# Ethernet cables, Switches and Network related. Based on listening is it worth to buy more expensive ones? Share your listening experience.



## bluenight (Sep 4, 2021)

Have you had any experience with hearing sound improvement when uppgrading from standard one to more expensive ones?

I think i can stretch my self to these ones regarding ethernet cables 5m lenght

£66
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/supra-cat8-flame-retardant-ethernet-cable#reviews

£55.00
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/audioquest-cat7-pearl-rj-e-ethernet-cable-custom

I dont think the costumer reviewers lies when they say they here improvement in bass and detail from generic ones.

Edit. Yes very worth it in my case. Now that i have been using the supra cat 8 for months now replacing all my generic old cat5e utp ethernet cables in the audio chain and i also bought an switch at the same time to have between router instead of ethernet cables to audio gear direct from router. Switches aparantly have galvanic seperated ports which isolate noise from router. I bought Netgear GS108.

Replacing the router and switch generic power supply with ifi i power x improved soundquality further with cleaner and smoother sound, more analogue sounding, better bass quality, like pressing an high res button. I have only heard the improvements with wired ethernet connection so not with wifi.

I can say this is an overlooked area to get great sound in streamed audio. I say and hear its one of the importent foundations to get great sound in streamed audio . Before my system was to bright and harsh to play loud, not anymore now its more rewarding to play loud. Now the sound is more fuller/analogue sounding/smooth with better musicality and joy/more refined/more air/better separation/HP disapear more so better soundstage.

Best explanation i know of how it can make a difference.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386


----------



## walakalulu

I was wondering too. How about this: https://www.chord.co.uk/new-epic-usb-digital-audio-interconnect/


----------



## bluenight

walakalulu said:


> I was wondering too. How about this: https://www.chord.co.uk/new-epic-usb-digital-audio-interconnect/


Should be better then standard. Google for reviewes. Go for it or look for other well reviewed cables imo.


----------



## bluenight (Aug 18, 2019)

walakalulu said:


> I was wondering too. How about this: https://www.chord.co.uk/new-epic-usb-digital-audio-interconnect/


Try this maybe? They have 60 days money back garuantee. The costumer reviews sound promising And some expert reviews in the info text.

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/tellurium-q-black-usb-type-a-to-type-b-cable#reviews


----------



## bluenight (Jan 18, 2020)

Just replaced my generic cat 5 ethernet cable to my streamer from switch with Supra cat 8 ethernet cable. Before i had also replaced the generic cat 5 ones with supra cat 8 from internet fiber outlet to router and from router to switch. So Supra cat 8 all the way now.

I do hear an improvement its not night and day but i do hear some more opening up of the sounds and more refinement, more clarity/blacker background and more details/textures, better bass but all frequency ranges sound better, and wider soundstage and less harshness.

The bigest strenght i like with this cable is its musicality i enjoy the music more. So worth it for me .

Weakness not the most blackest background.


----------



## bluenight (Jan 4, 2020)

Some good reading on ethernet cables imo.
https://audiobacon.net/2017/05/31/s...-an-amazing-spotify-and-tidal-experience/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/audiob...l-edition-the-flavors-of-audiophile-ethernet/

https://audiobacon.net/2019/11/02/the-jcat-signature-lan-a-1000-ethernet-cable/amp/

https://darko.audio/2014/12/global-feedback-can-ethernet-cables-make-a-difference/

https://darko.audio/2015/02/audioquest-pearl-and-vodka-ethernet-cable-review/


----------



## judomaniak57

A bunch of audio nerds and myself hang out at the local stereo shop. lots of hi end stuff, on Saturdays we play with different cables  and do tweaks. one time it was different hi end ether net cables from the same company price range from 50$ to 800$. heard a difference with every cable we tried. most expensive was very smooth almost analog sounding. even the cheapest was a huge difference over cheap old no name ethernet cable . find price range u r comfortable with and go for it, better then stock ethernet cables


----------



## MrDelicious

bluenight said:


> Have you had any experience with hearing sound improvement when uppgrading from standard one to more expensive ones?.



Lol no. Ethernet cables are binary, they either work or don't. There are no parameters what so ever that would result in changes in sound.


----------



## bluenight (Jan 14, 2020)

MrDelicious said:


> Lol no. Ethernet cables are binary, they either work or don't. There are no parameters what so ever that would result in changes in sound.


Yes in how they take up RF/EMI or not and how much they send it in to your electronics.

Also heard it myself as i wrote in previous post.

https://darko.audio/2014/12/global-feedback-can-ethernet-cables-make-a-difference/


----------



## MrDelicious

bluenight said:


> Yes in how they take up RF/EMI or not and how much they send it in to your electronics.
> 
> Also heard it myself as i wrote in previous post.
> 
> https://darko.audio/2014/12/global-feedback-can-ethernet-cables-make-a-difference/


Ethernet cables are not analogue cables, the data isn't streamed in real time. It's sent as packets and if there is a packet error, the packet is sent again. The received packets are buffered in the client memory and then streamed to DAC. I'm obviously skipping steps here, but the point is if there is an erroneous data, it will be fixed in .01ms and never even reach the listener.

Darko is snake oil peddler, he's not providing any data to support his "theory" (read: ad campaign) and keeps pushing people to buy cables in the comments so "they can hear the difference themselves".


----------



## Ards

Yes, ethernet cables make a difference.  I wish they didn't.

Should also look at LAN isolators such as Pink Faun.  These can bring large improvements in sound.


----------



## kelvinwsy

Ards said:


> Yes, ethernet cables make a difference.  I wish they didn't.
> 
> Should also look at LAN isolators such as Pink Faun.  These can bring large improvements in sound.


Hearing is believing! My hearing experience is:
1. Brandless Cat 6 cable - sounds lifeless and FLAT
2. JSSG 360 with earth cable to a Earth connection on the distribution power strip 
3. Ferrite cores - at least 3 - 1 on each end and 1 in the midde
Sound stage comes alive after at least 50 hours burn in

Next step
New out of the packing Cat 8 - plug and play - UGH! Flat and lifeless compared to Hacked Cat 6

Swapped back the Hacked Cat 6 - 5 secs you can hear the SQ come back immediately

Next Step
1. Cat 8 - Nail polish/varnish to coat insulating coat on the metal connectors on both ends -
AH! AH! - Sounds promising

Next Step
1. 4 layer thick - 3 levels of Aluminium Foil with insulation layer inbetween each level of EMF/RFI shielding 
Earthed connected at each end at connector - Basically JSSG 360 treatment
2. Earth wire at one end connecting all 3 levels of Al Foil and then connected to Earth pin on Furutech power strip
3. 3 - 5 Ferrite cores under the first level of EMF/RFI shield level.
4. Burn in at least 50 hours on YouTube/CNBC High video data flow 
5. Applied another 2 coats of Nail Polish on end metal connectors - Total 6 coats - Hard baked in with my Hot Air gun!

Swop in and out comparison with hacked Cat 6 - Hmmh !!! - Definitely smoother across the Frequency spectrum! Deeper and Wider Sound stage - The Bass extension and Punch!! - Very noticeable. Background very quiet very dark and PEACEFULLY Silent!
This is for 1 hacked Cat 8 swopped for 1 hacked Cat 6.

One more hacked CAT 8 was installed - Eagles on Hell Freezes Over - Gets better and better. The Lead in Intros on Guitars picking and the Congos - Just gets more and more Air! More impactful - Just Wonderful

2 more Cat 8s to hack - Ran out of Ferrite Cores - ordered some 20 more 13 / 9mm ID ferrite cores to install on 2 cables - These will connect the SOTM Ultra Neo to my DAC through the ISOREGEN to the EtherRegen from Uptone Audio (Coming in Jan 2020 delivery) and a Second Hacked Cat 8 to my HQPlayer Server.
1 more Cat 8 to be hacked will connect my EtherRegen to my Netgear GS105 switch and
1 more Cat 8 to connect GS 105 to my Asus AC86 Router - No connection to my Internet Provider Broadband Router _ NO Need to  have a connection !! SOTM Ultra works well without actual internet connection. SQ is Quieter and smoother!

All units are on 12 V DC Linear PSU - Nothing fancy just China made gear. But each unit is on its OWN Linear DC PSU - No Earth connection between each unit. That is I found the secret in MY system for Ultra Smooth Fantastic SQ 
I did not spend a lot on the above. Just a lot of DIY effort and Trial and Error - read the Audiophilestyle.com forums for tips.
YMMV

Kelvin


----------



## azabu

Ards said:


> Yes, ethernet cables make a difference.  I wish they didn't.
> 
> Should also look at LAN isolators such as Pink Faun.  These can bring large improvements in sound.



I have the Pink Faun. Didn't do much in my system

I've found the Baaske MI-1005 and SOtM isolators to work very well. Baaske in particular are superb value.


----------



## Ards

azabu said:


> I have the Pink Faun. Didn't do much in my system



Interesting.  They are "night and day" in my setup, so much so that I use multiple throughout my LAN to break up all potential sources of noise transmission.  

I have an SOtM Cat 7 cable with the Cat 6(?) isolator built in and that also sounds very good.  

Of course, as well as cables and isolators, one should look at switches and power supplies.  Again, all can bring improvements.  

Getting a network to sound good isn't as easy as it should be...


----------



## azabu (Jan 15, 2020)

Ards said:


> Interesting.  They are "night and day" in my setup, so much so that I use multiple throughout my LAN to break up all potential sources of noise transmission.
> 
> I have an SOtM Cat 7 cable with the Cat 6(?) isolator built in and that also sounds very good.
> 
> ...



Yes the SOtM Cat 7 is very good. I like pairing the light grey and black SOtM ethernet cables with the Supra Cat 8 via the Baaske. The dark grey SOtM is only good if your system is bright.

A very good power cable is the Oyaide Tunami GPX-R V2. Punches way above its weight. The plug use beryllium copper blades plated in platinum and palladium.


----------



## teknorob23

two penneth.. i've tried quite a few budget to highend cables, Supra cat 8, audioquest vodka and tellurium Q black diamond and i've made my own using Viablue silver plated solid-core cable. They all sounded noticeably different from one another when used in my main set up which is a pretty resolving system. On my office Imac with RME DAC and genalec monitors the differences were much harder to pick-up.  The TQ cable made by the far the biggest improvement and the improvements were comprehensive across most aspects of the presentation. The supra cable is also a signifcant step up from a standard network cable, but it sounds muddy compared to the TQ and AQ vodka. The biggest areas of improvement i can here is in the mid to top end where definition improves significantly with better cables. There is also a noticeable graininess when you switch back to a lesser cable.  But the TQ cable is stupid expensive, so i decided to have crack at making my own, not from scratch (yet) but using Viablue's bulk cable, but not the stranded version they use in their own, instead i went with solid core silver plated copper. I tried to makes of plugs, telegartner which are used in most high end plugs and LinkUP which are very similar diecast construction but which have gold plated contacts. The results have been very impressive, the cable is considerably better than the Supra and i would say on a par with the AQ vodka, which has touch better extension, but its marginal. Its not as good as the TQ cable but it cost me about £40 to make a 1m cable as opposed to £780. I am using a cisco switch which is better than my old TP link, but i am interested to try the SOTM one as soon as my dealer can get one as i'm sure this will have an even bigger influence than the cables. I can strongly recommend the viablue/linkup DIY cable, its easy to make and the performance is outstanding for the money.


----------



## bluenight

teknorob23 said:


> two penneth.. i've tried quite a few budget to highend cables, Supra cat 8, audioquest vodka and tellurium Q black diamond and i've made my own using Viablue silver plated solid-core cable. They all sounded noticeably different from one another when used in my main set up which is a pretty resolving system. On my office Imac with RME DAC and genalec monitors the differences were much harder to pick-up.  The TQ cable made by the far the biggest improvement and the improvements were comprehensive across most aspects of the presentation. The supra cable is also a signifcant step up from a standard network cable, but it sounds muddy compared to the TQ and AQ vodka. The biggest areas of improvement i can here is in the mid to top end where definition improves significantly with better cables. There is also a noticeable graininess when you switch back to a lesser cable.  But the TQ cable is stupid expensive, so i decided to have crack at making my own, not from scratch (yet) but using Viablue's bulk cable, but not the stranded version they use in their own, instead i went with solid core silver plated copper. I tried to makes of plugs, telegartner which are used in most high end plugs and LinkUP which are very similar diecast construction but which have gold plated contacts. The results have been very impressive, the cable is considerably better than the Supra and i would say on a par with the AQ vodka, which has touch better extension, but its marginal. Its not as good as the TQ cable but it cost me about £40 to make a 1m cable as opposed to £780. I am using a cisco switch which is better than my old TP link, but i am interested to try the SOTM one as soon as my dealer can get one as i'm sure this will have an even bigger influence than the cables. I can strongly recommend the viablue/linkup DIY cable, its easy to make and the performance is outstanding for the money.


Nice, they look well made.


----------



## teknorob23

bluenight said:


> Nice, they look well made.



thanks, but they really are very easy to make, no soldering or crimping tools required, just a craft knife. I sleeve the cable in carbon infused sleeve and finish with heatshrink but that’s it. I’d be happy to share the recipe. If you’re interested ping me a DM


----------



## gregorio

Ards said:


> Yes, ethernet cables make a difference. I wish they didn't. Should also look at LAN isolators such as Pink Faun. These can bring large improvements in sound.



Ethernet cables do not carry any sound and therefore cannot make any sort of improvement to sound let alone large improvements! And following on:


kelvinwsy said:


> Hearing is believing!


Firstly, that's clearly not true, there are obviously aural illusions for example and if it were true, music and film/TV sound would not exist in the first place. Regardless of this fact, which has been known, demonstrated and routinely employed in music for about 500 years or so (!), you can't hear digital data anyway (which is the ONLY thing an ethernet cable carries)!

G


----------



## teknorob23

Quick shut down the thread, we have the answer!


----------



## Ards

gregorio said:


> Ethernet cables do not carry any sound and therefore cannot make any sort of improvement to sound let alone large improvements!



Straw man.

So, the question becomes, IF ethernet cables CAN make a difference (and they can), how could this possibly occur...?  You've already ruled out the data stream (the "sound"), so what else in this infrastructure could be making a difference...


----------



## kelvinwsy

Ones and Zeroes are transmitted thru the cable but along with noise. In my system my modded Cat 6 sounded better than a standard Cat 8 cable!
After modding and burning in, the Cat 8 sounded better After the EtherRegen was installed, Another jump in Sound Quality! Please no Flaming! This is what I hear in my system .. As always YMMV...


----------



## kelvinwsy

Sorry shuld add Ones and Zeroes in packets ..,


----------



## gregorio

Ards said:


> [1] Straw man.
> [2] So, the question becomes, IF ethernet cables CAN make a difference (and they can), how could this possibly occur...?
> [2a] You've already ruled out the data stream (the "sound"), so what else in this infrastructure could be making a difference...



1. No it's no, it's a simple fact!
2. Obviously not! The question would become as you state, IF ethernet cables carried sound but they provably do NOT carry sound, they carry data! The actual question is therefore: What can an ethernet cable do to the data that overwhelms the error correction protocols built into the ethernet standard? Being broken is an obvious example or being used inappropriately (outside the ethernet protocol).
2a. As an ethernet cable only carries a data stream and if we've ruled that out, the obvious thing in "this infrastructure" that could be making a difference is what's between one's ears, although that doesn't rule out the possibility of some actual fault in the down stream equipment or how it's being used.



kelvinwsy said:


> Ones and Zeroes are transmitted thru the cable but along with noise.



Unless that noise is so great that it overwhelms the built-in the error correction, the noise cannot make any difference, the ones and zeros will be identical. Digital data has just two states, one and zero, there is no third or fourth state (noisy one or noisy zero). Therefore the end result can only ever be ones or zeros and the ONLY consideration is if enough ones have been changed to a zeros (or vice versa) that it overwhelms the error correction, in which case playback will stop. 

G


----------



## arkangyl

So FWIW Fortune-50 companies use the cheaper Ethernet cables in their data centers - there is zero performance benefit to these designer cables

The cables linked in the first post are CAT7 vs. CAT8 which explains the price delta more than anything else. For anyone not aware, CAT = category, which refers to the max data rate, at a rated distance, and a rated bandwidth the cable can support.

THAT part could impact audio (depending how you're sending the audio over the cable) since the lazy answer is: higher category number = more shielded the wires in the cable are

This link has the charts and some good cross-section images to illustrate the shielding
http://www.fiber-optic-components.com/will-different-ethernet-cable-speed-affect-network.html


----------



## kelvinwsy

Ha I must hv golden ears then as I hear the greater realism in my music playback as I improve on addressing earthing and noise transmission in my system .. of course YMMV


----------



## Whazzzup

i have AQ high end ethernet cables, look great dnt know if i can hear a difference. my usb sarum T digital did tho


----------



## gregorio

kelvinwsy said:


> Ha I must hv golden ears then as I hear the greater realism in my music playback as I improve on addressing earthing and noise transmission in my system .. of course YMMV



Addressing noise can indeed make an audible difference to a system but only the analogue and acoustic parts of the system, not the digital (again, unless it's so great it overwhelms the error correction)! Does having "golden ears" mean hearing a difference when there isn't one?

G


----------



## Ards

gregorio said:


> Addressing noise can indeed make an audible difference to a system but only the analogue and acoustic parts of the system, not the digital (again, unless it's so great it overwhelms the error correction)! Does having "golden ears" mean hearing a difference when there isn't one?
> 
> G



You're getting there, but you need to do some homework... come back when you've figured it out


----------



## gregorio

That's funny (because it's so hypocritical), thanks for your advice! 

G


----------



## Krassi

@gregorio you did your homework! And good description.
If Cables matter for ethernet than my images should get sharper when i copy them from my workstation to my NAS with a CAT7 cable... sounds stupid.. it is..because i transmit digital data over the cable. "More Cat" is less packet loss on the way... so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## teknorob23

Im sure you can out science me any day, but have you actually listened to a variety of “audiophile” network cable in a decent highly resolving system. If you have and you can’t hear a difference fair enough. I have tried half a dozen cable I’ve also made a few too. I can hear clear differences between the cables when used in my main system, but less so in my office set up. And my favourite sounding cable is not the most expensive one I’ve tried either. I’m not interested in persuading you if you decided on based on scientific principle without listening to the cables. I didn’t used to believe usb cables could effect SQ until I heard it for myself.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

It won't help if you buy even the best most overpriced ethernet cables money can buy. Because your switches and routers add latency, jitter, and cosmic rays to the signals. If you have cats it can only be worse.


----------



## teknorob23

gimmeheadroom said:


> It won't help if you buy even the best most overpriced ethernet cables money can buy. Because your switches and routers add latency, jitter, and cosmic rays to the signals. If you have cats it can only be worse.



I refer you to my last question, have you listened to the cables you dismiss?


----------



## Voxata (Jan 29, 2020)

Wait... Are you seeing benefits from using highend cables connecting your NAS to your PC? I've never seen a benefit from using nice cables vs cheap ones. I do however buy quality qualified cables and build my own. Wireless vs Wired I cannot detect a difference UNLESS there is a bandwidth issue causing stutters. I mean, if you copy the file from your NAS to your PC it's prettymuch the same as streaming it from your NAS. If you are saying that you experience increased SQ from a streaming service by using an audiophile ethernet cable then I say, good sir, wow


----------



## gimmeheadroom

teknorob23 said:


> I refer you to my last question, have you listened to the cables you dismiss?



No, I just know that on my lan which consists of a bunch of commercial servers with gigabit switches I get zero dropped packets and zero errors. I pay about 4 euro for a cable and if it's good enough to run tens of gigabytes of data every day without any loss then there is nothing to be gained (and a lot to be lost) by throwing money away on glittery cables. Pure snake oil!


----------



## Ards

gimmeheadroom said:


> No, I just know that on my lan which consists of a bunch of commercial servers with gigabit switches I get zero dropped packets and zero errors. I pay about 4 euro for a cable and if it's good enough to run tens of gigabytes of data every day without any loss then there is nothing to be gained (and a lot to be lost) by throwing money away on glittery cables. Pure snake oil!



We need to move on from the fixation on the transport layer - we all agree ethernet is zero loss data stream - the data stream is a red herring.  The difference in sound quality of cables/switches is related to conducted noise pollution fed into the receiving audio kit - it's the same effect seen in all audio kit to some degree and should come as no surprise to anybody interested in sound quality.  The better switches (SOtM/AQVox/JCat), cables and LAN isolators do a substantially better job of rejecting such noise to the benefit of downstream sound quality.


----------



## teknorob23

I’m using the “expensive” in this set up

Based purely on listening tests, the cable running the last metre from switch to streamer has the most noticeable effect on SQ. The gains aren’t as significant as those from other types of cabling, mains, interconnects and usb, but it’s enough to warrant the expense and I’m not talking stratospheric. The cables I’ve made using viablue spc solid core copper with telegartner rj45s


gimmeheadroom said:


> No, I just know that on my lan which consists of a bunch of commercial servers with gigabit switches I get zero dropped packets and zero errors. I pay about 4 euro for a cable and if it's good enough to run tens of gigabytes of data every day without any loss then there is nothing to be gained (and a lot to be lost) by throwing money away on glittery cables. Pure snake oil!



. I have tried your way and a different way, based on listening tests I can hear a benefit in the later which I am happy to pay for. If you’re not willing to try (and any good snake oil salesmen will let you home demo without having to buy), and only wish to speak from a theoretical position rather than one of experience, then there’s probably not a huge amount to gained for us to continue this discussion, we should just carry on along our slightly different audiophile paths. I’m happy with my choices and I’m pleased that you are too.


----------



## gregorio

teknorob23 said:


> [1] Im sure you can out science me any day, but
> [2] have you actually listened to a variety of “audiophile” network cable in a decent highly resolving system. If you have and you can’t hear a difference fair enough. I have tried half a dozen cable I’ve also made a few too. I can hear clear differences between the cables when used in my main system, but less so in my office set up.



1. What else is there? Apart from the science and of course the fact that it's demonstrated in practice trillions of times a second all over the planet and has been for years, what else do you think is going on in an ethernet cable, some sort of magic?

2. Ah yes, the old audiophile cry: Dismissing some of the most proven and demonstrated science, without which the modern digital age would not exist, in favour of the sense of hearing, the fooling of which is not just a fundamental fact known for more than 5 centuries but an actual requisite. If our hearing couldn't be fooled, then music (and nearly all commercial audio) could not exist! .... It's easy enough to verify that the ones and zeros coming out of an ethernet network are identical to the ones and zeros that went in, indeed, this verification is effectively built into the ethernet protocol to start with and if the ones and zeros are identical, by definition there is no difference because digital data only has these two states. So if a difference is heard, it MUST be a function of our hearing/perception and cannot be a function of the ethernet cable (or other ethernet equipment)!

Furthermore, there's a second audiophile fallacy in your statement: "_in a decent highly resolving system_", which is fallacious for two reasons: Firstly, there is no system that can fully resolve even 16bit digital audio, let alone 24bit, including our hearing! And secondly, it's fairly certain that whatever system you have, it's not as resolving/accurate as the systems that I'm used to.



Ards said:


> [1] We need to move on from the fixation on the transport layer - we all agree ethernet is zero loss data stream - the data stream is a red herring.
> [2] The difference in sound quality of cables/switches is related to conducted noise pollution fed into the receiving audio kit -
> [2a] it's the same effect seen in all audio kit to some degree and
> [2b] should come as no surprise to anybody interested in sound quality.
> [2c] The better switches (SOtM/AQVox/JCat), cables and LAN isolators do a substantially better job of rejecting such noise to the benefit of downstream sound quality.


1. Good you're getting there, you just need to take the next step!  ....

2. Even disregarding RF and any other electromagnetic interference, there must be noise in every electrical circuit: Johnson/Nyquist Noise (Thermal Noise) is an unavoidable scientific fact that's been calculable for nearly a century. The fact you're ignoring is that this is why digital data and digital audio (and the telegraph/Morse code before it) were invented in the first place! Like Morse Code, digital audio only has two states, zero and one (as opposed to dot and dash), there is no additional state for noise. Either the noise is great enough that the receiving telegraph operator cannot differentiate a dot from a dash or the noise is not that great and is effectively eliminated. The same with ethernet, except that ethernet has sophisticated error detection and correction. What comes out of an ethernet network again has just two states with no noise, because as with the binary telegraph system there is no state for noise and it has therefore been eliminated. So, there CANNOT be a difference in sound quality between ethernet cables/switchers, either the receiving equipment is functioning and reconstituting the zeros and ones without noise or it is not functioning! Of course though, once the receiving equipment has reconstituted those zeros and ones (without noise) we've got to get that data from the ethernet receiver to the DAC chip, which involves another electrical signal/circuit and therefore the addition of at least thermal noise again.
2a. No it's not! The analogue and acoustic components of an audio system are not digital/binary, they do have a state/s for noise, so any noise/interference introduced is NOT eliminated and is in fact cumulative. Which again, is why digital data/binary "bits" were invented in the first place (as proven by Claude Shannon in his "Mathematical Theory of Communication" paper in 1947). If this were not the case, then not only digital audio but digital data in general would not exist, which is why Shannon is often referred to as "the father of the digital age".
2b. It would however come as a complete surprise to Claude Shannon and everyone else who understands the basic principles of digital data/audio. It would also come as a surprise to billions of people to discover that none of their digital devices ever work and don't exist!
2c. Again, no! ALL ethernet receivers either completely eliminate/reject noise or they don't function, it's just zeros and ones or non-functional, there is no other possible state/condition! However, as mentioned above, once those (noiseless) zeros and ones have been reconstituted in the receiver, we're going to need another electrical signal/circuit transfer that data to the DAC chip, which again means the addition of at least thermal noise.



teknorob23 said:


> Based purely on listening tests, the cable running the last metre from switch to streamer has the most noticeable effect on SQ.



But it's not "based purely on listening test", you haven't done a purely listening test, you've done a "purely perception of listening test" and as mentioned above, if your perception of listening/hearing could not be fooled then you wouldn't be listening to music in the first place, because you wouldn't be able to perceive music!

G


----------



## Ards

gregorio said:


> 2. Even disregarding RF and any other electromagnetic interference, there must be noise in every electrical circuit: Johnson/Nyquist Noise (Thermal Noise) is an unavoidable scientific fact that's been calculable for nearly a century. The fact you're ignoring is that this is why digital data and digital audio (and the telegraph/Morse code before it) were invented in the first place! Like Morse Code, digital audio only has two states, zero and one (as opposed to dot and dash), there is no additional state for noise. Either the noise is great enough that the receiving telegraph operator cannot differentiate a dot from a dash or the noise is not that great and is effectively eliminated. The same with ethernet, except that ethernet has sophisticated error detection and correction. What comes out of an ethernet network again has just two states with no noise, because as with the binary telegraph system there is no state for noise and it has therefore been eliminated. So, there CANNOT be a difference in sound quality between ethernet cables/switchers, either the receiving equipment is functioning and reconstituting the zeros and ones without noise or it is not functioning! Of course though, once the receiving equipment has reconstituted those zeros and ones (without noise) we've got to get that data from the ethernet receiver to the DAC chip, which involves another electrical signal/circuit and therefore the addition of at least thermal noise again.



Next you'll be telling us jitter doesn't exist because your telegraph operator can hear dots/dashes adequately.

I am very much enjoying your (il)logical contortions, but perhaps you could just go and listen to some cables.  Then, when you hear a difference, try to hypothesise why...

My 2nd SOtM switch is arriving today and I'm very much looking forward to daisy chaining the two switches.  Apparently it does wonders for sound quality


----------



## teknorob23

gregorio said:


> 1. What else is there? Apart from the science and of course the fact that it's demonstrated in practice trillions of times a second all over the planet and has been for years, what else do you think is going on in an ethernet cable, some sort of magic?
> 
> 2. Ah yes, the old audiophile cry: Dismissing some of the most proven and demonstrated science, without which the modern digital age would not exist, in favour of the sense of hearing, the fooling of which is not just a fundamental fact known for more than 5 centuries but an actual requisite. If our hearing couldn't be fooled, then music (and nearly all commercial audio) could not exist! .... It's easy enough to verify that the ones and zeros coming out of an ethernet network are identical to the ones and zeros that went in, indeed, this verification is effectively built into the ethernet protocol to start with and if the ones and zeros are identical, by definition there is no difference because digital data only has these two states. So if a difference is heard, it MUST be a function of our hearing/perception and cannot be a function of the ethernet cable (or other ethernet equipment)!
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio

Ards said:


> [1] Next you'll be telling us jitter doesn't exist because your telegraph operator can hear dots/dashes adequately.
> [2] I am very much enjoying your (il)logical contortions, but
> [2a] perhaps you could just go and listen to some cables.
> [2b] Then, when you hear a difference, try to hypothesise why...



1. And next you'll be telling us how a pico second worth of jitter made such an enormous difference to the accuracy of received telegraph messages! Of course though, you're just making up nonsense to defend your position, I would not tell you or anyone else that jitter does not exist, it does exist, science states that it exists and confirms it with measurements. What is it that you think I'm trying to tell you doesn't exist? It's obviously not noise because not only did I state that noise exists but that it MUST exist.

2. You're entirely free to consider the proven and massively demonstrated science/facts to be "illogical contortions" but of course that tells us far more about your "logic" than it does about the actual facts!
2a. You think maybe I've never heard an audio signal that's been transmitted through various different cables, even though that's essentially what I do for a living? That's an example of your logic is it?
2b. That's apparently the difference between us. I wouldn't need to "try to hypothesise why", nearly a century and a half of psychoacoustics, many centuries of music composition/performance and the most demonstrated of facts in various other scientific/engineering fields already tell me why! If I jumped off the top of a building and broke every bone in my body, I wouldn't have to "try to hypothesise why" because Newton already proved "why" a long time ago. The only reason I would "try to hypothesise why" is if I illogically didn't believe in gravity or were simply ignorant of the facts/science!

G


----------



## Ards

gregorio said:


> Of course though, you're just making up nonsense to defend your position



And we're done.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Ards said:


> We need to move on from the fixation on the transport layer - we all agree ethernet is zero loss data stream - the data stream is a red herring.  The difference in sound quality of cables/switches is related to conducted noise pollution fed into the receiving audio kit - it's the same effect seen in all audio kit to some degree and should come as no surprise to anybody interested in sound quality.  The better switches (SOtM/AQVox/JCat), cables and LAN isolators do a substantially better job of rejecting such noise to the benefit of downstream sound quality.



There is no noise. Either the packets get by checksumming at each stopping point along the way, or they don't.


----------



## gregorio

Ards said:


> "Of course though, you're just making up nonsense to defend your position"
> *And we're done.*



Shame you didn't feel that way BEFORE you made-up nonsense about I would be (or had) "telling you"!

G


----------



## bfreedma

Ards said:


> Next you'll be telling us jitter doesn't exist because your telegraph operator can hear dots/dashes adequately.
> 
> I am very much enjoying your (il)logical contortions, but perhaps you could just go and listen to some cables.  Then, when you hear a difference, try to hypothesise why...
> 
> My 2nd SOtM switch is arriving today and I'm very much looking forward to daisy chaining the two switches.  Apparently it does wonders for sound quality




Can you post a single measurement showing the problems you describe are actually audible?  Jitter, "Network noise", RF interference?  Just one?


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> Addressing noise can indeed make an audible difference to a system but only the analogue and acoustic parts of the system, not the digital (again, unless it's so great it overwhelms the error correction)! Does having "golden ears" mean hearing a difference when there isn't one?
> 
> G


In my listening experience there is a thin line between analogue and digital. And they benefit the same when rfi/emi is adressed. 

I bought an atlas mavros analogue rca cable with a grun drain wire for rfi/emi that i connected to the analogue output of my cambridge streamer and to my external Lake People HP amp. The drain wire leads to an power adapter connected to an outlet of my niagara 1000 power conditioner with ground noise disipation system. I could litterly here less noise and much approved sound. The same kind of improvements i heard with my digital hugo2 dac/amp direct driving my HD800S that is connected to the same streamers spdif output. Rfi/Emi masks details that otherwise is there.

So the grun drain wires steers away the rfi/emi from the circuits of the streamer leeding it to my niagara 1000 grounded outlet instead.

Here is how it connects.
https://www.atlascables.com/featured-grun.html


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> In my listening experience there is a thin line between analogue and digital. And they benefit the same when rfi/emi is adressed.
> 
> I bought an atlas mavros analogue rca cable with a grun drain wire for rfi/emi that i connected to the analogue output of my cambridge streamer and to my external Lake People HP amp. The drain wire leads to an power adapter connected to an outlet of my niagara 1000 power conditioner with ground noise disipation system. I could litterly here less noise and much approved sound. The same kind of improvements i heard with my digital hugo2 dac/amp direct driving my HD800S that is connected to the same streamers spdif output. Rfi/Emi masks details that otherwise is there.
> 
> ...




I'd be more interested if the link supporting the claim wasn't to a vendor selling a "solution".  Particularly a vendor who presents no actual evidence of their product's performance.


----------



## bluenight

This dude tried some different switches and said fiber optical etherenet cables dont pick up rfi/emi.


----------



## bluenight

Somewhere in here Garth Powell power product designer of audioquest get the question if nosie can wander from ethernet cable to system he says yes.


----------



## Voxata

Well yeah Audioquest is all about selling expensive cables lol.


----------



## moriez (Jan 31, 2020)

Oh boy.. the biters at it again. Washing away the tasty stuff by forcing their sour science sauce down throats. Death by strangulation of yet another thread around the corner, I tell ya!
Doesn't this ancient incredibly boring ''I practice questioning every man's unique experience _every day_ because math and physics is my life'' have its own isolated playground in Sound Science?

Don't spread all over the Matrix and let a man play his game, you extreme bunch of wimps nerds


----------



## Krassi (Jan 30, 2020)

invent a problem to sell a solution... i also tried a fancy usb cable for fun and it did also zero difference...


----------



## gregorio (Jan 31, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Somewhere in here Garth Powell power product designer of audioquest get the question if nosie can wander from ethernet cable to system he says yes.



And there we have a typical/classic example of what plagues the audiophile world, the inability to separate marketing from actual fact! Admittedly it's often quite difficult to do this, because as with this typical example, the marketing often contains a great deal of actual, correct facts. Overall though, it's utter BS because either: A. A few key facts are omitted (that invalidate the actual facts), B. A few key "facts" are simply made-up nonsense that contradict the actual facts, C. "Can"/"Could" are used in direct contradiction to "Does", or commonly D. All of the above!

However, despite all these (and other) bog standard marketing tricks, just the application of a bit of critical thinking and common sense is often all that's needed. For example, in this podcast (and earlier in this thread) it was mentioned that (paraphrasing): At school we're taught it's just zeros and ones and "we have to do more homework than that". Think about that for a second ... Do you really think that the members of the international standards/protocols organisations, the engineers who implement ethernet technology and those who actually invented it are ALL school children? You think those of us who use ethernet as professionals creating commercial music/sound content are all school children? You think none of us have ever done any "homework"? And, what reliable evidence (eg. NOT marketing) do you have that what is taught in schools about digital data is fundamentally wrong to start with? Where's the critical thinking or even simple common sense here?



moriez said:


> Oh boy.. the biters at it again. Washing away the tasty stuff by forcing their sour science sauce down throats. Death by strangulation of yet another thread around the corner, I tell ya!
> Doesn't this ancient incredibly boring ''I practice questioning every man's unique experience _every day_ because math and physics is my life'' have its own isolated playground in Sound Science?
> 
> Don't spread all over the Matrix and let a man play his game, you extreme bunch of wimps nerds



Or, to reword accurately (the other way around):

Oh boy... the duped are at it again. Washing away the proven science/demonstrated facts by forcing their sour snake oil down throats. Death by strangulation of yet another thread around the corner, I tell ya!
Doesn't this ancient incredibly boring "I believe snake oil and my biased perception over ALL the science, facts and even common sense, regardless of how well proven and demonstrated, because being a gullible, misinformed audiophile is my life" have it's own playground throughout head-fi except Sound Science?

Don't spread all over the matrix and let a man state the actual facts, you extreme bunch of ignorant, gullible fools audiophiles 

G


----------



## Whazzzup

It’s just money folks, looks great


----------



## teknorob23

And just pour little petrol, i've just ordered one of these to try on the end my over priced network cable... what can i say i just love the taste of Kool-aid too much


----------



## bluenight

teknorob23 said:


> And just pour little petrol, i've just ordered one of these to try on the end my over priced network cable... what can i say i just love the taste of Kool-aid too much


Please report back in your findings. Im interested in buying the baaske mi 1005 one day.


----------



## gregorio

teknorob23 said:


> And just pour little petrol, i've just ordered one of these to try on the end my over priced network cable... what can i say i just love the taste of Kool-aid too much



Why would that "just pour little petrol"? If you buy over-priced cable (or little gadgets to attach to your over-priced cable) because you like the look of them and/or because you "just love the taste of Kool-Aid", fine, why would I or anyone else object or have any problem with that? It's only if you start asserting that it results in an audible improvement that we're going to object because there are only two possible explanations: Either you have a seriously faulty piece of equipment in your system (in which case, replacing that bit of equipment for few bucks is the rational solution) or, there is no "audible improvement" only your personal perception of an improvement (IE. Effectively a delusion).



bluenight said:


> Please report back in your findings.



It's pretty certain that's not going to happen! You might get "back" some impressions (of personal perception) but despite how relatively easy it is to objectively measure all differences, you almost certainly will not get "back" any actual "findings".

G


----------



## bluenight (Feb 3, 2020)

Trust your ear guys. I would think the hearing is better then any messurment tools to spot differences in sound and the most sensetive.

@gregorio seems to rely on old data facts when new things the last decades have been discovered in audio and hearing i think audio is more complex then it seems. And everything in audio and hearing isent probebly understood fully yet either. Power products making a diffrence wasent accepted until very late in my understanding and ethernet cables,switches and related stuff making a difference is least accepted yet it seems.

And @gregorio seem to have an black and white/zero or one view. Just because audio journalists might make money of an article doesent mean its not true that the product in article peform that way its described. I think journalists can be passionate and honest in what they do and still make a buck. Also you have to decide for yourself if you think a certain reviewer seem honest. Audio bacon guy that i linked in previous post seems very honest to me by reading many of his reviews and i like his aproach to hifi and very detailed descriptions and Darko isent all that bad. I think they would have zero credebility in the end if they lied to much and would been exposed as freuds. Claiming ethernet cables make a difference 5 years ago is rather bold and sticking their necks out more, reason they do it is i think because they heard the difference and want to spread the word more then making money of it i think. Or maybe they do what they love and at the same time make some money?

This is what atlas said when i emailed them why ethernet cables can make a difference. More details here

"The definition of an *analogue signal is a signal that is time continuous*

The definition of a *digital signal is a signal that is time discrete*

Both signals have time as the common element, the formula for frequency = 1/time

therefore the fundamental design principles for analogue and digital cable

design remain the same;



Conductor quality

Dielectric efficiency

Plug quality

Screening performance

Manufacturing process



Digital audio performance is directly related to the ease by which data recovery is achieved, the lower the “work done” by the receiver circuitry the greater the potential fidelity improvement . The wider the bandwidth of the cable the easier the data can be extracted and the lower the work-done! This is in turn creates an environment that has the capacity to deliver High fidelity music replay."


Believe it or not its up to you or better yet hear it or not. Also i hear the improvements everytime when listening with this new supra cat8 cable the sound is drencht with this new sound.


----------



## bluenight

I think i was a bit inspired what he says near the end of this video


Also more details according from atlas
https://www.atlascables.com/featured-streaming.html


----------



## bfreedma

Still waiting for someone to post a single measurement showing an audible difference between two non-broken Ethernet cables.

its amazing how efficient the marketing is.  You would think that digital communications was a crapshoot.  How does the internet work reliably, let alone digital banking and other areas where errors are actually critical?


----------



## moriez

Thank heavens there are/should be many and much more useful things to do in the meantime. For example: stop waiting and start measuring so as to really contribute.


----------



## bfreedma

How about a measurement from a boutique Ethernet cable vendor showing an audible difference?  That would certainly help sales - I’d be first in line.

why would I measure anything?  I’m not making claims that run counter to the large knowledge base which exists regarding Ethernet cables.


----------



## moriez

Who's claiming? You and fam by far take the most interest in them.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 4, 2020)

Wifi can be all that is needed also if your happy with the sound of it. Compare and listen what sounds best for your device imo. I tried wifi with my streamer but i dident like the sound to soft sounding with to little energy and extension and dull. So i prefered even cat5e utp there. On my LG oled tv with optical out to my hugo2 dac/amp im very happy with the performence with wifi on the tv, it sounds very clean clear sounding  so i have never bottered comparing wired ethernet there becuase im happy with wifi there.


----------



## bfreedma

moriez said:


> Who's claiming? You and fam by far take the most interest in them.



did you not read this thread?  Plenty of claims right here and from every manufacturer of “audiophile” Ethernet cables.


----------



## dazzerfong (Feb 5, 2020)

bluenight said:


> I think i was a bit inspired what he says near the end of this video
> 
> 
> Also more details according from atlas
> https://www.atlascables.com/featured-streaming.html




I don't think you actually read what the site says or given it some thought.

_Tough pitch copper, copper-clad aluminium, and OFC (Oxygen Free Copper) can all be used to produce data equivalent Cat-x cables.

Typically Ethernet data cables use solid conductors for ‘in-wall’ applications and where data needs to be transmitted over long distances, whilst data ‘patch chords’ typically use stranded conductors for optimum flexibility.

Atlas choose solid core OFC for audio applications for optimum performance, as they suffer less from inter-strand distortion and capacitive variation._

Sure - means that you can use it for 200m rather than 100m. Solid core copper also means that bending it is a dance with the devil.

_The more efficient the dielectric the more bandwidth potential the cable will have, of course this is balanced out in the ‘real’ world by cost factors, which leads producers to use inferior less-compliant materials that don’t crush’ as they are being twisted and wound.

Atlas use Polyethylene and foamed Polyethylene to produce our streaming Ethernet cables, experience gained developing our USB and HD video products showing these are stable wide-band materials that guarantee great audio results. The key is precise control in manufacturing so that the balance between tight twist ratios and symmetrical twist patterns are maintained._

LOL it's PE. That's about as cheap as it gets.

_Data cable manufacturers have focused on the humble twisted pair to drive data speed and bandwidth forward. With its inherent common mode rejection properties, it’s a cheap method of production, so a winner in the data field for years.

However as you push the bandwidth of the twisted pair you soon get to a point where further twisting offers no more benefit – at which point you need to add cable screening to enhance rejection performance.

As the bandwidth requirement of the cable increases so does the shielding required to deliver the specified performance, specified as:_


_U/UTP - Unscreened / Universal Twisted Pair_
_U/FTP - Unscreened / Foiled Twisted Pair_
_S/FTP - Screened / Foiled Twisted Pair_
_Atlas has always paid particular attention to shielding and screening, our dd (dual drain) and Grun technologies are specifically intended to address the ways in which such issues impact on performance. The Mavros streaming cable features our Grun Coherent Earthing System as standard._

Bandwidth is _not_ a problem. Hi-res audio is at 192kHz @ 24 bits: with 2 channels, that's 8.8 megabits per second. Cat5 easily hits 100 megabits per second. Double that if you want to for error correction and redundancy and headers (or whatever snakeoil you also want to throw in): it's _never _going to saturate Cat5, let alone Cat 6.

_A plug is a plug is a plug? No. Again, what’s acceptable for a low-cost cable for data is quite different from the standards required for high-resolution audio.

We use very stable polycarbonate shielded plugs with robust gold plating up to 10 times the ‘Industry norm,’ even on our entry level products.

Our Mavros streaming cable utilise precision diecast Zinc connectors for the highest quality connection. These connectors also have precision pin alignment optimised for multiple secure insertions._

Sure, nothing to do with audio quality though unless you have repeated insertion/removal cycles. The weird thing is that the reason they give is a non-sequiter.

_In the bulk data cabling world, a cable of ‘bandwidth X’ is typically mated with a mis-matched plug of ‘bandwidth Y,’ often using uncalibrated hand tools, which frequently over-crimp the plugs (applying uneven crimping pressure applied across all four pins), resulting in inconsistent product to product performance. _

Again, sure, but that's QA to ensure that the cable is working to begin with.

Such cables typically fail ISO/TIA certification standards. Even a fully-tested and bandwidth-guaranteed Cat6 cable terminated with a Cat5 plug will only deliver Cat5 performance.

Is a Cat6 or 6A cable a better choice for audio than a Cat5e product?

_All else being equal, the wider the bandwidth of the cable, the easier it should be to extract the data. However all the factors discussed above come into play, so a cable using high quality components and precision manufacturing to certified standards will typically outperform a less carefully manufactured item of nominally higher spec._

Sure, because of poor manufacturing, your Cat6 just turned into Cat5. Who cares? Your audio is _not_ saturating Cat5 to begin with anyway.

_Atlas cables are hand-assembled using our precision-calibrated ‘triple prong’ insulation displacement connection method – we made our own tool for the job – for consistent, effective piercing of the dielectric & conductor bonding, and to accurately control the plug contact height._

Sweet - nothing to do with audio quality.

_The result is a high-quality cable which performs precisely as specified – we employ Fluke patch-cord certification tools to guarantee bandwidth performance. All our streaming Ethernet cables are individually certificated for guaranteed performance._

Sweet - nothing to do with absolute performance, but great for QA to ensure it's not broken and within the ethernet spec.

_As stated above, the bandwidth requirement of the cable increases so does the shielding required to deliver the performance. However, when you plug the shielded cable into your system, the screens are typically connected at each end, and the ground current drain path is defined by the equipment. In the audio world we all know that this is an undefined path, if you can make this drain path more predictable across the system, you gain the potential for better sound quality.

The Grun connection allows any RFI/EMI conducted in the cable’s outer screen to be drained to earth in a defined and predictable way via a Grun ground cable and adapter (supplied(, generally attached to the equipment’s ground terminal or chassis.

Performance can typically be raised further using an optional Grun mains adapter which provides for connection of up to three Grun cables to an unused mains socket or via a distribution block._

Great, except that's only a problem if grounding is a problem for your devices. If it is, get a better device.


All in all, these cables solve one problem at best: $#itty engineering from DAC companies. If DAC manufacturers weren't so sloppy, these cables would do absolutely _nothing _more_._

I have no idea why audiophiles think they're so special that they consider problems in things even industrial and laboratory settings do not consider a problem.

Reminds me of the Sony audiophile SD card: it actually does lower the EMI noise when it's in use. Thing is, if your device is affected by the EMI noise from the SD card, device is $#1t to begin with and doubly so for any audiophile.


----------



## moriez (Feb 5, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> did you not read this thread?  Plenty of claims right here and from every manufacturer of “audiophile” Ethernet cables.



Manufacturer/seller talk gets my default scepsis. Other than that I see people sharing their personal experience and the chosen few who have serious hobby in questioning that.


----------



## gregorio (Feb 5, 2020)

bluenight said:


> [1] Trust your ear guys.
> [1a] I would think the hearing is better then any messurment tools to spot differences in sound and the most sensetive.
> [2] @gregorio seems to rely on old data facts when new things the last decades have been discovered in audio and hearing i think audio is more complex then it seems.
> [2a] And everything in audio and hearing isent probebly understood fully yet either.
> ...



1. As music, music recordings and nearly all commercial audio in general actually relies on fooling your hearing, clearly your statement MUST be FALSE.
1a. What do you mean you "would think", don't you know? Don't you think you should find out for sure before arguing about it? Your statement defies even common sense! You think your eyes are a better measurement tool and more sensitive than a microscope or telescope? Of course not, that would be stupid! The actual truth is that measurement tools are not only more sensitive than hearing but MASSIVELY more sensitive, often more than a million times more sensitive!

2. Huh, of course I rely on "old data facts". If they're facts, then they're facts and being "old" makes no difference, except that they've had longer to be demonstrated and/or proven to be facts. For example: "1+1=2" is an ancient fact, in the thousands of years since it was stated as a fact mathematics/science/technology, etc., have developed beyond all recognition. Does being an old fact mean that "1+1=2" is false or have all our advances just FURTHER demonstrated and confirmed that it's true?
2a. And not everything is known about mathematics, does this mean that "1+1=2" is false?
2b. Depends on what you mean by "power products" and "very late". To my mind, a century ago is NOT "very late"!
2c. Nor will it be!

3. Of course I do, because it's not "a view", it's the fundamental basis upon which digital data and ALL digital devices exist, "bits" = BINARY digits (one or zero, on or off, "black or white"). This fact couldn't be more proven and demonstrated because if it were false digital devices and the digital age would not exist. Do you have a different "view"? Do you think that maybe the billions of smartphones, computers and all other digital devices are just optical illusions that don't really exist?


bluenight said:


> [4] ... you have to decide for yourself if you think a certain reviewer seem honest.
> [4a] I think they would have zero credebility in the end if they lied to much and would been exposed as freuds.
> [5] This is what atlas said when i emailed them why ethernet cables can make a difference. More details here: "The definition of an *analogue signal is a signal that is time continuous *The definition of a *digital signal is a signal that is time discrete*
> [5a] Both signals have time as the common element, the formula for frequency = 1/time
> ...


4. And that sentence seems to be the root difference between us! You apparently judge assertions of fact by whether or not "a certain reviewer seems honest", while I judge assertions of fact by comparing them with the actual proven/demonstrated facts!! The video you've posted is a great example: He seems like a nice/honest guy but guess what, some of his assertions are true, some are nonsense! Maybe he's lying because he has a product to sell or maybe he's actually being honest but is just misguided and doesn't know/understand the actual facts. Either way, the actual facts are NOT defined by how honest someone seems. If you met a flat-earther who seemed completely honest, would you compare their assertions with the actual proven/demonstrated facts or would you therefore believe the earth is in fact flat?
4a. Again, what "you think" (or have just assumed) does NOT correspond to what has already actually occurred! In the early 1980's a famous amplifier challenge did EXACTLY THAT and exposed two of the most famous audiophile magazines effectively as frauds. So, what happened as a result? Pretty much nothing, the magazines and their reviewers just ignored they'd been proven frauds and carried on regardless. The only thing that happened is that they lost some of their more discerning readers (but eventually replaced them with new, un-knowing audiophiles) and the professionals who actually made the music content came to view the audiophile world as a bunch of nutters who'd believe almost any old nonsense, even from those who'd been proven a fraud!

5. Again, that definition is CLEARLY FALSE, even just a basic understanding of the facts and a modicum of common sense reveals it as false! All electrical currents/signals are "time continuous" but OBVIOUSLY, not all electrical signals are analogue signals. The definition of an analogue audio signal is that it is analogous to an acoustic audio signal, which is why it's called an analogue audio signal in the first place!
5a. No, they DO NOT! The data "bits" in a digital audio signal represent amplitude values, NOT frequency values. It makes no difference if you transmit those data bits at 10mbps, 100mbps or use a gigabit ethernet network. If you transmit the same digital music file on a 10mbps ethernet network and then on a gigabit ethernet network, you think the audio frequencies in your music file are going to sound 100 times higher over the gigabit ethernet network?
5b. If your answer to this question is "no, of course not, that's ridiculous", then you statement here is "therefore" just as ridiculous!

6. Of course it's not, that's just as ridiculous! The ethernet protocol requires that the transmitted data is recovered perfectly or it's resent until it is, so either you have perfect fidelity or none whatsoever (playback ceases).

All you've really done is proven my point: "_Where's the critical thinking or even simple common sense here?_"

G


----------



## moriez

Oh 
My
''G''

Just pitiful.. _False! Black! White! One! Zero!_ Absolutely ridiculous to use your preferred word. Once again proving others wrong as if life depended on it. Makes a man wonder if it was more widespread that *you know best* would at least the tone of your messages change. I honestly have not come across a person(?) with such an extreme attitude and extreme is a word I don't use every day. So much that I doubt if your intent is to really help people. In my eyes OP is after opinions and experiences from _like-minded_ individuals. Clearly you and fam are NOT like-minded and yet keep barging into threads to preach, undermine and even belittle in rather arrogant ways on the border of trolling gregorio. I'm holding up a mirror cause you know.. maybe one day huh. 

Curious though, and I may certainly have missed it: have you ever compared brands of any type of cable for the purpose of sound quality? Or did theory already win the race?


