Ethernet Cables in for evaluation

I think the tubes example is tempting, but not at all appropriate as they are active components and can vary quite a lot in the circuit where everything is the sum of the parts. I won't get into the cable question - I've already voiced my skepticism - but I do stand by my statement that we hear what we want to hear. Again I qualify that with the fact that I think it is more apt for the ones that do not want to hear a difference between cables (of any kind) than for the ones that do. I certainly heard a huge difference going from the old Monster cables I had for years (the thick twinax looking stuff) to even a decent stranded cable, and them more to the AQ33 and 44, Then I upgraded to an $1800 pair of Clarity cables and I can't say that I hears anything better, but I can say that I like them less because they were so thick and stiff and had lousy Bananas (something I find all too common on "high end" speaker cables). As such I am never going to decide that they sound better because I really don't like them physically. Same for BJC interconnects, I love the physical connections and quality construction, so I tend to like them. I could say the same for some others I own. I have AQ interconnects that I like and others I don't but it stems more from the usage. I also move Mogami balanced cables because they are well made, reasonable priced, and sound good to me. I am thinking that the same would apply to a digital cable, Ethernet, USB, or Toslink. I have many versions of each of them and some are a lot more pricey than others and I like them mostly for physical reasons. I don't hear any real difference, but it may very well be because I don't want to.

 

My example with the tubes was really simple: that tying "specs" to what things actually sound like can often prove elusive at best. How do you tie a "spec" to why a Guanerius violin sounds different than a Stradivarius? You can't, but its very clear that they do not sound alike.

When I have evaluated different tubes for a given component, the tubes under evaluation always go into the same component, so that takes any differences in circuit topology out of the equation. Why different tubes of exactly the same specification (e.g. 12AU7 or 6992, etc) sound as different as they do, I don't understand, but I think there is an interaction between a given tube make (e.g. Amperex, Mullard, Telefunken, etc) and given circuit topology. This the only explanation I can come up with why I prefer a Mullard CV4003 in an E.A.R. 324 and a completely different tube, an RCA Clear-top 12AU7 in a Conrad-Johnson PV12. Both circuit topologies call for a 12AU7, but I consistently preferred different manufacturer's tubes in those different components. All of them were exactly the same "spec".

 

Until I see a test or write up that shows confirmation bias isn’t actually responsible for the perceived audio changes from Ethernet, that’s the most reasonable explanation.

the hand waving about tubes and violins isn’t very convincing at all, or even relevant!

 

Exactly.

How are tubes, violins and ethernet cables even related!? Even if subtle, the sound of 2 violins can be demonstrated to "measure" differently when playing the same note due to resonant characteristics and different tubes can be shown to affect amplifier output as well even if the nominal spec is the same (even the same tube as it ages changes).

But passive lengths of wires carrying digital data (which could be encoded in WAV, FLAC, DSD formats, etc...)? These are not sound waves or even electrical analogs of the waveforms. Ultimately all that's left that could be different are 1) digital errors (which will sound obvious like this) or 2) noise (which has never been demonstrated to be a significant issue... If so, avoid those devices that are noisy!).

 

Well, after a good 6 days or so of burn-in 24/7, I put in the Supra Cat8...

Man, this little cable is wonderful! It's is a very nice-sounding cable, indeed. Very detailed but not at all etched, edgy, or spiky. it presents an incredibly layered and complex presentation that is really very nice. The presentation is not quite as spacious front-to-back and "fullsome" as the AudioQuest Cinnamon or Vodka, but it actually has more, and a finer layering of, detail. The micro-detail, microdymanics, and timbral shadings of this cable are really quite impressive and musical as all get-out. I hear filigreed and sublte little musical details and timbral shadings I don't hear on any of the others. Its like going from a 240 dpi JPEG digital photograph to a 300 dpi TIFF file, using digital photography as an analogy. It has an overall sonic signature and "body" that reminds me of wood-bodied phono cartridges, in in particular, my Sumiko Pearwood Celebration II that was on my Rega P5.

For $54, man, this cable is a winner! Big thumbs up.

 

Utter nonsense.
Another accurate analogy would be this is like saying this cable or a particular brand of hard disk improves grammar in your text documents.

Cables carrying analogue signals I get you. Claiming that an ethernet cable is somehow altering the data encapsulated in whatever protocol over TCP means you just don't know how computers or computer networking fundamentally works.

A computer's or DAP's software or hardware decoder reads input data from the device's RAM/cache, the data is put in that memory space by the software that prefetched that data from a container (a file format like flac) stored on a filesystem or delivered in a real-time data stream.
How that data is accessed by the host operating system memory is irrelevant to how the decoder reads and decodes the data.

 

I use the Supra CAT8 from my cable modem to my DAC/streamer. I think a lot of what we are trying to accomplish with digital cabling is reducing RF noise and go for good shielding. Yeah, paying $60 was reasonable but now I'd much rather spend $500 towards tube upgrades, equipment isolation, upgrades to TT setup, carts over trying to eek out a incremental $/value gain any further from an ethernet cable. I just think dollar for dollar there are better ways to spend $500 in audio.

 

Now that's an interesting test case. Which one of your audiophile ethernet cables causes 300 dpi TIFF files to look the best?

 

This guy!

