Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

I confess. I do not have an engendering degree. Sob! 😥

FYI I just got through with my lecture on why no proof is required on another thread, and why all have to work with usually is evidence and why proof, even when there is proof, is subjective. Too bad you missed the lecture. Maybe I’ll give it again. Stay tuned.

dimora
I agree. We’ve stated the actual facts based on how ethernet cables actually work. The rest of the voodoo anyone else may wish to promote will have to be caveat emptor on the buyer’s part.

>>>>>Yeah, you guys gave it your best shot. You can walk with your head held high. Remember, only quote facts. Better luck next time.

Pestpilot, are you looking in the mirror? 

lalitk
“When I start playing a song, pull the Ethernet cable, and the song plays on for the duration, like it does with Tidal, what effect is the cable having?”

There won’t be any music to play if there was no cable between the switch and renderer to begin with....so by pulling Ethernet cable proves nothing 😉

Eggs ackly! It proves nothing. If it did prove anything audiophiles would be lining up in droves for car CD players that have a similar feature. Perfect sound forever! It’s only 1s and 0s! Whatever.

jinjuku

geoffkait “Once again it looks like we’re faced with the likelihood that there is no such thing as a scientifically valid listening test. There are too many variables in the case of long term listening to be able to definitively conclude anything about the device under test. If someone can’t hear it in a short term test there’s no guarantee he can hear it in a long term test.”

Interesting so all the people that are saying they hear differences in data cabling aren’t hearing anything.

>>>>I’m not saying that at all. Please don’t shove words down my throat. Think back. I’m saying negative results are not meaningful for the rather obvious reason that there are too many things that can go wrong with the test, even one that is presumably well thought out. Mistakes happen. Positive results, on the other hand, are positive IN SPITE OF ALL THE REASONS WHY THE TEST MIGHT HAVE FAILED. Follow?

nonoise
“I found this statement from John Atkinson (the one that measurement obsessed folk fall back on for support) to put a kibosh on most A/B/X tests:

...2nd order behaviors -eg-distortion signatures and noise modulations that characterize sound quality, and these things take a lot of listening to identify.

It’s what I and others have repeatedly stated: long term listening is the correct way to identify sound signatures and clues. You can get the gist of a cable or fuse or what have you but it takes immersion in the music, over time, to correctly assess anything, unless it’s something glaringly apparent.”

..........................

>>>>>I have serious problems with long term listening as a definitive method of testing. And I’m going to tell you why. First, things change over time for any number of reasons, even day to day and hour to hour the sound can change on a whim, for no apparent reason. But sometimes the listener does make actual physical changes to his system during the long term listening. And those changes, conscious or not, can affect the sound. So, which is it, the sound on Sunday morning at 7 am or the sound on Thursday afternoon at 3 pm? Second, audiophiles frequently complain of audio memory being an issue, so what’s to prevent audio memory from being an issue in long term listening?

Once again it looks like we’re faced with the likelihood that there is no such thing as a scientifically valid listening test. There are too many variables in the case of long term listening to be able to definitively conclude anything about the device under test. If someone can’t hear it in a short term test there’s no guarantee he can hear it in a long term test.

Whatever.

cleeds

geoffkait “Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative.”

Quite so. Nor does it necessarily mean anything even when the results are positive. And lawyers are certainly not required to develop a scientifically valid test protocol.

>>>>>>Nope, sorry to disagree. Positive results are - at a minimum - interesting and can be persuasive. You cannot obtain positive results rational test procedure. Obviously a one shot test that’s positive doesn’t mean as much as say a blind test with 5 trials.

There is no such thing as a scientifically valid audio test or test procedure as I’ve already explained. Looks like a Mexican standoff. 

Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative. Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are subject to the laws of listening tests I described earlier today. If it were true that all you needed was mutually agreed terms then any two knuckleheads who wanted to “prove” some particular controversial tweak a hoax. Lawyers don’t actually bring anything to the table, you know, knowing as little about listening tests and what’s involved as anyone in the world. Anyone not following my logic raise your hand. 

Let’s try to focus for a second. There are many things that can go wrong with any audio test, even or perhaps especially blind tests. Failure to acknowledge that things can go wrong is an indication of the naive nature of blind test proponents. OK, so what can go wrong? Why do I say, “no test that has negative results means anything?”

Things that can go wrong

1. The system used for the test is not sufficiently resolving to distinguish differences that might be audible on a better system.

2. There are mistakes in the system that were not found even if there was a search for mistakes or errors. Saying that the test procedures are thorough doesn’t necessarily mean they really are thorough.

3. The hearing capability of the testee is not up to the task.

4. For a blind test involving many trials, say 10 or more, the odds are high that the testee doesn’t have the focus or strength to dinstinguish audible differences for periods of time without tiring. You can’t just say oh, well, that’s the way it goes.

5. System issues that go undetected due to naïveté of those involved in the test. Directionality of Fuses, directionality of cables, Polarity check of all connections, etc.

6. Using unfamiliar music for the test.

7. Using a test system unfamiliar to the testee.

8. Weather and other “external variables” that affect the sound of any system that could make hearing subtle differences in sound difficult or impossible.

