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.
If you’re not interested in a scientifically valid test, then this exercise is really just a waste of time, imo. But it’s fine if you’re having fun with it - that’s no problem. Just please don’t assail what you call our lack of "intellectual integrity" because we’re interested in a valid, repeatable test.
I believe the method is scientifically valid and I haven’t seen any material counterpoint to it.
The method is 100% repeatable. Easily. As a matter of fact I’ll make available my SG200-8 configuration file. Anyone can get this 8 port switch for less than $100, download the configuration file and apply it.
Ports 7/8 will be the a Dynamic LACP LAG (802.11ad) and you can use any other port for a connection to a file server.
You can hang two cables(7/8) and plug into your device and swap out without issue during playback assuming you have about 3 seconds worth of buffer. The LAG on the switch assigns both ports the same MAC address in the CAM table so when layer 2 frames are routed both ports receive and send it.
"Almarg +1 I agree it is most likely the faulty poorly designed boutique equipment used by the evangelists here."
By poorly designed boutique equipment one supposes you’re referring to things made by Meitner, Oppo, Lamm, Curl or DartZeel. Or did you mean Bose, Radio Shack and Pioneer and Kenwood?
Shadorne then wrote,
"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."
Well, that would certainly explain why my Sony Walkman CD player sounds so good, you know, what with the data buffering and lack of unintended pathways. Are no fuses better than any fuse and are no cables or interconnects better than any interconnects?
You've seemed hell bent on taking over this thread for quite a while now and it's clear that you and shadorne are really bothered by the idea of people hearing differences between ethernet cables. I think the people here are just having a good time experimenting with different cables and if they hear a change then good and if not oh well. It's not the end of the world. There's a few who have stated they actually prefer a $15 cable compared to the high dollar Audioquest Vodka so there's no need to try and save people from their own demise.
Maybe its best you just start your own topic thread and you and shadorne can preach from the mountain tops what you think is true and valid instead of trying to proselytize people to what you think they should be doing.
Shadorne, I partially agree and partially disagree with your latest post above. I agree that sensitivity to ethernet cable differences is a manifestation of less than ideal behavior by the components that are involved. And in at least some cases might be an indication that the designer's expertise is less than ideal. However arguably no design is perfect, and all designs represents the net result of countless tradeoffs, including practical ones such as cost. (And by that I am not referring just to production costs, but to development costs, time constraints on the development process, etc). So components having less sensitivity to differences in that cable may very well have any number of countless other downsides that are conceivable, in comparison with competitive products that are more sensitive to those differences.
"I’m not bothered by the idea of people hearing differences between ethernet cables. Not at all. If I actually believed this mystical ability I wouldn’t offer $2000 and if they actually believed in this mystical ability they wouldn’t refuse to take it."
Sorry to say you’re a long way from the going rate for audiophiles. Self respecting Audiophiles would turn their noses up at the suggestion of $2000. The going rate was set by The Amazing Randi a long time ago in his Million Dollar Challenge to Michael Fremer if he could hear the difference between some uber expensive $20K cables and some Monster Cable which, in case you don’t know, is the de facto standard for cables that are just OK but nothing special. All you folks out there that like Monster Cable please don’t tweet me or send any angry emails.
Sorry to say you’re a long way from the going rate for audiophiles. Self respecting Audiophiles would turn their noses up at the suggestion of $2000
Glad to see you speak for all of Audiophilia. My alternative theory, and it lines up with the Chris Wiggles / Michael Lavigne session, is that subjectivist can't cash any of the checks they write.
almarg Shadorne, I partially agree and partially disagree with your latest post above. I agree that sensitivity to ethernet cable differences is a manifestation of less than ideal behavior by the components that are involved. And in at least some cases might be an indication that the designer’s expertise is less than ideal. However arguably no design is perfect, and all designs represents the net result of countless tradeoffs, including practical ones such as cost. (And by that I am not referring just to production costs, but to development costs, time constraints on the development process, etc). So components having less sensitivity to differences in that cable may very well have any number of countless other downsides that are conceivable, in comparison with competitive products that are more sensitive to those differences.
Let’s see, no design is perfect. All designs represent the net result of countless tradeoffs. Including practical ones like cost. Costs involved with production. Development costs. Time constraints on the development process. Some components may have countless other downsides conceivably compared to other products. Whoa! Hey! You forgot one thing, Al. The sky is blue.
