Most Important, Unloved Cable...
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 |
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. |
@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. |
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 |
'"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. " While I applaud this contributors' apparent sincere effort to objectively test and verify his theory that there is no audible difference between technically competent ethernet cables when used in a Music Reproduction System, this proposed testing protocol is not valid for several reasons including the simple fact that it is not double-blind. There is no reason to attempt to invent a new scientifically valid listening test when the work towards that end has already been so expertly accomplished. A relatively simple ABX test can test this contributors' hypothesis with a high degree of scientific certainty that the outcome will be valid. I say "relatively simple" because of course you would need a proper ABX comparator and you would need to level-match the two signals to within a tight tolerance and you would need to provide a listening venue that would accommodate the listener but there is no need to do anything other than that and in fact any proposed alternative testing protocol would itself have to be established as scientifically valid which this proposed protocol would probably not be considered because it is so suspect on so many points. However this contributor is to be congratulated for at least trying to move this conversation towards a scenario that could yield a scientifically valid, repeatable test that would produce results that would carry a high level of certainty as to they're validity. While congratulations to him are indeed in order I must also caution that his strict enthusiasm for what he believes to be the obvious truth of his hypothesis strongly suggest that he suffers extreme bias in this instance and should be disqualified from formulating the test but could perhaps participate in the testing as an observer or contributor. There are experts in designing, planning, organizing, establishing, conducting, monitoring and evaluating blind testing protocols and that is who we should seek to be involved in this exploration the result of which cannot be established at this time with scientific certainty based on the facts now in evidence in this discussion. |
this proposed testing protocol is not valid for several reasons including the simple fact that it is not double-blindWho said it was going to be double blind? I say "relatively simple" because of course you would need a proper ABX comparator and you would need to level-match the two signals to within a tight toleranceWhy would you think there are going to be level differences at either the DAC or Amp output via change in Ethernet cabling? You don’t understand how this works. There there are two protocols here depending what is being tested. One is double blind but not strictly AB/X since it is self administered. Another is Single Blind since the person at the network switch would know what cable is in situ. The order would be randomly selected. the obvious truth of his hypothesis strongly suggest that he suffers extreme bias in this instance and should be disqualified from formulating the test but could perhaps participate in the testing as an observer or contributor.The obvious truth is hypothesis are meant to be reviewed by others and either reproduced or debunked. Anyone could be shown how to plug and unplug Ethernet cabling. Or I can do it and it can be recorded and monitored. No biggie either way. I’ve stated under what conditions I would accept being incorrect in my suppositions. Including a cable that is 2600% longer and 9100% cheaper per foot than a 12 foot boutique cable. All on a $250 system that others said produced well recorded DAC => ADC. My proposed method is also open to pointed and technically sound critique. You are welcome to bring experts into the discussion if you wish and can. |
There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time. The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft used logical fallacies of them all.You may have missed the evaluation of a $250 computer output and that of high end streamer where the claimant could listen at their leisure fully sighted. On their own equipment, their own room, their own material, their own time frame. Fully sighted testing and complete control of the tracks. |
Geoffkait: There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time. The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft used logical fallacies of them all. to which jinjuku replied, "You may have missed the evaluation of a $250 computer output and that of high end streamer where the claimant could listen at their leisure fully sighted. On their own equipment, their own room, their own material, their own time frame. Fully sighted testing and complete control of the tracks." I was commenting on the recent post outlining double blind testing protocols. |
