Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?
Any and all feedback is most appreciated, especially if you noted improvements in your streaming audio SQ with a High-End Ethernet cable.
Thanks!
grm
@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. There is no absolute right or wrong now-days, Its perception, How it feels to your ears, your gut, your bank balance and your wife (if you have one). There are always a desire to improve components and cables. YOU need to be comfortable with the sound you're listening to. Go ahead and read the forums, but go with what sounds best to you |
Acepilot71 4-27-2018That’s an excellent question, IMO, Acepilot. However I have my doubts that we will be able to infer much in the way of a conclusion from the answers that may be provided. As I stated in my earlier posts in this thread, what seems to me to be a plausible technical explanation for some or many of the reported cable differences is that RF noise whose amplitude and spectral characteristics are cable dependent is to an audibly significant extent finding its way around the ethernet interface and buffer memories in the receiving device, thereby potentially affecting timing jitter at the point of D/A conversion. And perhaps affecting analog circuitry further downstream as well. If that explanation does in fact account for some or many of the cable differences that have been reported it seems to me that the audible consequences of those effects would be just as likely to subjectively manifest themselves in the first of your two categories as in the second. For example, regarding the audible consequences of jitter the following statement appears in this paper by Professor Malcolm Hawksford, a noted academician and researcher in this and other audio-related areas: One of the major difficulties in quantifying and explaining the consequences of jitter is that there are many sources of jitter. Also, jitter can be classed into three basic forms (all can coexist) where there can be periodic, correlated to audio and uncorrelated artifacts. Periodic jitter-related artifacts are further complicated as they can be linked, for example, to mains hum as well as the various clock signals present within equipment. Also, there can be correlated elements with the actual digital signals carrying the audio information. All these inter-related dependencies complicate the interpretation of jitter making it difficult for a simple jitter estimate or spectrum to be interpreted in terms of its subjective consequences. As well as the numerous sources of error, the system architecture itself can influence the way jitter affects the resultant audio signal. For example, the use of noise shaping and up-sampling [10] with linear pulse code modulation (LPCM) alters the spectrum of the jitter induced distortion. Whilst, as suggested in an earlier paper [11], the use of a multiplying digital-to-analogue converter (DAC) with a raised cosine reference signal can in certain circumstances reduce distortion and augment interpolation between samples prior to the low-pass filter reconstruction filter. There are also analogue amplifiers which when processing a sampled-data signal can produce distortion akin to correlated distortion [12]. Finally, the choice of 1-bit sigma-delta modulation (SDM) code [13], pulse-width modulation (PWM) code [14] or multi-level LPCM code [15] changes the nature of jitter distortion.And as stated in the paper’s conclusion: Jitter is an important aspect of digital audio system design and as suggested by the simulations described, it can result in distortion that has a relatively complicated form. As stated, there are several mechanisms that give rise to jitter where in practice it is the relationship between jitter and signal that is critical.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. As you aptly said in an earlier post, there are "too many variables in this equation." :-) Best regards, -- Al |
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. |
The ethernet cables send 1's and 0's (high or low voltage) only. They do so at about 0.8 times the speed of light. If your digital devices sends the message, 0011010110, and the digital receiver reads those numbers intact, it doesn't matter in any way what cable transmitted it. The ethernet standard is to have no more than 1 faulty bit in 10,000,000,00 (1 part in 10^10). If the fidelity were not this high computer networks would be basically useless. Computers do not tolerate data errors. The ethernet protocol essentially guarantees complete data fidelity, If a data packet is misread, it is sent again until it is correct. With the error rate spec'd above, this would mean about one re-sent data point every hour, assuming 96 bit data depth and 40 kHz sampling (which is well beyond anything in the audio industry). The digital error rates in recording are many times higher, by the way. In short answer, it is simply not physically possible for your ethernet cables to make a difference in sound quality. |
The easiest way I can explain it is with this analogy: You order a CD and it comes to your house packaged in a cardboard box, you open the package and play the CD on you CDP. If the same CD was sent to your house in a nice metal box with gold flaked paint on it would the CD inside sound any different? No, of course not. |
“it is simply not physically possible for your ethernet cables to make a difference in sound quality” “If the same CD was sent to your house in a nice metal box with gold flaked paint on it would the CD inside sound any different? No, of course not” Easily the most absurd claim and analogy so far....LMAO😄😆😂 |
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 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? 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. |
Post removed |
“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, Would you care to list the components involved with these 3 boutique testing? |
Post removed |
