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
dynaquest4's avatar
dynaquest4
445 posts
 
I agree with tubegroover. A live performance is a whole different animal from a studio recording (and a "live" recording is actually a third). Hmmmmmm...and a well recorded concert Blu-Ray performance is, I guess, a fourth ("Hell Freezes Over" comes to mind). All are different. Asked to choose, I’d likely say if I could only have one it would be a well done studio recording which allows take after take and post-recording mixing by experts to achieve what the producer believes is the best acoustic performance that the recording/mixing will allow.

And before I’d cough up ridiculous amounts of bucks to buy cables that accomplish little (if anything), I buy more music!! :)
jinjuku's avatar
jinjuku
226 posts
 
Ethernet is a data cable. It's not an audio cable. Computer playback is buffered. Heavily. There are two buffers on the NIC itself for starters. Then you have either the USB or PCIe bus the EtherPHY sits on, then RAM, then back to buffer on the USB bus and buffer in the DAC itself. 

The data has been copied multiple times. 

As an experiment I picked up a $330 12 foot 'CAT8' Ethernet cable and I wired up 315 feet of generic CAT 5. All into a managed layer 3 switch with LAG and a $18 dual port Intel Server NIC (New pulls). 

I setup a 2nd machine with a mastering grade ADC and captured tracks while playing back. Relying on the 6 seconds of JRivers default buffer to immunize the system from a break in play. 

I posted two tracks and so far no one has been able to tell me how many changes were made, when the changes were made, what cable was in use. 

Remember this is $0.30 generic CAT5 at 315 foot vs $27.50 foot at 12 feet CAT8. 

If your high end streamer is affected by this then I don't have many good things to say about said streamer vs a $230 Quad Core, Passively cooled AMD Kabini system with a $18 NIC. 
azbrd
102 posts
 
+1 dynaquest4, well said!  milpai, have you considered all the $2 cat5e/6 or fiber cables in the path between your system and Tidal or where ever you are streaming from?  Trust me, I have worked in HUGE data centers that move exabytes of data (1s & 0s) around and NO IT guy ever thinks twice about the possibility of a cable effecting sound.  We make the cables, test them to make sure they conform to standards and thats it.


douglas_schroeder OP
3,281 posts
 
jinjuku, an interesting test! Let me see if I understand this correctly; you used the "twin CPU" method, ie. one tower for a library, and the other for the file playback? That is what I presume when you say, "I set up a second machine..." 

I have an interesting story to tell; a local computer audio enthusiast came to help set up my Mac Mini server years ago. He brought his entire two tower PC system with special software, HQ Player. We listened to his expensive, $3K+ file server system. Then on a whim he said that HQ Player also had a Mac version. We downloaded it on trial, played it and in comparison the stock Mac Mini with HQ Player was indistinguishable from the more expensive, much more complex digital server using two computers. That taught me fancier setups are not always better! So, my experience is the exact opposite of yours. I found that much more complex digital sources are not always better. Further, if they are insensitive to wiring changes, then I would not be much interested in them. 

So, I'm not overly impressed when someone puts up a very involved computer server regardless of cost, given that a stock Mac Mini performed the same given the same software. However, the Mac Mini was sensitive to cables, both power and digital links. My goal is to build better sounding systems, and if any product/method  is incapable of it I don't think it's terribly good.  


unreceivedogma's avatar
unreceivedogma
1,153 posts
 
Old_scribe, could it maybe be that Cable Theologians are also suffering from confirmation bias, otherwise also known as the placebo effect (I spent a lot of money on it, it must be good!)
More to discover