[bfreedma]

In a forum where people can’t agree on a hard technical standard like 802.X, I don’t think we’re going to agree on how to resolve the worlds actual problems.

Given that, can we stick to audio science? Plenty of other websites to discuss global issues. I’m not opposed to the discussion, bit it’s nice to have a place where I don’t have to deal with actual real life strife.

 

[kumar402]

Whatever makes one happy....hobby is an activity where everyone looks for incremental improvement all the time and people with deep pocket will also replace ethernet cable with fancy one at some point but if you are 100% confident that it doesn't have any impact on anything then why bother?? And loose nerve?? Let someone loose money and other make money

 

[kumar402]

And why is it so wrong to spend money on ethernet cable which sometime passes over microwave and run along power line then to spend money on short USB or Coax cable which are like 2 to 3 ft in most audiophile setup. If you have never spend money on fancy cable then you have all right to be upset or question the very foundation of it but if you spend money on one digital cable and have concern with ppl spending money on other digital cable then....I have nothing to add.

PS - I don't have fancy ethernet cable.

 

[BobG55]

It getting to the point I cant take it. Its getting pretty ridiculous. There is a thread about ethernet cables and the improvement they are all noticing in the sound quality. I just cant understand the mass delusions they are all having and lack of understanding how these things work.

I hear you loud and clear. I‘m running short on tolerance myself reading about cables, DACs & this one (copy & paste quote by a member about fuses) : “I swapped the stock fuses for a pair of Synergistic Research Purple fuses. Neutrality, clarity and soundstage have nicely improved. Worth trying in my opinion …”

 

[bigshot]

It’s because they don’t teach critical thinking in schools, either at all or grossly inadequately.

When I was in school there were several programs that taught critical thinking, mainly debate. But soon after I graduated high school they disbanded the debate club. Not sure why. In college I studied Design, which is a field that places great emphasis on arriving at solutions based on critical analysis of the problem.

But all of the problems in Head-Fi go back to consumerism. The overriding logic here is that problems are solved by spending money, and spending money will always result in an audible improvement. Just going out and buying more equipment and upgrading to more expensive equipment is the universal solution to every problem... even problems that don't exist.

This complete disconnect with reality is reinforced by people arguing that in extreme and very rare cases, spending money on crazy, unnecessary tech might actually make some sort of a theoretical improvement. No one will ever say, "No, that isn't a good solution to the problem." Instead they will try to think up exceptions to the rule so their knowledge of devil's advocate trivia makes them "king of the thread" for a day. It's counter productive and unhelpful, but it makes them feel good about themselves.

It's fine because interwoven with all this foolishness are discussions that actually do have merit. You just have to ignore all the BS... just like in this thread! It's easy to do because the bologna spewers can't help but spew bologna. It's an irresistible compulsion, even if they do it against their better judgement. There's no missing them. They post bologna at every opportunity. They stand out in a crowd. Perhaps that is even what they are trying to do.

 

[bfreedma]

And why is it so wrong to spend money on ethernet cable which sometime passes over microwave and run along power line then to spend money on short USB or Coax cable which are like 2 to 3 ft in most audiophile setup. If you have never spend money on fancy cable then you have all right to be upset or question the very foundation of it but if you spend money on one digital cable and have concern with ppl spending money on other digital cable then....I have nothing to add.

PS - I don't have fancy ethernet cable.

People can buy what they like, but vendors flat out lying about Ethernet and what a cable can’t possibly do is wrong. The lies then gets perpetuated as fact by people without the technical knowledge to know they were lied to by the vendor.

These cables offer no performance improvement. Because it’s not technically possible.

If someone buys an expensive Ethernet cable because it looks nice, more power to them. If they want to make objective claims about performance that fall outside of Ethernet’s highly tested standards, then proof of claim needs to be presented.

 

[Mark200]

Because he offers on-topic information along with the off-topic political bologna. So far, you have posted nothing but bologna multiple times and seem to be accelerating your spew with each post. You should just sit down and shut up until you have something on-topic to say. You aren't going to convince anyone to agree with your political views here because this isn't the forum for that. Why are you perpetuating it? Do you just want to get a rise out of people?

I obviously don't agree with your analysis. For one thing, I tried to explain that the Ethernet cable "problem" is not a lack of critical analysis, nor it is the same kind irrationality given to support of politicians that some don't agree with.

