Ethernet Cables in for evaluation

Man, I really wish this whole thread could have been like this. Do an experiment yourself and report back, it's real.

 

I'm curious then: If someone does the experiment themselves, and finds neither a measurable nor audible difference they can detect...what will you say? Will it be evidence against what you have claimed or believe about such cables?

Or will you take the stance "Well, that's interesting that you couldn't hear a difference. But I can, so it's real!"

And hence it will have no actual bearing on your claims anyway?

Thanks for any clarification.

 

part of what I'm tryin' to get across here though is the reason why this thread has been what it is- it's because the claims being made are REALLY EXTRAORDINARY! it's not like what's being asserted is something that you can sit back, look at how ethernet works and say "yeah that seems reasonable/possible"
When you tell techy people that data can change during transmission on a working ethernet network. . . . .that's a BIG freaking claim! and that's why people who work with ethernet all the time lose their minds over it- what's being claimed is very very strange.

 

Matt: as a logical extension of that thought, what if we had a larger sampling of people who "do the experiment themselves" and find an audible improvement?

There's a similar thread/discussion current at Canuckaudiomart relating not to Ethernet cables but Ethernet switches. Not quite as contentious-maybe Canucks are just less sarcastic and more polite haha!

That thread is only 30 pages long as opposed to 64 here so I just took a look at it. Of a sampling of 14 people who HAVE ACTUALLY USED different ethernet switches, 12 have reported hearing positive differences in their system while 2 did not. Of the two that did not, one had ordered and was using one of the actual so-called "audiophile" switches and the other was using a more generic (and slightly more expensive I believe) switch that others had found to improve sound quality but definitely didn't "break the bank" like the audiophile switches.

Is that going to be any more evidence for you about what you are "claiming or believe about such cables" than it is for Jeff or Puma Cat? I think likely not. It will be easy for you to continue to say it's placebo, expectation bias etc. Which ultimately leaves us exactly where we started on page one of this thread in this perpetual call & response merry-go-round.

For what it's worth the one poster on CAM who ponied up for the audiophile switch and did not hear a difference has a significant investment in both his equipment and power delivery. In excess of 6 figures. Although I've not heard his system I've met him personally and have no doubt that he has a very good system and likely a very good ear. So I certainly don't discount his experience. But I also don't discount the experience of the 12 others (as they all seem to be pretty rational and have decent systems) who have experienced improved sound quality by utilizing another switch.

Anecdotally (of course), in the 20 years I've spent on Audio forums I would say that in the vast majority of cases in threads like this relating to wire, power cables, receptacles, fuses and other similar items for which there is little technical information available to support the idea of a change or improvement in sound quality, the numbers shake out in a similar fashion for those that have actually used the product in question. Probably around 80-85% report positive differences compared to 20% reporting no difference or a negative. That's not to say that there might not be some hyperbole in terms of the description of the magnitude of the improvement. Then again there might not be . It's the internet!

It's really up to the end user to decide based on their experience (and if you don't want to use you certainly don't have to experience ): user and experience being the operative words for me. When I come to places like this I am fully capable of deciding how credible posters might be based on a number of things: quality of their system, thoughtfulness and how much information they have provided, particularly information which is actually comparative in nature, information on their subjective listening preferences, how thorough they have been in their comparisons, etc.

After that, I decide whether I might want to investigate or experiment with what's being talked about.

One thing is certain for me though. I don't lend much credence to the opinion of someone that has never used the actual product being discussed.

 

Testing if my replies are going to post...

 

An empty wallet always tends to improve sound quality.

 

It depends on the claim.

Again...if you are asking for how I personally approach these questions...

Our perception is useful (we use it to mostly navigate through the world each day), but not perfect (human error of various types are well known). With that in mind:

Take speakers: That speakers can and often do sound different, after all, are well established in both theory and practice. So if a whole bunch of people were raving about, say, the dynamics and realism of a new speaker brand I think my ears would perk up. I certainly may want to take some time to seek them out to hear them myself. (And I've been led to very nice speaker purchases through just those means before).

But the more controversial or dubious the claim, my interest in spending my time seeking out that gear or tweak will tend to scale with the quality of evidence I'm seeing for the claim (as I see it).

So for sonic differences between expensive, high end Ethernet cables vs their cheaper "off-the shelf" (but properly functioning) counterparts....a whole bunch of audiophiles claiming to hear sonic differences wouldn't necessarily in of itself compel me to spend time or money seeking such products out.

