[daggah]

cpurdy, but they do carry RFI and EMI that compromises the music streaming signal before it gets to a DAC. Of course you’ll deny this too because you don’t know what you’re talking about. You obviously have no experience with buying, setting up, or using streaming audio gear. Typing in all capital letters is what children do when they cannot back up their words with experience or expertise. Carry on. You’re absolutely too funny for words. Just like listening to music, you’re nothing more than a short moment of lite entertainment.

For the sake of argument, I'm gonna jump in here and reply to this post. Seems you're in scenario #2 territory - you think that standard networking (which is somehow sufficient for trillions of dollars worth of economic activity across datacenters servicing major financial institutions every year, human lives in our hospitals, and mission critical military systems all over the globe) degrades the audio signal compared to more expensive audiophile grade networking. And you think the mechanism by which this happens is RFI and EMI that compromises the signal. Interestingly, you think this occurs before it gets to a DAC, showing that you fundamentally don't understand any basic knowledge of how ethernet networking operates, because the music streaming signal doesn't yet EXIST before it gets to a DAC. It's all just data still at this point. But IF...and that's an impossibly big IF...the interference could compromise the "music streaming signal," please explain to me how it would do so in a predictable way. How would noise reduce soundstage and instrument separation? How would it render treble regions too bright or harsh?

By definition, signal noise is random. If signal noise from cheaper equipment were compromising any audio signal, it would manifest itself as static or distortions. It would not influence the audio signal in any form of repeatable, consistent way resulting in audio that sounds "less smooth" (contrasting with claims of "more smoothness" in the audiophile networking equipment listening experience), "more digital" (contrastic with "more analogue"), "more compressed" (compared to more spacious, an opened up soundstage, etc.)

In short...no matter how you cut it, the descriptions of the listening experience coming off this audiophile networking equipment are not consistent with any known reality driven by our experience with ethernet networking standards, how digital data operates, how electrical signals work, or even simple common sense.

 

[bpcans]

@daggah and @bfreedma, do either of you have any actual listening experience with network switches, Ethernet cables, or other network equipment, that could possibly add anything qualitative to this thread? Something along the lines of “I tried this, and it didn’t work, or “I tried that and it did help a little”. Please share with us what you’ve tried or would like to. How can you speak about something you haven’t listened to? Thanks

 

[griff500]

The idea that a digital ethernet cable with error correction protocols built into the TCP/IP networking model can modify a specific subset of data (the ones and zeroes that your DAC turns into audio at your headphones and speakers) is impossible.

Yet again, arguing against something that nobody has said.

Seriously, you surely must have something better to do...

These circular arguments that pollute these threads are really pointless. Nobody is obliged to provide you with evidence and nobody is interested in converting you. Perhaps you could reciprocate and accept that people have a different opinion to yours based on actually trying these things.

 

[daggah]

I don't need to experience gravity by jumping off all of the tallest buildings in the world to know it exists, dude. It's been demonstrated over and over to you and other subjectivists that the listening experience is not a reliable metric. Our ears are not measuring instruments, no matter how much confidence you arrogantly place in your own.

Address the actual rational arguments or admit that it's all in your head.

 

[daggah]

Yet again, arguing against something that nobody has said.

Seriously, you surely must have something better to do...

These circular arguments that pollute these threads are really pointless. Nobody is obliged to provide you with evidence and nobody is interested in converting you. Perhaps you could reciprocate and accept that people have a different opinion to yours based on actually trying these things.

There is no audio signal traveling on your ethernet cable.

Address the rational arguments I've presented, or admit finally once and for all that the difference is actually all in your head.

 

[daggah]

Repeating a flawed test endlessly does not make it any more valid.

On the contrary. If a test is truly flawed, then repeatability will eventually expose the problems because the results will be inconsistent.

Your argument is like saying that math is flawed, insisting that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 even though every time it's been tried, it still comes out to 4.

