Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

@rhg88 you won’t believe how much fun it is to read this thread on the long boring meeting. Way more fun than doing high throughput network architecture itself. I wish I had a budget for the data centre cables like these guys, buying butique Ethernet cables.

It baffles me that a trivial question that was correctly answered in the second post:

Cat 6 cable is certified for far more data throughput than you will ever need for audio.

gardnered over 180 posts! There are a lot of people with too much free time!

Talking about just using my ears, isn't that what we are supposed to be doing in this hobby of ours. Can anyone say that they have listened to say three ethernet cables and one is made of copper, one of silver and one a cheap bit of wire and say there is no difference in quality from each. That is utter codswollop because there is going to be a difference in the copper and the silver straight away and if your ears are clean you will definitely hear it. If not save yourself a lot of money and buy a boombox.

I've come to the conclusion that this thread is a Uri Geller convention.

>>>>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

What? All sorts of zero evidence based claims are in this very thread.

I view a claim of a improved bass response due to a change in Ethernet cabling is just as specious as a claim you can flap your arms and fly.

I've only seen one person have the intellectual honesty to go ears only.

kosst_amojan"And Clearthink, how did you come up with that name...you can't tell the difference between being challenged or being insulted."

Do you want me to apologize to you for causing you a headscratcher over my choice of screenname maybe you will give the matter some serious consideration and with the passage of sufficient time arrive at a reasonable conclusion if you are fortunate because it seems to trouble you deeply and as for not knowing when it is that you think you are insulting me that is most amusing it is not likely that a middle school student such as yourself is capable of insulting me you obviously have too high of an opinion of yourself which is understandable it is what is expected from children they are egocentric in their little world.

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?

The level of abject ignorance here proudly displayed by forum users such as jinjuku and kosst are a striking demonstration of the American education system that such level of scientific illiteracy could prevail among a population such as is found here that would pretend to be knowledgeable and explains why the USA has for years been in state of steady decline compared to the substantial advancements that much of the rest of the modern world has made during the same time period. Your future is not bright if the solution to your ignorance is to insult degrade and seek to publically embarrass and chastise a person who has tried to enlighten you even by some small measure do not misunderstand me I think cleeds is worse than a winkly dinkler and it is readily apparent from reading multiple of his posts that he is not what he acts like he is and in fact I am not even sure that he has an audio system at all but he has been correct in his assessments evaluation and presentation of valid listening tests and that there are those who argue so boisterously against such simple facts is a public indictment of the status of the US which of course his few loud critics will not be able to recognize themselves except perhaps with the assistance of they're parents and even in that case I am not sure.

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.

I for one say thet yes they do make a difference, I have just replaced a 30 foot ethernet cable with one made with better materials and rfi and other screens. and I have to say I am very pleased with the results, the treble especially is less pronounced and altogether much more believable. Yes I do know some of you will say i am imagining it but what I say is this the person who changes a cheap fairly long cable and replaces it with a very wll made shielded cable and dosn't hear a differense is needing their ears cleaned out

cleeds

I’ve simply pointed out that what you claim is a scientifically valid test

jinjuku
Links to posts please.

Just scroll up, silly - you’ve been doing your best here to defend the validity of your testing protocol. If you now recognize that your methods haven’t been scientific - good for you. We can move on.

If you wish to engage in semantic argument, I’m not interested.

I’ve simply pointed out that what you claim is a scientifically valid test

Links to posts please.

jinjuku

I have the sighted subjectivist crowd DEMANDING scientifically rigorous testing.

Not so. I’ve simply pointed out that what you claim is a scientifically valid test is nothing of the sort.

If you can find a single post where I was maintaining that this was supposed to be AES worth let me know.

You’ve claimed your protocol is valid, scientific. It isn’t. That’s the simple answer to your fuzzy simple question.

Personally, I don't have much use for double-blind listening tests ... although I have a mild general interest in them.

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.

LOL. Simple questions can’t be answered.

