Most Important, Unloved Cable...

I'd love to.... but it makes me a target, for those who drive their little flesh carts in the way they do....

Too bad indeed Teo_audio, I really wish you hadn't as it really summarized in a way I could never articulate the whole crux of the issue, great post and very thoughtful, if you still have it post again!

Next stop, controlled blind testing.

The next problem is that peer reviewed meta testing in parapsychology circles has found that reality is formed around projection and opinion. That unassailably perfected scientific tests are fundamentally violated by expectation bias and projection.

That expectation bias makes things real. As seriously as you can imagine, that point, as a fundamental and firmament point ...in 3-d time-space ’reality’ as we like to call it. No joke. As many times as they cared to try to gain some form of stability in testing, it simply could not work. Science and facts took the big one ---in the ass.

Where does that leave facts and science? It leaves it as reality.... but it also leaves it (reality) as group bias and group consensus.

It leaves sciences and the idea of facts... freaking out...mumbling in a hole writing manifestos... in an aura of projected enforcement. Of a thing that simply cannot be. The fundamental in why engineers are taught law while physicists are taught that no facts exist, only theory. Because the heights of science know ....that facts do not exist. At all. Facts are just theory that is true most of the time, very very much most of the time. But that this premise of ’facts’... can fail--and does.

A bit of a problem for some of the more literal minded....

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

@geoffkait

I see selective memory abilities are on full display.

In addition to FFT analysis I've also suggested 9 tracks recorded with one setup, 1 track with another.

Anyone can FULLY SIGHTED and with any bias affirming, ears only manner, evaluate the tracks and tell us when they hear a track that sounded like it came from either a $250 computer or a $2500 or even an $8000 streamer.

Most here strike me as the type that if they are in the hospital for a medical emergency that they are going to want all the diagnostic and measurement gear and procedures brought to bare.

 

A nice post it was, but I decided to pull it. Oh well....

Fast Fourier Transforms always settle these sorts of arguments for me. 😀

Next stop, controlled blind testing.

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.

I want to point out the gross error in 'logic' that is made by someone that has no idea what they are talking about.

If I capture a track into my ADC and then I overlay it back over the original PCM from the 24/192 download that I recorded from and FFT shows less than a .1 dB variation in Amplitude response (or any other FFT analysis shows virtually null) then I have one simple question:

How is a $250 system able to produce such accuracy if it's not 'some serious gear'?

How about this. We setup your DAC and Streamer into an ADC and we setup my $250 computer into your DAC and into an ADC. Capture 9 tracks with one system. 1 track with the other. You can then analyze however you would like for as long as you like (you won't know which is which) and let us know which track is different from the other 9 and if it's the track from the $250 system or your streamer.

This should be a no problem for someone with such a highly resolving system.

Here are a few tracks to try on various Ethernet Cables:

https://youtu.be/30o7_iy-O1g?t=1167

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CASghTzNhc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpiV72pLAo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSSPto8rvvs

I’m going to revert to 5 1/4 inch floppies for source material and wire my house with RG59, vampire clamps, and revert back to thinnet and use IPX/SPX for truly veil lifting bass and dance-ability of the highs. This will also add 2X to the ^57th power of sham-wowiness to vocal presence of the mids.

I’ve got audiophile resistors coming to terminate the thinnet with. Unfortunately I can’t afford IBM Token Ring, Banyan Vines, DEQNet, or AppleTalk.

Furthermore, I’m going to write all my device drivers in COBOL because C++ just sounds harsh and edgy and reformat all my disks with FAT16.

Next I’m going to let DOS 3.3 burn in for a month or two. You really do need to do OS burn-in to get the best sound.

Lignite-based power plants with Cat 6 work well. If you have harsh or glaring sound then it might be bituminous coal at the power station which burns with a white flame and needs cat 7 to sound smoother.

I like the Tera Grand cat 7 the most out of the cat 5,6, and 7 cables I have tried. Great bass, wonderful meat on the bones, and natural mids/highs. Great in my rig. They cost next to nothing....same price as the stuff you buy at Home Depot etc... 

