[bluenight]

Do you think the reseller or company is going to post any bad reviews they receive?

Yes i hope so.
Heres one
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/audioquest-big-sur-2-rca-to-2-rca-audio-cable#reviews

 

[moriez]

@Clive101

Do you plan on trying cables closer to the price of the Supra Cat 8, or any price competitive recommendations that you can make?

 

[Clive101]

I do not plan on trying a large number of cables of any cost. I just thought I would see if I could improve on the free cable.

My main preference is mid range and natural vocals. I find when I get a cable with high detail the highs on female voices begin to shriek or shout at me it could be the recording or me? Oh and I hate booming base and sibilance.

That is why I look for a good all rounder. The Chord Sarum T had detail and on most songs nice vocals but those highs on female vocals get me reaching for the volume control, it could be me, that is why you should demo a cable for your own taste.

Someone (who knows a lot more than me and did various comparisons) strongly recommended the Vodka Audioquest, so I will give that cable a try along with some others of the same brand, then I am done. It be a few weeks before I try them and I may request another try with the Chord Sarum T and possibly the Chord Music.

I found the USB Chord Sarum T better value than the Chord Music so who knows where I end up with but at the moment it's the free cable that came with the CX EX combo.

I do not do long A-B, looking for the inner most nuance its a quick flick though tracks and swap cables see what suits me, I always try a number of sessions putting a cover over the HiFi so at the beginning on the next session I have no idea what cable is playing. If I come up with the same preference of cable every time that's the cable I go with.

EDIT the SOtM dealer is going to resend a set of burnt in cables in a few weeks.

 

[gregorio]

Thanks for the information.

Huh, you're giving thanks for the blatantly obvious FALSE information/marketing BS?

Most sane people don't appreciate false marketing designed to sucker them out of their money but apparently some audiophiles are not only suckered by BLATANTLY OBVIOUS false marketing in the first place but are SO susceptible to audiophile marketing BS that they can never accept they've been suckered (even when confronted by the blatantly obvious nature of the false information) and actually give "thanks" to those who promote it, amazing!

Just saying, I don't think you're reaching through. Might as well call it a day.

Isn't that advice backwards and what is ruining the audiophile world? Shouldn't you be advising those promoting false information/marketing BS to "call it a day" rather than those of us trying to "reach through" with the actual facts?

Did you read the consumer review? They seemed pretty happy.

Why wouldn't they be? Why wouldn't a $200+ ethernet cable effectively work perfectly? Surely, it's only when they realise that a $10 ethernet cable would effectively work just as perfectly and therefore they've been suckered out of $190+, that they wouldn't be so happy and even then, who wants to admit they've been suckered? How is it possible that do you not know this?

How do you not know that some consumers are easily suckered, that some reviews/testimonials are invented by shills and that they're commonly cherry-picked, when all this is one of the oldest marketing tricks in the book, upon which the infamous "Snake Oil" relied but pre-dating it by decades. You've heard of snake oil, right? Yet this is what you accept as factually accurate over the actual obvious facts.

[1] My main preference is mid range and natural vocals. I find when I get a cable with high detail the highs on female voices begin to shriek or shout at me it could be the recording or me? Oh and I hate booming base and sibilance. That is why I look for a good all rounder.
[2] I found the USB Chord Sarum T better value ...

1. No, that is why sane people, engineers and those who create the recordings to which you listen use something called an EQ unit/processor, which can affect those things you mention, rather than ethernet cables which cannot. Have you really never heard of EQ or know what it does?

2. You mean the very cable that Chord was unable to defend and found guilty of false/misleading advertising but despite this (and the obvious facts of an ethernet network) you still believe it? It seems some people are not only suckers but actually WANT to be suckers!!

G

 

[dazzerfong]

Isn't that advice backwards and what is ruining the audiophile world? Shouldn't you be advising those promoting false information/marketing BS to "call it a day" rather than those of us trying to "reach through" with the actual facts?

G

It is, if that's your job. Although you're not wrong about your facts, and I do agree that the marketing BS is indeed BS, your arrogance and demeanor, charming as it is, obviously is not working.

 

[gregorio]

[1] It is, if that's your job.
[2] Although you're not wrong about your facts, and I do agree that the marketing BS is indeed BS, your arrogance and demeanor obviously is not working.