The vast majority of audiophiles don't understand how TCP/IP over Ethernet works, in transmitting packets of digital data with checksums to make sure the integrity of the packet is guaranteed when it arrives. This is not a lack of critical thinking, it is a lack of knowledge.

I also pointed out previously that most of those who make these claims about audiophile Ethernet cables refuse to submit to any measurements because they claim that measurements don't always reveal all the qualities or deficiencies of audio equipment (which is theoretically possible). Instead they want to rely on subjective listening tests. That "might" be a plausible argument (not guaranteed to be correct, but at least plausible), if they are willing to conduct blind listening tests, so there is some statistical proof that they are really hearing the difference between the various pieces of equipment on a consistent enough basis to draw a conclusion. This requires proper blind testing techniques, as well as a basic understand of statistics to know how many times to conduct the listening test (sample size) in order to draw a statistical inference at a certain confidence level (typically 95%) and a certain margin of error (which depends somewhat on the sample size).

I explained this stuff earlier in the thread, so I reject your inflammatory and false claims that I have not contributed important comments to this discussion.

It was a very bad idea to try and and associate specific politicians that someone doesn't like, with the claims made by those who believe in audiophile Ethernet cables. A person's political views has nothing to do with it.

 

[gregorio]

This is not a lack of critical thinking, it is a lack of knowledge.

Many audiophiles do have knowledge, unfortunately it’s knowledge based on marketing BS, shill reviews, cherry picked testimonials and the “impressions” of those suckered by it. The fact that they are unable to accurately evaluate this as BS and dismiss the actual reliable scientific evidence/facts is ENTIRELY a lack of critical thinking.

G

 

[Mark200]

Many audiophiles do have knowledge, unfortunately it’s knowledge based on marketing BS, shill reviews, cherry picked testimonials and the “impressions” of those suckered by it. The fact that they are unable to accurately evaluate this as BS and dismiss the actual reliable scientific evidence/facts is ENTIRELY a lack of critical thinking.

G

Yes, I obviously meant that they don't have knowledge of how TCP/IP over Ethernet works. Everyone has some knowledge or belief, even if it may not be accurate. But the problem is that many of these advocates of audiophile Ethernet cables claim there is some dirty signal or noise outside of the Ethernet packets that gets transmitted from one component to another, which is theoretically possible even if unlikely. That is why statistically valid blind listening testing is necessary.

 

[bigshot]

Thank you.

 

[gregorio]

That is why statistically valid blind listening testing is necessary.

Why not just measure this so called noise or do a null test? Then we have objective evidence and don’t have to worry about statistical validity or blind test methodological errors.

G

 

[bigshot]

Any of those ways of determining if there is noise would work. But if there's nothing but subjective impressions to indicate that there's a problem, it's most likely a person's attention is better focused elsewhere. In audio circles WAY too much time is spent on things that have been conclusively proven to not be a problem many times in the past. The attitude of "give them the benefit of the doubt" is the source of a lot of pointless arguments about things that are pretty much self evident and completely understood... cables, high sampling/bitrates, DACs/amps, lossy vs lossless, etc. Why reinvent the wheel? There are things that actually do impact fidelity, but those things aren't always paid attention to because they aren't commercially beneficial to manufacturers.

 

[Mark200]

Why not just measure this so called noise or do a null test? Then we have objective evidence and don’t have to worry about statistical validity or blind test methodological errors.

G

I am OK with that, but those people claim that there exist certain audio effects that cannot be measured (or at least no test has been devised yet to measure it). They say that a subjective evaluation is the only way to hear the difference.

So it seems easier to me to explain to them that a blind listening test is a subjective test on steroids, that it can be used to verify that what they claim to hear can be consistently reproduced, and also that their memory is not playing tricks on them. Doing a blind listening test is not that complicated.

 

[bigshot]

I am OK with that, but those people claim that there exist certain audio effects that cannot be measured (or at least no test has been devised yet to measure it). They say that a subjective evaluation is the only way to hear the difference.

How does digital audio capture sound that can't be measured? It seems to me that even a basic understanding of how digital audio works would make it clear that measuring and recording are closely related.

I find that people who claim that certain aspects of sound can't be measured are the same ones who don't believe in blind testing. It's basically an excuse to support their subjective delusions.

 

[ClieOS]

Someone corrects me if I am wrong - we are talking about Ethernet cable casted from electrical furnace powered by pure nuclear power plant, right? Definitely not the kind of dirty power from coal power plant? I swear Ethernet cable casted with coal power is really muddy and dirty sounding. Science, u no?