[bluenight]

1a. It is debatable but you haven't "stooped to my level", you were stooping way below my level before we even started and have stooped lower still, as you apparently cannot open your mind beyond marketing BS even when presented with obvious facts! For the record, I believe that if people want to spend their money on an expensive ethernet cable because they like how it looks or because of the brand name, that's entirely up to them but if they're going to publicly state it audibly changes the sound their system produces and try to convince others, that's a false claim!

Arguably you stooped lower then me from the beggining coming here arguing against products you newer listened to or have any experience with in an audiophile forum. This was mentioned also in the network audio youtube clip in my previous post.

 

[bluenight]

1. Hey, you're the one quoting the audiophile product marketing BS, not me! And what audiophile product am I'm marketing? All I'm doing is stating obvious, proven/demonstrated objective facts, while all your doing is contradicting the obvious, proven/demonstrated facts, with no reliable supporting evidence at all, just marketing BS!

Again all you do is arguing against something you havent tried/listened to for yourself.

 

[bluenight]

1a. If someone is drawing conclusions of OBJECTIVE facts from their "own listening experience" (biased by marketing BS), which completely contradicts an obvious, massive wealth of proof of the actual objective facts, then OF COURSE they are a gullible fool! What else could they be, a super-human, an alien, a wizard maybe?

Of course hearing that ethernet cables sound different.

 

[bluenight]

And, what about all the countless scientists and REAL engineers who would disagree with the handful of marketers you've quoted, are you calling "everyone" of them liars or fools?

Then they havent actually taken the time to listen for themselfes or dont know how to listen for sound differences. They have probebly more importent things to do science about then to discover if ethernet cables can sound different anyway. No one have probebly done serious scientific studys that you would demand.

 

[dazzerfong]

Then they havent actually taken the time to listen for themselfes or dont know how to listen for sound differences. They have probebly more importent things to do science about then to discover if ethernet cables can sound different anyway. No one have probebly done serious scientific studys that you would demand.

Mate, if it's that easy, someone would've done the paper on it. Take a guess why Paul McGowan never published on AES - it's because he'll be laughed out of the review board. You know how desperate people are out there generating publications? Publications is literally peer-reviewed, verified evidence, and is invaluable as evidence because the onus then shifts to the skeptics to prove wrong.

Of course not, it's not your realm of expertise so you wouldn't know any of that. Dunning-Kruger strikes again!

 

[Voxata]

Now now.. lets be civil here! On a side note.. I find that if I get my wife and kids to leave the house I get a nice boost in SQ. The stage opens up like a flower and the music becomes almost holographic.

 

[Whazzzup]

Nice looking cable

 

[bluenight]

Even in those cases where the digital signal is "electricity flowing down a cable", it's an electric signal that is utterly different from an analog audio signal. An analogue audio signal is an electrical signal where the constantly varying voltage is "analogous" to the constantly varying sound pressure levels that will be reproduced (transduced) by that voltage and therefore, any interference, noise, distortion or change to that analogue audio signal will (or can) change the sound that will be reproduced. In the case of 100mbit Ethernet, the electrical signal is a constant 100Mhz signal, it does NOT vary continuously and as no human being can hear anywhere near a 100MHz sound, it's OBVIOUSLY NOT an analog signal. Therefore, UNLIKE an analogue audio signal, ANY interference, noise, distortion or any other change to this 100MHz digital signal will NOT be reproduced/transduced.

Doesent seem perfect to me. Why would digital be perfect? Nothing is perfect, there are always grades and nuances in everything.
Streamed network audio isent perfect, cd often sound better becuase of all the noise pollution in the network.

 

[hkpants]

Now now.. lets be civil here! On a side note.. I find that if I get my wife and kids to leave the house I get a nice boost in SQ. The stage opens up like a flower and the music becomes almost holographic.

This sounds like a load of BS. Have you done a blind or ABX test? I demand proof.

On a side note, I find that if I sit upside-down I get a nice boost in SQ due to the increased amount of blood in my ears and brain. The bass gets higher, the trebles get lower, and the soundstage becomes much more intimate.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Arguably you stooped lower then me from the beggining coming here arguing against products you newer listened to or have any experience with in an audiophile forum. This was mentioned also in the network audio youtube clip in my previous post.
[2] Again all you do is arguing against something you havent tried/listened to for yourself.
[3] Then they havent actually taken the time to listen for themselfes or dont know how to listen for sound differences.
[3a] They have probebly more importent things to do science about then to discover if ethernet cables can sound different anyway.
[3b] No one have probebly done serious scientific studys that you would demand.