1. Again though, isn't that the problem? There are countless people whose "job" (what they're paid to do, for a living) is to create, disseminate or promote audiophile marketing BS but how many people have the "job" of disseminating or promoting the actual audio facts and refuting the audiophile marketing BS? Pretty much none, in fact, that "job" doesn't even exist!

2. But the arrogance and demeanour of those posting and promoting the marketing BS in this thread is working? What I'm posting is obviously not going to have any affect on the suckered zealots, regardless of my demeanour! However, hopefully a few people might read this thread who are actually capable of rational/critical thinking and who therefore realise that the actual facts are not dependent on my (or anyone else's) demeanour.

G

 

[andrewd01]

gregorio,

I don’t think you will convince anyone with such brief arguments. I think you need to expand on your points in considerable detail....




in the ’Sound Science’ forum.

Thanks

 

[bluenight]

I don't need to personally listen to different ethernet cables to know there can't be an audible difference,

I think your just practicing bad science without listening for yourself like Mark Jenkins stated. Anyone with a transparent music system and good ears can hear differences between audiophile ethernet cables no matter what you say. And you dont have to be an rocket scientist to hear that. Your the flat earther in this case not open for new discoveries.

I agree with Mark Jenkins from the cx link part 3.

"The problem for all of us in audio is that the relevant measurement tool – our ear-brain system – does not have a consistent numeric read-out. But measurement systems that do have a numeric read-out often
fail to explain what we hear. “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts”. This is one reason why we have the incessant and interminable polarised debates. Another reason is that some people take simple accepted mental models and dogmatically assume that
they are complete descriptions of reality. Ultimately, what really matters is experimental outcomes, not the theories. I can pose a theory as to why something happens, and it can be read as an explanation, but it is not an explanation, it is just a possible explanation that is my current best guess. People may want definitive explanations, but a true scientist would admit that there aren’t any. You really do need to do some listening for yourself."
https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/re...twork-player-reviews/antipodes-cx-ex-part3-2/

 

[dazzerfong]

1. Again though, isn't that the problem? There are countless people whose "job" (what they're paid to do, for a living) is to create, disseminate or promote audiophile marketing BS but how many people have the "job" of disseminating or promoting the actual audio facts and refuting the audiophile marketing BS? Pretty much none, in fact, that "job" doesn't even exist!

2. But the arrogance and demeanour of those posting and promoting the marketing BS in this thread is working? What I'm posting is obviously not going to have any affect on the suckered zealots, regardless of my demeanour! However, hopefully a few people might read this thread who are actually capable of rational/critical thinking and who therefore realise that the actual facts are not dependent on my (or anyone else's) demeanour.

G

1. It exists.

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-chord-company-ltd-a14-274211.html#.VLaZ1UyCOrU

Report it - I do. I also do it in the medical world with false claims via the consumer ombudsman. More often than not, most companies acquiesce.

2. Demeanour absolutely matters, especially in a social setting. That's why rules in forums exist.

I think your just practicing bad science without listening for yourself like Mark Jenkins stated. Anyone with a transparent music system and good ears can hear differences between audiophile ethernet cables no matter what you say. And you dont have to be an rocket scientist to hear that. Your the flat earther in this case not open for new discoveries.

I agree with Mark Jenkins from the cx link part 3.

"The problem for all of us in audio is that the relevant measurement tool – our ear-brain system – does not have a consistent numeric read-out. But measurement systems that do have a numeric read-out often
fail to explain what we hear. “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts”. This is one reason why we have the incessant and interminable polarised debates. Another reason is that some people take simple accepted mental models and dogmatically assume that
they are complete descriptions of reality. Ultimately, what really matters is experimental outcomes, not the theories. I can pose a theory as to why something happens, and it can be read as an explanation, but it is not an explanation, it is just a possible explanation that is my current best guess. People may want definitive explanations, but a true scientist would admit that there aren’t any. You really do need to do some listening for yourself."
https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/re...twork-player-reviews/antipodes-cx-ex-part3-2/

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...40-audiophile-ethernet-cable-and-look-inside/

Just so you know, all your 'Cat7' and 'Cat8' cables are actually Cat6a at best. If it's RJ45, it's automatically not a Cat7/8. Whole point of Cat7 was that the connector was too limiting, so they switched to other connectros. Cat6a was expanded to cover 10 Gigabit speeds, but only marginally as distance became an issue at those speeds.

