Why pick on cables ?

[bigshot]

Have you ever given a cable a negative review?

He told me that his agreement with the manufacturers who gift him with the free swag is that he will only give a good review. If he doesn’t like the item, he won’t review it at all.

…and of course that will trigger the free swag to stop from that manufacturer. I doubt he’s ever done that. He just gives different flavors of good reviews.

 

[Davesrose]

…and of course that will trigger the free swag to stop from that manufacturer. I doubt he’s ever done that. He just gives different flavors of good reviews.

The category that amuses me most is audiophile ethernet devices. Especially useless ethernet noise isolators. I once engaged in a brand's announcement for one. There were some members asking how the device would do anything, and then those who bought them and could hear a difference because PCs are noisy. But it seemed a lot of the consensus was "well this is only $100, so even if there isn't much sound difference, why not?" But of course, more is better. So why not get another for the other end? Still, it's only $200! I'm sure there are some audiophiles spending enough on all that gear that they could have wired their house in cat7 with 10Gbps speeds-and then will have to wait a long time for home audio components that will support that!

 

[theveterans]

The category that amuses me most is audiophile ethernet devices. Especially useless ethernet noise isolators. I once engaged in a brand's announcement for one. There were some members asking how the device would do anything, and then those who bought them and could hear a difference because PCs are noisy. But it seemed a lot of the consensus was "well this is only $100, so even if there isn't much sound difference, why not?" But of course, more is better. So why not get another for the other end? Still, it's only $200! I'm sure there are some audiophiles spending enough on all that gear that they could have wired their house in cat7 with 10Gbps speeds-and then will have to wait a long time for home audio components that will support that!

Have you ever done an objective measurement for ethernet before dismissing it? There's some objective measurements out there that shows how could Ethernet affect phase noise at the DAC clock and thus can influence the overall sound

Example: bog standard Ethernet Phase noise:

Then: Audiophile Ethernet cable and Isolation

The audiophile ethernet cable and isolator lowered the phase noise by a significant margin along the lower frequencies

 

[Davesrose]

Have you ever done an objective measurement for ethernet before dismissing it? There's some objective measurements out there that shows how could Ethernet affect phase noise at the DAC clock and thus can influence the overall sound

Yes, I get reliable transmission speeds approaching 2.5Gbps. Last time I checked, even lossless high-res music gets up to 18Mbps. The arguments of clock timing is more moot with TCP/IP.

 

[theveterans]

Yes, I get reliable transmission speeds approaching 2.5Gbps. Last time I checked, even lossless high-res music gets up to 18Mbps. The arguments of clock timing is more moot with TCP/IP.

That’s why I don’t think in absolutes like you guys do. I present an objective measurement then dismiss it as it’s not aligning with my preconceived audio science beliefs

You don’t even know the importance of timing in audio and dismiss that too since Ethernet is buffered lol. Buffering has ZERO correlation to sound quality

 

[Davesrose]

That’s why I don’t think in absolutes like you guys do. I present an objective measurement then dismiss it as it’s not aligning with my preconceived audio science beliefs

In regards to your edit over noise-here's an article about noise and jitter when it comes to internet. It becomes more moot with local network. Notice the screens even show average 300Mbps. The article states that there can be noticeable artificing with internet speeds and data that requires higher bandwidth than digital audio.

https://www.howtogeek.com/824032/what-is-jitter/

Actually, I see you continued to edit the post to show a display on an oscilloscope. Maybe I did miss a lot of your exchange with VNandor about square waves in the 16bit is all you need thread.

 

[theveterans]

In regards to your edit over noise-here's an article about noise and jitter when it comes to internet. It becomes more moot with local network. Notice the screens even show average 300Mbps. The article states that there can be noticeable artificing with internet speeds and data that requires higher bandwidth than digital audio.

https://www.howtogeek.com/824032/what-is-jitter/

Again, jitter in internet packets has zero correlation to sound quality. Phase noise on the DAC clock OTOH is a meaningful parameter

 

[Davesrose]

Again, jitter in internet packets has zero correlation to sound quality. Phase noise on the DAC clock OTOH is a meaningful parameter

Then what is ethernet noise? Network data is digital yes? What does the measured noise on the DAC on the receiving end of audiophile ethernet switches and isolators have to do with ethernet noise? In the digital realm, whatever noise and jitter is acceptable as long as you have realized bandwidth. And we're in an age in which many people have ethernet speeds far exceeding the data bandwidth needed for uncompressed stereo music.

 

[theveterans]

Then what is ethernet noise? Network data is digital yes? What does the measured noise on the DAC on the receiving end of audiophile ethernet switches and isolators have to do with ethernet noise? In the digital realm, whatever noise and jitter is acceptable as long as you have realized bandwidth. And we're in an age in which many people have ethernet speeds far exceeding the data bandwidth needed for uncompressed stereo music.

