Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?


I stream music via TIDAL and the only cable in my system that is not an "Audiophile" cable is the one going from my Gateway to my PC, it is a CAT6 cable. Question is, do "Audiophile" Ethernet cables make any difference/ improvement in sound quality?

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
grm
Post removed 
My proposal is that gear that is susceptible to a change in a short length of Ethernet cable is faulty.
My proposal is that gear that is NOT susceptible to a change in a short length of Ethernet cable, need to replace POS gear!
Great, this is coming from a guy who conduct listening tests on a headphone.

WGUtz didn't have any headphones when I was out there. 

Lying can't help you now. 


@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.


“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! 
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.
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?
Post removed 
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.


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.
Jinjuku 4-27-2018
Question is, do "Audiophile" Ethernet cables make any difference/ improvement in sound quality?

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


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.

....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

Question is, do "Audiophile" Ethernet cables make any difference/ improvement in sound quality?

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. 


Jinjuku 4-27-2018
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.

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.

....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

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? 



Post removed 
@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.
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.
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.

If it makes you feel better and you have money to burn go for it.
But this is something I know about intimately.
If ANY data cable passes data without packet loss, it cannot be improved upon.
Period.
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.


Hey, I’ll take placebo any day of the week, too. I’m not fussy. If it sounded better I’d use chicken bones. 🐥
Post removed 
I replaced my Chord Ethernet cable with the Supra Cat 8 and it smoothed out a little edginess in my system.   Well worth the $60 even if it is placebo. Lol
“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 
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.
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, 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

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.


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.
“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 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.




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.
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. 
Acepilot71 4-27-2018
May I ask guys with The Ear to describe or qualify the difference you notice depending on the Ethernat cable?

I suggest two categories:
- Quality of a music
- Quality of a sound

First one relates to the purity of the instruments, voices, etc.
Second - presence/absence of parasite noises, distortions etc.

IMHO you should notice only second one.
That’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

@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


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?
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.
May I ask guys with The Ear to describe or qualify the difference you notice depending on the Ethernat cable?

I suggest two categories:
- Quality of a music
- Quality of a sound

First one relates to the purity of the instruments, voices, etc.
Second - presence/absence of parasite noises, distortions etc.

IMHO you should notice only second one.
@amg56
I think the argument is if your are happy to spend the money on cables or componentry because YOU feel there is a difference in your listening environment, be free to do so because IMHO THAT is what HiFi is about. Yes there is the physics, chemistry and quantum.... but each of us is different and appreciate changes differently. The micro arguments and opinions are worthless really. Just ego chest pumping

I agree with you 100% that is why I am not going to waste my time and precious listening time with this thread so game over for me. I am fed up with ludites who will not even let someone else have a say without even having the good manners to have their say without resorting to fasehoods.
Seemingly it is all in my imagination and that to a man that went through up till he was in his 30s playing classical guitar at a level where I was giving concerts regularly. When family comitments changed and my wife became ill I had to give it all up and care for her but do remember I still have my ears , they are quite perceptive yet and I do know what I am looking for so it is not all in my imagination.
kosst_amojan
There appears to be two basic sides to this debate. Those who don't buy that Ethernet cables make a difference, and their opinion is buttressed by reams of facts. Then you have those who think they do make a difference, and they have no facts at all to buttress their claim. Their claims don't even make sense in light of how the technology works
This is mistaken. There is a third position in this discussion - it needn't be a "debate" - and that's the one of an undecided skeptic. I certainly understand those who reason that there should be no audible differences at all between competent Ethernet cables. The very nature of digital transmission suggests that if the signal can be transferred without error, the output should be identical to the input and the sound should be the same. That's not difficult to understand.

Yet multiple audiophiles here using a variety of systems attest to substantial differences between these cables. Because in the past I've been quite surprised at what can make an audible difference in a sound system, I'm reluctant to dismiss those reports with a wave of the hand.

Complicating this discussion - again, it needn't be a "debate" - is the remarkable vitriol from the "nay-sayers." Those who report differences are often vilified as delusional, or "snake-oilers" getting rich while perpetrating some sort of fraud, or worse. Those claims come from just a few of the forum's contributors, and are repeated with regularity at anyone who won't accept their position ... including myself. This nastiness is often combined with illogic, most commonly the errors of circular reasoning, the excluded middle and ad hominem attacks, which of course undermines their position. And I'm trying to be kind here. Oddly, those posters who argue that science is on their side readily abandon it when asked if there's any valid scientific listening tests to support their claim. Indeed, it has become apparent that some of them have no familiarity with the science of such tests, which has been pretty well established, and which I've referenced previously.

I'm not a big fan of scientific listening tests, which I think are mostly a waste of an audiophile's time. I've participated in a few and the results were interesting, and I've proposed that perhaps as a group we could design a test that could be conducted in public to test the Ethernet claims. But who opposes such tests? Those who claim science is on their side! This seemingly intractable position only ensures that the "scientists" will continue their attacks against those who are simply reporting what they hear.

Of course, there are those who have offered to participate in such tests provided money is at stake and agreements made with attorneys to "protect" participants, or who have required other preconditions to testing, such as following an unscientific protocol. Those forum contributors can't be taken seriously.

 
Oh. I could not help my self. I posted. I just love this hobby. Lets not spoil it with egos and insults. We each experience individual changes and nuances in the sound we hear. Isn't that why we have different components that make up our systems to our liking?

I think the argument is if your are happy to spend the money on cables or componentry because YOU feel there is a difference in your listening environment, be free to do so because IMHO THAT is what HiFi is about. Yes there is the physics, chemistry and quantum....  but each of us is different and appreciate changes differently. The micro arguments and opinions are worthless really. Just ego chest pumping.

I have used CAT5e cable from my router from NAS to Amplifier, from streamer to Amplifier, then changed to Cat8. The sound was palpably cleaner. I put this to the superior cable insulation of Cat8 (each pair insulated). It is the quality of the signal, not the speed. Its how many packet rejects there is for the message stream not speed. Quality of the cable shielding makes 10GBs/100GBs/1000GBs irrelevant if the continuity of the message packets are interrupted. Quality of cable does mean quality to my ears. Maybe not to yours. I am not debating your hearing to mine. I like what I hear. I am not telling you what you need to hear from my experience. Get it?

I was going to post my opinion, but really is there any point? Nope. Same arguments as fuses, cables and hearing abilities. What a waste of a forum.
kosst_amojan

Do you have an open mind or is your mind made up before you do any listening ? I don’t have the money to splash out on unnecesary pieces of wire so if I didn’t hear a difference I wouldn’t be buying it just to salve my imagination as you put it.