1. How can I have "arguably stooped lower" for not listening to something that cannot be listened to and doesn't exist? How can someone "stoop lower" than to suggest you can even reproduce a 100MHz signal with consumer speakers or HPs, let alone hear differences in 100Mhz signals, to state they can hear a difference in an audio signal that's way below audibility AND to effectively state that ethernet as specified (with UTP) doesn't work perfectly, when the modern world largely relies on the fact that it does? It's not possible to stoop lower than all that, is it?

2. I have tested and tried cheap ethernet cables and they resulted in 100% perfect data transmission. Even a school child knows you can't get better than 100% perfect, so what's the point in trying expensive audiophile ethernet cables when there are ONLY 2 POSSIBLE outcomes? Either they result in EXACTLY the same 100% perfect data transmission, in which case the expensive product provides EXACTLY the same end result as the cheap one, or they ACTUALLY DO perform/sound different, in which case the expensive product performs worse than the cheap one! How is is possible to "stoop lower" than ignoring basic facts and such obvious, simple logic?

3. No one knows how to listen for audible sound differences that don't exist, so why would anyone "take the time to listen for themselves" to something that provably doesn't exist?
3a. Where on earth do you get "probably" from? ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is a more "important thing to do in science" than examine if expensive audiophile cables make a difference because science has already proven 100% perfect data transmission with cheap UTP cables and it's demonstrated in practice every day by the hundreds of millions who rely on that fact. It's like saying: "They probably have more important things to do in science than discover if the Earth is flat"!

[1] Doesent seem perfect to me.
[2] Why would digital be perfect? Nothing is perfect, there are always grades and nuances in everything.
[3] Streamed network audio isent perfect,
[3a] cd often sound better becuase of all the noise pollution in the network.

1. Does it really "seem to you" there are always data transmission errors in all the digital data you ever store and retrieve from all your digital devices and from the internet? Why would you or anyone else ever use digital devices or the internet if that were the case?

2. Digital would be perfect because it's BINARY! Binary is defined by having ONLY two possible values (zero or one), different "grades and nuances" of Zeros and Ones therefore CANNOT EXIST, because that would require more than two values. In addition to this basic fact of a binary system (which is taught to school children), we have some obvious/simple logic. For example: A modern iPhone is capable of executing about 600 Billion instructions per second, so if only one "bit" in every 600 billion were wrong (not perfect), an iPhone would crash roughly once every second. Of course, a smartphone that crashed every second would be useless, consumers would not buy one that did and smartphones (and all other digital devices) would not exist as consumer products in the first place. Therefore, simple logic dictates that either your statement is false or that the digital age does not exist!

3. Audio is NEVER perfect, streamed or otherwise, because it relies on analogue signals and transducers to convert between analogue and acoustic signals. Digital data however is.
3a. Again, there CANNOT be "noise pollution in a [digital] network" because there are only TWO states in a binary system, noise would require at least THREE states: Zero, One and Noise. There can and always will be noise in an analogue network though.

BTW, did you post that video by mistake? What does it have to do with ethernet cables or an ethernet network? The video describes measurement inaccuracies when generating digital values/data from an analogue audio signal (and converting it back again). However, an ethernet network does NOT convert between digital data and analogue audio signals, it just transfers digital data, which of course is why you need to use something AFTER the ethernet network that does convert digital to analogue audio, a DAC!!

Incidentally, although it's off-topic, the measurement inaccuracies he mentions during conversion between analogue audio signals and digital data do exist (we can measure them!) however, they are way below audible, even with cheap ADCs and DACs. The truth of his "recent discoveries" comment depends on how you define "recent". The early 1970's was nearly 50 years ago, a decade before digital audio was even available to the public and is NOT "recent" in my book! And finally, 192kHz sample rates ARE useful for reconstruction filter application but you don't actually need 192kHz digital audio files for that, 44.1kHz/48kHz files are more than good enough and then oversample them (to 176.2kHz/192kHz). Which is why oversampling was invented and why even the earliest consumer CD players/DACs (1984) had it! There's only disadvantages to the actual digital data being at a 192kHz sample rate but that's an off-topic discussion.

G

 

[bfreedma]

Some more why it can sound different.