 

You only need a cat8 cable if you're running a 40Gbps LAN, for the majority who are using consumer equipment with 1Gbps Ethernet, cat6 is fine.
As I said, the only real reason to use "posh" Ethernet cables around the home is so they look nicer than the pro stuff you'd get on a reel.

 

Well I'm on page 4 reading this thread and very interested in it. I'm getting a demo of Merging Technologies Anubis in a couple weeks ( dynamic range of 139db) Merging Technologies -

It uses a Ethernet connection. I will use it to record and play needledrops if the cable improves the sound I should be able to capture it yes?

continue reading tomorrow.

 

This guy bought a CAT-22 Analog Ethernet Dynamic Cable. Then realized it's snake oil.

 

OK I'm planning to do a cable shootout. I am setting up a borrow from the cable company and when I get the Merging Technologies Anubis audio device. This should be the perfect scenario there is only the cable being used and the Anubis and if it can be heard should be able to record. Although in the past I know I could hear a difference but was unable to record it.
So here's the deal I'm looking for suggestions for the cables to use. They have 26 different cables to choose from. Digital: Ethernet - Digital Cables - Cables
I was going to start with these 3,
RJ/E Vodka Ethernet Cable
From

$349.95
RJ/E Cinnamon Ethernet Cable
From

$79.95
Core 2.0 Ethernet Cable
From

$395.00

 

The question I have is what the heck is that guy doing in that thread and why is he trying to hit it with what appears to be his shoe?

 

@ghost rider please do blind tests! confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.

 

I'm using a pair of Supra Cat8 cable (Roon NUC to switch & Naim NDX2 to switch). Someone convinced me to give it a try and I agreed since it isn't that terribly expensive & I figured I can unload it again. It's a very nice cable, and – after giving it a month of use – sounds no better than the Blue Jeans Cat6a I already have. That doesn't surprised one bit. The monoprice cable I had before that sounds about the same too. The advantage of the Blue Jeans cable is it's tested & they provide the report for it, so you have some assurance you won't get dropped and retransmitted packets due to a faulty cable.

 

I'm comparing pizza's tonight so of course I'll be doing a deaf test to eliminate any confirmation bias.

 

I'm doing source code comparison today to resolve branch merge conflicts. Fortunately I have unit and integration tests to validate my confirmation bias.

 

The Dumbo Test for Ethernet cables

Upload a sound file from your PC somewhere on net. Download that file from the net location on your PC.

Open a cmd window and write there

Code:

fc /b "original_file" "downloaded_file"

and hit Return.

If you see the message

Code:

FC: no differences encountered

your $10 Ethernet cable is as good as a $500 snake oil cable.

 

It's a little more than that. You do want a reliable cable that passes CAT spec. If it has to do too many retransmissions due to CRC failures in data packets, that makes the NIC on the receiving end (i.e. the digital streamer) work harder, thus adding noise to the digital end. That can make a difference. There's the advantage of a Blue Jeans or similar, qualified cable. Otherwise, I agree with you completely, and some lab tests have even shown that boutique cables don't always pass spec and fail the basic tests for reliable transmission.

 

My Ethernet cables from my GBit router to different PCs in my house are CAT-5E. I have a GBit net connection, 125 MB/s download, and everything is ok. My ISP delivers net and +100 TV channels to my router through optical cable.

 

Speed doesn't matter as much. 100mb/s and Cat5e are plenty good for hires audio. That doesn't need the bandwidth of say, hidef video. As I stated, cable reliability matters more. If the cable is sub-spec and causes excessive packet retransmission between the streaming source and the receiving digital streamer that can increase noise of the network card in the steamer, which you want to avoid.

For example I have a NUC running Roon integrated with Qobuz on a switch. On the same switch I have my Naim NDX2 streamer. If I connect those devices to my switch with decent ethernet cable that meets cat spec that should be all this is necessary for the highest quality audio. Whether you have 100mb or 1 gigabit service won't affect it. If you have a lot of network traffic on your LAN you might want a better switch. I use refurbished Cisco 2960G Catalyst switches without the management features, and they don't cost a whole lot more than consumer grade unmanaged switches.

 

Exactly how do CRC retransmissions make the NIC "work harder", and exactly how does this "add noise"?

This is not analog audio, folks. It's digital data -- strings of 1's and 0's. Any device connected to the Internet is sending and receiving data almost constantly -- look at the green or amber light on the back of your NIC. It'll be blinking away madly even when you think your computer is just sitting there doing nothing. A few extra bytes being sent to correct errors isn't going to make your NIC work any harder than it already is all day long. And if this data being received added noise, you would be hearing it in your speakers every time you load a web page or download a file, not just when you're playing audio. It would sound like this:

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...radivarius-violins-and-new-ones/#.XUsNfSnPzVo

Maybe not so clear.

Don't tubes exhibit measurable differences in harmonic distortion?

 

Yes, I'm well aware we're talking about transmission of packet data, and that it's not digital audio.

The NIC imbedded in the streamer has to receive the packet data to decode a buffer of digital audio for playback. It's an electrical device that draws power from the streamer's PSU. If the cable is sub-spec and causes the NIC to request retransmissions due to CRC failures, that NIC has to work more and draw more power for a given data stream. If all packets come through with no CRC failures that's just more efficient and draws less power, thus less noise in the digital device.