----------



## bfreedma

moriez said:


> Manufacturer/seller talk gets my default scepsis. Other than that I see people sharing their personal experience and the chosen few who have serious hobby in questioning that.



This is what happens when manufacturers of boutique Ethernet cables are forced to support their marketing claims
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-chord-company-ltd-a14-274211.html#.VN2WRPldV8H

tl:dr

the Chord cable company was forced to stop using claims of audible improvement that they could not prove, and desist from using those claims in advertising.


----------



## bluenight

dazzerfong said:


> I don't think you actually read what the site says or given it some thought.
> 
> _Tough pitch copper, copper-clad aluminium, and OFC (Oxygen Free Copper) can all be used to produce data equivalent Cat-x cables.
> 
> ...


Sure you can question some things. Why dident they use

Silver Plated OFC 
PTFE Dielectric 
instead like they use with there mavros range spdif digital cables. Maybe its a cost/performence balancing. All we can do is to speculate as we are not the real experts. Maybe thats cheap material in your book too?

Otherwise The mavros ethernet grun cable could be the best option for me because i allready got the mains adapter with the grun draning away one of audios worst enemy RF/Emi. And the biggest reason why i would think ethernet cables can make a difference in how much they can filter/drain away RF/Emi that enter the electronic circuits from less designed cables. No audio equipment is immune to it at least according to Audioquest Garth Powell. Yes AQ sell things but that dont have to mean what he say is not true.

thttps://soundcloud.com/johnhdarko/what-is-electrical-noise-and-why-is-it-bad-for-audio-systems

If you have wifi at home for exempel your ethernet cables pick up RF or from mobile phones,transmission masts. Electrical noise to from generic powerstrips on routher/switch side with switch mode power suplys can be bettered also with better audiophile power suplys all in the chain matters. The only thing you can do is to lessen RF/Emi noise as much you can but you cant get rid of it all. Or be happy with what you got and dont worry about it.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 5, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. As music, music recordings and nearly all commercial audio in general actually relies on fooling your hearing, clearly your statement MUST be FALSE.
> 1a. What do you mean you "would think", don't you know? Don't you think you should find out for sure before arguing about it? Your statement defies even common sense! You think your eyes are a better measurement tool and more sensitive than a microscope or telescope? Of course not, that would be stupid! The actual truth is that measurement tools are not only more sensitive than hearing but MASSIVELY more sensitive, often more than a million times more sensitive!
> 
> 2. Huh, of course I rely on "old data facts". If they're facts, then they're facts and being "old" makes no difference, except that they've had longer to be demonstrated and/or proven to be facts. For example: "1+1=2" is an ancient fact, in the thousands of years since it was stated as a fact mathematics/science/technology, etc., have developed beyond all recognition. Does being an old fact mean that "1+1=2" is false or have all our advances just FURTHER demonstrated and confirmed that it's true?
> ...


You be you and i be me. What do you mean by calling everyone a lier that heard the difference and dont trust your ears whats the sense in that?

Instead of relying on old facts only, while new things is discovered like better designed ethernet cables for the purpose of audio actually improve audio quality ,i suggest you try sotm dcbl cat7 vs generic one and listen yourself. Don't you think you should find out for sure before arguing about it?

All i know and experience everytime i listen is more musical joy with supra cat8 replacing the cat5e utp cable.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 5, 2020)

I find this ethernet cable interesting and something different. anyone daring to try? they have 60 days money back on cables but maybe best to email and ask them for this particular product as it seems special and there might be exceptions.

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/entreq-primer-network-cable-w-ground-box

I like how they claim the signature sound is.

"Supplied as a complete package incorporating Entreqs EEDS noise draining system, exclusive wooden connectors and dedicated Primer Ground Box you will find a level of performance, musicality and ease unheard of at the price. The USB and RJ45 cables in particular typify this approach with digital music becoming almost analogue in presentation while retaining an open, textured & detailed sound. The improvement, even streaming Spotify via a Primer RJ45, will surprise you!"

I know they have there wooden groundboxes that ive been intrested in that claim stops high frequency stay voltages floating about in your system and find a home in the wodden box instead. Maybe the wodden box with the ethernet cable work the same way?

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/entreq-minimus-ground-box


----------



## dazzerfong

bfreedma said:


> This is what happens when manufacturers of boutique Ethernet cables are forced to support their marketing claims
> https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-chord-company-ltd-a14-274211.html#.VN2WRPldV8H
> 
> tl:dr
> ...



Wow, people actually disputed it. Guess there's an angry customer somewhere!


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] You be you and i be me.
> [1a] What do you mean by calling everyone a lier that heard the difference and [1b] dont trust your ears whats the sense in that?
> [2] Instead of relying on old facts only, while new things is discovered
> [2a] like better designed ethernet cables for the purpose of audio actually improve audio quality ,
> ...



1. What do you mean: That I be me and state the facts and you be you and make-up complete nonsense? Such as:
1a. I didn't call anyone a liar, let alone everyone, with one exception, I'm obviously calling you a liar because you've falsely stated that I'm calling everyone a liar! I don't doubt that those who hear a difference between ethernet cables really are hearing a difference. What I doubt is the reason they're hearing a difference: Assuming they don't have some serious fault (which is easily testable), the data exiting the ethernet network is IDENTICAL, whatever compliant ethernet cable is used. In fact, that's precisely WHY ethernet became so dominant in the first place (beating out Token Ring and other competitors), because it operated bit PERFECTLY on cheap twisted pair wiring! So, by definition of "identical"and "bit perfect" there can be NO DIFFERENCE and therefore the reason they're hearing a difference MUST BE due to some other reason, IE. Their perception!
1b. You have that exactly backwards! Not only is it clearly proven, clearly demonstrated and completely established fact but the very existence of music relies on the fact that you can't trust your ears. So "what's the sense" in contradicting completely proven/established fact? Obviously there is no sense, there's just nonsense which is based on ignorance of thet basic facts! I'm not going to give you a 400 year old basic introduction to western harmony but this 2 minute video also demonstrates the point: 
A couple of points: A. I am NOT calling everyone who hears/perceives "faa" a liar!!
B. Apart from NOT being able to trust your ears, what explanation do you have for hearing "faa"? So, "what's the sense" in trusting your ears? You think maybe there's a magic audiophile cable in the chain that knows when you're watching and changes the audio from "baa" to "faa"? That makes sense to you does it?

2. Do you think any new things have been discovered in the last 5,000+ years? Do you therefore not rely on "1+1=2"? What new things have been discovered that invalidate "1+1=2", audiophile marketing and reviews maybe? You think that when gigabit ethernet was "discovered" everyone suddenly realised that 10/100 megabit ethernet never actually worked?
2a. Again, you cannot design an ethernet cable for the purpose of audio because ethernet doesn't carry any audio, it carries digital data! By definition, you design an ethernet cable for the purpose of meeting the specifications of the ethernet standards, it either fulfils that purpose or it's not an ethernet cable. How is this not obvious? What is also BLATANTLY OBVIOUS is that ethernet networks (using cheap twisted pair wires) all over the world transmit countless trillions of bits of data bit PERFECTLY every second. *Please explain how you can "actually improve" on bit perfect! *
2b. I have tried different cat cables and different ethernet speeds/standards and far more reliably than just listening, I've actually compared the resultant output/data. It's always been identical (bit perfect), except for one occasion when I setup the network incorrectly and got no data at all. So your question is right back at you, don't you think you should actually "find out for sure" what's coming out of your ethernet network "before arguing about it"? And while you're at it, learning some basics of music and/or human perception wouldn't go amiss either!

3. So you even admit it, "All you know" is what you experience, rather than any actual facts! Have you ever seen a Hollywood film? Did you experience the sounds of the locations and characters having conversations with each other or did you experience the actual facts? If it's the latter, how could you ever watch or enjoy a film?

Again, all your response achieved is to further prove my point. You just made-up false assertions, repeated false marketing and talked about "making sense" by contradicting the most well established/accepted basic facts, which is pretty much the opposite of "making sense"!

G


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> I find this ethernet cable interesting and something different.
> I like how they claim the signature sound is.



Me too!


> "Supplied as a complete package incorporating Entreqs EEDS noise draining system, exclusive wooden connectors and dedicated Primer Ground Box you will find a level of performance, musicality and ease unheard of at the price. The USB and RJ45 cables in particular typify this approach with digital music becoming almost analogue in presentation while retaining an open, textured & detailed sound.



The big difference between analogue and digital is that digital has far less inherent noise (and distortion), which of course is why digital audio was invented in the first place! So how does draining noise from digital audio make it more "analogue in presentation"? If it actually did what it claimed, it would make the "presentation" even less analogue!

Oh, and do you think the 60 day return policy is long enough to fully burn-in the cable and box? How do you burn-in a wooden box anyway, do you put it over heat until it becomes a charcoal briquette? 

There's a sucker born every minute!

G


----------



## bluenight (Feb 6, 2020)

gregorio said:


> What I doubt is the reason they're hearing a difference: Assuming they don't have some serious fault (which is easily testable), the data exiting the ethernet network is IDENTICAL, whatever compliant ethernet cable is used. In fact, that's precisely WHY ethernet became so dominant in the first place (beating out Token Ring and other competitors), because it operated bit PERFECTLY on cheap twisted pair wiring! So, by definition of "identical"and "bit perfect" there can be NO DIFFERENCE and therefore the reason they're hearing a difference MUST BE due to some other reason, IE. Their perception


It never happens that you wake up someday and start hearing things different in real life if you have normal hearing like for exe the water running from the water tap at home right, so as soon as you put on headphones or listening to speakers that could happen you think? As you think the data exeting the data is identical that shouldent happen right. I never said though the reason i think ethernet cables makes a difference is with the data sent but i do think the reason is with the cables ability to not pick up rf/emi or electrical noise that can enter the systems curcuits.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 6, 2020)

gregorio said:


> Me too!
> 
> 
> The big difference between analogue and digital is that digital has far less inherent noise (and distortion), which of course is why digital audio was invented in the first place! So how does draining noise from digital audio make it more "analogue in presentation"? If it actually did what it claimed, it would make the "presentation" even less analogue!
> ...


Leave this thread then if your not interested in this hobby or open for the possibility for ethernet cables making a difference. It makes no sense in you posting here anymore, you shared your views fine, but i will have mine experiences and my views on things no matter what you say, your not that pursvasive to me though nice try though. Just more anoying.

Theres a rude boring sucker born every minute!


----------



## dazzerfong

bluenight said:


> Leave this thread then if your not interested in this hobby or open for the possibility for ethernet cables making a difference. It makes no sense in you posting here anymore, you shared your views fine, but i will have mine experiences and my views on things no matter what you say, your not that pursvasive to me though nice try though. Just more anoying.
> 
> Theres a rude boring sucker born every minute!



The whole point of a thread is to discuss something: if you're gatekeeping, hire some servants to be sycophants for you.

I know that you don't like this, but not everyone has to agree with you.


----------



## bluenight

dazzerfong said:


> The whole point of a thread is to discuss something: if you're gatekeeping, hire some servants to be sycophants for you.
> 
> I know that you don't like this, but not everyone has to agree with you.


Well he started to be rude and think he know it all attitude. And he have said his piece. Well i guess he has to reply to my last reply with same answers roughly.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> Well he started to be rude and think he know it all attitude. And he have said his piece. Well i guess he has to reply to my last reply with same answers roughly.



to be fair, Gregorio could say you’ve said your piece and you should stop posting.

fortunately, that’s not how internet discussion boards work.

No one is telling you what you heard.  The debate here is why you heard it.  Placebo?  Ethernet cable?  What you ate?  Mood?


----------



## bluenight (Feb 6, 2020)

Maybe depends on the device you have also. Many seem to be made sloppy and fail there cat according to link.

"It's also worth pointing out that the exact equipment we use, including hard drives, NAS, switches, routers, etc. as well as the audio device in question and its ability to handle incoming noise, will all directly relate to how much of an audible difference Ethernet cables will make in our hi-fis. Some manufacturers of hi-fi equipment which attach to a LAN take more care than others when it comes to isolating the Ethernet input. In other words, YMMV so by all means make sure when buying Ethernet cables, or any cables for that matter, you have the option of returning them for a full refund."

https://www.audiostream.com/content/cables-bits-and-noise-how-cables-can-make-sound-difference


----------



## Levanter

Until you've done a fair blind test involving other people swapping ethernet cables, everything you've heard could be placebo/aural illusion. 
To make it fair, do a live stream so everyone can give a fair judgement if your ears indeed hear a difference in ethernet cable swapping lol


----------



## bfreedma (Feb 6, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Maybe depends on the device you have also. Many seem to be made sloppy and fail there cat according to link.
> 
> "It's also worth pointing out that the exact equipment we use, including hard drives, NAS, switches, routers, etc. as well as the audio device in question and its ability to handle incoming noise, will all directly relate to how much of an audible difference Ethernet cables will make in our hi-fis. Some manufacturers of hi-fi equipment which attach to a LAN take more care than others when it comes to isolating the Ethernet input. In other words, YMMV so by all means make sure when buying Ethernet cables, or any cables for that matter, you have the option of returning them for a full refund."
> 
> https://www.audiostream.com/content/cables-bits-and-noise-how-cables-can-make-sound-difference



The only reason to return an Ethernet cable is if it’s physically broken, because the quoted text is utter marketing bull

in decades of specing and designing data centers for highly regulated industries, where an error in digital data transmission could result in 7 figure fines and/or   serious injury and even death, I’ve never specified anything other than a standard, low cost Ethernet cable.  Nor do the regulatory bodies require it.

I guarantee there is far more ”noise” generated by 1000 or more servers, hundreds of switches, and enterprise class storage than you will ever encounter in a home.  And yet no issues.

So either every manufacturer in the audio sector is incompetent in regards to Ethernet interfaces (which they all buy from common sources, they are almost never bespoke designs), or someone with a profit motive wants to sell you something.

But I‘m sure, somehow, audio uses ethernet differently.  In a way that can’t be explained rationally or measured at consequential levels...

Edit - clicked your link and saw that the author is Michael Lavorgna.  Talk about zero credibility.


----------



## bfreedma

Some actual research and dat:

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/02/measurements-ethernet-cables-and-audio.html


----------



## moriez

dazzerfong said:


> The whole point of a thread is to discuss something: if you're gatekeeping, hire some servants to be sycophants for you.



Incomplete in my opinion. The whole point of a thread is to discuss something _with comprehension of the described need and commitment to its global direction, aka on-topic. _
As per evidence at some point soon all types of disregard in especially these 'great cable debates'. The reason as I see it is some are completely sidestepping said commitment from being uncontrollably triggered by interesting subject matter, which makes knowing _when (not) _to speak very very very hard. For people who are genuinely interested in sharing lets say their cable comparisons this speaking when it's not adding is a huge, I mean huge disturbing source of noise.



> *I know that you don't like this*, but not everyone has to agree with you.



Unnecessary foul play. Eventhough off-topic please share what exactly convinced you OP cannot handle disagreement.




bfreedma said:


> to be fair, Gregorio could say you’ve said your piece and you should stop posting.



He could but really could not. In my view OP is host who can keep calling the shots for he behaves respectfully and does plenty reasonable all-round.



> No one is telling you what you heard.  *The debate here is why you heard it.*  Placebo?  Ethernet cable?  What you ate?  Mood?



I guess a thank you is in order for summarizing what p1sses me off the most: taking and making it YOUR kind of debate!
Where did you pick up OP's intent is about finding the why? In such case I shall unsubscribe from the thread right away. @bluenight enlighten us please.


----------



## bluenight

Levanter said:


> Until you've done a fair blind test involving other people swapping ethernet cables, everything you've heard could be placebo/aural illusion.
> To make it fair, do a live stream so everyone can give a fair judgement if your ears indeed hear a difference in ethernet cable swapping lol


Then this should involve all headphones,dacs amps, analogue cables to?


----------



## bluenight

moriez said:


> Incomplete in my opinion. The whole point of a thread is to discuss something _with comprehension of the described need and commitment to its global direction, aka on-topic. _
> As per evidence at some point soon all types of disregard in especially these 'great cable debates'. The reason as I see it is some are completely sidestepping said commitment from being uncontrollably triggered by interesting subject matter, which makes knowing _when (not) _to speak very very very hard. For people who are genuinely interested in sharing lets say their cable comparisons this speaking when it's not adding is a huge, I mean huge disturbing source of noise.
> 
> 
> ...


I would prefered if this topic was about peoples audio experience with ethernet cables yes and actual listening.


----------



## dazzerfong (Feb 7, 2020)

bluenight said:


> I would prefered if this topic was about peoples audio experience with ethernet cables yes and actual listening.



Yeah, shame that the Internet is a bit more fluid than that though.

_Then this should involve all headphones,dacs amps, analogue cables to?_

Honestly, _yes. _However, I ain't disciplined enough and I like shiny things, so there goes a few grand for something I absolutely did not need.

I did actually 'hear' Ethernet cables - they were setup at a local audiophile store with some fancy schmancy Audioquest cables. I mean, I didn't notice any dropped frames, so that's good I take it?


----------



## gregorio (Feb 7, 2020)

bluenight said:


> [1] It never happens that you wake up someday and start hearing things different in real life if you have normal hearing like for exe the water running from the water tap at home right,
> [1a] so as soon as you put on headphones or listening to speakers that could happen you think?
> [1b] As you think the data exeting the data is identical that shouldent happen right.
> [2] I never said though the reason i think ethernet cables makes a difference is with the data sent but i do think the reason is with the cables ability to not pick up rf/emi or electrical noise that can enter the systems curcuits.



1. You're joking right? It pretty much always happens that you "start hearing things different in real life"! OK, maybe not you but pretty much everyone else. Let's use your example of a water tap: Many people would have experienced a regularly dripping tap that becomes more obvious and annoying as they become more aware of it. What do you think is happening here? You think it's some sort of magical tap that knows when people become aware of the drips and gradually changes the sound to be more obvious and more annoying? OR, do you think that the sound of the drips doesn't actually change at all, what changes is the person's perception of it?
1a. Same with headphones and speakers. We can listen to a music recording, then immediately listen to it again (same recording, same system, same everything), focus our attention on a different instrument and hear different details. You think maybe the system knows what instruments you're focusing/concentrating on and changes it's audio output to provide more detail for those instruments, or, do you think the audio output is same and it's just our perception of it that changes?
1b. No, that absolutely can and does happen. Our perception of what we're listening to changes all the time and can deliberately be changed. In fact, that's the whole point of listening skills/training in the first place (and which has been required of all musicians for centuries and of all music/sound engineers)! Are you now going to argue AGAIN that because it's an old fact, it's now no longer true, even though it continues to be proven true every day in every music school and every sound/music engineering course on the planet?

2. Instead of just making-up, thinking or repeating marketing BS that's the reason, why don't you actually find out? It's easy to perform a null test between an original digital music file and one that's been transmitted through an ethernet network and a null test will reveal ALL/ANY differences; noise and any/all forms of interference and distortion!


bluenight said:


> [1] Leave this thread then if your not interested in this hobby or open for the possibility for ethernet cables making a difference.
> [2] It makes no sense in you posting here anymore, you shared your views fine, but
> [2a] i will have mine experiences and my views on things no matter what you say,
> [2b] your not that pursvasive to me though nice try though.
> ...



1. Let me get this straight. According to you, unless I'm willing to accept marketing BS over the actual proven facts, then I should leave this thread and can't be a member of the audiophile world? No wonder the world of professional sound/music engineers think the audiophile world is full of crackpots!

2. But it does make sense that you can post falsehoods/lies? It's a falsehood because I have NOT shared my views, I've just stated the facts, asked you questions (to which you never respond) and have not even mentioned my views on ethernet cables!
2a. Of course you are entitled to your views/conclusions of what you experience but if you're going to publicly post those views as fact, when they contradict the actual/real facts, then I'm just as entitled to state the real/proven facts.
2b. Why would I care? The actual facts do not depend on whether or not they're "persuasive to you", they depend on what's actually proven and demonstrated!
2c. The audiophile world has been and is being ruined by marketing BS and those ignorant and/or gullible enough to propagate it. That's more than "just more annoying", it's a disgrace!

3. And thanks for demonstrating that fact! I admit though, I personally find that someone stating actual facts (which I already know) is more boring than someone deluded by marketing BS and stating nonsense that's so ridiculous it's funny. 



bluenight said:


> [1] Well he started to be rude and think he know it all attitude.
> [2] And he have said his piece. Well i guess he has to reply to my last reply with same answers roughly.
> [3] I would prefered if this topic was about peoples audio experience with ethernet cables yes and actual listening.



1. Right back at ya!

2. So, you completely ignore all the actual evidence and questions posted, "reply with the same answers roughly" and then state that I "reply with the same answers roughly". If that makes me a rude, boring, annoying sucker, then it makes you one too, plus a hypocrite!

3. I would prefer if this topic was about the actual performance of ethernet cables, if they make any audible difference and therefore if it's "worth-to-buy-more-expensive-ones". If we're just going to go with listening experiences stated as fact though: I once listened to a Mahler Symphony on HPs and experienced the orchestra floating above my head. So there we have it, orchestras can defy the laws of gravity, fact! However that was through a USB cable (and I was a bit stoned at the time), maybe orchestras can't defy the law of gravity if they know you're going to listen to them through an audiophile ethernet cable, who knows? Actually, Isaac Newton knows but hey, that was nearly 350 years ago, long before the development of USB cables that disprove the laws of gravity (at least for symphony orchestras)! 

G


----------



## moriez

moriez said:


> Death by strangulation of yet another thread around the corner, I tell ya!



Aaand flatline. Sabotage completed


----------



## gregorio (Feb 7, 2020)

moriez said:


> "Death by strangulation of yet another thread around the corner, I tell ya! "
> Aaand flatline. Sabotage completed



Spoiling a good bit of fantasy, delusion and marketing BS that some poor soul has toiled over, with a few proven, obvious facts. I should be ashamed of myself! On the other hand, this thread is titled "ethernet-cables-worth-to-buy-more-expensive-ones" rather than "fantasy, delusion and marketing BS ethernet cables"!

Personally, I'm all for the "strangulation" and "sabotage" of snake oil but apparently you're the opposite. The whole audiophile world therefore thanks you!

G


----------



## bfreedma

moriez said:


> Incomplete in my opinion. The whole point of a thread is to discuss something _with comprehension of the described need and commitment to its global direction, aka on-topic. _
> As per evidence at some point soon all types of disregard in especially these 'great cable debates'. The reason as I see it is some are completely sidestepping said commitment from being uncontrollably triggered by interesting subject matter, which makes knowing _when (not) _to speak very very very hard. For people who are genuinely interested in sharing lets say their cable comparisons this speaking when it's not adding is a huge, I mean huge disturbing source of noise.
> 
> 
> ...



You are fundamentally wrong on moderation responsibilities on this and most internet boards.  The site moderators have the right to control the conversation if necessary, not the OP.  

Unless you believe that some form of nontechnical “magic” would cause Ethernet cables to sound different, then its critical to establish why they might sound different if claims are made that they DO sound different.  So far, no actual evidence has been presented that two properly constructed Ethernet cables present audible differences.  Wondering what you have to say about the link I provided where well designed testing indicates zero difference.


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> 1. You're joking right? It pretty much always happens that you "start hearing things different in real life"! OK, maybe not you but pretty much everyone else. Let's use your example of a water tap: Many people would have experienced a regularly dripping tap that becomes more obvious and annoying as they become more aware of it. What do you think is happening here? You think it's some sort of magical tap that knows when people become aware of the drips and gradually changes the sound to be more obvious and more annoying? OR, do you think that the sound of the drips doesn't actually change at all, what changes is the person's perception of it?
> 
> #Then you dont wake up and hear things differently, different would not to be hearing it more intense and annoying after a while then. #
> 
> ...


----------



## moriez

bfreedma said:


> You are fundamentally wrong on moderation responsibilities on this and most internet boards.  The site moderators have the right to control the conversation if necessary, not the OP.



This isn't about moderation responsibilties but about participating with _comprehension of the described need *(of OP)* and commitment to its global direction, aka on-topic._




> Unless you believe that some form of nontechnical “magic” would cause Ethernet cables to sound different, then its critical to establish why they might sound different if claims are made that they DO sound different.  So far, no actual evidence has been presented that two properly constructed Ethernet cables present audible differences.



Listen.. because it's somehow critical to you to establish the why doesn't mean it is or should be to others. Reason why I said you're _taking and making it YOUR kind of debate._




> Wondering what you have to say about the link I provided..



Intriguing. I wasn't aware of such case against the highly regarded Chord or any other audio business for that matter. Assuming the description of what happened is accurate Chord's argumentation and testing methods are not so convincing to say the least :\ Purely from advertising standpoint I agree with ASA's points the same I'd agree with most points against other companies. On the other hand Chord's defence relies on ''the subjective nature'' which while rather weak, per definition can't be argued with. My take.


----------



## dazzerfong

moriez said:


> This isn't about moderation responsibilties but about participating with _comprehension of the described need *(of OP)* and commitment to its global direction, aka on-topic._
> 
> Listen.. because it's somehow critical to you to establish the why doesn't mean it is or should be to others. Reason why I said you're _taking and making it YOUR kind of debate._






Blame OP then. Some people answered and OP didn't like that answer. Not our problem OP phrased it poorly - just call it an Ethernet cable appreciation thread instead or something if you want the kind of responses you're fishing for.


----------



## Clive101 (Feb 9, 2020)

This thread is becoming a duplicate of " Why do USB cables make a difference" 
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/why-do-usb-cables-make-such-a-difference.855479/
But in the sprit of the OP we all must realise disposable income and passion, for example I know of someone that re mortgaged his property to fund the new purchase of some expensive speakers, I would not, so we all differ.
So I thought I would try some ethernet cables in my system this weekend.
I did not do blind tests or for that matter double bind tests, I also do not do micro details and switch back and forth A - B to find them, it's different of not, life is too short for all of that IMHO.





SOtM cat 7




SOtM Cat 6 Deluxe



Supra Cat 8





Antipodes £10,000. retail with CX EX combo



If anyone has interest please ask and I will post later


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] Then you dont wake up and hear things differently, [1a] different would not to be hearing it more intense and annoying after a while then.
> [2] If you could think that people are smart enough and have a playlist with reference songs that you have listened to hundreds of times for evaluating changes in system when new components are inserted, songs you know very well and you can focus on that one instrument and hear the one instrument different.
> [3] Im confident in my hearing and
> [3a] have an transparent system
> ...



1. Yes I do, as I explained, and so does every human being, although they may not be consciously aware of it.
1a. Huh, of course it is! If you hear something become more intense and annoying then BY DEFINITION, what you're hearing is "different". If you weren't hearing a difference then OBVIOUSLY you would be the hearing the same intensity and level of annoying, not more! Not surprisingly, you avoided actually answering the question (What do you think is causing that difference, a magic tap or perception?) and instead tried to define "different" as meaning the opposite. How does that make sense even to you?

2. Again, that's not the question I asked! If you play a music recording and then immediately play it again on the exact same system WITHOUT ANY CHANGES but you concentrate/focus on a specific/different instrument do you hear any difference? Without any exceptions I've ever encountered or heard of, all normally functioning humans do hear a difference or can very easily learn to if they've never tried concentrating/focusing on specific aspects/instruments of a music recording. So, AGAIN, what do you think is causing that difference, a magic system that knows what you're focusing on and changes it's output or, that your perception changes?

3. So, are you saying: A. That your hearing is never fooled, you didn't hear "faa" when you watched the video I posted, you can't perceive music or watch/enjoy a film and you're not susceptible to any of the aural illusions/biases to which all other humans are susceptible? Or B. That you are in fact a human being, you are susceptible to the aural illusions/biases of other human beings but you choose to completely ignore these demonstrated/proven facts and trust your perception of hearing anyway?
3a. Possible but unlikely.
3b. Sure with some components but not every component because some components either don't make any "change" or make changes well below audibility.

4. There's nothing "magical" about it, it's all proven/demonstrated facts! Again, I presume you watched the video I posted and you that you heard "faa" at times? You think maybe the video was made by a wizard using magic or by BBC engineers/film makers using standard film/TV equipment? But if you're asking me if I think there is going to be an "illusion show" then my answer is: Duh, of course there is, how is this not self-evident? Regardless of a new ethernet cable or anything else, "_as soon as you put on some HP and listen to_" ANY audio recording (or use speakers), you WILL BE subject to an "illusion show". I can't believe I've got to explain this to someone professing knowledge in the subject, even to the point of publicly  arguing about it but (sigh): With a 2-channel stereo system (headphones or speakers) we have just two sound sources, a left and a right speaker, however, much/most of what we hear appears to come from some position between the two speakers/headphones, often exactly central. So, do you think: A. There's an invisible speaker/headphone in this centre position or B. It's some "magical illusion show" or C. That stereo is actually a scientifically researched and calculated illusion patented by Alan Blumlein in 1932 that only works because it fools human perception? 


bluenight said:


> [5] Who are you calling crackpot? Crackpot!
> [6] The professionals are very good at making poor recordings quite often also so i hope you dont go and think your better then anyone else calling yourself a professional at certain times now. Maybe recording industry need stricter rules to follow that show them how to make better recordings and dont act on there own or what they do
> [7] I think its also strange that you dont trust people and judge them beforehand as frauds.
> [8] Dont worry about me i can think for myself.
> [9] I find many of your views far-fetched.


5. Do you know what the word "crackpot" means? You've stated more than once that you trust your hearing, effectively that it is not being fooled and even mocked the idea that you are experiencing an illusion. You have therefore eliminated options "B" and "C" in the previous question, which leaves ONLY option "A" (there's an invisible speaker/headphone in this centre position) - If that's not "crackpot", then nothing is! I'm sure many flat-earthers think those of us who believe the earth is round are crackpots. However, they're the ones who are either ignorant of the proven/demonstrated facts or just choose not to accept them and so they're the ones who're crackpots!

6. Ah of course. You honestly think that the highly competitive professional positions of music recording, mixing and mastering engineers are based on who can make the worst recordings, that student engineers spend years studying how to make recordings poorer and that the recording industry picks the ones who're best at making poor recordings? Talk about "crackpot"! Oh, and engineers never "act on their own", they either "act on" instruction from the musicians and/or music producer or require approval for their actions from the producer, musicians or label. Clearly you have no experience and are ignorant of the "rules" of the recording industry and engineering roles, that shouldn't stop you from arguing with someone who does though, providing of course you want to be a CRACKPOT!

7. Not anywhere near as strange as you, continuing to make-up falsehoods/lies! It's a falsehood/lie because I do NOT "judge them beforehand as frauds". Also, if someone makes claims which clearly contradict the actual facts (without any reliable evidence) are you saying that you would trust them? Now that IS STRANGE! An example: If someone claims they've experienced seeing a flying pig we have 3 options: A. To assume they're ignorant of the basic principles of gravity and flight and have misinterpreted what they've experienced or B. To assume they are a fraud or C. We should trust them and accept that pigs really can fly! My personal default position is to assume "A", not as you've FALSELY stated "B"! However if it's a manufacturer making the claim, then my default position IS to assume "B", because it's almost inconceivable that they're ignorant of the basic principles of the equipment they're manufacturing. Your default position is apparently to trust them and accept that pigs really can fly. I don't need to personally listen to different ethernet cables to know there can't be an audible difference, just as I don't need to personally watch the life cycle of pigs to know that pigs can't fly!

8. No one can think (rationally) for themselves if they don't know or won't accept the proven/demonstrated facts!

9. Just as flat-earthers would find my view that the earth is round to be "far-fetched". Of course they're wrong, it's NOT "my view" that the earth is round, it's a proven/demonstrated fact. They're actually the ones with the "far-fetched" (or more accurately; ridiculous/lunatic) view and are therefore crackpots but of course they're never going to realise that unless they learn and/or accept the actual facts, which they won't because they're too invested in their view/belief, a crackpot catch 22!



moriez said:


> [1] Listen.. because it's somehow critical to you to establish the why doesn't mean it is or should be to others. Reason why I said you're _taking and making it YOUR
> 2. Intriguing. I wasn't aware of such case against the highly regarded Chord or any other audio business for that matter.
> [2a] Assuming the description of what happened is accurate Chord's argumentation and testing methods are not so convincing to say the least :\
> [2b] ... Chord's defence relies on ''the subjective nature'' which while rather weak, per definition can't be argued with. My take. _



1. The "why" isn't necessarily critical but the "if" is: IF there actually is any difference/improvement. The "why" is important to some people and almost unavoidably so when it unequivocally answers the "IF" (which is the case here). So the question is; why are YOU "taking and making it YOUR", why do you want to suppress the "why"?

2. Why would you be aware? As you say, audiophiles hold Chord in high regard and obviously, neither Chord fanboys nor Chord themselves are going to publicise a case they lost, so who is going to publicise it? You would have thought that Chord's competitors would, but they can't, because they're in the same boat! So that leaves pretty much no one to publicise it. There's several cases of respected audiophile cable companies being caught red-handed and successfully called out on false claims but hardly any audiophiles ever get to hear about it.
2a. And there's the big red flag! There are "testing methods" that are highly reliable, cheap and relatively easy to perform (even for consumers, let alone for a manufacturer) that identify ALL differences and the results of which are rationally indisputable (ie. Completely "convincing"). So why didn't Chord present the results of such "testing methods" in their defence? In fact, why didn't they avoid the case in the first place and provide those results as part of their advertising? Why is it that no audiophile ethernet cable manufacturers ever publishes the results of such tests? It's because the tests prove there is no difference, as demonstrated in the test posted previously and by anyone who's done the test/tests themselves!
2b. Chord's defence relies on ''the subjective nature'' which is NOT "rather weak", it's completely inapplicable because they claimed actual differences, instead of imaginary/subjective differences based on biasing perception. So "per definition" not only can it "be argued with" but it SHOULD/MUST be argued with because at best it's misleading and at worst it's a cynical lie for the sole purpose of scamming consumers out of their money. My take!

G


----------



## bluenight

Clive101 said:


> This thread is becoming a duplicate of " Why do USB cables make a difference"
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/why-do-usb-cables-make-such-a-difference.855479/
> But in the sprit of the OP we all must realise disposable income and passion, for example I know of someone that re mortgaged his property to fund the new purchase of some expensive speakers, I would not, so we all differ.
> So I thought I would try some ethernet cables in my system this weekend.
> ...


Interesting. Please share your listening experience.


----------



## moriez

Clive101 said:


> it's different oR not, life is too short for all of that IMHO.



Agreed 100. 



> If anyone has interest please ask and I will post later



Yes! Enjoy testing.


----------



## gregorio

Clive101 said:


> [1] But in the sprit of the OP we all must realise disposable income and passion, for example I know of someone that re mortgaged his property to fund the new purchase of some expensive speakers, I would not, so we all differ.
> I did not do blind tests or for that matter double bind tests, I also do not do micro details and switch back and forth A - B to find them,
> [2] it's different of not,
> [3] life is too short for all of that IMHO.



1. Now you know of 2 someone's who've done that! Although in my case it was for an entire system, not only speakers but the re-mortgage only covered about half the cost.

2. Also "agreed 100%"! However, because I'm a human being and can therefore experience things differently, even the exact same thing, then I want to know if there really is a difference or not. If I've got $10,000 to spend, then I want to spend it on something that will actually make a (real) difference but apparently that's just me.

3. That assertion is exactly backwards! You don't need to do "all of that". It's going to take all of 10 minutes to actually measure for any difference, it's ONLY IF measurements indicate a difference that might be audible would you have to do "all of that" but in this case they don't. How long does your method take, longer than 10 minutes? 

So, I spent some time learning the basic principles of digital audio and the ethernet protocol, and then spent around 20 mins or so measuring the differences between several different ethernet cables, so I know for certain that I have the best ethernet cable that money can buy (and can exist). You on the other hand spent however long you did on your test and you never really know. At some stage you'll come across advertising, reviews or testimonials about some (supposedly) even better ethernet cable and you'll go through it all over again, ad infinitum. A common complaint/concern of audiophiles about audiophile products. Life really is WAY "too short for all that IMHO"!!!

G


----------



## Clive101 (Feb 11, 2020)

I tried the different network cables with the Antipodes CX EX combo between the two units and again between the network either a wireless access point (hopefully to reduce network noise) and straight into the network.

Earlier some months ago on a Melco N1Za I did experience network noise connected straight into the network and had a better experience with the wireless access point, I confirmed this with also with trying the Melco off network (controlled by the front panel only). I also experienced noise when only one end of the ethernet cable was connected to the Melco I guess this acted like an aerial.

With the Antipodes CX EX combo I could not decide which cable made any difference when connected to either the wireless access point or direct to the network either streaming from Qobuz or from the library stored in the CX, note there is a difference between the Qobuz and the library in SQ but the cables made no difference on one or the other, I hope that makes sense. I suspect the two Antipodes units have some filtration for network noise.

I did notice a difference between the cables when connected between the CX and EX.

SOtM cat 7 New out the box
Booming base, sucked the life out the midrange, sibilance. Good separation of instruments mass of detail. Thin, all bass and treble.

SOtM cat 6 with different cables. new out the box
Fine tuning to your tastes they made the difference easy relaxed to detailed chose you flavour.

Chord Sarum T Demo cable
Base booming but not as much as the SOtM, good midrange, good detail, good vocals, but still adds to sibilance, lacks the toe tapping musically great if you like detail.

Antipodes
This cable is the free one in the box with the CX EX combo. Tight base, good midrange, nice treble, not too much detail and a balanced all rounder.
All I can say is, musically this fitted my personal taste, although the detail was not quite as good as the Chord.

Supra EDIT Cat 8
Too smooth, all the sounds sounded fused together by compassion to the other cables but for the price no complaints.

I listened to the cables over this weekend and on the Sunday morning the other half came into the HiFi room and wanted to participate. Not knowing what cable was in play, came to the same conclusion this was over a cup of tea. Then walked off saying listen to the music not the cables !

Edit forgot to say YMMV


----------



## Clive101

I stumbled across which may give some more insight on the ethernet cable packed with the Antipodes CX EX combo.
copied from the following link. There is more in part 3.

*"Not just any Ethernet cable*

I know, this is controversial, but please bear with me. The EX and CX come complete with a nice Ethernet cable in the box. Normally an afterthought but in this case, Mark has selected precisely this cable for its audio qualities and after comparing it to a bunch of other Ethernet cables, I fully agree with his decision.


Compared to standard cables, regardless of their Category, the cable that came with the CX made for a very noticeable increase in impact and tautness! Mark had already informed me that these cables were something special but also warned me that they would need a considerable amount of running in. Now I must admit to being a little skeptical about the latter myself. I can understand that noise on a cable can affect the performance of a component downstream but an Ethernet cable that needs running in? When I asked Mark about his thoughts on what causes one Ethernet cable to sound warm and relaxed and another to sound tight and dynamic.


*Mark Jenkins:"

https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/re...network-player-reviews/antipodes-cx-ex-part2/*

It appears that Mr Jenkins has knowledge of making cables 

https://www.audiophilia.com/reviews...dio-reference-interconnects-and-speaker-cable

Sorry about all the maketing make your own judgements, again YMMV


----------



## gregorio

Clive101 said:


> [1] It appears that Mr Jenkins has knowledge of making cables
> [2] Sorry about all the maketing make your own judgements, again YMMV



1. And of course, appearances can never be deceiving? Even if he has knowledge of making cables, it's BLATANTLY OBVIOUS he doesn't understand (or is deliberately lying about) what is actually occurring! This is what Mark Jenkins actually stated:

"(A) I_t is true that transporting bits data from one storage medium in one place to another storage medium in another place is easy. What is stored at the destination is only the data, no noise or jitter. 
(B) 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. 
(C) You need to conduct a relevant experiment. 
(C1) For example, you can send the digital data as a sine wave, and prove even this can result in bit-perfect transmission of the data. 
(C2) Then listen to a DAC processing a sine wave versus a saw-tooth wave versus a square wave, in any kind of blind test method you like, and any audiophile will agree that they sound different._"

A. Both these statements are indeed entirely true!

B. It would of course be "simply bad science" to induce knowledge unsupported by experimentation but what's that got to do with it? Does he think that no one ever performed experiments with ethernet before it was even released, that no experiments were carried out when the international ethernet standards were proposed or ratified and that no one has performed any experiments since? If that's not bad enough, in an ethernet network/system the "destination" is a buffer (storage media) and he's correctly stated that it's "easy" to transport those bits (with NO noise or jitter) but in this sentence he's now effectively stating/implying that in fact it isn't easy/trivial! So, which is it, is it trivial or isn't it? Experimentation and it's applied use by hundreds of millions/billions of people prove beyond any doubt that it's trivial!

Furthermore, an ethernet network is NOT processing the data in real time, it's not processing the data at all, it's just reconstructing the data and even with just a 100 Mbit ethernet network it's reconstructing that data about 70 times faster than real time (in the case of stereo 16bit 44.1kHz digital audio)! The (downstream) system that does have to process the data in real time is the DAC chip but: A. The DAC chip is getting the data it's processing from the ethernet receiving buffer (storage medium) which Mr. Jenkins has already correctly stated "is only the data, no noise or jitter".  and B. Processing 2 channels (stereo) of digital audio data in real time is about as trivial as it gets in computational terms. An audibly perfect DAC chip costs about 50 cents to make. If you want to see real time digital audio processing that's not trivial, go to a film dubbing threatre, where over 1,000 simultaneous channels of digital audio processing is sometimes required and, it's far more complex processing than occurs in a DAC!

C. You do indeed, so WHY then present an example which is NOT a relevant experiment?
C1. You CAN'T send the digital data as a sine wave, the ethernet protocol requires an "eye pattern" wave and therefore there is no ethernet transmitter that sends the digital data as a sine wave. Even if there were, I very much doubt you'd get a bit perfect transmission/reception of the data, most likely you wouldn't get any data at all but there's no way to experiment/test this. Therefore his statement is false, you CANNOT "prove even this can result..." and Secondly, according to HIS OWN previous statement, it's "simply bad science"!
C2. As there is no DAC that can process digital data as a sine wave or saw-tooth wave (only an eye pattern) then of course anyone in any sort of test would hear a difference. You would either hear complete audio nonsense or the DAC wouldn't output anything at all!

2. Why would "Your Milage Might Vary"? Sure, you might need a bit of basic knowledge to realise ALL of the above A - C2 points but some of it should be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to anyone capable of rational thought!

G


----------



## Aegwyn11 (Feb 11, 2020)

deleted, changed my mind about wading into this discussion, sorry for the wasted post


----------



## moriez

Clive101 said:


> Supra
> Too smooth, all the sounds sounded fused together by compassion to the other cables but for the price no complaints.



Which Supra. Cat 7 or 8?


----------



## Clive101

Supra Cat 8, I have edited the post earlier, remember smooth compared to the others


----------



## bode

This is like the whole audiophile extension lead drama. The cables which travel miles to your home don't cost £800 and have Hi-Res stickers on them. Bits of data or electricity whatever don't suddenly improve to audiophile standards in the last few feet to your amp.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 11, 2020)

Clive101 said:


> I tried the different network cables with the Antipodes CX EX combo between the two units and again between the network either a wireless access point (hopefully to reduce network noise) and straight into the network.
> 
> Earlier some months ago on a Melco N1Za I did experience network noise connected straight into the network and had a better experience with the wireless access point, I confirmed this with also with trying the Melco off network (controlled by the front panel only). I also experienced noise when only one end of the ethernet cable was connected to the Melco I guess this acted like an aerial.
> 
> ...


Yes the last cable is the one that makes most difference they say, the one in to the music streamer from switch in my case.

I agree with the supra cat8 being smooth which is good for bad thin sibilant recordings imo, fuzzy is a good word to describe it, . In my streamer i dont have an problem with it i like it more then mine previous used cheap generic cat5e utp. To me cat5e sounds flater, supra makes the soundstage wider and deeper and i get a sense of that the HP disapear more and more floaty and airy. Also i get more musical joy with supra which is the best thing.

Where i get annoyed with supra is using it from switch to apple tv 4k for movie and tv series whatching there i prefer wifi or even cat5e utp which i dident hear a difference between wifi or cat5e. There i think supra is to smooth and unclean sounding. There i prefer the more realistic neutral sound of wifi or cat5e. My chord hugo2 dac/amp is connected with optical to Lg oled tv.

It sems to your conclusion is they sound different but the more expensive not necceserly better. 

I saw your edit at a glance maybe the free one with cx+ex isent considered generic cheap.


----------



## Clive101

The CX EX is not a generic.

I guess the materials used in most ethernet cables do not cost much more at best than a few hundred $ or £ the rest is marketing, R&D, dealer mark up etc so I guess Antipodes put the cable in box to give their unit the best SQ without the need upgrade, their expertise for free.

Any one tried the Audioquest Vodka ? Or perhaps the Diamond ? and what did you compare with.

I have been given a good tip off for the Vodka but looking on the reviews the SOtM seemed to come out on top which I have tried. 

I only flick though a few tracks then try the next cable but I do come back several hours later and try again.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 11, 2020)

Also the supra in the streamer i have burned in 2 weeks 24/7 with internet radio playing. I think i enjoyed it more when it settled in. The supra in the apple tv 4k i had not burned in, more relaxed sound. But this morning i switched the burnt in cable from streamar and put it in the apple tv 4k i have not listened to the sound yet if its changed anything. And started the 2 week burn in with the other cable connected to streamer. I saw this was mentioned in the cx link as a fenomen also.


----------



## gregorio (Feb 12, 2020)

Clive101 said:


> Supra Cat 8, I have edited the post earlier, remember smooth compared to the others





bluenight said:


> I agree with the supra cat8 being smooth which is good for bad thin sibilant recordings imo



The level of "ridiculous" here puts even a Monty Python sketch to shame!

An ethernet cable does NOT carry an analogue audio signal, it carries digital data, how can you (in effect) seriously claim otherwise? The signal an ethernet cable actually carries is a series of on/off pulses (measured/analysed as an eye-pattern), as just a few minutes on Wikipedia or ANY OTHER introduction to the basics of digital signalling would reveal, if you could be bothered!





An ethernet cable "being smooth" is therefore NOT "good", the LAST thing you want is the pulses/eye-pattern being "smoothed"! If it really were "smoothing" the signal it's transporting, the result would either be the exact same, IDENTICAL data (in the case of minimal "smoothing") or data errors (in the case of severe "smoothing"), which would require the data to be resent until it IS identical or until it gives up (in which case there is NO data)!

How many times? An ethernet cable does NOT carry an analogue audio signal! How many times are you going to contradict the basic principles of digital data signalling, without which digital devices and the digital age could not exist! Jeez!

G


----------



## bluenight (Feb 13, 2020)

Clive101 said:


> The CX EX is not a generic.
> 
> I guess the materials used in most ethernet cables do not cost much more at best than a few hundred $ or £ the rest is marketing, R&D, dealer mark up etc so I guess Antipodes put the cable in box to give their unit the best SQ without the need upgrade, their expertise for free.
> 
> ...


There is some costumer reviews here
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/audioquest-vodka-rj-e-ethernet-cable

Personaly i think the best choice for me is atlas mavros ethernet cable  and if i am in the mood/cant resist someday i will try it with 60 days back guarantee. The grun drain wire was effective with my mavros rca cable connected to my streamer. So i have already got the atlas mains power adapter with grun connected to niagara 1000 power socket (with ground noise dissipation system)  where you can connect 3 grun drain wires for RF/EMI noise pathway.

I  asked atlas on email  on how it  works and they said it has a cumulative effect and the more you control the noise floor in the system the better cleaner sound and that the cable itself emits rf/emi that conducts in the screen also the screen picks up rf/emi from the outside enviorment, the screen leads the noise to the grun pathway in my case to power socket.

Over priced maybe, they are not cheap. I got the power adapter and one grun extension for free on a summer campaign the store and atlas had when i bought the mavros rca cable so that was a great deal.

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/atlas-mavros-grun-streaming-ethernet-audio-cable

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/atlas-grun-power-adaptors

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/atlas-grun-grounding-adaptors

Also atlas have a track record of high quality great sounding digital cables.
I got this optical cable which sounds quite better then my supra optical which is again more smooth and forgiving with  poor recordings but the atlas is more textural and detailed with more soundstage air more articulate bass. Supra is great for the price imo and the connectors have a perfect fit which clicks in to place easy compared to mavros which connectors is a little to big and you have to use more force to put it in but i noticed you dont have to put it in all the way for it to work but thats a minus and it dont click in as supra does. 

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/atlas-mavros-toslink-glass-digital-optical-audio-cable

I had been using this for years before buying mavros optical
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/supra-zac-fibre-optic-digital-interconnect

Good costumer reviews i got the version with spdif-3,5mm for hugo2. I cant complain it sounds great but got nothing to compare with.
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/atlas-mavros-ultra-rca-75-ohm-sp-dif-digital-audio-cable


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> There is some costumer reviews here
> https://www.futureshop.co.uk/audioquest-vodka-rj-e-ethernet-cable ....
> https://www.futureshop.co.uk/atlas-mavros-grun-streaming-ethernet-audio-cable



Did you even read those pages before you posted a link to them? If you did, how is it possible that you didn't notice the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS contradictions between them and even the self contradictions? For example:

Audioquest: "... _Ethernet offers the virtues of high-speed, low time delay (latency), significant distance capability (1000 feet without an active booster or repeater), and extremely low-jitter, bit-perfect communication. Who wouldn't want all of these things?_" - Yes, ethernet does indeed offer those "virtues" and of course everyone not only "want all of those things" but absolutely expect and demand them. Who would want an ethernet network that is broken/doesn't work (that doesn't provide "bit-perfect communication")?

Audioquest: "_The Cat 7 cable standard has been created to allow 10- Gigabyte Ethernet over 100 m of *copper* cabling._" - Indeed it was and of course it works "bit-perfectly", so why are Audioquest making Cat 7 cables that are NOT copper (have 10% silver added)?

Audioquest: "_This is an incredibly cost effective way of manufacturing very high-quality Ethernet cables._" - It would be, if silver were cheaper than copper (and still worked "bit-perfectly"). OBVIOUSLY though, silver is NOT cheaper than copper, so it's actually an incredibly cost INEFFECTIVE way of manufacturing ethernet cables. However, as their cable would only cost a few bucks more to manufacture but they are charging consumers nearly 100 times more, it's certainly "an incredibly cost effective way" of scamming gullible/ignorant consumers!!!

Atlas: "_Atlas' developed a new range of streaming cables with a goal in mind. That goal was to deliver improved fidelity ..._" - As Audioquest (correctly) stated, ethernet offers "bit-*perfect* communication". OBVIOUSLY, there can be no "fidelity" greater than "perfect"! If Atlas has achieved their goal (of improved fidelity), this tells us two things: Firstly, that their ethernet cables prior to this "new range" had lower fidelity (than bit-perfect) and were therefore defective/faulty! And secondly, that Atlas' "new range" has managed to achieve what generic Chinese manufacturers already achieved a decade ago but at about 200 times the cost (to the consumer)!!!

Accused of "_The level of "ridiculous" here puts even a Monty Python sketch to shame!_", your response is to post a level of "ridiculous" that puts even a Monty Python sketch to shame. If that's not funny, nothing is (at least to a Monty Python fan)! Of course though, it *might* not appear to be ridiculous to a gullible/ignorant consumer who is not capable of noticing "the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS contradictions".

G


----------



## Clive101

bluenight said:


> There is some costumer reviews here
> https://www.futureshop.co.uk/audioquest-vodka-rj-e-ethernet-cable
> 
> Personaly i think the best choice for me is atlas mavros ethernet cable  and if i am in the mood/cant resist someday i will try it with 60 days back guarantee. The grun drain wire was effective with my mavros rca cable connected to my streamer. So i have already got the atlas mains power adapter with grun connected to niagara 1000 power socket (with ground noise dissipation system)  where you can connect 3 grun drain wires for RF/EMI noise pathway.
> ...



Thanks for the information. When I get round to ordering the demo Vodka and Diamond cables I will add in the Mavros cable and drain wires.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 13, 2020)

Clive101 said:


> Thanks for the information. When I get round to ordering the demo Vodka and Diamond cables I will add in the Mavros cable and drain wires.