I have only compared really low priced cables however. Amazing the differences however. 

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 admit you got me there.

"In your setup, if you have a layer 3 managed switch, and I turn on link aggregation and supply a generic CAT6 cable that all bets are off because now everything is wrong?"

I don’t agree with that statement. I don’t even know what that statement is supposed to mean. 😄

It’s because you’ve hit your technical limit of understanding about how Ethernet works but somehow you are more of a subject matter expert than I am all the same.

While you don’t know what I am saying, you are still expert enough to simply disagree with what I suggested to do without realizing what it is that I would be doing?

If you disagree with me setting up 802.11ad than I’m willing to listen to a well thought out technical rebuttal based on your direct experience. I know when I’m talking to a fellow network pro because soon as I mention Layer 3 Managed Switch LAG’s and an additional cable they automatically get it and know where I’m leading.

jinjuku
"Wait, so people can have positive results totally sighted, negative results when the answers are taken away before hand?"

I didn’t say that. Nor do I think the statement is true.

"So you are saying sighted evaluation is the legitimate way to go about this and controlling for confirmation bias is not?"

No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying ALL tests are subject to a whole range of potential problems and issues. Consequently, one test cannot prove anything. Especially if results are negative. Too many things can and do go wrong.

"Ergo: sighted means everything goes ’correct’ and bias controlled evaluation means everything can go wrong."

I’m not saying that at all. I don’t think it’s true, either.

"In your setup, if you have a layer 3 managed switch, and I turn on link aggregation and supply a generic CAT6 cable that all bets are off because now everything is wrong?"

I don’t agree with that statement. I don’t even know what that statement is supposed to mean. 😄

Wait, so people can have positive results totally sighted, negative results when the answers are taken away before hand? Holy crumbs I better email institutions of higher learning and inform them of this epiphany of yours.

So you are saying sighted evaluation is the legitimate way to go about this and controlling for confirmation bias is not?

Ergo: sighted means everything goes ’correct’ and bias controlled evaluation means everything can go wrong.

In your setup, if you have a layer 3 managed switch, and I turn on link aggregation and supply a generic CAT6 cable that all bets are off because now everything is wrong?

The reason negative results don't mean anything is because too many things can go wrong. Blame it on the Stones. You do realize cables aren't the only thing in audio where this happens, don't you? It's the nature of the beast. 😩

You don’t say? Was that during the period when his system was out of phase?

Would this be the same phase where he was able to deduce all sorts of flowery prose about his Magnum Opus?

If you want to know at what point it's best to stop digging the hole you don't know you are standing in, well now's the time.

@geoffkait

Well heck, according to posts in this thread it’s because my system wasn’t expensive enough to be highly resolving of a cable that is 2600% longer and 9100(yes 9 THOUSAND) percent less expensive per foot.

But yet the ADC tracks are some how well recorded. I’m just befuddled at how I could get the DAC=>ADC so close to the original in spite of generational loss. Gosh, how does that happen on a $250 playback machine?

At least you admit that the differences people talk about wrt to Ethernet cabling could actually just be the time of day and not that any difference exists. Did you ever consider that there’s no difference to be had?

Negative results certainly prove something: The lack of positive results.

Another interesting result: I can’t give away $2000.

jinjuku
@geoffkait

I know Mike Lavigne couldn’t tell his $30,000 Magnum Opus from Monster cable. Helpful hint: He has a $500,000 system.

You don’t say? Was that during the period when his system was out of phase? There are many reasons why some people don’t hear things. Not being able to put together a system that doesn’t have at least one mistake in it or be able to maintain that system are just two reasons. Could be the time of day. Cables not broken in. Yada, yada, yada. One test doesn’t prove anything. Getting negative results proves nothing. I would be the first to say even a very expensive system can sound bad. I’ve heard plenty that didn’t sound good. It’s not generally because of the equipment or the cables, though. It’s something else. Look within.

Dynaquest4
goeff:

I said: "...the OP suggested, no...he essentially said, that the equipment in your test did not cost enough and therefore would only provide mediocre results."