What if results are positive?

If the results of a test are positive I would probably say the test was a success and the results were positive IN SPITE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT COULD HAVE GONE WRONG.

👨‍🚀
gdhal
@geoffkait

Reminder.... you have yet to call jinjuku 📞

Caution.... he is wise to your witchcraft 💀

>>>>”A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from witchcraft.” This is especially true when high school seniors are involved. 👨‍🎓

markalarsen
@geoffkait. You are not interested in an explanation.

geoffkait
Uh, what are you talking about?

markalarsen
John Stronczer provided the explanation, and you prefer to ignore it.

>>>>>I didn’t ignore it. It doesn’t have anything to do with me. His explanation does not (rpt not) contradict anything I said. At least I don’t think so. Are you mistaking me for someone else?

Uh, what are you talking about?

Uh, he’s wise to me? What’s that, mob talk? You are a wiseguy, just as I suspected, Poodleman. 🐩

If you have a forte you keep it well hidden, Poodleman. 🐩

🐩
gdhal
jbny - I am more interested to hear why those who are hearing a difference in the sound of their files via Ethernet cabling think it is happening?

A *possible* explanation is a delusional episode. Another possible reason is that the listener is merely dishonest - with themself.

>>>>Poodleman, we thank you for your almost grammatically correct explanation. One assumes the high schools on Long Island are a little bit behind the US norm. 😛

See, it just got even stupider. I didn’t think it was possible. Is this a slow day at Jersey Mike’s, Poodleman? 🐩

Could this thread possibly get any stupider? 

Whaddya know, there are two Mafioso scammers here on this thread. What are the odds? Fuggedaboudit.

@spaceman - as kids today say, whatev.

Anyone who agrees to your terms would have to be even more naive than you appear to be. I bet you have never done a blind test in your life.

“....descrime the noise, distortion, etc.” 

Excellent Freudian slip.

👨‍🚀
gdhal

”I agree with ABX test. Please confirm the parameters of the ABX test conform to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test and that you agree to 95% confidence level (25 trials). In other words, please confirm you can audibly detect with 95% confidence that ordinary speaker wire is or is not reversed.”

>>>25 trials? Are you crazy? That’s a lot more trials than even The Amazing Randi demanded. And he never lost a blind test challenge. Why? Because nobody can sit there and pay close attention for 25 trials. Not even for ten trials. Gimme a break. What a ripoff! If the differences are of the subtle variety nobody can pick the correct one many times in a row. That’s the scam. Capish?

What are ya gonna do if I don’t reply? Whack me? 

That’s why the Mafia loves Long Island. It all fits together now. The blind test scam. Long Island. Fuggedaboudit! 

I hate to judge too harshly but it appears costco-emoji really enjoys his role as the resident Veg-O-Matic. 🍆

He’s been digging around inside digital gear for 25 years?! Well, that blows my theory that he’s only 15 years old all to hell. 

Clean up on aisle 3. Angst and anger spillage.

shadorne
geoffkait - “Naysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your proof? Didn’t you read my earlier post on the definition of pseudo skepticism? Hel-loo!”

I understand you and your condescending attitude very well.

>>>>I suspect you mean professorial attitude, not condescending.

Certain tweaks you refer to are things that have NOT been scientifically demonstrated but only anecodotally reported. Often by people with vested interests like yourself.

>>>>I never said they were scientifically demonstrated (whatever that even means). You’re not following. Besides, hearing IS observation. Thus, it’s scientific. Also, I have no vested interests in the tweaks under discussion. See the difference?

This is how most snake oil audio tweaks read....

FYI I have a cure for cancer that works 100%. I sell my elixir for only $10,000 a bottle. This contains enough to treat any cancer for an adult. A friend tried it and the results are amazing, he even started running Marathons and entered an Ironman competition three weeks after the first dose (three doses will cure all cancer). Previously he was bed ridden for three years. Even his wife noticed a difference!!!

>>>>Who cares? Anyone can make up silly and absurd fake testimonials.  The point is YOU can’t prove they don’t work. Capish?

I would probably call it pseudo faith or pseudo belief. 

shadorne, you’re not following. Naysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your proof? Didn’t you read my earlier post on the definition of pseudo skepticism? Hel-loo!

kosst_amojan
@geoffkait
I love how you constantly use the oxy-moronic term "pseudo skeptic" to describe me. What’s that mean anyways? I really believe your snake oil? It’s about the stupidest conjugation of terms one could invent. For the record I’m most definitely a skeptic of snake oil. I’m NOT faking it in the slightest.

>>>>>Costco-emoji, I can certainly understand your confusion and misunderstanding of the term pseudo skeptic. Hopefully the comments below will help clear it up for you.

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one’s opponents’ points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one’s own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."

and this by Marcello Truzzi,

“Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard" skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.”

and,

“While Truzzi’s characterization was aimed at the holders of majority views who he considered were excessively impatient of minority opinions, the term has been used to describe advocates of minority intellectual positions who engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a preexisting belief. Thus according to Richard Cameron Wilson, some advocates of AIDS denial are indulging in "bogus scepticism" when they argue in this way.[12] Wilson argues that the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".”