If you wanna try something different and in the mood? Then you would really walked all the way imo. Claims to sound very analogue. Anyway i find this one very interesting. If so make sure to get the 60 days back guarantee they have.


https://www.futureshop.co.uk/entreq-primer-network-cable-w-ground-box

From link
"Supplied as a complete package incorporating Entreqs EEDS noise draining system, exclusive wooden connectors and dedicated Primer Ground Box you will find a level of performance, musicality and ease unheard of at the price. The USB and RJ45 cables in particular typify this approach with digital music becoming almost analogue in presentation while retaining an open, textured & detailed sound. The improvement, even streaming Spotify via a Primer RJ45, will surprise you!"

90 pound more
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/entreq-primer-plus-network-cable-w-ground-box

The Primer and Primer Pro ranges offer identical construction, with the Primer Pro versions having enhanced conductors and EEDS system.


----------



## dazzerfong (Feb 13, 2020)

gregorio said:


> Did you even read those pages before you posted a link to them? If you did, how is it possible that you didn't notice the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS contradictions between them and even the self contradictions? For example:
> 
> Audioquest: "... _Ethernet offers the virtues of high-speed, low time delay (latency), significant distance capability (1000 feet without an active booster or repeater), and extremely low-jitter, bit-perfect communication. Who wouldn't want all of these things?_" - Yes, ethernet does indeed offer those "virtues" and of course everyone not only "want all of those things" but absolutely expect and demand them. Who would want an ethernet network that is broken/doesn't work (that doesn't provide "bit-perfect communication")?
> 
> ...



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


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> Did you even read those pages before you posted a link to them? If you did, how is it possible that you didn't notice the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS contradictions between them and even the self contradictions? For example:
> 
> Audioquest: "... _Ethernet offers the virtues of high-speed, low time delay (latency), significant distance capability (1000 feet without an active booster or repeater), and extremely low-jitter, bit-perfect communication. Who wouldn't want all of these things?_" - Yes, ethernet does indeed offer those "virtues" and of course everyone not only "want all of those things" but absolutely expect and demand them. Who would want an ethernet network that is broken/doesn't work (that doesn't provide "bit-perfect communication")?
> 
> ...


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


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


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




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


----------



## bluenight (Feb 13, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2020)

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

Clive101 said:


> 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!



dazzerfong said:


> 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?



bluenight said:


> 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.



Clive101 said:


> [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

gregorio said:


> 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

dazzerfong said:


> [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 (Feb 15, 2020)

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 (Feb 15, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 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.



bluenight said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 16, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 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

andrewd01 said:


> [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?



bluenight said:


> [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!!



dazzerfong said:


> 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

moriez said:


> [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

gregorio said:


> 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Krassi

gregorio,

I think you convinced me with such brief arguments.


----------



## moriez

gregorio said:


> 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?


----------



## gregorio

moriez said:


> [1] 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.
> [2] Making this my last post to at least give things a chance to breath and shift to more useful material.



1. Why did you quote my post, give it "_absolutely zero sign of consideration of the remarks about the troll-like behaviour_" and then accuse me of doing exactly what you're actually doing? This seems to be a common debating tactic here but everywhere else it's just called "hypocrisy"! Contrary to your (false) assertion, I not only DID take consideration of the remarks regarding "troll like behaviour" but that was pretty much what the whole of my response was about, didn't you read it? Rephrasing my response using your "troll like behaviour" term: Are you saying that repeatedly promoting false marketing (snake-oil) is not "troll like behaviour" but that presenting the actual facts is?

2. Again, what is "_more useful material_", marketing BS or the actual facts?

Neither this site, this forum nor the title of this thread states that actual facts are not allowed, that ONLY marketing BS is acceptable and that presenting the actual facts will be considered "troll like behaviour". If this is the case, then why is it not made clear? Why is "fidelity", "transparency", etc., brought up so often (and espoused) if no one has the slightest bit of interest in them and why call yourselves audiophiles if your only interest is marketing BS, why not be honest and call yourselves BS-ophiles?

G


----------



## Clive101 (Feb 17, 2020)

Since this thread has gone way off topic... thought would post this.
Time to reflect....
Listen to Solo by Nils Frahm with Qobuz in high-fidelity.
And on the web on open.qobuz.com/album/y9p5d0rwzdovb
Chill Out


----------



## bluenight

dazzerfong said:


> 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.


I knew that from the atlas webpage sort of. But dident specifically know rj45 was 6a at best. So what is real cat 7 and 8 connectors? I guess i can google. I will still call supra cat 8 that name so everyone know what cable i am talking about and thats its name.


"Even a fully-tested and bandwidth-guaranteed Cat6 cable terminated with a Cat5 plug will only deliver Cat5 performance."


dazzerfong said:


> 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.


Thats what atlas basically said which you did seem to frown upon when i linked it a few pages back. The sum of the parts.

https://www.atlascables.com/featured-streaming.html

Some more reasons according to atlas why ethernet cables can make a diffrence

"We utilise high-purity solid-core OFC conductors with stable low-loss FEP dielectric, a zinc die-cast RJ45 connector, in a precision-calibrated production process which pays particular attention to maintaining the balance between tight twist ratios and symmetrical twist patterns, minimising signal errors. Fewer errors means the correction circuitry in the receiving device has less work to do - a high level of error correction can itself introduce more noise – extracting and processing the data.
Our Mavros cable features our Grun Coherent Earthing System as an integral part of maximising performance from Ethernet sources, by draining this “noise”’ away to an ‘independent’ ground.

.

"The Grun connection can be made via the supplied Grun lead with spade tag (connect to your amplifier’s chassis or ground post), or for optimum performance, the optional Grun mains adaptor connected to a power socket or mains distribution block.

This ‘noise’ doesn’t directly present as ‘hash’ or interference, but impacts on a DAC’s clock accuracy and error correction circuitry, compromising fidelity – the practical, audible result is a cleaner audio signal with a wider dynamic range and less of the ‘glare’ which typically results from high levels of unwanted ‘energy’ in the signal data."

https://www.atlascables.com/streaming-mavros-grun.html


----------



## bluenight

dazzerfong said:


> I don't think you actually read what the site says or given it some thought.
> 
> _Tough pitch copper, copper-clad aluminium, and OFC (Oxygen Free Copper) can all be used to produce data equivalent Cat-x cables.
> 
> ...


----------



## bluenight (Feb 17, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 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?


To me listening with your ear-brain system to the ethernet cables is more relevant experiment then you ever do. Thats how i interpet it.


----------



## Krassi

Well guys this is getting like a discussion about ethernet religion
Well i would just say.. If you believe in it than do so and be happy and i dondt care .. i totally dondt belive in this and so you dondt care and ignore that.
Simple as that...no one will change his opinion so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  ..We are in a forum discussing Stuff that any other people would think we are mad with that hifi stuff...so...lets save energy.. and do what we are here for.. FUN!


----------



## dazzerfong (Feb 18, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Thats what atlas basically said which you did seem to frown upon when i linked it a few pages back. The sum of the parts.



And if that's the case, throw out the amp or DAC as it's a poorly made one. This isn't rocket science, if Ethernet cables influence the sound of the device then it was poorly shielded in the first place, which means whatever you paid for it probably isn't worth it.

The sum makes sense only if the problem exists in the first place.

Oh, and what Atlas said isn't wrong. In fact, it's actually fairly accurate. Problem however is that you're inventing a problem where none exists. And that's why it's a problem for me.


----------



## Jbucla2005

Ethernet cables don’t affect the sound, unless you cut them up and twist them together to make speaker cables. I’ve tried this but prefer stranded copper for this application.


----------



## gregorio (Feb 18, 2020)

bluenight said:


> To me listening with your ear-brain system to the ethernet cables is more relevant experiment then you ever do. Thats how i interpet it.



And yet, as I already stated and as should be blatantly obvious: "_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 can you possibly "interpret" that a relevant experiment is "_listening with you ear-brain_" to a signal that your sound system cannot reproduce and that your ears could not possibly hear even if it could? In fact, how can anyone with a rational mind interpret that as anything other than pretty much the LEAST "relevant experiment" that you could do?

Furthermore, if we continue logically (which seems to be some sort of heresy here!): As you obviously cannot use your ears, the only thing left in your "ear-brain" experiment is your brain and as already proven/demonstrated earlier in this thread (the McGurk Effect), if your brain is aware of (for example "sees") a difference then it can/will simply change what it's actually hearing to reflect that difference. So yet again, this CANNOT be a relevant experiment, what you're actually testing is your brain's perception, NOT the ethernet cables!



bluenight said:


> dazzerfong said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Yes and with VERY good reason. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the basics and actually appear to deliberately not want to understand them! On the off-chance that you do or for the benefit of others:

As with much audiophile marketing BS, most of the information presented in the linked marketing is true. However, there's one innocuous looking lie that invalidates EVERYTHING ELSE! The marketing concentrates on precision production and bandwidth, such as:

"[1] _Data cable manufacturers have focused on the humble twisted pair to drive data speed and bandwidth forward. With its inherent common mode rejection properties, it’s a cheap method of production, so a winner in the data field for years.                   
[2] However as you push the bandwidth of the twisted pair you soon get to a point where further twisting offers no more benefit – at which point you need to add cable screening to enhance rejection performance.               
[3] As the bandwidth requirement of the cable increases so does the shielding required to deliver the specified performance, specified as:          _

_U/UTP - Unscreened / Universal Twisted Pair                  _
_U/FTP - Unscreened / Foiled Twisted Pair                   _
_S/FTP - Screened / Foiled Twisted Pair                  _
_[4] Atlas has always paid particular attention to shielding and screening ..._"

1. Absolutely true.

2. But here's the lie, you do NOT "_soon_" get to the point "_at which you need to add cable screening to enhance rejection performance_". The "point" at which you need to add cable screening is 25 and 50 Gigabit ethernet networks, which as far as I'm aware only exist in industrial applications such as data centres, NOT consumer ethernet networks.

3. As the bandwidth requirement of the cable increases in ethernet networks *faster than 10 Gigabit* then screening is required. *ALL* ethernet networks up to and including 10 Gigabit ethernet are specified for UTP (*Unscreened* Twisted Pair)!

4. Why? Why pay ANY attention, let alone "particular attention" to something that is specifically NOT needed/required in the first place? Furthermore, if there is a requirement for a screened cable; say in a data centre, if the required length of the cable exceeds the length specified (typically 100m for UTP) or if you live next to a magnet factory, then perfectly functioning screened ethernet cable costs roughly 50c per meter more than cheap unscreened cable, NOT hundreds of dollars more!

So, if your ethernet card/receiver cannot operate perfectly with a cheap unscreened twisted pair, as defined by the ethernet standards (and you don't live next to a magnet factory), then either it isn't an ethernet card/receiver or it's a broken/faulty ethernet receiver!



dazzerfong said:


> Problem however is that you're inventing a problem where none exists. And that's why it's a problem for me.



Unfortunately, a great deal of marketing of a variatey of audiophile products ENTIRELY relies on exactly that tactic (jitter and skin effect in analogue cables being just two of many examples)!

G


----------



## bluenight (Feb 18, 2020)

moriez said:


> _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?


Yes gregorio is not worth to reply to. He always find a way to twist things.

As i hear the diffrence my self with the supra cat 8 it doesent matter what he says and in my eyes hes plain wrong.


I cant explain the why. Supra got a whole another tonality and timbre then my cat5e which in my streamer sounds flat and lifeless compared to supra that is more musical. I hear the musical intent more i think its because the higher resuloution and more refined sound. Its a bit too smooth/dark to be optimal but wouldent want an too bright sound either. Before i replaced mine generic cheap cables with supra i remebered having much more harshness and listening fatigue.

Question for me is it worth paying for even more pricey ethernet cables between around $200-700 can they bring even higher resoulution and detail without becoming sibilant or harsh. I hope they would sound better not just different.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> Yes gregorio is not worth to reply to. He always find a way to twist things.
> 
> As i hear the diffrence my self with the supra cat 8 it doesent matter what he says and in my eyes hes plain wrong.
> 
> ...



Why stop at $700.  Think how much more resolution and detail a $5000 Ethernet cable would give you...

https://www.amazon.com/Audioquest-D...sprefix=Audioquest+eth,electronics,133&sr=1-2


----------



## Marutks

Ethernet cables don't affect sound quality.   It is absurd to claim otherwise. 
Do they think a better cable magically changes those bits to improve sound  ?   LOL


----------



## Clive101 (Feb 18, 2020)

https://www.fanthorpes.co.uk/cables/streaming-cables/ethernet-cables/chord-music-ethernet-cable/
4k for 1 mt 11 k for 5mt 20k for 10mt

Any one in the UK want to test with me ?  Only open mined people welcome, non believers or believers.


----------



## bfreedma

Clive101 said:


> https://www.fanthorpes.co.uk/cables/streaming-cables/ethernet-cables/chord-music-ethernet-cable/
> 4k for 1 mt 11 k for 5mt 20k for 10mt
> 
> Any one in the UK want to test with me ?  Only open mined people welcome, non believers or believers.



Do you still want to spend money on a Chord Ethernet cable after reading this?

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

(apologies for posting the link a second time)


----------



## Clive101

A good question and I thank you for being civil.

Depends how they sound?

The report was dated 2014 for the Sarum Range (now not sold).

In my earlier post I preferred the free CX EX combo cable, I have yet to try the Chord Music ethernet cable.

Reading the report it is clear and I guess no one else has yet been able to measure the difference, the panel were offered the opportunity to listen to the cables but again I guess this was not the case.

Has any non believer tried any of the Audiophile ethernet cables on their system that would (may) be able to resolve any differences, do the cables sound the same to them is perhaps the question? If the answer is, no difference in sound, we are all back to square one !

One camp vs another camp.

Has a non believer changed their position or vise versa?

There is the same issue with power cables and fuses.

When I purchased my HiFi I tried several USB cables (same as ethernet cables I guess zeros and ones?) 

I also found if I ran from a laptop or Melco the cable used had more of a difference, standard printer cable vs Sarum T there seemed (was) a bigger difference in my preference when the laptop was used, when I compared them with the Melco the gap was closer.


----------



## Clive101 (Feb 19, 2020)

Thank you for being civil.

So there is a difference but it is not a significant difference that was what I guessed in the first place same ball park with measurements well for me and the writer that is.

"Do you honestly think that the difference between say a generic cat 6a shielded cable and an audiophile cat 6a shielded cable is greater than the difference between say a 3ft unshielded cat 5e cable and a 50ft shielded cat 6a cable? If it were, then it wouldn't be a cat 6a cable!" 

Answer No if the was a difference Chord would have published.

Thank you for clearing that up for me
.
The audiophile cables are sent to me FOC and minute on the phone get them in the post perhaps more than then a few minutes to test we really are splitting hairs on this timing issue.

It matters to me, if the writer took the time to listen to the audiophile cables he would have kept an open mind and not be clouded by measurements.

Perhaps it is the brain that works for some in the reverse and people hear no difference when there is..as their brain is thinking of the measurements.


----------



## bfreedma

Clive101 said:


> Thank you for being civil.
> 
> *So there is a difference but it is not a significant difference* that was what I guessed in the first place same ball park with measurements well for me and the writer that is.
> 
> ...




The differences are far below audible level.  Isn't being audible or audible in reasonable theory really the significant data point?

The suggestion that data will cloud "open minds" but subjective listening with no controls odd...


----------



## bluenight (Feb 19, 2020)

gregorio said:


> (the McGurk Effect), if your brain is aware of (for example "sees") a difference then it can/will simply change what it's actually hearing to reflect that difference


That has to do with the ilussion of seeing involved and got nothing to do with music listening wheres the rationality in that?. Also as far as i know it could been manipulated/trickfilmed. I think your far fetching here. The placebo aint that strong.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> That has to do with the ilussion of seeing involved and got nothing to do with music listening wheres the rationality in that?. Also as far as i know it could been manipulated/trickfilmed. I think your far fetching here. The placebo aint that strong.




I think you've missed the point.  The McGurk effect demonstrates how lack of controls leads to incorrect conclusions.  I.E.  Why subjective sighted listening is subject to large amounts of placebo. 

If you know what's in your audio system and can see it, you (and everyone else) are subject to placebo.  Throwing out the "it might be fake" disclaimer is an interesting tact to take while discussing Ethernet cables with no evidence of audible impact other than subjective impression.


----------



## gregorio (Feb 20, 2020)

Clive101 said:


> [1] It matters to me, if the writer took the time to listen to the audiophile cables he would have kept an open mind and not be clouded by measurements.
> [2] Perhaps it is the brain that works for some in the reverse and people hear no difference when there is..as their brain is thinking of the measurements.



1. In order to be valid, your statement must assume one of two (hypothetical) conditions:
A. There might be something that someone not "clouded by measurements" could "listen to" that is not covered by measurements or
B. That measured differences down at say -130dB are in fact significant/audible.

Condition "A" absolutely cannot be true. Digital audio data is itself ONLY a (binary) representation of a single measurement, the measurement of amplitude over time. Therefore, even if there were some hypothetical audio property that cannot be measured (by amplitude over time) then it couldn't be recorded using digital audio and obviously, if it can't be recorded in the first place then it cannot be reproduced by a digital audio playback system and there can be nothing "to listen to".

Condition "B" cannot be true either. We've again got the problem that a playback system cannot reproduce it and obviously, you cannot "listen to" something that your playback system isn't reproducing! Differences at -130dB are roughly 1,000 - 10,000 times below the noise floor of virtually every commercial music recording ever made, many times below what even the very finest reproduction systems can reproduce and even if all this were not the case, still you couldn't "listen to" those differences without a playback level that would cause pain and permanent hearing damage.

2. That is indeed a possibility under certain circumstances. For example, taking a measurement of one audio property which indicates no audible difference, that then creates a bias of no audible difference (and therefore the brain may perceive no difference) even if there is an audible difference with some other audio property not measured (or the testee was not aware of). However, that's not the case here, those certain/required circumstances don't exist in this instance because archimago performed a comprehensive set of measurement tests. And, if there is ever any doubt, there is a simple/common test that measures the totality of ALL POSSIBLE differences between ANY two audio signals, called a "Null Test".



bluenight said:


> [1] That has to do with the ilussion of seeing involved and got nothing to do with music listening wheres the rationality in that?.
> [2] Also as far as i know it could been manipulated/trickfilmed.
> [2a] I think your far fetching here.
> [2b] The placebo aint that strong.



1. It's EXACTLY THE SAME rationality as seeing/knowing a different (audiophile) ethernet cable is being used and perceiving a difference when listening to music! Furthermore, the "illusion of seeing" and how it affects music listening has been known for centuries and no better demonstrated than in the early 1950's by John Cage, that's 70 odd years ago! Where's the "rationality" in arguing against something that has been so clearly proven?

2. And how do you think that was done? You can watch the video more than once, close your eyes or look away from the picture in a different place each time and then you don't hear the "faa". So, it would have to be a magic film that knows when you're looking at the image of the scientist pronouncing "faa" and changes the sound to "faa" and knows when you're not looking at it and leaves the sound as "baa". Therefore:
2a. You're the one suggesting what must be some sort of magic film and you think I'm the one "far fetching here"? And,
2b. Either placebo must be "that strong" or you believe that magic must exist and was used to make the film. If it's the latter, "where's the rationality in that"??

G


----------



## bluenight

Clive101 said:


> A good question and I thank you for being civil.
> 
> Depends how they sound?
> 
> ...


There was previously a link posted with measurements with different generic ethernet cables that said he never mesured any difference with any digital cable.

But i also hear the difference with my 2 optical cables supra vs mavros optical. Its a large enough difference for me in terms of clarity, detail ,textures and tonality, not to suspect placebo and say its a real change. Also have read alot of people saying Usb,spdif cables can also sound different. 

So measurments like that isent good enough i think compared to our hearing imo. And in the end the ears are what we listen with and not measure instruments. 

Do you non believers here also think optical, spdif or usb cant sound different?

 1m £43 
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/supra-zac-fibre-optic-digital-interconnect

1m £167 
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/atlas-mavros-toslink-glass-digital-optical-audio-cable


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] There was previously a link posted with measurements with different generic ethernet cables that said he never mesured any difference with any digital cable.
> [2] But i also hear the difference with my 2 optical cables supra vs mavros optical. Its a large enough difference for me in terms of clarity, detail ,textures and tonality, not to suspect placebo and say its a real change.
> [2a] Also have read alot of people saying Usb,spdif cables can also sound different.
> [3] So measurments like that isent good enough i think compared to our hearing imo.
> ...



1. As clear by the measurements themselves and as ALREADY discussed, he DID measure differences, just not significant/audible differences.

2. What you "suspect" flies in the face of the actual/proven facts and "Where's the rationality" in accepting a suspicion over the proven facts? As already mentioned (#2b in my previous post), the only alternative to "not to suspect placebo" is to believe in magic!
2a. And again, accepting marketing BS and those who've been suckered by it over the actual facts. If you go to the Flat Earth website you'll find "alot of people saying" the earth is flat, do you therefore believe the earth really is flat or do you believe the actual facts over what "alot of people [are] saying"?

3. "Measurements like that" are not only good enough "compared to our hearing" but way better than our hearing. The measurements in the linked article go down below -150dB which is way beyond what your playback system can reproduce. So how do you think you can hear something that your playback system isn't reproducing? Furthermore:
3a. What is it that your ears are listening to? If you are listening to digital audio then what you're listening to is a "measurement like that" (actually, a measurement that's "like" but NOT as accurate as the measurements in the article!) made by a "measuring instrument", an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC). So, even if your ears were capable of hearing beyond "a measurement like that" (which they're not, by a long way!) what is it that you think you're hearing when a "measurement like that" is the ONLY thing that's been recorded and therefore the ONLY thing even a perfect playback system could reproduce?

Furthermore you are contradicting yourself, YOU previously stated that you don't listen/test with "the ears" but with your ear/brain. So, if you are experiencing a difference and "measurements like that" eliminate the possibility of that audible difference occurring your playback system, the ONLY place left where that difference could be occurring is in your ear/brain, unless of course you believe that some sort of magic exists!

4. What do you mean by "non-believers"? I am a "believer" because I "believe" in the proven/demonstrated facts but I'm not a believer in marketing BS (that contradicts the actual facts) and I don't believe that magic is real, which would be required for the marketing to be true. To pay you the respect of answering your question (even though you do NOT reciprocate that respect!): There can of course be differences between those cables, for example: Obviously a broken digital interconnect is going to sound different to a functioning one. However, presuming the cable (and the device receiving the digital data) isn't faulty/broken and that the cable is appropriate for the task (EG. Within specification), then there is NO RATIONAL OPTION other than to believe they "can't sound different", because measurements prove cheap cables deliver bit-perfect results AND, even though that's enough on it's own, the digital age would not exist if they didn't!

G


----------



## bluenight (Feb 21, 2020)

gregorio said:


> So, if you are experiencing a difference and "measurements like that" eliminate the possibility of that audible difference occurring your playback system, the ONLY place left where that difference could be occurring is in your ear/brain, unless of course you believe that some sort of magic exists!


Then the ear- brain is much more superior and advanced/complex and better at spoting actual sound differences and nuances. Then a machine/instrument built by human that can only probebly do one thing/give one nuance its programed to do. Also it would be a disgrace denying your senses imo and not belive what you hear. Also the beauty in this hobby is that your ears/brain decide whats best for you. You dont seem to get that.

Also i do not suspect the differences, its real. Mavros optical have more high frequency information that gives cleaner sound the drawback with that is more sibilant ssss with compressed audio supra more forgivng and smooth that you could not placebo all the time. As the sssses can become anoying at louder volumes. I think the audio cable designers have cracked the code to improve on actual relyable digital audio cables that is good for many as it is with the generics but for the discerning audiophile if you pay the extra you get some extra sound information less noise. With engenering and experimantation/listening tests for over 30 years experience like it is with Atlas.


----------



## PointyFox

"Believing is hearing".


----------



## Krassi

What i really dondt like here is that people are completely ignoring facts and laughing at the person because they can hear jesus fart trouh teir ethernet cables...
This is kindergarden and now discussion any more. Big thumps up to @gregorio for his calm and insane patience! I am out.. and its so BS3000 to imagine ethernet cables would do anything to sound.

as mentioned i never had the effect that my images that i copied from my server to my local workstation got sharper because of cat7 .. sounds stupid. it is... how can digital audio files suddenly have magical forces that let them sound warmer, more naked.... ahhhhhh i am out ,seeya!


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] Then the ear- brain is much more superior and advanced/complex and better at spoting actual sound differences and nuances. Then a machine/instrument built by human that can only probebly do one thing/give one nuance its programed to do.
> [2] Also it would be a disgrace denying your senses imo and not belive what you hear.
> [3] Also the beauty in this hobby is that your ears/brain decide whats best for you. You dont seem to get that.
> [4] Also i do not suspect the differences, its real. Mavros optical have more high frequency information that gives cleaner sound the drawback with that is more sibilant ssss with compressed audio supra more forgivng and smooth [4a] that you could not placebo all the time.



1. Again, your ear-brain is much more superior at spotting actual sound differences in what? What are you listening to? .... If you are listening to digital audio recordings then you are listening to machines "_built by human that can only do one thing/give one nuance it's programmed to do_"! Do you think  ADCs and DACs are magic devices or are they "machines/instruments built by humans"? As your "nuances"/"differences" are beyond the capabilities of "machines built by humans" (ADCs, DACs, speaker drivers, measurement devices, etc.), how can you "spot actual sound differences" that your playback system is not reproducing? And, where is the ONLY place left where these differences can be created/exist? What "*You don't seem to get*" is that even using YOUR OWN logic, these nuances/differences cannot be "actual sound differences", they MUST be occurring in your ear-brain.

2. What really would be a disgrace is denying the basic facts that have been employed in the creation of music for at least 500 years and that even school children are taught! Do you really not "deny your senses"? For example, have you seen "Avatar"? Do you really believe the planet Pandora exists and that James Cameron took a film crew there to film it? Would it not be "a disgrace" to argue with filmmakers if they tried to explain to you that it was actually just an illusion? Or, did you in fact "deny" what you saw/heard just like every other rational human being?

3. Exactly opposite to your false assertion, I do absolutely "get that"! What I don't "get" is allowing false marketing to affect my ears/brain and therefore marketing BS "deciding what's best for me". That's what "You don't seem to get"!

4. That's clearly IMPOSSIBLE! The signal carried by a Toslink optical cable *CANNOT BE LOWER* than about 1.7MHz (in the case of stereo 16/44.1 digital audio), while sibilance occurs between about 2.5 - 10KHz. So how can having "more high frequency information", more information at or above 1.7 Million Hertz, affect sibilance that's between 2.5 and 10 Thousand Hertz? Digital interconnects (optical or otherwise) do not, BY DEFINITION, carry analog audio signals! How many times? Jeez.
4a. What tests have you done that eliminate the possibility of "placebo all the time"? As you haven't done any such tests, you are therefore *guessing* that it couldn't be "placebo all the time"! As what you are suggesting is clearly impossible, what rational option is there other than that your *guess* MUST be incorrect?

G


----------



## bluenight (Feb 22, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. Again, your ear-brain is much more superior at spotting actual sound differences in what? What are you listening to? .... If you are listening to digital audio recordings then you are listening to machines "_built by human that can only do one thing/give one nuance it's programmed to do_"! Do you think ADCs and DACs are magic devices or are they "machines/instruments built by humans"? As your "nuances"/"differences" are beyond the capabilities of "machines built by humans" (ADCs, DACs, speaker drivers, measurement devices, etc.), how can you "spot actual sound differences" that your playback system is not reproducing? And, where is the ONLY place left where these differences can be created/exist? What "*You don't seem to get*" is that even using YOUR OWN logic, these nuances/differences cannot be "actual sound differences", they MUST be occurring in your ear-brain.


My speculations i am not a tech head where the maths and abstract technical things easy get stuck in my head.

I did not involve the dac i did only speak of the measure instruments capability. The end product i hear is the analogue signal so that is what my ear brain is measuring the difference at after the dac done its job and that should the instrument in question also measure right the sound coming from the headphone left right speakers in the system your listening to.
Similar to what rtings use in measurements or build a human, oh wait thats not needed as we already exist and i have peformed my own ear measurments.


So lets say the generic ethernet cable gives 95% of the original streamed digital signal from original recording to the dac, be it details lost/masked by noise creeping in the circuits board or whatever reason i cant explain and the better enginered cable with better material parts gives say 98% to the dac. Or lets say its in the analogue signal after the dac done its job 95% vs 98% due to noise masking details that creaped in to the circuit board of my streamer.

In the optical there shouldent be noise as they are galvanicly isolated so i hear and free or rfi/emi. Wifi should solve the problem with electrical noise creeping in along with the ethernet cable and router side in my case powered with switch mode power suplys and generic power strip not optimal for audio due to noise. But i dident like the sound with wifi with my streamer. To soft and to little energy=dull in my ears. If the wifi impletation would have been fully satisfactory maybe i would never made this thread and start looking for ethernet cables in the first place. In my Lg oled the wifi sound is spot on and clean sounding. My streamer use an usb dongle for wifi maybe the reason that effect sound.

https://darko.audio/2018/08/ethernet-or-wifi-which-is-better-for-high-end-audio-streaming/


----------



## dazzerfong (Feb 22, 2020)

bluenight said:


> My speculations i am not a tech head where the maths and abstract technical things easy get stuck in my head.
> 
> I did not involve the dac i did only speak of the measure instruments capability. The end product i hear is the analogue signal so that is what my ear brain is measuring the difference at after the dac done its job and that should the instrument in question also measure right the sound coming from the headphone left right speakers in the system your listening to.
> Similar to what rtings use in measurements or build a human, oh wait thats not needed as we already exist and i have peformed my own ear measurments.
> ...




_The regular CE, FCC and other EMC standards only guarantee the device will work stably, but when we are talking about sound quality, we are actually talking about EMI noise that is 1/1000 of the EMC’s standard, so it affects [sound quality] a lot_

No, the standards guarantee that it works _perfectly _within the limitations of the standard of implementation (usually distance and speed). Also, good thing there's a FCS to make sure what you sent is literally perfect.

If, on the other hand, you still buy into the notion of cables introducing noise into a DAC/amp, that means that it's so s#!t that it _amplifies _incoming noise. Again, comes back to poorly-made audiophile devices. Stop buying crappy backyard engineered DACs and amps and the supposed impact of noise of Ethernet goes away. I expect anything north of $300 USD to handle this in an appropriate manner.

That being said, his comments on WiFi are spot-on:

_The reason that many audiophile companies claim Ethernet to sound better is that they are not capable of designing a good WiFi circuit and they have no such background knowledge (poor WiFi network). All our streamers use existing Intel WiFi modules because they work well on a Linux system and they are well designed with minimum EMI noise generation and, most importantly, we know how to design the circuit around it correctly.”_

I might actually one day grab an 'audiophile' Ethernet cable and hook it up to a 40-channel 24-bit EEG. That thing operates in the _microvolts_ - if there's any chance of noise showing up, it'll show up there. Then again, I think we know what the answer is.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 23, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 2. What really would be a disgrace is denying the basic facts that have been employed in the creation of music for at least 500 years and that even school children are taught! Do you really not "deny your senses"? For example, have you seen "Avatar"? Do you really believe the planet Pandora exists and that James Cameron took a film crew there to film it? Would it not be "a disgrace" to argue with filmmakers if they tried to explain to you that it was actually just an illusion? Or, did you in fact "deny" what you saw/heard just like every other rational human being?


Your putting words in my mouth. I am not denying the basic facts yes digital is stable and working fine for most people even with generic cables and is probebly the most bang for the buck choice of cables. great invention indeed. But again for the discerning audiophile that want less masked details due to noise as darko mentions in link in previous post its an option. Its you to seem to deny the new curious experimenting generation of audio engeniers and cable design engeniers that discovere new things like noise effects even digital audio and all listeners hearing the difference.

Movie thing has that not to do with humans ability to fantasize/imagination and is in another part of the brain?


----------



## gregorio (Feb 23, 2020)

bluenight said:


> [1] My speculations i am not a tech head [1a] where the maths and abstract technical things easy get stuck in my head.
> [2] I did not involve the dac i did only speak of the measure instruments capability.
> [3] The end product i hear is the analogue signal so that is what my ear brain is measuring the difference at after the dac done its job and that should the instrument in question also measure right the sound coming from the headphone left right speakers in the system your listening to.



1. Then why argue with those who are and do it for a living?
1a. You AGAIN have this backwards! The "technical things" are NOT "abstract", they're real practical devices used all over the planet, what's abstract here is your "speculations"!

2. You didn't answer the question, what do you think an ADC and DAC are? An ADC's one and only role is to MEASURE the amplitude of the incoming analogue signal and "quantize" it to a digital value, a DACs job is effectively the reverse. It's like someone is talking about cars, I bring up the example of a Ford Fiesta and they respond that they "did not involve" a Ford Fiesta, they "only speak of" cars. If a Ford Fiesta is not a car, then what is it? Maybe a magic broomstick with wheels? Again, digital audio recordings are created and defined by "the measure instruments [ADCs] capability". It's not a difficult "abstract technical thing", it's really quite a simple concept: If some audio property/detail can't be measured (by an ADC/"measure instrument"), then it CANNOT be recorded or reproduced, obviously. So, regardless of how good your hearing is, how can you hear some "detail" that hasn't been recorded and your playback system isn't reproducing?

3. Again, that statement contradicts basic facts that have been known for centuries! Do you have RCA or XLR sockets embedded in your skull? If not, how is the (electrical) analog signal getting to your ears/brain and why do you need speakers or headphones? The actual fact is that "the end product you hear" is an acoustic signal (sound pressure waves), NOT an analogue electrical signal! So, if you want to measure "_the difference after the dac done it's job_", then you need a device that can actually measure an (electrical) analogue signal and OBVIOUSLY, that cannot be your ears because human ears cannot even detect an analogue audio signal, let alone measure it!!



bluenight said:


> [1] So lets say the generic ethernet cable gives 95% of the original streamed digital signal from original recording to the dac,
> [2] be it details lost/masked by noise creeping in the circuits board or whatever reason i cant explain and
> [2a] the better enginered cable with better material parts gives say 98% to the dac.
> [2b] Or lets say its in the analogue signal after the dac done its job 95% vs 98% due to noise masking details that creaped in to the circuit board of my streamer.
> [2c] In the optical there shouldent be noise as they are galvanicly isolated so i hear and free or rfi/emi.



1. Why "let's say" that, when it can NEVER happen? With ethernet, either the exact same data is received as was sent or the data is re-sent until it is. So either you get 100% of the original digital data sent or you get 0%, there can be no 95%!

2. It doesn't matter how much noise is "creeping in the circuit boards", providing the noise isn't great enough to obscure the zeros or ones. If the noise is great enough, then the data is resent until it is perfectly received, in which case you get 100% of it, or until the receiver gives up requesting the data to be resent, in which case you get 0%.
2a. Again, that's not possible, it's 100% or 0%. If the "better engineered cable" really did result in 98% or anything other than 100%, then it (and the ethernet network as a whole) MUST be faulty!
2b. Due to what "noise"? The differential signalling used by ethernet rejects EM/RF interference, which is why ethernet works 100% accurately even beyond gigabit speeds with cables up to 100m in length that are UNSHIELDED! If you are talking about some sort of electric current from the ethernet network "creeping into the circuit boards" of the analogue section of a DAC and causing noise, that could only occur if the DAC were faulty!
2c. And in ethernet cables, even very long unshielded ones, there shouldn't be any noise either because it's rejected by differential signalling. Even the marketing that YOU posted admits this!



bluenight said:


> [1] Your putting words in my mouth.
> [1a] Movie thing has that not to do with humans ability to fantasize/imagination and is in another part of the brain?
> [2] I am not denying the basic facts yes digital is stable and working fine for most people even with generic cables and is probebly the most bang for the buck choice of cables. great invention indeed.
> [2a] But again for the discerning audiophile that want less masked details due to noise as darko mentions in link in previous post its an option.
> ...



1. No I'm not, I'm quoting EXACTLY what YOU stated: _"Also it would be a disgrace denying your senses imo_ ..."!
1a. When you watch a movie you obviously use your senses (vision and hearing). You seem to be saying that: The "human ability to imagine", carried out by the brain, does in fact effectively deny your senses (of vision and hearing). So are you saying is it a disgrace to be human? More relevantly, how do you know that the differences you're hearing are NOT caused by your brain and your "human ability to imagine"?

2. The "basic facts" are NOT that ethernet is stable and working fine for most people, the "basic facts" is that ethernet works PERFECTLY for EVERYONE, provided it's not broken or setup incorrectly.
2a. You think that audiophiles are more "discerning" and "want less masked details" than international financial institutions, hospitals, data centres, the world's top recording studios and pretty much every industry on the planet?

3. How can I "_deny the new curious experimenting generation of audio engineers_" when I AM one of the new curious experimenting generation of audio engineers?!
3a. Cable design enginerrs did NOT discover "noise effects in digital audio" and it is NOT a new discovery. In fact it couldn't be an older discovery because it's at the heart of the very first scientific paper which proved how digital data (including digital audio) could be used for perfect communication in 1947, which is over 70 years ago and about 37 years before the first consumer digital audio device (CD) was even released!
3b. That's blatantly untrue, in fact it's yet again pretty much the exact opposite of the facts/truth! Using any sort of testing, pretty much ALL listeners hear NO difference, the ONLY exceptions are a small percentage of the already tiny froup of audiophiles and under controlled testing, not even one of them have been able to demonstrate they can hear the difference! If someone had, why didn't audioquest present that as evidence in their defence and why don't all audiophile ethernet cable manufacturers advertise it in great big headline?

G


----------



## bluenight (Feb 23, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. Then why argue with those who are and do it for a living?


Do what for a living you are not an cable or audio gear manufacture are you? You said you where a music studio recorder right? That makes you an expert on building/ designing cables or audio gear?

Its you that argue against every audio cable or audio gear manufactures or audio journalists claim of noise effects sound that i linked to.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 23, 2020)

gregorio said:


> Again, digital audio recordings are created and defined by "the measure instruments [ADCs] capability". It's not a difficult "abstract technical thing", it's really quite a simple concept: If some audio property/detail can't be measured (by an ADC/"measure instrument"), then it CANNOT be recorded or reproduced, obviously. So, regardless of how good your hearing is, how can you hear some "detail" that hasn't been recorded and your playback system isn't reproducing?


 See my previous post for same answer.
Yes 100% of the original recording is always there in the original recording or limited then how good the adc recorded device was right im sure recording equipment progress to right?  But generics maybe bring my system lets say 95 % of that original recording and better designed cables give me 98% for me to hear as the end result coming out of my HP by filtering/sheild noise out better that can enter my system. Be it in the digital domain or the analogue domain after dac done its job this noise effects the sound or both domains.

Isent it all audiophiles quest to get as much high % of that 100% of the original recording. Thats why some people buy the most expensive audio components they are willing to pay for and aford?

Btw do you think every modern dac sound the same or that different dacs can sound different?


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> The actual fact is that "the end product you hear" is an acoustic signal (sound pressure waves), NOT an analogue electrical signal! So, if you want to measure "_the difference after the dac done it's job_", then you need a device that can actually measure an (electrical) analogue signal and OBVIOUSLY, that cannot be your ears because human ears cannot even detect an analogue audio signal, let alone measure it!!


Measure the acoustic signal (sound pressure waves) that i hear then with an instrument for spoting sound differences. But thats what i allready do with my ears then.


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> 1. No I'm not, I'm quoting EXACTLY what YOU stated: _"Also it would be a disgrace denying your senses imo_ ..."!
> 1a. When you watch a movie you obviously use your senses (vision and hearing). You seem to be saying that: The "human ability to imagine", carried out by the brain, does in fact effectively deny your senses (of vision and hearing). So are you saying is it a disgrace to be human? More relevantly, how do you know that the differences you're hearing are NOT caused by your brain and your "human ability to imagine"?


Enjoying a movie/music with your senses is the oposite in dynying your senses. Its celabrating them. You want all the listeners that here the difference with digital cables to blame it on mind tricks and placebo denying our senses.


----------



## dazzerfong (Feb 24, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Do what for a living you are not an cable or audio gear manufacture are you? You said you where a music studio recorder right? That makes you an expert on building/ designing cables or audio gear?
> 
> Its you that argue against every audio cable or audio gear manufactures or audio journalists claim of noise effects sound that i linked to.



His job requires him to know these things, as he's ultimately responsible for the things we consumers hear.

There's a concept called abstraction - I don't need to know how electrons move in a NPN transistor to do my job as an electrical engineer. Similarly, he doesn't need to be an expert in building cables or audio gear to know that ethernet cables are either literally perfect or useless.

Also,  don't argue the person, argue the point. 



bluenight said:


> Measure the acoustic signal (sound pressure waves) that i hear then with an instrument for spoting sound differences. But thats what i allready do with my ears then.



Tyll of Inner Fidelity fame did, and lo and behold it was the same (within tolerance for uncertainty) with a various headphone cables.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] Do what for a living you are not an cable or audio gear manufacture are you? You said you where a music studio recorder right?
> [1a] That makes you an expert on building/ designing cables or audio gear?
> [2] Its you that argue against every audio cable or audio gear manufactures or audio journalists claim of noise effects sound that i linked to.



1. I am a music/sound engineer and was for several years a senior lecturer and degree course designer.
1a. It makes me somewhat of an expert on the usage and performance of audio gear.

2. I have directly communicated with audio cable manufacturers, with numerous audio gear manufacturers and several audio journalists. In fact, I've been a consultant for a few audio gear manufacturers and journalists. With hardly any exceptions, the ONLY cable or gear manufacturers and journalists I argue against are audiophile manufacturers selling snake-oil. The audiophile community is a tiny niche corner of the far wider audio world but you seem to think that the audiophile community is the only thing that exists because the information you quote is EXCLUSIVELY audiophile marketing material. Marketing material that even many audiophiles know is false, let alone the far wider audio world and the massively wider world of industries that employ ethernet networks. Therefore, yet AGAIN, you seem to have it completely backwards! It's YOU who is effectively arguing not only against most audio cable manufacturers, gear manufacturers and journalists but also against pretty much everyone else in the world, including the scientists/researchers who invented and standardise  ethernet!! And your basis for arguing with the rest of the world is what? Audiophile marketing BS and that you have no relevant expertise at all (_"i am not a tech head_")?



bluenight said:


> [1] Yes 100% of the original recording is always there in the original recording or limited then how good the adc recorded device was right
> [1a] im sure recording equipment progress to right?
> [2] But generics maybe bring my system lets say 95 % of that original recording and better designed cables give me 98% for me to hear as the end result coming out of my HP by filtering/sheild noise out better that can enter my system. Be it in the digital domain or the analogue domain after dac done its job this noise effects the sound or both domains.



1. Good, you're getting there. You are now effectively admitting that your hearing cannot be better than a measuring device, because an ADC is the measuring device that creates the original digital audio recording and obviously you cannot hear more than 100% of the original recording!
1a. Not much. Editing, mixing and mastering equipment has progressed a great deal over the last 25 years or so but recording equipment relatively little. However, that's irrelevant because however much it has or has not progressed, an ADC is still a measuring device and you obviously cannot hear more that 100% of what it measures. In fact, you will ALWAYS hear a great deal less than what an ADC is capable of measuring, because your system cannot reproduce it to start with and even if it could, you couldn't listen to it without damaging your hearing!

2. AGAIN, that is patently FALSE. Generic ethernet cables (even unshielded generic ethernet cables) MUST "bring" 100% of that original recording because otherwise ethernet wouldn't exist! Do you think that only 95% retrieval of information would be good enough for banks, airliner designers, medical scanners, nuclear power station blueprints or data centres, etc.? ONLY 100% is acceptable, not even fraction of a percent less! If your "_better designed cables give you 98%_" then obviously they are NOT "better designed" they must be worse designs than even cheap unshielded generic ethernet cables that everyone else uses that achieve 100%!



bluenight said:


> [1] Isent it all audiophiles quest to get as much high % of that 100% of the original recording.
> [1a] Thats why some people buy the most expensive audio components they are willing to pay for and aford?
> [2] Btw do you think every modern dac sound the same or that different dacs can sound different?



1. Indeed it is, So ..
1a. Why buy "the most expensive audio components", "that get as much high %" when cheap generic ethernet cables already give you 100%? You obviously can't get more than 100%, so why would you buy more expensive ethernet cables to get at best exactly the same 100% performance, or as you suggest, a worse 98%? It's up to you of course but as 98% is not as "high %" as 100%, you seem to be aiming for the opposite of "all audiophiles quest"!!

2. As it's trivial for even a $2 DAC chip to convert a digital audio signal into an analogue audio signal audibly PERFECTLY (and has been for many years), there's no reason why any DAC should sound any different to "audibly perfect", unless it's been extremely incompetently designed (or deliberately designed not to be audibly perfect).



bluenight said:


> [1] Enjoying a movie/music with your senses is the oposite in dynying your senses. Its celabrating them.
> [1a] You want all the listeners that here the difference with digital cables to blame it on mind tricks and placebo denying our senses.



1. Of course you deny your senses! When you listen to an orchestral recording on your headphones, does it sound like an orchestra? Do you honestly believe (and celebrate) that there's an actual orchestra inside your headphones? OR: Do you deny your senses, realise your headphones are not magical devices that actually contain orchestras, that it's just an illusion/recording and then celebrate your perception of that illusion?

2. I would expect ALL LISTENERS (except possibly very young children) to deny their senses and "blame it on mind tricks" (an illusion) when listening to ALL commercial audio recordings. Because the alternative is that Justin Bieber, an orchestra, Elvis and any other artists you choose to play are actually inside your (and everyone else's) headphones and, that Pandora is a real planet and James Cameron filmed "Avatar" there! Which alternative seems more rational to you? Before you answer, bare in mind that Elvis is dead and that even Kylie Minogue couldn't fit inside a set of headphones. 

G


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> More relevantly, how do you know that the differences you're hearing are NOT caused by your brain and your "human ability to imagine"?


I could suspect placebo if the differences wasent as big as they are. If i was uncertain it really was an change in sound. I think the differences with the optical and ethernet is clear enough.


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> I have directly communicated with audio cable manufacturers, with numerous audio gear manufacturers and several audio journalists. In fact, I've been a consultant for a few audio gear manufacturers and journalists.


What does that work task mean more specifically?


----------



## bluenight (Feb 25, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 2. As it's trivial for even a $2 DAC chip to convert a digital audio signal into an analogue audio signal audibly PERFECTLY (and has been for many years), there's no reason why any DAC should sound any different to "audibly perfect", unless it's been extremely incompetently designed (or deliberately designed not to be audibly perfect).


Then your the odd one here at this forum. There loads of people here discusing differences they here with dacs. And the first page have dac/amps reviews often.

Btw what pro audio brands do you respect and makes the best sound without holding back trying to milk costumers?


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> 1. Of course you deny your senses! When you listen to an orchestral recording on your headphones, does it sound like an orchestra? Do you honestly believe (and celebrate) that there's an actual orchestra inside your headphones? OR: Do you deny your senses, realise your headphones are not magical devices that actually contain orchestras, that it's just an illusion/recording and then celebrate your perception of that illusion?


And thats the beauty of our senses. I dont think i have much more to add in this sound science discussion we are just going in circles then. I will probebly still be open minded about audiophile ethernet cables/router noise entering and effecting audio systems. And listen with my ears for final conclusion.


----------



## dazzerfong

bluenight said:


> I could suspect placebo if the differences wasent as big as they are. If i was uncertain it really was an change in sound. I think the differences with the optical and ethernet is clear enough.



If placebo can relieve chronic pain, making you think you're hearing differently is nothing.



bluenight said:


> Then your the odd one here at this forum. There loads of people here discusing differences they here with dacs. And the first page have dac/amps reviews often.
> 
> Btw what pro audio brands do you respect and makes the best sound without holding back trying to milk costumers?



Because many DAC manufacturers try to add things in to make it sound differently. Making it sound identical and perfect is trivial, but that doesn't sell so they colour the sound.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 26, 2020)

Here is some talk about cables. Talking about usb cables in the first few minutes. And peoples view on cables and measuarments vs listening. Some ethernet talk to. I agree with darkos reasoning this is my cup of tea rather then gregorios thinking.


----------



## gregorio (Feb 26, 2020)

bluenight said:


> [1] I could suspect placebo if the differences wasent as big as they are.
> [1a] I think the differences with the optical and ethernet is clear enough.
> [2] What does that work task mean more specifically?



1. That answers an earlier question then. You don't suspect placebo as the cause of the "differences as big as they were" in the McGurk Effect video posted earlier and therefore you must believe it's a magic video.
1a. Of course the differences are clear enough, they have completely different connectors and look completely different!
2. It means for example that I have been asked for my professional opinion on the performance/functionality of equipment as part of the product development process or to verify factual information (in the case of journalists). What does "_i am not a tech head_" mean more specifically? And how does that give you more insight into how ethernet cables and networks transfer digital audio data than everyone else?



bluenight said:


> [1] Then your the odd one here at this forum. There loads of people here discusing differences they here with dacs. And the first page have dac/amps reviews often.
> [2] Btw what pro audio brands do you respect and makes the best sound without holding back trying to milk costumers?



1. You just keep making the same mistake over and over! This forum does NOT define the audio world, it's just a VERY TINY corner of the audio world. There are NOT "_loads of people here discussing differences_ ..." there's just a percentage of an already "very tiny corner" who are the "odd ones" compared to everyone else. If you go to the Flat Earth forum, there are "loads of people discussing" that the flat earth, does that mean the Earth really is flat?

2. The real world isn't that simple. For example, Sony have helped develop or invented audio equipment that has literally changed the audio world (CD, DAT, DASH, the Oxford R3 and the Walkman for instance) and they certainly deserve respect for that. On the other hand they have also been guilty of a considerable amount of snake-oil, marketing BS and badly "milking customers" (SACD for example). Additionally, what do you mean by "the best sound"? In the rest of the audio world there are two eaxtremely different types of "the best sound": The highest fidelity and the most pleasing to human perception.


bluenight said:


> [1] And thats the beauty of our senses.
> [1a] I dont think i have much more to add in this sound science discussion we are just going in circles then.
> [2] I will probebly still be open minded about audiophile ethernet cables/router noise entering and effecting audio systems.
> [2a] And listen with my ears for final conclusion.



1. No, that's not the "beauty of our senses". In fact our senses aren't particularly good, other animals have far better senses: An eagle's eyesight for example and many have better hearing (moths, bats, cats, dolphins and others) and incidentally, we can measure way better than any of them! It actually has relatively little to do with "our senses", the "beauty" here is our brains, or at least it is for every human being other than a few audiophiles apparently! And, you have avoided the actual question. Are you saying that you do believe there's an actual orchestra inside your headphones or do you deny your sense of hearing (of what it sounds like), believe it's just an illusion and there's not really an orchestra in your headphones?

The "beauty of our senses" is that our perception of them can be fooled and therefore art forms such as music and film can exist!

1a. What sound science discussion? We haven't had any sound science discussion! The only discussion we've had is marketing BS and a few blatantly obvious facts, such as much of the world's population (including audiophiles!) rely on cheap ethernet cables to achieve 100% information retrieval (with the internet for example). You don't even seem to know what "sound science" or a discussion of it is, let alone be able to "add" to it!

2. I on the other hand am NOT open minded about false marketing and I'm NOT open minded to using a faulty audio system. Does that make me not an audiophile? Is being an audiophile dependent on believing false marketing and owning expensive, faulty equipment?
2a. As human ears are not capable of making a "final conclusion", I'll do what every human being does (apart from some audiophiles apparently) and use my brain rather than my ears "for final conclusion"!


bluenight said:


> [1] Here is some talk about cables.
> [2] I agree with darkos reasoning this is my cup of tea rather then gregorios thinking.



1. What does posting false marketing (in support of an assertion) prove, apart from the gullibility of those posting it? How can you not see the falsehood in it? One example (of countless others); "It's now reasonably well accepted [that audiophile grade power cables make a difference]" - That's an obvious lie, no other industries (even far more critical ones) use audiophile power cables, none of the worlds top commercial music studios use audiophile grade power cables, no one accepts that audiophile grade power cables make a difference except a tiny number of (deluded) audiophiles. In addition to this obvious fact, it doesn't make any logical sense either! If say an expensive audiophile DAC requires an expensive audiophile grade power cable (or interconnect) to operate optimally, why isn't that DAC supplied with an audiophile grade power cable (and interconnects) and therefore, why are they selling (and why do audiophiles buy) expensive audiophile DACs that are apparently sub-optimal? The claim is against obvious facts and against logical sense, so how can you not believe it's false just on this basis alone, without even needing to go into the actual science of why it's not true?