Would you care to list the components involved with these 3 boutique testing? 1: Netgear ReadyNAS <> Cisco SG 200-8<> Cary DMS-500 2: Netgear ReadyNAS <> Cisco SG 200-8<> Cambridge 851N 3: Netgear ReadyNAS <> Cisco SG 200-8<> DIY ASRock 5300 Kabini based motherboard, 8GB Kingston DDR3, 120GB Kingston SSD, Windows 8.1 Pro, JRiver Media Center 22, WASAPI Exclusive Mode, Intel Pro 1000/Pt dual port. Ports 7/8 on the SG 200-8 configured in a active dynamic LACP LAG and on the client computer the Intel NIC in a passive dynamic LACP LAG. This allows for removal of the cabling without interruption of layer 2 CAM table. Either cable can be swapped in real time while the music is playing from the back of the client computer. 18 inch Belkin Gold USB cable to Emotiva Stealth DC-1 balanced out to either a RME Fireface UFX and AKG 701’s for realtime monitoring or Yamaha P2500S to Curt Cambell Statements. But all that doesn’t matter because if you are claiming your N.A. Ford Focus runs an 11 second 1/4 mile it really doesn’t matter what car I own. We aren't testing my claim, we are testing yours. |
1. Spend reasonable money. 2. Upgrade component. 3. Feel positive difference, and feel good about it. 4. Repeat... Isnt that the goal? In theory Ethernet cable does not make any difference for audio system but... p.s. Teory is applicable in highly controlled environment which cannot be applied to every setup (or may be even majority of the setups). p.p.s. Theories or rules have exceptions, which just prove the rules. |
That is not the point. Ethernet cable can impact in two ways: (1) reducing EMI interference; and (2) the connections. If it was impossible, period, the good Ethernet cables, from Cardas, Wireworld and Audioquest, would not improve the sound quality. They do. Period. You may not believe speaker cables and interconnects improve the sound quality, but the do. Period. |
@jinjuku IMO, whether Ethernet cable a factor is function to DAC buffer size. Bigger the buffer, less factor. Ideally DAC buffers the whole album, then anything before the DAC is not a factor ... play back from memory. Companies probably making too much money selling transports, servers ... so not changing soon. Problem is most DACs buffer's ~6 seconds and I can easily hear a difference between Ethernet cables. If you in my neck of woods, I would love to demonstrate in my system. |
Post removed |
IMO, whether Ethernet cable a factor is function to DAC buffer size. Bigger the buffer, less factor. Less a factor for what? Problem is most DACs buffer's ~6 seconds and I can easily hear a difference between Ethernet cables. If you in my neck of woods, I would love to demonstrate in my system. I can set JRiver for 6 seconds. So an Ethernet cable will effect that 6 second buffer but if I set JRiver for 60 minutes of buffer it won't? What about all the other operations going on? CPU caching operations, Interrupts, DMA transfers, Memory Paging, SMPS? This is why I don't buy into Al's argument. With all this going on what ever variation of cable is going to be swamped by the system wide operations going on continuously. What is your neck of the woods and what is your setup? |
Jinjuku 4-27-2018 Note that I said as follows in a post dated 4-23-2018: Regarding the OP’s specific question, though, I would expect that an Ethernet cable that is upstream of his PC would have less chance of making a difference than one that is directly connected to an audio component, where it would presumably be more likely to couple RF noise into sensitive circuit points within the audio system.Note that I also said as follows in a post dated 4-24-2018: 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.Regards, -- Al |
Here is a windows system that I optimized to only 37 background tasks running. CPU was running at 2-4% I turned on all the cache performance counters. I'll also do you one better: I'll start playback over the network of a 24/192 file and capture it into my ADC. During the capture I'll also transfer a large file of ~ 1 GB in size. I'll do it with a short 10 foot patch cable and a 100 foot $13 cable. Anyone is free to listen and tell me which track is the 10 footer and which is the 100 footer and when the 1GB file is also being transferred over the same cable that is playing the 24/192 track. |
Note that I also said as follows in a post dated 4-24-2018: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.Regards, |
Jinjuku 4-27-2018 I stated as follows in a post dated 4-24-2018: As I’ve said in a number of past threads, the existence of differences does not necessarily mean that more expensive = better results.I have never said or implied anything that would be suggestive of a high degree of correlation between cable performance and cable price, when it comes to ethernet cables. And in fact several of the improvements I and a number of others have referred to in this thread involved "upgrading" to inexpensive cables. Regards, -- Al |
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 would question the quality of the streamer that is so susceptible. Both the $4000 Cary and the $1600 851N were impervious. Broke no sweat with my 315 foot cable. Also the 315 foot generic I made and the 3 foot Nordost both had sub 1ms ping times and both were able to transfer at a sustained 107MB/second. |
And in fact several of the improvements I and a number of others have referred to in this thread involved "upgrading" to inexpensive cables. My proposal is that gear that is susceptible to a change in a short length of Ethernet cable is faulty. I'd rather have gear that works with in spec cable reliably, consistently, without variation. |
Post removed |
I have never said or implied anything that would be suggestive of a high degree of correlation between cable performance and cable price, when it comes to ethernet cables. And in fact several of the improvements I and a number of others have referred to in this thread involved "upgrading" to inexpensive cables.This is true with everything not just cables. As far as Ethernet cable, least expensive of 4 won big time in my system. Less a factor for what?I thought you're computer savvy?? Why computers improve performance from caching? Why does online videos buffer data before play? |
