BTW, I am well aware of the revolting cost structure of such cables. If they were not proportionately outrageously efficacious I would not recommend them, nor use them.
|
It's not a simple matter of shielding. There is a big differential between different Ethernet cables which are shielded. As usual audiophiles rightly wish for sky is the limit results from inexpensive products. That simply does not get one to the best sound. It may get you part way there, but nowhere near the best result possible.
|
dgarretson, well, I'm reviewing them so... sorry, I have to be coy about it. I will reveal all in article(s).
|
Shadorne, you are correct; the last sentence was rude and should have not been typed. Apologies to the community.
My comment regarding cognitive dissonance is sincere. I had serious doubts about the efficacy of the aftermarket Ethernet cables, and frankly, had I not so much experience with cables I likely would not have tried one. I have heard so many wild swings in performance from cables that I have learned through actual use not to discount potential of any wire to change a rig's sound. I hold that someone with good ears (no hearing impairment), good gear and a good room (not noisy) should be able to discern differences between cables typically.
FYI, my engineer friend now has $2,500 in cables in his rig. He is ecstatic about the changes to the sound and he no longer laughs when I talk about things such as aftermarket Ethernet cables. He will be euphoric to find how economically he can upgrade the system for an outsized performance improvement. I do enjoy him wrestling with the cognitive dissonance, which is something I think most audiophiles who work with cables experience. I have to learn and relearn not to let doubts stop me from exploring, or else I bypass very good things in terms of the system and enjoyment of the hobby. :)
As far as an appeal to authority, yes the authority is me. I have done both ABX testing and comparisons sighted, so unless someone has done both I think they are weak in challenging myself as an authority. :)
|
azbrd, as I and grannyring have said many times in the past and now once again, we are well aware of the theoretical inability of such cables to influence the sound, however, obviously theory is insufficient to explain the obvious differences.
Are those differences obvious? Well... so far only one Ethernet cable in five has been obviously, wildly different. I can't blame people who have tried a few and found there to be no difference. If I had not come up with the "right" one I would have made the same conclusion.
As far a s the DAC is concerned, sorry Azbrd, but the results are consistent regardless of which DAC is used. It's not a "DAC quality" question. :) |
Al, my experience shows very obviously otherwise; the Ethernet cables do not change their character based on the rest of the system. I have changed speakers and amps, and they still confer the same benefit, or in some cases lack of benefit, and with the same characteristics, as they did in the previous system. What these others are reporting about is not BS. If you get the right cable the difference is profound. Not just, ok, but profound. Now, in the end I will have perhaps 7 or 8 Ethernet cables to use. Some already are grouped as lower performing. One is stunningly exceptional, and I think I know the reason why. I anticipate there will be a couple others notable in terms of outstanding performance.
|
dynaquest14, You're talking to a person who did ABX testing and passed it multiple times. So, don't talk to me about "want/need/paid to hear".
|
shadorne, you stated, "Badly designed or faulty equipment will indeed be vulnerable to unintended pathways. Always better to get good equipment to begin begin with rather than band aid things by finding the least bad sounding Ethernet cable !!!!!"
??? The exploration of Ethernet cables has nothing to do with poor equipment or dissatisfaction with the sound. It is simply seeking to explore what avenues remain to further enhance sound.
The equipment being used is as good as any that will be available to audiophiles. The Ethernet is feeding the Salk Audio StreamPlayer Gen III, which I reviewed. This is a superb source and built by Jim Salk who I discussed in my review: His background is engineering, specifically audio engineering. He states, “I started exploring digital audio processing in 1973, long before personal computers came on the market.” Jim was steeped in computers already when IBM introduced the first PC. He has been building his own computers for decades and was on the Internet before the World Wide Web existed! He has his own web servers and has been programming since 1985.
So, at least in my instance it’s not the quality of the component which is in question. You are looking for reasons why the Ethernet cable would not innately be important, but it is.