2. You're free to agree with whoever you like, but how can you disagree with my thinking when you don't know what my thinking is? I haven't discussed my thinking, only obvious facts demonstrated by millions of people every day and/or facts known and employed for centuries by all music (and all other art) creators. Your "cup of tea" is therefore false marketing "rather than" obvious facts proven by countless scientists and engineers and demonstrated in practice by countless millions of people! Of course that's your choice, but you OBVIOUSLY cannot then claim that your "cup of tea" is factually accurate/true!

G


----------



## bluenight

The question was raised here why cables companies dident show measurements for ethernet cables.

In the Darko souncloud link i posted in my previous post Paul McGowan from PS Audio answered that question from about 32 min on. He said 

"We currently dont know how to measure perceptual changes that we hear when listening to different cables, like the imaging changes or soundstage narrowing. These equipment/instruments dont exist and we dont even know where to begin measuring these things that we hear as perceptual changes. And people are measuring it wrong or not measuring the right things"

I think this is true with analogue cables to, also i newer see cable companies post measurements of analogue cables. I think Paul McGowan was thinking mainly of analogue cables to when he said this.

Also Hedd Audio guy had said and Paul McGowan agreed that measurements are only good for finding if they made any mistakes and will not tell how the speaker or dac will sound. And with the fpga changes with PS Audio dac they couldent measure any difference in noise or anything but they all heard it sounded very different. Anyway i found it very interesting to listen to.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> The question was raised here why cables companies dident show measurements for ethernet cables.
> 
> In the Darko souncloud link i posted in my previous post Paul McGowan from PS Audio answered that question from about 32 min on. He said
> 
> ...




Perhaps a boutique cable maker who's livelihood depends on selling cables isn't the best source for unbiased information.  Interesting position though - if PS Audio can't measure all of those elements, how in the world do they design and build their cables and DACs.  Do they just throw a bunch of random changes around while making thousands of cables  and DACs in the hopes of hitting some magic yet unmeasurable combination?


----------



## gregorio (Feb 27, 2020)

bluenight said:


> [1] The question was raised here why cables companies dident show measurements for ethernet cables. In the Darko souncloud link i posted in my previous post Paul McGowan from PS Audio answered that question from about 32 min on.
> [2] He said "We currently dont know how to measure perceptual changes that we hear when listening to different cables, like the imaging changes or soundstage narrowing. These equipment/instruments dont exist and we dont even know where to begin measuring these things that we hear as perceptual changes. And people are measuring it wrong or not measuring the right things"
> [3] And with the fpga changes with PS Audio dac they couldent measure any difference in noise or anything but they all heard it sounded very different.
> [4] Anyway i found it very interesting to listen to.



1. No he did NOT answer that question, he answered a completely DIFFERENT question! ...

2. Isn't it obvious that the question he actually answered was: "Can we measure the perceptual changes that some people hear when listening to different cables?" His answer is correct, no we can't! We can easily measure audio signals far more sensitively and accurately than human ears can hear and obviously we can measure "_these things_" that result in the perception of the stereo illusion (imaging and soundstage), because if we couldn't measure them, then we couldn't record or reproduce them and stereo digital audio would not exist. But, we cannot directly measure "perceptual changes" that ONLY occur in a listener's brain. Therefore, measuring the output of a cable, DAC or even the whole audio system is obviously "_measuring it wrong or not measuring the right things_" if you're looking for changes in perception that only occur in listeners' brains. What we would need to measure is a whole range of biases inside people's brains that affect changes in perception but McGowan is right, we don't yet know how to objectively measure biases!

3. If they couldn't measure any difference using the most obvious test (a null test with a unit before "the fpga changes"), then they PROVED there wasn't a difference. So if "_they all heard it sounded very different_" the ONLY rational explanation is a "perceptual change", a difference that existed ONLY in their perception/brain, not in the actual audio being output!

4. I didn't, I've heard that same marketing BS repeated countless times over many years. It was very interesting when I first heard it though, because I couldn't believe they were being serious or that anyone would be gulible enough to fall for it!

G


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> I didn't, I've heard that same marketing BS repeated countless times over many years. It was very interesting when I first heard it though, because I couldn't believe they were being serious or that anyone would be gulible enough to fall for it!


Yes there was a mention that people throw out conspiracy theorys like that. Its a good defence for saving money though.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 27, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. That answers an earlier question then. You don't suspect placebo as the cause of the "differences as big as they were" in the McGurk Effect video posted earlier and therefore you must believe it's a magic video.


All i heard was baa all the time even if i could see his lips form faa at times, it dident change when i closed my eyes. It dident feel that magical. Also has to do with vision tricks if affected and not music listening with my HP.


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> 1a. Of course the differences are clear enough, they have completely different connectors and look completely different!


I meant i hear the difference big enough between my two different optical cables. And now with the ethernet cables the new supra cat 8 i hear the difference big enough compared to my previous used generic cat5e utp.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 28, 2020)

gregorio said:


> the "beauty" here is our brains, or at least it is for every human being other than a few audiophiles apparently!


Yes true that for people that can think and experience for them selves instead of gullible audio science fools with black and white thinking following only facts.


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> And, you have avoided the actual question. Are you saying that you do believe there's an actual orchestra inside your headphones or do you deny your sense of hearing (of what it sounds like), believe it's just an illusion and there's not really an orchestra in your headphones?


 Of course i know the orchestra not inside my HP why would i need to answer that? But got nothing to do with me hearing a difference.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] Yes there was a mention that people throw out conspiracy theorys like that.
> [1a] Its a good defence for saving money though.
> [2] All i heard was baa all the time even if i could see his lips form faa at times, it dident change when i closed my eyes. It dident feel that magical.
> [2a] Also has to do with vision tricks if affected and not music listening with my HP.
> ...



1. Indeed. If some claim flies in the face of the proven facts, then we throw it out. Otherwise we would end up believing any old nonsense, like the earth is flat or that faeries are real, and all it takes is a few minutes of time and effort to find out the proven facts.
1a. Not so much. You still end up spending more or less the same amount of money, you just concentrate your spending in areas that actually make a difference to the sound entering your ears, instead of spreading it over a bunch of snake-oil.

2. You've responded about the McGurk Effect several times but this is the first time you've claimed it didn't work on you AND, if "_it didn't feel that magica_l" why did you state "_as far as i know it could been manipulated/trickfilmed_"? Plus ...
2a. It's your hearing perception that's tricked, not your vision and you just stated "_all I *heard* was baa_", so you know it's a hearing illusion! Why then are you claiming it's "vision tricks"? The McGurk Effect demonstrates how a bias (in this case what we see) can affect what we believe we're hearing, even to the point of creating a big difference in hearing perception where there is no difference at all. Therefore, what it "has to do" with "listening with your HP" is EVERYTHING! Especially in the case of listening to music, which requires our hearing perception to be affected by biases to exist in the first place!

3. What do you mean why would you need to answer that? You need to answer that because you are contradicting yourself! If you hear an orchestra when listening to your headphones and you believe what you hear, then you must believe there's an orchestra inside your headphones. However, you are now stating that you know there is not an orchestra in your HP, so how do you know? The ONLY way you can know there is not an orchestra in your HPs is if you are denying what you are hearing (an orchestra), in favour of the OBVIOUS FACTS, that an orchestra can't fit inside your HPs and that you're experiencing an aural illusion (a recording)! Therefore ...
3a. It's got everything to do with you hearing a difference! The only difference between you denying there's actually an orchestra in your HPs and you not denying there's a difference between ethernet cables is your knowledge and acceptance of the OBVIOUS FACTS. You understand and accept there cannot be an orchestra in your HPs, that it's an illusion, so you deny what you're hearing but you don't understand and accept there cannot be a difference between functioning ethernet cables, that it's an illusion and so you don't deny what you're hearing!



bluenight said:


> [1] I meant i hear the difference big enough between my two different optical cables. And now with the ethernet cables the new supra cat 8 i hear the difference big enough compared to my previous used generic cat5e utp.
> [2] Yes true that for people that can think and experience for them selves instead of gullible audio science fools with black and white thinking.



1. I do NOT deny that you are hearing (perceiving) a difference. Just pointing out the OBVIOUS FACT that there cannot be an actual difference and therefore what you are perceiving must be a "perceptual change" in you brain/perception, due to biases.

2. Clearly that's utter nonsense, for several OBVIOUS reasons:
A). Ethernet cables have got nothing to do with audio science, that's computer science and network engineering.
B). Understanding and accepting science is called being "educated", being a "gullible fool" is when you don't understand or accept the science/facts and instead believe marketing BS!
C). Again, NO ONE has discussed audio science here. We've discussed marketing BS and a few basic facts about digital data, ethernet networks, psychoacoustics and music theory.
D) Neither me nor any other professional sound/music engineer has "black and white thinking" because in music/sound creation there is no black and white, it's pretty much all grey. However, when it comes to binary digital data, my thinking is black and white (or rather, zero and one) because that's the very definition of binary digital data in the first place and why the "digital age" exists! How should we be thinking of digital data: Zeros, ones and magic?
E). How can any sound/music engineer not think and experience for themselves, when it's us who are creating those (listening) experiences in the first place?

How can you not know ANY of these obvious points?

G


----------



## bluenight (Feb 29, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. Indeed. If some claim flies in the face of the proven facts, then we throw it out. Otherwise we would end up believing any old nonsense, like the earth is flat or that faeries are real, and all it takes is a few minutes of time and effort to find out the proven facts.
> 1a. Not so much. You still end up spending more or less the same amount of money, you just concentrate your spending in areas that actually make a difference to the sound entering your ears, instead of spreading it over a bunch of snake-oil.


1 This is not old facts its rather new discoveries. Demonstrated by blind test with the usb cable they switched blindly and alot people heard the difference without knowing what they switched that was talked about in soundcloud link. Also there was an audiophile switches blind test that they gave scores and the one of the most expensive sotm switch scored highest. Proven and demonstrated of course it will not qualify in your mind

https://alpha-audio.net/review/zeven-switches-for-streaming-audio-tested-blind/

1a Its debatable. Normaly i think its none of our business how other people choose to spend there money but i have to stoop to your level. Its like driving a ferrari with the cheapest tires you can find on a racing course if you have bought high end gear. I choose to get the most out of my gear/system that i allready have bought with quality cables/quality power for as much i am willing to pay and everything for me has added up regarding soundquality.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 29, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 2. You've responded about the McGurk Effect several times but this is the first time you've claimed it didn't work on you AND, if "_it didn't feel that magica_l" why did you state "_as far as i know it could been manipulated/trickfilmed_"?2a. It's your hearing perception that's tricked, not your vision and you just stated "_all I *heard* was baa_", so you know it's a hearing illusion! Why then are you claiming it's "vision tricks"?


2 Well i saw his lips form faa but still heard baa so i draw the conclusion its trickfilmed/manipulated.
2a Then its connected with this specific vision trick. Nothing that will happen when listening with HP in the dark.

Also mine usual aproach when listening to new cables is a sceptic aproach but i hope to hear improvements. I dident think i would heard a different when i bought the niagara 1000 power conditioner or aq power cables but was surpriced i did. Same with supra cat 8 ethernet cable i had no expectations i just let the sound tell me how it is.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 29, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 3. What do you mean why would you need to answer that? You need to answer that because you are contradicting yourself! If you hear an orchestra when listening to your headphones and you believe what you hear, then you must believe there's an orchestra inside your headphones. However, you are now stating that you know there is not an orchestra in your HP, so how do you know? The ONLY way you can know there is not an orchestra in your HPs is if you are denying what you are hearing (an orchestra), in favour of the OBVIOUS FACTS, that an orchestra can't fit inside your HPs and that you're experiencing an aural illusion (a recording)! Therefore ...
> 3a. It's got everything to do with you hearing a difference! The only difference between you denying there's actually an orchestra in your HPs and you not denying there's a difference between ethernet cables is your knowledge and acceptance of the OBVIOUS FACTS. You understand and accept there cannot be an orchestra in your HPs, that it's an illusion, so you deny what you're hearing but you don't understand and accept there cannot be a difference between functioning ethernet cables, that it's an illusion and so you don't deny what you're hearing!


3. Yes everyone know and its blatantly obvious that i hear the recorded sound of that orchestra the only illusion as you told me is the stereo sound that was invented from 1932 and i dont deny hearing that recorded sound of that orchestra. I think even as a child listening to HP for first time i never to my recollection thought it was a real orchestra or whatever i heard inside my HP i think its a inherited instinct we humans have not to belive that in the first place for most people. Still nothing that prevents me from detecting/hearing sound differences.

3a Why would i understand and accept there can not be differences between ethernet cables when there is and everyone willing can hear it. Its you denying it beacause it would require it  you to change your world view as mentioned also in the darko soundcloud clip. Maybe you have to much invested in it studying some facts and teached out them for years. And cant open up to new things possible. You would then use reverse placebo rejecting what you hear and blame it on mind tricks/placebo. Me on the otherhand have nothing to loose and nothing invested and be unbiased and open about it.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 29, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. I do NOT deny that you are hearing (perceiving) a difference. Just pointing out the OBVIOUS FACT that there cannot be an actual difference and therefore what you are perceiving must be a "perceptual change" in you brain/perception, due to biases.


Again its you that have the bias that there can not be sound differences. I am not the one with the problem.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 29, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 2. Clearly that's utter nonsense, for several OBVIOUS reasons:
> B). Understanding and accepting science is called being "educated", being a "gullible fool" is when you don't understand or accept the science/facts and instead believe marketing BS!
> E). How can any sound/music engineer not think and experience for themselves, when it's us who are creating those (listening) experiences in the first place


Your marketing BS talk and calling people gullible audiophile fools is utter nonsense.

So everyone that draws his own conclusion from there own listening experience is a gullible fool? Or Real engeniers like Paul McGowan from ps audio or Mark Jenkins or atlas cables with 30 years of designing digital cables or Garth Powell from audio quest is fools and havent studied the basic facts? And they have experimented with help of knowledge and done loads of listening tests to form there products.  What they do is excell over the basic facts and expand and create new. But you like to call everyone liars.


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> D) Neither me nor any other professional sound/music engineer has "black and white thinking" because in music/sound creation there is no black and white, it's pretty much all grey. However, when it comes to binary digital data, my thinking is black and white (or rather, zero and one) because that's the very definition of binary digital data in the first place and why the "digital age" exists! How should we be thinking of digital data: Zeros, ones and magic?


Both analogue and digital signals are electricity flowing through a wire right?


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> 1 This is not old facts its rather new discoveries. Demonstrated by blind test with the usb cable they switched blindly and alot people heard the difference without knowing what they switched that was talked about in soundcloud link. Also there was an audiophile switches blind test that they gave scores and the one of the most expensive sotm switch scored highest. Proven and demonstrated of course it will not qualify in your mind: https://alpha-audio.net/review/zeven-switches-for-streaming-audio-tested-blind/
> 1a Its debatable. Normaly i think its none of our business how other people choose to spend there money but i have to stoop to your level.
> [1b] Its like driving a ferrari with the cheapest tires you can find on a racing course if you have bought high end gear.
> [1c] I choose to get the most out of my gear/system that i allready have bought with quality cables/quality power for as much i am willing to pay and everything for me has added up regarding soundquality.



1. Of course it's not new discoveries. Do you honestly think no one tested USB before it was released nearly 25 years ago? Do you think no one has ever tested it since? You don't think that thousands of network and sound/music engineers have ever tested it? There have been NO new discoveries, just further testing to develop and update the USB standards to allow for faster speed. However, this is effectively off topic as the topic is ethernet cables, not USB.

This is what Alpha Audio actually stated about their listening test: "_Alpha Audio is not a platform for statistics. So if not everything is scientifically sound, I apologize. ... The first idea was to do it double-blind. But that didn’t work out in the end, because every switch has a recognizable appearance. Even if it were covered with a cloth._"!!

And, of course "proven and demonstrated" will "qualify in my mind" and it has been, both in well controlled listening tests and actual objective measurements countless times by countless engineers, scientists and of course the countless tens of millions that rely on ethernet to perform 100% perfectly. Against ALL this massive amount of proof and demonstration you've got ONE poorly controlled listening test by a company trying to sell audio gear. Talk about gullible!

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!
1b. Obviously it's relatively easy for the tyre manufacturers, independent analysts and car companies like Ferrari to measure performance differences between cheap and expensive tyres, even between two different expensive tyres. So, we have: A rational, scientific explanation of why there are significant differences between cheap and expensive tyres and why they affect a car's performance, plus ample objective proof that they do. With ethernet cables however, there is NO rational, scientific explanation of why an expensive ethernet cable would affect an ethernet network and not a single shred of objective proof that they do, let alone ample proof. In fact, the rational, scientific explanation is that they cannot affect an ethernet network and there is an absolutely massive amount of objective proof that indeed they don't. The only question that remains, is why would you post such an obviously FALSE analogy? 
1c. And I choose to get the most out of my gear/system. Parts of my system are 100% perfect using cheap cables and OBVIOUSLY, no other ethernet cable can give me more than 100% perfect. If, as you state, there is an audible difference, then the audiophile cable must be resulting in something different to 100% perfect. In which case you are spending more money to get LESS "out of your gear/system", which is the opposite of what you claim to "choose"!!!


bluenight said:


> [1] Again its you that have the bias that there can not be sound differences.
> [2] I am not the one with the problem.


1. Of course I have biases, I'm a human being. Which is why I rely on the scientifically proven facts, together with objective measurements and controlled listening tests (taken by myself and countless others) that eliminate biases! Therefore:

2. Either you have a problem or you are not a human being (which is still somewhat of a problem)!


bluenight said:


> [1] Your marketing BS talk and calling people gullible audiophile fools is utter nonsense.
> [1a] So everyone that draws his own conclusion from there own listening experience is a gullible fool?
> [2] Or Real engeniers like Paul McGowan from ps audio or Mark Jenkins or atlas cables with 30 years of designing digital cables or Garth Powell from audio quest is fools and havent studied the basic facts? And they have experimented with help of knowledge and done loads of listening tests to form there products. What they do is excell over the basic facts and expand and create new.
> [2a] But you like to call everyone liars.
> [3] Both analogue and digital signals are electricity flowing through a wire right?


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!
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?

2. You don't seem to know what real engineers are! Countless hundreds of thousands of real engineers and scientists have been designing cables for over a century and a half. The basic unshielded twisted pair (as used in ethernet networks) was invent by Alexander Graham Bell 140 years ago and works perfectly, ever heard of that engineer? The only thing the "real engineers" you've quoted "excel over", "expand" and "create new" is marketing BS, which of course makes them marketers rather than "real engineers"!! And, I do NOT believe they are "_fools and haven't studied the basic facts_", I'm pretty sure they have studied the basic facts and that's WHY I'm calling them liars in the first place!
2a. Again, why the utter nonsense? I'm not calling Alexander Bell a liar, so OBVIOUSLY, I'm not calling everyone a liar! Furthermore, I'm not calling the countless tens of thousands of engineers and scientists since Alexander Bell liars. In fact, those I'm calling liars are a miniscule fraction of one percent, so pretty much the exact opposite of your assertion of "everyone"! 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?

3. Sometimes is hard to follow your logic or even if there is any logic. Your statement is obviously false, you yourself have mentioned optical cables several times. Surely you must know that the digital signal in an optical cable is pulses of light traveling through an optical fibre and NOT "electricity flowing through a wire"? 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.

G


----------



## bluenight (Mar 4, 2020)

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."*


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> 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

gregorio said:


> 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

gregorio said:


> 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

gregorio said:


> 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

bluenight said:


> 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

gregorio said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2020)

Voxata said:


> 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

bluenight said:


> [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"!



bluenight said:


> [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

bluenight said:


> Some more why it can sound different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





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

bluenight said:


> 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

Whazzzup said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2020)

bluenight said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 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?





bfreedma said:


> 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.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> 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.




Sorry to be blunt, but it's clear you don't understand how Ethernet and Ethernet switching works.  Of course if you pull the power, traffic will eventually stop - no audiophile switch will change that.  But Ethernet is not real time with no error correction.  In fact, it's exactly the opposite.  Data travels with CRC and is resent if the checksum fails.  Data packets are also buffered, so in fact, is not real time.

It feels like you are scouring the internet, desperately searching for things you don't understand to fling against the wall in the hope that something sticks.

Citing Hans isn't helping.  Hans has repeatedly demonstrated he has no knowledge of digital data transfer - he's just another audiophile discussing topics he doesn't have domain knowledge of.


----------



## dazzerfong (Mar 6, 2020)

bluenight said:


> 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.



No it doesn't - there's a buffer. Ethernet does not work in real-time. No digital signals can work instantaneously since there's discrete time for information sent. In fact, for low-latency applications, that actually is a problem.

https://www.presonus.com/learn/technical-articles/Digital-Audio-Latency-Explained

Also, you're misapplying what the video is talking about completely, so that's a complete non-sequitur.



bfreedma said:


> Citing Hans isn't helping.  Hans has repeatedly demonstrated he has no knowledge of digital data transfer - he's just another audiophile discussing topics he doesn't have domain knowledge of.



Did you watch the video? Doesn't talk about transfer at all - he's assuming that the data has already arrived perfectly, and is talking about reconstruction.

I actually watched his other videos, and they seem to be fairly objective and accurate. Some of the titles are a bit out there, but the explanations themselves are quite rational. Was there anything of him that contradicts this?


----------



## bfreedma

dazzerfong said:


> No it doesn't - there's a buffer. Ethernet does not work in real-time. No digital signals can work instantaneously since there's discrete time for information sent. In fact, for low-latency applications, that actually is a problem.
> 
> https://www.presonus.com/learn/technical-articles/Digital-Audio-Latency-Explained
> 
> ...



Didn't watch that video but have seen enough video of Hans talking about digital transmission to understand his knowledge level (or lack thereof).  His video on the SOTA ethernet switch is hilarious.  He spouts audiophile "theory" as fact and then discusses measured differences so far below audibility that they can't possibly be material.  His paeans to how much he loves the improved sound of an Ethernet switch were enough for me.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] In the video somewhere he said this doesent impact stored data like that exe you mention.
> [2] Network streaming music is something that is happening live and if you turn of router/switch power it goes silent with no music heard.
> [2a] 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.
> [3] With ethernet streaming music as source the timing is more critical and
> ...



1. Correct!!!

2. No, network streaming music is NOT live! You presumably have at least a 100 megabit and maybe a gigabit ethernet network. Even a 100 megabits per second network is about 70 times faster than the bits per second required by CD and about 10 times faster than lossless stereo 192/24. So, the data recieved from your ethernet network HAS TO BE STORED (in a buffer) and then fed from the buffer to the DAC chip at the appropriate speed (~1.4 megabits per sec in the case of lossless 44/16). As it HAS TO BE STORED and as point 1 is correct, then "this *doesn't* impact" the data!

3. That's because it's already been downloaded (or uploaded), if you turn the internet off before it's been downloaded you will NOT "still see the picture".  Music and of course audio in general is constantly changing and so is downloaded and stored (in a buffer) in short bursts, rather than with say documents, where you have to wait until the whole document is downloaded before opening it. This is called "streaming" (rather than just downloading) and applies to any digital data that constantly changes, so mainly audio and movies/videos.

3. Again, NO, the timing of the ethernet network is not critical in the slightest. The timing of the data through the ethernet network is going to be wrong by a factor of about 70 times (or 700 times if you've got a gigabit ethernet network)! The timing of the data sent to the converter is critical but that's between your recieving data buffer and the point of conversion, not your ethernet network which is fixed at 100mbit per sec!
3a. Yes, humans are sensitive to digital data timing errors (called "jitter") in the case of music we're sensitive to jitter down to around 200 nano-seconds. This isn't recent though, this was first published in 1974 and confirmed by numerous subsequent scientific/controlled tests. Again though, this has nothing to do with an ethernet network, this is between the data recieving buffer in your DAC and the point of conversion.

4. "These voltages" must be untouchable by an ethernet network because an ethernet network does not carry "these voltages", it just zeros and ones!

5. Indeed, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT "something is happening" and the reason you "can't explain" is because you refuse to even consider the proven and obvious alternative, that your perception is not perfect! *So instead, what you do is come out with "theories" that defy all the actual facts of how digital data and ethernet works and if your theories were true, there would be no digital data, digital devices or a "digital age" in the first place!*

6. None of which can occur because as you correctly quoted, none of this can "impact stored data" and the data is stored AFTER it's passed through the ethernet network!

G


----------



## TiJo

deleted


----------



## gregorio (Mar 6, 2020)

dazzerfong said:


> [1] Are you being daft on purpose?
> [2] I actually watched his other videos, and they seem to be fairly objective and accurate. Some of the titles are a bit out there, but the explanations themselves are quite rational.



1. I think he is. In his defence though, as he refuses to accept the obvious, then he doesn't have any other choice. Whatever other theory or explanation anyone cares to come up with, sooner or later they run into the brick wall of contradicting basic facts and simple logic and therefore "being daft on purpose"!

2. He does seem to be a very personable man and on the face of it, his explanations do seem rational. Add these two attributes together and he seems entirely trustworthy and believable. Unfortunately though it's largely utter nonsense, although it's not obvious unless you happen to know or research the actual facts. He's quite open about a significant number of people pointing out that he's wrong but just repeatedly states the same two fallacies, that he hears a difference, so it must exist and he hears it because he has a better system than those who don't, both of which are completely false claims. He simply doesn't seem aware that the differences he's often talking about can't be reproduced by any system, so he obviously can't be hearing something that his system isn't even producing! The same nearly 30 year old audiophile fallacy that defies even simple logic.

G


----------



## bluenight

bfreedma said:


> But Ethernet is not real time with no error correction. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Data travels with CRC and is resent if the checksum fails. Data packets are also buffered, so in fact, is not real time.


Real time or not whatever the values(voltages/electrical signals) the buffer read is not perfect and always identical and maybe can be altered in everything in the signal path way to the read buffer that is then sent to dac at least as network audio streaming is concerned( read tellurium q aproach, phase distorsion). So if using better uniquely designed ethernet cables/switches for audio purpose with better signal integrity then generic ones it can easily impact sound for us to hear. Of course everything i say is only my theorys of why it can sound different that i picked up from or connected the dots from other more knowing that i linked to in the entire thread. Or everything has to do with better RF/EMI rejection or otherwise outside of our or mine edge of knowleadge.

Furthermore i dont believe this idea of perfect or identical digital when streaming sound/video is concerned. Just from my experience with my Tv whatcing i can see/hear every different device used for streaming for exe same netflix stream have different picture quality and sound. Be it mine chomecast ultra vs apple tv4k or the internal apps on my LG oled tv each device source has distinct differences in terms of sharpness of picture, colour reproduction and sound.


----------



## bfreedma (Mar 6, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Real time or not whatever the values(voltages/electrical signals) the buffer read is not perfect and always identical and maybe can be altered in everything in the signal path way to the read buffer that is then sent to dac at least as network audio streaming is concerned( read tellurium q aproach, phase distorsion). So if using better uniquely designed ethernet cables/switches for audio purpose with better signal integrity then generic ones it can easily impact sound for us to hear. Of course everything i say is only my theorys of why it can sound different that i picked up from or connected the dots from other more knowing that i linked to in the entire thread. Or everything has to do with better RF/EMI rejection or otherwise outside of our or mine edge of knowleadge.
> 
> Furthermore i dont believe this idea of perfect or identical digital when streaming sound/video is concerned. Just from my experience with my Tv whatcing i can see/hear every different device used for streaming for exe same netflix stream have different picture quality and sound. Be it mine chomecast ultra vs apple tv4k or the internal apps on my LG oled tv each device source has distinct differences in terms of sharpness of picture, colour reproduction and sound.




It's been explained several times why how you believe this works and your theories are completely misaligned with the reality of digital data transmission.

Where I'm really lost is why you believe the digital transmission of audio/video somehow follows different standards than all other digital transmission.  Data, sound, or audio, all of the data is encapsulated in specifically constructed packets with error correction protocol.  How, within a packeted data set, would audio be identified on the wire, impacted by mysterious forces that don't impact the exact same packet construction holding non audio data, then altered.  Not altered randomly, but changed in a consistent way that is represented by repeated artifacts.  And that those artifacts are consistent within one brand of wire, but different in every other brand?

If Ethernet is so prone to signal alteration, how does the internet work?  How do banks rely on digital transactions?  How do nuclear power plants operate safely when the Ethernet connections to various controls and data collectors isn't reliable.

One thing I can state from first hand experience - data centers, banks, and nuclear plants use plain ole Ethernet cables.  If there was any reality to your claims, the regulatory bodies would require "audiophile grade" Ethernet cables and switches.  There's a rather obvious answer why they don't.

Edit - forgot to mention tellerium.  As previously stated, prose from a vendor with a profit motive that lacks evidence to back up claims is not compelling.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] Real time or not whatever the values(voltages/electrical signals) the buffer read is not perfect and always identical and maybe can be altered in everything in the signal path
> [2] So if using better uniquely designed ethernet cables/switches for audio purpose with better signal integrity then generic ones it can easily impact sound for us to hear.
> [3] Of course everything i say is only my theorys of why it can sound different that i picked up from or connected the dots from other more knowing that i linked to in the entire thread.
> [4] Furthermore i dont believe this idea of perfect or identical digital ...



Great, so not happy with contradicting the facts, you're now even CONTRADICTING YOURSELF! Honestly, how low is it even possible to stoop?

1. The values in the buffer is digital data, zeros and ones. Are you now arguing that digital data isn't digital? The digital data in the buffer must be 100% perfect, otherwise it's rejected and is resent until it is. If this were not the case, all ethernet networks and all the digital systems that rely on them, like the internet for example, could not work. Are you claiming the internet doesn't work?

2. There is no "audio purpose", ethernet networks do NOT carry any audio, they are digital data networks and only carry digital data! How can you not understand this basic fact? And again, how does a cable "with better signal integrity" improve on the 100% perfect signal integrity of generic cables, what in your mind is better than 100% perfect? And lastly, you YOURSELF stated "In the video somewhere he said this doesent impact stored data.", so you're now even contradicting yourself!

3. That's not true, you're contradicting even those you've linked to!

4. Then you've answered my question: "simple logic dictates that either your statement is false or that the digital age does not exist" - You must believe the digital age doesn't exist! This begs the question, why are you typing a message on a device that doesn't exist and then posting it on an internet forum that doesn't exist? Honestly, how can this sound remotely logical to you?

G


----------



## TiJo (Mar 6, 2020)

@bluenight

Actually that is something you understand wrong.
Let's assume you are right, that there is some noise in the streamed data, but no bit flips. Essentially this means, I can still correctly see any 1 and 0, but they might be slightly off. So now in that case what you could do is just read it, and store it again with some value add/subtracted that eliminates the noise. After that I can store this somewhere on my hard drive or even in RAM for any amount of time. Now later, I read it and send it to my DAC to get some analogue signal. There is no difference to non-streaming now.

(The thought experiment is based on the assumption of no bit-flips. In reality, bit flips can happen. There probability is super low with modern algorithms. Here someone calculated the probability: https://stats.stackexchange.com/que...asonable-assurance-of-absolute-data-integrity
To summarize, the chance, that a bit flip happens to you is close to 0 or in other words, will probably never happen in a lifetime of music streaming)

Obviously, a modern computer uses much more sophisticated methods. Many of these methods can be mathematically proven to be correct. Unless you or any cable manufacturer understands how the proofs work, there is no point in believing them. I would rather trust someone who has studied computer science 

Hopefully, I was able to give you an more comprehensible view on digital data transmission.


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> 3a. Yes, humans are sensitive to digital data timing errors (called "jitter") in the case of music we're sensitive to jitter down to around 200 nano-seconds. This isn't recent though, this was first published in 1974 and confirmed by numerous subsequent scientific/controlled tests. Again though, this has nothing to do with an ethernet network, this is between the data recieving buffer in your DAC and the point of conversion.
> 
> 4. "These voltages" must be untouchable by an ethernet network because an ethernet network does not carry "these voltages", it just zeros and ones!


3a How can it has nothing to do with the ethernet network when all buffered and read information comes from the source which is the ethernet work? And that information( voltages/electric signals) from network is sent to dac to work with.

4 In detail how does the sound information i hear travel as ones and zeros? What is these ones and zeros? Voltages/electrical signals of some sort i asume. How can they translate to the sound of a flute for exempel that i hear in my system? 

From what i understand the adc measures/record sound as samples in time as voltages around twice 20khz in time that be a 16 bit/44.1 khz track.  So it will be around 44100 samples in 1 sec right? And this is sent as zeroes and ones somehow in my ethernet network to my dac that exctract these numbers but in reverse way in voltages? This buffer to read the sound information from does only exist in my dac? Its not part of the ethernet plug i saw the tear down aq vodka cable had some chipset at the end? Or at the rj45 connection slot at my streamer that blinks gren yellow lights?

 I still need more details of those zeros and ones.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> 3a How can it has nothing to do with the ethernet network when all buffered and read information comes from the source which is the ethernet work? And that information( voltages/electric signals) from network is sent to dac to work with.
> 
> 4 In detail how does the sound information i hear travel as ones and zeros? What is these ones and zeros? Voltages/electrical signals of some sort i asume. How can they translate to the sound of a flute for exempel that i hear in my system?
> 
> ...



there’s a lot of information available here. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/browse/standards/get-program/page/series?id=68

When you get up to speed on how Ethernet works,I think this discussion will be much more productive.


----------



## dazzerfong (Mar 6, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> Didn't watch that video but have seen enough video of Hans talking about digital transmission to understand his knowledge level (or lack thereof).  His video on the SOTA ethernet switch is hilarious.  He spouts audiophile "theory" as fact and then discusses measured differences so far below audibility that they can't possibly be material.  His paeans to how much he loves the improved sound of an Ethernet switch were enough for me.



Ah, I missed out on that one. Guess I dodged a bullet there.



bfreedma said:


> there’s a lot of information available here. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/browse/standards/get-program/page/series?id=68
> 
> When you get up to speed on how Ethernet works,I think this discussion will be much more productive.



Let's be realistic, he ain't gonna read it. He won't have the acumen or time to pour through the standards. Not to mention, you gotta pay for it or be an IEEE member.

This is a waste of time - this is like an anti-vaxxer who, after reading 1 article on vaccination, thinks they know better than doctors.



gregorio said:


> 1. I think he is. In his defence though, as he refuses to accept the obvious, then he doesn't have any other choice. Whatever other theory or explanation anyone cares to come up with, sooner or later they run into the brick wall of contradicting basic facts and simple logic and therefore "being daft on purpose"!
> 
> 2. He does seem to be a very personable man and on the face of it, his explanations do seem rational. Add these two attributes together and he seems entirely trustworthy and believable. Unfortunately though it's largely utter nonsense, although it's not obvious unless you happen to know or research the actual facts. He's quite open about a significant number of people pointing out that he's wrong but just repeatedly states the same two fallacies, that he hears a difference, so it must exist and he hears it because he has a better system than those who don't, both of which are completely false claims. He simply doesn't seem aware that the differences he's often talking about can't be reproduced by any system, so he obviously can't be hearing something that his system isn't even producing! The same nearly 30 year old audiophile fallacy that defies even simple logic.
> 
> G



I mostly ignored his audibility discussion and focused on how he explained things. Guess that's where things get controversial: his technical explanation is sound, but the audibility aspects leave a bit to be inspired.


----------



## JackFX

No, they are built to a standard it is a protocol. Going from Cat5e to Cat6 or Cat7 is technically an upgrade and can run a further distance but the cables in your walls are likely of Cat5e or lower and unless you are running a really far distance not worth it.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> 3a How can it has nothing to do with the ethernet network when all buffered and read information comes from the source which is the ethernet work? And that information( voltages/electric signals) from network is sent to dac to work with.
> [4] In detail how does the sound information i hear travel as ones and zeros? What is these ones and zeros? Voltages/electrical signals of some sort i asume. How can they translate to the sound of a flute for exempel that i hear in my system?
> From what i understand the adc measures/record sound as samples in time as voltages around twice 20khz in time that be a 16 bit/44.1 khz track. So it will be around 44100 samples in 1 sec right? And this is sent as zeroes and ones somehow in my ethernet network to my dac that exctract these numbers but in reverse way in voltages? This buffer to read the sound information from does only exist in my dac? Its not part of the ethernet plug i saw the tear down aq vodka cable had some chipset at the end? Or at the rj45 connection slot at my streamer that blinks gren yellow lights?



3a. It has nothing to do with the ethernet nertwork because all the data received is stored in a buffer AFTER the ethernet network and as you yourself have quoted, stored data is NOT impacted by noise, jitter or anything else! In other words, the "source" is effectively this buffer NOT the ethernet network.

4. You are asking: "What is binary digital data and how is it used to store and transfer analogue audio signals?" These are good questions but the OBVIOUS (and frankly incomprehensible) problem is that you should have asked and answered them BEFORE you started publicly arguing about it! *How can you spend days and days publicly arguing about digital audio data when you don't even know what digital audio data is?! *

The Sound Science sub-forum is probably the correct place to ask and answer your questions and answering "in detail" is not practical here, because there are a lot of details, which is why we need micro-processor devices (such as ADCs and DACs) that can deal with lots of details. So, very simplified (not "in detail") answers:

"_*What is these ones and zeros?* _- These ones and zeros are just that, the numerical values of "one" and "zero".

_"*Voltages/electrical signals of some sort i asume.*_" - No, these ones and zeros ("bits") can be pretty much anything that has two states which can quickly and reliably be read, the most common examples: The ones and zeros can be regions of reversed and non-reversed magnetic fields on a tape, floppy disk or hard disk drive. They can be microscopic indentations ("pits") and non-indentions ("lands") on CD, DVD and BluRay disks (read by measuring the different reflections produced by a laser). They can be a sequence of on/off pulses of light in fibre-optic networks. They can be a high or low voltage stored in microscopic capacitors on SSDs, RAM modules, etc., or, they can be a sequence of high and low voltages in the case of ethernet, USB and similar networks. The important thing is that there are ONLY TWO states, it doesn't matter how distorted a reversed/non-reversed magnetic field is, how imperfect the "pits" and "lands", how degraded the on/off pulses of light or how noisy a high or low voltage is, as long as the two different states can be identified. A massively degraded/distorted pulse of light is still a pulse of light (as opposed to no light) and is therefore a "1". A massively distorted high voltage is still a high voltage (a "1") and a massively distorted low voltage is still a low voltage (a "0"). So, a perfect sequence of zeroes and ones can be stored and transferred even using highly imperfect electrical, optic or magnetic signals and media, which is precisely why binary digital data was invented in the first place!

"_*How can they translate to the sound of a flute for exempel that i hear in my system?*_" - On their own, a one or a zero is pretty useless but by combining them we can represent a far greater range of values. This is exactly the same as our decimal number system: We only have the numerical values of 0 - 9, which is a very small range of values but by combining them we can represent a very large range values. For a value beyond the number 9 we combine two numbers to form "10", beyond 99 we combine three numbers and so on. The exact same happens with binary, we combine our numbers (bits) to represent larger values: We have 0 and 1, then we need another bit for the next number, 10 (= our number 2), the next number 11 (= 3) is still two bits but the next number is 100 (= 4) which requires 3 bits, 101 = our number 5 and so on. CD uses a combination of 16 bits (16 zeros or ones), which can represent any value up to 65,536.

What an ADC does is measure the voltage of an incoming analogue audio signal and then, using a mathematical formula, assigns it a value between 0 and 65,536 (represented by a sequence of 16 ones and zeros). In the case of CD, 44,100 measurements and digital value assignments are made per second. A DAC takes these digital values (sequences of 16 zeros and ones) and using a mathematical formula, reconstructs the original analogue audio signal. The answer to your question is therefore: They CANNOT translate to the sound of a flute! The ONLY thing that ADCs and DACs "translate" is an analogue audio signal into a sequence of zeros/ones and back again, so it can be stored and transferred perfectly. That's it, there is NOTHING else, there is NO sound! Sound doesn't exist until the very end of the reproduction chain, which is why you need headphones or speakers, to convert the analogue audio signal into sound. Whether the sound you hear sounds like a flute, depends on the analogue signal, how well it's converted to sound (by your HPs) and your brain's interpretation (perception) of that sound.

G


----------



## bluenight (Mar 7, 2020)

dazzerfong said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Maybe this post was missed? I dident receieve alert of gregorios post last sunday. Shows data errors acure  but has maybe something to do with the maintanence of site.

Old post below

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."*


----------



## dazzerfong

bluenight said:


> Maybe this post was missed? I dident receieve alert of gregorios post last sunday. Shows data errors acure  but has maybe something to do with the maintanence of site.
> 
> Old post below
> 
> ...




You are mixing up analog and digital principles. While you may have a point about analog cables and filters, this is completely a non-sequitur for digital cables, especially since if you have a filter in it you have just ignored the standards the cable's supposed to follow.

With Tellurium, those guys are bunk. Know how I know? They're using completely valid scientific facts, with proven metrics on objectively characterising them, and providing _none_ of those metrics. That's like saying 'our product is a good paperweight, but we're not gonna tell you how heavy it is'.

Thing is, cables _are _a filter, they're not wrong. What they're wrong about is the _degree_ to which cables are a filter.

Also, thanks for showing me that video - that one completely invalidates my earlier remarks about Hans. The reason he 'supposedly' sees changes comes back to my point - poorly engineered products that are susceptible to outside influence. It's got nothing to do with data transfer.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] I dident receieve alert of gregorios post last sunday. Shows data errors acure  but has maybe something to do with the maintanence of site.
> [2] Old post below ... Some more why it can sound different.


1. What data errors? Was the message I posted or the alert you received garbled or different from what was sent? So, not only don't you know what digital data actually is, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, but unsurprisingly you don't know what data errors are either. What is surprising (ridiculous even!), is that you continue to argue about something you admit you don't know about!

2. How does repeat posting the same marketing BS show "why it can sound different"?



bluenight said:


> [1] "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”."
> [2] * 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
> ...



1. So the OBVIOUS question is: Are generic cables producing "*negligible* phase distortion" (and therefore NO audible effects) or significant amounts of phase distortion? Why don't you measure and find out for yourself and/or look-up the measurements others have posted?

2. Wow, you've actually posted some correct information from a reliable source for a change! Unfortunately though, the correct information was contained in a page of marketing BS which LIES about it!!!!

3. Correct, "you have a choice":
*a.* This is a *LIE*, "the face of science"  in fact states the exact opposite!! You can indeed forget the cable is a filter, unless the filter effects are significant (not negligible).
3a1. "Having a smeared sound" is NOT a "_compromise_", it's actually called "high fidelity"!! As National Semiconductor Corp states, "_anything in the signal path_ ... _will change the relative frequency components and/or their phase relationships_", so in addition to those items mentioned it obviously must also include: Microphones, mic pre-amps, all the countless meters of various (non-audiophile) cables and all the numerous processes applied during mixing; EQ, compression, reverb, etc. (which result in a massive amount of "smear" relative to what occurs in cables). So, the music recordings you buy are "_having a smeared sound_" to start with! A cable OBVIOUSLY can't remove that and even if by some magic it could, why would you want it to? Don't you want a high fidelity reproduction of what the musicians/engineers created, heard themselves and intended?
*b.* No, you do NOT have to _"try to engineer as clear a path as possible_", just a signal path as clear as is audible! Such a signal path would be audibly transparent and "_trying to engineer_" beyond that point is, by definition, "inaudible". If you want to pay 10 or 100 times more for an inaudible difference, that's up to you ... but of course you can't claim that an inaudible difference is audible! (unless apparently you're the person responsible for making-up Tellerium's snake-oil marketing BS!)

What you've quoted and stated, AGAIN demonstrates absolutely no understanding of digital audio. In fact, you've demonstrated that you think digital audio is actually analogue audio. If that were true, then there is only analogue audio and digital audio doesn't exist. Is that really what you're claiming?



dazzerfong said:


> While you may have a point about analog cables and filters, this is completely a non-sequitur for digital cables, especially since if you have a filter in it you have just ignored the standards the cable's supposed to follow.



Actually, this isn't really the case, in fact it's rather the other way around. At the extremely high frequencies of digital data signals (100 MegaHertz and higher in the case of ethernet), the cables (and the signal transmitter) DO have a significant filter/distortion effect! However, in the case of digital data signals, there is a third (and this time true!) choice/option that Tellurium doesn't mention:

*c.* Design the system/protocol to specifically operate with a filtered/distorted digital signal to start with!

Theoretically, the digital signal is a square wave (on/off or high/low voltage pulses). In practice though, the filter/distortion effect of the cable (and other components) results in the square wave actually ending up looking like this (when superimposed):





That's significant distortion, it doesn't look like square waves at all, it looks more like the shape of an "eye". However, what actually happens is option "*c.*". The ethernet, USB and other digital signal protocols specify the reception of an "eye-pattern", NOT a square wave! So, there's two huge problems/fallacies with the assertions of @bluenight :

Firstly, none of the audiophile companies provide the measurements which would prove/demonstrate their cables actually result in less filter/distortion effects to start with (I wonder why?), AND Secondly, even if we assume their cables DO result in significantly less filter/distortion (and therefore less of an "eye pattern" and more of a square wave), that would obviously be a bad thing (or at very best, no better), because the ethernet and other digital signal protocols don't specify/require a square wave, they specify an "eye pattern"!

G


----------



## bluenight

dazzerfong said:


> You are mixing up analog and digital principles. While you may have a point about analog cables and filters, this is completely a non-sequitur for digital cables, especially since if you have a filter in it you have just ignored the standards the cable's supposed to follow.
> 
> With Tellurium, those guys are bunk.


They said all cables maybe they express it sloppy so there claim could be for digital cables too. And i know they make digital cables too. 
Also they mentioned dacs which is digital but maybe they thought about the analogue domain in the dac after it done its job.

"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:"


----------



## TiJo

Why do you trust them, but not the @gregorio who demonstrates to be knowledgeable and moreover provides facts that can be verified more or less easily?


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] They said all cables maybe they express it sloppy so there claim could be for digital cables too. And i know they make digital cables too.
> [2] Also they mentioned dacs which is digital but maybe they thought about the analogue domain in the dac after it done its job.
> [3] "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:"



1. Yes, a filter effect does happen in "digital cables too". The fact you're ignoring is that it's required to; Ethernet, USB and the other digital signal protocols ALL REQUIRE that filter effect to occur, to change a square wave into an "eye pattern". Didn't you read the last message I posted?

2. Yes, it occurs in the digital signal that enters the DAC chip and in the analogue signal that exits the DAC chip. In the case of an analogue signal, you have to ask if the filter effect is negligible (inaudible) or significant (audible), as Tellurium themselves quoted from Bell Labs in 1930!

3. Here, Tellurium is obviously talking about analogue signals because a digital signal does NOT represent "music". There is no music that contains only a 100MHz square wave because firstly it wouldn't be music, Secondly, no audio DAC, amp, speakers or HPs can reproduce anywhere near a 100MHz square wave anyway and Thirdly, as a human being, you can't hear anything beyond about 20Kilo-Hz, let alone 100Mega-Hz. If Tellurium were also talking about digital cables, then they failed to mention choice "*c.*", the actual choice taken by the Ethernet design engineers (and ratified by the ISO), as explained in my previous post!!

G


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> That's significant distortion, it doesn't look like square waves at all, it looks more like the shape of an "eye". However, what actually happens is option "*c.*". The ethernet, USB and other digital signal protocols specify the reception of an "eye-pattern", NOT a square wave!


It looks like its mirroring the
 movement. And how doesent it get confused whether its a one or a zero it looks like they become one and zero at the same time? 

It cant become one and zero at the same time can it without error?


----------



## bluenight

Hans thought this was the best sounding switch he have tried better and cheaper then sotm switch. I like the internal pics of the parts he shows often in his reviews. It looks well designed to minimise noise creeping in the system. 

Also whoever took the time to design it cant be a loony wasting time and effort on designing it if it wouldent result in an audible difference i think. 

Hans admitetly said the sotm $1000 switch and some power suply changes maybe was not worth paying for though for little sound improvement.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1[ And how doesent it get confused whether its a one or a zero it looks like they become one and zero at the same time?
> [2] It cant become one and zero at the same time can it without error?



1. You have failed to read what has been written! The "eye pattern" is a measurement of several/many bits (pseudo square waves) SUPERIMPOSED on top of one another, so that differences between them can be measured/observed, differences in timing, rise time, eye height, etc. Hence the different colours, representing the distribution of the measured bits. The purple colour for example, shows the greatest but least common variation. And, how do you think that ethernet can't work with the "eye pattern" that the ethernet standard itself specifies ... why would they specify it in the first place? This doesn't make ANY sort of sense, let alone common or simple logical sense!

2. Even if you personally don't know and can't be bothered to read or don't have the modicum of intelligence required to understand the basic facts of digital signalling, think about the SIMPLE LOGIC: If what you are suggesting were true, there would be constant errors, which would make every ethernet network (and every other digital transfer protocol on the planet) effectively useless, so no one would buy ethernet networks or any digital device that relies on transferring digital data (which is ALL of them)! How is it possible that not only don't you understand the basic facts of digital signalling (even AFTER it's been explained) but that you ALSO can't grasp simple logic???



bluenight said:


> [1] Hans thought this was the best sounding switch he have tried better and cheaper then sotm switch.
> [1a] I like the internal pics of the parts he shows often in his reviews. It looks well designed to minimise noise creeping in the system.
> [2] Also whoever took the time to design it cant be a loony wasting time and effort on designing it if it wouldent result in an audible difference i think.
> [3] Hans admitetly said the sotm $1000 switch and some power suply changes maybe was not worth paying for though for little sound improvement.



1. And clearly he's delusional because an ethernet switch isn't carrying any sound. How many times?
1a. And again, you are contradicting even the sources you YOURSELF have quoted! Mark Jenkins stated "_It is true that transporting bits data from one storage medium in one place to another storage medium in another place is easy. What is stored at the destination is only the data, *no noise* or jitter._"

2. You have that backwards! Designing a piece of equipment with a component cost of probably less than $20 and then suckering people into paying $1000 for it, is NOT a "loony wasting time", it's a potentially lucrative use of time! In addition, there have been countless audiophile products over several decades which even the audiophile world itself managed to recognise were/are snake-oil (no audible difference). So AGAIN, using SIMPLE LOGIC, either there are obviously loonies designing audiophile products which result in no audible difference OR, contrary to even the audiophile world, you believe no audiophile product is ever snake oil.

3. Why do you insist on repeatedly trying to support marketing BS by quoting marketing BS? Would you try to support an argument that the original snake-oil actually worked by quoting the marketing BS of those who made snake-oil and those deliberately promoting it? Hans states that he's been in the audio business for several decades. If that's true, he must know that a "Null test" is a precise measurement of ALL differences and be able to perform one (as it's cheap and relatively easy). As he doesn't even mention a null test, let alone provide the results of one, he is DELIBERATELY ignoring the actual (objective) facts and promoting marketing BS!

How is it possible to keep: Contradicting the simple basic facts, contradict even those you yourself have quoted, contradict even the most simple logic/common sense and instead, rely on marketing BS? There's only two possible answers I can think of!

G


----------



## bluenight (Mar 14, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. You have failed to read what has been written! The "eye pattern" is a measurement of several/many bits (pseudo square waves) SUPERIMPOSED on top of one another, so that differences between them can be measured/observed, differences in timing, rise time, eye height, etc. Hence the different colours, representing the distribution of the measured bits. The purple colour for example, shows the greatest but least common variation. And, how do you think that ethernet can't work with the "eye pattern" that the ethernet standard itself specifies ... why would they specify it in the first place? This doesn't make ANY sort of sense, let alone common or simple logical sense!
> 
> 2. Even if you personally don't know and can't be bothered to read or don't have the modicum of intelligence required to understand the basic facts of digital signalling, think about the SIMPLE LOGIC: If what you are suggesting were true, there would be constant errors, which would make every ethernet network (and every other digital transfer protocol on the planet) effectively useless, so no one would buy ethernet networks or any digital device that relies on transferring digital data (which is ALL of them)! How is it possible that not only don't you understand the basic facts of digital signalling (even AFTER it's been explained) but that you ALSO can't grasp simple logic???
> 
> ...


Simple logic is i dont need to listen to your bs!

All i need to listen to is my system to hear that its much less sibilant sounding and more grain free and more analogue sounding and more fuller/musical sounding since i replaced my cheap old generic cat5 utp cables to supra cat8 and added the netgear gs108 switch in between instead of ethernet cables straight from router. Most switches apparently has galvanicaly isolated ports rejecting more noise from router.