Yes, I did forget that one, Geoff. Thanks for pointing that out. But sometimes common sense and technically supportable middle-ground positions seem to get overlooked in disputes between those at opposite extremes of the belief spectrum.
Yes, I did forget that one, Geoff. Thanks for pointing that out. But sometimes common sense and technically supportable middle-ground positions seem to get overlooked in disputes between those at opposite extremes of the belief spectrum.
Al, no they don’t get overlooked. Those common things you listed, the ones that are patently true, don’t mean anything. It’s an interesting logical fallacy, though, using obvious truths to try to make it seem like your argument must be true. It's really the old Appeal to Reason logical fallacy in different clothes. My hat’s off to you. Old lawyer trick? 😬 You could employ the same tactics to try to prove almost anything in this hobby. Because such and such is true there must be no audible differences between fuses. Or, because such and such is true there must be audible differences between fuses. They can’t both be true. Let’s call it the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Occam’s razor. 😬 I actually don’t think this is an argument between two extremes. It’s just a typical audiophile argument, subjectivists vs objectivists, that’s all. Same old, same old.
I believe the method is scientifically valid and I haven’t seen any material counterpoint to it.
At least three contributors in this thread have explained how your test fails to meet scientific protocol. So either you're not paying attention, or you're just here to argue.
At least three contributors in this thread have explained how your test fails to meet scientific protocol. So either you’re not paying attention, or you’re just here to argue.
Post numbers please.
Let’s say you maintain you can jump 20 feet straight up. If I show up with a tape measure and a bar and offer $2K for you to jump, what is non-scientific about it?
Their sighted evaluation certainly holds no water. So not sure why you would give the credence over a well controlled evaluation rig.
" I agree that sensitivity to ethernet cable differences is a manifestation of less than ideal behavior by the components that are involved."
Come on. Seriously, there is NO advantage to making electronics gear where audio signals are sensitive to various differences between Ethernet cables. There is no semi-ideal behaviour of this sort.
This "Less than ideal behaviour" in the case of high fidelity really means CRAP performance.
We measure crosstalk and channel separation on amplifiers and it is a relatively simple matter to accurately decode, buffer and isolate digital ethernet signals from analog audio. So we should be completely justified to expect that good audio gear should be immune from small changes in Ethernet wiring.
There is NO extreme position in expecting audio gear to perform properly!!!
The extreme position is in making all kinds of excuses for totally inadequate "high fidelity" gear that cost a small fortune and almost certainly should perform better than $250 Best Buy basic gear (which by all accounts does not suffer from "unintended pathways" and change audibly with different Ethernet cables)
As you know I’ve agreed with many of your posts in the past, that are often very informative, and I always view them with respect even when I disagree. In this case we’ll have to agree to disagree.
When highly experienced audiophiles such as DGarretson, Grannyring, and Bryoncunningham, all of whom have excellent systems as well as exceptionally high credibility in my book, report that changing from one inexpensive ethernet cable to another inexpensive ethernet cable results in significant sonic improvement, IMO a suggestion that they should get rid of one (and perhaps both) of the components that the cable is connecting amounts to an extreme position. And even more so given that there would seem to be no particular basis for confidence that whatever replacement is chosen would be any better in that respect, and might be worse in that or any number of other respects.
Also, regarding ...
... we should be completely justified to expect that good audio gear should be immune from small changes in Ethernet wiring.
... from a design standpoint I’m not sure that what you are saying we should be able to expect is as easily accomplished as you are envisioning. For example, in a post in this thread dated 3-28-2017 I suggested the following experiment to some of the others:
Tune a portable battery powered AM radio to an unused frequency, with the volume control set at a position that you would normally use. Bring it close to an unshielded ethernet cable on your LAN, while the cable is conducting traffic. You may be surprised at what you hear.
