Most Important, Unloved Cable...

Well, here for the measurements:
http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-intercontinental-internet.html
 http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-ethernet-cables-and-audio.html

jujitsu wrote,

"I laugh every time I see someone say something like the above.

Because Randi didn’t get 1000 mystical spoon benders to test, so when he exposed Uri Geller for the charlatan that he is, it’s not really valid and we hold out the possibility that people can actually bend spoons with their mind. Incredible ’logic’.

Here’s the thing: You aren’t aural savants. You’re aural spoon benders.

The real reason that you will not sit for a bias controlled evaluation is that when you crash and burn, and you most certainly will, EVERYTHING you have an opinion about when it comes to the audibility of equipment will be worthless.

When you’ve been exposed either making stuff up or hallucinating then you can’t be trusted."

>>>>>>jujitsu, your obvious contempt for audiophiles and the whole scientific method notwithstanding, the real reason The Amazing Randi never (rpt never) lost a Million Dollar Challenge was because the test protocol was obviously slanted to favor Randi. And to favor him to such an extent he virtually couldn’t loose. It was rigged every which way to Sunday. That’s what Wellfed found out dealing with the stacked deck of James Randi Education Foundation when he agreed to take the Million Dollar Challenge for the Intelligent Chip, the little orange quantum thingie that is placed on top of a CD player for improving the sound of the disc. (I have to respect that Randi had Kramer, formerly of Butthole Surfers rock group, coordinate the blind test of the Intelligent Chip.)

So did Michael Fremer, of Stereophile, whilst negotiating with Randi’s crew for a $20K high end cable test, discover it’s not an even playing field. Let me give some examples, gentle readers. In the case of the Million Dollar Challenge for the Intelligent Chip Wellfed was expected to perform the test at some location other than his own house and on a system of Randi’s choosing. I.e., some unfamiliar God knows what system. Keep in mind Randi nor any of his crew were audiophiles. Also, the CDs could not be treated a priori, which would have been beneficial to Wellfed since differences with the Intelligent Chip would presumably be easier to detect. There was also a dispute how many people from Randi’s crew were to have been present at the test. Finally Wellfed would have had to guess correctly 10 out of 10 consecutive trials. Give me break!

willemj
Well, here for the measurements:
http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-intercontinental-internet.html
http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-ethernet-cables-and-audio.html

willemj, would it be fair to say without looking more closely at the fine details of those tests, the take-away is things that measure the same also sound the same? Is that what you would have us believe? No wonder the cable controversy has been going on without letup for 40 years.

the real reason The Amazing Randi never (rpt never) lost a Million Dollar Challenge was because the test protocol was obviously slanted to favor Randi. And to favor him to such an extent he virtually couldn’t loose.

Citation Needed. Other than all of the charlatans who couldn’t perform. It's plain to see, that as soon as they are introduced to proper experimentation and logical rigor, we get a litany of special pleadings for why they can’t prove their claims.

your obvious contempt for audiophiles and the whole scientific method notwithstanding,

You, lecturing someone on proper understanding of the scientific method. That’s rich.

willemj, would it be fair to say without looking more closely at the fine details of those tests, the take-away is things that measure the same also sound the same? Is that what you would have us believe? No wonder the cable controversy has been going on without letup for 40 years.

Then perhaps you should abuse yourself of the details. If YOU are claiming a benefit with X, it’s YOUR responsibility to show how that claim can be empirically demonstrated, not anyone else’s responsibility to prove it wrong. If said benefit is claimed because of A, and we know that A can be empirically demonstrated by 123 testing, then yes, we can test your claim. If no known testing methodology is available, it’s your responsibility to provide it. Without demanding that, your claims would be limited to your own imagination. 

If you are also claiming that we can’t measure a particular sonic change, benefit or detriment, then you have another claim to provide reputable citation for.

Whoa! What's this, the attack of the Audio Peer Review Committee? 🦃 🦃 🦃

Sure if there are no measurable differences in noise or frequency response, there is nothing until somebody comes up with a better measurement.
An alternative and perhaps even purer way to look at it would be to inspect the digital packages and compare what goes in and what comes out. This too has been done, and the answer is: bitperfect. This is not a matter of belief or opinion but of fact, and not of alternative fact.

Yes peer review is part of the scientific method. And without science you would still, for example, have a life expectancy at birth of at best 30 years, and believe that you were getitng ill because of bad spirits or whatever nonsense. And medicine is not the only scientific achievement.