If you feel you have good gear why not try it and see for yourself? If you hear a distinct difference you would be confronted with two possibilities; that the cables are causing the change, or that your gear is not as good as you thought! :)
|
Oh, wow, CD, optical cable... yuck. Sorry, but just yuck. Not even close to what can be achieved with file playback and USB DAC and of course Ethernet cable. Not even close...
|
paul79, I'm not overly excited about a filtering cable based on my experiences with filtering products, but I will refrain from further comment as I have no experience with Totaldac. I suspect there would be strong reaction positive or negative to a product such as that. :) |
paul79, I was not referring specifically to power cables with filtering, but to any cable with filtering. I have had ICs with such and not been impressed. Nice discussion, I won't write them off entirely.
Assessment of the Ethernet cables continues... still awaiting some. But already the event is such a success that it has been well worth it. Both dynamic and ESL speakers benefit.
|
At this time one of the favorites is WireWorld Starlight CAT8. That may not end up the overall favorite when I am finished with the survey. That's all I will give up until the survey is published. I see Supra Cat8 sold in bulk. Is that the cable? Or, is there another model which is Cat8 and superior? |
shadorne, if audio gear did as you describe I would consider it junk and tell others to avoid those manufacturers. :( |
Shadorne, you are like a guy who owns a VW Jetta and says, "It doesn't get any better!" :) |
schubert, so from your response I take it that the condition of the experience riding from point A to B is immaterial. We here at Audiogon are engaging in what is supposed to be a highly aesthetically pleasing activity. We have too many people attempting to declare that mediocrity is supremely good. I disagree. :) Will a Jetta get you to the location "as well" in terms of the experience? I don't want a luxury auto, but I do want a luxury system and listening experience. :)
tubegroover, at least for me what it has to do with music is the quality of the sound dictating the perception of reality, and consequently the enjoyment.
|
schubert, the sense of exploration/travel I suggest is also, "an inherent , built in hard-wired element of being human in all places in all times," as well. How it is conducted, by walking, bicycle, train, plane, or car varies. You suggest that music is an inherent , built in hard-wired element of being human in all places in all times. I agree. How it is conducted/enjoyed varies just as travel, by instruments, voice, performing, being an audience, or technologically listening to it reproduced. In other words, I find your analogy faulty, as both impulses, the car driver and the audiophile, use technology. Tell a person with a 3 hour commute each day that the experience of driving is not important. Perhaps for you and me it is not, but that is not so for all drivers. Similarly, perhaps it's not important for you to have a technologically advanced audiophile experience. But that is not the case for many such as myself who wish not to simply get from point A to B in terms of listening as cheaply as possible and without a high regard to the aesthetics of the experience. |
tubegroover, you are on track. I am not intending to suggest that the recreated performance actually can capture the real thing, but will always only be an approximation. However, you and I realize that there are many more levels of sound quality than the subjectivists think. I desire a level of sound quality that can allow me to suspend reality, the same way that suspension of reality is the order of the day in movies. If the movie was poorly made the suspension of reality is poor. In the same way, if the system is poor, the suspension of reality when listening is poor.
|
schubert, you obviously need to join a car club to gain appreciation of the auto. ;) I'm not interested in discussing the need for nature; I enjoy taking walks outside, and I recommend you do as well if you think you're losing touch with nature. It seems you can't (don't want to) focus on the topic, which is building superior audio systems. So, I'm done with this conversation. :) |
jinjuku, an interesting test! Let me see if I understand this correctly; you used the "twin CPU" method, ie. one tower for a library, and the other for the file playback? That is what I presume when you say, "I set up a second machine..."
I have an interesting story to tell; a local computer audio enthusiast came to help set up my Mac Mini server years ago. He brought his entire two tower PC system with special software, HQ Player. We listened to his expensive, $3K+ file server system. Then on a whim he said that HQ Player also had a Mac version. We downloaded it on trial, played it and in comparison the stock Mac Mini with HQ Player was indistinguishable from the more expensive, much more complex digital server using two computers. That taught me fancier setups are not always better! So, my experience is the exact opposite of yours. I found that much more complex digital sources are not always better. Further, if they are insensitive to wiring changes, then I would not be much interested in them.