I can say this is an overlooked area to get great sound in streamed audio. I say and hear its one of the importent foundations to get great sound in streamed audio.

I post whatever video in my own thread as i like, dont come to my thread and tell me what to post fool. Whatching audiophile videos like that and similar is my hobby and i get a joy out of it if you dont like it get out of this thread then and find your own hobby. Also i dont like your soul less facts only aproach to hifi it does not apeal to me. Also uptone audio is a respected company known for great sounding products they dont make "snake oil"products.


----------



## F208Frank

This thread was both entertaining and painful to read. To the user, G I do not disagree or agree with you but how do you find so much energy to continue this rant/debate?

I would not waste my time and just let people have their own opinions. People hear differently, and have different experiences. Even if they are "imagining things" that is their experience so you can not take that away from them.

With that said, I hate MQA, left Tidal today for Qobuz. I do not like supporting companies that peddle/promote/support MQA.


----------



## Mikem53

So if I upgrade my Ethernet network to high quality wire and switches, do I get better bank account balances too ? Most likely
the opposite will certainly occur..
 At that stage of the digital network,  its ones and zeros, CRC checks and retries ensure data is sent and received as expected. its just digital data..  Now.. if you’re talking about USB cables and streaming.. then the quality of the cable will impact the sound.. as there is no CRC checking during streaming of music.. errors and missing data will be guessed at, etc.. different protocol than backing up data or moving data along through the OS for checking.


----------



## bluenight

F208Frank said:


> With that said, I hate MQA, left Tidal today for Qobuz. I do not like supporting companies that peddle/promote/support MQA.


Whats wrong with mqa? Sound that bad?
I guess i am lucky mine streamer dont suport mqa then. I get 16bit 44,khz from tidal. Sadly qobuz isent suported in my country yet.


----------



## F208Frank (Mar 14, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Whats wrong with mqa? Sound that bad?
> I guess i am lucky mine streamer dont suport mqa then. I get 16bit 44,khz from tidal. Sadly qobuz isent suported in my country yet.


I hate MQA for many reasons. It is trying to solve a problem that does not exist as it is compressing a file to be streamed using an unfolding process. It is trying to resell music twice and trying to charge different brands the right to be MQA compliant. The whole thing seems like a money grab and I find that a Qobuz sounds better than Tidal.

If you can access Tidal, do not worry over it as it does sound good. I just refuse to support a company peddling MQA.

Also you still want your software to do the 1st unfold for their MQA files even if your streamer is not MQA compliant, another reason why MQA is dumb is because conversations like this need to happen to explain their complicated processes. Quite disgusted to be honest.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] Simple logic is i dont need to listen to your bs!
> [2] All i need to listen to is my system to hear [2a] that its much less sibilant sounding and [2b] more grain free and [2c] more analogue sounding ...
> [3] I can say this is an overlooked area to get great sound in streamed audio.
> [4] I post whatever video in my own thread as i like, dont come to my thread and tell me what to post fool.
> ...



1. That's not simple logic, it's simple and deliberate ignorance! Is it really beyond any adult's intelligence to go to Wikipedia (or pretty much any source other than audiophile marketing) and find out whether what I'm saying is BS?

2. So your test for differences between ethernet cables isn't to actually test for differences between ethernet cables but to test something else entirely (your perception). In one sentence you talk about "simple logic" and the very next sentence you do the exact opposite of simple logic!
2a. Do you even know what "sibilant" means? "Less sibilant" requires a significant change in the frequency balance, which in digital audio therefore requires a complete change in a large number of zeros and ones. As NO change in even a single zero or one is possible in an ethernet network, let alone a large number of zeros and ones, what you are claiming is IMPOSSIBLE!!
2b. There is no "grain" in digital audio, so how can something that's grain free to start with be made "more grain free"?
2c. How can a digital cable sound "more analogue" when it isn't carrying an analogue signal? After all this discussion, how can you still believe that an ethernet cable is carrying analogue audio signals rather than digital data?

3. Sure "you can say" that ... but the question is, why would you want to? Why would you want to publicly say complete BS, what do you gain from spreading BS and how is it of any benefit to the community you profess to be a member of?

4. Who's the fool, the person who learns the facts and applies simple logic or the person who deliberately remains ignorant of the facts, defies simple logic and instead believes marketing BS? And, I have NOT told you what to post in your thread! Obviously though, if you're going to post videos that promote BS in a public forum then I've got every right to point out that it's BS and you've got no right to "tell me what to post fool"!!!

5. You've got to be joking? I have found my own hobby (I'm an audiophile), hence why I'm posting here. You've found your own hobby too, which according to you is watching videos (so you're a videophile). Unfortunately for you, this is a forum for audiophiles, not videophiles and "if you don't like it get out of this" site!!

6. And your approach of ignoring all the facts, believing all the marketing BS, aiming for Lo-Fi and then falsely calling it Hi-Fi, who does that appeal to (apart from you)?

7. Are they more or less of "a respected company" than Chord?

Every post just gets more and more ridiculous as you dig yourself deeper!



F208Frank said:


> [1] I would not waste my time and just let people have their own opinions.
> [2] People hear differently, and have different experiences. Even if they are "imagining things" that is their experience so you can not take that away from them.
> [3] With that said, I hate MQA, ... It is trying to solve a problem that does not exist ... The whole thing seems like a money grab



1. I've got absolutely no problem with bluenight having his own opinions. He's completely entitled to own opinions, even if they're completely wrong. However, if he's going to post those completely wrong opinions in a public forum and falsely claim that they're correct/valid, then I'm just as entitled to point out that they're completely wrong and the claims are false.

2. I'm not taking their experience away from them. As it's my job is to create aural experiences, why would I want to take them away from anyone? I'm just pointing out that aural experiences are not reality, they're illusions.

3. I agree but how is that any different to ethernet cables? Ethernet is specifically designed to operate perfectly with cheap (unshielded, twisted pair) cables and provably achieves that goal, which is why it still exists. So what problem exists that audiophile ethernet cables claim to solve? The whole audiophile ethernet cable thing is just a money grab!

G


----------



## F208Frank

Lol. Good read.


----------



## bluenight (Mar 16, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. That's not simple logic, it's simple and deliberate ignorance! Is it really beyond any adult's intelligence to go to Wikipedia (or pretty much any source other than audiophile marketing) and find out whether what I'm saying is BS?
> 
> 2. So your test for differences between ethernet cables isn't to actually test for differences between ethernet cables but to test something else entirely (your perception). In one sentence you talk about "simple logic" and the very next sentence you do the exact opposite of simple logic!
> 2a. Do you even know what "sibilant" means? "Less sibilant" requires a significant change in the frequency balance, which in digital audio therefore requires a complete change in a large number of zeros and ones. As NO change in even a single zero or one is possible in an ethernet network, let alone a large number of zeros and ones, what you are claiming is IMPOSSIBLE!!
> ...


Its like Paul MCgowan said i would respect someones opionion if the person had actually listened to the products hes screaming ! snake oil to and couldent hear a difference. But even then if i read 10 other people heard a difference i wouldent dissmiss it. In the end my ears would have final say and thats all thats matters in the end.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> Its like Paul MCgowan said *i would respect someones opionion if the person had actually listened to the products hes screaming ! snake oil to* and couldent hear a difference. But even then if i read 10 other people heard a difference i wouldent dissmiss it. In the end my ears would have final say and thats all thats matters in the end.




Do you apply the same logic for other elements of well established science?  You must be pretty bruised up from jumping off every roof to prove gravity exists for a specific building.  Because without actually testing the building by jumping off it's roof, who could possibly state with confidence that gravity will be the same (within reasonable tolerance) at that location as every other location on the planet.

And again in this thread - the statements of someone with a profit motive are not typically where I go for facts.

To stay on topic, the standards for Ethernet are largely contained in the IEEE 802.3 documentation.  Are you suggesting that the 802.3 standard is flawed and that every Ethernet cable needs to be tested to ensure it meets requirements?  Or that the requirements would change due to operating environment?  https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_3-2018.html


----------



## bluenight (Mar 16, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> Are you suggesting that the 802.3 standard is flawed and that every Ethernet cable needs to be tested to ensure it meets requirements? Or that the requirements would change due to operating environment?


No i never have said generics are broken. They work fine. But better sound can be had for streaming music content. Less flatness/ sibilance/harshness/brightness less listening fatigue. More details.


----------



## bluenight (Mar 16, 2020)

Sensetive it is.
From https://darko.audio/2018/08/ethernet-or-wifi-which-is-better-for-high-end-audio-streaming/

_"The network router, the NAS and other network device are directly attached to the router using Ethernet cable which can be quite noisy. If the streamer is attached to the router using Ethernet cable then the noise can easily be transmitted to the streamer over this physical link. The regular CE, FCC and other EMC standards only guarantee the device will work stably, but when we are talking about sound quality, we are actually talking about EMI noise that is 1/1000 of the EMC’s standard, so it affects [sound quality] a lot. That’s why audiophiles say different NAS or different routers sound different."_


What supra said from audio bacon review of supra cat8.
_"While writing, we thought we’d add some info to our cable/-s and to the debate in general. Our driving force is to try to avoid any tuning at all. Any device or cable adding a specific, repeatedly detectable signature is not correct, because it will mask the true signature, i.e. the recording. What is correct is to keep as much of the modern household radiation and fields outside as possible. What is also correct is to acknowledge the well defined Ethernet standards for cable design to maintain maximal signal integrity. What is benign is to have a huge bandwidth headroom, allowing re-sending bit packages and always keep read buffer full. What is also worth mentioning is that there are some brands and models of routers and switches that provides metal housing for sufficient shielding and a quality standard named QoS (Quality of Service) that substantially improves signal integrity and reduces jitter. Now, noise does not affect binary code, does it?… Well we’ve done enough real world tests to identify what you’ve just established in this review; cables really do matter. Keep the signal clean and strong, and the DAC will thank you by converting the bit stream to real music with no signature other then the intended on the recording. If you have any questions to us, you’re most welcome to send a message on our Facebook page “Supra Cables”"_


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> No i never have said generics are broken. They work fine. But better sound can be had for streaming music content. Less flatness/ sibilance/harshness/brightness less listening fatigue. More details.



if you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of the contents of the IEEE link, you would realize that its impossible for that standard to exist and for your statement that something can be better than the standard could be correct.

Please explain how an Ethernet cable could act as a consistent and repeatable filter or EQ.  I (and others) have already explained how packetized data with error correction works.  A packet containing audio data is no different than a packet with non audio data - the cable doesn’t “know” the difference.

if you invested time educating yourself on how the 802 standard is implemented and the mechanics of Ethernet data tranemission, it would quickly become obvious that how you believe Ethernet works is not how it actually works.  That would be time well spent rather than viewing and parroting marketing bs.


----------



## bfreedma (Mar 16, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Sensetive it is.
> From https://darko.audio/2018/08/ethernet-or-wifi-which-is-better-for-high-end-audio-streaming/
> 
> _"The network router, the NAS and other network device are directly attached to the router using Ethernet cable which can be quite noisy. If the streamer is attached to the router using Ethernet cable then the noise can easily be transmitted to the streamer over this physical link. The regular CE, FCC and other EMC standards only guarantee the device will work stably, but when we are talking about sound quality, we are actually talking about EMI noise that is 1/1000 of the EMC’s standard, so it affects [sound quality] a lot. That’s why audiophiles say different NAS or different routers sound different."_
> ...



Do you really think your home has more “radiation and fields” than a data center housing 100000 or more servers/network devices/PDUs?  How about more “radiation and fields” than the control center of a nuclear reactor?

i only ask because we don’t use anything other than standard Ethernet cables in those environments   Given the regulations and real impact that data errors would have, if there was any truth to the marketing you quoted, surely these implementations would require “special” Ethernet cables.  But they don’t.

Edit.  QoS is a traffic prioritization model.  Suggesting that it improves signal integrity is a misrepresentation at best and more likely, indicative of a lack of understanding of a fairly basic concept for someone trying to sell you an expensive cable.  Would really like to see the tests Supra says prove their cable is beneficial.  Won’t be holding my breath...

Edit 2.  QoS is implemented within network layer 3.  The cable carries whatever data the routing directs to the port it’s connected to, QoS shaped traffic or not.


----------



## bluenight

Uptone audio try to explain the why
https://uptoneaudio.com/products/etherregen

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386

"to be followed with some measurement proof of the effects)."
Lets hope so.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> Uptone audio try to explain the why
> https://uptoneaudio.com/products/etherregen
> 
> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386
> ...




They try.  And they fail.  None of the issues they describe are actual real world problems that would impact audio reproduction.

Once again, marketing materials are not compelling evidence.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 19, 2020)

bluenight said:


> [1] Uptone audio try to explain the why https://uptoneaudio.com/products/etherregen
> [2] https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386
> [3] "to be followed with some measurement proof of the effects)." Lets hope so.



1. No they don't! They vaguely explain (but do NOT support) what their "_goals and architecture are_" but they do NOT explain how that is going to affect the output of a DAC!

2. Have you even read or understood what you've linked to? Much of the article is true, however it's all BS because it's invalidated by some key facts they've either falsified or deliberately omitted! For example:

"*(A)* The following example, while not strictly accurate, will suffice as a basis to understand how this works. ... *(B)* _Let’s say one pulse to the next is exactly 100ns, then the next is 101ns, then the next 102, then 103, then it goes back to 102, then 101, then 100, then 99, then 98, then 97, then 98, then 99, then 100, etc. This timing error pattern will take a certain amount of time to complete. If say it takes 1/10th of a second for this pattern to occur, the frequency of the clock modulation is 10Hz. This is usually called jitter frequency. If you made a phase-noise graph of this clock, you would have a spike at 10Hz. ..... _*(C)*_ So if the DAC is outputting 1KHz, you now have 1000Hz, plus 1010Hz, plus 990Hz._"

*A*. So, what you're citing even states that it's not strictly accurate/true!!
*B*. If that were the case then it wouldn't be an ethernet signal in the first place! The ethernet specification for 100Base is total RMS jitter of less than 1.4ns, not the 4ns in the example. But more importantly, the clocks used in ethernet switches usually have a total RMS jitter of around 1ps - 30ps, that's many (up to more than 1,000) times below the maximum specified!
*C*. Well now we get to it, *what is the DAC actually outputting*? Sure, in theory you would "_have 1000Hz, plus 1010Hz, plus 990Hz_" but *what would be the levels*? In a cheap (<$100), well designed DAC these 1010Hz and 990Hz jitter artefacts would be about 130dB below the 1000Hz signal, that's over 3,000,000 times lower in level! It's also about 1,000 times below the noise floor of pretty much any commercial music recording! Your HPs or speakers can't even reproduce these -130dB 1010Hz and 990Hz jitter artefacts, so how are you going to hear something that your system isn't even reproducing in the first place??

"*How does the UpTone Audio EtherREGEN address the issues discussed above?*
_The EtherREGEN’s primary purpose is to radically reduce the two sources of ground-plane noise—leakage current and clock phase-noise—to keep them from getting into your DAC. _"

What (audible) issues and why would you want "_to keep them from getting in your DAC_"? - The DAC will have to isolate and re-clock the ethernet power and data anyway, otherwise it wouldn't work. What you'd get is a burnt out DAC chip or brief bursts of music at around 70 times the proper speed, separated by long periods of nothing/silence! So, the EtherRegen addresses an issue that any functioning/competent DAC already addresses. It's like saying you need to put an UpTone power conditioner in the chain before the audiophile power conditioner you already own! SNAKE OIL!!!

3. Assuming their ethernet switch really does "_address the issues discussed above_", it should be pretty easy to provide "_some measurement proof_". However, one measurement it's pretty much guaranteed they will NOT "_follow with_" is "_the effects_" on the output of any competently designed DAC!!

*What do you think being suckered by marketing BS proves?*

G

Edit: Changed "300,000 times lower" to "3,000,000 times lower", missed out a zero by mistake!


----------



## bluenight (Mar 21, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> They try.  And they fail.  None of the issues they describe are actual real world problems that would impact audio reproduction.
> 
> Once again, marketing materials are not compelling evidence.


I think they made very good explanations of the why and i dont doubt them.

Now replaying an album that was very bright and ear fatiguing before with the generic cables now its very tolerable with supra cat 8 and with new netgear switch in between instead of cables direct from router. And the quality of the sounds is better.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> [1] I think they made very good explanations of the why and i dont doubt them.
> [2] Now replaying an album that was very bright and ear fatiguing before with the generic cables now its very tolerable with supra cat 8 and with new netgear switch in between instead of cables direct from router. And the quality of the sounds is better.



1. They did make good explanations but NOT of what your system can reproduce of therefore what you can hear. And the fact that you "don't doubt them" is surprising. Do you not doubt any marketing or only audiophile marketing? So:

2. No, it's provably no better. Very easy to think you are hearing a difference when you believe without doubt all the marketing you ever read. The ideal punter!!

G


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> 1. They did make good explanations but NOT of what your system can reproduce of therefore what you can hear. And the fact that you "don't doubt them" is surprising. Do you not doubt any marketing or only audiophile marketing? So:
> 
> 2. No, it's provably no better. Very easy to think you are hearing a difference when you believe without doubt all the marketing you ever read. The ideal punter!!
> 
> G


All BS from your side again! Of course i know that i hear a real difference.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> All BS from your side again! Of course i know that i hear a real difference.




You've stated multiple times in this thread that you don't have a good understanding of the Ethernet operational model.  So how can you call BS on anyone regarding that topic?  Dunning Kruger?

You "know" you hear a real difference so everyone needs to believe what you think you heard?  And that the only explanation is that a real audible difference (which would be trivially easy to measure...) exists and that Placebo has been ruled out?  I guess you must believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.  Because many people will swear they exist and that they have personally heard/seen them.

Can you take a step back and examine your position?  Because you are cherry picking illogically and treating marketing material as vetted research.


----------



## bluenight

bfreedma said:


> You "know" you hear a real difference so everyone needs to believe what you think you heard? And that the only explanation is that a real audible difference (which would be trivially easy to measure...) exists and that Placebo has been ruled out?


Correct.

Other People can and will believe what they want though if its placebo or not that i am experiencing. The closed minded i cant convince anyway but for the open minded maybe i can convince if they want better sound.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 24, 2020)

bluenight said:


> [1] All BS from your side again!
> [2] Of course i know that i hear a real difference.
> [3] Other People can and will believe what they want though if its placebo or not that i am experiencing.
> [4] The closed minded i cant convince anyway but
> [4a] for the open minded maybe i can convince if they want better sound.



1. What I've stated can be verified in numerous ways by anyone, they can: Visit Wikipedia and find out for themselves how digital data and ethernet work, read the actual ethernet specs, perform a cheap and easy null test, reference objective measurements already posted in this thread, ask a professional network engineer, read published scientific papers, go to high school and get an introduction to digital data, read a textbook or apply the most simple logic to the obviously demonstrated fact of all the critical industries that employ ethernet networks. Anyone can choose not to do a SINGLE one of these things, remain ignorant and instead rely SOLELY on marketing BS but then of course, it's their "side" who is spouting BS! Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp?

2. How do you know it's a "real" difference, because marketing BS told you it's real and you can't be bothered to find out for yourself? You keep saying you "hear a real difference" but never answer the question how you can hear a real difference your HPs or speakers can't output in the first place!

3. If your experience/perception of hearing is NOT subject to various biases, illusions and placebo type effects then firstly, you can't be a human being and secondly, you couldn't experience music in the first place (or stereo, which is also an illusion). People can of course "believe what they want", some people believe the Earth is flat and there's even a society for them. Fortunately though, many sane adults are capable of learning basic facts and applying critical thinking and simple logic!

4. Yet again, you have that backwards: The ONLY people you can maybe convince are the closed minded!
4a. You mean those who are open minded to ONLY marketing BS  but closed minded to everything else: Simple objective measurements/tests that PROVE the sound is not audibly different (let alone better), the proven and demonstrated facts of what digital data is, how ethernet works and therefore also closed minded to basic education and simple logic.

What's the word for someone who is closed minded to pretty much everything except marketing BS and calls other people "closed minded"?

G


----------



## bluenight

As there been accusations of snake oil in this thread.
https://darko.audio/2020/03/podcast-20-snake-oil/


----------



## TiJo

The difference between you and Darko is: You are just believing in snake oil, Darko may or may not believe in it, but since he profits from it monetarily, he will promote any kind of oil


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> As there been accusations of snake oil in this thread. ...



As there has been accusations of snake oil in this thread ... You thought you'd add even more snake oil? Is audiophile marketing really your ONLY source of audio information?

G


----------



## F208Frank

Darko always gives positive reviews only it seems from my limited viewings of his vids, maybe he only reviews things he like, that or he is getting something out of it.


----------



## koven

F208Frank said:


> Darko always gives positive reviews only it seems from my limited viewings of his vids, maybe he only reviews things he like, that or he is getting something out of it.



That is basically all reviews, read anything off stereophile, 6moons, positive-feedback, hifipig, enjoythemusic, you name it..  the wordsmithing and jargon varies but at the end of the day it is all underscored by unabashed enthusiasm, and buy buy buy.. every new product is apparently god's next gift to audiophiles.. I still read it for amusement though


----------



## Clive101

Back again after trying the Vodka and Diamond.

The two Audio quest cables did not fair well. For me, both sucked the life out the bass, all texture was lost and all I could hear was a thud of the drum. So, I put on some Japanese drum music to try and it was confirmed. My standard cable (unknown) between the CX and EX you could hear the skin vibrate, with both the Vodka and Diamond a muffled thud. The Vodka also impacted the midrange and treble with a fog, but the diamond did not.


----------



## PointyFox

koven said:


> That is basically all reviews, read anything off stereophile, 6moons, positive-feedback, hifipig, enjoythemusic, you name it..  the wordsmithing and jargon varies but at the end of the day it is all underscored by unabashed enthusiasm, and buy buy buy.. every new product is apparently god's next gift to audiophiles.. I still read it for amusement though



I love their reviews of obvious scam products like the LessLoss Blackbody.


----------



## teknorob23

PointyFox said:


> I love their reviews of obvious scam products like the LessLoss Blackbody.



I assume you’ve done the research and listened to these cables in a suitably resolving system and your not just relying on what you “know”... that would be very strange position comment from, wouldn’t it?


----------



## TiJo (May 21, 2020)

teknorob23 said:


> I assume you’ve done the research and listened to these cables in a suitably resolving system and your not just relying on what you “know”... that would be very strange position comment from, wouldn’t it?



No it would not. If I tell you that the rock I threw in the air a few seconds ago now fell down, instead of flying to the moon you would also not ask me to throw it in the air in a suitably resolving physics simulation.


----------



## teknorob23

TiJo said:


> No it would not. If I tell you that the rock I through in the air a few seconds ago now fell down, instead of flying you would also not ask me to throw it in the air in a suitably resolving physics simulation.



and there we have the problem in a nutshell. Stick to what you "know". I was suspicious too, but i did the due diligence before passing judgement and i've listened to lots of these cables. I dont really see much point in trying to change your mind, if its so closed that you're not even willing to put your convictions to the test.


----------



## TiJo (May 21, 2020)

If you read all the posts in this whole thread you will realize why this is not necessary and why you are most probably only imagining a difference, where no difference is, if you are not a believer.

Edit: Here is a brain teaser for you: If you download a song and play it 1 hour later, will it sound the same as if you would stream it right now?


----------



## gregorio

teknorob23 said:


> [1] I assume you’ve done the research and listened to these cables in a suitably resolving system and your not just relying on what you “know”... that would be very strange position comment from, wouldn’t it?
> [2] and there we have the problem in a nutshell.
> [2a] Stick to what you "know". I was suspicious too, but i did the due diligence before passing judgement and i've listened to lots of these cables.
> [2b] I dont really see much point in trying to change your mind, if its so closed that you're not even willing to put your convictions to the test.



1. If one has actually done the research and therefore does actually "know" the facts, how does listening to these cables make any difference beyond introducing the possibility personal perception biases conflicting with the facts? This is NOT a "very strange position to comment from", it's an entirely logical and normal position to argue from. What would be a "very strange position" is arguing against the actual facts, based on nothing but perception biases!

2. Indeed we do! 
2a. I have done my due diligence too, I've actually objectively measured/compared the signal the cable is transferring, which is why I don't need to listen to them. Maybe we have a very different idea of what "due diligence" means? For example, due diligence means to me: Finding the actual facts and dismissing the marketing nonsense. It does NOT mean the other way around!
2b. Wise move, I for one am very closed minded about marketing claims that contradict the actual facts. The same as I'm close minded about the Earth being flat, gravity not existing (as TiJo mentioned) and all sorts of other complete nonsense. What's more, I'm proud of not being so easily suckered by false marketing and tricks of perception, so you "trying to change my mind" is an almost impossible task, unless you have some truly exceptional/extraordinary evidence? And as mentioned, I have put my convictions to the test! I've yet to see an audiophile do the same though (and pass).

G


----------



## teknorob23

gregorio said:


> 1. If one has actually done the research and therefore does actually "know" the facts, how does listening to these cables make any difference beyond introducing the possibility personal perception biases conflicting with the facts? This is NOT a "very strange position to comment from", it's an entirely logical and normal position to argue from. What would be a "very strange position" is arguing against the actual facts, based on nothing but perception biases!
> 
> 2. Indeed we do!
> 2a. I have done my due diligence too, I've actually objectively measured/compared the signal the cable is transferring, which is why I don't need to listen to them. Maybe we have a very different idea of what "due diligence" means? For example, due diligence means to me: Finding the actual facts and dismissing the marketing nonsense. It does NOT mean the other way around!
> ...


.

But just imagine, you actually listened to one of these cables that you speak of with such with such certainty but haven’t heard, what’s the worse that could happen? Futureshop in the UK give you a 60 day no quibble guarantee on any of their cables and im sure wherever you are there’s a retailer who’ll offer you the same service. 
Or are the risks simply too great?


----------



## TiJo

What a stupid argument. If we look at the "rock throwing" example again, will you go out and throw every big rock in the air to prove that gravity exists or will you give up and accept that it exists after you threw a few small rocks, which fell back to earth? Now is it too big of a risk to throw big rocks?


----------



## PointyFox (May 21, 2020)

teknorob23 said:


> I assume you’ve done the research and listened to these cables in a suitably resolving system and your not just relying on what you “know”... that would be very strange position comment from, wouldn’t it?



Um, yes, I did my due diligence; and it's not a cable. It's literally a black box being sold for $1000. (Though I would find an equally priced cable equally absurd).
They have a long pseudo-science explanation of how it works on their site which I was able to translate since I have an engineering degree and an IQ between 149 and 200.  

Don't undervalue people being able to figure things out by what they "know". That's why people go to college and get paid more based on what they know. If this wasn't true, we'd have random people off the street trying to be rocket scientists.

Anyway, basically the Blackbody improves the sound of whatever you place it near because it absorbs light (since it's black).
How does this improve the sound?
Well, since it absorbs light, the light won't have a chance of hitting your audio equipment, thereby producing heat, which can change how electronic components behave. Assuming your system was perfect to start with, this change would decrease the quality of your music.
So it keeps your music at optimal quality providing you buy enough of them and surround your system with them.


----------



## gregorio

teknorob23 said:


> [1] But just imagine, you actually listened to one of these cables that you speak of with such with such certainty but haven’t heard, what’s the worse that could happen?
> [2] Futureshop in the UK give you a 60 day no quibble guarantee on any of their cables and im sure wherever you are there’s a retailer who’ll offer you the same service.
> Or are the risks simply too great?



1. Firstly, I don't have to imagine, I have actually listened to an expensive audiophile cable, in fact more than one. Secondly, if I had not done my "_due diligence_", if in fact I hadn't done any diligence at all(!): If I hadn't learned how ethernet signalling works, hadn't learned why expensive audiophile ethernet cables can't audibly improve the result, hadn't actually measured the output to confirm, hadn't therefore dismissed the marketing BS and just did a sighted/uncontrolled listening test, then "the worse that could happen" is that I might think I can perceive an improvement (where in fact there's no audible difference whatsoever), waste my money on a snake oil product and then post glowing "impressions" on a public forum, thereby effectively promoting the scam to others!

2. The risks are not too great for me, as I've said, I've already listened to audiophile cables. What about you, are the risks of doing actual "_due diligence_" simply to great for you? I should imagine they are, because EVERY time an audiophile believed they were hearing an improvement with audiophile cables and then did actual "_due diligence_", it turned out they could NOT in fact tell any difference at all. Which is why no commercial studios ever use expensive audiophile cables and why, even after a decade or so, the $1m Randi prize was never won!

G


----------



## teknorob23

Brilliant.


----------



## Nihsnek

TiJo said:


> If you read all the posts in this whole thread you will realize why this is not necessary and why you are most probably only imagining a difference, where no difference is, if you are not a believer.
> 
> Edit: Here is a brain teaser for you: If you download a song and play it 1 hour later, will it sound the same as if you would stream it right now?



If a tree falls in a forest with no one around, does it still make a sound? We will never know.


----------



## Krassi

It does make a sound! But if you are using a treesilencer 2.0 then it will reduce the sound and increase the soundstage!


----------



## Dawnrazor

bluenight said:


> Correct.
> 
> Other People can and will believe what they want though if its placebo or not that i am experiencing. The closed minded i cant convince anyway but for the open minded maybe i can convince if they want better sound.


Hey Blue,

I have imagined a ton of things.  Like sending my ethernet to AES digital output to my Big Ben to let it reclock and then to the dac.  Ethernet is perfect so the Big Ben couldnt possibly help.  

Years ago on another forum there was similar bits is bits debate but regarding the OS and how changes to the OS could affect the sound.  It went much like this thread.  Then some one chimed in that they worked in manufacturing where things had to happen at precise intervals or millions of dollars was lost....and they talked about how software and os could mess up the timing.  Seems that there is data and there is data in a time frame (like audio).  But one camp just looks at data.  Its like saying a zip file is exactly like the unzipped file.  It is from a data standpoint.  But from a time standpoint its a completely different file.

Anyhow just wanted to say that I get where you are coming from and just wanted to say you aint alone.  But I don't have the time to worry about people who can't get past their dogma.  And well the system is sounding truly amazing after lots of tweaks and mods that I probably imagined too...

As you said its all about better sound and well placebo can work both ways. 

Also switches do make a difference.  At least I had one that caused all kind of hum while 2 other with the same gear and connections were dead quiet.  Which yes I know is not exactly what this thread is about.  And also the manufacturer of my ethernet to AES adaptor DOES recommend certain switches and QoS is part of that.  You have to have a certain type of Qos with their products.  Ironically the Cisco model they recommended was the one with the hum.  Replaced it with a Dlink and the hum was gone.  Also if you havent' already try one of those hospital ethernet isolators.  They are about $125 but worth it.  I bought 2.  If you know of an audiophile switch that has Qos please message me.


----------



## gregorio

Dawnrazor said:


> [1] Years ago on another forum there was similar bits is bits debate but regarding the OS and how changes to the OS could affect the sound. It went much like this thread. Then some one chimed in that they worked in manufacturing where things had to happen at precise intervals or millions of dollars was lost....and they talked about how software and os could mess up the timing.
> [2] Seems that there is data and there is data in a time frame (like audio).
> [2a] But one camp just looks at data.
> [3] Its like saying a zip file is exactly like the unzipped file. It is from a data standpoint. But from a time standpoint its a completely different file.



1. I work in an industry "_where things have to happen at precise intervals_" or Hundreds of Billions of dollars is lost! If things didn't happen at precise intervals then digital audio wouldn't work and neither would the music, TV and film industries that all rely on it.

2. I'm not sure why it "seems" like that to you but it's clearly not true. Audio is NOT _"data in a time frame_", it's just data stored on media without a time frame, the same as all other digital data. Obviously, if this were not the case, then we would never be able to move or copy a digital audio file from one storage device to another at double (or many times) the speed without completely ruining it. There is, of course, *a certain location/point* at which the audio data does have to delivered/processed "_in a time frame_" but again, this is true of ALL data, not just audio data. All data has to be processed and all processors have a clock speed, deliver the data in the wrong "time frame" and the result will be failure.

2a. Of course my camp just looks at digital audio data as other digital data because if were different, then self-evidently it wouldn't be digital data! The difference with my "camp" is that we consider WHERE the "*certain location/point*" is and discount "time frame" BEFORE that point. If it we did not, then we could never play say lossless stereo 16/44.1 digital audio from any hard disk, flash drive or internet connection because they never have a transfer rate that is no higher or lower than 1,411,200 bits per second. With ethernet, asynchronous USB and some other protocols, that certain point/location is AFTER the connecting ethernet or USB cable! Unfortunately though, there's another camp that appears to believe all sorts of marketing nonsense (for example, that digital audio data is somehow not digital data), even to the point of denying fundamental and easily verifiable facts, without which consumer digital devices and the "digital age" itself would not exist in the first place! In this instance, it's the effective denial of the purpose and existence of "buffers"!

3. Unfortunately, you have that backwards. A zip file is NOT exactly like the unzipped file from a data standpoint, in fact, pretty much the whole point of the "zip" format/process is to have a zip file with significantly different (less) data than the unzipped file.

G


----------



## Speedskater

Nihsnek said:


> If a tree falls in a forest with no one around, does it still make a sound? We will never know.


The tree would have to know if there were any living animals within hearing range, before it could decide whether to make a sound or not.


----------



## guilders

bluenight said:


> [..]
> Personaly i think the best choice for me is atlas mavros ethernet cable  and if i am in the mood/cant resist someday i will try it with 60 days back guarantee. The grun drain wire was effective with my mavros rca cable connected to my streamer. So i have already got the atlas mains power adapter with grun connected to niagara 1000 power socket (with ground noise dissipation system)  where you can connect 3 grun drain wires for RF/EMI noise pathway.
> [..]



Any feedback on this Atlas Mavros streaming ethernet cable ? I can barely find any reviews on the net.
I am looking for an audiophile ethernet cable, this one looks promising, but without any comment on it, hard to make a choice.


----------



## bluenight

guilders said:


> Any feedback on this Atlas Mavros streaming ethernet cable ? I can barely find any reviews on the net.
> I am looking for an audiophile ethernet cable, this one looks promising, but without any comment on it, hard to make a choice.


Futureshop got 60 days money back if your not satisfied. You might loose some shiping cost though.

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/atlas-mavros-grun-streaming-ethernet-audio-cable


----------



## Voxata

I uh... Wow. No words for this ridiculous business.


----------



## Eric M

No fancy USB or ethernet cable will ever pass a blind A/B test. The absolute worst type of audiophoolery praying on the gullible and misinformed with deep pockets.


----------



## bluenight (Nov 30, 2020)

So i have thinking along time maybe to get an ifi power station or similar powercleaner just to connect the router and switch to it, now i use a cheap generic powerstrip there. All other music gear in the chain is connected to the audioquest niagara 1000 its full and in the other side of the room.

Has anyone tried this and heard improvement?

I dont know if its worth it.

https://ifi-audio.com/products/powerstation/


----------



## PointyFox (Nov 30, 2020)

I run all my audio stuff off of batteries (amp, dac, computer) which is much better than just filtering the power. I use a double conversion UPS for that. The only thing I've noticed is that it got rid of noises associated with power issues like humming and popping.


----------



## Dawnrazor (Nov 30, 2020)

bluenight said:


> So i have thinking along time maybe to get an ifi power station or similar powercleaner just to connect the router and switch to it, now i use a cheap generic powerstrip there. All other music gear in the chain is connected to the audioquest niagara 1000 its full and in the other side of the room.
> 
> Has anyone tried this and heard improvement?
> 
> ...


never tried the ifi but their psus don't seem to do much or at least not in my system. 

Try a Satic.  I bought one for the audio system and then one for the router/modem stuff in the other room.

https://www.amazon.com/Satic-Power-Electricity-Filter-Protector/dp/B07L3CBFGK14b8-4f70-90f6-05ac39e80cc0


----------



## bluenight

PointyFox said:


> I run all my audio stuff off of batteries (amp, dac, computer) which is much better than just filtering the power. I use a double conversion UPS for that. The only thing I've noticed is that it got rid of noises associated with power issues like humming and popping.


Seems like a hassle needing to thinking about keeping them charged all the time. Also could they provide enough juice for big dynamic swings?


----------



## PointyFox (Nov 30, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Seems like a hassle needing to thinking about keeping them charged all the time. Also could they provide enough juice for big dynamic swings?



It charges the battery as it uses it; and yes, it can provide up to 1000 VA. It's a Tripp Lite  SU1000RTXL2UA.
The only thing about it is that it has loud fans that run continuously so I stuck it in a server rack box with some sound absorbing materials and put it about 10 feet away. The noise level went from about 58 dBA next to me to 37 dBA.


----------



## teknorob23 (Dec 1, 2020)

bluenight said:


> Seems like a hassle needing to thinking about keeping them charged all the time. Also could they provide enough juice for big dynamic swings?



I can highly recommend and ifi ipower with your switch, but i wouldn’t bother with one for the router. For best network performance  run a network switch between the router and your streamer which is used only for your audio. The switch acts as a buffer between the noisy router/ home network and your sensitive streamer.  This is one of those rare bargains in hifi, a netgear gs105 and ifi psu for a grand total of £70, has a pretty big impact on any system, whether it’s £2k or 100k. And if you don’t hear an impact send it all back to Amazon. Interestingly switches seem to benefit far more from switchmode psu like ifi than they do linear psu’s. We’ve tested very expensive linear psu’s and they all darken the sound floor but at the cost of dynamics.

As I say I wouldn’t worry too much about what goes on before this switch. On a very highly resolving system you may hear subtle changes but mostly it’s what you use from the switch onwards, so use your best Ethernet cable from this switch to the streamer. You can also experiment with a filter between the switch and streamer, but you’ll definitely get a lot more performance out of your “good” Ethernet cable if it’s used this way.


----------



## iFi audio

teknorob23 said:


> For best network performance run a network switch between the router and your streamer which is used only for your audio. The switch acts as a buffer between the noisy router/ home network and your sensitive streamer. This is one of those rare bargains in hifi



I agree on the barrier part, however...  

If a router and switch are plugged into the same power strip, then both should be powered by quiet PSUs. If a router connects to a separate outlet not in contact with one's audio setup, then one iPower only for a switch should do just fine


----------



## bluenight (Dec 2, 2020)

teknorob23 said:


> This is one of those rare bargains in hifi, a netgear gs105 and ifi psu for a grand total of £70, has a pretty big impact on any system, whether it’s £2k or 100k.


I got the netgear gs108 switch. Getting two ifi switch mode power supplys for switch and router seems like an excellent way to start.



teknorob23 said:


> Interestingly switches seem to benefit far more from switchmode psu like ifi than they do linear psu’s. We’ve tested very expensive linear psu’s and they all darken the sound floor but at the cost of dynamics. Weird One could think dynamics comes from amp.


I have heard Hans Beekhuyzen says the same on his youtube channel in some videos.
I think in here too.




iFi audio said:


> If a router and switch are plugged into the same power strip, then both should be powered by quiet PSUs. If a router connects to a separate outlet not in contact with one's audio setup, then one iPower only for a switch should do just fine


 Would there be better peformence with the newer ipower x over the orginal with switch and router use case? The improved capitance and dynamic part seem to me might not be usefull with switch/router use? One could think dynamics comes from amp.

Would adding a ipower station latter on have cumlutive effect together with ipower switch mode psu? In terms of noise supression and soundquality.

In terms of spec is this quieter then original?

I think these specs is same with the original. So only the improved capitance which i might not need?

“For better suppression of high-frequency noise, we added solid organic semi-conductors to its output filter.

The iPower X leakage noise is 20x lower than normal SMPS (100pf vs 2,200pf).“

"Based on military tech, our improved Active Noise Cancellation II®  actively cancels all incoming noise.

It reduces the noise floor by > 40dB (> 100x)."


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> Would there be better peformence with the newer ipower x over the orginal with switch and router use case? The improved capitance and dynamic part seem to me might not be usefull with switch/router use?



iPower X is quieter than regular iPower so it's better. The lowest noise floor possible is always the goal and we design our components to be as noise-free as they can. However, in real life effectiveness of power devices is system specific. 



bluenight said:


> Would adding a ipower station latter on have cumlutive effect together with ipower switch mode psu? In terms of noise supression and soundquality.



PowerStation is a power bar with an active noise killing circuit and iPower is a power supply, so two different component types to begin with. As for their additive effectiveness, that is (yup, again) system specific. In some setups even a slight change related to power makes a noticeable difference, in others not so much.


----------



## cpurdy

kelvinwsy said:


> Ones and Zeroes are transmitted thru the cable but along with noise. *In my system my modded Cat 6 sounded better* than a standard Cat 8 cable!



No, it did not. You can not tell the difference in a blind a/b test between those cables. Because there is no difference. Zero. Not one bit (literally, pun intended).



kelvinwsy said:


> After modding and burning in, the Cat 8 sounded better After the EtherRegen was installed, Another jump in Sound Quality! Please no Flaming! This is what I hear in my system .. As always YMMV...



No, that is not what you hear, and no, your mileage will not vary. Not one bit (literally, pun intended).

It is impossible for one bit to be different. Those bits (identical regardless of the cable) are the input to the DA stage.

Even with artificially created noise on the cable (hair driers and vacuum cleaners, for example), not one of those bits that reaches the DA stage will be different. No zero will have been flipped to a one. No one will have been flipped to a zero. Either the data reaches that point perfectly, or not at all.

(The network software that I helped to engineer ran most of the major exchanges, banks, and web sites in the world. This topic is a specialty of mine. And for what it's worth, I can still make my own cables by hand, because I made most of our company's ethernet cables back when we were a startup.)

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with spending $800 of your hard-earned money on a beautiful cable. That is your choice. I applaud your support for artisans. If you find ethernet cables to be beautiful, then spend your money on them. I personally find some headphone cables to be works of art, and I spend way too much money on them -- by choice! -- even though I am 99.999% sure that there is no difference in sound (and those are carrying _*analog*_ signals, so there is an actual theoretical possibility of a "bit" of difference, not literally speaking).

But you should not lie to others about the reasons behind your purchases. It is _*literally*_ and _*figuratively*_ impossible for an ethernet cable to make a difference in the sound, if it is functioning (i.e. not cut in half).


----------



## Dawnrazor

cpurdy said:


> No, it did not. You can not tell the difference in a blind a/b test between those cables. Because there is no difference. Zero. Not one bit (literally, pun intended).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How are bits sent over the ethernet?


----------



## cpurdy

Dawnrazor said:


> How are bits sent over the ethernet?



There are plenty of good technical documents on this topic, and there's not a good way for me to condense it into a short post. I would refer you to the IETF documents on the topic. Start with #768: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc768

This is not a simple topic, if you start digging. There are multiple layers that combine together to form the basic building blocks of UDP and TCP traffic. Almost all of your software will be using TCP/IP: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793

For old fashioned datagrams (which are the disposable and replaceable worker bees under the TCP/IP protocol), a single bit (or byte, or word) error cannot be hidden, and will always be corrected. With no other redundancy (hardware level or protocol level), when there are *multiple* errors in an IP packet, the chance of the error hiding itself by matching the checksum is 1 in 65536. Those multiple bit errors would need to be spread out in the packet (not within word-size distance of each other); if they are close together, they will always be detected. Furthermore, very few packets suffer any bit errors to begin with; a typical packet error rate (PER) is 0.00%, with (in absolute terms) a few packet errors or less per day; those packets are going to be automatically discarded and resent. So it would be conceivable to have an actual bit flipped (well, multiple bits flipped in a packet, hiding the error) maybe one time total in your lifetime if all you did was send and receive packets from the day that you were born until the day that you died, *and* if all of the errors (i.e. 4 every day) were multi-bit errors spread out within the packet. And that one error in your lifetime would likely be corrected by a software level protocol, since streaming protocols are often (but not always) error corrected.

For newer networking technologies, there are even better checksums used, and there is even less chance of an error. Perhaps one error every trillion years, but I'm just guessing because I have no PER data to go by.

I hate to suggest that you just take my word for it, because I know that I would never do so if someone told me that. But having had thousands of errors (OK, OK, tens of thousands) in my own code over the years, and zero known packet errors (other than packet errors that I created as pretend data to test software), I am pretty sure that any problems that I have ever encountered on a network were my own, and that there is pretty much nothing more trustworthy (in the data sense) than an IP network.

This is just the wrong fire hydrant to sniff.

However, as I said, don't let this dissuade you from buying beautiful and needlessly expensive cords for your equipment. (I do.) If the cord makes you feel better about your setup, your brain will enjoy the music more, and that is every bit as important as actual physics when it comes to music listening.

Sure, you can't blind A/B test and tell a difference, but who cares?


----------



## bluenight

iFi audio said:


> iPower X is quieter than regular iPower so it's better. The lowest noise floor possible is always the goal and we design our components to be as noise-free as they can. However, in real life effectiveness of power devices is system specific.


Its not when i look at the specs. Both ipower and ipowerx is rated at 0.1uv. Is it something i am missing except the better capitance?



Comparing ipowerx with this. https://ifi-audio.com/products/ipower/


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> Its not when i look at the specs. Both ipower and ipowerx is rated at 0.1uv. Is it something i am missing except the better capitance?



Due to reworks done to iPower X, it should be quieter. But both iPower and iPower X are rated at 0.1uV as there's no equipment that would measure beyond this point. At least our AP measuring equipment can't!


----------



## bluenight (Dec 12, 2020)

I replaced my old router Asus RT-N56U it was released in 2010 and i bought it in 2014. With TP-Link Archer AX50 got a good price on Black Friday. Before i changed router i listened to some songs i got in my reference playlist. Now listening again i definetly here a blacker background and new details and better musicality, i enjoy the music more. Its easy to tell when you here better articulation with vocals and lyrics. I here new words that i dident really grasp what they sang before. So thats very nice.

So routers can make a difference also. It maybe not change the sound but have different black backgrounds and different data flows which unmasks sounds.

This is in wired connection. Havent listened for changes in wifi.


----------



## bluenight (Dec 12, 2020)

The sound is cleaner i here more emotions and expression in vocals the acoustic guitar playing is faster and more articulate note by note finger pick to finger pick. Better seperation.


----------



## teknorob23 (Dec 13, 2020)

bluenight said:


> The sound is cleaner i here more emotions and expression in vocals the acoustic guitar playing is faster and more articulate note by note finger pick to finger pick. Better seperation.



Great news it’s helping but have you got a switch between your router and streamer? This should maker a far bigger improvement. I’ve yet to hear a system where it doesn't


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> So routers can make a difference also. It maybe not change the sound but have different black backgrounds and different data flows which unmasks sounds.



This is due to different noise pollution levels these devices have. Fundamentally noise reduction is what it all comes down to


----------



## bfreedma

iFi audio said:


> This is due to different noise pollution levels these devices have. Fundamentally noise reduction is what it all comes down to



Please explain how “noise pollution” can impact a digital signal across galvanicaly isolated devices.  Measured evidence of change to the bits would be very helpful in assessing this claim - I assume you must have said evidence as a manufacturer proposing this “solution”

As it’s technically impossible for an in spec router/switch/cable to alter packetized data in a manner that provides consistent noise shaping or noise reduction (unless the device is, for some reason, designed to intentionally alter the data), is the claim being made that the file itself remains bit perfect but that some kind of mechanical noise is being transmitted outside of the actual data stream?  And that that “noise”, despite passing though several points of isolation is still somehow reaching and impacting the network end point?

Can anyone prove a technical explanation supporting these claims which doesn’t directly conflict with the .802 standards, which clearly work based on the trillions of bits of data that successfully make it though our “noise polluting network infrastructure“ hourly?


----------



## TiJo

iFi Audio being another dishonest company is not that surprising looking at its product claims. You will not get an answer from them I guess.


----------



## bluenight

teknorob23 said:


> Great news it’s helping but have you got a switch between your router and streamer? This should maker a far bigger improvement. I’ve yet to hear a system where it doesn't


Yes i have it connected that way.


----------



## cpurdy

bluenight said:


> I replaced my old router Asus RT-N56U it was released in 2010 and i bought it in 2014. With TP-Link Archer AX50 got a good price on Black Friday. Before i changed router i listened to some songs i got in my reference playlist. Now listening again i definetly here a blacker background and new details and better musicality, i enjoy the music more. Its easy to tell when you here better articulation with vocals and lyrics. I here new words that i dident really grasp what they sang before. So thats very nice.
> 
> So routers can make a difference also. It maybe not change the sound but have different black backgrounds and different data flows which unmasks sounds.





bluenight said:


> The sound is cleaner i here more emotions and expression in vocals the acoustic guitar playing is faster and more articulate note by note finger pick to finger pick. Better seperation.





teknorob23 said:


> Great news it’s helping but have you got a switch between your router and streamer? This should maker a far bigger improvement.





iFi audio said:


> This is due to different noise pollution levels these devices have.



There will be absolutely zero difference in any one of these cases. Not "near zero". Not "imperceptible". But actual, cold, heartless, zero.

Digital communication with check-summing and error correction with never have any variance. A $10 ethernet switch with $.99 cables with a vacuum cleaner and hairdryer running on top of it will provide the same audio quality as an 40GBit Mellanox infiniband switch with cabling that costs more than you make in a year.

Zero difference.

Absolute zero.

Now, if your music sounds better to you after you buy a new switch / router / network cable, then you are a lucky person. I will also guarantee that your music will sound better after you send me money. Use this link, and your music will sound better than ever: https://www.habitat.org/donate/?keyword=header-single-gift


----------



## Psylocke

teknorob23 said:


> two penneth.. i've tried quite a few budget to highend cables, Supra cat 8, audioquest vodka and tellurium Q black diamond and i've made my own using Viablue silver plated solid-core cable. They all sounded noticeably different from one another when used in my main set up which is a pretty resolving system. On my office Imac with RME DAC and genalec monitors the differences were much harder to pick-up.  The TQ cable made by the far the biggest improvement and the improvements were comprehensive across most aspects of the presentation. The supra cable is also a signifcant step up from a standard network cable, but it sounds muddy compared to the TQ and AQ vodka. The biggest areas of improvement i can here is in the mid to top end where definition improves significantly with better cables. There is also a noticeable graininess when you switch back to a lesser cable.  But the TQ cable is stupid expensive, so i decided to have crack at making my own, not from scratch (yet) but using Viablue's bulk cable, but not the stranded version they use in their own, instead i went with solid core silver plated copper. I tried to makes of plugs, telegartner which are used in most high end plugs and LinkUP which are very similar diecast construction but which have gold plated contacts. The results have been very impressive, the cable is considerably better than the Supra and i would say on a par with the AQ vodka, which has touch better extension, but its marginal. Its not as good as the TQ cable but it cost me about £40 to make a 1m cable as opposed to £780. I am using a cisco switch which is better than my old TP link, but i am interested to try the SOTM one as soon as my dealer can get one as i'm sure this will have an even bigger influence than the cables. I can strongly recommend the viablue/linkup DIY cable, its easy to make and the performance is outstanding for the money.


Which brand carbon braided sleeve do you use for this? I just bought some Ampcom Cat8 cables which are basically the same as the Linkup cables. I want to add the carbon braided sleeve to them to add that extra quality to the look behind my cabinet next to all my AQ cables. The Cat 8 cable is 8.5mm thick.


----------



## teknorob23

Psylocke said:


> Which brand carbon braided sleeve do you use for this? I just bought some Ampcom Cat8 cables which are basically the same as the Linkup cables. I want to add the carbon braided sleeve to them to add that extra quality to the look behind my cabinet next to all my AQ cables. The Cat 8 cable is 8.5mm thick.



Hi i used this stuff. Its relatively expensive for sleeve but if you buy from audio DIY shop it's 3 x the price, 1/2" should be right for 8.5mm cable. The 1/4" might work to as it does have some stretch. They have a chart somwhere with expansion limit diameters. https://www.hypex.co.uk/Techflex-Sl...eving/Carbon-Fiber/Carbon-Fiber-13mm-0.5.html. I dont actually use this anymore preferring natural fibre sleeving instead, but it  does provide a nice finish.


