[iFi audio]

The people who find a positive difference in their system are right, as are the people who do not detect such a difference in their system.

Exactly. There's no ultimate right and wrong here.

The only issue I ever have with these discussions is with people who have not tried something denying it could possibly make a difference and denying the experience of others. I'll never understand the obsession some people have with telling others that they are wrong.

Yes, that is the unfortunate side of this hobby, but on the upside it has many cool sides too!

 

[gregorio]

Computers, smartphones and telecoms are all analogue. DACs are actually AACs (analogue to analogue converters). Ethernet cables and switches carry analogue signals. There is no digital age, it’s actually an analogue age.

There you go, no need for anyone here get irate anymore.

G

 

[Mark200]

Computers, smartphones and telecoms are all analogue. DACs are actually AACs (analogue to analogue converters). Ethernet cables and switches carry analogue signals. There is no digital age, it’s actually an analogue age.

There you go, no need for anyone here get irate anymore.

G

Computers are analogue? Not when they are transmitting data over Ethernet.

I worked in IT for 40 years with large enterprise computing systems that require 100% digital data accuracy. The network components (switches, routers, cables, etc) have mechanisms to detect data transmission errors and cause a resubmitting the data transmission if any errors occur (or it could just reject the data if the error is persistent). There is no ambiguity as to whether the data is correct or not, since it consists of (an extremely large number) of either 0's or 1's.

The problem is that when it comes to digital music or video transmission over a network (as opposed to regular data transmission) some of the software used to process digital music or video is designed to skip over errors (and try to fix the errors with some kind of interpolation), which could cause some deterioration of the music or video playback quality. This is done because it is thought that a minimal number of errors are not audible or visible if the bad data is just skipped or filled-in with interpolated data.

But the software to process digital music can also be configured to demand re-transmission or just reject the digital music or video stream if there are any errors (just like it always does for data). For example, in iTunes, when ripping a music CD, you have the option to demand that errors not be skipped over, and if an error cannot be fixed by retransmission, the playback will just stop and report an error. If you are trying to read a data CD, computer systems will not tolerate any problem with the data. That is why music CD's and DVD's usually work even if they are heavily scratched, because the software used to read them will just skip over the errors.

The issue of whether there are differences in the quality of music or video depending on the quality of digital transmissions (switches, routers, cables, etc) and whether they are audible, is a question that will never be resolved until people are willing to conduct double-blind testing. But we all know that is not going to happen.

So my recommendation is that don't be overly concerned about the quality of switches, routers, cables, etc used in digital data transmission. I don't mean you should always get the cheapest ones, but paying large sums for "audiophile" versions is not wise. I say that having worked with extremely large computer systems that process 100's of thousands of transactions per second over a single network connection that is needed for financial transactions that are far more important in terms of 100% accuracy than is needed for music or video.

 

[griff500]

I say that having worked with extremely large computer systems that process 100's of thousands of transactions per second over a single network connection that is needed for financial transactions that are far more important in terms of 100% accuracy than is needed for music or video.

Part of the problem is thinking that data integrity is all that matters. Financial transactions don't need to sound good (other than 'kerching' perhaps).

You are quite right though, it is a question that will not be resolved, despite some thinking that they know all there is to know.

 

[Mark200]

Part of the problem is thinking that data integrity is all that matters. Financial transactions don't need to sound good (other than 'kerching' perhaps).

You are quite right though, it is a question that will not be resolved, despite some thinking that they know all there is to know.

Financial transaction have to be transmitted in the digital domain with 100% accuracy. If music or video is transmitted in the digital domain with 100% accuracy, any quality problems with the ultimate sound you hear are not related to the transmission of the data, and therefore not related to switches, routers, or digital cables (unless those components are exhibiting problems that can be detected and reported by the network software, which can be configured to be rejected).

In some cases, these digital components can carry electrical noise from one component to another, but that noise does not affect the accuracy of the digital signal itself. Making sure that all the network components are properly grounded to the same electrical circuit if possible, is more important than whether the component is audiophile rated.

The biggest issues of music quality comes into play when the digital signal is converted to analogue (DAC), or from analogue to digital. Also important is when converting an electrical signal to sound waves (speakers, headphones), or when converting sound waves to electrical signals (microphones). Problems can also occur in the processing of analogue electrical signals (pre-amps- amps, etc).

 

[griff500]

any quality problems with the ultimate sound you hear are not related to the transmission of the data, and therefore not related to switches, routers, or digital cables

As I said @Mark200 , it's not about data integrity or accuracy. Nobody has ever argued, to my knowledge, that some notes were missing or flat before they changed their USB cable...

This topic asks for people to share their listening experience, yet it seems full of people saying it makes no difference without actually sharing their specific listening experience upon which they have based that conclusion.

