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
 
You say, "If the Ethernet cable is altering the output of the DAC then it should be captured in the tracks I provided." Perhaps. That will happen if the system is good enough. If it's poor then likely the difference will not be noticeable. Seriously, a couple hundred dollar system is what you are putting up for evidence? How about you get some serious gear and do the test? Audiophilia is not the reduction of quality to the lowest common denominator. You WILL get mediocre sound that way.

I want to point out the gross error in 'logic' that is made by someone that has no idea what they are talking about.

If I capture a track into my ADC and then I overlay it back over the original PCM from the 24/192 download that I recorded from and FFT shows less than a .1 dB variation in Amplitude response (or any other FFT analysis shows virtually null) then I have one simple question:

How is a $250 system able to produce such accuracy if it's not 'some serious gear'?

How about this. We setup your DAC and Streamer into an ADC and we setup my $250 computer into your DAC and into an ADC. Capture 9 tracks with one system. 1 track with the other. You can then analyze however you would like for as long as you like (you won't know which is which) and let us know which track is different from the other 9 and if it's the track from the $250 system or your streamer.

This should be a no problem for someone with such a highly resolving system.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Fast Fourier Transforms always settle these sorts of arguments for me. 😀

Next stop, controlled blind testing.
teo_audio
2,197 posts
 
A nice post it was, but I decided to pull it. Oh well....
jinjuku's avatar
jinjuku
226 posts
 
@geoffkait

I see selective memory abilities are on full display.

In addition to FFT analysis I've also suggested 9 tracks recorded with one setup, 1 track with another.

Anyone can FULLY SIGHTED and with any bias affirming, ears only manner, evaluate the tracks and tell us when they hear a track that sounded like it came from either a $250 computer or a $2500 or even an $8000 streamer.

Most here strike me as the type that if they are in the hospital for a medical emergency that they are going to want all the diagnostic and measurement gear and procedures brought to bare.

 
teo_audio
2,197 posts
 

Next stop, controlled blind testing.


The next problem is that peer reviewed meta testing in parapsychology circles has found that reality is formed around projection and opinion. That unassailably perfected scientific tests are fundamentally violated by expectation bias and projection.

That expectation bias makes things real. As seriously as you can imagine, that point, as a fundamental and firmament point ...in 3-d time-space ’reality’ as we like to call it. No joke. As many times as they cared to try to gain some form of stability in testing, it simply could not work. Science and facts took the big one ---in the ass.

Where does that leave facts and science? It leaves it as reality.... but it also leaves it (reality) as group bias and group consensus.

It leaves sciences and the idea of facts... freaking out...mumbling in a hole writing manifestos... in an aura of projected enforcement. Of a thing that simply cannot be. The fundamental in why engineers are taught law while physicists are taught that no facts exist, only theory. Because the heights of science know ....that facts do not exist. At all. Facts are just theory that is true most of the time, very very much most of the time. But that this premise of ’facts’... can fail--and does.

A bit of a problem for some of the more literal minded....

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html
More to discover