Re Teo’s link to holographic universe. The following paragraphs describe David Bohm’s view of the universe, which he enunciated many years ago, circa 1980. Borrowed from photography, the hologram is Bohm’s favorite metaphor for conveying the structure of the Implicate Order. Holography relies upon wave interference. If two wavelengths of light are of differing frequencies, they will interfere with each other and create a pattern. “Because a hologram is recording detail down to the wavelength of light itself, it is also a dense information storage.” Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a “total content–in principle extending over the whole of space and time–is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region.” The hologram illustrates how “information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film.” It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is “completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns.” Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object. Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order–the Implicate Order where “everything is enfolded into everything.” This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. Bohm puts it thus: “The actual order (the Implicate Order) itself has been recorded in the complex movement of electromagnetic fields, in the form of light waves. Such movement of light waves is present everywhere and in principle enfolds the entire universe of space and time in each region. This enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other fields (electronic, protonic, etc.). These fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the properties of discontinuity and non-locality. The totality of the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment may go immensely beyond what has revealed itself to our observations. We call this totality by the name holomovement.” g kait machina dynamica advanced audio concepts |
"It comes down to this there are more than double blind testing for discrimination elimination." As a person with a studied familiarity with established and validated scientific testing protocols I am not familiar with the term discrimnation elimination? Would you please for the benefit of those you have engaged in this discussion define this term and how it applies to this discussion seeking to verify the audibility of differences if any among and between ethernet cables. It is a common error made by those lacking in scientific discipline to underestimate and oversimplify the requirements needed to conduct statistically valid scientific testing irregardless of the discipline under consideration in this case the components that comprise a Music Reproduction System. While It may sound funny for me to assert this the simple truth is that any test itself must be independently verified as scientific and this must be done in advance of any testing of a hypothesis because otherwise the results are not valid. As a professor of mine would oft-repeat a scientifically flawed or invalid test or a test conducted without the rigor necessary to insure its integrity is actually worse than no test at all and can lead to invalid conclusions and/or results that are not repeatable which by definition is an invalid test. There is a lot of literature in the scientific community and I encourage you to avail yourself of that literature so as to inform yourself what requirements you would need to test your hypothesis about cables. Also note that until such a test is conducted, reviewed, analyzed and studied your vocal assertion about ethernet cable is just a hypothesis and no more irregardless of your staunch convictions as to there verity of your beliefs. |
As a person with a studied familiarity with established and validated scientific testing protocols I am not familiar with the term discrimnation elimination?I meant bias elimination (that of sighted input). It is a common error made by those lacking in scientific discipline to underestimate and oversimplify the requirements needed to conduct statistically valid scientific testing irregardless of the discipline under consideration in this case the components that comprise a Music Reproduction System.And anyone that is a subject matter expert is more than free to weigh in. My proposed method will either stand or modify based on input. Please also understand that I’m not out to find general norms per-se. I’m testing individual claims. If there are a group of people making the same claims then the N simply increases. Again if some one says they can jump 20 feet straight up, the bar to jump over isn’t being evaluated, it’s the claim of covering 20 vertical feet. I don’t have a ’verity of beliefs’. I have data that leads me to a conclusion that: 1. I can’t hear the difference between 315 foot of generic CAT5 and 12 foot of boutique CAT8 2. Three other people that have tried the ADC’d tracks can’t tell when 315 foot or 12 foot of cabling was in play 3. No one has debunked my DA/AD setup is of inadequate resolution 4. So far I’ve interacted with 12 audiophiles that believe in the audibility of a data cable but I can’t give $2000 away. Even in this thread no one that has DL’d the tracks has hazarded a guess. |
@jinjuku The main problem with your test(if I understand it correctly) is that it is a multivariable experiment. You swap cables 7-10 times at regular intervals throughout one track. Unfortunately the music is changing on top of the cable changes-- confusing the listener by precluding direct comparisons. What you need to do is to repeat the track(or a segment of that track) with the same cable across the duration of each sample. Then all that the listener must do is to identify and appraise the deviant segment. And the odds at 7:1 are still in favor of the house... |