Also, that's not bad science is. Bad science is not controlling for variables, which sighted listening is the opposite of. But I'm gonna be wandering into DBT territory here, so I'm gonna banned now.

I have a theory (completely theoretical) about why ethernet cables might make a difference in some servers and whatnot. That's because ethernet cables are often actually improperly shielded (different twisted pair lengths, poor dielectric, etc) that, in conjunction with poorly engineered devices, introduces noise.

That being said, why do a lot of the audiophile cables look like crap? Looks like some monkey with a heatgun and heatshrink just went to town on it.

 

[moriez]

1. Again though, isn't that the problem? There are countless people whose "job" (what they're paid to do, for a living) is to create, disseminate or promote audiophile marketing BS but how many people have the "job" of disseminating or promoting the actual audio facts and refuting the audiophile marketing BS? Pretty much none, in fact, that "job" doesn't even exist!

2. But the arrogance and demeanour of those posting and promoting the marketing BS in this thread is working? What I'm posting is obviously not going to have any affect on the suckered zealots, regardless of my demeanour! However, hopefully a few people might read this thread who are actually capable of rational/critical thinking and who therefore realise that the actual facts are not dependent on my (or anyone else's) demeanour.

G

Totally reminds me of guys aggressively barking how to play along the sideline of the soccer field. Not only a huge nuisance and takeaway of enjoyment for the majority of people there (read twice), you're simply at the wrong stadium! Your ''expertise'' is in hockey. And yet keeps whirlwinding, wreaking havoc. I think that's a personal issue ''G''.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I don’t think you will convince anyone with such brief arguments.
[2] I think you need to expand on your points in considerable detail....
[2a] in the ’Sound Science’ forum.

1. Firstly, that's fortunately NOT true. The vast majority of people have a basic understanding of what digital data is, they learnt it in school and they witness the perfect transmission of digital data countless times a day. In addition, there are a considerable number of people who have a significantly better understanding than the average 12 year old school child; network engineers, sound/music engineers, hardware and software system designers and engineers, to name just a few. So when you say "anyone" you of course can't mean "anyone", what you actually mean is a percentage of people within an extremely tiny, specific community. A specific community unlike any other, that is constantly bombarded with false marketing designed to misrepresent what digital data is (and how it works)!
Secondly, if your statement is true for members of this specific (audiophile) community, what a terrible indictment that is! You "don't think anyone" (within the audiophile community) will be convinced by brief arguments/statements of fact that pretty much everyone else already knows, probably even most school children!

2. Digital data is binary (a one or a zero) and is transmitted/transferred over ethernet (and other digital data transfer protocols) as a series of on/off pulses. I do NOT think I need to expand on those points in considerable detail, with two possible exceptions: A. Obviously, school children who have not yet learnt what digital data is or B. Someone who has been indoctrinated to dismiss the fundamental proven facts and instead believe false marketing BS.
2a. Not sure I understand. Are you saying the only place for simple statements of proven fact is the Sound Science forum, while this forum should be restricted to only indoctrinated repetitions of false marketing?

[1] I think your just practicing bad science without listening for yourself like Mark Jenkins stated.
[2] Anyone with a transparent music system and good ears can hear differences between audiophile ethernet cables no matter what you say.
[2a] And you dont have to be an rocket scientist to hear that.
[3] Your the flat earther in this case not open for new discoveries.

1. Huh? No he didn't, Mark Jenkins stated YOU are "just practising bad science"!! This (AGAIN) is what Mark Jenkins stated about bad science: "But inducing knowledge, unsupported by experimentation, to claim that it must also be trivial to transmit data to a system that has to process that data in near real time, is simply bad science. You need to conduct a relevant experiment. " - What part of that don't you understand?

2. And here we have it: Your made-up a statement of fact ("induced knowledge"), which is "unsupported by experimentation (a relevant experiment)". So, YOU cite Mark Jenkins, do EXACTLY what he states is "bad science" and then assert you think I'm the one practising bad science. How does that make any sense at all, even to you?
2a. Correct, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to do that. What you would HAVE TO BE is an alien or a cyborg! The signal passing through an ethernet cable (even an audiophile one!) is an on/off electrical pulse in the hundreds of MegaHertz frequency range. Regardless of how "good ears" you've got, NO human being can hear an electrical signal and even if it were an acoustic signal, no human being or any other living creature (on this planet) can hear frequencies in the hundreds of MegaHertz range. So, how is it not OBVIOUS to you that a listening test for differences between ethernet cables CANNOT be "a relevant experiment", that it's actually about the most irrelevant experiment imaginable?? Furthermore, what has "a transparent music system" got to do with anything? You're discussing ethernet networks/cables!