You said: "Actually the OP suggested no such thing. Good try."

OP actually said to jinjuku:

"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."

Makes sense to me. Not to mention he might very well be all thumbs. Or deaf in one ear. Who knows? there are lots of reasons why people sometimes get negative results.

@geoffkait 

I know Mike Lavigne couldn't tell his $30,000 Magnum Opus from Monster cable. Helpful hint: He has a $500,000 system. 

goeff:

I said: "...the OP suggested, no...he essentially said, that the equipment in your test did not cost enough and therefore would only provide mediocre results."

You said: "Actually the OP suggested no such thing. Good try."

OP actually said to jinjuku:

"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."

Next up, controlled blind testing and how it would show there’s no difference between zip cord and the Megabuck cable and that it's all psychological. Ten, nine, eight, seven....

@dynaquest4

I understand about gear snobbery. Thankfully I’m into at least doing some measurements to get an idea of what is going on.

It was mentioned about the Salk Streamer (just a computer), I’ve had chance to talk with Jim over the years and he’s a straight shooter as they come, but the Salk StreamPlayer, much like the Bryston that is based on the Pi, are common computers running Linux and MPD.

I can take the ECS Liva Z, add in M.2 storage and get it to sound just as good as the Salk and Bryston units. But I would rather just have a NAS elsewhere and not limit myself to just a few TB of storage.

All you need to know about the subjectivists in this thread is that if they don’t trust their ears, neither should anyone else.

Intellectual honesty is rare.

Actually the OP suggested no such thing. Good try.

@ jinjuku: the OP suggested, no...he essentially said, that the equipment in your test did not cost enough and therefore would only provide mediocre results.  There it is!  The crux of the matter.  Accordingly to him and other "subjectivists," spending more money is the only pathway to audio Nirvana.  Exotic cable manufacturers and marketeers love people that believe this.  The more you spend the better sound you will get.  Like a Rolex...spend more and your time will be more accurate.  No.....wait; that has been disproven in a head to head Rolex vs Casio competition.  But, again....wait; those time test results MUST be inaccurate because the Casio didn't cost enough.

Me thinks the OP is ”in the business" and his opinions/reviews are biased in the direction of keeping the exotic cable myth alive. Ethernet, HDMI, USB and other digital connectors are the next wave of profit centers for these guys.  Preying on the easily convinced and poorly informed....again.
 

 
jinjuku

"I got into a conversation with William Low at WBF forum. He said people, all over the world, all the time, at all sorts of venues (trade shows) hear the difference in their Ethernet cabling.

Even in this very thread someone said they had people over that could hear the difference. Were they camping out for two weeks?

Michael Lavorgna said the differences in Ethernet cabling are 'Plain as Day' and 'Readily Apparent'.

So someone is lying."

well, not lying necessarily. So it goes.

@shadorne

" But the golden eared gurus who review and advise the masses are able to hear the difference in the quality of the coal burning at the coal-fired electric power station from 50 miles away - so why not Ethernet cables? "

I got into a conversation with William Low at WBF forum. He said people, all over the world, all the time, at all sorts of venues (trade shows) hear the difference in their Ethernet cabling.

Even in this very thread someone said they had people over that could hear the difference. Were they camping out for two weeks?

Michael Lavorgna said the differences in Ethernet cabling are 'Plain as Day' and 'Readily Apparent'.

So someone is lying. 

Here are the bottom line issues:

Streaming is non realtime and buffered.

There are Siemons and T.I. white papers that give very in depth analysis of Ethernet and it's resiliency:

" Magnetic field coupling occurs at low frequencies (i.e. 50Hz or 60 Hz) where the balance of the cabling system is more than sufficient to ensure immunity, which means that its impact can be ignored for all types of balanced cabling. Electric fields, however, can produce common mode voltages on balanced cables depending on their frequency. The magnitude of the voltage induced can be modeled assuming that the cabling system is susceptible to interference in the same manner as a loop antenna [1]. For ease of analysis, equation (1) represents a simplified loop antenna model that is appropriate for evaluating the impact on the electric field generated due to various interfering noise source bandwidths as well as the distance relationship of the twisted-pairs to the ground plane. Note that a more detailed model, which specially includes the incidence angle of the electric fields, is required to accurately calculate actual coupled noise voltage.

