[castleofargh]

Initially @A Jedi was simply asking for more tests with real everyday use conditions. Which in principle makes a lot of sense. I'm also quite bored with 3 unloaded specs at voltages almost nobody uses, and maybe one or 2 loads only to show 1 number for power at 1%THD at 1kHz. It sure is better than nothing, but is it really useful? Meh, nah.
But I also don't think the problem is real load, real music, and more realistic conditions for the reasons I and Gregorio gave. Like with any test, introducing more variables and more inconsistency to a test only tends to reduce what we can take away from that test.

The problem to me is lack of measurements being published. Not lack of more realistic conditions. I don't understand why for example we don't have all IEM and headphone website showing the impedance curve of their product? I had to measure it myself for about a third of my IEMs because I couldn't find it on the handful of websites that do that measurement. A few things like that are sometimes in the way of more easily/adequately picking our gears.


This conversation has less and less relation to Ethernet with each passing day. But then again was there anything fact based to discuss about the sound of Ethernet so far? I'm waiting but not holding my breath.

 

[A Jedi]

40 years ago Bob Carver famously built a relatively cheap ($400) amp, lined it up with a couple of the most expensive (and significantly different) audiophile amps on the market, did a double blind test with “golden eared” Stereophile reviewers and no one could tell the difference.

Ah yes I'd forgotten about that. You make a good point.

 

[bigshot]

Initially @A Jedi was simply asking for more tests with real everyday use conditions. Which in principle makes a lot of sense. I'm also quite bored with 3 unloaded specs at voltages almost nobody uses, and maybe one or 2 loads only to show 1 number for power at 1%THD at 1kHz. It sure is better than nothing, but is it really useful? Meh, nah.
But I also don't think the problem is real load, real music, and more realistic conditions for the reasons I and Gregorio gave. Like with any test, introducing more variables and more inconsistency to a test only tends to reduce what we can take away from that test.

Yeah. I suspect that the more a test approaches real world conditions (real music, human ears, living rooms, etc.) the less real world differences that could be measured, or at least the differences that could be measured would probably be caused by more by variables and inconsistencies as you say. The advantage to the way things are measured now is at least you're getting an apples to apples comparison.

I think more real world blind listening tests for sound quality (as opposed to sound fidelity) would be useful, but I doubt manufacturers would welcome that because there would be even less differences.

 

[craiglester]

Amusingly, iFi are hawking an Ethernet isolator on the front page. I'm sure I'll get grief for pointing out Ethernet is galvanically isolated already. They're claiming improved audio, of course. Any bets on how long till my post is removed?

 

[bigshot]

Being banned by snake oil salesmen is a badge of honor.

 

[chef8489]

Being banned by snake oil salesmen is a badge of honor.

Yep I have been banned on sever cable threads for calling people out for ridiculous statements.

 

[Davesrose]

Amusingly, iFi are hawking an Ethernet isolator on the front page. I'm sure I'll get grief for pointing out Ethernet is galvanically isolated already. They're claiming improved audio, of course. Any bets on how long till my post is removed?

I just recently saw a thread comparing 2 "audiophile" ethernet cables each over $50 (assume it is what's referenced in OP) Assume an audiophile will want to spend even more than that if it's claimed it really opens up the highs. I can imagine: "Everything is unfocused until you start using our cable. Use ours, and it isolates each instrument and opens soundstage. You'll be amazed how much life your music will gain". I saw that the audiophile cables were either cat6 or cat7. Sorry, given that cat5 spec is more than enough bandwidth for audio codecs, how are you not buying marketing? One of my first foreys into "audiophile" brand was Monster. I bought a mini-stereo to RCA adapter from them. The thing was terrible: one of the connectors became undone fairly quickly. I'm thinking that could be another issue with these small boutique audiophile brands: less consumer reviews and less need for quality control.

 

[Davesrose]

So I tried to have an innocent question about how iFi isolator could make a difference, when isn't just a regular cat5 cable more than enough? These are the links I've been given. I haven't listened yet....I'll try because this kind of marketing might be something when it comes to snake oil.

 

[ptodorov0]

It can't improve sound, of course. That is why no one who said it does was ever able to back their claim with ANY real measurements. It can influence sound only if the device has some serious design flaw such as lack of galvanic isolation on the ethernet port or terribly engineered grounding topology so for example one cable can introduce IEM/RFI noise or transfer ground currents compared to another cable with different topology/shielding type.

 

[gregorio]

I'm sure I'll get grief for pointing out Ethernet is galvanically isolated already.

Of course you will, because you’re forgetting a basic “law” of audiophilia, “More’s Law”. Therefore: If galvanic isolation is good, then 2x galvanic isolation must be twice as good.

These are the links I've been given.

Yep, an interview with a marketing/administrative manager and an interview with a self-confessed audio hobbyist who provides the “vision” to the electronics engineers who actually design/build the thing. In other words, pretty much pure marketing BS. And that’s how Darko makes his living, by providing a platform for marketing BS. The only time Darko (and others like him) will ever ask an actual expert/engineer these types of questions is if that person is also responsible for marketing.

Sony made learned that lesson about 20 years ago. They allowed their chief engineer (not involved in the marketing dept.) to do a press conference to explain about how SACD/DSD worked, as the marketing dept didn’t really understand it. During the Q/A he actually told the truth/facts (as that’s all he knew) and inadvertently contradicted most of Sony’s marketing. For example, when asked about the audible differences between SACD and CD, he stated they did a lot of controlled testing before launch and there wasn’t any audible difference. He was never heard of in public again!

G