[sander99]

that is good to hear, that there is a surrogate parameter (or set) for hearing!

What part of this didn't you understand:

From measurements generally three types of conclusions can be drawn with respect to (differences in) audibility:
1. The measurements indicate that the differences or imperfections are far below the known tresholds of audibility. That means we can safely conclude there is no audible difference or imperfection.
2. The measurements indicate that the differences or imperfections are clearly above the known tresholds of audibility. That means we can safely conclude there is audible difference or imperfection.
3. The measurements are close to the known tresholds of audibility. That means the only way to establish more objective information is by conducting well controlled level matched double blind ABX tests.

(And let me add the restriction that we are talking about electrical analog audio signals.)
Or do you think there exist people who can hear what's going on in an electrical signal more precise than the most precise electronic measurement equipment?

 

[Claypole]

So, the idea is that you put one of these ‘audiophile’ Ethernet switches between your router and your streaming device, and it eliminates any issues you might have with RFI that somehow makes it’s way all the way through to the analogue output of the DAC, resulting in an audible improvement in sound quality?

Once this switch has been installed, I presume you’re still going to have an Ethernet cable going to the DAC/streamer? Isn’t this going to be prone to RFI just as it was before?

 

[marcelnl]

If you cannot measure it it does not exist and all that, believe me I have heard it before (pun intended) AND was in that dogmatic camp long ago...

I sincerely hope there is a way to identify the root cause, I cannot explain it and started out being very skeptical when I started playing around with switches and cables.

Problem is that if all precious measurements fail to capture the essence of what is happening you are left behind looking a zero difference readout

 

[marcelnl]

@sander99 Is this your normal tone of conversation or am I reading too much into it?

I get that part, there is one 'small' handicap; denying the existence of a phenomenon based on a failure to measure an effect does not necessarily make the phenomenon go away.
You may need to adapt the measurement method or find a new parameter to measure.. OR make do with subjective and/or surrogate parameters.
There is only so much you can measure....until today nobody knows/measures how certain drugs work, yet we know that they work and they are registered based on purely objective evidence.

 

[castleofargh]

If you cannot measure it it does not exist and all that, believe me I have heard it before (pun intended) AND was in that dogmatic camp long ago...

I sincerely hope there is a way to identify the root cause, I cannot explain it and started out being very skeptical when I started playing around with switches and cables.

Problem is that if all precious measurements fail to capture the essence of what is happening you are left behind looking a zero difference readout

You’re not getting anywhere with such posts. For one thing, there is no point in pitting measurements consistent with no audible difference, against listening experience supporting audible difference. The reason being that those claiming to hear a change are usually not measuring anything(that's consistent over all topics btw). So we don't have 2 sources of data contradicting each other for one experiment, but instead we have entirely different experiences and data gathering methods. You hearing stuff, means nothing to the measurements of switches working cleanly, and vice versa. Although measurements of no relevant impact and lack of measurement of audible level impact, aren't helping us believe in the position you support...

And while we're at it, one doesn't increase the confidence level of a listening test by aimlesly going at war against measurements. Audibility is fine being confirmed with listening tests. It's the quality of those tests that will determine how confident we can be. A well controlled listening test is a measurement! It measures the audible impact of a specific variable being changed. While a poorly controlled one is inconclusive, and a sighted test is not just about listening and not a test at all.

 

[bigshot]

If you can't measure it or detect it in a double blind test, it doesn't matter.

The way I usually approach things is... 1) Can I hear it in a controlled listening test? (yes) 2) Can I measure it to know what it is and how to fix it? (no) 3) Commit suicide because there is no hope.

I've never gotten to 3 thankfully.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

... and ignored the fact that the measurements we have are of course not covering all possible situations and environments with all possible switches.

This is unnecessary, and you'll have to admit, ridiculous.
I lived in Los Angeles the first few decades of my life. If while there, I decided to do a comparison of 2 umbrellas, I'd have a problem because although it rained every year I was there, it didn't rain often or much. So if I go out and test both every day for a month, and find both "work" equally well (no rain to test though), I'm not saying much.
The answer to a failed measurement (no problem means no testing a solution) is not test everything everywhere at all times... but to look for a potential predictable problem (e.g. ask those who have experience)(see below).