Where: is the wavelength of the interfering noise source

A = the area of the loop formed by the disturbed length of the cabling conductor (l) suspended an average height (h) above the ground plane
E = the electric field intensity of the interfering source

The wavelength, , of the interfering source can range anywhere from 5,000,000m for a 60 Hz signal to shorter than 1m for RF signals in the 100 MHz and higher band. The electric field strength density varies depending upon the disturber, is dependent upon proximity to the source, and is normally reduced to null levels at a distance of .3m from the source. The equation demonstrates that a 60 Hz signal results in an electric field disturbance that can only be measured in the thousandths of mV range, while sources operating in the MHz range can generate a fairly large electric field disturbance. For reference, 3V/m is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the average electric field present in a light industrial/ commercial environment and 10V/m is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the average electric field present in an industrial environment.


The one variable that impacts the magnitude of the voltage coupled by the electric field is the loop area, A, that is calculated by multiplying the disturbed length of the cabling (l) by the average height (h) from the ground plane. The cross-sectional view in figure 3 depicts the common mode currents that are generated by an electric field. It is these currents that induce unwanted signals on the outermost conductive element of the cabling (i.e. the conductors themselves in a UTP environment or the overall screen/shield in a screened/fully-shielded environment). What becomes readily apparent is that the common mode impedance, as determined by the distance (h) to the ground plane, is not very well controlled in UTP environments. This impedance is dependent upon factors such as distance from metallic raceways, metallic structures surrounding the pairs, the use of non-metallic raceways, and termination location. Conversely, this common mode impedance is well defined and controlled in screened/fully-shielded cabling environments since the screen and/or shield acts as the ground plane. Average approximations for (h) can range anywhere from 0.1 to 1 meter for UTP cabling, but are significantly more constrained (i.e. less than 0.001m) for screened and fully-shielded cabling. This means that screened and fully-shielded cabling theoretically offers 100 to 1,000 times the immunity protection from electric field disturbances than UTP cabling does! 

And finally:

Well balanced (i.e. category 6 and above) cables should be immune to electromagnetic interference up to 30 MHz."

Then we have clock domain boundaries that are taken care of by FIFO buffers:

https://youtu.be/a_RL56y8Fpo?t=622

Here's the thing, despite all the backhanded jabs at my setup which you know nothing about, you simply aren't the smartest person in this context. If you were I would be getting an invite and asked to bring my cash. 

Your eye-brain connection is simply writing a check that can't be cashed. 

Malpai, you are right and I usually don't bother. I guess I did not control my impluse well enough here. Self control will now take over.

"That is yet one other reason A/B testing is useless. One needs to compare over long periods of time....days and weeks before they really come to grips with changes in sound with wire, tweaks, or gear. You really need to settle in and live with the new sound over a period of many, many days."


Thanks for the laugh....

Oh to find an honest subjectivist. 

Shadorne, I actually agree with you! Great point on even the slightest movement of the head, seating position, humidity, etc...

That is yet one other reason A/B testing is useless. One needs to compare over long periods of time....days and weeks before they really come to grips with changes in sound with wire, tweaks, or gear. You really need to settle in and live with the new sound over a period of many, many days.

Sure out can hear some differences pretty quickly, but how you emotionally and physically respond over a long period of time is most important. What seems "better" in the short term may in fact be irritating over the longer term. 

@cleeds 

Not one step too far as something the violates TOS but one step too far in ascribing realtime analog properties to a non-realtime system.

Did you know that during playback, for power saving purposes, parts of the NIC's power supply circuitry gets switched off?

Did you know that you can start playback, pull the Ethernet cable and still hear 3/6/10/20 or more seconds of playback?

shadorne

But the golden eared gurus who review and advise the masses are able to hear the difference in the quality of the coal burning at the coal-fired electric power station from 50 miles away

Can you actually document that some have made this assertion, or did you simply fabricate it?