Whoa! What's this, the attack of the Audio Peer Review Committee?

Whatever you have to tell yourself. But yes, in a modern world where claims have to be substantiated, I know it's crazy. I'm sorry you were born on the wrong side of the Dark Ages. 

A man will usually gives the best evidence he has for a claim, short of that he will just bemoan the fact that he has to provide evidence. 

Take a look at Geoff's CV and tell us again... that he was born on the wrong side of the dark ages.

I find fascinating the cognitive dissonance that exists between the skeptical mind in regard to cables and the confirmation bias results which can be obtained from the typical "reviewers"

Actually, in the real world, claims do not (rpt not) have to be substantiated, proven or any such thing. Products do not (rpt not) have to be proven to work, they do not (rpt not) have to be explained. Measurements are not (rpt not) required. Those are all old wives’ tales. Have fun in your pseudo skeptic's daydream. 🍭

Well, in the UK a company selling fancy audio cables claiming their sonic superiority lost a courtcase for consumer fraud. I am quite happy that pharmaceutical companies also have to prove efficacy. In EU law there is the requirement of 'fit for purpose'.

Sorry, either you’re not telling the whole story or that’s the silliest thing I ever heard. Was the magistrate a hardcore pseudo skeptic? 😬

@geoffkait   


WRONG AGAIN.

You are only correct when it comes to selling audio which is why the audio market is replete with snake oil and wild unsubstantiated claims. Many areas are regulated such that claims must be substantiated.

Examples are everywhere - from food labels, building codes, fire ratings, UL laboratories on electrical appliances, fuel MPG ratings and even when you gas up your car (the pumps are tested to ensure you are getting the required amount you paid for)

Your belief and attitude however says a whole lot about you! I definitely would never want to travel on Geoffkait airlines if you owned an airline.

shadorne, your humorous attitude notwithstanding, if what you’re saying was actually true, which it’s not (rpt not), then people would be suing aftermarket fuse companies that sell non UL listed fuses. Of course, no one is. No one has even tried to sue me for the Teleportation Tweak. Whew, that was a close call! Why don't you see any lawsuits over high end tweaks? Because it’s not possible to prove some suspicious looking audio tweak doesn’t work. Especially in a court of law. Follow?

So, getting back to the case in UK, I’m sure willemj is not telling the whole story for whatever reason. If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true. Audio is by its very nature subjective. One person gets good results, another person doesn’t. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. 🍪

OK, here’s one for you Skeptics: Prove that objectivity exists.

Good luck with that.

Actually, in the real world, claims do not (rpt not) have to be substantiated, proven or any such thing. Products do not (rpt not) have to be proven to work, they do not (rpt not) have to be explained. Measurements are not (rpt not) required. Those are all old wives’ tales. Have fun in your pseudo skeptic's daydream. 🍭

"claims do not (rpt not) have to be substantiated proven or any such thing "  Yes they do (rpt they do)
"Products do not (rpt not) have to be proven to work"
 Yes they do (rpt they do)
"they do not (rpt not) have to be explained"
Yes they do (rpt they do)
"Measurements are not (rpt not) required."
Yes they do (rpt they do)

Your logic has been soundly defeated. Be a man and admit it. 

Seriously? What problem solving paradigm do you support which doesn't demand evidence to support a claim? Have fun in your fantasy land of fantasy beliefs. Again, sorry you missed out on 500-1500 AD, that must really make you sad. 

Whoa!! Hey! What the ding dong?! Did someone forget to put out the Roach Motels last night? 🏣 🏣

atllaudio353: Thanks for calling out this annoyingly overused "(rpt not)" phrases by goeff.  Methinks he sits all day in front of his ultra expensive stereo (with garden hose size, elevated and pre-frozen cables) with tablet in his lap awaiting Audiogon posts to which he can protest with "6K post number authority."  This is not an insult, merely an observation.  Try it.  Counter one of Geoff's posts and you'll get a sarcastic reply from him in less than five minutes; complete with the equally annoying little icons.

Birds of a feather flock together. 🦃 🦃 🦃

your obvious contempt for audiophiles

I have contempt for people that hear realtime differences in a standard that allows you to disconnect the Ethernet cable and yet the music could still play for 10, 20, 30 seconds. 
 

and the whole scientific method notwithstanding

I'm all for the scientific method. You find me a scientist that thinks a rigorous study is needed to debunk spoon benders.

the real reason The Amazing Randi never (rpt never) lost a Million Dollar Challenge was because the test protocol was obviously slanted to favor Randi.