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. |
“My proposal is that gear that is susceptible to a change in a short length of Ethernet cable is faulty” Great, this is coming from a guy who conduct listening tests on a headphone. And the other one, who clearly do not believe that cables can make difference slams his seal of approval on the proposal. I am guessing he doesn’t even stream music; cause all he talks about how his F5 clone, an engineering marvel impervious to aftermarket fuses and cables - PC or IC’s. Everyone here who have tried variety of Ethernet cables regardless of price point, heard differences in how music is being conveyed. Some of us appreciated the improvements we heard and some didn’t. I have no qualms with those unable to hear the differences. One wouldn’t hear, “more detail, air, articulation, speed of transients and a lower noise floor” by trying different cables and tweaks if they own faulty components, IMHO. Peace out! |
@kosst_amojan “.... unsubstantiated claims you can't back up with any evidence.” The scientific method is to develop a theory and then test it. The engineer who designed my Bel Canto Black EX DAC developed the theory – Ethernet cables from the wall mount to the Black EX DAC make a difference in sound quality – and I tested it. He tested it. His theory is correct. I think your response suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect. I think John Stronczer may be more of an authority on this issue. |
Post removed |
The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural sciencesince the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".[1] |
OK, Last evening I performed a listening test with a non-audiophile friend of mine to learn if he perceived a difference between a CAT5e and my CAT7 cable. The test was lame and am sure not up to the standards of most on this forum, but I'll let it be up to you to decide. Streaming Source - TIDAL Hi/FI/Master Gateway - Arris CAT5e and CAT7 10' runs directly connected to Arris Gateway Music - Keith Urban, Graffiti U, Track 7 (TIDAL MASTER) PC - Built myself Gaming rig Service - Xfinity 175mbps copper coax to home Audio System - Krell and Sonus Faber I repeated the test below three times, and all three times he selected the CAT7 cable. The way I performed the test is I told him there were two different Ethernet cables I was trying and wanted his opinion if one sounded better to him, I called them cable 1 and cable 2, Cable 1 being the CAT5e and cable 2 the CAT7. I played the entire track with each cable starting with cable 1 and I told him it was cable 1, I asked him to keep his opinion to himself until we repeated the test 3 times, telling him each time I repeated the track what cable I had in the system, either 1 or 2. Results: My friend preferred cable 2, the CAT7 consistently. I asked him how substantial the difference was and he said without reservation that he could hear a difference, and that difference was the CAT7 cable sounded "smoother". Now though my friend is not an "Audiophile", I agree with his assessment. So, in the end, either I have a system problem, or, just maybe, there is a difference in Ethernet cables for reasons I can not explain. Thanks for reading and please do not bash my non-scientific cable test, it was the best one evening, one person test I could pull-off. |
@grm Thanks for posting your results. The test isn't lame. It is realistic. Could it be published in a respected scientific journal? Nope. Does that really matter? Not at all. Will others criticize it? Undoubtedly. But, the critics may have biases that will not allow them to ever admit hearing a difference that they zealously contend is empirically impossible to hear. |
@grm, Try Supra CAT 8 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Supra-CAT-8-STP-patch-cable-1-meter-Made-In-Sweden-THE-BEST-FOR-NETWORK-AUD... Sounds best in my system and least expensive. |
Post removed |
@grmThat test you conducted is I feel a good way to do it, have non audiophiles help you out. That way they are using their ears only and as far as I am concerned the only way to go. I remember in the 70s there was a raging debate over sound versus science and the two protaganiste were Peter Walker of Quad and some of the staff of Hi Fi News and Record Revew and the gist of it was that Mr Walker said that specifications would win over percieved sound quality. Now we know that Mr Walker did make good products in his time but no one I know have ever said that his 405 current dumping amplifier was in the upper eschelons of the best amplifiers of the day. I myself had one and although it drove my ESL57s well when I changed to dynamic loudspeakers it was dull and lack lustre but it had superb figures on the test bench. The upshot was that HFN tested the 405 against an amplifier which didn't measure up anything like the Quad did and I am sorry but I don't remember which amplifier that was used but when they did their extensive tests this other amplifier was way above the Quad in terms of sound quality and enjoyment thereof. Mr Walker declined to participate in the test.The amplifier I switched to was made by Meridian and it was altogether a different beast where it had better sound quality and far more believable dynamics. Just as today Quad in their day had a lot of zealous followers who would not believe that their Quad products could be beaten by another brand. So today we have people who will not attest the fact that something as stupid as a piece of wire can make an improvement to the sound quality of an audio system . Another analogy that I put forward is people spend vast amounts of money on amps and speakers today and only to put cheap wire between the components is anathema to me. Would you put Ford Focus brakes on a Maseratti or cheap petrol in a Ferarri Testarossa no I don't think so. So lets just keep our better sound quality to ourselves and leave the people who think it is all in our imagination to go home and close their doors and be blissfully unaware of the improvements that they could make. Jim. |