@jinjuku.

But the golden eared gurus who review and advise the masses are able to hear the difference in the quality of the coal burning at the coal-fired electric power station from 50 miles away - so why not Ethernet cables?

I suspect most of us realize that every slight movement of our head and position will change the sound quite audibly - some of us are able to recognize this as a non-equipment non-source music extraneous factor while others attribute this to the last tweak they made. It is next to impossible to make a change and then listen again in the exact same spot - a mere cm make a difference (at least I can hear audible differences from movement of less than a cm)

jinjuku

Here is the fundamental problem: Subjectivists have taken this one step too far.

If you believe contributors here have ventured "one step too far," you should alert the moderators. They control the conversation here, not you and your "put up or shut up" pronouncement.

@cleeds 

I'm not the one making claims. I just testing those. When someone says they can jump 20 feet straight up and I bring out a bar that is 20 feet high, no matter if the bar is made of wood or gold, we are talking about how high someone can jump not what the bar is constructed of.

Either they can or they can not. They can do this on their own system, in their own room, using their own provided track of choice. 

I would like to find an intellectually honest subjectivist. 

jinjukuDouglas I have $2000 that says you can't hear the difference once your sighted Bias is removed as input to your evaluation.

I've now told you the circumstances which I'm willing to be proven wrong. What are yours.

This is simply put up or shut up time.

Sorry, but your creation of a rather suspect listening test hardly creates a "put up or shut up" scenario for contributors here. You are free to reject whatever you read here just as others are free to reject your notions as well.

@jinjuku

The OP just "knows" he is right and you are wrong. It has nothing to do with ears and everything to do with a closed mindset. I maintain it is faulty boutique equipment and incorrect setups that account for all the weird and amazing "audible" tweaks from extraneous factors reported by audiophiles but perhaps it is delusion or faulty hearing that makes things sound different every time.

Contrary to the wisdom here - NOT hearing differences from things that should NOT logically make a difference may be a sign that the listener has superior ears, a critical unbefuddled mind and a solid highly resolving system. IMHO

dgarretson wrote: 

" That test is more Where's Waldo than ABX.  Post two files of the same music, each recorded with a different Ethernet cable, and the opportunity to compare them at leisure."

I already posted two tracks. What I'm not doing is giving a 50/50 chance ;-) 

You can listen to the two tracks I posted all you like. I am keen on your ears and what they can discern. Again the setup is dead simple: File Server, Switch, either 315 of dirt cheap CAT5 or 12 feet of uber expensive CAT8 (WireWorld Starlight) Client Computer, DAC, then ADC. 

@jinjuku

Amazing to see that that those from the school of you can’t dismiss all manner of tin foil hat tweaks "unless you have actually tried them you can’t have an opinion" - apparently will not test their own assertions!!!

Frankly it is laughable that high end audio gear would be affected by an Ethernet cable. What you have demonstrated is that even modest equipment costing a few hundred $ is more reliable than boutique high end audio gear that is so badly designed that you have to worry about speaker cables, power cords, interconnects and now Ethernet cables.

To me the answer is simple - if a mere Ethernet cable affects the sound then get rid of that piece of sh*t boutique high end audio boat anchor as soon as possible - no matter the prestigious name and all the marketing tripe and testimonials. Plain and simple if something minor like an Ethernet cable makes a difference then the entire audio chain, setup and system is suspect!

Until reviewers get reliable high performance setups we will get testimonials for all manner of bogus results from every and all kinds of tweaks. The point is that good audio systems should NOT be so terribly temperamental and unreliable!

Doug, if you listen to Jinjuku’s two posted hi-res files you will understand that he knows how to make an excellent recording from ADC to DAC to ADC. If the files are played back through your system, that’s all that’s important here.

That test is more Where's Waldo than ABX.  Post two files of the same music, each recorded with a different Ethernet cable, and the opportunity to compare them at leisure.