I don’t think you are understanding the proposed in situ method. I would take a track of the claimants choosing, take a 1 minute interval of their choosing of said track. I would tack on a 15 second elevator clip of music. This would be two rounds of 8 and changes would or wouldn’t happen during the 15 second interval. A cable will ALWAYS be unplugged/plugged in. Could be the same cable could be the other. There could be anything from 0 to 7 changes. The order would be randomly chosen prior to each evaluation run. Of course I encourage the claimant, prior to sitting for the sight bias controlled portion, to interact directly with the switch and they could play music and swap cabling out to their hearts content. I would hope 1 - 3 hours would be enough. As long as your streamer has 6-10 seconds worth of buffer you should be able to swap in real-time without interruption in playback. Part of the origin this approach was me listening through the Phillips Golden Ear Challenge and seeing that it could work for other evaluation. You are correct that the tracks I uploaded had a change made during playback as some people are fans of quick A/B. |
dgarretson @jinjuku "The main problem with your test(if I understand it correctly) is that it is a multivariable experiment. You swap cables 7-10 times at regular intervals throughout one track. Unfortunately the music is changing on top of the cable changes-- confusing the listener by precluding direct comparisons. What you need to do is to repeat the track(or a segment of that track) with the same cable across the duration of each sample. Then all that the listener must do is to identify and appraise the deviant segment. And the odds at 7:1 are still in favor of the house..." Not only that but the simple act of unplugging one set of cables and inserting another destroys the subtle electric mechanical interface, so in my book is a big NO NO when you’re trying to get to the bottom of things. Rome wasn’t built in a day. There’s no reason to hurry. Having the cables under test completely broken in is critical, too. Preferably on a cable cooker, not just music. In addition, to be technically correct about the test, the proper directionality of all cables involved should be predetermined. Otherwise the whole exercise would be more than a little fruitless IMHO. |
Gambling introduces one more variable. While some "claimants" may be stimulated to listen closely, others may become distracted and confused by stress. I hypothesize that the latter case characterizes most audiophiles... The best thing would be to record seven samples, post the files, and gather stats across a broad number of listeners to the downloads. That's how Fremer does it on Analog Planet, which is good enough.
|
Not only that but the simple act of unplugging one set of cables and inserting another destroys the subtle electric mechanical interface Not sure what a 'subtle electric mechanical' interface is supposed to be. BUT Ethernet is intentionally designed to be hot plugged. Let's take this to its logical conclusion however. Cabling is really meant to be a device of least damage to the signal. The thing that is going to be better than any cable is no cable at all. Anyone here can test out if a generic cable is going to deteriorate SQ by starting playback and having someone remove the cable and see if SQ improves. Here's the thing: a cable can not improve SQ. It's a passive device there is nothing additive about it. Preferably on a cable cooker Anyone that has used any cabling long enough has cooked cables. What happens if they are using optical? We all have fully baked systems. the proper directionality of all cables involved should be predetermined. Otherwise the whole exercise would be more than a little fruitless IMHO What direction would that be? Ethernet is bidirectional. Think about how you want to answer that because it's going to take us into shielded data cabling and it's something I know a lot about since I've installed and designed countless networks from multi site office to heavy industrial (auto manufacturing and the like). Is anyone here from the North West KY / Cincy region? |
Jinjuko, you have not posted on any other subject or thread, you have no feedback, you just joined Agon one month ago to post here, and no doubt you do not have the audio experience needed to be credible here. Let us discuss our Ethernet cable preferences helping the audio community we love. Your goal, it seems, is quite narrow and off topic. This thread is for those who are audio and music enthusiasts who want to discuss experiences with various Ethernet cables . This is our audio community not simply a place for you to fly in and derail because you don’t like or understand our shared experience. Sure, this forum is "free" for you to dump on, but sometimes the right thing to do is not place a turd in the punch bowl. I am seeing this sort of thing happen too much here in our community. It is absolutely ruining the experience once afforded by this site. |
