Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

The correct analogy is that the 1s and 0s argument is the same phoney baloney argument we got regarding the so-called perfection of the CD. I.e., “perfect sound forever.”

Another correct analogy is that the 1s and 0s argument fails for Ethernet cables for the same reason it fails for the Digital cable for an external DAC.

Finally, regarding the potential effects of RF noise on analog circuitry, the sonic character of whatever audible consequences may result from effects such as intermodulation of that noise with the audio signal, and demodulation of AM (amplitude modulation) spectral components of the noise, it seems to me could very well manifest themselves in either or both of the two categories you defined.

CAT5E UTP cabling has good noise rejection up to 30MHz and this is quoted from "The Antenna Myth" by Siemon:

The Antenna Myth

It is a common myth that screens and shields can behave as antennas because they are long lengths of metal. The fear is that screens and shields can "attract" signals that are in the environment or radiate signals that appear on the twisted-pairs. The fact is that both screens and shields and the copper balanced twisted-pairs in a UTP cable will behave as an antenna to some degree. The difference is that, as demonstrated by the simplified loop antenna model, the noise that couples onto the screen or shield is actually 100 to 1,000 times smaller in magnitude than the noise that is coupled onto an unshielded twisted-pair in the same environment. This is due to the internal pairs’ well-defined and controlled common mode impedance to the ground plane that is provided by the screen/shield. Following is an analysis of the two types of signal disturbers that can affect the noise immunity performance of balanced twisted-pair cabling: those below 30 MHz and those above 30 MHz.

At frequencies below 30 MHz, noise currents from the environment can penetrate the screen/shield and affect the twisted-pairs. However, the simplified loop antenna model shows that the magnitude of these signals is substantially smaller (and mostly attenuated due to the absorption loss of the aluminum foil), meaning that unshielded twisted-pairs in the same environment are actually subjected to much a higher electric field strength.

The good news is that the balance performance of the cable itself is sufficient up to 30 MHz to ensure minimum susceptibility to disturbance from these noise sources regardless of the presence of an overall screen/shield

Also WRT to jitter. Everytime some one brings up jitter and asynch Ethernet and the DAC output you can safely place them in the "They have no idea what they are talking about" bin.

Jinjuku, to clarify a key point in several of my previous posts, the "RF noise" I have been referring to, that might bypass the ethernet interface and buffer memory in the receiving device and affect the timing of D/A conversion and might also affect analog circuitry further downstream, is NOT primarily noise that is picked up by the cable due to antenna effects. And for that matter it is NOT primarily noise that might be present in the cable due to ground loop effects.

As I said in one of my posts dated 4-25-2018:

In addition to the effects of shielding on radiated emissions, shielding would presumably also affect the bandwidth, capacitance, and other characteristics of the cable, in turn affecting signal risetimes and falltimes (the amount of time it takes for the signals in the cable to transition between their two voltage states), in turn affecting the spectral composition of RF noise that may find its way past the ethernet interface in the receiving device. Also, small differences in waveform distortion that may occur on the rising and falling edges of the signals, as a result of less than perfect impedance matches, will affect the spectral composition of that noise while not affecting communication of the data.

In other words, the RF noise I have been referring to, that might bypass the ethernet interface and buffer memory in the receiving device and affect downstream circuitry, results primarily from the energy of the SIGNAL ITSELF! Perhaps "crosstalk" or "coupling" of some of the signal energy would have been better ways to refer to it.

And the amplitude and spectral characteristics of that noise/crosstalk/coupling can be expected to vary as a function of various characteristics of the cable. Such as its bandwidth, which in turn directly affects signal risetimes and falltimes, its impedance, which in turn directly affects signal reflections and hence waveform distortion and hence the spectral composition of the signal, its capacitance, the twisting of its conductors, and its other physical characteristics.

And as I also said earlier:

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/unintended signal paths also exist (via grounds, power supplies, parasitic capacitances, the air, 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.

Real world circuits do not necessarily perform in the kind of idealized manner that is almost invariably assumed by those who assert that ethernet cables cannot make a difference. And while I am certainly one who recognizes that in general anecdotal evidence should be taken with multiple grains of salt, IMO there is a more than sufficient body of anecdotal evidence, provided by audiophiles whom I consider to be highly credible, to conclude that ethernet interface circuits commonly deviate from that idealized model to an audibly significant degree.

Regards,
-- Al

ethernet interface circuits commonly deviate from that idealized model to an audibly significant degree.

That's a design deviation or poor engineering however. I would say you have an flawed equipment problem if it loses it's composure when two spec passing cables are presented.

How many home setups use anything near the max 328 foot run? 150 foot? 75? 50?

I'll even go one further: Using the industries most stable, from many aspects and especially impedance stability, Belden 10GX would be the cable to go to for such error ridden playback devices.

What does Nordost, WW, AQ, Chord, Supra, know that Belden, a leader in high performance data, analog, broadcast cabling, with an engineering bench that is most likely larger than the entire employee base of some of these other companies on an individual basis, doesn't?

IMO there is a more than sufficient body of anecdotal evidence,

There are a lot of people that believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, some of whom seem to be credible human beings. But the point still stands now doesn't it?

provided by audiophiles whom I consider to be highly credible

What metrics would make them highly credible for you? I think a highly credible audiophile is one that is able to validate their hearing in an intellectually honest manner.

I've tested out 3 botique cables from $27 to $233 a foot. In three systems, didn't do anything more or less than 315 foot of 5e. Also in a forum members system a $13, 100 foot cable, put the bamboozle on that members system when blinded.

Jinjuku
What does Nordost, WW, AQ, Chord, Supra, know that Belden, a leader in high performance data, analog, broadcast cabling, with an engineering bench that is most likely larger than the entire employee base of some of these other companies on an individual basis, doesn’t?

>>>>Well, for starters, high end cable companies know that cryogenics and wire directionality are both important in the design and manufacture of all cables and power cords. Even HDMI cables. Actually they’ve known about not like forever. Apparently Belden never got the memo. How about them apples? 🍎 🍎

Don’t follow leaders, watch the parkin meters.