When I do that with the unshielded Cat5e cable I have on the LAN in my house, while the cable is **not** conducting any large amount of traffic, I hear increases in static from the radio when it is as far as 2 feet from the cable. Keep in mind that an AM radio is designed to just be sensitive to a narrow (~10 kHz) range of frequencies in the lower part of the RF region (nowhere close to frequencies corresponding to the bit rate of ethernet traffic, much less to the frequency components that constitute the risetimes and falltimes of the signals), and to have a sensitivity measured in microvolts. And for audio we’re dealing with microvolts as well, but without the benefit of the radio’s narrow band filtering. For digital audio if 2 volts corresponds to full scale the least significant bit of a 16 bit word corresponds to about 30 microvolts. And the least significant bit of a 24 bit word corresponds to about 0.1 microvolts! And perhaps more significantly there are jitter effects that will arise as a result of noise whenever D/A conversion is performed, of course. And this experiment just involves radiation of RFI through the air. Not through what would seem likely to potentially be much more significant unintended pathways for digital noise, such as grounds, other wiring, and parasitic capacitances within the components.
That doesn't mean that your audio reproduction gear is going to be susceptible to it like an AM Antenna is. The Antenna is doing what it's designed to do.
It’s an interesting experiment. It’s also why when I do structured, low voltage cabling, I take all external factors into account when choosing what and how I’m going to run.
But if there are no cofounders then there is nothing to mitigate. That is going to be the norm for most installations and it’s an easy norm to hit.
Shield is part of the 6A spec. Again the IEEE standards body defines the #’s to hit. This in turn dictates cable construction. There are only so many ways to do this. If a string and two cans could hit the spec then that would work also.
I prefer wireless. Try to pick up 2.4GHz or 5GHz with AM sometime.
Jinjuku, I'm referring to jitter at the point of D/A conversion, within the DAC component. If the explanation for the reported differences that I stated in my post dated 3-27-2017 is correct (and both I and Shadorne have stated that we cannot conceive of any other possible explanation, assuming the reported sonic perceptions are correct), it **does** have to do with the ethernet cable, **even though** the signals being conducted by that cable ostensibly have no relation to the timing of D/A conversion.
Careful reading of my 3-27-2017 post should make what I am saying clear.
Of course AM radio is affected by unshielded Ethernet wires. This quite normal observation does not mean that in corollary the Ethernet signal has all kinds of digital static from the radio. Digital signals are extremely robust and there are error detection methodolgies to reject and retransmit packets of data in the event of interruption or data Tx collision from multiple devices (to the point of a hot swap of cable).
Your assertion proves nothing except you are gulible to the appeal of authority of your so called "experts". Your main argument is based on the idea that your "highly experienced" audiophiles are infallible even in the face of ludicrous claims:-
They claim that the sound output of great SOTA audio equipment SHOULD and CAN be audibly affected by changing Ethernet cables. It should NOT.
IMHO This is poorly designed or faulty equipment and there is no way around this because "high fidelity" is supposed to be as faithful as possible to the source audio and NOT extraneous factors. I contend that an audiophile should NOT use or purchase this type of equipment but rather find equipment that works properly - this is hardly an extreme position!
FACT: Also been in audio since the 60's. That was a time of acceptance to trial and experimentation. ( Remember the "POOGE" principles? Progressive Optimization Of Generic Equipment. The Pooge concept was coined by Walt Jung, Chris Hollander and Richard Marsh in Audio Amateur. The idea was to improve stock good sounding audio amps, preamps etc. by upgrading to higher quality components such as the component's hookup wire ( silver coated? teflon insulation?), caps (polypropylene?) , resisters ( metal film , switches ( silver contact?) , volume pots ( ALPS, stepped attenuators?)....by-passing caps with .01 mF caps, shortening the signal paths, improving the grounding layout, new circuit boards, better tranformers, etc. I "POOGED" my Dyna PAS tube preamp over several years with super satisfying results, taking out a lot of grain and bringing up the "you are there" feeling. My best tube preamp ever - still have it and hook it up sometimes. ANYWAY... I definitely hear differences between various speaker, interconnect, hookup wire in DIY components - sometimes subtle, sometimes none and sometimes glaring....sometimes positive and sometimes negative. To me, making occasional trials with other wires is part of the fun of audio....and these trials with various ethernet cables is right up my alley. As I listen to a lot of streamed music ( and films) I look forward to POOGEing my ethernet connection!!! Let yuz know what I hear soon.