@jinjuku The silence of the evangelists in response to your $2000 challenge is absolutely deafening. Any rational person has to ask, "how real can these claimed audible effects be if the evangelists refuse to pocket easy money and dismiss the opportunity to prove their claims?" I welcome challenges like yours as it helps frame my own audio obsession within the context of reality. Sure I get as excited about the latest SOTA wonder gear as the next audiophile but technical knowledge like yours allows me to realize that perceived differences can be down to human error, listener position, volume levels and of course the biggest culprit - badly designed, badly built and incorrectly set up boutique audio gear that is totally unreliable from one moment to the next (you don’t need to change anything for it to sound different as it is "tuned" to the fuse, power or wires connected to it rather than the source signal/music.) |
shadorne The silence of the evangelists in response to your $2000 challenge is absolutely deafening. Any rational person has to ask, "how real can these claimed audible effects be if the evangelists refuse to pocket easy money and dismiss the opportunity to prove their claims?"What's been proposed here by jinjuku isn't a scientifically valid test, but a 5:1 wager playing with a stacked deck. Proper protocols for valid listening tests are well-established, but they don't seem to suit jinjuku's apparent agenda. |
| Post removed |
The silence of the evangelists in response to your $2000 challenge is absolutely deafening. Any rational person has to ask, "how real can these claimed audible effects be if the evangelists refuse to pocket easy money and dismiss the opportunity to prove their claims?" What you are seeing is the same convolution of logic applied to a straight forward evaluation method that is applied to all sorts of baseless and unproven claims about data cabling. |
Let us discuss our Ethernet cable preferences helping the audio community we loveSorry, everyone is entitled to their preferences here. What’s "bonkers" is denying them that. You can’t impugn my method without totally wrecking your sighted evaluationI’ve never suggested a "sighted evaluation." I’ve suggested that if you seek a scientific test, you should follow established scientific protocols for conducting the test. Instead, you’ve proposed a convoluted "test" of your own design with multiple variables that isn’t scientific and isn’t double-blind. |
Jinjuku wrote, "What you are seeing is the same convolution of logic applied to a straight forward evaluation method that is applied to all sorts of baseless and unproven claims about data cabling." There’s the problem! Buy declaring it "data cabling" you’re completely ignoring the fact that the actual signal is the same as any other signal through wire or cable. It’s an electromagnetic wave that obeys the same laws of physics as any other signal, whether the signal contains data or music or doodlebugs. This is all starting to look like the same old bits is bits argument we’ve heard so much about over the past what, 35 years? |
Sorry, everyone is entitled to their preferences here. What’s "bonkers" is denying them that.There is a difference between preference and potential self delusion. The primary problem is ascribing realtime flowery prose to non-real time systems. I’ve never suggested a "sighted evaluation." I’ve suggested that if you seek a scientific test, you should follow established scientific protocols for conducting the test. Instead, you’ve proposed a convoluted "test" of your own design with multiple variables that isn’t scientific and isn’t double-blind. 1. I never said, or didn't say that the method is scientifically rigorous. That's for the naysayers to point out the pitfalls. The claims are simple and the testing method is simple. I've yet to see anyone actually point out a real fault with it. If you say you can jump 20 feet straight up, I don't have to contact the Psychology department, the Math department, the Physics department, at University just so I can show up with a tape measure and a bar. 2. Get off the Double Blind wagon. Not all tests that control sighted bias are double blind. The Pepsi taste challenge is one such, so is Penn and Tellers 'Organic Food' experiment. Now you can go the the YouTube comments and argue about the 'Scientific Validity' the 'Not Double Blindedness' of it all you want. People in general have pretty good BS meters and will see you are just being an apologist for the poor saps that are so easily hoodwinked. What are the convolutions of my test and what are 'all the variables'? In the testing with a L3 Managed Switch there are only two variables: The boutique cable and the garden variety cable. Everything else is the claimants own setup. They even get to experiment with swapping out cabling and evaluating fully sighted. I'm also going to bring along a much longer cable then they are most likely currently using. How about 400% longer? So if they have a 2 meter cable, I'll, right in front of them, construct an 8 meter cable? In what way am I being unfair? In what way am I being convoluted? In what way am I introducing too many variables? |
There’s the problem! Buy declaring it "data cabling" you’re completely ignoring the fact that the actual signal is the same as any other signal through wire or cable. It’s an electromagnetic wave that obeys the same laws of physics as any other signal, whether the signal contains data or music or doodlebugs. This is all starting to look like the same old bits is bits argument we’ve heard so much about over the past what, 35 years? Not ignoring it at all. Since you brought it up: How is one cable with 4 pair of copper going into the Ethernet port of a device going to deviate from the laws of physics vs another cable with 4 pair of copper? We are talking multiple copy stack. Two buffers on the NIC, Then PCIe Bus, then RAM set aside by OS, then RAM set aside by the player application, Then more RAM set aside by the USB bus, then buffer in the DAC itself. These are all Clock Domain boundaries because the timing is different for each of these sub systems. The data has most likely been copied 6-8 times in transit and it's not real time. How come no one will answer this simple question: When playing back audio and you pull the Ethernet cable, and of course it will still play back (with most systems) for a few seconds, DOES THE SOUND IMPROVE? It's really a simple question and yet for some reason... |
