Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

I am referring to timing jitter at the point of D/A conversion. And I am referring to the possibility that cable differences may affect the characteristics of RF noise that may bypass (i.e., find its way **around**) the ethernet interface, buffers, etc. and **to** the circuitry that performs D/A conversion.

At best that’s a design issue of the connected hardware. Not a cabling issue, IMO, where the cable meets or exceeds spec. The reason behind my thinking is that RF noise generated, by say impedance mismatch in a cable, is due more to length and twisted pairs not staying in mechanical balance than differences in 12-15 foot typical patch cable. Not to mention the horizontal run is most likely some junk CCA.

At worst, and if we take your interpretation, I would say from what I’ve seen, most of the incredibly expensive CATX cabling doesn’t pass IEEE / TIA spec and it introduces noise and audiophiles don’t understand what they are enjoying is a degradation of their playback chain. That’s a stretch for me though.

Bottom line it would be measurable as the outputs of a DAC are voltage output devices.

Regarding disconnection of the cable, putting aside the possible significance of airborne RFI doing so would of course work in the direction of reducing noise that may be coupled from the input circuit

Again this is measurable. Also why I like WiFi. It’s low latency, high throughput, no measurement (either instrumented or human) shows harmonic component’s of RFI frequencies showing up.

I think you just said that removing the plug from the back of the client would work in the direction of reducing noise... So with that said I would encourage a blinded evaluation session where the Ethernet cable is removed during playback of a track and the listener successfully is able to indicate that removal or insertion.

Let’s even paint a scenario where that’s actually the case. That noise component is most likely going to be buried in the noise floor (or a component of) the DAC, in the -130dB range on a competently designed piece of gear. You can’t hear anything that low even if it’s there. And if it’s not. It’s not.

Putting it all very basically, responses by those claiming ethernet cables won’t make a difference nearly always focus just on the intended/nominal signal path. The basic point to my earlier posts is that in real world circuitry parasitic signal paths also exist (via grounds, power supplies, parasitic capacitances, etc.), which may allow RF noise to bypass the intended signal path to some extent, and therefore may account for some or many of the reported differences.

Your response sounds like a guess. I have another theory for all the differences and it’s sighted bias or really poorly designed, often expensive, equipment.

I’ve been recommending either WiFi (ubiquiti) of wired (Intel Server PCIe) NIC’s (left and right they are available NIB or as new but pulled) for for ~$25. They seem impervious to what cabling I’ve thrown at it.

@almarg   Thanks, as always for sharing your thoughts on these matters. +1 on this and your other posts in the thread.

@benzman  Thanks for sharing your findings. You make an important point. I've also had your Audience SX and the Supra CAT8 in my system and concur with your results.

benzman...Pretty easy to hear the improvement. So the answer is if you have a very resolving system an upgraded Ethernet cable will definitely help.  Just proved it in my system.

Yes this can happen and of course there are numerous other comparable testimonials already posted on this forum from other experienced contributors who have personally experienced substantially similar results and I completely agree that a significantly resolving Music Reproduction System is often a prerequisite for achieving results such as you posted. It is most unfortunate however that you will likely encounter responses to your shared experience from others who lack such experience but who have personally concluded based on the "scientific" study of white papers, printed specifications and/or basic textbook theory that such results are impossible except in cases of mental illness such as delusions or hallucinations or otherwise "placebo" affect or "sighted bias" and in fact one such deep thinker has suggested psychiatric medication to "alleviate" such delusions and other admitted that he suffers brain damage from his passed history of drug use but he still thinks listeners with sharp auditory acuity such as yourself are deluded. My efforts to demonstrate this in a public scientific blind listening test did not end well and I was specifically instructed by a Moderator to not provide the person promoting the test with any of the personal information he insisted upon me providing to him personally!

Bottom line is I went out to Williams’ house. We all had a good time and food for thought. Even brought a bottle of Michters' single barrel Bourbon.

He didn’t know that Tidal would cache the entire song and you could pull the plug.

People will often take something trivial and make as big of a deal of it as suites their agenda. Nothing I, nor anyone else, can do about that.

At that point it’s the agenda speaking and not anything else.

jinjuku" We all had a good time and food for thought. Even brought a bottle of Michters' single barrel Bourbon...People will often take something trivial and make as big of a deal of it as suites their agenda"
Well of course you are free to apply your acquired standards to the reported experience of others and conclude they are "trivial" but it is up to each individual audiophile to decide for thereselves weather such difference's are trivial or represent to them a more significant contribution to the resultant performance of a Music Reproduction System and to the best of my substantial understanding of the human auditory process, system and mechanism there is no evidence at all to support the assertion that the consumption of alcoholic products of any type can in any way enhance the hearing acuity of a listener.