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
Here are the bottom line issues:

Streaming is non realtime and buffered.

There are Siemons and T.I. white papers that give very in depth analysis of Ethernet and it's resiliency:

" Magnetic field coupling occurs at low frequencies (i.e. 50Hz or 60 Hz) where the balance of the cabling system is more than sufficient to ensure immunity, which means that its impact can be ignored for all types of balanced cabling. Electric fields, however, can produce common mode voltages on balanced cables depending on their frequency. The magnitude of the voltage induced can be modeled assuming that the cabling system is susceptible to interference in the same manner as a loop antenna [1]. For ease of analysis, equation (1) represents a simplified loop antenna model that is appropriate for evaluating the impact on the electric field generated due to various interfering noise source bandwidths as well as the distance relationship of the twisted-pairs to the ground plane. Note that a more detailed model, which specially includes the incidence angle of the electric fields, is required to accurately calculate actual coupled noise voltage.

Where: is the wavelength of the interfering noise source

A = the area of the loop formed by the disturbed length of the cabling conductor (l) suspended an average height (h) above the ground plane
E = the electric field intensity of the interfering source

The wavelength, , of the interfering source can range anywhere from 5,000,000m for a 60 Hz signal to shorter than 1m for RF signals in the 100 MHz and higher band. The electric field strength density varies depending upon the disturber, is dependent upon proximity to the source, and is normally reduced to null levels at a distance of .3m from the source. The equation demonstrates that a 60 Hz signal results in an electric field disturbance that can only be measured in the thousandths of mV range, while sources operating in the MHz range can generate a fairly large electric field disturbance. For reference, 3V/m is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the average electric field present in a light industrial/ commercial environment and 10V/m is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the average electric field present in an industrial environment.


The one variable that impacts the magnitude of the voltage coupled by the electric field is the loop area, A, that is calculated by multiplying the disturbed length of the cabling (l) by the average height (h) from the ground plane. The cross-sectional view in figure 3 depicts the common mode currents that are generated by an electric field. It is these currents that induce unwanted signals on the outermost conductive element of the cabling (i.e. the conductors themselves in a UTP environment or the overall screen/shield in a screened/fully-shielded environment). What becomes readily apparent is that the common mode impedance, as determined by the distance (h) to the ground plane, is not very well controlled in UTP environments. This impedance is dependent upon factors such as distance from metallic raceways, metallic structures surrounding the pairs, the use of non-metallic raceways, and termination location. Conversely, this common mode impedance is well defined and controlled in screened/fully-shielded cabling environments since the screen and/or shield acts as the ground plane. Average approximations for (h) can range anywhere from 0.1 to 1 meter for UTP cabling, but are significantly more constrained (i.e. less than 0.001m) for screened and fully-shielded cabling. This means that screened and fully-shielded cabling theoretically offers 100 to 1,000 times the immunity protection from electric field disturbances than UTP cabling does! 

And finally:

Well balanced (i.e. category 6 and above) cables should be immune to electromagnetic interference up to 30 MHz."

Then we have clock domain boundaries that are taken care of by FIFO buffers:

https://youtu.be/a_RL56y8Fpo?t=622

Here's the thing, despite all the backhanded jabs at my setup which you know nothing about, you simply aren't the smartest person in this context. If you were I would be getting an invite and asked to bring my cash. 

Your eye-brain connection is simply writing a check that can't be cashed. 
@shadorne

" But the golden eared gurus who review and advise the masses are able to hear the difference in the quality of the coal burning at the coal-fired electric power station from 50 miles away - so why not Ethernet cables? "

I got into a conversation with William Low at WBF forum. He said people, all over the world, all the time, at all sorts of venues (trade shows) hear the difference in their Ethernet cabling.

Even in this very thread someone said they had people over that could hear the difference. Were they camping out for two weeks?

Michael Lavorgna said the differences in Ethernet cabling are 'Plain as Day' and 'Readily Apparent'.

So someone is lying. 
 
jinjuku

"I got into a conversation with William Low at WBF forum. He said people, all over the world, all the time, at all sorts of venues (trade shows) hear the difference in their Ethernet cabling.

Even in this very thread someone said they had people over that could hear the difference. Were they camping out for two weeks?

Michael Lavorgna said the differences in Ethernet cabling are 'Plain as Day' and 'Readily Apparent'.

So someone is lying."

well, not lying necessarily. So it goes.

@ jinjuku: the OP suggested, no...he essentially said, that the equipment in your test did not cost enough and therefore would only provide mediocre results.  There it is!  The crux of the matter.  Accordingly to him and other "subjectivists," spending more money is the only pathway to audio Nirvana.  Exotic cable manufacturers and marketeers love people that believe this.  The more you spend the better sound you will get.  Like a Rolex...spend more and your time will be more accurate.  No.....wait; that has been disproven in a head to head Rolex vs Casio competition.  But, again....wait; those time test results MUST be inaccurate because the Casio didn't cost enough.

Me thinks the OP is ”in the business" and his opinions/reviews are biased in the direction of keeping the exotic cable myth alive. Ethernet, HDMI, USB and other digital connectors are the next wave of profit centers for these guys.  Preying on the easily convinced and poorly informed....again.