical Audio (member "Audioengr"), who of course is a respected designer of high end DACs and other digital audio components, subsequently seconded my comment, while suggesting different terminology:
Audioengr 1-5-2018 Very true, however I would avoid the term "RF". Its mostly what is referred to as "conducted" interference. In the case of Ethernet, it is leakage across the transformer interface.
I don’t see any reason why differences among cables might not have similar effects on the signal, albeit probably to a lesser degree.
There are similar theads on the PS Audio Formum with the same result.
OMG, Ted Smith, the designer of the PS Audio DirectStream, agrees that ethernet cables do make a difference.
I will bet Steve Nugent will agree. Both great product BTW.
kosst_amojan
has not tested his theory. He has not designed a streaming DAC, apparently does not own one, and has never tested his theory, although he has "dug around inside of them." Often wrong, but never uncertain.
I own and am comparing the Wireword Starlight Cat8 and the Cardas Ethernet cables. I also compared them against the Cat6 in the wall. (The installer cut and terminated two one meter cables from the reel.)
This is John Stronzer's answer based on real science:
Mark my research into the impact of the Ethernet cable for
the last run into the audio system focused on radiated energy. Given that the
Ethernet signal is packetized with packet rates on the order of 100-150kHz this
relatively low frequency can result in considerable radiated energy into power,
speaker and interconnect cables. I measured a very large 130kHz radiated energy
spike on a typical stock Ethernet cable and on a good quality audio grade cable
this spike was non-existent. The kind of improvement I hear from the ethernet
cable is similar to that from good power conditioning and power cables. It
seems to effect the noise floor of a high resolution system.
I do NOT think that anything to do with bit errors or jitter
is at play here.
We use completely asynchronous resampling of the digital
date from the ethernet interface-using our internal ultra-low phase noise
master clocks. (there are actually several stages of resampling in the EX DAC)
Bit errors, if they occur, cause noticeable dropouts and
interruption of the music. Not subtle degradation as would result from radiated
noise.
If those smarter than me do not want to at least accept the
theory of this kind of effect then Too Bad…
I approach these issues as an engineer, I certainly did not
WANT to hear an improvement from an expensive audio grade ethernet cable, but I
did and do and did some research into the why of this.
I use the SoTM dCBL-CAT7 and really like it. I'm not familiar with the SoTM Black cable, how would you describe what it does? Can't seem to find it on the SoTM site.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