I have the sighted subjectivist crowd DEMANDING scientifically rigorous testing. Oh this is a hoot.

If you can find a single post where I was maintaining that this was supposed to be AES worthy let me know. I'm simply out to test an individuals claim. Nothing less or more.

Also let me know of ANY AES papers that have accepted sighted evaluation.

jinjuku194 posts04-26-2018 12:10pm

I think you are confused.

If you state that you can jump 10’ straight up from a standstill and either I bring a 10’ high bar or we use your 10’ high bar.

What are we exactly testing, why isn’t the 10’ high bar valid, and why do we need 49 other people to attempt to jump over a 10’ high bar?

Behold everyone where simple questions somehow can't be answered

There is a mountain of information about how to conduct scientifically valid listening tests, going back at least as far as Munson’s presentations to the AES in the late ’50s. (Yes, that Munson, the guy from Bell Labs who worked with Fletcher.) It's been followed by other work by Floyd Toole, Harman and many others. If you're serious about valid listening tests - and I suspect you aren't - you'll want to review some of their work. It will reveal that this matter is nowhere near as simple as you suggest. If you're not serious, or if you have some ulterior motives, you'll just continue arguing here with your nonsense.

Your latest argument here includes the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, so you might want to learn a bit about logic and reason, too.

I think you are confused.

If you state that you can jump 10’ straight up from a standstill and either I bring a 10’ high bar or we use your 10’ high bar.

What are we exactly testing, why isn’t the 10’ high bar valid, and why do we need 49 other people to attempt to jump over a 10’ high bar?

Behold everyone where simple questions somehow can't be answered. 

jinjuku

No, it tests the claim.

When it comes to scientifically valid double-blind listening tests, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t even understand what it is that you’re testing.

In fact, the ideal listener involved in such a test has no "claim" and no preference whatsoever. Your notion that you’re testing the listener and his "claim" explains why you think the test will have a "loser" and why he should pay your "expenses."

Your extreme bias here is exactly why a valid test has to be double-blind. Your mere presence in the room would have the potential to taint any listening test.

Consider this: if a scientific test of a new drug has no effect on an individual, what "failed" the test? The human? Or the drug? If after two years the drug still has no effect on that individual, does it mean the drug is not effective? Or, does it mean it was not effective with that individual?

This is all very basic science.

No, it tests the claim. 

And sighted evaluation, and anecdotal accounts are 100% rigorous. Gotcha.  

Guess what happens when you at 1+1 and do it 48 more times over the course of time? You increase the sample size. 

jinjuku says:

Upfront payment wasn’t demanded. It was also loser pays expenses.

Then jinjuku says:

My offer, as it was for William, was to do this in the listeners setup. No money involved. Seems way more than fair to the claimant.

It looks like you've made all kinds of "offers." In any event, a scientific listening test doesn't include a "claimant" - you're compromising the validity of the test itself with that kind of notion. Remember, a listening test doesn't test the listener - it tests the equipment that is the subject of the test. Regardless of the result, it can only be strictly applied to that equipment, under those circumstances, and with that listener. That's why, if you want a scientifically valid test, you'll want a large number of samples, and that usually means a large number of listeners.

If the testing isn't scientific, it's of no value at all.

My offer, as it was for William, was to do this in the listeners setup. No money involved. 

Seems way more than fair to the claimant. 

jinjuku

Upfront payment wasn’t demanded. It was also loser pays expenses. This would all be handled after the evaluation.

Perhaps that was your offer. The proposal to which I refer required a $25,000 advance payment and agreement crafted by an attorney for the supposed "protection" of the listener.

By the way, there is no "loser" in a listening test. A listening test doesn’t really test the listener at all - that’s a misnomer. Rather, it’s an evaluation by the listener of the equipment that is under test. To suggest otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of a scientific listening test.

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.

It's been offered to be done at a show. I've posted a video of the setup in action and it lists all the components and demonstrates the LACP dynamic LAG.