And again: the manufacturer or seller or other person that claims the unlikely is the one who should prove it. So why don't they?

Yes, good question. My guesses are: they don't know how or have the equipment (very unlikely), they don't want to name the equipment that exhibits the problem (to avoid a war; also very unlikely), or they don't feel the evidence would be convincing.

@sander99 Is this your normal tone of conversation or am I reading too much into it?

Don't worry about @sander99. He's not a native speaker, but I think he does really well. He's a good guy. (whispering... and he's Dutch. Most of the many Dutch researchers I've worked with are taller than you and me combined... shhh!)

You may need to adapt the measurement method or find a new parameter to measure.. OR make do with subjective and/or surrogate parameters.
There is only so much you can measure...

There are 2 types of measures that are pretty easy, but don't give much insight into mechanisms... but they let you know if the phenomenon exists and warrants further investigation. As others have mentioned, a blind listening discrimination test (what you described wasn't convincing - let me or others know if you need tips) is one. The other, a type of measurement, doesn't require you know what to measure or what you're looking for: a null test. You simply record (once, or several times is better) setup A and setup B, and use software designed for a null test: I can highly recommend DeltaWave (link). It's free. Let me know if you want to try it... I can help, or better yet, Paul Kane, the developer, is very nice and helpful.

 

[bigshot]

I live in Los Angeles and I don't own an umbrella!

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I don't remember using one in LA, but I had them for travel.

 

[daggah]

Since I'm pretty sure I'm close to being banned due to calling out the BS in the no-science-allowed version of this discussion, I'd love to invite discussion on one aspect of this audiophile-networking-really-works theory. Interference keeps being brought up as one possible explanation (well, really, THE possible explanation) for how audiophile networking might improve the sound. But the way they describe it, all sorts of magical things happen to the sound signature that they hear. It becomes smoother, less harsh, more "analogue" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean).

How does theorized interference running along standard networking equipment produce consistent repeatable degradations to the sound quality to make the sound become less smooth, more harsh, less "analogue - all the opposite qualities that they attribute to the audiophile networking equipment? If there's interference, it would present itself as noise. It wouldn't affect the sound in a controlled manner.

Ridiculous.

 

[bigshot]

I stay away from that side

 

[Claypole]

If I’m streaming music music, say from Tidal, those 1’s and 0’s have been through an untold amount of hubs, switches, routers, the local exchange, and long lengths of copper cable. I’m assuming that all this equipment would have been designed to carry data, and therefore not of‘audiophile‘ quality.

Are people saying that none of this matters, as long as you use an ‘audiophile’ network switch in your home?

 

[bigshot]

It's the same as having an audiophile power cable. What difference does it make when the power has travelled hundreds of miles on power lines and then distributed through cheap wire in the walls of your house? That last three feet of audiophile splendor isn't going to make a lick of difference.

Audiophiles have tunnel vision. They don't look at the overall picture. They get fixated on one tiny irrelevant thing and then dig in when you try to point out to them how silly that is.

 

[castleofargh]

Since I'm pretty sure I'm close to being banned due to calling out the BS in the no-science-allowed version of this discussion, I'd love to invite discussion on one aspect of this audiophile-networking-really-works theory. Interference keeps being brought up as one possible explanation (well, really, THE possible explanation) for how audiophile networking might improve the sound. But the way they describe it, all sorts of magical things happen to the sound signature that they hear. It becomes smoother, less harsh, more "analogue" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean).

How does theorized interference running along standard networking equipment produce consistent repeatable degradations to the sound quality to make the sound become less smooth, more harsh, less "analogue - all the opposite qualities that they attribute to the audiophile networking equipment? If there's interference, it would present itself as noise. It wouldn't affect the sound in a controlled manner.

Ridiculous.

Didn't you know that accurate transmission of a digital signal is yet another one of those things you can't judge unless you listen? What can measurements tell you about accuracy? Nothing! Only a dude sitting in a chair with an opinion about his feelings, can get to the bottom of things related to objective fidelity.

A silly rational is like a good joke, you won't gain anything trying to explain it.

 

[navr]

Of course but make sure the PSU it is a linear one.

Linear PSUs are slower than switching PSUs, which translates to degradation in time domain