3. Again, HUH? What new discoveries? The "discovery" that binary digital data isn't binary digital data or the "discovery" that ethernet networks never give bit perfect results with cheap generic ethernet cables? The only "new discoveries" occurring here is new marketing BS, which couldn't be more proven/demonstrated to be false (by the very existence of the modern digital age)! And, "too right", I do my best to "not be open to" to every new marketing BS discovery (that contradicts the actual facts) because I personally want to avoid being an ignorant, gullible fool/sucker ... but apparently that's just me! And lastly, don't you even know what a flat-earther is? A flat-earther is someone "not open" to an extremely old discovery that has been demonstrated/proven beyond any rational doubt and instead believes some nonsense unsupported by "relevant experimentation". Which is exactly what you're doing!

Eat your heart out Monty Python!!

1. It exists. https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-chord-company-ltd-a14-274211.html#.VLaZ1UyCOrU
2. Demeanour absolutely matters, especially in a social setting. That's why rules in forums exist.

1. It doesn't exist to my knowledge. The example you've given is from people whose job it is to refute false marketing, not specifically false audiophile marketing and, their job is not "disseminating or promoting the actual audio facts".

2. Newton apparently had a poor demeanour, does that mean the facts he discovered are false and must be ignored? Should we only believe those with a good demeanour (say politicians and con-men) and, what has demeanour got to do with it anyway? You're argument might have some relevance if I had a bad demeanour and those arguing against the facts had a good demeanour but they don't!

G

 

[gregorio]

[1] Totally reminds me of guys aggressively barking how to play along the sideline of the soccer field.
[2] Not only a huge nuisance and takeaway of enjoyment for the majority of people there (read twice), you're simply at the wrong stadium! Your ''expertise'' is in hockey. And yet keeps whirlwinding, wreaking havoc. I think that's a personal issue ''G''.

1. Totally reminds me of guys aggressively barking that vaccinations cause autism.

2. Not sure I understand the analogy, are you saying that this forum is exclusively for the audio equivalent of anti-vaxxers? IE. The actual facts are nothing but "a huge nuisance" because none of the people here are audiophiles or interested in fidelity, they don't want any actual facts, they ONLY want false marketing. Therefore, I am "at the wrong stadium" because my "expertise" is in digital audio rather than in inventing false marketing, which is what "the majority of people there (read twice)" actually want. I can see how someone presenting the actual facts would "wreak havoc" in a marketing BS only "stadium". If this really is a forum where ONLY marketing BS is acceptable, why isn't that made clear? And why is this site called "Head-Fi" (Head-Fidelity) rather than "Head-Marketing BS only"?

G

 

[andrewd01]

1. Firstly, that's fortunately NOT true. The vast majority of people have a basic understanding of what digital data is, they learnt it in school and they witness the perfect transmission of digital data countless times a day. In addition, there are a considerable number of people who have a significantly better understanding than the average 12 year old school child; network engineers, sound/music engineers, hardware and software system designers and engineers, to name just a few. So when you say "anyone" you of course can't mean "anyone", what you actually mean is a percentage of people within an extremely tiny, specific community. A specific community unlike any other, that is constantly bombarded with false marketing designed to misrepresent what digital data is (and how it works)!
Secondly, if your statement is true for members of this specific (audiophile) community, what a terrible indictment that is! You "don't think anyone" (within the audiophile community) will be convinced by brief arguments/statements of fact that pretty much everyone else already knows, probably even most school children!

2. Digital data is binary (a one or a zero) and is transmitted/transferred over ethernet (and other digital data transfer protocols) as a series of on/off pulses. I do NOT think I need to expand on those points in considerable detail, with two possible exceptions: A. Obviously, school children who have not yet learnt what digital data is or B. Someone who has been indoctrinated to dismiss the fundamental proven facts and instead believe false marketing BS.
2a. Not sure I understand. Are you saying the only place for simple statements of proven fact is the Sound Science forum, while this forum should be restricted to only indoctrinated repetitions of false marketing?



