Audioquest $340 Ethernet cable teardown.

Dang it... That protocol is called AppleTALK, not AppleLink.

I'm so ashamed.

 

That's actually a pretty nice cable, except for the melted plastic and use of masking tape.

Still, I'm not convinced that Ethernet cables have any effect on sound, because sound is not traveling through them. Just data. If the Ethernet cables are built to spec, jitter should not be an issue since the Ethernet receiver chip is built to deal with that.

 

Bang! Nailed it.

 

Yeah had they done away with the masking tape, found a better way to connect the cable covering to the plugs and sold it for say $80 then I'd say fine, as its a nice looking cable that gives a degree of "ooh that looks neat!" to ones setup. Paying for the look so to speak. I still wouldn't buy it but it would sit better with me.

 

You do realize that digital interfaces like SPDIF, USB, FireWire, etc. are transmitting interleaved serial data? That means the receiving hardware has, at a minimum, to do de-interleaving and serial-to-parallel conversion. This means that there is no direct link from the data traveling in the cable to a DAC (and the sound you hear from your speakers/headphones). As I have written here many, many times, unlike analog systems digital ones can be completely characterized. It is very easy to send data over various digital links and determine whether that data arrives at the receiving device correctly, or not.

The same argument extends to expensive vs. cheap CD transports, streamers, etc. If the same de-interleaved, parallel data is sitting in the buffers of your DAC after transmission, the quality of the source is irrelevant.

If one wants to make the argument that the pricey optical pick-up in a high-end transport is better able to extract the data from poor/damaged discs (better performance on Verany test discs, for example), that would be a valid reason to consider the more costly unit.

Actually, in this age of jitter-busting DACs, it really is that simple! There is no comparison to things in the analog world.

If you get the data 100% correct from A to B, yes, there is no need to consider any aspect of cable improvement.

With regard to cables being less than 100% correct, yes, that too is possible, and can be measured. Consider something like HDMI where the cable has to transmit a very high-speed digital signal. A cable with a certain wire-gauge, choice of connectors, shielding, etc. may be 100% bit accurate up to a certain length. However, go beyond that, and you may see increased 'eye' closure in the received data, plus you have more signal attenuation. Now, add in random noise and the data becomes corrupted momentarily.

Systems like HDMI have defined 'eye' closure specifications, so, if you buy a cable of a particular length which is guaranteed for 4k video transmission, say, you can be sure that it will work, and it will work the same as any other cable that meets the specifications.

These theories are usually attributable to people who have little or no comprehension of how the systems work. It's the same argument with using fancy potions to treat the playing surface of CDs: it will increase reflectivity meaning more laser light returned meaning better sound. Digital does not work that way. Provided you have enough signal for data determination, more is not going to add anything.

 

I appreciate the post, Elk. Not looking to argue but my personal experiences in "digital playback" run counter to your observation that if we pick up all the data in one spot and plunk it in another, that no improvements can be possible throughout the chain. Let me say again - as a computer geek, lover (though not altogether understander) of science and measurements - these personal observations don't really make any sense to me. But, there is no mistaking that after adding a better cable and the USB Regen between my PC and DAC that it sounds better. I'm not saying that before a trombone sounded like a flute and now suddenly I have a trombone, but in terms of noise floor and added details throughout the music, it DID improve. You can show me 1000 whitepapers that say I'm an idiot. And I may still be an idiot, but you know the saying. Trust your ears. I'm trusting mine, and they run counter to my initial assumptions, but if it truly added nothing to the experience, I'd have sold what I bought and went back to optical. I didn't, and I won't.

 

Well, not the audiophile tape, anyway...

 

Todd, if you haven't seen this yet, this post (#211) by John Swenson gives some reasonable, and technical, support to your experiences. The specific post is a lengthy read, but it sheds some light on popular misunderstandings.

 

And of course, John Swenson is the creator of the Uptone Regen. Bits are bits but electricity be the damnation (my quote, not John's).

 

Thanks darkmass, that was a very good read, I appreciate it. John is directly involved in the Regen, is he not (does he own Uptone?)

Edit - nm, Elvis has me covered

 

Elk is just correcting you on bits are bits and they can be measured. He is correct. But what we think is happening, is the something outside the bits is causing the DAC's analog to work harder to get at those bits and thus put out a lower SQ (which we hear). Of course we can't measure this energy, yet, we just don't have the instruments or knowledge to do so.

 

partner, creator/inventor. Alex makes it go.

 

Got it! I do very much like the fact we've all been civil in this, the topic that generally reduces civilians to godless heathens just waiting to take a bite out of the next man for a meal

 

Shielding the cable properly to keep EMI and RFI out of the signal will help. Ethernet cables likewise might have shielding in addition to the twisted pairs which already reject common-mode interference. Poor connectors and poor wire attachment to the connectors can be another issue. "Magic fairy dust" copper strands and stuff, um, no. Audioquest web site looks like an old DAK catalog full of BS to get you to buy into the sham.

