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
atlaudio353
8 posts
 
the real reason The Amazing Randi never (rpt never) lost a Million Dollar Challenge was because the test protocol was obviously slanted to favor Randi. And to favor him to such an extent he virtually couldn’t loose.
Citation Needed. Other than all of the charlatans who couldn’t perform. It's plain to see, that as soon as they are introduced to proper experimentation and logical rigor, we get a litany of special pleadings for why they can’t prove their claims.


your obvious contempt for audiophiles and the whole scientific method notwithstanding,

You, lecturing someone on proper understanding of the scientific method. That’s rich.
atlaudio353
8 posts
 
willemj, would it be fair to say without looking more closely at the fine details of those tests, the take-away is things that measure the same also sound the same? Is that what you would have us believe? No wonder the cable controversy has been going on without letup for 40 years.

Then perhaps you should abuse yourself of the details. If YOU are claiming a benefit with X, it’s YOUR responsibility to show how that claim can be empirically demonstrated, not anyone else’s responsibility to prove it wrong. If said benefit is claimed because of A, and we know that A can be empirically demonstrated by 123 testing, then yes, we can test your claim. If no known testing methodology is available, it’s your responsibility to provide it. Without demanding that, your claims would be limited to your own imagination. 

If you are also claiming that we can’t measure a particular sonic change, benefit or detriment, then you have another claim to provide reputable citation for.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Whoa! What's this, the attack of the Audio Peer Review Committee? 🦃 🦃 🦃
willemj
1,036 posts
 
Sure if there are no measurable differences in noise or frequency response, there is nothing until somebody comes up with a better measurement.
An alternative and perhaps even purer way to look at it would be to inspect the digital packages and compare what goes in and what comes out. This too has been done, and the answer is: bitperfect. This is not a matter of belief or opinion but of fact, and not of alternative fact.
willemj
1,036 posts
 
Yes peer review is part of the scientific method. And without science you would still, for example, have a life expectancy at birth of at best 30 years, and believe that you were getitng ill because of bad spirits or whatever nonsense. And medicine is not the only scientific achievement.
More to discover