[Mark200]

I bet they actually do have audiophile banana plugs.

There are definitely banana plugs that are better than others. Locking banana plugs are preferred as the tension of a regular banana plug loosens up over time. Obviously, gold platted copper is better than materials used on some cheap plugs. Gold does not corrode, like almost all other metals.

 

[Mark200]

In which case we don’t need a measurement or a blind test, simple logic would suffice. Digital audio is itself a measurement, so if there’s something that can’t be measured then it can’t be captured or reproduced by digital audio and obviously, you can’t hear something that hasn’t been recorded in the first place and can’t be reproduced. However, it was proven about 75 years ago that we can in fact measure/capture all the properties of an analog waveform.

G

Maybe "we" don't need blind listening tests, but for those who insist that Ethernet cables can carry noise (in addition to carrying a digital signal) from one component to another that is not already being filtered out by the receiving component, they are not going to accept "measurements" and they insist on subjective listening tests. My point is that a blind listening test is a subjective listening test (as they demand), and that would at least force them to prove whether or not they can actually hear any difference (as they claim they can).

Keep in mind that it is not necessarily the cable that generates the noise, they claim the cable can transfer noise from on component to another outside the digital signal, so only a listening test of their particular hardware (audio components, power supplies, cables, etc) would convince them. That is one of the motivations for using fiber cable for TCP/IP transmissions instead of wired Ethernet.

 

[Mark200]

Nothing stops from using an ethernet cable to transfer ANALOG signals in which case it might actually have a miniscule audible affect. As long as it is digital signals transfered, we need at least a scientific theory of how ethernet cables could possibly affect sound quality.

I am not sure I understand what kind of audio signals you are talking about. Obviously, there are differences in cables meant for line level, speaker level, or for digital audio (not using TCP/IP, but something like digital over Coax). Each of these cables have different impedance properties to perform properly.

Also, even reasonably priced (but not the very cheapest) line level cables are shielded, and most Ethernet cables are not shielded, and even the Ethernet cables that are shielded typically have a different type of shielding than is used in audio line level cables. Also, modern Ethernet cables consist of 4 twisted pairs (8 total wires) and that is usually not the case for most other cables. Each of the Ethernet wires can be either solid copper or stranded copper (solid is better but is not very flexible).

Coax cable is typically a single solid wire with shielding and 75 ohm impedance rating, for carrying analog or digital signals.

But to the point of your question, my understanding is that some audiophiles suspect that there is noise being carried on the cable outside of the digital signal that allows it to be transferred from one component to another, even if the digital signal is not compromised or distorted. But mainly, I have concluded that they think this because they have too much money and much time on their hands, and that audio is a hobby rather than a means to listen to and appreciate music.

 

[bigshot]

Maybe "we" don't need blind listening tests, but for those who insist that Ethernet cables can carry noise (in addition to carrying a digital signal) from one component to another that is not already being filtered out by the receiving component, they are not going to accept "measurements" and they insist on subjective listening tests.

They generally also insist that they don’t believe in ABX and want long listening sessions to “have time” to discern the noise.

These people don’t know diddly squat, and I don’t think there’s any way at all to convince them of even an obvious thing like Ethernet cables that are what they are for a million different reasons. Willfully ignorant people aren’t qualified to decide what kind of proof is best. They wouldn’t recognize proof if it bit them on the patoot.

The people who can judge proof are those that do good research, ask the right questions, and make an effort to understand how things work. They’re the ones that can be convinced. Arguments and explanations should be directed at them, not the people in the corner wearing the tin foil dunce caps.

 

[71 dB]

I am not sure I understand what kind of audio signals you are talking about. Obviously, there are differences in cables meant for line level, speaker level, or for digital audio (not using TCP/IP, but something like digital over Coax). Each of these cables have different impedance properties to perform properly.

No need to understand as I posted "something" that doesn't touch politics or religion in any way, but I mean analog audio signals. Of course nobody uses Ethernet cables for that, but it could be done.