----------



## Psylocke

teknorob23 said:


> Hi i used this stuff. Its relatively expensive for sleeve but if you buy from audio DIY shop it's 3 x the price, 1/2" should be right for 8.5mm cable. The 1/4" might work to as it does have some stretch. They have a chart somwhere with expansion limit diameters. https://www.hypex.co.uk/Techflex-Sl...eving/Carbon-Fiber/Carbon-Fiber-13mm-0.5.html. I dont actually use this anymore preferring natural fibre sleeving instead, but it  does provide a nice finish.


Which ones are you currently using (natural Fibre Sleeving)?


----------



## Claypole

I can understand how people might want to use high quality 'audiophile grade' ethernet cables and ancillary components (routers, switches, etc) throughout their digital system. If they think it makes a difference to sound quality, and is worth the money, then it's all good.

However, for those that stream music, I presume you'll be using a standard domestic broadband internet connection? Some people have a fibre connection right into the property, whilst a lot of us have fibre to a local cabinet, then copper cabling to the property. Some broadband connections are still copper based, all the way back to the exchange.

Some of that copper cabling is ancient telephone wire, originally designed to do nothing more than support a telephone call. My router plugs into an old telephone connector on the wall, and behind the faceplate is 33 year old telephone wire. This goes about two hundred yards to the exchange over the road, via a couple of very messy looking dilapidated junction boards in my block. 

   I imagine my copper cabling situation is not untypical (at least in the UK, anyway). It's not Cat 6, or Cat 5. It's not even Cat 3. 

 If I purchased a high end decent music streaming device, and connected it to my router, what difference would an 'audiophile grade' ethernet cable make over a perfectly decently made but relatively cheaper one? 

   Any music I stream has come from servers possibly thousands of miles away, and has been through who knows how many routing points, and all sorts of varying grades of cable, yet that last meter of cable in my property can make a difference to  how the  music sounds?

Does any difference need super high end audio equipment and/or golden ears to discern?


----------



## cpurdy

Claypole said:


> Any music I stream has come from servers possibly thousands of miles away, and has been through who knows how many routing points, and all sorts of varying grades of cable, yet that last meter of cable in my property can make a difference to how the music sounds?
> 
> Does any difference need super high end audio equipment and/or golden ears to discern?



It's digital information, and if any corruption occurs to the data, that corruption is detected (by checksum) and that data is automatically re-sent until it is correctly received. So there is literally not a single bit (pun intended) of difference.


----------



## teknorob23

Claypole said:


> I can understand how people might want to use high quality 'audiophile grade' ethernet cables and ancillary components (routers, switches, etc) throughout their digital system. If they think it makes a difference to sound quality, and is worth the money, then it's all good.
> 
> However, for those that stream music, I presume you'll be using a standard domestic broadband internet connection? Some people have a fibre connection right into the property, whilst a lot of us have fibre to a local cabinet, then copper cabling to the property. Some broadband connections are still copper based, all the way back to the exchange.
> 
> ...



Totally reasonable, but the switch, cables etc are not effecting the data and the ethernet is super efficient. Its the high sensitivity of the streaming device to noise/jitter which is the problem. RFI is picked up from around your house hold transmitted and emitted by noisy generic routers (which are not designed with audio in mind). The ethernet cable effectively acts as an aerial transmits this electrical noise/jitter into the ethernet interface in your streamer.  

I know i'm listed as member of trade and therefore as with anyone who makes audio cables i'm doing it to become  millionair conning unsuspecting audiophiles, but i'm actually a film maker in ordinary times with passion for making cables in my spare time. When COVID came along and i had time you never normally get in adult life, i got together with other like minded souls frustrated at how streamers didnt sound as good as CD or record players and we've been developing cables and filters which our ears make streaming sound better. 

That said my first suggestion if you are skeptical and dont want spend a fortune testing the water, is to by generic switch like the netgear gs108 for about £30, then add a slightly uprated switch power supply like the ifi ipower. The two together will cost your £70 from amazon which you can obviously return if it doesnt help. The run router into this switch and only have your streamer and music server if you have one plugged into it. Run your best streaming cable from the switch to your streamer. In pretty much any system with comprising of a dedicated streamer, dac, amp, speakers and or reasonable headphones, you should hear a considerable improvement in low level detail and dynamics. 

Just have a listen and if doesnt work for you, then nothing lost. If it does then look at options for better cables etc


----------



## Claypole

teknorob23 said:


> Totally reasonable, but the switch, cables etc are not effecting the data and the ethernet is super efficient. Its the high sensitivity of the streaming device to noise/jitter which is the problem. RFI is picked up from around your house hold transmitted and emitted by noisy generic routers (which are not designed with audio in mind). The ethernet cable effectively acts as an aerial transmits this electrical noise/jitter into the ethernet interface in your streamer.
> 
> I know i'm listed as member of trade and therefore as with anyone who makes audio cables i'm doing it to become  millionair conning unsuspecting audiophiles, but i'm actually a film maker in ordinary times with passion for making cables in my spare time. When COVID came along and i had time you never normally get in adult life, i got together with other like minded souls frustrated at how streamers didnt sound as good as CD or record players and we've been developing cables and filters which our ears make streaming sound better.
> 
> ...


I understand that RFI is going to be the cause of any potential issue here, but if it's enough to affect sound quality, then why aren't optical cables more commonly used?


----------



## teknorob23

Claypole said:


> I understand that RFI is going to be the cause of any potential issue here, but if it's enough to affect sound quality, then why aren't optical cables more commonly used?


A lot of people use fibre optics, but at some point in the chain it usually has to be converted back to ethernet again. As i say my advice is as to make the most inexpensive tweak, have a listen, if you cant hear difference, theres nothing lost. If you dont mind me asking what is your current system?


----------



## Eric M

bluenight said:


> So routers can make a difference also. It maybe not change the sound but have different black backgrounds and different data flows which unmasks sounds.


 This is pure delusion.


----------



## bluenight

teknorob23 said:


> The run router into this switch and only have your streamer and music server if you have one plugged into it


So your saying the more gear you connect to the switch the more noise it will generate to the streamer?

I have mine apple tv 4k and streamer connected to my switch but both are for me the highest priority when it comes to audio. 90% for me is using my HP system with movie/tv series whatching 10% streamer with tidal.


----------



## teknorob23

bluenight said:


> So your saying the more gear you connect to the switch the more noise it will generate to the streamer?
> 
> I have mine apple tv 4k and streamer connected to my switch but both are for me the highest priority when it comes to audio. 90% for me is using my HP system with movie/tv series whatching 10% streamer with tidal.



More that the switch is buffer between the router and the rest of your network, so having it where it is better than going straight into the router, but for the sake of another £30 I would have a 2nd switch in there for everything other than your streamer and one for your streamer. Try it if you can’t hear a difference take it out. I have switch for my sky+, Apple TV and other av, then a separate one for fabless intel nuc/ roon rock music server and my streamer


----------



## bfreedma

teknorob23 said:


> More that the switch is buffer between the router and the rest of your network, so having it where it is better than going straight into the router, but for the sake of another £30 I would have a 2nd switch in there for everything other than your streamer and one for your streamer. Try it if you can’t hear a difference take it out. I have switch for my sky+, Apple TV and other av, then a separate one for fabless intel nuc/ roon rock music server and my streamer




This is simply not how Ethernet works.  You're just making up a scenario to fit what you imagine it to be, not a scenario that fits the technology.  If anything, adding another switch adds latency.  Not that it matters in a home network as it latency will remain far below impactful levels, but I would think "audiophile purists" would want the fewest devices and the lowest network latency...

We have networks with literally millions of devices connected to hundreds of routers - casting aside enterprise security restrictions, all of these devices communicate at 100% accuracy whether connected to the same router or over several hops.  This is easy to observe and simple to quantify via packet analysis and other network statistics.

I await some nebulous reason for "noise" to be an issue.  If you want to go down that path, please provide some hard evidence and not just opinion.  Because Ethernet runs on a standard that isn't in any way subjective.


----------



## bluenight (Dec 18, 2020)

teknorob23 said:


> More that the switch is buffer between the router and the rest of your network, so having it where it is better than going straight into the router, but for the sake of another £30 I would have a 2nd switch in there for everything other than your streamer and one for your streamer. Try it if you can’t hear a difference take it out. I have switch for my sky+, Apple TV and other av, then a separate one for fabless intel nuc/ roon rock music server and my streamer


 Good to know, it can make sense.
I wouldent bother buy a second switch to not waste earth resources more then neccesary although im not perfect. Also I wouldent say to anyone buy a new router just to hear/listen for sound differences only buy if you really feel like uppgrading your old one.

Ok maybe i would someday buy audiophile grade switch in the future and just use it and sell the netgear one, who knows it has been itching at times. But i am pretty happy with the system overall but theres always room for improvement step by step. Blacker back ground and better sibilance control would be nice.



bfreedma said:


> Not that it matters in a home network as it latency will remain far below impactful levels, but I would think "audiophile purists" would want the fewest devices and the lowest network latency...


That can also makes sense. The more powered up gear the more electrical noise in your chain of system.



bfreedma said:


> This is simply not how Ethernet works.  You're just making up a scenario to fit what you imagine it to be, not a scenario that fits the technology.  If anything, adding another switch adds latency.  Not that it matters in a home network as it latency will remain far below impactful levels, but I would think "audiophile purists" would want the fewest devices and the lowest network latency...
> 
> We have networks with literally millions of devices connected to hundreds of routers - casting aside enterprise security restrictions, all of these devices communicate at 100% accuracy whether connected to the same router or over several hops.  This is easy to observe and simple to quantify via packet analysis and other network statistics.
> 
> I await some nebulous reason for "noise" to be an issue.  If you want to go down that path, please provide some hard evidence and not just opinion.  Because Ethernet runs on a standard that isn't in any way subjective.


You did read this explenation i posted a while back? But rejected it as manufacture bs? 
Anyway i thought it was the best explanation yet.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> You did read this explenation i posted a while back? But rejected it as manufacture bs?
> Anyway i thought it was the best explanation yet.
> 
> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386



That link is 100% marketing.  They are inventing issues that don’t exist in Ethernet packetized data transmission.  Jitter, for example, is a non issue.   Ethernet is galvanically isolated by design, so electrical noise can’t be carried across ports.

As for bit flipping, at the network layer, the packets are being checked for errors within the normal Ethernet operational model and erroneous packets are resent and reassembled in buffers.  Again, not an issue and if it was, it would manifest in dropouts, not in the kind of quasi DSP as described by the vendor.  If bit flipping was an issue, why don’t secure and high risk facilities (nuclear, medical, military) use these devices?  And why doesn’t a flipped bit ever add a million $ to one of our bank accounts?

At the network level, data is data.  Neither standard OTS networking hardware nor “audiophile” ethernet solutions has any idea what type of data is in the packets they handle.  Anyone suggesting otherwise should point out specifically where the .802 standards are insufficient and provide hard evidence that their product is actually somehow better than that standard.  This is digital data - any variances are trivially easy to capture and display, particularly for someone who claims to be making improvements...


----------



## The Jester

Maybe some are getting better results but for the wrong reasons ...
a better quality router and it’s power supply may be better designed not to radiate RFI both from the cabling and into the AC powering analogue components, I know there are standards for RFI emission limits but are these enough to guarantee not to effect sensitive electronics nearby for hifi listeners ..?


----------



## bluenight (Dec 19, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> I await some nebulous reason for "noise" to be an issue. If you want to go down that path, please provide some hard evidence


I know this is an extreme case or is it?
But i remmember hearing this news in swedish radio. And i thought about this thread. Old tv brought down a village internet.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-wales-54239180


----------



## Claypole

teknorob23 said:


> A lot of people use fibre optics, but at some point in the chain it usually has to be converted back to ethernet again. As i say my advice is as to make the most inexpensive tweak, have a listen, if you cant hear difference, theres nothing lost. If you dont mind me asking what is your current system?


 My streamed music is via a DAP using WiFi, sometimes connected to my main home hifi using line out. An inexpensive tweak I have been considering is the 3.5mm to RCA lead. Being an analogue signal, I know it can be affected by a bad cable, and I proba ,y should have spent more than £1 on it.

If I have been happily using a £1 analogue cable, am I really likely to notice a difference between a regular ethernet cable and an 'audiophile' one? If any noise finds its way from the cable, through the streaming  device, and ends up raising the noise floor on the output side, how would an 'audiophile' ethernet cable fix this?


----------



## teknorob23

Claypole said:


> My streamed music is via a DAP using WiFi, sometimes connected to my main home hifi using line out. An inexpensive tweak I have been considering is the 3.5mm to RCA lead. Being an analogue signal, I know it can be affected by a bad cable, and I proba ,y should have spent more than £1 on it.
> 
> If I have been happily using a £1 analogue cable, am I really likely to notice a difference between a regular ethernet cable and an 'audiophile' one? If any noise finds its way from the cable, through the streaming  device, and ends up raising the noise floor on the output side, how would an 'audiophile' ethernet cable fix this?



Hi not really quite sure I understand what you’re trying to do, where would you plug the Ethernet cable?


----------



## Claypole (Dec 20, 2020)

teknorob23 said:


> Hi not really quite sure I understand what you’re trying to do, where would you plug the Ethernet cable?


I wouldn't, my system doesn't use an ethernet cable. I'm talking hypothetically.


----------



## teknorob23

Claypole said:


> I wouldn't, my system doesn't use an ethernet cable. I'm talking hypothetically.



okay cool, well all i can say is if and when you move beyond the theoretical, try one from somewhere where you can return it. If you hear a difference keep it if you dont send it back with nothing lost.


----------



## dmudan

I'm still busy reading this thread(half way through) and have read several other related ones too on other sites. 

So as a senior IT person I totally get the error checking with digital - all there or not there but there is definitely more going on with audio. I don't know for sure what yet and it seems no one does with the varying theories including the manufacturers with their enigmatic descriptions. 

However with my CD transport every digital coax sounds different and is better than optical (widely accepted) plus typical Toslink can't transmit too much in one go. 

So if all digital streaming is the same, how do you explain the huge difference in sound quality between the digital out of my Denon HEOS Link HS2 with the superior Primare NP5? Both have been tested with my good dac and identical cables. Both using Tidal and the exact same tracks/settings. 

Power cables? All sound different to me. Properly measured? No (just like ethernet cables). I had a couple of non-hifi listeners at my house recently and I was switching power leads on my DAC but didn't say what I was doing. Both listeners were shocked when I told them what I did 😁.


----------



## TiJo

dmudan said:


> I'm still busy reading this thread(half way through) and have read several other related ones too on other sites.
> 
> So as a senior IT person I totally get the error checking with digital - all there or not there but there is definitely more going on with audio. I don't know for sure what yet and it seems no one does with the varying theories including the manufacturers with their enigmatic descriptions.
> 
> ...



Explanation: User bias and expectation. Noone has ever done a controlled blind test (the only thing that matters).


----------



## The Jester

dmudan said:


> I'm still busy reading this thread(half way through) and have read several other related ones too on other sites.
> 
> So as a senior IT person I totally get the error checking with digital - all there or not there but there is definitely more going on with audio. I don't know for sure what yet and it seems no one does with the varying theories including the manufacturers with their enigmatic descriptions.
> 
> ...


Coax from transport to DAC uses spdif transmission which is different to Ethernet ,
with spdif the source is the master and sends a clock signal as well as data, so in theory there should be an improvement with a “better” source ..
As an example going back to the 90’s I had an Arcam Transport/DAC that had an optional toslink connection purely for the clock signal,
and it sounded better when that was used ...


----------



## dmudan

The Jester said:


> Coax from transport to DAC uses spdif transmission which is different to Ethernet ,
> with spdif the source is the master and sends a clock signal as well as data, so in theory there should be an improvement with a “better” source ..
> As an example going back to the 90’s I had an Arcam Transport/DAC that had an optional toslink connection purely for the clock signal,
> and it sounded better when that was used ...


Well yes every transport I used sounded different from an ES series Sony SACD and now Roksan with AES-EBU XLR which is excellent. In fact over regular coax it is great too.


----------



## The Jester (Dec 20, 2020)

Once you go to Ethernet or USB from a streamer or PC based media player there‘s packet transmission with error checking and with USB asynchronous transfer which uses the DAC clock as the master so no need to transmit a clock signal, so the data should be immune from any corruption, the only thing left then is noise from either the source or interference picked up by the cables and transferred to the analogue side of the DAC .. there the quality of the DAC and its isolation is the issue ..
as far as digital being 0’s and 1’s that’s true in optical ... on or off ... but in cables it’s high and low in an analogue voltage ..
To stay on topic for the original post,
with analogue components as the quality and resolution is improved its more likely to hear subtle changes or “improvements” in the system..
with digital I’m guessing the better the quality of the receiver .. DAC, Streamer etc in relation to isolation of its inputs and power source the less any difference anything upstream could make ..


----------



## dmudan

So fully back on topic...

Over time I've happily invested in premium digital cables (Atlas Mavros) and other RCA or speaker cables - Atlas again and they've made significant improvements.  My reasonably priced mains power upgrades have helped too (prefer not to spend too much on this).  However for a streamer that I don't use that much, I've never thought about upgrading the network lead.  Computer data has the best error correction in audio so why bother ? Bit like HDMI - apparently no benefit there either. 

Being that I've recently replaced my Denon HEOS Link HS2 with a Primare that clearly sounds better when streaming identical material, this made me wonder. They're both streaming 1s and 0s and both feeding the same DAC with the same coax so how could they possibly sound different ? There's clearly more to digital that anyone can confidently explain.  So having read online that you can buy upgraded patch leads at not a huge cost I decided to give it a go - I can always send it back if it made no difference.
Having read some positive reviews online(Audiobacon and other end users), I decided to buy some Supra CAT8 with the nifty looking Telegartner plugs (don't know if they claim to help performance or not!).

It arrived earlier today, so I started doing some comparisons once my hifi had warmed up.  My regular lead is Belkin or other generic I believe and I had already placed RF clamps at either end.  Sounded fine to me and the output from my Primare was good, albeit with some occasional harsh digital audio issue traits similar to what jitter can present  e.g. vocal sibilance or detail smear.  Interestingly this only happens when network streaming and not when I play files from a USB stick. I ripped a file to .WAV to compare with CD to confirm. 

So does the Supra CAT8 sound different ? Definitely YES. Considering the error checking that goes on with Ethernet data, this really makes no sense. Plus there's a buffer on the streamer so hardly a completely live stream. This cable was bought out of curiosity and I was fully willing to send it back for a refund but it's staying. I've done multiple A/B comparisons between the two leads and had the same music on CD as a reference (all through same DAC). The Supra sounds more like the CD - allowing a smoother and more clearly defined sound to be presented and making it easier to hear the layers of music more clearly. It has less attack and sounds less tizzy than my previous cable, which at first I thought was a down point but with extended listening and with CD as my reference I can confirm it is a clearly upgrade. I have used multiple music tracks for comparison so I know it's not to do with other factors. I have compared and upgraded many components in my hifi over the years so know when there is a change in performance. 

So does this make sense? No, but the change is distinctly there.  Hopefully at some point, someone can explain why there is a difference rather than the guessing games that seem to go on and manufacturers all stating different reasons.  We've learned a bit more over time why a different digital coax can make a difference and the limitations of Toslink on home equipment, so hopefully here we can too.  USB is another growing area as well - interesting that many of them have RF clamps built in, even for printers and other computer equipment.


----------



## ThanatosVI

Anyone here have any experience with the viablue ethernet cable? (The finished one not the diy version)

Or the pink faun cable?


----------



## teknorob23

ThanatosVI said:


> Anyone here have any experience with the viablue ethernet cable? (The finished one not the diy version)
> 
> Or the pink faun cable?



Yes both. The viablue made version is pretty but very average let down by the connectors. The base wire is pretty good and works well with decent connectors. Pink faun cable is good, very natural and airy with good separation. Overall smooth sounding maybe a little lacking in dynamics and impact. IMO, there are are better cables for less money


----------



## bluenight (Dec 24, 2020)

dmudan said:


> So fully back on topic...
> 
> Over time I've happily invested in premium digital cables (Atlas Mavros) and other RCA or speaker cables - Atlas again and they've made significant improvements.  My reasonably priced mains power upgrades have helped too (prefer not to spend too much on this).  However for a streamer that I don't use that much, I've never thought about upgrading the network lead.  Computer data has the best error correction in audio so why bother ? Bit like HDMI - apparently no benefit there either.
> 
> ...


Sounds like we have made similar cable journeys. I have an atlas mavros optical cable and it definetly sound different to the supra optical one. Supra is more smooth and forgiving and atlas more sharp and detailed. Using optical with my tv.

I also have supra cat 8 ethernet cables all the way for my high priority gear. I had some cheap generic cat 5 before. And supra definetly brought more class and refinement to the sound and less flat to my ears and less glare or sibilance.

Oh and some grun cables connected to my rca atlas mavros then connected to empty power socket on my niagara1000 power conditioner helped to clean up the sound for my hugo 2 connected with spdif to same cambridge cxnv2 streamer. Lower noise floor blacker background. The atlas mavros rca with grun is only connected from streamer to Lake People RS02 HP amp and is in no contact with my hugo 2 really. But improves the sound anyway for my hugo 2 draining away rf from streamers internal circuits.

So i agree there is probebly more going on with digital then we can explain. Maybe its more similar to analogue then we think. Maybe timing, noise, jitter has something to do with it would be my ramblings. Or everything has to do with noise and its more sensetive then some people want to think

There have been some veils lifted in my uppgrade path. First power conditioner and power cables that lifted a veil even for my  batery powered hugo 2 connected with optical to my tv, all digital path right? Then mavros optical another veil lifted. And  class and refinement with supra cat8.


----------



## dmudan (Dec 26, 2020)

True does seem fairly similar.
For my TV, HDMI does a perfectly fine job in my AV system.
For the Supra optical to sound smooth(smeared? ) and missing detail, that would just be down to a poorer cable and jitter. I prefer digital electrical but as we know some devices like TVs don't support it.

I'm quite an Atlas fan too - Mavros cables are very pricey so glad I got some good deals. I've owned and heard their cheaper models so have compared and can justify the extra expense, even in the context of my not so expensive system. Audiolab M-DAC+ with Roksan Kandy K3.  I rarely do headphone listening these days.

Yes there's clearly more going on in our hifi systems than basic or common science can explain, or simply we don't how or what to measure. It's not our delusion! Hopefully over time we will understand more.

Also I've seen a couple of average reviews for the Supra Cat8 and some excellent ones - interesting contrast. I only have one direct stretch of this from my router to my streamer. It's now carefully fitted under my carpet and staying. I tried it in my daisy chained Netgear(with QoS) switch and sounded worse to me. I even played around with the QoS port settings.


----------



## bluenight

dmudan said:


> For the Supra optical to sound smooth(smeared? ) and missing detail


 I woulden say the supra is missing detail or not sure about that maybe just different sound signature. I think for bright systems supra can be better and dark systems mavros. I really like the supra to for a lot less money and better fit with the contacts just clicks in easy. Mavros contacts is to big, have to use force and still it doesent go all the way in but i figured it works anyway so i dont need to press it in all the way with force. 




dmudan said:


> I prefer digital electrical but as we know some devices like TVs don't support it.


 I dont know what that is, never heard of it.


----------



## bluenight

I am not totally sure after more listening that the tp-link router sound different then asus one. Could fall in the catagory as placebo. Some albums i think i hear a difference and some not.


----------



## dmudan

Coaxial digital is electrical, a description something you obviously could not give to optical digital. 

In my testing of several coax cables between my CD transport and DAC, I wouldn't say any had a sound signature. It was simply the same but better or worse. Better cable=less jitter=better sound. 
I've not heard any premium optical so can't really comment.


----------



## bluenight (Dec 28, 2020)

dmudan said:


> Coaxial digital is electrical, a description something you obviously could not give to optical digital.
> 
> In my testing of several coax cables between my CD transport and DAC, I wouldn't say any had a sound signature. It was simply the same but better or worse. Better cable=less jitter=better sound.
> I've not heard any premium optical so can't really comment.


 I figured you meant it after some thinking, binary low or high voltage. Spdif is the same thing as coax right. I got an mavros 3, 5mm-spdif connected from streamer to hugo 2 dac/amp. It is my first ever bought spdif cable so i cant compare with anything other then the optical mavros then. I compared fast optical vs spdif when i bought it i thought they sounded farily similar in there sound signature. Bringing out more bright details vs supra optical who sound more dark smoother mids. I would say the mavros spdif is very detailed and clean sounding but not forgiving with sibilance on poor recordings. Otherwise it just sound right.

I also googled digital electricity and apprently its another thing also, could be interesting for some.

https://www.edn.com/what-is-digital-electricity/

http://www.digitizelectric.com/how-it-
works/
"The technology combines energy and data into energy packets and transfers hundreds of packets each second from a VoltServer transmitter unit to a receiver unit."


----------



## ThanatosVI

I actually read this whole thread now and it was pretty painful in the First 19 pages.
Only After that useful Information came along.

So on topic, the Network switch(say a netgear 105)  that is in between helps separate the "audio network/streamer" from noisier "home network".
Would a galvanic LAN isolator do the same, to the same extend?


----------



## dmudan

I suppose it depends what your home router is like. I found minimal difference between direct connection with my BT hub to my Netgear. In fact it sounds better for me when direct but will confirm again some time.


----------



## Louisiana

ThanatosVI said:


> Would a galvanic LAN isolator do the same, to the same extend?



Please look at these:
https://www.amazon.de/DeLock-62619-...ywords=netzwerkisolator&qid=1609258899&sr=8-3

Order and try is the best thing we can do!


Mine arrived today


----------



## bluenight (Jan 1, 2021)

Relatively cheap powerstrip with RF/EMI filtering (100 kHz - 10 MHz): 40 dB . Maybe good for router/switch.

https://www.apc.com/shop/uk/en/products/APC-Essential-SurgeArrest-5-outlets-230V-UK/P-PM5-UK

*Noise Filtering*
Attenuates EMI/RFI line noise that can cause data errors and keyboard lockups, ensuring better performance of protected equipment.


----------



## bluecar

ThanatosVI said:


> So on topic, the Network switch(say a netgear 105) that is in between helps separate the "audio network/streamer" from noisier "home network".
> Would a galvanic LAN isolator do the same, to the same extend?



That pretty much comes down to *which* isolator. Folk chuck the term "Galvanic Isolation" around a lot, but there's lots of different ways of isolating, galvanically speaking. All it really means is that the circuit passes a signal (usually a waveform) whilst not flowing a current from the inbound source. Usually, these are some form of transformer, logic switch or something a bit more involved, like an opto-coupler. Galvanic isolation does not guarantee the removal of noise, it just mitigates RF noise in non-useful or harmful parts of the spectrum. Opto-Couplers are expensive (i.e. GigaFoil at around £900 a unit).

The main isolation strategy in a ethernet switch is the pulse transformer - these are designed to re-amplify the packet signal carrier, whilst protecting equipment from electrostatic discharge and high-voltage transients (the most common use of an isolator). They do little or nothing to block low-voltage transients, provided they are below the taget SNR for the network. i.e. switches and network cards only care about noise that affect data transmission, nothing else. The noise is still present at the inbound connection to your streamer.

None of this is an issue in packet networks - data will flow, and network receivers (including the ones in your switches and Server/Streamer) will error correct until the file is received as per protocol - it just comes along with a load of noise as well  

Noise will affect your streamer, by affecting the timing of conversion from packet data to whichever Isosynchonous stream you generate (USB or SPDIF) - none of the streaming protocols have *any* error correction built-in (USB can, but not in the way it is used in audio applications) - every transformation/timing error caused in your streamer will be in your stream, and cannot be corrected by the DAC.

3 things reduce noise into a streamer...

A better quality network switch (i.e. Fidelizer Etherstream, SotM etc)
Opto-isolation before it hits the streamer (i.e. Sonore Systeme Optique, GigaFoil or similar)
An inline filter just before the streamer (i.e. Fidelizer again), but these have some issues

As always, the best solution is listen for yourself, and see what works......


----------



## ThanatosVI

bluecar said:


> That pretty much comes down to *which* isolator. Folk chuck the term "Galvanic Isolation" around a lot, but there's lots of different ways of isolating, galvanically speaking. All it really means is that the circuit passes a signal (usually a waveform) whilst not flowing a current from the inbound source. Usually, these are some form of transformer, logic switch or something a bit more involved, like an opto-coupler. Galvanic isolation does not guarantee the removal of noise, it just mitigates RF noise in non-useful or harmful parts of the spectrum. Opto-Couplers are expensive (i.e. GigaFoil at around £900 a unit).
> 
> The main isolation strategy in a ethernet switch is the pulse transformer - these are designed to re-amplify the packet signal carrier, whilst protecting equipment from electrostatic discharge and high-voltage transients (the most common use of an isolator). They do little or nothing to block low-voltage transients, provided they are below the taget SNR for the network. i.e. switches and network cards only care about noise that affect data transmission, nothing else. The noise is still present at the inbound connection to your streamer.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the elaboration


----------



## bluenight

bluecar said:


> Noise will affect your streamer, by affecting the timing of conversion from packet data to whichever Isosynchonous stream you generate (USB or SPDIF) - none of the streaming protocols have *any* error correction built-in (USB can, but not in the way it is used in audio applications) - every transformation/timing error caused in your streamer will be in your stream, and cannot be corrected by the DAC.


So is optical out better to use from my streamer to external dac then spdif, i assume optical does not have error correction either but less noise?

Does not a femto clock be effective? as described in an Violectric DHA 590 review. It correct before dac. 

"Resampling capability is one of the key features of the V590. This allows you to take digital source signals, such as USB/optical 44.1 or 48 kHz, and resample it to a higher quality rate via an integrated AKM AK4137EQ upsampling chipset. Not only that but it strips it of its inherent jitter during resampling via a Femtosecond clock, (FEMTO-CLOCK), for correction before it goes to the DAC.“

https://headfonics.com/violectric-dha-v590-review/


----------



## bluenight

Louisiana said:


> Please look at these:
> https://www.amazon.de/DeLock-62619-...ywords=netzwerkisolator&qid=1609258899&sr=8-3
> 
> Order and try is the best thing we can do!
> ...


Did you here any difference or not?


----------



## bluecar

bluenight said:


> So is optical out better to use from my streamer to external dac then spdif, i assume optical does not have error correction either but less noise?
> 
> Does not a femto clock be effective? as described in an Violectric DHA 590 review. It correct before dac.
> 
> "Resampling capability is one of the key features of the V590. This allows you to take digital source signals, such as USB/optical 44.1 or 48 kHz, and resample it to a higher quality rate via an integrated AKM AK4137EQ upsampling chipset. Not only that but it strips it of its inherent jitter during resampling via a Femtosecond clock, (FEMTO-CLOCK), for correction before it goes to the DAC.“



sort of....

Optical usually delivers worse results that SPDIF, just because of the cheap-ish nature of most optical conversion....it's ok, but unless done properly (i.e. Sonore), it's usually pretty "meh". Issue is that most of the convertors that regenerate the Electronic signal at the other end of an optical connection are pretty average - the link is noise-free, but the convertors at each end are usually pretty poor. Optical has no error correction ....

Re-clocking within the DAC doesn't correct errors from converting packet data (ethernet) to streaming data (USB, SPDIF,)- once the USB/SPDIF adapter has created the stream, that's it, so any timing errors are kinda baked in. 

The quote about the 590 is a bit "salesy" - All DACs re-clock incoming streams - more correctly, they resample/upsample them using a clock internal to the DAC - it's nothing special. The Violectric uses a particularly accurate clock, but tbh it's just marketing. The "reclocking/upsampling" is there to make the DAC work, not to fix upstream errors  (It's a damn good unit though - violectric/Lake make great kit)


----------



## cpurdy

dmudan said:


> So does the Supra CAT8 sound different ? Definitely YES. Considering the error checking that goes on with Ethernet data, this really makes no sense. Plus there's a buffer on the streamer so hardly a completely live stream. This cable was bought out of curiosity and I was fully willing to send it back for a refund but it's staying. I've done multiple A/B comparisons between the two leads and had the same music on CD as a reference (all through same DAC).



You have not done blind A/B testing. You hear what you want to hear.



bluenight said:


> I also have supra cat 8 ethernet cables all the way for my high priority gear. I had some cheap generic cat 5 before. And supra definetly brought more class and refinement to the sound and less flat to my ears and less glare or sibilance.



No, it "definetly" did not. You have not done blind A/B testing. You hear what you want to hear.



bluenight said:


> I am not totally sure after more listening that the tp-link router sound different then asus one.



I am totally sure that it did not sound different. You have not done blind A/B testing. You hear what you want to hear.

There's nothing wrong with hearing what you want to hear, but please don't share misinformation as if it's reality.


----------



## Louisiana (Jan 14, 2021)

bluenight said:


> Did you here any difference or not?



To be honest: no.
I also did a blind test with USB cables, Cat 8. cables, and a comparison Allo DigiOne Signature (300 €) + Allo Shanti LPS (200 €) vs. Raspberry Pi 4 (50 €) - couldn't see any difference in any of them.
But maybe, or even very sure, it's because of my "wooden-ears". 

Some cables...





Clean power...




Back of Bifrost 2...




RPi4 & Allo DigiOne Signature...




Ultra clean power...




Cat 8.




I think there are tons of ways to burn your money in our hobby, but I love to test them all.


----------



## bluenight (Jan 15, 2021)

cpurdy said:


> There's nothing wrong with hearing what you want to hear, but please don't share misinformation as if it's reality.


Please dont try internet censur. You have bias that it cant sound different. You want to think what you want to think.


----------



## teknorob23

cpurdy said:


> You have not done blind A/B testing. You hear what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Internet is rife with gasslighting


cpurdy said:


> You have not done blind A/B testing. You hear what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would be great to hear a bit more about your system and listening tests? i assume you've done the due diligence, tried these products or similar and you are speaking from a position of experience. Otherwise you risk appearing little highhanded dismissing someone else's experience just base on what you think.


----------



## Deolum

I need some help. My router is in the one side of the room and my setup on the other side.

The setup is very highend with a good streamer. Now the problem is how to give the streamer internet? I tried different solutions.

1) Wifi dongle

Sounds bad and is not reliable

2) Powerlan 

Sounds bad with lots of noise in the system

3) Wifi repeater with Lan out. 

This is so far my best option. However i wonder is there anything better?


----------



## teknorob23

Deolum said:


> I need some help. My router is in the one side of the room and my setup on the other side.
> 
> The setup is very highend with a good streamer. Now the problem is how to give the streamer internet? I tried different solutions.
> 
> ...



I think you have worked through all of the options that are out there. From speaking to our customers its usually between the repeater and powerline option. Do you have switch installed after the repeater? ie

Repeater > Switch > your best ethernet cable > Optional filter > Streamer 

I've suggested before on here, but a very cost effective improvement is to add a switch like the netgear gs105 this will buffer against some of the noise, but it also generates noise of its own, but if you add an ifi Ipower 12v this will prevent a good amount of noise from infecting it from the mains. This will cost you £70 from amazon and you can return it if you dont hear a benefit, from there run your best ethernet cable into the streamer. Full disclosure, i have horse in this race, but i would strongly recommend an ethernet filter which removes the noise, that piggy backs the data stream and plays havoc with your sensitive streamer and the DAC beyond it. Avoid medical filters and lan isolators, they dont remove electronic interference and often take as much away as they give. Expensive audiophile switches from all our tests dont do much to deal with noise and as you rightly surmise noise is the biggest inhibitor of your streamer working to its fullest potential. Hope that helps a bit, but please feel free to DM if you want to chat more


----------



## Deolum

teknorob23 said:


> I think you have worked through all of the options that are out there. From speaking to our customers its usually between the repeater and powerline option. Do you have switch installed after the repeater? ie
> 
> Repeater > Switch > your best ethernet cable > Optional filter > Streamer
> 
> I've suggested before on here, but a very cost effective improvement is to add a switch like the netgear gs105 this will buffer against some of the noise, but it also generates noise of its own, but if you add an ifi Ipower 12v this will prevent a good amount of noise from infecting it from the mains. This will cost you £70 from amazon and you can return it if you dont hear a benefit, from there run your best ethernet cable into the streamer. Full disclosure, i have horse in this race, but i would strongly recommend an ethernet filter which removes the noise, that piggy backs the data stream and plays havoc with your sensitive streamer and the DAC beyond it. Avoid medical filters and lan isolators, they dont remove electronic interference and often take as much away as they give. Expensive audiophile switches from all our tests dont do much to deal with noise and as you rightly surmise noise is the biggest inhibitor of your streamer working to its fullest potential. Hope that helps a bit, but please feel free to DM if you want to chat more


But why should a repeater create noise? It's a little device without anything when it comes to cpu or big psu or something like that.

Also what i've also wondered:

Is the music sent from the router to the repeater and then into the streamer


or 

is the streamer the same like a router and gets the music directly?


----------



## teknorob23

Deolum said:


> But why should a repeater create noise? It's a little device without anything when it comes to cpu or big psu or something like that.
> 
> Also what i've also wondered:
> 
> ...



If it has a plug and is connected to the mains it will generating some electronic interference which piggy backs the data stream this is combined with what its receiving from the router. This is nothing to do with the zeros and ones. The noise piggy backs the data stream picked up by the ethernet cables acting like an aerial. This noise is then delivered in to the streamer in the form of jitter, the streamer is super sensitive so even the smallest amount of electronic interference can have a big impact, so more of it you can eliminate the better your streamer will sound. As i say give is go, you can return it to amazon if you cant hear a benefit and its a great place to start before you think about investing further. Without the switch i wouldnt suggest spending money on better ethernet cables or filters, because you'll only be getting a proportion of the performance youve paid for.

To answer your last question, yes your music is coming via the router unless your library is stored in drive connected directly to your streamer.

Eg if you have your local library stored on a NAS connected to your network, and a computer or dedicate server also connected to the network serving your local library and external streaming services like Qobuz, tidal, etc to your network streamer or endpoint.


----------



## Deolum

Then i'll try the Netgear 105.


----------



## teknorob23

Deolum said:


> Then i'll try the Netgear 105.



Look forward to hearing how you get on, but don’t forget the ifi 12v


----------



## dmudan

cpurdy said:


> You have not done blind A/B testing. You hear what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Misinformation? I am not reporting the news, I am reporting my reality and my experience. 
Regardless of the technical theory, there are many people hearing differences between network cables and in product group tests. You obviously believe they are delusional. I certainly am not. 
So when you buy any new product, do you have someone to assist in a blind listening test? If yes then lucky you!


----------



## endless402

Hi


----------



## bluenight

dmudan said:


> So when you buy any new product, do you have someone to assist in a blind listening test? If yes then lucky you!


I dont think many on headfi do blind tests on amps and dacs on HP it would be hard to do blindtests. Its mostly subjective opinions on here that rule to my knowledge and my reading experience.


----------



## bluecar

endless402 said:


> Hi



Neat - what are you powering that Telegartner switch with?


----------



## endless402

bluecar said:


> Neat - what are you powering that Telegartner switch with?



just the original power supply.Will get a linear power supply one day. Selling some old gear to fund it.

I went from a Cisco 2930, to a silent angel bonn n8, and then to this telegartner

All 3 have a totally different presentation to the music, so there’s no right or wrong answer, just whichever you enjoy more with your system.


----------



## teknorob23

endless402 said:


> just the original power supply.Will get a linear power supply one day. Selling some old gear to fund it.
> 
> I went from a Cisco 2930, to a silent angel bonn n8, and then to this telegartner
> 
> All 3 have a totally different presentation to the music, so there’s no right or wrong answer, just whichever you enjoy more with your system.



Ive been itching to try one and yours is the first one of these i've seen in the wild, have you tried it with any other cables, or just those supplied and do you find you find any downsides with, any loss of dynamics?


----------



## endless402

I’ve only used the supplied cables given that they use m12 D coded connectors so you would have to custom make a cable. 
that being said, I’m using an audioquest cinnamon and sotm isocat6 from my fiber modem To my router (Ubiquiti UDM) and then a viablue Ethernet from router to wall. the SOtM isocat6 with their black cable brings the mids more forward and can sound quite harsh if implemented too close to the steamer.

the m12 magic has a more laid back presentation in comparison to the other two switches, but there is a huge improvement in detail separation and layering and the presentation of the singer is further back, like you’re sitting further away from the singer. Overall the PRAT is good, and the presentation is the most musical. I don’t hear any loss in dynamics.

For the bonn, it’s more hifi sounding, wider soundstage, airy and sweet highs, lower noise floor than the Cisco. For the price I think it presents good value. It was slightly bass heavier so I had to retune my system by adjusting the subwoofer level lower. 

Cisco provides a lower noise floor than a generic Netgear switch. The presentation is more forward in the mids, and it feels like the singer is much closer to you.


----------



## teknorob23 (Jan 17, 2021)

endless402 said:


> I’ve only used the supplied cables given that they use m12 D coded connectors so you would have to custom make a cable.
> that being said, I’m using an audioquest cinnamon and sotm isocat6 from my fiber modem To my router (Ubiquiti UDM) and then a viablue Ethernet from router to wall. the SOtM isocat6 with their black cable brings the mids more forward and can sound quite harsh if implemented too close to the steamer.
> 
> the m12 magic has a more laid back presentation in comparison to the other two switches, but there is a huge improvement in detail separation and layering and the presentation of the singer is further back, like you’re sitting further away from the singer. Overall the PRAT is good, and the presentation is the most musical. I don’t hear any loss in dynamics.
> ...



thanks thats really interesting to hear. I'm going to have to lay my hands on one as i'm really keen to hear how it sounds with our filters in front of it


----------



## Eric M

endless402 said:


> Cisco provides a lower noise floor than a generic Netgear switch. The presentation is more forward in the mids, and it feels like the singer is much closer to you.



I've read some crazy stuff on this site, but this might take the cake.


----------



## endless402

Eric M said:


> I've read some crazy stuff on this site, but this might take the cake.



dont worry, it's all in my head


----------



## bluecar

endless402 said:


> dont worry, it's all in my head



Not really  

..less noise upstream = less noise in a DAC = more accurate clocking/filtering = more accurate upsampling = better transient accuracy = shift in perception of soundstage....

hows that? - phase-noise theory in mixed-signal processing, captured in one line


----------



## ThanatosVI

bluecar said:


> Not really
> 
> ..less noise upstream = less noise in a DAC = more accurate clocking/filtering = more accurate upsampling = better transient accuracy = shift in perception of soundstage....
> 
> hows that? - phase-noise theory in mixed-signal processing, captured in one line


Off topic, but nice new avatar!


----------



## bluecar

endless402 said:


> I’ve only used the supplied cables given that they use m12 D coded connectors so you would have to custom make a cable.
> that being said, I’m using an audioquest cinnamon and sotm isocat6 from my fiber modem To my router (Ubiquiti UDM) and then a viablue Ethernet from router to wall. the SOtM isocat6 with their black cable brings the mids more forward and can sound quite harsh if implemented too close to the steamer.



It also occurred to me that most M12 connectors and associated equipment are IP68 rated, so you are good to go in case of rising sea levels and flash floods


----------



## endless402

bluecar said:


> Not really
> 
> ..less noise upstream = less noise in a DAC = more accurate clocking/filtering = more accurate upsampling = better transient accuracy = shift in perception of soundstage....
> 
> hows that? - phase-noise theory in mixed-signal processing, captured in one line




yeah haha, i was just joking 

there are lots of audiophile modding switches, upgrading the clocks and linear power supplies. 
obviously not worth it unless you've spent a ton of money on other hardware already


----------



## bluecar

endless402 said:


> yeah haha, i was just joking
> 
> there are lots of audiophile modding switches, upgrading the clocks and linear power supplies.
> obviously not worth it unless you've spent a ton of money on other hardware already


*cough*


----------



## TiJo

For a minute, let's assume there is something to improve from your PC to your DAC which is connected to the PC via TOSLINK (optical). So I do not want to discuss this part with you.

Here is a scenario that I want to discuss:
I download a very complex file from a server, e.g. my Google Drive and save it to my hard drive in my PC. For my work I need a bit-perfect copy of the data from my Google Drive. Is it possible to get this bit-perfect copy via my standard router with standard cheap ethernet cables?
The answer is yes. I have a program that can check whether the transmission was bit-perfect. Everytime I download the file, it is always bit-perfect equal to the original file. Now I can continue with my work.

If my file can be transmitted bit-perfectly via cheap cables and routers, why does a music file (e.g. an mp3) need better hardware? Since it is bit-perfect, the only bottleneck should be the connection to the DAC right?


----------



## bluecar

TiJo said:


> If my file can be transmitted bit-perfectly via cheap cables and routers, why does a music file (e.g. an mp3) need better hardware? Since it is bit-perfect, the only bottleneck should be the connection to the DAC right?



More correct to say the network bridge/player or streamer is the bottleneck. That's where the data needs to be resampled into a time/data stream (USB, SPDIF, whatever), and that's the first place that noise can impact the accuracy of that conversion. It's not a gross effect, but it definitely causes incorrect blocks in the USB stream, that are ignored by the DAC - tiny errors in the DAC inputs cause tiny errors in transients at the DAC output, giving effects like digital 'grain', or 'darkness' or 'harshness', depending on how the stream was affected in the Streamer, and (bluntly) the quality of the DAC. 

Your optical option gives you great isolation between your player and your DAC, but the original conversion from flat file to stream will already have been compromised at conversion to some extent - at least your DAC only has to contend with its own noise, not everything upstream 

So, for me, ethernet cables and devices matter, as they are all part of a mechanism to minimise (not remove) noise upstream of the streamer, player or network bridge, and improve the quality of streaming conversion at the point where the signal is dumped into a time-domain (it also helps minimise noise in the DAC for those of us who connect electrically).  

They also look nice, and allow us to look down upon mere mortals who still use patch cables  (only joking, there's nothing wrong with that if it works in the system!!)

Blue.


----------



## endless402

ethernet cables are one of those things that doesn't make sense but doesn't hurt to try if you can borrow cables from a friend or a dealer. It can be difficult to dip your toe into it since 0 and 1's should all be the same

i've gone through blue jeans belden cat6 cat6e cat7, supra cat8, audioquest cinnamon, viablue ep7, acoustic revive triple c lan, audioquest diamond, SoTM Cat7 and isocat6, and now Telegartner's own M12 cable

back in the day, i didnt believe that digital coaxial cables made a difference but i was lucky enough to have a friend that had a few to borrow from, and then the mind was blown. This was the same with usb cables.


----------



## TiJo

bluecar said:


> More correct to say the network bridge/player or streamer is the bottleneck. That's where the data needs to be resampled into a time/data stream (USB, SPDIF, whatever), and that's the first place that noise can impact the accuracy of that conversion. It's not a gross effect, but it definitely causes incorrect blocks in the USB stream, that are ignored by the DAC - tiny errors in the DAC inputs cause tiny errors in transients at the DAC output, giving effects like digital 'grain', or 'darkness' or 'harshness', depending on how the stream was affected in the Streamer, and (bluntly) the quality of the DAC.
> 
> Your optical option gives you great isolation between your player and your DAC, but the original conversion from flat file to stream will already have been compromised at conversion to some extent - at least your DAC only has to contend with its own noise, not everything upstream
> 
> ...



I do not get how you come to the conclusion that ethernet cables matter based on your own answer... :/

Maybe we can both use the same diagram to better communicate:

*Source* (server) ----> *Router 1* (based in your ISPs routing center) ----> *Router 2* (home router) ----> *PC* ===> *DAC*

----> = Standard ethernet cable
===> = Optical cable

So If I get bit-perfect transmission from *Source* to *PC* this would mean everything in between does not make a difference to sound. However, from *PC* to *DAC* we assume there is no bit-perfect transmission, so this is were noise may come into play. 
However, I know there are some DACs (e.g. network streamers) that can guarantee bit perfect transmission from *Source* to *DAC *and then only the performance of the* DAC* itself does matter.

So you see all the parts where Ethernet cables are actually used can be verified to be bit perfect. And even noise from these cables does not matter. Imagine you store the file to disk. Noise and jitter can not be stores to disk, so this will be a perfect copy of the original file. Now your read it again. Obviously you could argue, that any cable connected to the PC at this time could cause some kind of intereference, but why upgrade the Ethernet cable then and not every other cable?


----------



## endless402 (Jan 19, 2021)

TiJo said:


> I do not get how you come to the conclusion that ethernet cables matter based on your own answer... :/
> 
> Maybe we can both use the same diagram to better communicate:
> 
> ...



you should upgrade every cable. From experience the cable closest to the streamer is the most sensitive.

your pc parts are actually quite noisy due to the power supply and type of capacitors, if it’s made of the usual store bought pc parts. Therefore it injects noise into the sound output and by having a better cable, hopefully it reduces the noise transfer to the steamer


check out the crazy build below. fanless cpu, intel opane ssds getting installed, mundorf gold/silver wires, and there is an external custom linear power supply


----------



## TiJo

What if I use bit-perfect optical or WiFi from *PC *to *DAC*? Then I would only need to upgrad the power cable of the DAC!


----------



## endless402

TiJo said:


> What if I use bit-perfect optical or WiFi from *PC *to *DAC*? Then I would only need to upgrad the power cable of the DAC!


 unfortunately wifi is a source of noise. high end streamers try to galvanically isolate the wifi, which isn't an easy thing to accomplish.  hence most high end streamers don't use wifi. 
while your bits may be perfect, you're transferring noise into the dac still.

there's still the question of the timing of the bits in the transmission from your computer to your dac. a good clock is required to make sure the timing is correct and this is seen on higher end dacs and switches.


----------



## bluecar

TiJo said:


> I do not get how you come to the conclusion that ethernet cables matter based on your own answer... :/
> 
> ... And even noise from these cables does not matter. ....



It was a long post, and maybe not so clear....so here's another long-ish post... 

Using a general purpose PC as a player is a particular case - i'll come back to it. 

Cabling upstream of the player carries noise from every other network component to the ethernet receiver at the player - a bit-perfect copy of whatever music file you send it is delivered to the player, but the received noise affects how well that player converts it to time-series streams. Ethernet is not a digital connection (no such thing really exists) - in each ethernet cable, there are 2 pairs of conductors that carry data. Each conductor in a pair is a mirror image of the other (this helps the receiver to eliminate errors in conversion) - the signal is a digital modulation of a carrier wave, where a sine wave is modulated with a digital (square) wave - the picture helps (see Digital modulation). BUT this is still  4 wires carrying high frequency alternating currents - additional frequencies get carried/generated by the wires and are not really managed by network devices below a certain threshold. This threshold is below that needed to protect the carrier signal, but way above the point need to avoid interfering with components (especially clocks and filters) on the receiving device's circuits. 





Using a generic PC as a player is a particular case. A typical PC (or mac) is a cesspool of noise and interference, as it's a box , full of devices that generate noise. Fans, switches, power supplies, oscillators, bus controllers, storage, storage controllers, processors, video chips/cards, buses for various interfaces (HMDI, USB, thunderbolt), etc etc. shielding and noise regulation in a PC is designed at the bare minimum necessary fo it to function as a digital data processing device.. Ironically, the master clock in a PC is pretty accurate, but it's only used for the mainboard ICs - peripheral devices tend to separately clocked - the clocks used on the USB cards (for example) are generally the cheapest available - they don't have to be good for the majority of the USB modes commonly used for computing applications.  It's the inevitable consequence of taking a technology paradigm (PCs, ethernet and USB)  that was never designed for HiFi, and using it for HiFI!! 

So, if you have an electrically quiet, well-designed bridge/streamer, you can make gains by eliminating noise upstream of your player. This helps the player create a more accurate stream, and (if you have direct electrical coupling to your DAC) will minimise any retransmission of noise downstream to your DAC.  Cables help this effort by having effective shielding to minimise RF injection and crosstalk between conductors. 

I think where you misinterpreted it was thinking that because ethernet delivered the digital file error free, that it is is also noise-free. It's not...which is why cables matter, as do good switches......

....unless you are using a general purpose PC as a player, in which case, the greatest gains can be made by using a custom-designed computer for audio purposes,  'or a dedicated transport. 

Enough though, this is an audio forum, not an engineering class, and this feels too much like work for me  But thanks for the question .


----------



## bluecar

endless402 said:


> you should upgrade every cable. From experience the cable closest to the streamer is the most sensitive.
> 
> your pc parts are actually quite noisy due to the power supply and type of capacitors, if it’s made of the usual store bought pc parts. Therefore it injects noise into the sound output and by having a better cable, hopefully it reduces the noise transfer to the steamer
> 
> ...


That is one of the neatest builds I've ever seen - nice one.