Ethernet noise is noise (not on the original data) that makes the phase noise of a DAC clock perform worse than it should. The phase noise of a DAC clock (measured in dB/Hz, not jitter BTW) can NEVER be captured on the analog output of a steady state 1KHz FFT plot or steady state multitone measurements.

Bandwidth is never an issue with audio streaming on 1Gbps as does USB 2.0 specs (400 Mbps). Audio quality on Ethernet has to do with phase noise measured on the DAC (however, this is only 1 factor). There's also CMI EFI/RFI (measurable as well) which the AP555B can't ever ever measure

 

[chesebert]

The only portion of the Ethernet that has any relevance to sound quality is the last mile switch/cable from switch to your streamer/dac. The issue is not even data but ground plane noise, imperfect galvanic isolation and other noise related issues that creep into the streamer/dac. The data is by design perfect so long as the receiver operates according to the standard protocol ie it does a checksum calculation and throws out any packet that produces a checksum error.

Those streamers that use only SFP should be immune to upstream network devices.

 

[Davesrose]

Ethernet noise is noise (not on the original data) that makes the phase noise of a DAC clock perform worse than it should. The phase noise of a DAC clock (measured in dB/Hz, not jitter BTW) can NEVER be captured on the analog output of a steady state 1KHz FFT plot or steady state multitone measurements.

Bandwidth is never an issue with audio streaming on 1Gbps as does USB 2.0 specs (400 Mbps). Audio quality on Ethernet has to do with phase noise measured on the DAC (however, this is only 1 factor). There's also CMI EFI/RFI (measurable as well) which the AP555B can't ever ever measure

I'm sorry, you make no sense saying that you're not concerned with source noise, and then claiming phase noise of a DAC clock is really important (where jitter is considered BTW). Seems your argument is that you're seeing whatever noise you're measuring on a DAC from your oscilloscope to say any difference you see from a wave is from an ethernet cable. Here's a video going over nomenclature:



To get to your previous statement: "I present an objective measurement then dismiss it as it’s not aligning with my preconceived audio science beliefs"....why not first ask what measurement you're doing?

 

[bigshot]

My Ethernet transfers files, not streams. These files are buffered to make sure they don’t lose anything.

 

[Redcarmoose]

@Davesrose,
Yes, but if white wine was sour, everyone including your aunt would testify to the results. And that experience could be remembered for a long time. Those decay, timbre, pace terms are as real as anything, and there not perception because whole groups agree to the character.

No all the cables are still in ownership of the manufacturer. They will never take them back, and I could maybe give one away, but there is an unwritten law that states cables and IEMs, headphones supplied by the manufacturer for review can’t be sold, so I have them near, always.

Yes, I’m comparing them together, with various equipment. These subtle tonal changes and stage changes, this imaging character, this pace organization etc etc....is the main subject of this whole thread, and no science does not have the ability to test such things, and prove they exist in one place and not the other. Subjective hearing is a broad topic, but we all know different people hear differently.

 

[theveterans]

(where jitter is considered BTW)

JItter measured in the analog output of a DAC IS NOT the phase noise of the clock in the DAC. You have to isolate it to the clock ALONE

To get to your previous statement: "I present an objective measurement then dismiss it as it’s not aligning with my preconceived audio science beliefs"....why not first ask what measurement you're doing?

Phase noise DIRECTLY measured at the DAC Clock

 

[castleofargh]

JItter measured in the analog output of a DAC IS NOT the phase noise of the clock in the DAC. You have to isolate it to the clock ALONE







Phase noise DIRECTLY measured at the DAC Clock

And what evidence do they have that this changes much of anything audibly for music at the output of the DAC, or that it applies to most DACs? It's like the dude who did the false blind test while his buddy repeated throughout the listening that it wasn't a proper blind test and that it wasn't scientific, but he used it to argue whatever his belief was anyway. Or the same guy showing stuff measured in the MHz or whatever to "validate" audibility...
Can't you see on your own when an argumentation is full of holes and fails to follow the most basic rules of logic? For one thing to justify another, it would be nice if at least we had the concept of causality involved somewhere, instead of desperately fishing for possible correlations and then just jump to some conclusion that the "demonstration" did not in fact lead to.

It's the same crap with metals in the cable. All you guys care about is to be told it contains metal X and that you're feeling like something changed in the sound. If the color is different, then of course it's even more "audible". In fact, you're rarely really sure there was that audible change in sound(sometimes it did, sometimes not, your non test doesn't tell you which one it is you're feeling). And you just cherry-pick metal as a correlation to those feelings. That's it. Why even you feel like that's a reasonable argumentation is beyond me.

Establishing audibility? Nope. Establishing causality? Nope, correlation= causation. Feeling something = the sound did that. Those are the reasons why we "pick on cables". We don't, we just can't stop facepalming at all the flawed logic trying to justify what's clearly and factually proved to be flawed logic and flawed listening method. But who needs a demonstration or testing protocols, when we have pride and overconfidence to fill all the gaps? Well, I do.

You're not the one who brought this up, but clearly Ethernet router/switch/etc, aren't what this thread was discussing.