Also i think this has something to do with it. Inspired by tellurium q cable aproach. Basicaly the chemical mixture on atom level in signal path can influence the electricitys movement influencing sound. If i understand it right.
https://telluriumq.com/our-focus/

"When Tellurium Q® was set up the focus was primarily on the idea of phase distortion and minimising this problem inherent in all cabling, whoever makes them and wherever and however they are made. The reason it is a problem is simple, all materials (not just cables) in the path of a signal will act as an electronic filter according to the definition in the box below, whether you want it to or not. This is undeniable. It is obvious from research that there is an impact of the “naturalness” of vocals for instance.
We think about cables as a filter as outlined by its scientific definition and not necessarily as something being “filtered out”, like with a mechanical sieve. According to Bell labs way back in 1930 working on phase distortion and its impact on speech, they found that when comparing a system that had negligible phase distortion with one that had, “it is noticed that the distorted speech is accompanied by certain audible effects which appear to be extraneous to the speech and transient in character”.
This is the definition of an electronic filter:
“A filter is an electrical network that alters the amplitude and/or phase characteristics of a signal with respect to frequency. Ideally, a filter will not add new frequencies to the input signal, nor will it change the component frequencies of that signal, but it will change the relative amplitudes of the various frequency components and/or their phase relationships.”
Source: National Semiconductor Corporation
N.B. This is true of all speakers, amplifiers, DACs, CD players, cables etc…in fact anything in the signal path.
Once you accept the fact that your audio system is acting as multiple electronic filters smudging your music, then you have a choice:
a. Forget the cable is an electronic filter (completely in the face of science) and compromise by having a smeared sound or
b. Do something about it and try to engineer as clear a path for the signal as possible to get the most natural sound that current technology will allow. Although it is not possible to get perfect signal reproduction with current technology (that we are aware of) to completely negate the effect of capacitance, induction etc on phase relationships in a signal."

None of what's described in your post accurately reflects how Ethernet switches/cables work and what can and can't impact the data or signal passing through the switch.

If any of it was true, the entire digital universe wouldn't work as it currently does. If a switch could alter data reproduction, electronic banking (one of a million examples) simply wouldn't exist as a deposit of $10 might appear at the bank as a deposit of $12342132123 due to "switch noise". Does that sound rational in any way?

I fail to understand why people believe that audio carried via Ethernet somehow behaves differently than any other data carried via Ethernet.

 

[bfreedma]

Arguably you stooped lower then me from the beggining coming here arguing against products you newer listened to or have any experience with in an audiophile forum. This was mentioned also in the network audio youtube clip in my previous post.

By this definition, one would have to jump off a specific high building to prove gravity exists on any individual building. Are we seriously suggesting that known validated science needs to validated on a case by case basis? The burden of proof here is with the manufacturer - if they make claims counter to existing performance envelopes, they need to produce supporting evidence. And no, subjective testimonial are not hard evidence.

 

[Voxata]

Nice looking cable

Thank you, I build them mainly for looks and soft feel. Some report SQ improvements, I like to think maybe small sound differences can be had but nothing of revelation. Lack of microphonics is a plus for sure.

 

[dazzerfong]

Doesent seem perfect to me. Why would digital be perfect? Nothing is perfect, there are always grades and nuances in everything.
Streamed network audio isent perfect, cd often sound better becuase of all the noise pollution in the network.

I don't think you watched the video because it doesn't talk about that at all. It's talking about reconstruction errors which becomes noise during reconstruction. This error happens for all digital audio. The case it's making for 192kHz audio makes sense - less aggressive filters can be used if your bandwidth is 192kHz to prevent the filters for leaking over to the audible range.

No, nothing is perfect except digital: it either is all right, or all wrong. That's why CRCs exist - if it's wrong, you let the sender know so they resend.

Are you being daft on purpose?

 

[bluenight]

1. Does it really "seem to you" there are always data transmission errors in all the digital data you ever store and retrieve from all your digital devices and from the internet? Why would you or anyone else ever use digital devices or the internet if that were the case?

None of what's described in your post accurately reflects how Ethernet switches/cables work and what can and can't impact the data or signal passing through the switch.

If any of it was true, the entire digital universe wouldn't work as it currently does. If a switch could alter data reproduction, electronic banking (one of a million examples) simply wouldn't exist as a deposit of $10 might appear at the bank as a deposit of $12342132123 due to "switch noise". Does that sound rational in any way?

I fail to understand why people believe that audio carried via Ethernet somehow behaves differently than any other data carried via Ethernet.

In the video somewhere he said this doesent impact stored data like that exe you mention. Network streaming music is something that is happening live and if you turn of router/switch power it goes silent with no music heard. If you look at a downloaded picture from internet or once its uploaded on the page you can turn of internet and you still see the picture. With ethernet streaming music as source the timing is more critical and humans are more sensitive to hear that then we recently thought acording to Hans youtube clip. These voltages dont seem untouchable for music reproduction from streamed ethernet. Or otherwise at least something is happening that i cant explain other then all my posted theorys in this thread.

Jitter, grain, sibilance, phase distorsion, time smearing, rf/emi that kind or distorsion/noise.