Ok, how is me flying out to you and your setup favoring me?

Let me give some examples, gentle readers. In the case of the Million Dollar Challenge for the Intelligent Chip Wellfed was expected to perform the test at some location other than his own house and on a system of Randi’s choosing.

See above. I'm totally willing to do this in your setup. I'll provide the Client/Server computer, Cisco SG200-8 switch and some additional cabling. 

I.e., some unfamiliar God knows what system.

At the risk of being redundant: This would be in the claimants system.
 

Keep in mind Randi nor any of his crew were audiophiles.

So? An MD doesn't need to suffer the ailment to treat the patient. 

There was also a dispute how many people from Randi’s crew were to have been present at the test

I wasn't planning on bringing Kate + 8

Finally Wellfed would have had to guess correctly 10 out of 10 consecutive trials. Give me break!

I was only requiring 1 round of 20

Well, in the UK a company selling fancy audio cables claiming their sonic superiority lost a courtcase for consumer fraud. I am quite happy that pharmaceutical companies also have to prove efficacy. In EU law there is the requirement of 'fit for purpose

Sorry, either you’re not telling the whole story or that’s the silliest thing I ever heard. Was the magistrate a hardcore pseudo skeptic?

It was Chord.... 

"I’m totally willing to do this in your setup. I’ll provide the Client/Server computer, Cisco SG200-8 switch and some additional cabling"

@jinjuku,

Looks like your argument is based on this video ~ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=anZeheEiff8

I will leave it for rest of the audiophile community to decide the merits of your test.

Looks like your argument is based on this video ~ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=anZeheEiff8

That would be because that's my video. I would really like to have someone answer what happens to the characteristics of the audio when the system doesn't even have a cable connected to it.

The video clearly shows the track is never interrupted even though I did plenty of swaps from $27 a foot and $0.30 a foot cable.

Everything was stacked, and incredibly so, in favor of the WW cable.

The other tidbit is that on some other testing: No packet loss for either cable on the transfer of 4GB of data. 

Also the the Cisco SG 200-8 is bandwidth limiting at the 60MB/s you saw. Going from NIC to NIC, for both cables, I maxed out at 107MB second. So while I like the SG 200-8 for the L3 capabilities, it's not what I use as my backplane switch. 

Here's another video where I debunk WireWorlds Q/A. 

Directly address their Triboelectric B.S. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pWvJwQOPiY

Great video.  Clearly jinjuku knows about what he speaks. Let's see if geoff or clearthink (opps....sorry we are ignoring him) can present counter evidence of similar clarity and quality.

Apparently someone objected to Chord’s use of hyperbole. Well, La Dee Dah! Judge Judy calls that puffing. Completely legal. I once had coffee at a diner in NYC that boasted World’s Best Coffee. Does that justify a lawsuit? Only in a naysayer’s cute little daydream. 🍦 If we had lawsuits for every time some naysayer objected to what he perceived as hyperbole or too expensive or preposterous the courts would be backed up from here to next Tuesday. That’s what is known over here as a nothing burger. 🍔

jinjuku
Here’s another video where I debunk WireWorlds Q/A.

Directly address their Triboelectric B.S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pWvJwQOPiY

I hate to judge before all the facts are in but jinjuku’s argument is the same ridiculous argument that naysayers have been using for years attempting to explain why power cords cannot influence the sound, and why there can be no audible difference among power cords, since the last four feet of cable can’t correct the problems in the miles of cable from the power company to the transformer or from the transformer to the wall outlet. We get the same sort of naysayer argument for CDs too - I.e., that nothing can change the sound on the CD because the data is physical and error correction fixes any errors that occur while the laser reads the data. So, it appears jinjuku just tossed up another nothing burger. 🍔

One assumes jinjuku would attempt to debunk wire directionality by claiming that data transfer is not corrupted or changed when the cables are reversed so therefore wire directionality doesn't exist. 😄

@dynaquest4,
@jinjuku,

In your experience, do you think laptop / computer is a best source to determine sound fidelity and quality of a Ethernet cable in direct comparison with a dedicated audio server like Lumin, Aurender or Antipodes?

I would like to hear from folks using a dedicated audio server. It would be interesting to hear their feedback on $5 off the shelf Ethernet cable vs $100-$300 Ethernet cable.