Good test! 

jinjuku
My proposal is that gear that is susceptible to a change in a short length of Ethernet cable is faulty.

>>>>>Sorry, but it’s your proposal that’s faulty. That’s George’s explanation for why there can be no differences between power cords - that high end electronics must be faulty. 😂

kosst_amojan
That’s EXACTLY what I think. Where no difference should be heard, but is heard, there’s something wrong.

>>>>There’s something wrong alright. There’s something wrong with your theory. This is an excellent example of the scientific method. You have a hypothesis. You observe. It’s also an excellent example of how pseudo skeptics are in denial.

Hey, I’ll take placebo any day of the week, too. I’m not fussy. If it sounded better I’d use chicken bones. 🐥

Couscous - Peer reviewed? Are you nuts? 

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.

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.

gochurchgo
OK, that can be your little secret then. Good luck.

>>>>Goodbye and good luck. But mostly goodbye. 😛

amg56
@geoffkait The essential thing that needs to be acknowledged it that irrespective of the cable, interface or component, each of us will draw a different conclusion according to the system being listened to.

In this case no natter of wires, fuses or components other will make an individual's ears change from what they at used to. The introduction of X Cable against Y Cable is a subjective thing divorced from cable makeup.

Sure cable makeup is imperative in the physical, (and quantum physics, magnetics blah blah,,,,etc) but that is the fine and part of the enrichment of the hobby.

>>>>>OK. Whatever. 

gochurchgo
Digital cables can’t possibly improve anything. It’s just funneling 1’s and 0’s.

Analog cables do influence the sound and I am a believer however.

>>>>Read my lips. 💋 It’s not (rpt not) the information contained in the signal that determines the outcome. It’s the electromagnetic wave photons) that carries the signal. Repeating the 1s and 0s mantra doesn’t mean anything. The reason digital and analog cables sound different is because of the physical and electrical differences between/among cables and their influence on the electromagnetic wave.

😀 Pop quiz. Do photons have mass?

couscous - witty!

I’m getting a contact high just reading your laughable posts, couscous.

kosst_amojan

@geoffkait
Looks like you forgot the question. Do Ethernet cables make a difference? No, they don’t. That’s a proven fact. Does your imagination make the difference? Yes, it does, and we can prove that all day long too.

>>>>That’s a proven fact? Are you high, couscous?

Costco, you haven’t been following. If he heard it it doesn’t matter if the test was “scientifically valid” or not. And it does not matter if there were mistakes somewhere in his system or if the system was not the ultimate in resolution or if he had issues with hearing or if the weather wasn’t the best. He had positive results *in spite* of all that. Hel-loo!

Positive results are much more important and interesting than negative results, which don’t mean anything taken as a single test, don’t you think? Nothing succeeds like success. And failure is no success at all. I suggest you go back to one of my posts where I explain everything and memorize it.

jinjuku
Again if someone says they can jump up 10’ from a stand it’s TRIVIAL to test this claim. This doesn’t need a science lab with interns, tons of diagnostic equipment and dissertation.

>>>>Uh, but nobody’s making that claim. No one is claiming he can fly or that UFOs are real, either. That’s what we call a Strawman Argument. People can think up all kinds of absurd cases that have no relevance to the actual issue at hand.

kosst_amojan
Irony... Snake oilers demanding "scientific" listening evaluations. I hate to break it to you, but nothing I’ve seen here remotely resembles what would pass as a scientific evaluation.

>>>>Let me break it to you, Mr. Kownitall. There is no such thing as a scientifically valid listening test. Full stop. If you think there is you’re simply mistaken or misinformed, whatever. We’ve been over all of this before so I’ll leave it to the student to search the archives. I did testing, you know, professionally. Not in my mother’s basement. So you can stop putting on airs.

Q You say AES doesn’t accept sighted tests. Do they even care one way or the Other? Are there AES Papers accepting or defining blind tests? Or anything related to blind tests? I’d be curious to know and surprised if there are, even though I know the dude from Harmon Kardon who’s high on blind tests is or was the head of AES. I have the impression and I could be wrong that AES is a little bit too conservative to believe in Cable differences or wire directionality or fancy fuses or controversial tweaks. So why would they support or accept blind tests? It doesn’t make sense.

cleeds
If "advocates" of blind testing were serious, they would submit the protocol for advance review here, and the test would be performed in public, which would allow witnesses and an opportunity for others to participate. This could be done at an audio store or audiophile club. But the "advocates" haven’t shown any interest in that; their call for scientific testing is just a red herring.

>>>>Well, of course they’re not serious. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Hel-loo! It’s a game they’re playing. You could also call it intellectual dishonesty if you want to get down to brass tacks. It’s the old game of Whack a Mole we all love to play. I’m not sure red herring is the right term but I know what you mean. That’s why I say they’re not serious or sincere. It’s just some stupid thing they picked up over on some backward audio site somewhere. Whack a Mole, the sport of kings.