 

Think about it, a $10-gazillion Ethernet cable connected to some crummy $19.99 big box store router which is connected to bulk Ethernet cable that may be Cat5e at best. Yeah I get it, let's spend all that moolah on the last half meter of wiring. It is amazing to us here that companies can sell it but more amazing that some audio types actually believe it helps. They have zero clue what-so-ever as to how Ethernet spec works, unless there is something wrong with the cable then it matters not what connects the two as long as it is a solid connection.

 

I like the way you think bro.

It is kind of sickening the audiofool press buys into the technical double talk and makes matters worse but hey, they get the stuff free so it's no money out of their pockets, it sells magazine or web ads, and their nice words keep the freebies coming. Sorry but if a product needs junk science to sell it then you lose me as a buyer. For analog and mechanical devices--sure, many things make a difference but once you get into digital the actual science and protocols and standards trump whatever the press and the marketing departments pull out of their rear ends.

 

I'd rather a cable not add "particular voicing" but that's just me.

Bill

 

"Trust your ears!" Therein lies the problem. Our senses are notoriously unreliable, and subject to all kinds of influences. There have been numerous tests done on wine, cakes, chocolate, etc., where tasters are told that one is expensive (and it is usually tarted up in appearance compared to the 'other') and the other is cheap. In such tests, the majority find the expensive item to be better, and can describe the differences in glowing terms, even though both items are 100% identical. Scientists believe that at the moment that an individual tastes the item, s/he really does sense something different due to expectation bias (I believe I'm drinking expensive 1985 Chateau Hoffman, therefore, it will taste good). The same is true in audio.

The lack of audible differences in properly performing digital cables, etc. can be shown via formal methods, but we are veering into banned topics here, so that's all I'll say on the subject.

What is with the 'working harder' stuff? I don't know where these notions come from. The analog output stage is not involved in determining what the received bit values are.

 

Except in this case - this is wine I've sampled many times before, in a few cases (aka songs) for more than 20 years. I've noticed this wine change with different glasses (speakers, rooms, even completely different hardware, no wonder it tastes different). Now it tastes different but everything else is exactly the same as it was before, except for a new USB cable and the Regen. This isn't my imagination, and I didn't taste it just once to see if it was all in my head. We agree to disagree, that's all. One thing we CAN agree on is that it shouldn't change. It doesn't make sense to me. Then, lots of things don't make sense to me but that's just life.

Here's the funny part. I build my room downstairs for the express purpose of not only listening to music, but also for trying out things I never believed in - power cables, digital chicanery, room treatments, etc... Now, I'm not about to go buy cable elevators but it's amazing what good source material, a *very* quiet, well-treated room, and middling equipment can produce. It reveals a lot - mastering issues, musician mistakes, the sense of a venue, background details once buried that I can now retrieve, and all sorts of fun. So now, I've really tried to put it to the test and found a difference that, to me, didn't seem likely, and it's suddenly invalid because people are easily influenced. Some days, you just can't win for losing.

Funny enough, none of this has been about an Ethernet cable. I still maintain that's ridiculous but, having seen what another seemingly-trivial "tweak" did, I'm honestly not so sure now. And to repeat, the Ethernet cable in the OP is not meant to come out of the wall in front of miles of crappy in-wall Cat5, it's meant to go directly betwixt two PC's, whatever difference that might make.

 

Elk, all I can say is, your right according to what we know scientifically as measured today. But something is happening here that isn't measurable or scientifically proven, yet. We are optimizing our computer audio systems to alleviate any possible electrical or grounding issues and it's working to bring about better SQ significantly from our speaker/headphones. We are just the guys hearing it. Your going to have to argue with the guys trying to understand it and creating new products, that actually work to many ears. I'll take the empirical over the scientific any day when it comes to audio. Hopefully someday we will have the scientific data and tools capable of measuring it. Till then, here's to better enjoyable computer digital audio.

P.S. Love to hear you tell our host that his hearing is mistaken or imaginary.

 

Curious, has SH commented on USB cables, or more relevant to this thread, Ethernet cables?

 

Nevertheless, in the link I passed on to you in post #83, John Swenson did mention Ethernet as sharing "packet noise" characteristics.

(Emphasis mine.)

Of course that in no way means that more expensive Ethernet cables are "better sounding" than less expensive cables, but it does mean that different Ethernet cables have the potential to sound different from each other due to the effects of "packet noise" on system interactions.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear - none of my observations/experiences are related to Ethernet cables as described in the OP. I don't have a setup in which I'd use one. I use off the shelf or DIY cables for all of my Ethernet cabling. I wired the whole house for Ethernet but don't use anything PC <--> PC like what the cable in OP is made for.

 

That's okay. I was kinda using that to speak to the whole thread...and keeping things vaguely within the realm of the OP's topic.

 

I'm not going to lie - I was just browsing a "computer hifi" shop online and if I had $1700 to burn I could have the following:

SATA cable
Ethernet Cable
USB cable

I mean really... $1700 is a lot of cash. I'm of the belief that these kinds of things can have a cumulative effect that is a positive effect on what we hear but... $1700? Just no. No. I see this in high performance car parts as well. The same tubing and craftsmanship that goes into a $600 exhaust can cost $1400 depending on the car it gets fitted to. Probably a bad analogy but the point of diminishing returns must be kept intact, I think