If the cables are copper they are directional. All bets are off. How come no one will answer this simple question: When playing back audio and you pull the Ethernet cable, and of course it will still play back (with most systems) for a few seconds, DOES THE SOUND IMPROVE? It's really a simple question and yet for some reason... |
When playing back audio and you pull the Ethernet cable, and of course it will still play back (with most systems) for a few seconds, DOES THE SOUND IMPROVE? It’s really a simple question and yet for some reason...I don’t have an ethernet connection in my audio system, so I can’t answer that based on experience. However, assuming (as I do) that the several highly experienced and widely respected audiophiles who have reported realizing significant sonic benefits by changing from one inexpensive ethernet cable to a different inexpensive ethernet cable are correct, and if the explanation of those benefits that I hypothesized in my post in this thread dated 3-27-2017 is correct, the sound may or may not improve depending on the specific system. As you will realize in reading that post, and if my hypothesis is correct, whether or not the sound improves would depend on the path(s) by which, and the degree to which, electrical noise and/or RFI from the signals in the cable reach and affect downstream circuit points that are ostensibly unrelated to the ethernet interface. It would also depend on how the content of the signal sent into the cable by the source component changes when the cable is disconnected, as a result of that component having nothing to talk to at the other end. While what I stated in my 3-27-2017 post is only a hypothesis, as an EE experienced in the design of high speed digital circuits that operate in close proximity to sensitive analog circuits and D/A converter circuits it is the only means I can envision that would account for the reported differences. And I don’t think that most of those who have similar circuit design experience and are also reasonably open minded would rule out the possibility I have stated. Regards, -- Al |
I don’t have an ethernet connection in my audio system, so I can’t answer that based on experience. However, assuming (as I do) that the several highly experienced and widely respected audiophiles who have reported realizing significant sonic benefits by changing from one inexpensive ethernet cable to a different inexpensive ethernet cable are correct, and if the explanation of those benefits that I hypothesized in my post in this thread dated 3-27-2017 is correct, the sound may or may not improve depending on the specific system. So flipping this on it's head: It's not the cable, it's the device. I'm able to show via FFT that an $18 Intel NIC allows for 3 separate DACs to have un-altered output regardless of if I'm maxing out the driving voltage with a 315 foot generic cable or a 12 foot boutique cable. Ethernet spec has 328 ft / 100m single segment length. We are talking lengths that are, I would guess, that are typically 10 foot or less in in 95% of the consumer installations. So if really expensive equipment is actually susceptible to this then the EE's that are designing it don't know what they are actually doing. They may want to re-read Ott. |
It would also depend on how the content of the signal sent into the cable by the source component changes when the cable is disconnected, as a result of that component having nothing to talk to at the other end. Why would it matter what the source is sending if you have disconnected it at the client? These are buffered (FIFO) systems and the audio is still playing. The only change in 'content' is the 100% lack thereof. Once again: What sonically changed about the audio when the cable was disconnected. What does the cable, what does mixed signal systems wrt to analog and digital ground plane mixing, have to do with the DAC playing out of buffer (that isn't going to get refilled unless the cable is plugged back in)? A good litmus test for these multi-thousand dollar pieces of audio gear is to evaluate it blinded and start playback and see if you can hear when a friend, without cueing you in on it, has disconnected the cable. If I / you hear a clear difference I would take a pass on it personally. |