So, I'm not overly impressed when someone puts up a very involved computer server regardless of cost, given that a stock Mac Mini performed the same given the same software. However, the Mac Mini was sensitive to cables, both power and digital links. My goal is to build better sounding systems, and if any product/method is incapable of it I don't think it's terribly good.
|
jinjuku, I have not listened to the composite track you made; it's not necessary. I am willing to accept that you were unable to get significantly different sound given your test. I am guessing that your system is sufficiently poor that it cannot resolve the differences well. That would be a logical explanation for the failure to distinguish between the cables, given my clear trials showing that ethernet cables carry different sonic properties.
I am not willing to accept that your test means:
-I am not getting significantly different sound by use of a variety of ethernet cables. The differences are too pronounced to be the result of bias. The differences are on an order of seeing two very different shades of color. I have passed multiple double blind tests, and the threshold of difference in use of different ethernet cables is far beyond what I heard in the DBX testing.
-that your method of producing sound is superior to mine. You are suggesting your inexpensive setup is superior and better than the server I am using. Only a direct comparison would tell. In my experience typically cheap systems have resulted in poor performance.
Have you compared your performance to an aftermarket file server? If so, which one(s)? If not, then you are in no position to declare your digital setup superior. I suspect your setup is much worse, but I would have to listen to assess.
|
"JETTA’S THE GREATEST CAR IN THE WORLD," says the inexperienced. LOL
|
jinjuku, as you said, " The upstream amp, cabling, speakers, room interaction, are all moot because they aren't in the loop." Do you have any idea how many times I have heard that both from people who have or have not done testing as you have? It's the same logic that is employed by those who disdain power cords by saying, "How can it make any difference? There are miles of lines between the power company... the wiring in the wall, etc." SIGH. Wonderful logic, lousy system building. You say, "If the Ethernet cable is altering the output of the DAC then it should be captured in the tracks I provided." Perhaps. That will happen if the system is good enough. If it's poor then likely the difference will not be noticeable. Seriously, a couple hundred dollar system is what you are putting up for evidence? How about you get some serious gear and do the test? Audiophilia is not the reduction of quality to the lowest common denominator. You WILL get mediocre sound that way. You didn't answer my question regarding comparison to a dedicated server. Have you done comparison between your cheap computer digital source and a dedicated audiophile grade server? I suspect the analogue output stage of the dedicated server will make your computer source sound horrid and so compromised that it seems half the information was missing in playback. That is why I think you have support for your perspective, but it's based on wretched gear that is not able to produce a good result. I suspect it would take about ten seconds for you to be humbled in your confidence about your digital source when compared to a fine server such as the Salk StreamPlayer Gen II. Sorry, but I'm not impressed by your couple hundred dollar experiment. If you want to get serious, get some serious gear and do some cable changes as I have done. It's not difficult, and you will be humbled. And, you will have FAR better sounding music.
|
Ok, that was fun. Now that we have the objections duly noted...
Meanwhile, the comparisons continue. Who else has done a comparison and what was your preference?
|
I have now added Supra Cat8 to the survey. |
Testing/comparisons ongoing... Some superb results with a variety of configurations and gear. This is one of the best areas of exploration I have spent time on for a number of years. It reminds me of when before reviewing I acquired three sets of cables and swapped them out in systems. That was highly instructive as to the efficacy of cables. It changed the trajectory of my experiences as an audiophile.
This is similar, a simple but tedious process which is leading to firm conclusions on Ethernet cables and their role in systems. |
|
I check in periodically, but I have other projects running, too. Some of what follows may be redundant, but I'm not going back to research it.
I understand both sides of this debate. I was at one time more in sympathy with the objectivists, but I realized the issue would not be resolved by merely taking a position and defending it. I chose to do some work in system building and comparisons. That was the first level of confirmation of the efficacy of cables.