This is because the claims are dubious based on what I know of the technology (though I'm no expert), and from having seen these claims hashed out many times by people with the relevant knowledge (beyond mine). I just haven't seen a cogent argument for why a high end Ethernet cable can alter the sound in a way that is not expected, or supported, by digital information theory as understood by experts (that is, disinterested experts - vs ones who claim expertise while trying to sell me the cables).

So, at this point, the claims made for high end Ethernet cables look to me to be pointing more in the direction of people getting patents for Perpetual Motion Machines, rather than being based on reliable, well-vetted theory and experiment.

And since audiophiles have great imaginations - there isn't a tweak so crazy anyone has thought up that didn't have people saying "It works! I can hear it!" - if that's all there is for a very dubious technical claim, it's not so compelling. There are huge numbers of people who swear homeopathy "works" because they have "experienced it." But I don't spend a moment trying to seek it out because I've yet to see any cogent explication of the theory, it's been torn apart as impossible by relevant experts in physics/medicine, and in a purely subjective paradigm imagination can run wild.

So, in this case, no...14...or a bunch more audiophiles saying they hear differences between ethernet cables isn't too compelling on it's own.

But does THAT mean that my viewpoint is just as unfalsifiable and impervious to evidence or change as the subjective-cable-believer? NO! And that's the whole point.
If someone actually provided measurements showing changes in the audio signal when swapping a high end ethernet cable in, then I WOULD count that as some evidence for
the claim. And it WOULD make me put that in to the "this might have some basis in fact, let's look in to this" category. And the next question would be "ok, something changes measurably, but is it audible, because we can measure plenty of things we can't perceive." Then if someone produced the results of controlled listening tests (e.g. blinded) that supported the audibility of these measurable changes, then...babinga! You've got me interested now! Enough of that quality of evidence and I would be very likely to think it's worth some time seeking out these cables.

So my position of skepticism is falsifiable and ready to be revised should anyone actually come up with this type of evidence. I can say "I'm open to your claim, but I'd prefer to see this quality of evidence" and if someone produces it I can say "Well, looks like the idea there isn't a sonic difference is wrong!" and I can change my mind. In other words "this is how I can be wrong...and here is how you can show me I'm wrong."

In contrast, I don't see how the purely subjective paradigm offers a way to settle such disputes. If one subjectivist thinks he hears a difference but the other one doesn't, the first can always appeal to the old "it's either your gear or your ears that are the problem" (not that I could actually be imagining things myself!)

But it is ONLY a merry-go-round IF you work only on the subjectivist paradigm! On that paradigm, one person can say "I've tried, this doesn't make a difference" the other can say "Yes it does, I hear it" and there is no real way to settle the issue. And it also offers no way to bridge to those who DO propose ways of settling issues (e.g. evidence through measurements etc). Now, even in the paradigm where people accept evidence like measurements it doesn't always cleanly settle disputes. But it at least has a way, in principle to do so, and that also has some success in practice.

Yes, I understand you are working from that paradigm.

We both highly value subjective experience. (The whole aim of audio is the subjective experience it can produce).

However, it seems to me you put more credence in subjective impressions to settle controversial claims (even if just for yourself?), than I do. That's your prerogative, of course. I've explained the basis for why I approach it somewhat differently, I hope.

Cheers.

 

it's not so much that's it's easy (implying intellectual laziness) it's just that those are by far the most likely explanations for people reporting changes that logically should not be present.

 

Instead of reading this thread again I decided to drink a lot of tequila. It has the same effect.

 

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I cannot see or understand how a digital data delivery device (the cable) can affect the sound. The data is delivered to the DAC (or whatever) and that is what converts pure digital information to analogue..... It just doesn't make sense at all.

I'm sure there are a lot of discussions on this, and I think Funky54 is right. Drink a lot of tequila!!!!

 

In many ways I wish I had not stumbled across this thread, but as an IT Architect, and with over 30 years professional experience in computing, I am unable to 'let it pass'. Having read through most of this thread I can see that much of the debate seems to have degenerated into 'hearing differences' (aka golden ears, or not), and 'system resolution' - those are areas I'm not going to comment on as I'm sure environmental factors (internal and external) will affect the sounds we hear.