Many of us using PC as a source of streaming. Let’s also talk about the next chain in the link - the USB cable to the DAC. Are you going to say next that a generic $5 USB cable is just as good as $300 USB cable?

I use a nice tricked out Sound Science Music Vault computer as my server. I use it to play some 1300 ripped and stored CDs and to listen to Tidal streaming. I use Roon also which is wonderful.

The USB cable used made a significant sound quality improvement/change. I ended up with the Curious USB cable. I tried several and the sound quality differences were easily discernible. The Curious cable was the most full bodied and relaxed and met my personal subjective sound quality needs.

I changed my ethernet cable from a Cat5, if I recall, to a shielded CAT 7 and liked the change. Again, more relaxed and natural sounding. Less of that digital glare we sometimes hear. The cable was purchased from Amazon and was very inexpensive. The sound change was immediate and easily discerned

@jinjuku,

In your experience, do you think laptop / computer is a best source to determine sound fidelity and quality of a Ethernet cable in direct comparison with a dedicated audio server like Lumin, Aurender or Antipodes?

It certainly can be if your USB DAC is good. I've had a Cary Audio DMS-500 to evaluate. Both it and my computer based system sounded great. 

One assumes jinjuku would attempt to debunk wire directionality by claiming that data transfer is not corrupted or changed when the cables are reversed so therefore wire directionality doesn't exist. 

Ethernet cables aren't directional though... And before you go talking about STP cabling, don't talk about it in a vacuum, because how the shield is tied is dependent on the installation environment. 

You really have no clue what you are talking about. 

I once had coffee at a diner in NYC that boasted World’s Best Coffee.

For a purported expert of what constitutes valid testing you sure don’t understand the difference between an entirely subjective claim (taste) with objective ones like increased sound stage, stereo separation, more defined highs etc...

Now if Chord simply said "The world’s best sounding cable" they would have been fine.

I feel like the Ben Shapiro of Audio. 

Increased sound stage, etc, are subjective claims. There are no measurements for these parameters, other than the impressions from one's ears, nervous system and consciousness. 

Eggs ackly! So are sweetness, presence, air and venue recognition. ⛪️

Geoffkait: "One assumes jinjuku would attempt to debunk wire directionality by claiming that data transfer is not corrupted or changed when the cables are reversed so therefore wire directionality doesn’t exist."

To which jinjuku replied,

"Ethernet cables aren’t directional though... And before you go talking about STP cabling, don’t talk about it in a vacuum, because how the shield is tied is dependent on the installation environment.

You really have no clue what you are talking about."

Whoa! Easy, big fella. I’m not talking about shielded cables, Mr. Smarty Pants. Obviously you didn’t get the memo. This is what happens when some pseudo skeptic from somewhere out of the blue pops in and pops off. 🍾 This is going to be fun but I’m not saying for whom. 😬

Increased sound stage, etc, are subjective claims. There are no measurements for these parameters, other than the impressions from one's ears, nervous system and consciousness.

Sure there is! Bias controlled testing.

Audiophile spoonbenders measure this all the time. Professional spoonbenders like Lavorgna, Plaskin, Van Es, Hall, Darko do it all the time in all manner of systems both at private residence and a noise laden, sub-optimal, trade show booth. 

What I'm saying is I can decrease the soundstage, the bass, the depth of field for you using your own cabling soon as I introduce 1. An additional cable and 2. Remove your sighted your bias. 

Whoa! Easy, big fella. I’m not talking about shielded cables

If it's not about the shield on a STP Ethernet cable, then it's not going to be anything else. 

Ethernet is either wired TIA586A or TIA586B straight through, or 586A on one end 586B on the other end for cross over. 

Most horizontal run will be CCA, patch is stranded (for better strain resistance and flexibility). Save yourself the laughable argument with grain structure, crystalline structure, etc... 

Ethernet is bidirectional. 

Since there is no audio clock timing information conveyed over an ethernet cable it can’t make any difference at all UNLESS your gear is crap (something extraneous affected by the cable used like grounding or load or digital noise related crosstalk on to the audio signal). Same for an identical file streamed on the internet halfway across the world or one from your local server.

Why can’t folks understand this?

I still don't have an answer to the video I made where I removed the Ethernet cable and the audio still plays and nothing changed about the quality of it. 

I would love for Geoff, clearthink, granny to post a response video. 

Even decent dedicated streamers can do this. 

