2. cables
  3. 128927-305

Most Important, Unloved Cable...

Ethernet. I used to say the power cord was the most unloved, but important cable. Now, I update that assessment to the Ethernet cable. Review work forthcoming. 

I can't wait to invite my newer friend who is an engineer who was involved with the construction of Fermilab, the National Accelerator Lab, to hear this! Previously he was an overt mocker; no longer. He decided to try comparing cables and had his mind changed. That's not uncommon, as many of you former skeptics know. :)

I had my biggest doubts about the Ethernet cable. But, I was wrong - SO wrong! I'm so happy I made the decision years ago that I would try things rather than simply flip a coin mentally and decide without experience. It has made all the difference in quality of systems and my enjoyment of them. Reminder; I settled the matter of efficacy of cables years before becoming a reviewer and with my own money, so my enthusiasm for them does not spring from reviewing. Reviewing has allowed me to more fully explore their potential.  

I find fascinating the cognitive dissonance that exists between the skeptical mind in regard to cables and the real world results which can be obtained with them. I'm still shaking my head at this result... profoundly unexpected results way beyond expectation. Anyone who would need an ABX for this should exit the hobby and take up gun shooting, because your hearing would be for crap.  
douglas_schroeder
jinjuku's avatar
jinjuku
226 posts
 
Because as I indicated in my 3-27-2017 post possible pathways by which RFI may find its way from the cable to circuit points that are downstream of the ethernet interface include radiation into power wiring, or into other cables, or directly into various circuit points within the DAC or other components. And the degree to which that may occur may be affected by the bandwidth, shielding, and other characteristics of the cable being used. And perhaps also because noise generated by the ethernet interface circuitry at the receiving end may change as a result of having nothing connected to it.  

Then I would suggest as T.I. does in "Reducing Radiated Emissions in 10/100 Ethernet LAN Applications" one uses a balanced power supply for the benefits of CMNR. 

Bottom line is that selecting well engineered componentry is what is needed for fidelity. 

I'm already able to produce ADC'd tracks, that given the natural losses of generational copy, are extremely close to the source PCM when compared. So that means, by fact, my $250 is indeed very transparent and high resolution, and that an $18 NIC, a $69 mainboard, $24 stick of 4GB DDR3, $55 240GB SSD, $25 PICO PSU, $60 LPS is impervious to changes in cable vs some that claim their $8000 device is capable of 'resolving' when it's really a failure for it to protect the output from something as simple as a change in one short run of cable vs another. 


almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
I don't doubt or question the comments in your post just above, Jinjuku. I have said in many previous threads here that the musical resolution of a component or system, and its sensitivity to and ability to resolve hardware differences, are two different things.  And in a reasonably high quality system the correlation between the two, while certainly greater than zero, is also a good deal looser than many audiophiles seem to believe.

Regards,
-- Al
 
jinjuku's avatar
jinjuku
226 posts
 
As far as I can recall, everything that has been said in this thread by those who deny that the reported sonic differences are real has focused on the robustness and accuracy of ethernet communications. While ignoring or discounting what I would consider, based on my experience, to be the very real possibility of interactions between signals and circuits that are ostensibly unrelated. Designs should not be assumed to behave in a manner that is theoretically ideal, IMO, and signals should not be assumed to only follow their intended pathways.

Agreed, but that is going to happen regardless of Audioquest or WireWorld or Nordost.

Bottom line is there are only so many ways to engineer an Ethernet Cable and the standards body steers these considerations. 

When a $340 AudioQuest Vodka was measured it was actually marginal for 6A operation for NeXT. Where as my $12 6A cable was 200% better in this regard. 

I'm able to show up and terminate UTP CAT5 or STP CAT6 to the same as is whatever they are using. I understand the theory and not in disagreement. All the same I stand by what I have said I would do and that is show up with ~40-50 feet of cabling, terminate on the spot and with a L3MS in LAG let the claimant A/B sighted for 1-3 hours and then we can move through the rounds of testing. 

shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
@almarg

+1 I agree it is most likely the faulty poorly designed boutique equipment used by the evangelists here.

Knowing what Jinjuku has stated technically about Ethernet (all that buffering of digital bits) then the ONLY conclusion is that "unintended pathways" are interfering with the audio signal for those few audiophiles that have noted audible differences.

I recommend that those evangelist audiophiles reporting audible differences where none should exist should sell their boat anchor crap gear asap and get something that actually works reliably with ANY suitable Ethernet cable...

Reports of wild and amazing discoveries with audio equipment that is clearly on the fritz is a waste of everyone’s time.

jinjuku's avatar
jinjuku
226 posts
 
Here is a good presentation of Audio and Ethernet by Belden.
More to discover