It's also been offered to train someone (random pick) to do the cable swap. 

acepilot71

If you here/feel the difference or better say improvement - keep that cable in your system.

Well, of course. I don't use the forum for validation of what I hear, or for validation of the equipment I've chosen for my system. It's just odd that some do indeed come here insisting that we validate our choices to them. If we demur, the accusations follow: We're deluded; we should be prescribed psychiatric medication; we are peddling in "snake oil" for the purposes of getting rich; we are idiots. And other such silliness.

Sorry, but upfront payment was demanded, along with other prerequisites. The posts were deleted by the moderators. The promoter of the scheme is quite persistent, so it’s likely you’ll see what he calls an "opportunity" promoted again. Just stay tuned.

Upfront payment wasn't demanded. It was also loser pays expenses. This would all be handled after the evaluation.

@cleeds one chooses to believe or not for him/herself.
If you here/feel the difference or better say improvement - keep that cable in your system.
I offered blind test for thous who are in doubt.
Prove to yourself it is better - good, keep the cable.

When I have an opportunity to run the test - I'll happily post my results but they will be MY results in MY system and may not apply to your system. (Too many variables in this equation)

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.

geoffkait

Ah, the old blind test scam raises its ugly head again. I guess it was just a matter of time. They always threaten blind tests but they don’t wait for the results.

It's not a question of waiting for results. The most vocal "advocates" of blind tests here don't actually conduct the blind tests - they insist others conduct the tests and then report the results. If the "advocate" actually offers to conduct the test, it's been followed by demands for upfront payment, a test protocol that's concocted in secret, advance agreements crafted by attorneys and other such nonsense.

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.

@almarg I believe using music of  Johann Sebastian Bach may not be exactly the same. Liking or disliking music is subjective as well as rating one composer at the very top or " third rate hack as a composer " has a lot of "like" or "dislike" in it.
However if you take a loseless record of that same composer and transfer it over the Ethernet cable - it will not change regardless of the quality of the cable.
It is guaranteed by the network protocol - it will be identical 100%
It is measurable - files are identical if transmission completed successfully.

...and the same person who disliked it will dislike it again ;-)

acepilot71
Do not mix in "Difference between cables" in analog world and "Difference between Ethernet cables" in digital data transmission.

Why not? Did I beak some sacred laws of science? You might’ve missed my note on electromagnetic waves in cables. That’s how information is transferred, all types of information. Even satellite transmissions, which have been digital like forever. 🛰 Hel-loo!

“When you control the mail you control...information.” - Newman

Ah, the old blind test scam raises its ugly head again. I guess it was just a matter of time. They always threaten blind tests but they don’t wait for the results. Which is really the most important part. 😛

Do not mix in "Difference between cables" in analog world and "Difference between Ethernet cables" in digital data transmission.

jinjuku

No one demanded any up front payment. Links to those posts please. What I remember is that there was an offer of 5:1 ...

Sorry, but upfront payment was demanded, along with other prerequisites. The posts were deleted by the moderators. The promoter of the scheme is quite persistent, so it’s likely you’ll see what he calls an "opportunity" promoted again. Just stay tuned.

We are talking about Ethernet cables ( I shouldn't have directly quoted btw ). I’ve already setup with a managed L3 switch, dynamic LACP LAG, the data cabling equivalent of the WW comparator.

No one demanded any up front payment. Links to those posts please. What I remember is that there was an offer of 5:1 and benefiting the person that could hear the difference in Ethernet cabling.

injuku

... why is it always the same ones who can hear differences in fuses, differences in directionality or differences in cables but can never seem to demonstrate it blind ...

Actually, there have been blind tests that prove audible differences in cables. Ask Michael Fremer, for example - he's been rather public about it. Wireworld has developed a comparator to be used in evaluating the differences between cables. Have you ever tried it?

Efforts here to design a public blind listening test have been met with perhaps the group's most persistent blind test advocate demanding an upfront payment, an agreement prepared by his attorney to "protect"  participants and other such nonsense.