Weird.

 

[Mark200]

As I said @Mark200 , it's not about data integrity or accuracy. Nobody has ever argued, to my knowledge, that some notes were missing or flat before they changed their USB cable...

This topic asks for people to share their listening experience, yet it seems full of people saying it makes no difference without actually sharing their specific listening experience upon which they have based that conclusion.

Weird.

Here is a ping from my Windows PC to my Zen Stream. Note that the IP address of the ZS (192.168.1.101) was assigned by DHCP on my Ethernet Router/WiFi device supplied by my ISP that connects all the devices in my local home network to each other and also out to the Internet via fiber direct into the router.

PS C:\> ping ifi.local

Pinging ifi.local [192.168.1.101] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.101:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 1ms

Note that the "PS" stands for Windows "Power Shell" used to submit the ping command.

Note that there was was no packet loss (0% loss) in the ping command above (Ethernet data is contained in "packets" the integrity of which is verified). My local network operates at 1 Gbps (1000 Mbps) speed on a high quality Cat 5e cable, and then at 375 Mbps out to the Internet. So long as that is the case, the Router and the Ethernet cable cannot be the cause of any change in the sound. Obviously, there are Ethernet cables or devices that cannot reliably support high transmission speeds consistently without data loss, but it is not necessary to buy audiophile version to fix that, just buy higher quality cable, etc (not the outrageous prices charged for the audiophile versions).

It is "possible" that cable can pickup or transfer electrical noise from one device to another, but that noise is not part of the digital Ethernet signal, and can usually be solved (if it exists) by proper grounding of components and by the receiving device filtering out that noise so it doesn't get into the analogue signal path.

Those that claim that very expensive audiophile routers/switches or audiophile Ethernet Cable (Cat 5e, Cat 6, Cat 7, etc) can change the sound would have to undergo a double-blind listening test for me to believe them.

However, I will admit that when I thoroughly vacuum and clean my car interior, and wash the exterior, it seems to run better. I am not kidding.

 

[griff500]

It is "possible" that cable can pickup or transfer electrical noise from one device to another, but that noise is not part of the digital Ethernet signal, and can usually be solved (if it exists) by proper grounding of components and by the receiving device filtering out that noise so it doesn't get into the analogue signal path.

Those that claim that very expensive audiophile routers/switches or audiophile Ethernet Cable (Cat 5e, Cat 6, Cat 7, etc) can change the sound would have to undergo a double-blind listening test for me to believe them.

It isn't anyone's job to convince you by spending time undertaking tests that wouldn't convince you anyway.

People have to try these things for themselves and draw their own conclusions, but it really is best to draw a conclusion based on some experience rather than theory. Even then, it's really only relevant to you - your ears, your system and your room - and doesn't mean that the same thing would or wouldn't work for someone else.

Routers, switches, etc, will generally usecheap power supplies and controlling noise is not something they need to consider.

One of the more noticeable cables I tried was an ethernet cable. Perhaps all it was doing was limiting transfer of 'noise' from the router's ultra-cheap, noise-not-an-issue power supply, perhaps something else. Regardless, it made a noticeable and repeatable difference to the sound.

 

[gregorio]

Computers are analogue?

No, obviously none of that paragraph was correct but I was informed that arguing about it was making some people irate, so I posted that paragraph to agree with them, even though it's completely false nonsense.

For example, in iTunes, when ripping a music CD, you have the option to demand that errors not be skipped over, and if an error cannot be fixed by retransmission, the playback will just stop and report an error. If you are trying to read a data CD, computer systems will not tolerate any problem with the data. That is why music CD's and DVD's usually work even if they are heavily scratched, because the software used to read them will just skip over the errors.

No, that's not how CDs/DVDs work. With the ethernet protocol, errors are detected and the affected packets are retransmitted, as you described. However, it's impractical for a laser in a CD player to jump around the disk re-reading and retransmitting any affected data, the data is read sequentially at a specific rate. So at this point of reading, you're correct, errors are effectively just skipped. However, that's not the end of the story: As the retransmission method of error correction isn't practical, CD/DVD use a different type of error correction, Reed-Solomon error correction. Embedded in the audio data is a bunch of redundant data, after the audio data has been read but before it's converted, the data is processed and the redundant data is used to not only detect if there were any errors but to perfectly reconstruct the original data. So the only time there can be any errors in the audio data sent to the converter is when there are so many errors that it overwhelms the error correction, in which case you get "drop-outs". When you rip a CD and play the resulting audio data file on software/a player other than a CD player, this Reed-Solomon processing step probably won't occur and the read errors will not get corrected. This is why iTunes and some other CD ripping software provides the option to correct errors at the point of reading.