Waterzlife +1 I’ve POOGED my Dyna monoblock amps by having regulated everything including regulated filament supplies, aircraft output tubes, upgraded power supplies, military NOS Sylvania, RCA and Sylvania tubes I got from my bud who was in tech maintenance at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Enid Lumley cable tunnels, and naked Quad 57s - no grills, no dust covers. No more teacher’s dirty looks!
I'm referring to jitter at the point of D/A conversion, within the DAC component. If the explanation for the reported differences that I stated in my post dated 3-27-2017 is correct (and both I and Shadorne have stated that we cannot conceive of any other possible explanation, assuming the reported sonic perceptions are correct), it **does** have to do with the ethernet cable, **even though** the signals being conducted by that cable ostensibly have no relation to the timing of D/A conversion.
Careful reading of my 3-27-2017 post should make what I am saying clear.
Easily tested. Have someone at random pull the cable during playback.
Archimago even showed 8Khz USB packet rate noise showing up in a DAC. The advice, and it mirrors, shadorne, and I think you would agree:
"Think you have a jitter issue? Save up the cash and buy a better asynchronousUSB DAC- forget cables and tweak products IMO."
Use the Dunn J-Test.
I've read the literature by the likes of Siemons, T.I. and others and I'll stand by my position. Properly built cables CAT 6 that certify out on Fluke/Tektronix will be neutral. What good is a standard if it doesn't offer consistency.
I've certainly provided more actual information in the form a ADC'd tracks with a 315 cable coiled up on the floor vs 12 foot.
Of course AM radio is affected by unshielded Ethernet wires. This quite normal observation does not mean that in corollary the Ethernet signal has all kinds of digital static from the radio. Digital signals are extremely robust and there are error detection methodolgies to reject and retransmit packets of data in the event of interruption or data Tx collision from multiple devices (to the point of a hot swap of cable).
The SNR of PAM 16 encoding is 30dB. I don't hear anyone talking about that and how it affects audio output.
Well, I tried the Terra Grande CAT 7, the Swedish CAT 8 and then went back to my Audioquest Vodka. Night and Day. The Audioquest brought back the sound. The other cables were so bright, I started reworking my room acoustics to soften a harsh, raspy high and clanging mid-range. And while it may be system dependent, or ear dependent, I will depend on the Vodka until I buy a more expensive Audioquest to replace it. And no, I am not trolling for AQ, but I have heard most of their line and each level has a noticeable improvement in sound quality. I also believe Kimber makes some great cables. I use a full tube complement powering Soundlab U-2s, with pre-amp and amps that are custom hand-made units and the U-2s are modified. Except in the summer, when I use a class D amp that provides a change-up in the sonic picture and lowers the heat load considerably.
Well I assume the only cable that was burned in was the Vodka? That will certainly impact the outcome. Please let us know about the run in time on the other cables.
the only cable that can really affect SQ (rather than individual preferences like cable swaps on some speakers) is the DC cable from a power supply to a DAC
Testing/comparisons ongoing... Some superb results with a variety of configurations and gear. This is one of the best areas of exploration I have spent time on for a number of years. It reminds me of when before reviewing I acquired three sets of cables and swapped them out in systems. That was highly instructive as to the efficacy of cables. It changed the trajectory of my experiences as an audiophile.
This is similar, a simple but tedious process which is leading to firm conclusions on Ethernet cables and their role in systems.
I would be interested in your observations but I honestly don’t feel good about the resurrection of this thread. Some of the worst ugliness I can recall. And by members that should know better (well, one of them should know better, shadorne). Just nauseating...
Absolutely no reason for any of these discussions to become "ugly." Sould be easy to accept that others do not agree with you without it becoming an emotional issue. Personally, I want to make sure these forums present a level playing field for those with little experience who come looking for advice.
What’s been ugly about this thread? No name calling, a ton of real data produced. Good questions asked that subjectivists either won’t or can’t answer.
My position is no one here can hear a difference. I’ll offer this: $10,000 to anyone’s $2000 and loser pays travel expenses.
I’ll do this on their setup and they need to hit 18 / 20 possible changes and what cable it was. I’ll bring a BJC Ethernet cable. How about twice or three times longer than the Boutique cable?
Of course they won’t know what cable is in use.