So if really expensive equipment is actually susceptible to this then the EE’s that are designing it don’t know what they are actually doing. They may want to re-read Ott.It wouldn’t surprise me if many audio designers have not read Ott. Or studied the aptly named book "High-Speed Digital Design: A Handbook of Black Magic." (My background, btw, is in defense electronics, and I have taken Mr. Johnson’s related course). Why would it matter what the source is sending if you have disconnected it at the client? These are buffered (FIFO) systems and the audio is still playing.Because as I indicated in my 3-27-2017 post possible pathways by which RFI may find its way from the cable to circuit points that are downstream of the ethernet interface include radiation into power wiring, or into other cables, or directly into various circuit points within the DAC or other components. And the degree to which that may occur may be affected by the bandwidth, shielding, and other characteristics of the cable being used. Also, perhaps a difference would occur because noise generated by the ethernet interface circuitry at the receiving end (i.e., in the DAC) may change as a result of having nothing connected to it. As far as I can recall, everything that has been said in this thread by those who deny that the reported sonic differences are real has focused on the robustness and accuracy of ethernet communications. While ignoring or discounting what I would consider, based on my experience, to be the very real possibility of interactions between signals and circuits that are ostensibly unrelated. Designs should not be assumed to behave in a manner that is theoretically ideal, IMO, and signals should not be assumed to only follow their intended pathways. Regards, -- Al |
Because as I indicated in my 3-27-2017 post possible pathways by which RFI may find its way from the cable to circuit points that are downstream of the ethernet interface include radiation into power wiring, or into other cables, or directly into various circuit points within the DAC or other components. And the degree to which that may occur may be affected by the bandwidth, shielding, and other characteristics of the cable being used. And perhaps also because noise generated by the ethernet interface circuitry at the receiving end may change as a result of having nothing connected to it. Then I would suggest as T.I. does in "Reducing Radiated Emissions in 10/100 Ethernet LAN Applications" one uses a balanced power supply for the benefits of CMNR. Bottom line is that selecting well engineered componentry is what is needed for fidelity. I'm already able to produce ADC'd tracks, that given the natural losses of generational copy, are extremely close to the source PCM when compared. So that means, by fact, my $250 is indeed very transparent and high resolution, and that an $18 NIC, a $69 mainboard, $24 stick of 4GB DDR3, $55 240GB SSD, $25 PICO PSU, $60 LPS is impervious to changes in cable vs some that claim their $8000 device is capable of 'resolving' when it's really a failure for it to protect the output from something as simple as a change in one short run of cable vs another. |
I don't doubt or question the comments in your post just above, Jinjuku. I have said in many previous threads here that the musical resolution of a component or system, and its sensitivity to and ability to resolve hardware differences, are two different things. And in a reasonably high quality system the correlation between the two, while certainly greater than zero, is also a good deal looser than many audiophiles seem to believe. Regards, -- Al |
As far as I can recall, everything that has been said in this thread by those who deny that the reported sonic differences are real has focused on the robustness and accuracy of ethernet communications. While ignoring or discounting what I would consider, based on my experience, to be the very real possibility of interactions between signals and circuits that are ostensibly unrelated. Designs should not be assumed to behave in a manner that is theoretically ideal, IMO, and signals should not be assumed to only follow their intended pathways. Agreed, but that is going to happen regardless of Audioquest or WireWorld or Nordost. Bottom line is there are only so many ways to engineer an Ethernet Cable and the standards body steers these considerations. When a $340 AudioQuest Vodka was measured it was actually marginal for 6A operation for NeXT. Where as my $12 6A cable was 200% better in this regard. I'm able to show up and terminate UTP CAT5 or STP CAT6 to the same as is whatever they are using. I understand the theory and not in disagreement. All the same I stand by what I have said I would do and that is show up with ~40-50 feet of cabling, terminate on the spot and with a L3MS in LAG let the claimant A/B sighted for 1-3 hours and then we can move through the rounds of testing. |
@almarg +1 I agree it is most likely the faulty poorly designed boutique equipment used by the evangelists here. Knowing what Jinjuku has stated technically about Ethernet (all that buffering of digital bits) then the ONLY conclusion is that "unintended pathways" are interfering with the audio signal for those few audiophiles that have noted audible differences. I recommend that those evangelist audiophiles reporting audible differences where none should exist should sell their boat anchor crap gear asap and get something that actually works reliably with ANY suitable Ethernet cable... Reports of wild and amazing discoveries with audio equipment that is clearly on the fritz is a waste of everyone’s time. |
jinjuku I never said, or didn't say that the method is scientifically rigorousIf you're not interested in a scientifically valid test, then this exercise is really just a waste of time, imo. But it's fine if you're having fun with it - that's no problem. Just please don't assail what you call our lack of "intellectual integrity" because we're interested in a valid, repeatable test. |