Note that there was was no packet loss (0% loss) in the ping command above (Ethernet data is contained in "packets" the integrity of which is verified).

Some here effectively don't believe that digital audio data exists, they seem to think it's something else, analogue audio or even (acoustic) sound. Your post was therefore a waste of time because no amount of proven facts or evidence about digital data or it's integrity can make any difference to those who do not believe that digital data is digital data to start with. ...

Part of the problem is thinking that data integrity is all that matters. Financial transactions don't need to sound good (other than 'kerching' perhaps).

Digital financial transactions, digital audio, digital images or digital whatever, are all just numbers (zeroes and ones) and numbers do not have any sound, look, taste or smell. As digital audio is zeroes and ones that cannot have have any sound then obviously they can't and don't "need to sound good". If digital audio did not exist and instead what we are transmitting over ethernet was sound, then you're correct, it would "need to sound good" but likewise, if we're transmitting a photograph over ethernet then the data would need to look good, and the data for a scan of a hamburger would need to taste good. We would need a whole bunch of different ethernet switches and cables for each of these different types of "data" and how would an ethernet cable make the data look good, taste good or smell good anyway? And, if what comes out of an audiophile ethernet cable "sounds good" why do DACs and speakers/HPs still exist, why don't we just listen to the good sound that's coming out of the digital cable?

[1] You are quite right though, it is a question that will not be resolved, [2] despite some thinking that they know all there is to know.

1. The question was resolved nearly a century ago, was proven 75 years ago and then demonstrated to be true in practice 70 years ago.
2. If someone doesn't know that 1+1=2, wouldn't someone else who knows not only how to do simple arithmetic but simple multiplication and division as well, appear to know all there is to know? You don't need to know all there is to know in order to understand that digital data exists and what it is, that's why we can teach it to school kids and university students.

G

 

[Mark200]

No, that's not how CDs/DVDs work. With the ethernet protocol, errors are detected and the affected packets are retransmitted, as you described. However, it's impractical for a laser in a CD player to jump around the disk re-reading and retransmitting any affected data, the data is read sequentially at a specific rate. So at this point of reading, you're correct, errors are effectively just skipped. However, that's not the end of the story: As the retransmission method of error correction isn't practical, CD/DVD use a different type of error correction, Reed-Solomon error correction. Embedded in the audio data is a bunch of redundant data, after the audio data has been read but before it's converted, the data is processed and the redundant data is used to not only detect if there were any errors but to perfectly reconstruct the original data. So the only time there can be any errors in the audio data sent to the converter is when there are so many errors that it overwhelms the error correction, in which case you get "drop-outs". When you rip a CD and play the resulting audio data file on software/a player other than a CD player, this Reed-Solomon processing step probably won't occur and the read errors will not get corrected. This is why iTunes and some other CD ripping software provides the option to correct errors at the point of reading.

I don't want to complicate this any further, but when an Ethernet router is used to connect a home network or to connect to the Internet, the TCP/IP (transmission control protocol - Internet protocol) is used with Ethernet. It is "possible" to use other protocols with Ethernet besides TCP/IP, but that would require a different kind of Ethernet router. Also, TCP/IP can be run on Token Ring (IBM's proprietary network layer before Ethernet came along).

Ethernet transmits the frames from one node to the next and only guarantees that if the frame arrives, it arrived intact. If a frame goes missing, Ethernet is none the wiser. However, the TCP part of TCP/IP ensures that the entire set of data (all frames) has been delivered intact.

 

[audiobomber]

Another thousand paragraphs from technocrats won't change my mind. Ethernet cables, switches and associated power supplies all matter to me, because that's what I hear in my listening tests. Substituting a single ethernet cable for another in my four-cable chain will change the sound, and can increase or completely spoil my enjoyment.

I have no objection to blind testing, but I don't see how it can be accomplished given my listening methodology. Short term listening trials lead to errors. Only longer term listening will show the true characteristics of a cable change, and the change should be reversed whenever practical, as a final check. A cable that sounds dynamic and detailed on first listen can become fatiguing over time. Some cables pull me into the music, some don't, and I end thinking about something else while the music plays.

I started experimenting with ethernet cables in November 2017 with the purchase of an Audioquest Pearl CAT7. This purchase established that ethernet cables do affect sound, contrary to my beliefs and common sense, so I continued to experiment. I purchased generic CAT6, 6a, 7 and CAT8 cables, in 18", 3ft and 6ft lengths, from Amazon, for under $20 each. All sounded different, most had some good qualities but also flaws that kept me looking. I kept reading praise for the Supra CAT8, so I bought three of those from eBay. The Supra has some great qualities, but too bright for my system and lacks bass heft. I can't keep it in the system for more than a day. My favourite is the Yauhody CAT8, and that is what I use exclusively now.