 

Geoffkait: Whoa! Easy, big fella. I’m not talking about shielded cables.

to which jujitsu replied,

"If it's not about the shield on a STP Ethernet cable, then it's not going to be anything else.

Ethernet is either wired TIA586A or TIA586B straight through, or 586A on one end 586B on the other end for cross over.

Most horizontal run will be CCA, patch is stranded (for better strain resistance and flexibility). Save yourself the laughable argument with grain structure, crystalline structure, etc...

Ethernet is bidirectional."

>>>>>>All wire is bidirectional inasmuch as one can send voice and data over it in either direction. But as fate would have it wire is audibly better in one direction than the other. Even shielded cable that is "directional" sonically according to the shield terminations points is also "directional" sonically according to the direction of the copper conductor. So, it would help to keep track of both aspects of the cable construction. Follow?

He who laughs last laughs best. 😄

But as fate would have it wire is audibly better in one direction than the other. Even shielded cable that is "directional" sonically according to the shield terminations points is also "directional" sonically according to the direction of the copper conductor. So, it would help to keep track of both aspects of the cable construction. Follow?

Even if I believed there was grain orientation cofounders to SQ... Ethernet is a data cable, not an audio cable.

Are you capable of answering any questions:

If Ethernet cable is directional and I set a 30 second buffer that will allow me to swap the cable around with out a break in play. Will you be able to tell us when I made the swap. Will you be able to tell us the direction of the cable?

@geoffkait   

Ethernet is digital. Digital eliminates small analog differences completely. Unless you think that the shape of the bits (rounder 0 and sharper 1) is being affected by directionality, shielding, resistance and capacitance of wire. (That increasingly seems to me to be your education level when it comes to digital)

Ethernet is digital. Digital eliminates small analog differences completely. Unless you think that the shape of the bits (rounder 0 and sharper 1) is being affected by directionality, shielding, resistance and capacitance of wire. (That increasingly seems to me to be your education level when it comes to digital)

That is just one small bit of it. You have all these different systems in play:
Ethernet, PCIe (or USB BUS if using USB to Ethernet), then the RAM subsystem, then the USB subsystem, then the USB to I2S and local buffer on the DAC.

You have all these clock domain boundaries with FIXED frequency clocks passing data at said FIXED clock. The clock for Ethernet doesn't match the clock on the PCIe bus which in turn doesn't match the clock on the RAM, which may or may not match the clock on the CPU, which won't match the clock on the computer USB side of things and most certainly won't match the clock on the DAC that lines up the samples in it's buffer and finally applies 44.1/96/192/384 or what have you.

Clock domain boundaries are FIFO buffers. Buffers are static areas where any upstream jitter just absolutely went poof!

If you stream from the likes of Tidal, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon, etc. use the PathPing command from windows. Count the hops.

Each hop has totally copied the data. When it hits your router, it's copied, when it hits your switch it's copied.

When it hits the input buffer on the NIC, it's copied, when it hits the output buffer on your NIC, it's copied, when it hits the buffer on the PCIe bus, it's copied, when it hits the RAM buffer it's copied, when it hit the buffer set aside from the playback application, it's copied, when it's read into the USB side of things, it's copied, then it's sent over the USB cable to the USB DAC where it's the final copy and clock is applied.

The sound you are hearing was copied many times before you heard it. What you are currently listening to could have been copied 10-30 seconds prior.

You can open up task manager in Windows, go to the performance tab and play back audio over the network. You will see that audio is playing and the throughput on the NIC went to Zero.

Ouch! That hurts, Shadorne! That’s really interesting but did you know that the digital cable between the CD player and the amp, you know, the one that carries digital data is directional? Bet ya didn’t. 😄 Digital, schmigital. The signal propagates just like an analog signal. You know, at near light speed. Since it is made up of photons. Have you been sleeping in class again, Shadrack?

@geoffkait 

Sigh! Yes of course digital propagates as an analog signal. The key is to understand that the threshold between a 1 or a Zero is so large and that checksum and other additional packet error checking information allows a packet of digital data to arrive in the memory of downstream devices perfectly.

If digital was not such an incredibly robust method of data storage and transmission then internet and computers and software would not function at all. What errors we do encounter are down to hardware or programming errors in the devices and switches themselves and not the ethernet wires which work to spec or don't work (in which case a dropout can occur)

Geoff,

Can you answer one simple question? In my video I show a track playing even though I'm disconnecting the Ethernet cable.

What, in your opinion, happens when the cable is pulled but the sound is still playing? 

It's a simple question.