My first comparison was about 30 years ago when I bought some heavy gauge cable and purposed them for speaker cables. The comparison between lamp cord type wire and a heavier gauge cable was easily heard. Not much expectation bias in that test, as the cable was not expensive.
Years later I estimate that I tied up from $4-5K in purchasing used cables before reviewing and compared them. It was before the advent/popularity of the Cable Company, so I had to buy the cables individually to assemble full sets of a certain brand, a real pain. I ended up with three sets to compare. I tried to get them as affordably as possible so I could resell the "losers". That was enough to once for all lay to rest any doubt about the importance of cables. I would not build nearly as good systems had I not done that work.
The second level, the opportunity to more objectively put this all to the test came with the review of the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator. I knew that it could potentially blow up my theories of cables, but if I were able to pass ABX it would be the icing on the cake, so to speak. So, I did it. I passed, including passing ABX with cables (Now, if you don't believe me at on this point, then we truly do not have much common ground to discuss this topic). I admit that it took a great deal of concentration to accurately hear the differences. However, the results were definitive. The only components I was not able to pass testing were the level matched amps. Following up I found out that my results mirrored Van Alstine's findings.
So, the issue is settled in my mind. I do not think that argument or challenges will lead to any resolution. I suggest that for those who are interested the ABX Comparator is a good way to put it to the test. If it had an Ethernet testing capability I would surely try it. I do not know if I would pass, but it would be fascinating to try.
Now, if that is not enough for some people, so be it. As far as I'm concerned I have both experiential and experimental evidence to support my activities of system building. If you disagree, that's fine, have at it building systems with your own methodology. The irony in all this is that neither methodology in system building assures that a great sounding audio system will be built. You people are going at it as though if one philosophy of system building is proven to be true that assures you will end up with a better sounding rig. I find that to be far from assured.
Arguments are happening right now with a discussion on bass performance in another thread. People seem to be overlooking a simple, but profound factor while they attempt to pound the other side into submission. I used to argue more about such things. Now, I make my point, and if it's not sufficient, so be it. I get tired of spending time at a computer on discussions which will have so little importance in the long run.
Shadorne, you're wrong about your DAC. :)
|
dgarrestson, what specifically is your concern about the validity of the findings? I think it significant that I listened to the aftermarket Ethernet cables placed only after the household wiring. Then, eventually I placed another segment of aftermarket Ethernet cable ahead of the household wiring as well.
imo, I demonstrated that similar to the situation with power cabling, the presence of a "weak" upstream element does not render downstream improvements null.
As to the validity of the sound quality for assessment, I submit two thoughts. I have been using the internet over power for many months now, and it has had no effect on being able to assess differences between other cables (i.e. IC, SC) and components. As to sound quality, both myself and friends who are familiar long term with systems I build have found recent rigs (since the household wiring has been in use) to be the best I have built. i.e. The use of the household wiring has not impaired my ability to build rigs as good or better than in the past.
When I originally moved to use the IOP protocol I was fearful that it would decimate the sound quality. As I have no way to conduct a direct comparison I cannot say that it has had little deleterious effect on sound quality. However, it has not prevented me from getting better performance from streaming audio than a couple years ago.
Hopefully this answers some concerns about the IOP setup in the review. |
Another piece of information which might be useful; I have used some of the cabling for several years, before I went to the IOP setup for streaming audio. Prior to that I had a Mac Mini and used it wirelessly to do streaming. I also have used CD transport and DAC.
In all these cases the character of the cabling used has never shifted or wandered when using them. i.e. Whether from transport, wirelessly, or IOP the cables when used in loom or comparison have never shifted in sonic character such that I was given problems using them precisely as I wish, relying upon the character of their innate sonic properties to build systems.
I would think that had there been a problem moving to the IOP I would have heard it and it would have altered the performance of the cables I move about regularly. There *may* be some effect of the IOP, but if so it has been so insignificant in my case that it is negligible. :)
|