A friend will be lending me some Audio Sensibility cables for a few days later this week; Supra CAT8, cryogenically treated and terminated with Telegartner connectors, and the more costly Signature cable. Should be fun. I'll report my findings here, which may help fellow audiophiles and also make gregorio and Mark200 apoplectic.
https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...8-Ethernet-Cable/p/380224641/category=4059160
https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...able-***-New-***/p/322022400/category=4059160

Network gear: QNAP 451+ NAS, Netgear GS-305 switch, TP-Link Archer C9 router, TP-Link 580D wi-fi to ethernet bridge (no broadcast), LNF-C8G LAN Isolator, Uptone etherRegen. All except the NAS and etherRegen have upgraded power supplies. Ethernet cables are short lengths of Yauhody CAT8.
Audio gear: exaSound PlayPoint streamer, exaSound e32 Mk II DAC, Meitner MTR-101 Plus monoblocks, Bamberg S5-MTM speakers,
mini-DSP 2x4 for subs only; LR2@48Hz Low Pass, AV123 Rocket UFW10 stereo (L&R) subwoofers with Dayton SPA250 amps
Curious USB cable, Cardas Neutral Reference interconnects and bi-wire speaker cables. All components sit on IsoAcoustics or Auralic isolators.

 

[griff500]

I don't want to complicate this any further, but when an Ethernet router is used to connect a home network or to connect to the Internet, the TCP/IP (transmission control protocol - Internet protocol) is used with Ethernet. It is "possible" to use other protocols with Ethernet besides TCP/IP, but that would require a different kind of Ethernet router. Also, TCP/IP can be run on Token Ring (IBM's proprietary network layer before Ethernet came along).

Ethernet transmits the frames from one node to the next and only guarantees that if the frame arrives, it arrived intact. If a frame goes missing, Ethernet is none the wiser. However, the TCP part of TCP/IP ensures that the entire set of data (all frames) has been delivered intact.

Nobody denies that data is data or argues about data integrity. Ensuring as little noise as possible from the beginning of the chain seems to me to be a good thing and in my experience impacts upon the sound produced by the system.

 

[Mark200]

A friend will be lending me some Audio Sensibility cables for a few days later this week; Supra CAT8, cryogenically treated and terminated with Telegartner connectors, and the more costly Signature cable. Should be fun. I'll report my findings here, which may help fellow audiophiles and also make gregorio and Mark200 apoplectic.

Just so you know, I have been an audiophile a lot longer (50+ years) than I worked in the computer business (about 40 years). I am long past the point of becoming apoplectic about what some audiophiles say.

The point is that transmitting digital data from one device to another via Ethernet and TCP/IP has by far the best accuracy (which is 100% accuracy) in the audio chain. Transforming data from digital to analogue (DAC) is next easiest, although there are different methods for doing that and there definitely be audible differences. Then comes the really hard parts, converting analogue electrical signals to sound waves (speakers or headphones), or converting sound waves to electrical signals (microphones), or converting physical waves to electrical signals (a phono stylus).

There are also obvious audible differences in the amplification of analogue signals to make them playable on a speaker or headphone.

My only suggestion is that people spend the most time and money on the hard parts mentioned above, and given the subject matter of this website, on headphones specifically. If someone has spent a lot of money on getting the best headphones, best amps, and best DAC's, and they have plenty of money left over to spend on fancy Ethernet cables or audiophile switches/routers, that is OK with me, but not something I would normally recommend until all the other issues in the chain have been exhausted.

As I was writing this comment, UPS just delivered my $1,100 Drop-Sennheiser HD-8XX headphones. I hope I like them. That's where I am putting my money.

 

[Mark200]

Nobody denies that data is data or argues about data integrity. Ensuring as little noise as possible from the beginning of the chain seems to me to be a good thing and in my experience impacts upon the sound produced by the system.

Usually, special Ethernet cables or audiophile switches are not the way to do that. Most audiophile devices already have ways to reduce electrical noise, and the most important thing is that the noise is not inside the digital data itself. Each device in the chain, including a streamer, DAC, headphone amp, etc can theoretically pick up noise (not just from the upstream signal), and removing it upfront by adding an audiophile network switch early in the chain is not going to help if the downstream components have any electrical noise by themselves.

 

[griff500]

Usually, special Ethernet cables or audiophile switches are not the way to do that. Most audiophile devices already have ways to reduce electrical noise, and the most important thing is that the noise is not inside the digital data itself. Each device in the chain, including a streamer, DAC, headphone amp, etc can theoretically pick up noise (not just from the upstream signal), and removing it upfront by adding an audiophile network switch early in the chain is not going to help if the downstream components have any electrical noise by themselves.

Which brings me back to my earlier post – everything matters to a greater or lesser extent.