----------



## Deolum

endless402 said:


> unfortunately wifi is a source of noise. high end streamers try to galvanically isolate the wifi, which isn't an easy thing to accomplish.  hence most high end streamers don't use wifi.
> while your bits may be perfect, you're transferring noise into the dac still.
> 
> there's still the question of the timing of the bits in the transmission from your computer to your dac. a good clock is required to make sure the timing is correct and this is seen on higher end dacs and switches.


Are you sure that those scientific things you said are true? I still tend to think that Wlan, Lan or digital cables have impact on the sound while it's also true that science can not explain that difference. It gets quite confuse when i read people stating scientific things about why digital cables or lan should sound better. Do you have some proof or measurements for what you said?


----------



## bfreedma

endless402 said:


> unfortunately wifi is a source of noise. high end streamers try to *galvanically isolate the wifi, *which isn't an easy thing to accomplish.  hence most high end streamers don't use wifi.
> while your bits may be perfect, you're transferring noise into the dac still.
> 
> there's still the question of the timing of the bits in the transmission from your computer to your dac. a good clock is required to make sure the timing is correct and this is seen on higher end dacs and switches.



WiFi, by definition, is galvanically isolated. With no cable connection...


----------



## TiJo

@bluecar: However, everything you say does not explain why there should be any noise/jitter/whatever left after it has been written and read from disk again.


----------



## bluenight

At least supra cat8 has better sheilding vs cat5e utp that i have compared with at home. To protect from outside noise like RF/EMI.


Maybe a cheaper cable with similar sheilding is as good. But audiobacon thought not so. Maybe supra cat 8 use better conectors and more precise twisting but i am only speculating, quility of copper matter, phase noise? I know supra have quality control of every cable and maybe use machines to measure the finish product.


----------



## bluecar

TiJo said:


> @bluecar: However, everything you say does not explain why there should be any noise/jitter/whatever left after it has been written and read from disk again.



It does, but maybe I can explain better....let's try again 

A 'digital' connection is just an analogue connection that is forced to behave in a certain way to allow the logical communication of 1's and 0's. The same wires could easily carry an FM radio signal, analogue PWM (ie. old telephones) or, as they do in ethernet, digital modulated carrier waves. 

regardless of use, an ethernet connection is a bunch of wires, wrapped into a cable that connects two network cards. Even if there is no data *at all* being sent, ethernet creates several circuits between the two devices. In addition to carrying signals, the ethernet cables will carry any noise in the signal between devices - the cables also act as aerials and collect noise via EMI -  unless that noise is detrimental to the ethernet standard, it is largely unmanaged. 

again, forget the digital aspect of this - that noise transmits freely into your player. It is nothin to do with the files sent over ethernet, but is a physical reality of the electrical system created by connecting multiple devices together and energising them with electrical currents  There is RF noise in your network, and every device connected to it, regardless of whether data is being passed via TCP/IP, or any other protocol.

That noise affects the accuracy of clocks and filters anywhere in your system, both of which are (ultimately) analogue devices. 

When you convert a file with your player, you are lifting blocks of audio data out of their container (the data file) and placing them in a stream of data, with the aim to communicate the same number of 'bits', represented electrically, every X seconds according to the sample rate (i.e. for a 94/24 file, the receiver is expecting 24 bits every 10.4uS - just a rough example - not strictly true at an absolute physics level, but a good working model for what happens electrically). The stream gets composed in real time, and cannot be corrected after sending. 

Any errors or inconsistency in the clock of the player, will cause errors in converting your flat file to a time-stream.  

Hence, why noise upstream in an ethernet network can affect a streamer, and subsequently a DAC.


----------



## bluecar

bfreedma said:


> WiFi, by definition, is galvanically isolated. With no cable connection...



Of course it is - there's no direct electrical connection. But WiFi is also really good at modulating non-signal noise into the carrier waves, and faithfully re-amplifying it along with the carrier frequencies + anything else picked up by the aerial, and pumping it out into the physical ethernet adapter in the receiving device. The data gets sent, incredibly reliably, but there's also a non-signal noise component (like any radio, since......radio...). Most Wifi has reasonably decent filtering of the aerial signal, but only for those frequencies that will bugger up the data carrier wave and its sidebands - it doesn't bother about much else.  

Wifi also adds noise in a system, simply because (unlike ethernet), it has to (massively) re-amplify the aerial signal before it can demodulate the logical data embedded in the carrier. Not an issue for computers - big issue for noise-sensitive components like clocks, filters and OpAmps (guess what a USB/SPDIF card has??)

That said, really good WiFi receivers can do a great job , Auralic designed all their WiFi receivers from scratch, with incredible attention to passive/active filtering at the antennae, clean power supplies to the signal amplifier and demodulator, and a lot of attention to clock isolation on the inbound receiver ( on the G2, I think the network card has it's own OCXO clock, and a completely separate LPSU from the rest of the device). The G- series players/streamers are really the first devices where you can't hear a difference between wired and wireless connectivity. 

Anyone who really wants to take a deep dive into this, It's worth doing some reading on the physical electronics that underpin ethernet standards and WiFi standards, and also some reading on the various USB modes, AES/EBU and SPDIF standards. It's pretty easy science, and helps one understand the various physical and logical things that happen in mixed-signal circuits.


----------



## bfreedma

bluecar said:


> Of course it is - there's no direct electrical connection. But WiFi is also really good at modulating non-signal noise into the carrier waves, and faithfully re-amplifying it along with the carrier frequencies + anything else picked up by the aerial, and pumping it out into the physical ethernet adapter in the receiving device. The data gets sent, incredibly reliably, but there's also a non-signal noise component (like any radio, since......radio...). Most Wifi has reasonably decent filtering of the aerial signal, but only for those frequencies that will bugger up the data carrier wave and its sidebands - it doesn't bother about much else.
> 
> Wifi also adds noise in a system, simply because (unlike ethernet), it has to (massively) re-amplify the aerial signal before it can demodulate the logical data embedded in the carrier. Not an issue for computers - big issue for noise-sensitive components like clocks, filters and OpAmps (guess what a USB/SPDIF card has??)
> 
> ...



I’m sorry, but your understanding of Ethernet and Wi-Fi are fundamentally incorrect and seem based on vendor marketing material rather than the 802.11 standard.

I’ve read the standards docs many times and understand them well (professional requirement).  I’ve even contributed to a few.  They make it abundantly clear that what you describe, for example some rider on the carrier wave in the manner and impact you describe isn’t technically possible.  You’re also ignoring all of the buffering and storage between the Ethernet end point and analog or digital output.

I‘m amazed that vendors have literally created a market for solutions to problems that don’t exist in any reasonable home setting.


----------



## endless402

it all comes down to the quality and shielding related to the power supply. 

when i'm listening to my Cayin N6ii, when the wifi is downloading from tidal, i can hear it buzzing in my iem. If i turn off the wifi and play from internal storage, there isn't any buzzing. this is likely because the wifi chip is requiring more power and as a result, is injecting noise into the amps. 

I also dont have this issue if i use it as a usb dac since there is no wifi activity 

if the wifi was isolated (with it's own power supply and grounding), there likely wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## TiJo

@bluecar: I can only repeat what I said earlier: _However, everything you say does not explain why there should be any noise/jitter/whatever left after it has been written and read from disk again._

I also have to strongly agree with @bfreedma since I am also working in the same field. Also there is another forum with _science_ in the same where practical tests have been made to prove that ethernet really does not make a difference.


----------



## bluecar

TiJo said:


> @bluecar: I can only repeat what I said earlier: _However, everything you say does not explain why there should be any noise/jitter/whatever left after it has been written and read from disk again._
> 
> I also have to strongly agree with @bfreedma since I am also working in the same field. Also there is another forum with _science_ in the same where practical tests have been made to prove that ethernet really does not make a difference.



Fair enough. 


bfreedma said:


> I’m sorry, but your understanding of Ethernet and Wi-Fi are fundamentally incorrect and seem based on vendor marketing material rather than the 802.11 standard.
> 
> I’ve read the standards docs many times and understand them well (professional requirement).  I’ve even contributed to a few.  They make it abundantly clear that what you describe, for example some rider on the carrier wave in the manner and impact you describe isn’t technically possible.  You’re also ignoring all of the buffering and storage between the Ethernet end point and analog or digital output.
> 
> I‘m amazed that vendors have literally created a market for solutions to problems that don’t exist in any reasonable home setting.



...Is this where you tell me you're a engineer? 


TiJo said:


> @bluecar: I can only repeat what I said earlier: _However, everything you say does not explain why there should be any noise/jitter/whatever left after it has been written and read from disk again._
> 
> I also have to strongly agree with @bfreedma since I am also working in the same field. Also there is another forum with _science_ in the same where practical tests have been made to prove that ethernet really does not make a difference.



Is that the field where you believe that writing a file to a disk or buffering it in memory means that all RF noise from the various connections in the device and its circuits is suddenly rejected? Which field is that  

On the final point in the "science" forum - all they really proved is that their testing regime is inconclusive. If someone can prove to me that no RF noise flows through a set of connected ethernet devices, or at least, lets say, below an average of 10uV RMS and within the range 50hz to 5gHz, then I'll nominate you for the noble prize myself D


----------



## bfreedma

bluecar said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> ...Is this where you tell me you're a engineer?
> ...



Please explain how, if it even did make a difference at all, RF noise can be preserved in disk storage or ram buffer, then passed on through the processing chain.  Be specific.

If you were right, we would see huge amount of error correction in the original reads on all Ethernet data transfers.  A simple look at a resource monitor will show this is demonstrably not a problem.  Issues of that magnitude would make the current digital universe virtually impossible due to excessive error correction traffic eventually creating more latency than could be sustained.

Bluntly, this is getting absurd


----------



## bluecar

bfreedma said:


> Please explain how, if it even did make a difference at all, RF noise can be preserved in disk storage or ram buffer, then passed on through the processing chain.  Be specific.
> 
> If you were right, we would see huge amount of error correction in the original reads on all Ethernet data transfers.  A simple look at a resource monitor will show this is demonstrably not a problem.  Issues of that magnitude would make the current digital universe virtually impossible due to excessive error correction traffic eventually creating more latency than could be sustained.
> 
> Bluntly, this is getting absurd



I agree with you, and I appreciate the points you make 

To be fair, I never said that RF noise can be preserved (or stripped away) by writing to storage or buffering - that was TiJo - and that *is* an absurd statement, logically and physically. 

Re: error correction, latency etc, you are 100% right. Ethernet devices reject noise in the frequencies that affect successful tx/rx of packets modulated into the carriers. However, outside of those frequencies, nothing much is done (why bother? it can't affect data transmission). 

Step down from the logical layer of these circuits and into the electronics.....

Every cable (ethernet, power, signal, whatever) forms part of the electrical circuit it's connected to. It could be a bellwire, and it would be capable of carrying a current between points of potential. That's physics. 

Ethernet devices (adapters/switches, *not* cables) have some circuitry to attenuate and reject some noise, but not all noise - just enough to assure network function by keeping high SNR in the frequencies that matter.  

A better-built ethernet cable, with fancy shielding, terminations and conductors will carry data no better than a $2 patch cable of the same length. BUT it will collect and retransmit slightly less non-signal noise than a cheap-o patch cable. 

Likewise, you can buy a fancy switch, with Mundorf capacitors, an LPSU and a hand-crafted OCXO clock - will it improve your networking? No. Will it generate/propagate less RF noise. Yes.

less noise in the circuit = more accurate conversion of data from files, to time-series streams. As soon as you slice a file up and lock it into a set time period, any errors cause that slice to be ignored by the DAC. hence, why noise affects SQ. In isosync, the data will be right (compared to the source file), but the *timing* will be wrong - this is where the noise causes the errors. 

So the answer to the OPs question is NO, for networking, and YES for SQ. 

I'm tired of this too - can we talk about Mains Cables and SQ, just for a rest


----------



## bfreedma

bluecar said:


> I agree with you, and I appreciate the points you make
> 
> To be fair, I never said that RF noise can be preserved (or stripped away) by writing to storage or buffering - that was TiJo - and that *is* an absurd statement, logically and physically.
> 
> ...



Again sorry to be blunt, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.  You’re literally making up problems that don’t exist in order to spend money on a “solution”.

If you can produce objective measurements from an independent source showing any of the above phenomena remotely close to audibility, I’d be happy to continue to discuss.  

As if data packets containing music data are somehow different than packets containing any other kind of data that somehow retains external noise post storage and buffering as they are processed...  Audiophile Bro-Science


----------



## endless402

i think you are having trouble separating noise and bits... the noise isn't in the 0 and 1's, it's the devices that are adding noise which passes through the devices and eventually into your output since they are all connected


----------



## TiJo (Jan 20, 2021)

bluecar said:


> To be fair, I never said that RF noise can be preserved (or stripped away) by writing to storage or buffering - that was TiJo - and that *is* an absurd statement, logically and physically.



Okay, but if you agree with me here. How does anything matter that comes before the read from disk?
Essentially you agree, that RF noise can be removed by writing to disk? So why care about RF noise and cables then?

(And let me say: I even disagree that there is accumulating RF noise over the network)


----------



## TiJo

endless402 said:


> i think you are having trouble separating noise and bits... the noise isn't in the 0 and 1's, it's the devices that are adding noise which passes through the devices and eventually into your output since they are all connected



If this was the case sooner or later bit flips would occur. However, in practice this does not happen.


----------



## endless402

Again, noise has nothing to do with the bits...

Even the type of hard drive sounds different.
A song playing from my external hard drive plugged into my streamer is different than one playing from the internal ssd. I’m sure the 0 and 1s are the same but one is powered by a high quality isolated power supply and one is through a wallwort


----------



## bluecar

bfreedma said:


> Again sorry to be blunt, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.  You’re literally making up problems that don’t exist in order to spend money on a “solution”.
> 
> If you can produce objective measurements from an independent source showing any of the above phenomena remotely close to audibility, I’d be happy to continue to discuss.
> 
> As if data packets containing music data are somehow different than packets containing any other kind of data that somehow retains external noise post storage and buffering as they are processed...  Audiophile Bro-Science



**Read this bit carefully**....Like you, Im sorry to be blunt, but you didn't  read what I wrote.  - I *never said, nor ever would, that packet data can retain external noise, post-processing* - that's a preposterous notion - and that came from another poster, not me - "Bro-science" as you rightly say.  

noise affects D/D conversion in the time domain, That's not my opinion, it's a fundamental of DSP. I don't feel the need to share papers or proofs for a concept that's there to read in any yr1 uni textbook for any electrical/electronics engineering course.

Equally, the idea that non-signal noise cannot propagate through an ethernet network defies the physical realities of electronics - it can be attenuated, but not eliminated. 

The OP asked "switches/cables - is it worth it?"

My view is that there is a sound set of reasons why better switches and cables could result in better SQ, and as I've said several times, it has nothing to do with the receipt or transmission of packet data, but the role of the switches and cables as noise sources and carriers in the overall system. Ultimately of course, SQ is subjective, and tough to test - if you want to get into ABX or DBT then the Sound Science board will fill that need for you. I've seen good results using modestly priced, well-made cables and making some teaks to pretty basic cisco switch - cost about $30 to do. Maybe high end, multi-hundred $$cables work better - doubt it, but open to the idea if I can test them myself.


----------



## bluecar

TiJo said:


> Okay, but if you agree with me here. How does anything matter that comes before the read from disk?
> Essentially you agree, that RF noise can be removed by writing to disk? So why care about RF noise and cables then?
> 
> (And let me say: I even disagree that there is accumulating RF noise over the network)




No...I don't agree on the 'removal of RF noise by writing to disk - how ridiculous. 

And as for RF noise propagating through a network, you may disagree with that - I will respect your view, in the same way as I would respect your view that the earth is flat.


----------



## bfreedma

TiJo said:


> Okay, but if you agree with me here. How does anything matter that comes before the read from disk?
> Essentially you agree, that RF noise can be removed by writing to disk? So why care about RF noise and cables then?
> 
> (And let me say: I even disagree that there is accumulating RF noise over the network)



I don‘t care about RF noise and cables.  You may be confusing my posts with someone else.


----------



## cpurdy

bluenight said:


> Please dont try internet censur. You have bias that it cant sound different. You want to think what you want to think.



*censor

My bias is towards truth. There are others, on this thread, whose bias is towards ripping gullible people off.



teknorob23 said:


> It would be great to hear a bit more about your system and listening tests? i assume you've done the due diligence, tried these products or similar and you are speaking from a position of experience. Otherwise you risk appearing little highhanded dismissing someone else's experience just base on what you think.



I don't have a system. I have too many systems. Because I have the same disease that everyone else here has 🤣

My main office has a pure sine wave AC->DC->AC filter feeding an Ares II into a WA5-LE with a half a dozen different cans, but mostly using the Ether C's balanced. Where I am now, I'm using a portable FLAC DAC with balanced output into some cheaper 1060c planars (bass heavy fun) or custom Laylas (blocking out the rest of the world).

I love beautiful cables and crazy nice gear, just like the next person. And I generally don't mind spending too much to get some desired result, aesthetic or otherwise. And it absolutely makes things sound better, because I want it to. My typical A/B test is A="I don't have what I want, it sounds flat or awful" and B="I have what I want, it sounds awesome".



dmudan said:


> Misinformation? I am not reporting the news, I am reporting my reality and my experience.
> Regardless of the technical theory, there are many people hearing differences between network cables and in product group tests. You obviously believe they are delusional. I certainly am not.
> So when you buy any new product, do you have someone to assist in a blind listening test? If yes then lucky you!



Sure, we already know that people will hear the same exact sound in different ways based on their expectations. I don't doubt that people hear different things if the test is not blind A/B. I don't see anything wrong with that. As I've said before, the important thing is enjoyment. But misleading people on purpose to take their money is wrong, so I don't mind speaking up when I see that happening.

I wish I could do real blind A/B tests, but I can not. (I suppose I could buy the equipment to do so, but I just don't want to.) I like doing my A/B tests by myself, and letting my various biases screw up the results to my own liking. There's nothing wrong with bias, and there's nothing wrong with buying fancy toys that one does not really need. But there is something wrong about being dishonest about something in order to swindle people out of money, so I tend to say something when I see that.



TiJo said:


> If my file can be transmitted bit-perfectly via cheap cables and routers, why does a music file (e.g. an mp3) need better hardware? Since it is bit-perfect, the only bottleneck should be the connection to the DAC right?



A fitting question. Trust me, though, it will sound better if the cables look better. I have personally tested this over and over and it's clearly true. Even if scientifically there is absolutely no difference in the sound.



bluecar said:


> It's not a gross effect, but it definitely causes incorrect blocks in the USB stream, that are ignored by the DAC - tiny errors in the DAC inputs cause tiny errors in transients at the DAC output, giving effects like digital 'grain', or 'darkness' or 'harshness', depending on how the stream was affected in the Streamer, and (bluntly) the quality of the DAC.



Yeah, no. It is possible with USB 1.0, maybe, if the bitstream is at the limit of the USB throughput and the clock is real-time, but since USB 2.0 (or maybe SS, I can't remember), this is impossible. Scientifically impossible.

So, to recap, yes, it was actually possible 25 years ago (1996) that USB could lose data and a DAC would have to fudge the analog output accordingly. Modern USB basically has no way (other than, in theory, emulating the deprecated protocols for old times' sake) to have this happen.



bluecar said:


> Cabling upstream of the player carries noise from every other network component to the ethernet receiver at the player - a bit-perfect copy of whatever music file you send it is delivered to the player, but the received noise affects how well that player converts it to time-series streams. Ethernet is not a digital connection (no such thing really exists) - in each ethernet cable, there are 2 pairs of conductors that carry data.



Yeah, no. It's not that this is theoretically impossible; *it is theoretically possible*. However, no one builds equipment in a manner that would allow it to happen. *No one*.



bfreedma said:


> WiFi, by definition, is galvanically isolated. With no cable connection...



^ *this*!



bluecar said:


> regardless of use, an ethernet connection is a bunch of wires, wrapped into a cable that connects two network cards. Even if there is no data *at all* being sent, ethernet creates several circuits between the two devices. In addition to carrying signals, the ethernet cables will carry any noise in the signal between devices - the cables also act as aerials and collect noise via EMI - unless that noise is detrimental to the ethernet standard, it is largely unmanaged.



Correct. This is all covered by the IEEE 802 specs. Not a problem at all. Absolutely zero influence on the data. And any of this so-called electrical noise is 100% filtered out of the data. It *is possible* that a network card could experience such a substantial amount of noise that it would cause a ripple on e.g. the 5v rail, but that would probably be enough "noise" to fry everything in your PC and the entire room. Furthermore, the designs have gotten far more reliable over time, such that flaws that could theoretically be measured 30 years ago (back when we were using 10-base-2 or 300kb token ring) simply don't exist anymore. I can remember when a vacuum cleaner could mess up a network backup, for example.



bluecar said:


> again, forget the digital aspect of this - that noise transmits freely into your player.



Wrong. There is no logical or scientific basis for this claim.



endless402 said:


> it all comes down to the quality and shielding related to the power supply.
> 
> when i'm listening to my Cayin N6ii, when the wifi is downloading from tidal, i can hear it buzzing in my iem. If i turn off the wifi and play from internal storage, there isn't any buzzing. this is likely because the wifi chip is requiring more power and as a result, is injecting noise into the amps.



I can hear my phone when it is sending/receiving data. For example, in the middle of the night, the iOS does some various scheduled daemon activities, and it wakes me up with the little bits of buzzing _inside of its radio_ and what not. Almost no one besides me can hear it, but it's clearly audible to me, and annoying. (My daughter, also a musician, can hear it as well.) Wireless modems are noisy. Both in terms of their electromagnetic abuses and in terms of the resonance noise that they can create. (I'm not a physicist; I'm not good at explaining what's going on here, because I don't fully understand it.)

An IEM is basically a big antenna with a super efficient means of turning electromagnetic signals into sound. It is super believable to me that your IEMs are picking up interference from your WIFI, and it is even conceivable (albeit unlikely) that your DAC is picking up interference from your WIFI. Your DAC power supply can also, in theory, be affected by substantial electromagnetic noise, although power supplies are supposed to filter that out, and DACs are supposed to filter out noise from their power supplies. So, I would guess that the noise that you hear is coming from the IEMs themselves, caused by the WIFI signals. Just like some people can listen to the radio via silver fillings in their mouths: https://mythbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Tooth_Fillings_Radio_Myth



bluecar said:


> noise affects D/D conversion in the time domain, That's not my opinion, it's a fundamental of DSP. I don't feel the need to share papers or proofs for a concept that's there to read in any yr1 uni textbook for any electrical/electronics engineering course.



You are using words that I know the meanings of, but you are putting them together in ways that I do not recognize. Also, when someone says "I don't feel the need to share papers or proofs", that's usually a dead giveaway that they are spouting nonsense. If you are not spouting nonsense, please take the time to translate what you were thinking into a sentence that an electrical engineer could recognize. Thank you.


----------



## bfreedma

cpurdy said:


> *censor
> 
> My bias is towards truth. There are others, on this thread, whose bias is towards ripping gullible people off.
> 
> ...



Nice synopsis of a lot of topics.

I was going to mention that there seemed to be some confusion between older bus based networks and modern packet switched networks but didn’t think anyone else would remember ARCNet and Token Ring.  We’re older than most here, I suspect. (or I’m old and you really know legacy network topologies).


----------



## endless402

I should clarify, when I said Wi-Fi, I meant the Wi-Fi card being galvanically isolated from the rest of the components via the power supply...


----------



## bluenight

bfreedma said:


> I’m sorry, but your understanding of Ethernet and Wi-Fi are fundamentally incorrect and seem based on vendor marketing material rather than the 802.11 standard.
> 
> I’ve read the standards docs many times and understand them well (professional requirement). I’ve even contributed to a few. They make it abundantly clear that what you describe, for example some rider on the carrier wave in the manner and impact you describe isn’t technically possible. You’re also ignoring all of the buffering and storage between the Ethernet end point and analog or digital output.


 Its an easy thing to say,
prove it then. 
Like the 802.11 standard is the Bible and answer to everything like how the physics of how electricity works and how noise can travel in it.


bluecar said:


> I'm tired of this too - can we talk about Mains Cables and SQ, just for a rest


 You did great explaning how electrical noise can travel in a chain in an relativly easy way to understand. I am saving it in my notebook incase i forget how it works.


cpurdy said:


> My bias is towards truth.


How do you know your not spreading misinformation about noise in electricity is not an real thing effecting audio in a music system chain with digital devices for us to hear? Thats Not effecting the data in ethernet like @blucar explained.
Prove it.
More peoples listening experiences shared online points more to its real, Yes its good to be aware of placebo and what is a real change or not, this i have learned from this thread. An obvious big change i would be certain about like a constant change in tonality for exe.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> Its an easy thing to say,
> prove it then.
> Like the 802.11 standard is the Bible and answer to everything like how the physics of how electricity works and how noise can travel in it.
> You did great explaning how electrical noise can travel in a chain in an relativly easy way to understand. I am saving it in my notebook incase i forget how it works.
> ...




Marketing materials valued over science and documented standards.  How 2020.

Burden of proof is yours here - should be trivially easy for the vendors to produce objective data supporting these claims which would be added to 802.11 in the next update of the standard once peer reviewed.  Yet it never happens, despite how it would drive sales like nothing else...


----------



## cpurdy

bluenight said:


> Its an easy thing to say,
> prove it then.
> Like the 802.11 standard is the Bible and answer to everything like how the physics of how electricity works and how noise can travel in it.



There are various 802 specs, including 802.11.

And for networks, yes, the 802 specs are the Bible of the Ethernet and WiFi religions.



bluenight said:


> How do you know your not spreading misinformation about noise in electricity is not an real thing effecting audio in a music system chain with digital devices for us to hear? Thats Not effecting the data in ethernet like @blucar explained.
> Prove it.
> More peoples listening experiences shared online points more to its real, Yes its good to be aware of placebo and what is a real change or not, this i have learned from this thread. An obvious big change i would be certain about like a constant change in tonality for exe.



I can't quite parse what you're saying.

Sure, there's a placebo effect, and it's quite real. Nothing wrong with it.

But when we're talking about physics, there are no placebos. Or feelings. Just facts.


----------



## teknorob23 (Feb 4, 2021)

cpurdy said:


> There are various 802 specs, including 802.11.
> 
> And for networks, yes, the 802 specs are the Bible of the Ethernet and WiFi religions.
> 
> ...



But facts are subject to change with new discoveries. Developments in hifi have generally come from passionate enthusiasts trying to solve problems, where big corporates dont see a profit. Jitter's a good example. In 80s and 90s audio enthusiasts were reporting it and simultaneously were accused as heretics, now sure enough its a recognised thing. At the time we were marketed to that CD was as good as it could ever get. mmm.  Healthy skepticism is great, but also an acceptance that we now know might be temporary and subject to change is even healthier. All i can suggest is select carefully from companies with trusted returns policies and if you enjoy the results trust your ears. Theres no set of measurments out there, which can measure everything the ear hears.


----------



## dmudan

So it turns out that streaming does actually sound better from the daisy chained Netgear QoS switch - less bright/metallic and smoother.
Different systems will show up different traits more than others - my Marantz PM-KI Ruby and Holo Spring DAC now show me more.


----------



## teknorob23

dmudan said:


> So it turns out that streaming does actually sound better from the daisy chained Netgear QoS switch - less bright/metallic and smoother.
> Different systems will show up different traits more than others - my Marantz PM-KI Ruby and Holo Spring DAC now show me more.



Each switch will remove noise so there should be some incremental benefit, but each switch will also or anything active with mains connection will also emit noise of its own which then piggy back's the data stream. If this is working for you, then try adding a decent filter after the last switch and you'll be amazed, especially with a lovely DAC upstream like the holo spring. Obviously i have a horse in this particular race, but there are other lesser filters available


----------



## Deolum

Hard wiring my system with ethernet instead of using wifi or extender + ethernet seems to be the biggest change i've ever made.


----------



## bluenight (Feb 21, 2021)

I bought one delock 62619 surge protector. And connected it between streamer and switch i did not like the result. Supra cat 8 to streamer from delock and cat 5e from delock to switch. I thought i heard more sizzle in sss in vocals, other then that i cant say i heard a difference. 

Maybe it was the cat 5e that i had to use between delock and switch that made that sound if i speculate or delock it self. That breaks the chain of supra cat 8 all the way for me. I prefered pure supra with no break ups that gives me more peace of mind. I will probebly not waste money getting a 0,5m supra cat 8 to try supra all the way with delock. After all its just a surge protector and most likely wont filter out any usefull noise to be heard. Allthough spec says Inductive galvanic isolation.


----------



## endless402

Yes too many combinations to test. Try a good quality switch in between to see if there’s any difference but that still requires you to get another cable


----------



## bluenight (Apr 24, 2021)

I bought 2 ifi ipower x and replaced the standard power supplys for tp link ax 50  router and netgear gs108 switch. At first day listening i did not hear any difference but one week later i noticed my system have never sounded this good before. So maybe there was som hours burn in time.

From streamer. 
Fatest bass i have heard. Now HD800S is bass king maybe not with sub bass because hp limitation but with mid bass. More warmer smoother bass with more air its like its leaving the hp and hoover more around and more articulate. 

Treble harden up less and sound more sofisticated and detailed less sibilance more articulate.

Less glare and grain in voices. 

Overall a cleaner smoother warmer open richer airier sound with less listening fatigue. Nicer sounding. Details is easier to hear. Probebly more dynamic also because sound dont collapse harden up as much at both ends, mute bass and treble information that was lost . I dont suspect placebo

Even my Apple TV 4k got cleaner/sharper picture with my oled tv and with same sound improvement.


----------



## bluenight

Interesting product. I think this can be a good performer.


----------



## ThanatosVI

bluenight said:


> Interesting product. I think this can be a good performer.



About time this got reviewed, gotta watch later.


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> I bought 2 ifi ipower x and replaced the standard power supplys for tp link ax 50 router and netgear gs108 switch. At first day listening i did not hear any difference but one week later i noticed my system have never sounded this good before. So maybe there was som hours burn in time.



I'd say that you had to get used to new power supplies first, which usually takes some time


----------



## Bastianpp

endless402 said:


> you should upgrade every cable. From experience the cable closest to the streamer is the most sensitive.
> 
> your pc parts are actually quite noisy due to the power supply and type of capacitors, if it’s made of the usual store bought pc parts. Therefore it injects noise into the sound output and by having a better cable, hopefully it reduces the noise transfer to the steamer
> 
> ...


OH MY LORD! What XDDDDDDDDDDD


----------



## iFi audio

Bastianpp said:


> OH MY LORD! What XDDDDDDDDDDD


Looks like a custom server/streamer job with linear PSUs inside


----------



## bluenight (Apr 17, 2021)

Now listening with the original power suplys again to router and switch to be sure it was not placebo.  Now the magic is gone who unpressed the highres Button. Bass lacking thin sounding unclear sound.


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> Now listening with the original power suplys again to router and switch to be sure it was not placebo.



I agree, It's not 

Going back to stuff that performs worse can be painful


----------



## bluenight

I havent figured out yet if cleaner power for router somehow can improve the sound with wifi. Maybe time will tell with more normal listening/viewing. I only use wifi for my oled tvs internal streaming apps though.


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> I havent figured out yet if cleaner power for router somehow can improve the sound with wifi. Maybe time will tell with more normal listening/viewing.



Do you stream music via wifi, or do you use it only to control your streamer device with files stored somewhere?


----------



## bluenight

iFi audio said:


> Do you stream music via wifi, or do you use it only to control your streamer device with files stored somewhere?


I only use wifi for my oled tvs internal apps like netflix, youtube etc. Optical out to hugo 2. I control my streamer with smartphone that uses wifi of course. Tidal connect. But my music streamer and apple tv 4k is wired Ethernet.


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> I only use wifi for my oled tvs internal apps like netflix, youtube etc. Optical out to hugo 2. I control my streamer with smartphone that uses wifi of course. Tidal connect. But my music streamer and apple tv 4k is wired Ethernet.



Recently I got feedback from one our customer who uses a router to provide wireless control for his streamer with internal hard drive. In his case thus a router isn't even in his audio chain, and he still was able to notice a performance spike upon swapping its PSU. So there's something there.


----------



## bluenight

iFi audio said:


> Recently I got feedback from one our customer who uses a router to provide wireless control for his streamer with internal hard drive. In his case thus a router isn't even in his audio chain, and he still was able to notice a performance spike upon swapping its PSU. So there's something there.


So his streamer uses wifi and not wired connection?

And when is ifi going to make bang for the buck Ethernet audio products like maybe filters or switch with your noice cancelation technique?


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> So his streamer uses wifi and not wired connection?



His router goes wired to his streamer, but serves 'only' the purpose of control over it via wifi (a dedicated app on his smarthpone). Many people would argue that in this scenario a router only to control that streamer is way aside the audio chain, so as such it shouldn't affect audio quality in any way possible, but it does. A PSU swap for that router improved sound.


----------



## bluenight (Apr 27, 2021)

iFi audio said:


> His router goes wired to his streamer, but serves 'only' the purpose of control over it via wifi (a dedicated app on his smarthpone). Many people would argue that in this scenario a router only to control that streamer is way aside the audio chain, so as such it shouldn't affect audio quality in any way possible, but it does. A PSU swap for that router improved sound.


I would consider that wired connection though. But he dont seem to stream music over internet you said he listens from hard drive?

After my experience with better psu=better sound for my router and switch with wired connection i would consider them in the chain. The noiser power\frequencies travels through the wired connection to streamer.


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> I would consider that wired connection though. But he dont seem to stream music over internet you said he listens from hard drive?



That's correct. His streamer has in-built SSD for that.



bluenight said:


> After my experience with better psu=better sound for my router and switch with wired connection i would consider them in the chain. The noiser power\frequencies travels through the wired connection to streamer.



Routers seem to be the noisiest, so having a switch should net some audible benefits.


----------



## Serpie

I bought a audioquest cinnamon ethernet cable earlier this year on sale for about 50 euros. I listened carefully before switching to the cinnamon ethernet cable. After switching to the cinnamon cable i heard a bit bitter separation, more air, and maybe a lower noisefloor. I have also tried a Transparent ethernet cable (about 350 euros) afterwards and it also gave an improvement to my stereo. It gave a better sense of space in live recordings. So yes up to a point i think its worth but it all depends on your current rig.


----------



## iFi audio

Serpie said:


> I bought a audioquest cinnamon ethernet cable earlier this year on sale for about 50 euros. I listened carefully before switching to the cinnamon ethernet cable. After switching to the cinnamon cable i heard a bit bitter separation, more air, and maybe a lower noisefloor. I have also tried a Transparent ethernet cable (about 350 euros) afterwards and it also gave an improvement to my stereo. It gave a better sense of space in live recordings. So yes up to a point i think its worth but it all depends on your current rig.



Your observations are pretty much in line with observations of many other forum users who had some experiments with Ethernet cables.


----------



## atya35mm

Hi all, just wanting to check is shorter better for ethernet cable? I think I should be able to make 0.75m work, but I read somewhere minimum of 1 meter for ethernet cable is ideal? Anyone here has experience to back this up? Thanks.


----------



## teknorob23

atya35mm said:


> Hi all, just wanting to check is shorter better for ethernet cable? I think I should be able to make 0.75m work, but I read somewhere minimum of 1 meter for ethernet cable is ideal? Anyone here has experience to back this up? Thanks.



Length doesn’t really effect audio performance in Ethernet cables, or at least it’s marginal especially if you’re looking anything 10m or less. After that, in hyper resolving systems you may here a very slight degradation over longer lengths


----------



## bfreedma

teknorob23 said:


> Length doesn’t really effect audio performance in Ethernet cables, or at least it’s marginal especially if you’re looking anything 10m or less. After that, in hyper resolving systems you may here a very slight degradation over longer lengths



This is not accurate.  Packetized data either arrives and passes error check or it doesn’t.  It’s literally impossible for there to be “slight degradation”, no matter how resolving a system is.  If data isn‘t arriving properly, there would be dropouts, not some EQ like alteration of the audio during playback.

If that wasn’t the case, digital communication via Ethernet simply wouldn’t work.  Ethernet doesn’t “know” what’s in a packet, so audio is no different than any other packetized data.


----------



## iFi audio (Aug 21, 2021)

Oops double!


----------



## iFi audio

atya35mm said:


> Hi all, just wanting to check is shorter better for ethernet cable? I think I should be able to make 0.75m work, but I read somewhere minimum of 1 meter for ethernet cable is ideal? Anyone here has experience to back this up? Thanks.



I'd use whatever is convenient for you


----------



## bluenight

teknorob23 said:


> Length doesn’t really effect audio performance in Ethernet cables, or at least it’s marginal especially if you’re looking anything 10m or less. After that, in hyper resolving systems you may here a very slight degradation over longer lengths


Longer cables maybe pick up more airbourne RFI/Emi?

There is probebly not many that have compared.


----------



## bluenight

After some months listening ifi Ipower x replacing both router and switch power supply. Have been one of the better tweak improvements regarding sound quality for me. Cleaner/clearer sound with alot of bass improvement.


----------



## griff500

iFi audio said:


> Recently I got feedback from one our customer who uses a router to provide wireless control for his streamer with internal hard drive. In his case thus a router isn't even in his audio chain, and he still was able to notice a performance spike upon swapping its PSU. So there's something there.


Possibly related to the "everything that's connected to the circuit forms part of the circuit" idea. Perhaps the power supply was introducing interference into the circuit but obviously(?) not through the WiFi side of things.


----------



## cpurdy

Serpie said:


> I bought a audioquest cinnamon ethernet cable earlier this year on sale for about 50 euros. I listened carefully before switching to the cinnamon ethernet cable. After switching to the cinnamon cable i heard a bit bitter separation, more air, and maybe a lower noisefloor. I have also tried a Transparent ethernet cable (about 350 euros) afterwards and it also gave an improvement to my stereo. It gave a better sense of space in live recordings. So yes up to a point i think its worth but it all depends on your current rig.


There's nothing wrong with buying a nice looking cable and imagining that it somehow magically changes the sound quality, despite physics and math and pesky nonsense like that.

My custom Ethernet cable uses genuine dilithium crystals and a flux capacitor, which provides a larger sound stage and incredible bass. For only $10,000, it was an absolute steal.


----------



## griff500

cpurdy said:


> There's nothing wrong with buying a nice looking cable and imagining that it somehow magically changes the sound quality, despite physics and math and pesky nonsense like that.
> 
> My custom Ethernet cable uses genuine dilithium crystals and a flux capacitor, which provides a larger sound stage and incredible bass. For only $10,000, it was an absolute steal.


Are you a teenager?


----------



## cpurdy

griff500 said:


> Are you a teenager?


Only at heart 🤣


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> Are you a teenager?



No, he's an adult with an education on how Ethernet actually works.


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> No, he's an adult with an education on how Ethernet actually works.


You must be his Dad. Sort him out...


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> You must be his Dad. Sort him out...



Right after you provide a technical explanation of how Ethernet cables can consistently and repeatedly alter sound of packetized data within the 802 standards.  

IF this was a problem, it would be trivially easy to show supporting data.  Just analyze the packets at the endpoint and show how two cables supply different data - of course, if this was the case and error correction didn't work, Ethernet wouldn't work either.  Not for audio, not for financial transactions, not for medical use...

Good luck.


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> Right after you provide a technical explanation of how Ethernet cables can consistently and repeatedly alter sound of packetized data within the 802 standards.
> 
> IF this was a problem, it would be trivially easy to show supporting data.  Just analyze the packets at the endpoint and show how two cables supply different data - of course, if this was the case and error correction didn't work, Ethernet wouldn't work either.  Not for audio, not for financial transactions, not for medical use...
> 
> Good luck.


If it was only about ones and zeros then you would be correct, but it's not. Your strawman argument is rather silly - nobody who hears a difference claims that the data has been altered.

The one thing we should be able to agree on is that neither will convince the other. You believe it makes no difference and I have heard a difference. 

I don't think there's any sense in further discussion, unless you want to share details of your system and the cables you have tried that you found made no difference.


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> If it was only about ones and zeros then you would be correct, but it's not. Your strawman argument is rather silly - nobody who hears a difference claims that the data has been altered.
> 
> The one thing we should be able to agree on is that neither will convince the other. You believe it makes no difference and I have heard a difference.
> 
> I don't think there's any sense in further discussion, unless you want to share details of your system and the cables you have tried that you found made no difference.




Ethernet IS all about ones and zeros operating within the 802 protocols.  What else is there?
Ethernet is error corrected and galvanically isolated, so data is guaranteed and external electric fields aren't able to be transmitted through the isolated connector.
So if the data isn't being altered and no electrical interference can occur, what is being altered that would impact audio reproduction?  Be specific.

You know what Ethernet cables banks and hospitals use for critical data?  Standard, inexpensive cables.  And they are highly regulated, with both money and lives at stake.

This is hard science.  It's the word of a few "high end" cable hucksters vs the 802 standard, billions of Ethernet end points, and trillions of data packets correctly sent and received daily.  It's entirely on you to prove otherwise and sighted subjective evaluation isn't going to get you there.


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> Ethernet IS all about ones and zeros operating within the 802 protocols.  What else is there?
> Ethernet is error corrected and galvanically isolated, so data is guaranteed and external electric fields aren't able to be transmitted through the isolated connector.
> So if the data isn't being altered and no electrical interference can occur, what is being altered that would impact audio reproduction?  Be specific.
> 
> ...


It's not up to me to prove anything and certainly not to you - only to myself and my ears. Thinking that 'science' has all the answers is not particularly scientific.

It's not just about data - the entire system is also about keeping noise and interference as low as possible in order to produce the best sound possible. Introducing banks and hospitals into the discussion is daft and has no relevance - the banks are not looking for better sounding money.

I have no doubt that you believe what you are saying but you clearly have not tried it. As you like 'science', you might like to keep in mind that experimenting is a big part of it and it often reveals unexpected outcomes. A scientific mind is an enquiring mind and not one that thinks they have all the answers and nothing more is left to be discovered.

I said earlier that I don't think there's any sense in further discussion. I am now certain of it.


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> It's not up to me to prove anything and certainly not to you - only to myself and my ears. Thinking that 'science' has all the answers is not particularly scientific.
> 
> It's not just about data - the entire system is also about keeping noise and interference as low as possible in order to produce the best sound possible. Introducing banks and hospitals into the discussion is daft and has no relevance - the banks are not looking for better sounding money.
> 
> ...



You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Ethernet and packetized data functions.  And yes, it is science/engineering - who do you think developed the standards and associated technology.  How do you think so many diverse devices communicate reliably over Ethernet?  Magic?

Again, with error correction and galvanization (eliminates interference and noise), what else could impact an Ethernet connection?  You keep saying there is something - what is it?

Explain how audio data is different than financial data transmitted via Ethernet - provide some details as to how any device in the chain identifies the difference between packets containing audio data and any other type of data.  Hint - there isn't any difference.

All that said, you seem to believe the 802 standard is incomplete/incorrect.  Tell you what:  you write it up and I will get you a slot in front of the right 802 subcommittee to present your findings.  If it's the 802 subcommittee I'm a member of, I'll be there for the presentation as well.

Bottom line - my position is based on the 802 standards and trillions of packets successfully delivered, error checked, error corrected, and processed daily.  Your position is based on parroting what a bunch of "high end" cable vendors use as marketing materials, including some on this very thread.  Congratulations on perfectly encapsulating 2021, where science and knowledge is discounted and the subjective opinions of those with a profit motive take precedence.


----------



## teknorob23

bfreedma said:


> You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Ethernet and packetized data functions.  And yes, it is science/engineering - who do you think developed the standards and associated technology.  How do you think so many diverse devices communicate reliably over Ethernet?  Magic?
> 
> Again, with error correction and galvanization (eliminates interference and noise), what else could impact an Ethernet connection?  You keep saying there is something - what is it?
> 
> ...



ethernet cables effect on the audio, really is nothing to do with packets or changing the data in anyway. You are right ethernet is a robust way for delivering data, but it wasnt designed with audio in mind. The biggest issue effecting audio performance is the transmission of electronic (main RF) noise, picked up from around your network and transmitted via the ethernet cable acting if you will, like an antenna. This noise then piggy backs the data and enters the streamer which is highly sensitive to the effects noise brings, ie vibration and jitter which in turn causes an adverse effect when it comes to the DA conversion later in the chain.  For the majority of applications ethernet works seamlessly, but in audio the physical connection and the noise which can be transmitted does effect the way your streamer and DAC perform and consequently the sound we hear.


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Ethernet and packetized data functions.  And yes, it is science/engineering - who do you think developed the standards and associated technology.  How do you think so many diverse devices communicate reliably over Ethernet?  Magic?
> 
> Again, with error correction and galvanization (eliminates interference and noise), what else could impact an Ethernet connection?  You keep saying there is something - what is it?
> 
> ...


Why keep pursuing this? Surely you must even be boring yourself by now...

Again, it's not about data and reliable communication between devices. The standards that you keep banging on about exist solely to ensure correct delivery of data. I do not have a misunderstanding about this.

I am not "parroting" anyone - I am reporting the same subjective findings that lots of other people have also found. 

You might not have noticed, but the topic is to "share your listening experience". How about doing that?


----------



## bfreedma

teknorob23 said:


> ethernet cables effect on the audio, really is nothing to do with packets or changing the data in anyway. You are right ethernet is a robust way for delivering data, but it wasnt designed with audio in mind. The biggest issue effecting audio performance is the transmission of electronic (main RF) noise, picked up from around your network and transmitted via the ethernet cable acting if you will, like an antenna. This noise then piggy backs the data and enters the streamer which is highly sensitive to the effects noise brings, ie vibration and jitter which in turn causes an adverse effect when it comes to the DA conversion later in the chain.  For the majority of applications ethernet works seamlessly, but in audio the physical connection and the noise which can be transmitted does effect the way your streamer and DAC perform and consequently the sound we hear.



I keep posting that Ethernet is galvanically isolated and you keep ignoring it - do you know what "galvanically isolated" means?  Every Ethernet cable following the 802 standard (which should be all cables) has galvanic isolation built into the connectors.  It isn't external electrical noise riding on the connection because it can't be.  Try again.  "Vibration"?  Did you seriously just post that vibration impacts Ethernet?  Come on...

Frankly, someone identifying as member of the trade titled "Network Acoustics" should at least understand the basics.  You clearly do not.  Same offer for you though - if you feel the 802 standards are incorrect/incomplete, even for audio, write it up and I'll get you in front of the appropriate 802 subcommittee.   I've offered this dozens of times to cable vendors and cable proponents, yet no one ever actually does the write up.  I wonder why...

I don't expect you too either.  Can't let facts get in the way of sales, can we.


----------



## teknorob23

bfreedma said:


> I keep posting that Ethernet is galvanically isolated and you keep ignoring it - do you know what "galvanically isolated" means?  Every Ethernet cable following the 802 standard (which should be all cables) has galvanic isolation built into the connectors.  It isn't external electrical noise riding on the connection because it can't be.  Try again.  "Vibration"?  Did you seriously just post that vibration impacts Ethernet?  Come on...
> 
> Frankly, someone identifying as member of the trade titled "Network Acoustics" should at least understand the basics.  You clearly do not.  Same offer for you though - if you feel the 802 standards are incorrect/incomplete, even for audio, write it up and I'll get you in front of the appropriate 802 subcommittee.   I've offered this dozens of times to cable vendors and cable proponents, yet no one ever actually does the write up.  I wonder why...
> 
> I don't expect you too either.  Can't let facts get in the way of sales, can we.



Galvanic isolation is of limited effectiveness when it comes to rfi.


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> Why keep pursuing this? Surely you must even be boring yourself by now...
> 
> Again, it's not about data and reliable communication between devices. The standards that you keep banging on about exist solely to ensure correct delivery of data. I do not have a misunderstanding about this.
> 
> ...




I keep pursuing this because I'm tired of seeing vendors take advantage of consumers who lack the knowledge to properly identify the marketing spin.

In the long run, this will be solved by new truth in marketing regulation that are about two years away from being adopted.  I'm looking forward to that day, when vendors need to actually prove their performance claims, not merely make them.

The "share your experience" is just a red herring for two reasons. 
1 - I've done enough analysis to vet the 802 standards
2 - Suggesting someone needs personal experience to vet science is absurd.  Do I need to jump off the Empire State Building to prove the law of gravity functions on that particular building or can I accept that gravitational science is well established?  The "try it yourself" mantra is simply a crutch for consumers who need to defend their purchase through group think rather than the engineering realities.


----------



## bfreedma

teknorob23 said:


> Galvanic isolation is of limited effectiveness when it comes to rfi.



Limited how?  Be specific.  What RFI isn't remediated by the galvanically isolated connector?  As the cable's external material is nonconductive and the wired connection is galvanically isolated, how is that RFI entering the circuit?

I've designed and worked in data centers that have hundreds of times the RFI likely to be found in any house.  Yet the OOB galvanic isolation works perfectly in these industrial sites but not for home audio?

Look, I know you want to sell product, but your knowledge of Ethernet and associated data transmission are woefully inadequate.  You keep tossing out words with zero supporting evidence.


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> I keep posting that Ethernet is galvanically isolated and you keep ignoring it - do you know what "galvanically isolated" means?  Every Ethernet cable following the 802 standard (which should be all cables) has galvanic isolation built into the connectors.  It isn't external electrical noise riding on the connection because it can't be.  Try again.  "Vibration"?  Did you seriously just post that vibration impacts Ethernet?  Come on...
> 
> Frankly, someone identifying as member of the trade titled "Network Acoustics" should at least understand the basics.  You clearly do not.  Same offer for you though - if you feel the 802 standards are incorrect/incomplete, even for audio, write it up and I'll get you in front of the appropriate 802 subcommittee.   I've offered this dozens of times to cable vendors and cable proponents, yet no one ever actually does the write up.  I wonder why...
> 
> I don't expect you too either.  Can't let facts get in the way of sales, can we.


People who throw around the word 'facts'...

Galvanic isolation is designed to do a specific job. It doesn't mean that things cannot be improved or that it's 100% effective at dealing with all interference that might come it's way. Even a diver's watch is only waterproof (or even water resistant) to a certain depth.

I suspect the appropriate subcommittee would tell you that the standards are not designed for audio and that the relevant standards are designed to ensure the integrity of data transfer. They might also ask why you are wasting their time with this.

Insulting people with an opposing point of view is always a persuasive approach...

How about accepting that people have different points of view based on their experience and leaving it there instead of banging on and on and on.


bfreedma said:


> Do I need to jump off the Empire State Building to prove the law of gravity functions on that particular building or can I accept that gravitational science is well established?  The "try it yourself" mantra is simply a crutch for consumers who need to defend their purchase through group think rather than the engineering realities.


Using that analogy is lazy and quite ridiculous. I don't believe anyone has ever jumped off the Empire State Building, got up and said "that didn't hurt at all". Discussing the potential for an ethernet cable to have an effect on sound quality in the system it is attached to is not equivalent to doubting gravity...

Maybe get a grip and find something more positive to do? Nobody needs to be saved by you but thanks anyway.


----------



## griff500 (Aug 25, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> I've designed and worked in data centers that have hundreds of times the RFI likely to be found in any house.


Yes, but how did the servers sound? Oh, wait...

Again, you might not have noticed, but the topic is to "share your listening experience". How about doing that?


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> People who throw around the word 'facts'...
> 
> Galvanic isolation is designed to do a specific job. It doesn't mean that things cannot be improved or that it's 100% effective at dealing with all interference that might come it's way. Even a diver's watch is only waterproof (or even water resistant) to a certain depth.
> 
> ...



Ethernet and the 802 standards were written to ensure accurate data communications.  Again, packetized data isn't audio data or non audio data - it's just data.

You suspect wrong about asking the appropriate subcommittee would lead to learning that "Ethernet wasn't designed for audio".  That question has been raised by "cable believers" multiple times and has been rejected due to lack of evidence on each occasion by the involved subcoms.  As a member of one of the 802 committees, I have access to this history and can state with certainty that your assumptions are incorrect.

No matter how much it forces you to confront what you've invested in cables, 802 operation is not subjective.  If you have a differing point of view, it is entirely incumbent on you to prove it.

I find it both ironic and disappointing that someone sticking to the factual operational model of 802 is told to "get a grip and find something positive to do" while those that rely on vendor claims and subjective opinions somehow feel these trump vetted science.