 

[bfreedma]

I don't need to experience gravity by jumping off all of the tallest buildings in the world to know it exists, dude. It's been demonstrated over and over to you and other subjectivists that the listening experience is not a reliable metric. Our ears are not measuring instruments, no matter how much confidence you arrogantly place in your own.

Address the actual rational arguments or admit that it's all in your head.

The entire “science is only valid if you’ve physically tested it yourself” is absurd, particularly since those suggesting it can provide zero technical rational for why the differences would exist. It’s a way of avoiding all factual data and operational knowledge by suggesting group think on the internet somehow supersedes decades of hard data. I suppose the same people would argue that bigfoot exists and the earth is flat because some people on the internet (some with a profit motive) say so.

I’d make a longer post, but I just read on the internet that injecting Ethernet cables with horse dewormer improves audio. Prove me wrong…

 

[bfreedma]

On the contrary. If a test is truly flawed, then repeatability will eventually expose the problems because the results will be inconsistent.

Your argument is like saying that math is flawed, insisting that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 even though every time it's been tried, it still comes out to 4.

I’m sure if you put an ”audiophile“ switch in your network, your computer would add 2+2 and get a result of 19384. Have you actually used a spreadsheet with an audiophile switch in your network? If not, we can’t trust your math. /s

 

[daggah]

Nah, that can't be true. Only certified Audioquest horse dewormer sold at 1000% markup could possibly improve the audio signal. Otherwise you won't get the benefits of a more analogue, musical sound.

 

[griff500]

I don't need to experience gravity by jumping off all of the tallest buildings in the world to know it exists, dude.

Not that rubbish again. Has anyone claimed that they have jumped off the tallest building in the world and it turned out just fine?

Demanding that people prove this to you or accept that they are imagining it is just ridiculous.

I suggested that you must have something better to do but I was clearly wrong. Given your date of joining and your focus on this topic I wonder if this is a duplicate account for a current member as it all seems very familiar and repetitive.

One for the ignore button, as I have far better things to do.

 

[daggah]

Ad hominems don't help your case.

Edit - I can't help but wonder for the people willing to spend thousands of dollars on this stuff. Do you think audiophile snake oil exists, and if so, what is your threshold? Where does the legitimate stuff end and snake oil begin?

 

[bfreedma]

Not that rubbish again. Has anyone claimed that they have jumped off the tallest building in the world and it turned out just fine?

Demanding that people prove this to you or accept that they are imaging it is just ridiculous.

I suggested that you must have something better to do but I was clearly wrong. Given your date of joining and your focus on this topic I wonder if this is a duplicate account for a current member as it all seems very familiar and repetitive.

One for the ignore button, as I have far better things to do.

Why is it rubbish? Insisting one must experiment for themselves is the very basis for your position. Outside of audio, do you blindly accept things that fly in the face of known science?

When you can’t support your position with facts, it’s always best to ignore the other side of the debate. That strategy has been used by those espousing religion over science for millennia.

 

[bpcans]

@bfreedma, where and when did you graduate from a school of engineering?

 

[bfreedma]

@bfreedma, where and when did you graduate from a school of engineering?

Sorry, but not doxxing myself on the Internet. It’s also irrelevant to the conversation- what we are discussing would in no way be influenced by my educational background, either positively or negatively. Nice attempt to deflect.

As stated before, I have over 3 decades of experience with Ethernet including design and implementation of high risk environments- the kind of places where incorrect data can cost lives. Suffice it to say that my clients are satisfied enough with my documented work history and domain knowledge to risk 7 figure fines or worse if I’m wrong. I’m also a member of one of the 802 committees.

Now, please share your qualifications that enable you to question the operational functionality of Ethernet and it’s supporting devices. Or lacking that, any actual objective evidence that supports your position.

 

[bpcans]

@bfreedma, what would you accept as objective evidence? I know of a person who has patents in aeronautical engineering, but vehemently denies that two planes flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11. Why do I have to prove anything to you about what I hear with my own ears? Obviously you’re a cable denier with no actual physical experience in streaming audio. Fine. Now you’re just a troll who has nothing substantive to add to the conversation beyond your contrarianism. Good day.