I have to concur with the naysayers but also want to add another angle to consider. No device takes the bits off the network and immediately converts the information into sound. There are buffers in the receiver that are likely several MB in size. This is why something keeps playing for a few seconds even if you cut the network connection.
So ... the bits come over the wire and get stored in the buffer and your equipment, DAC or whatever, drains that buffer and turns it into sound. So I don't see how the quality of network cable affects the sound since all its doing is filling a buffer. |
As a follow-up to the hypothesis I stated in my previous post, here is a quote from another post I had made in the "Most Important Unloved Cable" thread:
Almarg 3-19-2017
Those reading this thread may wish to also read a series of posts beginning around 2-16-2012 in the following thread:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/shielding-components-from-emi-rfi-help-please
Member
Bryoncunningham, who IMO is an especially astute and perceptive
listener, and is very thorough in his evaluations, described realizing a
substantial sonic improvement by changing from a garden variety
unshielded ethernet cable to an **inexpensive** shielded type. I
described some technical effects which may have accounted for that.
Also, this thread will be of interest:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/are-my-cat5-and-router-my-weak-link
A comment Bryon made on 8-7-2012 in the latter thread:
I
can confirm what Al has reported about my experiences when I replaced
an unshielded Cat 5 cable with a shielded Cat 6 cable. The result was
more resolution. A lot more.
The $7 shielded Cat 6 cable resulted
in a bigger improvement in SQ than several $1,000 power cords and
several $2,000 interconnects. Yes, I know that sounds crazy. I can’t
explain it.
I’m not saying that other systems will benefit similarly. In fact, I doubt it. But it’s certainly an affordable experiment. As
I’ve said in a number of past threads, the existence of differences
does not necessarily mean that more expensive = better results.
It should be noted, though, that Bryon's experience involved an Ethernet cable that was connected directly to one of his audio components, not to a computer that was in turn connected to the audio system. Regards, -- Al |
kosst_amojan
I didn’t even bother to shield the 600VA transformer in my amp. And why?
>>>>I’m guessing monkey see monkey do.
Because Nelson Pass doesn’t bother to.
>>>>Ah, just as I thought.
And it makes virtually no difference.
>>>>and you know this how?
Twisting is generally the safeguard against crosstalk between signal pairs.
>>>>But in the case of transformers the magnetic field is an issue for everything in proximity to the transformer. That’s why shielding is used around transformers. If there’re smart, anyway. You know, the low frequency high permeability stuff.
|
@kosst_amojan Hmm...you seem to relish throwing folks you disagree with under the bus (Bill Nye the Lyin Guy and Kaku--), which leaves me wondering why you uniformly take a caustic approach. The gravity clip above says nothing outlandish. It says "gravity" exists. Wow! Anyway, I picked gravity because we all know it exists not because it made a particular point about audio equipment. Your response was to take on gravity as if it is clearly questionable and routinely in doubt. Once you went there, I stopped seriously listening to you. You want others to adopt your view on a particular subject as the irrevocable standard and then you roll over gravity as if it is a novel hypothesis. IMO not a convincing way to demonstrate reasonableness. This is my last post with you because I don't think you are listening either. We disagree--something that is possible to do in a civil manner.
Peace
Al |
Interesting little fact;
When I purchased my Samsung TV, the owners manual specifically stated that "If you are using a wired connection to your TV, you should use a CAT7 cable". The manual did not say why this was necessary, but it does make one think...
|