Also, even reasonably priced (but not the very cheapest) line level cables are shielded, and most Ethernet cables are not shielded, and even the Ethernet cables that are shielded typically have a different type of shielding than is used in audio line level cables. Also, modern Ethernet cables consist of 4 twisted pairs (8 total wires) and that is usually not the case for most other cables. Each of the Ethernet wires can be either solid copper or stranded copper (solid is better but is not very flexible).

These are some of reasons why people use line level cables to transfer analog line level signals instead of ethernet cables.

Coax cable is typically a single solid wire with shielding and 75 ohm impedance rating, for carrying analog or digital signals.

The 75 ohm impedance applies to signals with wavelengths "small" compared to the length of the cable. The speed v of electricity in a cable is about 2/3 of the speed of light (causality to be precise, but whatever) meaning about 2*10^8 m/s. The highest frequencies f of audio are 20 kHz (or 40-80 kHz if you a bat listening to hi-rez files), so the shortests wavelenght 𝞴 in an audio cable transferring analog audio is

𝞴 = v / f = (2*10^8 m/s) / (2*10^4 1/s) = 10 000 m = 10 km ≈ 6 miles.​

So, you could have impedance mathing related problems if your cables where say several hundred yards. I doubt they are. However, digital audio needs significantly bigger bandwidth, and suddenly the 3-6 feet long cable becomes a transmission line (due to phase difference the signal is significantly different in the both ends of the cable and impedance matching is needed to prevent reflected signals to interfere with the signal itself. The 75 ohm impedance of a coax cable is a property of the cable when it operates as a transmission line (at high enough frequencies). If you measure the same cable at DC, you get a resistance maybe 100 times smaller. There is no need for impedance matching at audio frequencies. The output impedance is perhaps 1 kΩ, the cable is perhaps 1 Ω and the input impedance in the other end is perhaps 47 kΩ . In fact, the best transmission happens when the input impedance is much bigger than the other impedances combined.

But to the point of your question, my understanding is that some audiophiles suspect that there is noise being carried on the cable outside of the digital signal that allows it to be transferred from one component to another, even if the digital signal is not compromised or distorted. But mainly, I have concluded that they think this because they have too much money and much time on their hands, and that audio is a hobby rather than a means to listen to and appreciate music.

Okay, I understand what you say. This could be tested by measuring the noise level in the output with and without the cable attached (and when it is attached, the digital signal fed is digital silence).

 

[moriez]

We can not talk about this outside this sub. That's the purpose of this thread.

Fair enough. Good that those who hold pretty much the same views have a place of their own. Good for everyone

Discussion of the way the audiophile community has changed over the years and is now driven towards marketing myths and false claims is what this is all about.

Not trying to be funny but any proof of these changes, increased marketing and false claims?

The inability to refute those claims in those threads due to being banned whenever we do.

It would become pretty chaotic to the point of forum collapse if there wasn't any oversight. Objectivists and subjectivists to use those terms simply don't mingle too well and if you cannot have the utopia of free speech, which equals uncontrollable chaos in this case, isn't it best that these two groups are separated? For the sake of peace.

 

[VNandor]

Not trying to be funny but any proof of these changes, increased marketing and false claims?

Obviously. I checked how the forums were back then and how they are now. Anyone having a pair of functioning eyes can see the difference! I even asked my wife about it just to be sure and the difference is so stark even she's seeing it! Yes, I'm trying to be funny.

 

[bigshot]

It would become pretty chaotic to the point of forum collapse if there wasn't any oversight. Objectivists and subjectivists to use those terms simply don't mingle too well and if you cannot have the utopia of free speech, which equals uncontrollable chaos in this case, isn't it best that these two groups are separated? For the sake of peace.

No.

I don’t think people have a right to be wrong. The truth is hammered out on the anvil of challenges and supporting arguments. No one deserves to have their ignorance protected. And the subjectivists aren’t really being protected. They’re being exploited by the fox setting the rules for the chicken coop.