However, ethernet cable does one simple job, it 'moves' 1s and 0s from one device to another, and there is error checking to ensure that the packets of 1s and 0s arrive at the destination device in the same order that they were transmitted from the source device. And that is it. Everything you hear is based on two things - the amount of data used in creating the digital sound file in the first place, (i.e. the higher the quality of sound captured in a digital format, the larger the size of the digital file - in other words more 1s and 0s), and the ability of the digital to audio converter to recompile that vast volume of 1s and 0s and reproduce this as what we hear as music. There are only two outcomes possible from any ethernet cable, the file will be transferred correctly and the file will be compiled and will play, or it will error and the file will not play. If an ethernet cable of itself 'changed' the sequence of 1s and 0s (the only way it could affect the sound of the digital file) it would be tossed out as faulty - but as I say, all the sophisticated error checking associated with every packet transmitted should mean this doesn't happen, and if it does happen the error checking requests that the packet is resent a number of times before it actually fails. So, there is no possible way that an ethernet cable itself can have an effect on the sound characteristics of a digital sound file.

 

It's more than just strange - it's utter nonsense.

There are still those out there that sell different price ethernet (and digital) cables - and the wonders of marketing is that there will always be a market for the unknowing or unsuspecting.

Those in the know are "losing their minds" over it because it's a lie, and many times those pushing it know it.

Uh, yeah.... amazing it's 64 pages long, when it could be summarized in a paragraph after the initial post.

 

It's pretty simple Matt. If they dig it and it improves their system, then I am happy. If they don't hear a difference, I would suggest some listening exercises that may bring differences to light. If nothing, return and be glad you don't need to spend the money. I hear what I hear and am satisfied. Just sharing my experience.

 

Regardless of whether it's true or based in fact or not?

 

Except for the second time I am not claiming anything. I am POSTULATING that noise which has been shown experimentally to enter a dac from the ethernet cable is causing phase coherence distortions during the digital to analog conversion, IN THE DAC, leading to the sound improvements I am hearing with a different cable. Again, I am trying to understand why I am hearing what I am hearing, nothing more. I've returned several synergistic research tweaks, record weights, still points, power cables, fancy outlets, fuses etc. I am straight with myself and go purely based on my musical engagement over an average period.

 

not my experience, I buy used almost exclusively(components, speakers, carts and cables), and use top of the line stuff from over 20 years ago, refurbished with the best latest spec caps and resistors. I use Naim gear, hardly blingy. A lamm phono pre, just black with a red light.

 

Ok thanks, that's what I figured. It does fall in line with what I've been saying.

(And if that's how hi-fi and tweak stuff floats your boat, mazel tov!)

 

You missed the part where bits were bits was stipulated, and the proposed explanation was conferred AC noise to the DAC from the ethernet cable, resulting in time distortions. during the DA conversion.

 

My listening experience is a lie? You don't know me, what gives you the right? So my motive is to give UPS buisness, by encouraging shipping and returns? I've only claimed my system is better for it, and looked for an explanation. What have you done to make yourself so certain, to call me a liar?

 

Don't be so arrogant, there are plenty of things we don't understand about this universe, and plenty of others we cant measure yet.

 

Heyyyyyy! Big fan of Amazon Basics cables here!

 

There's also plenty of things we do understand, and in this case BS is BS, no matter how you try to spin nonsense.

 

Please add your system component or stop commenting on this thread-GORTS. You hide your name and location on this forum and then call me names. Be a man, experiment and then post you don't hear jack. Just stop talking out your ass.

 

Sure thing there, chief.

You're on a one man mission to take on the world spreading the word.... what's most humorous is that I think you really know it's BS.... but in some strange way you're enjoying it.

BTW, I constantly post where I live - as late as an earlier post tonight. Those that know me here know where I live, know my equipment. I own too much equipment and it changes so often I stopped maintaining a profile, I choose not to. But my location, name and equipment is no mystery, just read my posts from today and you'll find out a lot. Not hiding anything there, oh honorable one. A profile doesn't define who someone is, their character, honesty and integrity. But what they say does.... and in this case it speaks volumes.

By the way - speaking of profiles - I looked through like five or six pages of your recent posts, and all but 3 or 4 out of the last 100 posts you made are in this thread. I stopped there. I wonder what percentage of your 752 posts are here are on this thread?

 

In summary - my 1's and 0's are better than your 1's and 0's.

BS is BS.... no matter how you slice it.