1. Huh? No he didn't, Mark Jenkins stated YOU are "just practising bad science"!! This (AGAIN) is what Mark Jenkins stated about bad science: "But inducing knowledge, unsupported by experimentation, to claim that it must also be trivial to transmit data to a system that has to process that data in near real time, is simply bad science. You need to conduct a relevant experiment. " - What part of that don't you understand?

2. And here we have it: Your made-up a statement of fact ("induced knowledge"), which is "unsupported by experimentation (a relevant experiment)". So, YOU cite Mark Jenkins, do EXACTLY what he states is "bad science" and then assert you think I'm the one practising bad science. How does that make any sense at all, even to you?
2a. Correct, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to do that. What you would HAVE TO BE is an alien or a cyborg! The signal passing through an ethernet cable (even an audiophile one!) is an on/off electrical pulse in the hundreds of MegaHertz frequency range. Regardless of how "good ears" you've got, NO human being can hear an electrical signal and even if it were an acoustic signal, no human being or any other living creature (on this planet) can hear frequencies in the hundreds of MegaHertz range. So, how is it not OBVIOUS to you that a listening test for differences between ethernet cables CANNOT be "a relevant experiment", that it's actually about the most irrelevant experiment imaginable?? Furthermore, what has "a transparent music system" got to do with anything? You're discussing ethernet networks/cables!

3. Again, HUH? What new discoveries? The "discovery" that binary digital data isn't binary digital data or the "discovery" that ethernet networks never give bit perfect results with cheap generic ethernet cables? The only "new discoveries" occurring here is new marketing BS, which couldn't be more proven/demonstrated to be false (by the very existence of the modern digital age)! And, "too right", I do my best to "not be open to" to every new marketing BS discovery (that contradicts the actual facts) because I personally want to avoid being an ignorant, gullible fool/sucker ... but apparently that's just me! And lastly, don't you even know what a flat-earther is? A flat-earther is someone "not open" to an extremely old discovery that has been demonstrated/proven beyond any rational doubt and instead believes some nonsense unsupported by "relevant experimentation". Which is exactly what you're doing!

Eat your heart out Monty Python!!



1. It doesn't exist to my knowledge. The example you've given is from people whose job it is to refute false marketing, not specifically false audiophile marketing and, their job is not "disseminating or promoting the actual audio facts".

2. Newton apparently had a poor demeanour, does that mean the facts he discovered are false and must be ignored? Should we only believe those with a good demeanour (say politicians and con-men) and, what has demeanour got to do with it anyway? You're argument might have some relevance if I had a bad demeanour and those arguing against the facts had a good demeanour but they don't!

G

Still too brief. I want more detail....

 

[Krassi]

gregorio,

I think you convinced me with such brief arguments.

 

[moriez]

1. Totally reminds me of guys aggressively barking that vaccinations cause autism.

2. Not sure I understand the analogy, are you saying that this forum is exclusively for the audio equivalent of anti-vaxxers? IE. The actual facts are nothing but "a huge nuisance" because none of the people here are audiophiles or interested in fidelity, they don't want any actual facts, they ONLY want false marketing. Therefore, I am "at the wrong stadium" because my "expertise" is in digital audio rather than in inventing false marketing, which is what "the majority of people there (read twice)" actually want. I can see how someone presenting the actual facts would "wreak havoc" in a marketing BS only "stadium". If this really is a forum where ONLY marketing BS is acceptable, why isn't that made clear? And why is this site called "Head-Fi" (Head-Fidelity) rather than "Head-Marketing BS only"?

G

Right. So here we have two guys who can't be bothered with a single word they wrote. In the big picture that's interesting to me. In the here and now: I did my best to make a point about being on-topic. Ironically in the effort of showing how evidently out of place you are in my eyes (and some others), I might have gone much more off-topic. What a blast.. Most disappointing part is that you give the impression it was in vain because of absolutely zero sign of consideration/intake of the remarks about your troll-like behaviour.

Now, end for me. Making this my last post to at least give things a chance to breath and shift to more useful material. I know better but strongly suggesting you do the same.

Gentlemen.. how about some ethernet cable action?