 

[chef8489]

What's the consensus on filter use with these? Just run no filter? Both no filter and 1 notch white sound fine (the latter dampens it somewhat), but that's one more thing I have to worry about.

Obviously. I checked how the forums were back then and how they are now. Anyone having a pair of functioning eyes can see the difference! I even asked my wife about it just to be sure and the difference is so stark even she's seeing it! Yes, I'm trying to be funny.

Fair enough. Good that those who hold pretty much the same views have a place of their own. Good for everyone



Not trying to be funny but any proof of these changes, increased marketing and false claims?



It would become pretty chaotic to the point of forum collapse if there wasn't any oversight. Objectivists and subjectivists to use those terms simply don't mingle too well and if you cannot have the utopia of free speech, which equals uncontrollable chaos in this case, isn't it best that these two groups are separated? For the sake of peace.

Both of you are new to the forums. I have been around for 18 years and have seen the changes towards commercialization of the site and it has become all about the money and less about the sound and facts. In the early days it was about the gear and truth about audio.

 

[71 dB]

No.

I don’t think people have a right to be wrong.

Huh, what?!? No right to be wrong? I think people are entitled to their opinions, wrong or right, but nobody has to respect those opinions. Maybe that's what you mean?

The truth is hammered out on the anvil of challenges and supporting arguments.

Yes, but there is no consensus on what is the truth. Even science does questionable claims sometimes (in hopes of funding etc.). What is definitely the truth might be "probably the truth" to me and scientific lies to another person. People don't agree about who can be trusted. Scientists? Snake oil sellers? Loudest mouths on the internet forums? Pete the neighbour? You can say something has been proven true with rigorous tests, and you are probably 100 % correct, but someone else can totally ignore that by saying it is all lies. How do you prove they aren't? It is like trying to buy something with currency the seller doesn't accept. It doesn't help to scream you have money. Wrong currency! No deal! I guess the trick is to use the "currency of the other side", but that is not easy when you think differently about everything.

No one deserves to have their ignorance protected. And the subjectivists aren’t really being protected. They’re being exploited by the fox setting the rules for the chicken coop.

That's something I totally agree.

 

[VNandor]

Both of you are new to the forums.

Aww,, why thank you!

 

[71 dB]

I have been around for 18 years and have seen the changes towards commercialization of the site and it has become all about the money and less about the sound and facts. In the early days it was about the gear and truth about audio.

I miss the early days of the internet (I started using it in 1997). Back then people said whatever they wanted online freely, but they also respected each other more. Being friendly and respectful was the default mode for people. Maybe it helped that back then it was "smarter" people that used the internet while nowadays everyone is online defending their own opinions.

Commercialization is the fate of almost everything. Nowadays about half of internet data traffic is controlled by half dozen largest online giants. I try to enjoy all the non-commercial aspects of the internet as long as it is possible.

 

[chef8489]

I miss the early days of the internet (I started using it in 1997). Back then people said whatever they wanted online freely, but they also respected each other more. Being friendly and respectful was the default mode for people. Maybe it helped that back then it was "smarter" people that used the internet while nowadays everyone is online defending their own opinions.

Commercialization is the fate of almost everything. Nowadays about half of internet data traffic is controlled by half dozen largest online giants. I try to enjoy all the non-commercial aspects of the internet as long as it is possible.

I started using the internet really back in aol days probably in 92. I grew up using computers though. comodor 64, apple II and tandy and atari. Im 44 now and technology has always been a part of my life.

 

[bigshot]

Yes, but there is no consensus on what is the truth. Even science does questionable claims sometimes

Science is the process for determining the truth.

 

[chef8489]

Aww,, why thank you!

Lol some reason when I checked on my phone it was showing a newer join date.. it has changed a lot since you joined, but still in 2014 was still far more commercial and financial oriented than it was in 2005.