These are the conditions that I’m willing to be proven incorrect. I have to ask what conditions would have to happen for a person that thinks they can hear realtime differences in a non-realtime system?
I only care about experience if the claimant has a good track record. When it comes to people hearing all sorts of audible differences in Ethernet cabling I have to question any opinion they have on anything else audible.
For this test, $10K vs $2K would be easy money. I'd easily offer another $10K to sweeten the pot on a serious double blind test. Blind tests take away expectation bias (the audio placebo effect) which will reveal the uselessness of high priced esoteric cables....especially digital cables like Ethernet, USB and HDMI.
No one will take the bet. Even those who claim "jaw dropping" and "eye popping" sonic improvements when they paid big bucks to switch cables.
The test has to take place in a system familiar and local to the person committed to being the hearing test component. meaning their own system and one single change, and no pile of people standing around or in the room browbeating them with stares and so on. perfect known comfortable environment and system, one single change, with time to acclimate to the changes of each cable. To get to know what to listen for.
and, the first day, maybe one or two test tuns of 20 might be doable. Then, one or two more like that per day.
Properly handled, it could then likely go to 10-20 sets of 20 changes of a or b, and then under such a scenario a statistically significant number should arise.
A single run of 20 and asking for 18 right is not any known form of testing (of this sort of nature) that I’m aware of. It’s not a proper trial.
Repeating that set at least 20 times, begins to end up looking more like a proper trial. A valid trial. Statistically significant. Under this 400 individual tests in total, a result of 52-53% correct is statistically significant. And definitely considered valid. 1000 tests is better. At 1000 tests, 51% correct is valid.
Asking for 18 out of 20 to be correct, in a single run, is totally invalid. Not scientific at all.
Even though I think it can be pulled off.
And if he did ’nail it’ and pass the test, the non believers would never change their stance.
Not a hope in hell of that happening.
They would each have to do the test themselves with the same or different guy.
Thus the information gleaned is not transferable due to the people involved, people who will never accept the data.
Psychologically speaking...each skull will individually have to beaten off the floor until they each individually break down and deal with it. And they would still find a way to rise up and try and find a way back to their comfort zone by second guessing the results.
There’s no winning here. The problem is not the data, it’s the people involved.
Nobody heard miracles, but certainly obvious differences that any open minded and eared person can discern. If you can’t, then just play music on Any old wire and call it good. Just enjoy whatever system you think sounds great and no worries if you can’t hear differences in gear, wire, tubes, capacitors, resistors, transformers, fuses, and the like. You' re no less of an audiophile and I still respect you.
Jinjuku 9-14-2017 People that are discerning these differences are describing real time phenomena to a non-realtime system of data transmission. It is 100% delusion pure and simple.
This assumes that all of the circuitry that is involved performs in an idealized manner, meaning that effects of the non-real time signals and circuitry on the downstream real time circuitry are zero, carried out to many decimal places. As an experienced designer of high speed digital and analog circuitry (for defense electronics) I can tell you that is often not the case.
For further explanation see my post in this thread dated 3-27-2017.
Also, while my own system does not utilize an ethernet connection, the many posts that have been made here over the years by members such as Grannyring, DGarretson, Bryoncunningham, and others who have reported finding audibly significant differences among inexpensive ethernet cables warrant a great deal of respect for their reported perceptions, IMO. That respect coupled with the technical hypothesis I stated in my 3-27-2017 post leads me to emphatically disagree with your assertion that they are delusional.
Also, while my own system does not utilize an ethernet connection, the many posts that have been made here over the years by members such as Grannyring, DGarretson, Bryoncunningham, and others who have reported finding audibly significant differences among inexpensive ethernet cables warrant a great deal of respect for their reported perceptions, IMO.
1. I don't believe them 2. I have a different IMO that I'm willing to put $$ where my mouth is.
Out of a spec that allows for 328 foot, will routinely drive 380 foot without BER, I'll stand pat on a properly constructed, passes spec, Blue Jeans CAT6 vs a boutique cable that also passes spec and similarly constructed. And when I say of similar construction I'm talking the shield if any and how it's connected (or not).
Anyone that thinks 3/6/12/20 foot of spec compliant cables that are all constructed the same is going to make a difference is fooling themselves. There is is now $20,000 to someones $2000 out there for the easy taking.
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.