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> Yes, but how did the servers sound? Oh, wait...
> 
> Again, you might not have noticed, but the topic is to "share your listening experience". How about doing that?



On my side of this debate:
My listening experience is that Ethernet cables don't impact sound
The 802 standard ensures Ethernet cables don't impact sound
No peer reviewed evidence or controlled testing exists showing Ethernet cables impact sound.

On your side of the debate:
You have sighted subjective observations with zero controls and no ability to address expectation bias or placebo
You have vendors with a profit motive


----------



## griff500

After some time I replaced the upgraded ethernet cable with the original one and the sound quality was worse - immediately and easily noticeable. I really do not need to confront anything about my purchasing decisions and it is not incumbent on me to prove anything to you. Instead of that, I'll enjoy my music, which sounds a lot better with this cable.

Expectation bias is a two-way street. My firm expectation was that an ethernet cable would make no difference to a digital signal, but I thought I would give it a go anyway, with the ability to return the cable. I was wrong. Of course, you will continue to believe that everyone who says they hear a difference is wrong and it won't raise any curiosity whatsoever in your enquiring scientific mind...



bfreedma said:


> My listening experience is that Ethernet cables don't impact sound


Are you in danger of getting on topic? Perhaps you could share what cables you tried and what the components are in your system?


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> After some time I replaced the upgraded ethernet cable with the original one and the sound quality was worse - immediately and easily noticeable. I really do not need to confront anything about my purchasing decisions and it is not incumbent on me to prove anything to you. Instead of that, I'll enjoy my music, which sounds a lot better with this cable.
> 
> Expectation bias is a two-way street. My firm expectation was that an ethernet cable would make no difference to a digital signal, but I thought I would give it a go anyway, with the ability to return the cable. I was wrong. Of course, you will continue to believe that everyone who says they hear a difference is wrong and it won't raise any curiosity whatsoever in your enquiring scientific mind...
> 
> ...




You keep trying to pass the burdon of proof to me as if I'm the one making any claim, let alone one that would require adjustment of known standards.

Since sighted subjective testing is too flawed for any scientific analysis, feel free to provide documentation of how you tested.


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> You keep trying to pass the burdon of proof to me as if I'm the one making any claim, let alone one that would require adjustment of known standards.
> 
> Since sighted subjective testing is too flawed for any scientific analysis, feel free to provide documentation of how you tested.


I didn't ask you to prove anything.

I did ask what cables you have tried and what components you use in your system. Perhaps you missed that question?


----------



## bfreedma

Hopefully members reading this who may be considering whether to invest in an expensive Ethernet cable now have some counterbalance to the vendor marketing and purely subjective opinions being presented in this thread as fact.


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> I didn't ask you to prove anything.
> 
> I did ask what cables you have tried and what components you use in your system. Perhaps you missed that question?




I'm not listing equipment because it's irrelevant - I don't value my sighted subjective opinions any more than I value yours.

What I do value are facts and hard data, something entirely absent from your assessment.

I also value presenting information in this thread that may enable those considering expensive Ethernet cables to properly determine the value (or lack thereof) of that investment.  Why does that bother you so much?


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> I'm not listing equipment because it's irrelevant - I don't value my sighted subjective opinions any more than I value yours.
> 
> What I do value are facts and hard data, something entirely absent from your assessment.
> 
> I also value presenting information in this thread that may enable those considering expensive Ethernet cables to properly determine the value (or lack thereof) of that investment.  Why does that bother you so much?


It's a thread about people's listening experience. You're not presenting any information in this regard - just banging on and on that it doesn't make any difference. We get it - you said the same when the topic started and for some reason you feel obliged to keep repeating it. Isn't there a part of the forum for sound science? This isn't it.

You said your listening experience was that ethernet cables make no difference. It's entirely pertinent to ask what cables you used and with what equipment.

I'm not sure why you are so shy about saying what's in your system and what cables you have allegedly tried. I can guess though.


----------



## bfreedma (Aug 25, 2021)

griff500 said:


> It's a thread about people's listening experience. You're not presenting any information in this regard - just banging on and on that it doesn't make any difference. We get it - you said the same when the topic started and for some reason you feel obliged to keep repeating it. Isn't there a part of the forum for sound science? This isn't it.
> 
> You said your listening experience was that ethernet cables make no difference. It's entirely pertinent to ask what cables you used and with what equipment.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are so shy about saying what's in your system and what cables you have allegedly tried. I can guess though.



You would be wrong, but if you’re that interested in my gear, it’s in my profile 

My listening experience aligns with the hard science upon which Ethernet is constructed. There is no audible difference.

I don’t post here in response to subjective opinions. But when someone posts that there is hard science supporting these claims, I ask for the details behind the claim.  Which is never provided by those making hard claims


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> You would be wrong, but if you’re that interested in my gear, it’s in my profile
> 
> My listening experience aligns with the hard science upon which Ethernet is constructed. There is no audible difference.
> 
> I don’t post here in response to subjective opinions. But when someone posts that there is hard science supporting these claims, I ask for the details behind the claim.  Which is never provided by those making hard claims


Of course I'm interested in gear - why on earth would anyone who is not interested in HiFi gear be a member here?

You still haven't said what cables you've tried, despite having said that you have tried and despite me having asked you several times.

Sorry, but saying that you only posted because someone said that there is 'hard science supporting these claims' is BS. 

Somebody posted a positive subjective experience in a thread that hadn't been posted in since April 2021 and you were immediately in there telling people it makes no difference. I've no idea why you feel the need to do this but there always seem to be a few that just cannot resist these threads.

Seriously buddy, get a life. It's a thread about people's listening experience with ethernet cables. Either post on topic or go and bang on about this in the sound science thread and let people get on with discussing their own opinions and experience with this. You're not saving anyone and you won't convince anyone, just like I cannot convince you that all of the people who say they find there to be a difference might mean that it might be worth investigating.

I'm quite happy for you to have your opinion - you might extend the courtesy of letting others have theirs. That really should be the end of it, unless you just cannot let it go. I'm done though.


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> Of course I'm interested in gear - why on earth would anyone who is not interested in HiFi gear be a member here?
> 
> You still haven't said what cables you've tried, despite having said that you have tried and despite me having asked you several times.
> 
> ...



You conveniently ignore that the title of the thread includes “Worth it to buy more expensive ones?”   That is the statement my posts are directed toward.  Not sure why you have an issue with that, but I am clearly on topic as spending money for zero improvement is by definition, not worth it. 

Then again, you seem to feel that it’s fine for you to discuss your opinion but not ok for me to discuss mine. Let alone discussing hard engineering facts

I’ve repeatedly asked for you to support your hard performance claims with something other than your opinion. Apparently, you can’t and can only resort to insults and attempts at censorship 

My posts won’t be relevant to anyone not interested in the reality of how Ethernet operates (like you).  Others, who want to know if “it’s worth it” based on the operational parameters of Ethernet may well find these post valuable and invest their hard earned money into something that actually improves audio reproduction like transducers


----------



## griff500

bfreedma said:


> You conveniently ignore that the title of the thread includes “Worth it to buy more expensive ones?”   That is the statement my posts are directed toward.  Not sure why you have an issue with that, but I am clearly on topic as spending money for zero improvement is by definition, not worth it.
> 
> Then again, you seem to feel that it’s fine for you to discuss your opinion but not ok for me to discuss mine. Let alone discussing hard engineering facts
> 
> ...


Good grief. 

I have not made 'hard performance claims' - I have reported the same subjective findings that nearly everyone who has tried it has reported. Attempts at censorship? Insults? 

It seems somewhat arrogant for you to think people will find your posts valuable, and particularly when they are purely theoretical.

The OP asked whether it was worth it and asked for people's experience with this. He tried for himself (there's a rather strange concept), found improvements and reported his experience. The OP's question has already been answered quite some time ago by his own experience in his own system - it was worth it to him and he found an improvement. Your 'fact' is that he didn't... 

He was unfortunately subjected to insults, ridicule and what amounted to bullying behaviour. This does not seem to be particularly unusual in these sorts of topics.

Lots more people reported improvements, often despite their assumptions that it wouldn't make any difference, but it seems they are all wrong.  Some sort of mass psychosis going on. Thank goodness you are here to save the day.

The weirdest thing about this is that, for some unknown reason, you just cannot let it go. You're still banging the same old drum two years later in the same thread whenever anyone is daft enough to say they tried it and found an improvement. It's rather odd behaviour.

I'll be putting you on ignore so that I don't get sucked into wasting any more time on this. I should have done it pages ago...


----------



## bfreedma (Aug 25, 2021)

griff500 said:


> Good grief.
> 
> I have not made 'hard performance claims' - I have reported the same subjective findings that nearly everyone who has tried it has reported. Attempts at censorship? Insults?
> 
> ...



My posts are theoretical?  You have this 100% wrong.  My posts are based on the 802 standards and decades of existing hard data around Ethernet operations.  It’s you who is discussing entirely unproven theory.

If the definition of science is now “what a lot of people believe” rather than verifiable data, we are all in trouble.  Lots of people claim to have seen Bigfoot, claim the world is flat, etc.  I don’t believe their unsupported claims either.  Do you?

Edit:  I see you’re having this same conflict in other threads.  I guess if I bought an Ethernet cable that sells for $400 per meter, I’d be attempting to defend that regardless of the actual engineering reality.


----------



## bluenight (Aug 28, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> I keep posting that Ethernet is galvanically isolated and you keep ignoring it - do you know what "galvanically isolated" means? Every Ethernet cable following the 802 standard (which should be all cables) has galvanic isolation built into the connectors. It isn't external electrical noise riding on the connection because it can't be. Try again. "Vibration"? Did you seriously just post that vibration impacts Ethernet? Come on...


The galvanic isolation most be to some extent in some limits. I think the noise we are talking about that effects audio dont go over the threshold where it can make stuff malfunction. The data is just electric voltage signals to my understanding and that passes on and probebly with it noise of some sort. Why would noise in ethernet wire cables be something magical dead set vaIue, i belive in gradations of noise.   Does anything exist without gradations? Maybe that would be the odd thing "Ethernet the stop dead halt of everything Except magical data".
I guess you need to cut the wired ethernet cable to be compleatly isolated but no data (electrical signals) will pass then neither. 

If it was galvanicaly isolated completely would this occour then? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-54239180.amp


----------



## Dawnrazor

Here is an explanation from an engineer that might help this discussion:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386


----------



## bluenight (Sep 4, 2021)

I





Dawnrazor said:


> Here is an explanation from an engineer that might help this discussion:
> 
> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386


I have posted that before somwhere in the thread. Now i edited my first post, i put the link there, because its the best explenation i know trying to explain.

The hardcore data guys thinks its marketing bs though.


----------



## Dawnrazor

bluenight said:


> I
> I have posted that before somwhere in the thread. Now i edited my first post, i put the link there, because its the best explenation i know trying to explain.
> 
> The hardcore data guys thinks its marketing bs though.


Oh.  I missed it!  Yeah they will think its BS because it contradicts their dogma.  Though the guy is an engineer with a ton of experience in the field and has engineered dacs and other devices too.


----------



## bfreedma

Dawnrazor said:


> Oh.  I missed it!  Yeah they will think its BS because it contradicts their dogma.  Though the guy is an engineer with a ton of experience in the field and has engineered dacs and other devices too.



It’s BS because it contradicts facts, not because it contradicts dogma.  This ”engineer” has literally invented problems that don’t exist then “invented” a device he sells to solve that non problem. John Swenson’s background is in silicon design, not Ethernet and it shows.

Swenson is not exactly what I’d call an impartial or objective review and/or reviewer.  There’s a reason no one with actual Ethernet industry history makes or promotes these items.

As always, I’ll be first in line to buy these products IF the manufacturer can show hard data demonstrating audible improvement.  Been saying that for several decades - still waiting on a single vendor to produce that evidence.


----------



## bluenight (Sep 4, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> It’s BS because it contradicts facts, not because it contradicts dogma.  This ”engineer” has literally invented problems that don’t exist then “invented” a device he sells to solve that non problem. John Swenson’s background is in silicon design, not Ethernet and it shows.
> 
> Swenson is not exactly what I’d call an impartial or objective review and/or reviewer.  There’s a reason no one with actual Ethernet industry history makes or promotes these items.
> 
> As always, I’ll be first in line to buy these products IF the manufacturer can show hard data demonstrating audible improvement.  Been saying that for several decades - still waiting on a single vendor to produce that evidence.


Sure fair enough but. Listening to music and evaluating sound is purely a subjective experience for me at least and probebly the majority in the hobby although its not a contest if one is in the majority or not but yes people are different. And many here a difference. Yes it would be great if they could show measurements of how it improve. It seems like nobody really know what to measure here but they know how to engineer and experiment with listening evaluation maybe.


----------



## Dawnrazor

bfreedma said:


> It’s BS because it contradicts facts, not because it contradicts dogma.  This ”engineer” has literally invented problems that don’t exist then “invented” a device he sells to solve that non problem. John Swenson’s background is in silicon design, not Ethernet and it shows.
> 
> Swenson is not exactly what I’d call an impartial or objective review and/or reviewer.  There’s a reason no one with actual Ethernet industry history makes or promotes these items.
> 
> As always, I’ll be first in line to buy these products IF the manufacturer can show hard data demonstrating audible improvement.  Been saying that for several decades - still waiting on a single vendor to produce that evidence.


He is an engineer.  no need for the quotes and afaik its not just silicon design but power supplies, ethernet chips, dacs, etc.  

https://www.audioshark.org/computer-digital-audio-11/ethernet-switch-box-19041-page2.html#post316536

sounds like Ethernet industry history to me.  I just love the cynicism.  The guy was an engineer in silicon valley making good dough but created a company to sell audiophile switches, because he is evil and needs money.  Why can't it just be that he heard the issue and as a good engineer, is figuring out a solution? I bet he heard differences with his dac and figured out what was going on. 

Here is a vid from an engineer who designs network dacs.  He explains the difference of bits or data for other things like GPS and how its different for audio.


----------



## bluenight (Sep 6, 2021)

Dawnrazor said:


> He is an engineer.  no need for the quotes and afaik its not just silicon design but power supplies, ethernet chips, dacs, etc.
> 
> https://www.audioshark.org/computer-digital-audio-11/ethernet-switch-box-19041-page2.html#post316536
> 
> ...



Great video. I ve been thinking my next uppgrade to be an ifi spdif iPurifier2 which takes care of the clocking. From my optical out from tv and spdif out from streamer. I hope the it can improve the sound i am still sceptical if it will. When i try and hear it will know for sure. My optical cabel allredy have low jitter. But one guy here who seemed very knowledgeable said earlier that reclocking is just a marketing gimmick and that it cant fix jitter when is there from the beggining of source or something like that. About the Violectric  DHA V590 internal femto clock reclocking i am not sure if hes right. How can reclocking fix a broken jittery signal?


----------



## The Jester

All happens at the final conversion, if the DAC has a good clock, power supply, galvanic isolation etc it should be fine …


----------



## griff500

The Jester said:


> All happens at the final conversion, if the DAC has a good clock, power supply, galvanic isolation etc it should be fine …


'Should' is the key word and 'fine' seems equivalent to adequate.


----------



## The Jester

Totally dependant on the DAC involved for sure, some like the Chord DAC’s have had very good results with jitter measurements, but there are so many variables out there in cables, DACs, filters, reclockers etc all we can do is try it and see, going by recommendations of other systems will get you so far, after that it’s down to YMMV …


----------



## redrol

Of course ethernet cables do nothing to audio.  Of course ethernet switches do nothing to audio.


----------



## griff500

Yes they do and yes they do.

I feel the discussion has progressed nicely.


----------



## redrol

There is nothing to discuss.  This is placebo and nothing else.


----------



## griff500

Presumably based on your practical experience rather than just theoretical.


----------



## Dawnrazor

The Jester said:


> All happens at the final conversion, if the DAC has a good clock, power supply, galvanic isolation etc it should be fine …


yep.  Do you know of a dac that is totally immune?


----------



## The Jester

Totally is a big word,
I don’t swap DACs that often, used an Eximus DP1 with its then new Xmos USB input for over 5 years with for me great results,
recent upgrade to a Chord MScaler/Qutest is better again,
Have a look at some reviewed measurements of Chord DACs in particular the jitter levels …


----------



## Dawnrazor

The Jester said:


> Totally is a big word,
> I don’t swap DACs that often, used an Eximus DP1 with its then new Xmos USB input for over 5 years with for me great results,
> recent upgrade to a Chord MScaler/Qutest is better again,
> Have a look at some reviewed measurements of Chord DACs in particular the jitter levels …


I was looking at the Qutest but I saw a review where a guy owned it and thought he was done with dacs.  But he ended up with another dac and while on swapping the Qutest was better, he kept coming back to the other dac and eventually sold the Qutest.   I am betting my house that that dac is horrible in the measurement departments.....  I bought that dac and really dig it.


----------



## The Jester

Dawnrazor said:


> I was looking at the Qutest but I saw a review where a guy owned it and thought he was done with dacs.  But he ended up with another dac and while on swapping the Qutest was better, he kept coming back to the other dac and eventually sold the Qutest.   I am betting my house that that dac is horrible in the measurement departments.....  I bought that dac and really dig it.


Depends On the rest of the system and our own preferences, too much can be made of measurements … S/N ratio without any measurement of noise floor modulation, THD figures that don’t highlight differences between smoother sounding 2nd harmonics and less pleasant 3rd harmonics,
with Jitter levels though less is usually better …


----------



## cpurdy (Sep 10, 2021)

teknorob23 said:


> ethernet cables effect on the audio, really is nothing to do with packets or changing the data in anyway. You are right ethernet is a robust way for delivering data, but it wasnt designed with audio in mind. The biggest issue effecting audio performance is the transmission of electronic (main RF) noise, picked up from around your network and transmitted via the ethernet cable acting if you will, like an antenna. This noise then piggy backs the data and enters the streamer which is highly sensitive to the effects noise brings, ie vibration and jitter which in turn causes an adverse effect when it comes to the DA conversion later in the chain.  For the majority of applications ethernet works seamlessly, but in audio the physical connection and the noise which can be transmitted does effect the way your streamer and DAC perform and consequently the sound we hear.


This ^ is just made up bullsh1t.

To get sufficient noise on the cable to impact electronics on either end, you'd be completely destroying the data going on the wire. Unless you're placing a running a vacuum cleaner and hair drier on top of the ethernet cable, you're not experiencing this.

And if you have a DAC with a crappy enough design (a single packet sized buffer?) that it could be effected by a dropped (and then automatically re-sent) ethernet packet, then seriously, W.T.F?!?



griff500 said:


> After some time I replaced the upgraded ethernet cable with the original one and the sound quality was worse - immediately and easily noticeable. I really do not need to confront anything about my purchasing decisions and it is not incumbent on me to prove anything to you. Instead of that, I'll enjoy my music, which sounds a lot better with this cable.
> 
> Expectation bias is a two-way street. My firm expectation was that an ethernet cable would make no difference to a digital signal, but I thought I would give it a go anyway, with the ability to return the cable. I was wrong. Of course, you will continue to believe that everyone who says they hear a difference is wrong and it won't raise any curiosity whatsoever in your enquiring scientific mind...


If it wasn't a reproducible, double-blind test, then it's just the placebo effect.

There's nothing wrong with the placebo effect. It's an awesome effect. If it makes your enjoyment of audio better, then by all means, turn up the placebo! I personally rely on the placebo effect all of the time, and have no shame in doing so. I spend good money on AV placebo equipment. And I love it.

But I am careful not to mislead others about the difference between reality and placebo.



griff500 said:


> It seems somewhat arrogant for you to think people will find your posts valuable, and particularly when they are purely theoretical.


We seem to have different understandings of the word "theoretical".





On the one hand, we have actual, measured, tested, real-world proven, fifty years worth of proof that basic datagram packets over Ethernet could experience an error rate of statistical zero (not actual zero, but close enough that you are unlikely to experience a single such error in your lifetime). And that's before you add on any high level protocols that can easily provide an actual zero error rate.

On the other hand, we have people making ridiculous, anti-reality claims, backed up solely by "I may sell these expensive cables to make money, but trust me, I can hear the difference!"



bluenight said:


> The galvanic isolation most be to some extent in some limits. I think the noise we are talking about that effects audio dont go over the threshold where it can make stuff malfunction. The data is just electric voltage signals to my understanding and that passes on and probebly with it noise of some sort. Why would noise in ethernet wire cables be something magical dead set vaIue, i belive in gradations of noise.   Does anything exist without gradations? Maybe that would be the odd thing "Ethernet the stop dead halt of everything Except magical data".
> I guess you need to cut the wired ethernet cable to be compleatly isolated but no data (electrical signals) will pass then neither.
> 
> If it was galvanicaly isolated completely would this occour then? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-54239180.amp


Yes. Digital data is "just electric [sic] voltage signals". Sure, a few trillion dollars has been made by figuring out how to correctly deal with those "just electric [sic] voltage signals". Minor little start-ups like Intel, ARM, Asus, AMD, Fairchild, Apple, AT&T, Acer, IBM, TSMC, Samsung, Honeywell, Western Digital, SK Hynix, ...

Dealing with those signals let us go to the moon. Allowed us to decode the human genome. Let's us fairly accurately predict weather. Take pictures of distant galaxies. Carry an always-connected combination GPS + computer + telephony device in your pocket. Little things like that.

As an audio equipment maker, you'd have to be pretty stupid to route noise from the PHY of the NIC into your amplifier, but I guess that is possible to achieve, if you wanted to. However, I'd suggest avoiding audio equipment from anyone who designs their equipment to route noise from the PHY of the NIC into the analog output from the DAC.

And the article that you linked to has nothing to do with Ethernet.


----------



## teknorob23

cpurdy said:


> This ^ is just made up bullsh1t.
> 
> To get sufficient noise on the cable to impact electronics on either end, you'd be completely destroying the data going on the wire. Unless you're placing a running a vacuum cleaner and hair drier on top of the ethernet cable, you're not experiencing this.
> 
> ...



do you need a hug?


----------



## griff500

cpurdy said:


> If it wasn't a reproducible, double-blind test, then it's just the placebo effect.


I think you mean that it _could_ be placebo. 

Stating that it is placebo if it wasn't established through 'double blind' testing as if it's a fact simply shows your bias and your conclusion is flawed as you disregard the possibility that what was heard was real. 


cpurdy said:


> We seem to have different understandings of the word "theoretical".


Perhaps. Memes are not a great way of trying to make a point in an adult manner. The putdowns and condescension aren't a good look either.

My meaning is that if you have not tried something (practical experience) then your opinion is theoretical.

You bang on about data integrity when nobody is debating that. Yet again, it's not just about that. Perhaps you are in the group that thinks if something measures well then it must sound good. Not everything works exactly as expected - theory and reality do not always match each other, as any decent electronics engineer would tell you.

I think neither side are going to persuade the other and that's fine. You believe it makes no difference and most who have tried it found that they heard a difference. You believe they are all imagining it but they don't and they are happy with their systems.

Perhaps live and let live rather than trying to put people down?


----------



## griff500

teknorob23 said:


> do you need a hug?


He does seem quite angry.


----------



## audiobomber (Sep 10, 2021)

IME, network tweaks can make worthwhile improvements in sound quality. I've only read the first and last few pages of this long thread, but here are my efforts:
- Replaced the SMPS supplied with the cable modem from my internet provider. This 12V 2A wall wart was corrupting the sound. I suspect it was defective, but if so there was no impact on network function. Replacing it with an iFi iPower SMPS removed sibilance and cleaned up the sound in all of my audio systems, even the two systems that play from the NAS, and not the internet.
- Added a Furman power conditioner for the network distribution gear
- Replaced the router wall wart with a Zero-Zone 12V 3.3A LPS
- Connected my network devices to a TP-Link switch instead of the router
- Added an iFi iPower X to the switch

I had tried a Welborne Labs LPS on the ethernet switch, but it was actually a step backwards vs. the supplied wall wart. I had read internet posts by a couple of different manufacturers, who claimed that some purely digital devices sound better with a switch mode supply. I purchased a new 9V iPower X and tried it vs. the Welborne LPS on my sMS-200 streamer and found them to sound the same. On the ethernet switch however, the iPower X was quite superior, so I left it there.

All of the above made small improvements that are nevertheless important to me as an audiophile.

My main audio system is connected to the network via a TP-Link extender, configured as a "Wi-Fi to Ethernet"  bridge, with broadcast radio turned off. This was noticeably better than using the built-in Wi-Fi receiver in my exaSound PlayPoint streamer (Wi-Fi radios are electronically noisy, best kept away from the DAC). I replaced the SMPS on the extender and streamer with Zero-Zone linear power supplies. The LPS made an almost imperceptible difference on the PlayPoint, even though it is a higher spec 2020 S.S. version, but I like that I have no switch mode supplies in my main system.

The final tweak was ethernet cables. I worked at optimizing my cables for months, trying various Amazon generic CAT5e, 6, 6a, 7 cables and CAT8 cables from Supra and Yauhody. All sounded different, and significantly enough that they can improve or spoil the sound of my main system (significant but not as critical in my other three systems). Three cables stood out from the pack. I found the Supra CAT8 to be ideal tonally with great soundstage, but it softened initial transients in an unacceptable way. Tera Grand CAT7 had brighter highs and a more forward presentation, with fantastic bass definition. A little too forward for my system and preferences. Yauhody had a warm, organic sound, with a great soundstage that moved back a couple of steps. It was a tiny bit lacking in transparency.

One thing to be very careful about is that some CAT6a, some CAT7 and all CAT8 cables have a shield that is attached at both ends to the connectors. Depending on construction of the pieces on either end, this can result in ground current flowing from sender to receiver, defeating the inherent galvanic isolation normally provided by ethernet cable design. I tested for electrical isolation with an ohmmeter. The only place this was an issue in my system was from NAS to ethernet switch. This is where a LAN Isolator really matters, so I added an inexpensive LNF-C8G isolator from eBay in that position.

I have three ethernet cables in the network for my main system. People say only the final ethernet cable matters, but that is definitely not my experience. They all matter, but the final cable is most prominent. If I had to choose only one ethernet cable, it would be Yauhody CAT8, but no single brand I tried made me perfectly happy, so I tried mix and match combos. My final configuration is:
NAS -> _Tera Grand CAT7_ -> LNF-C8G LAN isolator -> Ethernet Switch -> _Tera Grand CAT7_ -> Router -> Wi-Fi to Ethernet bridge -> _Yauhody CAT8_ -> PlayPoint streamer.

Experimentation was very helpful. I think buying a bunch of basic cables and trialing them makes more sense than buying a single expensive audiophile cable, which may or may not suit your system. YMMV.
My audio systems in more detail here: https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/4137-audiobomber/?tab=field_core_pfield_3


----------



## bluenight

griff500 said:


> You bang on about data integrity when nobody is debating that. Yet again, it's not just about that. Perhaps you are in the group that thinks if something measures well then it must sound good. Not everything works exactly as expected - theory and reality do not always match each other, as any decent electronics engineer would tell you.


 I think your right. This is what ASR measures right.


----------



## bluenight (Sep 11, 2021)

cpurdy said:


> Dealing with those signals let us go to the moon. Allowed us to decode the human genome. Let's us fairly accurately predict weather. Take pictures of distant galaxies. Carry an always-connected combination GPS + computer + telephony device in your pocket. Little things like that.


Replacing power with cleaner power matters in audio and you can hear the difference. Yes even replacing router and switch  power supply to quieter . Heard it myself. Good enough proof for me. My system never have sounded this good.

Its not a flaw in the designs of my products(apple tv 4k being one of those i heard improvement to, relating to the big companys you mentioned) its just how the physical laws of electricity with audio works.


----------



## The Jester (Sep 10, 2021)

Anyone experienced lag between an audio and a video signal with home theatre components ?
all the video data arrives perfectly, all the audio data arrives perfectly but it’s annoyingly near unwatchable as the mouth moves out of sync with the voice … timing is critical … now replace the video and audio streams with a L/R stereo audio stream …digital Jitter is timing errors,
Double blind A/B listening tests or it’s placebo ?
again, timing is critical, switching back and forth between two audio streams may sound exactly the same .. for a few minutes maybe, what about listener fatigue ?
listening to a well setup stereo speaker system an identical sound from both speakers arriving at each ear at the same time “magically“ appears to be coming from between the speakers ?
But then an identical sound from both speakers with the left speaker signal delayed by a few microseconds moves the apparent sound source somewhere between the left and the middle of the speakers, then add to that the smaller level sounds of harmonics from various instruments and reflected sounds from various surfaces and you start to hear depth in the sound field rather that a flat plane between the speakers … the more accurately those sounds are reproduced in amplitude and timing the more realistic the sound image becomes, but then the human auditory system kicks in and does something test instruments can’t measure, if there’s a slight difference in those small levels and timings it actively processes them to match the perception of what it expected …. Keep listening for an extended period and it gets overloaded or weary and you find you don’t want to listen to any more music so go and watch TV, read a book, walk the dog …. “I thought you were listening to some music” ….ah ..I got tired of that ?


----------



## bfreedma

teknorob23 said:


> do you need a hug?



I’d expect a better rebuttal from someone selling these types of products.

Then again, the engineering realities preclude a technical response.  How about demonstrating these products, including the ones you sell, function as they claim to;  measurements, properly controlled testing, valid technical/engineering explanation.  Hand waving and customer testimonials seem to be all you have.

Perhaps you can explain how vendors engineer/test/manufacture these products without measurements and/or controlled testing?  If they can’t actually test a product, how do they know it’s working as claimed?  Just randomly build cables and hope for the best?

It’s going to be fun to see what happens when truth in advertising laws are applied here in the future.  ”Manufacturers“ will be required to prove their claims or face fines.  Better buy those magic Ethernet cables before that happens and the charlatans abandon ship rather than facing appropriate levels of scrutiny


----------



## teknorob23

bfreedma said:


> I’d expect a better rebuttal from someone selling these types of products.
> 
> Then again, the engineering realities preclude a technical response.  How about demonstrating these products, including the ones you sell, function as they claim to;  measurements, properly controlled testing, valid technical/engineering explanation.  Hand waving and customer testimonials seem to be all you have.
> 
> ...



Oh no bad day too?


----------



## bfreedma

teknorob23 said:


> Oh no bad day too?



What an incredibly ineffective technical explanation of how your products work.  Rather sad seeing a MOT unable to provide any evidence that what they sell to this community actually performs as advertised.

Let’s try again - you sell products that you claim improve Ethernet.  Please post information on how you design and test these products to ensure they work as claimed.  You must have those, yes?  Without those, it would be impossible to know you’ve succeeded with your design


----------



## teknorob23

bfreedma said:


> What an incredibly ineffective technical explanation of how your products work.  Rather sad seeing a MOT unable to provide any evidence that what they sell to this community actually performs as advertised.
> 
> Let’s try again - you sell products that you claim improve Ethernet.  Please post information on how you design and test these products to ensure they work as claimed.  You must have those, yes?  Without those, it would be impossible to know you’ve succeeded with your design



I’m happy to send you any of our products to listen to . Just Dm me with your details


----------



## bfreedma

teknorob23 said:


> I’m happy to send you any of our products to listen to . Just Dm me with your details



Why do you keep avoiding posting information about your design and proof of operations?  How can you assemble parts without that.  This is Engineering 101 and is information any vendor would have

Show me a reason to invest time listening and I will.  I’ll also measure and do a tear down to see exactly what off the shelf parts you’re marking up And claiming things that their actual manufacturers don’t


----------



## teknorob23

bfreedma said:


> Why do you keep avoiding posting information about your design and proof of operations?  How can you assemble parts without that.  This is Engineering 101 and is information any vendor would have
> 
> Show me a reason to invest time listening and I will.  I’ll also measure and do a tear down to see exactly what off the shelf parts you’re marking up And claiming things that their actual manufacturers don’t



Surely it’s just easier to listen to our products then you can decide for yourself. Let me know what you’d like
To listen to. I think at least that way you’ll know first hand. No charge at all. All I ask is you send it back when your done.


----------



## bfreedma

teknorob23 said:


> Surely it’s just easier to listen to our products then you can decide for yourself. Let me know what you’d like
> To listen to. I think at least that way you’ll know first hand. No charge at all. All I ask is you send it back when your done.



Surely a vendor must have proof of functionality in order to sell into a market.

How would it be easier to ship me something and for me to listen to it than for you to post existing information?

Unless you don’t have it.  But that can’t be the case - how can anyone build and sell electronics without knowing they work as planned?


----------



## bpcans (Sep 12, 2021)

In the past couple of weeks I’ve gone from being a quite satisfied streamer of music over the internet, using ROON + Tidal and Qobuz, to becoming someone who was curious as to what benefits my system could attain by addressing the issue of unwanted RFI entering my listening chain from either my router, or the Ethernet cables that I’ve tried. Subsequently I became aware of a possible solution when one of the partners in Network Acoustics Mr. Rob Osbourn, aka @teknorob23, reached out to kindly offer me some help.    It took me a minute to put two and two together and to fully realize that he was in fact the man who makes the ENO Ethernet Filter System Ag. He suggested to me that I first introduce an inexpensive but adequately functional D-Link network switch between my router and my ROON Nucleus Rev B music server, with the switch being powered by a 5v iFi PSU, to find out if I could possibly hear any improvement in sound quality. And to my surprise there definitely was.      The next step was going to be that of trying the ENO Ethernet filter Ag and streaming cable in my home system in conjunction with the D-Link network switch. After a couple hours of listening I decided that I rather liked the clearer and more defined sound coming through my headphones. I’m going to use as much if not all of Network Acoustics 30-day return window to make a decision on whether or not I’m going to keep the Ethernet filter and the streaming cable.


----------



## bluenight (Sep 12, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> Why do you keep avoiding posting information about your design and proof of operations?  How can you assemble parts without that.  This is Engineering 101 and is information any vendor would have
> 
> Show me a reason to invest time listening and I will.  I’ll also measure and do a tear down to see exactly what off the shelf parts you’re marking up And claiming things that their actual manufacturers don’t


I would be interested in the outcome of that


----------



## teknorob23 (Sep 12, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> Surely a vendor must have proof of functionality in order to sell into a market.
> 
> How would it be easier to ship me something and for me to listen to it than for you to post existing information?
> 
> Unless you don’t have it.  But that can’t be the case - how can anyone build and sell electronics without knowing they work as planned?


Our customers seem happy with our proposition. We develop our products through a program of continuous listening tests and sell them free worldwide shipping and a no quibble 30 day money back guarantee, so you can try them, test our findings in your own system and send them back for a full refund if you dont like the results.  It’s a free market, so if these terms aren’t acceptable, you are free to move on and buy from a company who provides what you require.

We’re small millionaire-free business of passionate music loving audio engineers and I make no apologies for wanting to protect our IP or trying to make a living from spending every working hour trying to make products which increase ours and our customer’s listening pleasure.

Our customers understand our offering and prioritise the effectiveness of our products and whether they make listening to streamed music more enjoyable than it was without them. If this isn’t what you’re in this hobby for, then we’re probably not for you and that’s fine too, the choice is 100% yours.


----------



## griff500

teknorob23 said:


> Our customers seem happy with our proposition. We develop our products through a program of continuous listening tests and sell them free worldwide shipping and a no quibble 30 day money back guarantee, so you can try them, test our findings in your own system and send them back for a full refund if you dont like the results.  It’s a free market, so if these terms aren’t acceptable, you are free to move on and buy from a company who provides what you require.
> 
> We’re small millionaire-free business of passionate music loving audio engineers and I make no apologies for wanting to protect our IP or trying to make a living from spending every working hour trying to make products which increase ours and our customer’s listening pleasure.
> 
> ...


I am surprised you even bothered to address that post.

It is utter nonsense to suggest that the cost of parts has a direct relationship to what a product should be sold for. People who say this sort of thing clearly have no idea how products are developed and the time taken to put things together when they are not mass produced, aside from the return on investment required to account for development of a product.

Telling this sort of person the ins and outs of how you make your product is not only a ridiculous thing to demand but would only lead to further argument. Instead, you offer a risk-free way of trying this product. I think it says a lot about a person if they are not willing to test their beliefs.

I highly recommend the ignore feature.


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 12, 2021)

teknorob23 said:


> Our customers seem happy with our proposition. We develop our products through a program of continuous listening tests and sell them free worldwide shipping and a no quibble 30 day money back guarantee, so you can try them, test our findings in your own system and send them back for a full refund if you dont like the results.  It’s a free market, so if these terms aren’t acceptable, you are free to move on and buy from a company who provides what you require.
> 
> We’re small millionaire-free business of passionate music loving audio engineers and I make no apologies for wanting to protect our IP or trying to make a living from spending every working hour trying to make products which increase ours and our customer’s listening pleasure.
> 
> Our customers understand our offering and prioritise the effectiveness of our products and whether they make listening to streamed music more enjoyable than it was without them. If this isn’t what you’re in this hobby for, then we’re probably not for you and that’s fine too, the choice is 100% yours.



I keep asking for evidence - I keep getting the same non technical marketing spiel.

So, by your own post I’ve quoted, you design technical products with no technical knowledge, no measurements, either electrical or output, and no experience with Ethernet.  Brilliant.

And you sell Ethernet and USB cables for over $1000 that you build from OTS components that likely cost less than $100.

As far as IP goes, given that you ”are millionaire free” and appear to not have any patents, you don’t have any.  You can’t afford to have custom boards built for your products so you simply buy cheap off the shelf network electronics, repackage them, and upcharge 1000% to your customers.  Of course, you can easily prove me wrong by showing the internals of your “designs” and show that these aren’t simply repackaged standard products…


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> I am surprised you even bothered to address that post.
> 
> It is utter nonsense to suggest that the cost of parts has a direct relationship to what a product should be sold for. People who say this sort of thing clearly have no idea how products are developed and the time taken to put things together when they are not mass produced, aside from the return on investment required to account for development of a product.
> 
> ...



He’s not developing anything.  His company simply takes apart standard, inexpensive products and puts them in a different case.

Of course, it would be simple to prove me wrong - don’t you wonder why no proof is ever offered?  Sorry, but I don’t buy technology based on a vendor simply saying “trust me”.


----------



## bpcans

bfreedma said:


> He’s not developing anything.  His company simply takes apart standard, inexpensive products and puts them in a different case.
> 
> Of course, it would be simple to prove me wrong - don’t you wonder why no proof is ever offered?  Sorry, but I don’t buy technology based on a vendor simply saying “trust me”.


bfreedma, have you taken the time to either read any of the many positive reviews of the ENO Ethernet System Ag or watch Hans Beekhuyzen’s YouTube video about this product?


----------



## audiobomber

bfreedma said:


> He’s not developing anything.  His company simply takes apart standard, inexpensive products and puts them in a different case.
> 
> Of course, it would be simple to prove me wrong - don’t you wonder why no proof is ever offered?  Sorry, but I don’t buy technology based on a vendor simply saying “trust me”.


I think most of us have heard your opinion loud and clear. It's time to either move on, or post on topic.


----------



## bfreedma

bpcans said:


> bfreedma, have you taken the time to either read any of the many positive reviews of the ENO Ethernet System Ag or watch Hans Beekhuyzen’s YouTube video about this product?



I‘ve seen previous reviews of Ethernet products by Hans.  It’s clear he has no understanding of Ethernet and associated 802 standards.  

How Ethernet works and how packetized data is transmitted is not up for debate.  Products either follow the 802 standards (error correct, noise rejection, galvanic isolation) or they don’t work.  If that wasn’t the case, the digital world as we know it today simply wouldn’t exist.  Subjective reviews of a product following these standards demonstrate how powerful the placebo effect can be.

All that said, if Teknorob can post any objective evidence, any at all, that his products perform as he claims, I’d be happy to purchase something.  At this point, I’d settle for a reasonable technical explanation of what his products do that others don’t and how that’s achieved.  If he truly has “special sauce”, he certainly would have patented it, so the claim of protecting his IP doesn’t really function as a valid reason not to provide some idea of what’s going on.


----------



## bfreedma

audiobomber said:


> I think most of us have heard your opinion loud and clear. It's time to either move on, or post on topic.



You may disagree with my view, but it is most certainly on topic.  The title of this thread includes “Worth to buy more expensive ones?”  Obviously, I believe it is not worth it.


----------



## audiobomber

bfreedma said:


> You may disagree with my view, but it is most certainly on topic.  The title of this thread includes “Worth to buy more expensive ones?”  Obviously, I believe it is not worth it.


Yes, you've said so, repeatedly. Have you tried any network improvements or tweaks? Or do you just know they can't work?


----------



## bfreedma

audiobomber said:


> Yes, you've said so, repeatedly. Have you tried any network improvements or tweaks? Or do you just know they can't work?



They can’t work.  The technology in question simply doesn’t support the claims made.  

I make whatever network tweaks necessary to maintain minimal data errors at the network level.  Once that’s done, there is no need for application/function specific tweaks.  I monitor and manage my home network far more heavily than a typical user and can say with a great degree of certainty that data is arriving at all of my Ethernet end points accurately and with almost nonexistent error/retransmit rates.


----------



## audiobomber

bfreedma said:


> They can’t work.  The technology in question simply doesn’t support the claims made.
> 
> I make whatever network tweaks necessary to maintain minimal data errors at the network level.  Once that’s done, there is no need for application/function specific tweaks.  I monitor and manage my home network far more heavily than a typical user and can say with a great degree of certainty that data is arriving at all of my Ethernet end points accurately and with almost nonexistent error/retransmit rates.


OK, don't try anything, that way you can remain secure in your knowledge. Refusal to investigate is not very scientific though.


----------



## bfreedma

audiobomber said:


> OK, don't try anything, that way you can remain secure in your knowledge. Refusal to investigate is not very scientific though.



You really have this backward.  It’s the responsibility of the vendor to support their claims, not mine.

I’ve been working with Ethernet for over 30 years including connections to analog devices far more sensitive than anything that will ever exist for audio reproduction.  Devices where any inaccuracies would have very serious consequences to the public.  I also sit on one of the 802 standards subcommittees.  Given that, I know where to go for science in regards to Ethernet, thanks.

The need to personally validate established science is a rather absurd defense.  Would you suggest that I need to jump off the roof of The Empire State Building to prove gravity works there the same way physics describes it in general?  Because that’s the argument being made here about the 802 standards.


----------



## audiobomber

Do you have an explanation as to why the Yauhody CAT8 and Tera Grand CAT7 sound different in my system? Or is your argument that they don't?


----------



## griff500

audiobomber said:


> Do you have an explanation as to why the Yauhody CAT8 and Tera Grand CAT7 sound different in my system? Or is your argument that they don't?


I think you know what answer you will get.


----------



## bfreedma

audiobomber said:


> Do you have an explanation as to why the Yauhody CAT8 and Tera Grand CAT7 sound different in my system? Or is your argument that they don't?



I believe we are all susceptible to the placebo effect.

The cables, unless one has some form of active EQ (which would make no sense, but hey, stuff sells..), are not in any way altering audio playback.


----------



## bpcans

bfreedma said:


> You really have this backward.  It’s the responsibility of the vendor to support their claims, not mine.
> 
> I’ve been working with Ethernet for over 30 years including connections to analog devices far more sensitive than anything that will ever exist for audio reproduction.  Devices where any inaccuracies would have very serious consequences to the public.  I also sit on one of the 802 standards subcommittees.  Given that, I know where to go for science in regards to Ethernet, thanks.


bfreedma, with your over 30yrs of extensive Ethernet experience, can you please explain to me why these three cables sound completely different from one another in my headphone system if all they are doing is transferring nothing but 1’s and 0’s. The yellow one is the stock cable that came with my ROON Nucleus Rev B music server. The black cable was made by Network Acoustics. And the red Ethernet cable is from L-Com and it costs $20.


----------



## bfreedma

bpcans said:


> bfreedma, with your over 30yrs of extensive Ethernet experience, can you please explain to me why these three cables sound completely different from one another in my headphone system if all they are doing is transferring nothing but 1’s and 0’s. The yellow one is the stock cable that came with my ROON Nucleus Rev B music server. The black cable was made by Network Acoustics. And the red Ethernet cable is from L-Com and it costs $20.



See my answer above to essentially the same question.

As we all know, certain subjects regarding testing are forbidden in this subforum, so I'll simply say that science and science based claims aren't vetted by subjective evaluation.


----------



## Leporello

audiobomber said:


> I think most of us have heard your opinion loud and clear. It's time to either move on, or post on topic.


bfreedma's recent postings in this thread are as on topic as can be.


----------



## Leporello

bpcans said:


> bfreedma, with your over 30yrs of extensive Ethernet experience, can you please explain to me why these three cables sound completely different from one another in my headphone system if all they are doing is transferring nothing but 1’s and 0’s. The yellow one is the stock cable that came with my ROON Nucleus Rev B music server. The black cable was made by Network Acoustics. And the red Ethernet cable is from L-Com and it costs $20.


The question that needs to be answered is this: do they sound different or do you just think they sound different? This can be tested, you know.


----------



## bpcans

bfreedma said:


> See my answer above to essentially the same question.
> 
> As we all know, certain subjects regarding testing are forbidden in this subforum, so I'll simply say that science and science based claims aren't vetted by subjective evaluation.


No you don’t understand bfreedma. I’m asking for a succinct and specific scientific explanation as to why I hear different tonalités and highlighted or suppressed variations of the bass, midrange, and treble regions in the music that I’m listening to. Is it your contention that the materials used in the construction of an Ethernet cable, and how they are put together, have absolutely nothing to do with how those cables perform in any given audio system?


----------



## bpcans

Leporello said:


> The question that needs to be answered is this: do they sound different or do you just think they sound different? This can be tested, you know.


Leporello, I have excellent hearing and a headphone system that is quite sensitive and very resolving. I don’t try any piece of audio gear with a preconceived notion of what I want it to sound like.


----------



## The Jester

bfreedma said:


> You really have this backward.  It’s the responsibility of the vendor to support their claims, not mine.
> 
> I’ve been working with Ethernet for over 30 years including connections to analog devices far more sensitive than anything that will ever exist for audio reproduction.  Devices where any inaccuracies would have very serious consequences to the public.  I also sit on one of the 802 standards subcommittees.  Given that, I know where to go for science in regards to Ethernet, thanks.
> 
> The need to personally validate established science is a rather absurd defense.  Would you suggest that I need to jump off the roof of The Empire State Building to prove gravity works there the same way physics describes it in general?  Because that’s the argument being made here about the 802 standards.


Within your knowledge of the 802 specs is there anything concerning maximum allowable timing errors between data packets ?


----------



## bfreedma

bpcans said:


> No you don’t understand bfreedma. I’m asking for a succinct and specific scientific explanation as to why I hear different tonalités and highlighted or suppressed variations of the bass, midrange, and treble regions in the music that I’m listening to. *Is it your contention that the materials used in the construction of an Ethernet cable, and how they are put together, have absolutely nothing to do with how those cables perform in any given audio system*?



Yes (assuming the cable isn’t intentionally damaged by the vendor), that is exactly my contention.  If a cable isn’t operating to spec, there would be obvious dropouts that would not only be easy to measure audibly, but would also stand out like a sore thumb on a monitored network as packet fail and resend rates would be painfully obvious.

More importantly, it’s the “contention” of the 802 standards as currently published.  If you have hard evidence to the contrary, I’d be happy to get you in front of the correct 802 subcommittee so the standards can be updated.  They will need your succinct and specific scientific proof that those cables are somehow acting as an active EQ and reliably and consistently altering reproduced audio.


----------



## audiobomber (Sep 12, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> I believe we are all susceptible to the placebo effect.
> 
> The cables, unless one has some form of active EQ (which would make no sense, but hey, stuff sells..), are not in any way altering audio playback.


Placebo effect is real, no doubt, but I have ways of negating it. I've had many, many experiences where I rejected pricier audiophile gear in favor of something more common. Just yesterday in fact, I replaced a $500 audiophile cable with a $20 no-name cable in my desktop system, because the sound of the cheap cable is more complementary.

I can be mistaken over the short term, but extended listening in my room, with my music through my system, will eventually show up any failings in the device I'm evaluating. The Supra CAT8 fooled me for quite a long time, because it has some very strong qualities. Extended listening showed a flaw in transient performance that I could not abide. The Supra is a popular audiophile choice, so it may suit other systems better than mine.

The Tera Grand CAT7 and Yauhody CAT8 each have strengths but are on opposite ends of the spectrum tonally. In my system, they work together beautifully, each ameliorating the other's faults. If you have any interest in investigating the effects of ethernet cables on sound quality, these two are an inexpensive way to do so. I believe they're available on Amazon for around $10, a fraction of the cost of Supra. Caution required for the grounded shielding, as previously described.


----------



## Leporello

bpcans said:


> Leporello, I have excellent hearing and a headphone system that is quite sensitive and very resolving. I don’t try any piece of audio gear with a preconceived notion of what I want it to sound like.


Sure, as audiophiles we all like to believe that about ourselves. But these beliefs can be tested, too. Only then will you know.


----------



## Leporello

audiobomber said:


> Placebo effect is real, no doubt, but I have ways of negating it. I've had many, many experiences where I rejected pricier audiophile gear in favor of something more common.


Sorry, that is not evidence of anything. Most of us would like to believe we can "negate" placebo effect. Usually we cannot.


----------



## griff500

Leporello said:


> Sure, as audiophiles we all like to believe that about ourselves. But these beliefs can be tested, too. Only then will you know.


He already knows to the extent that he needs to.


----------



## bpcans

Leporello said:


> Sure, as audiophiles we all like to believe that about ourselves. But these beliefs can be tested, too. Only then will you know.


Leporello, it just so happens that I saw my audiologist within the last few months, and he reassured me that my hearing is still very very good. I can hear a mouse pissing on cotton in the next room. LOL


----------



## bfreedma

The Jester said:


> Within your knowledge of the 802 specs is there anything concerning maximum allowable timing errors between data packets ?



Had a feeling jitter would come up eventually.  

There’s really no hard answer as the max timing is dependent upon the involved devices buffers and the application being served buffer combined with the network’s capability to retransmit any out of time packets within that application’s buffer.   It’s highly unlikely to be an issue in modern IP based audio, as most playback software is, at minimum, buffering several seconds of data.  With networks typically having packet error rates well under .001%, it would take thousands of consecutive errors to not recover from a failed packet send/receive.  We’re that to happen, the audio impact would be dropouts, not any alteration of a continuous playback stream.

Anyone seeing levels of transmission failure that would result in lost packets should really be looking for the source of the problem at the network level as it would be problematic on any IP connected device.  A quick look at your network statistics would show this type of large and obvious issue.  They used to be somewhat common, but with the error correction and healing capabilities built into even low end consumer devices,  it’s a very rare occurrence anymore.


----------



## Leporello

bpcans said:


> Leporello, it just so happens that I saw my audiologist within the last few months, and he reassured me that my hearing is still very very good. I can hear a mouse pissing on cotton in the next room. LOL


It is truly heartwarming to hear you hearing is good. But the question of really hearing vs. just thinking that you hear cannot be settled by audiometric testing. Then again, you already knew this.


----------



## bpcans

Leporello said:


> It is truly heartwarming to hear you hearing is good. But the question of really hearing vs. just thinking that you hear cannot be settled by audiometric testing. Then again, you already knew this.


Leporello, so are you a cable denier then? By that I mean that anyone using anything more costly than Amazon Basics is wasting their money?


----------



## The Jester

bfreedma said:


> Had a feeling jitter would come up eventually.
> 
> There’s really no hard answer as the max timing is dependent upon the involved devices buffers and the application being served buffer combined with the network’s capability to retransmit any out of time packets within that application’s buffer.   It’s highly unlikely to be an issue in modern IP based audio, as most playback software is, at minimum, buffering several seconds of data.  With networks typically having packet error rates well under .001%, it would take thousands of consecutive errors to not recover from a failed packet send/receive.  We’re that to happen, the audio impact would be dropouts, not any alteration of a continuous playback stream.
> 
> Anyone seeing levels of transmission failure that would result in lost packets should really be looking for the source of the problem at the network level as it would be problematic on any IP connected device.  A quick look at your network statistics would show this type of large and obvious issue.  They used to be somewhat common, but with the error correction and healing capabilities built into even low end consumer devices,  it’s a very rare occurrence anymore.


Depending on the quality of the DAC and other components and it’s handling of incoming jitter levels, nothing to do with lost packets but the timing accuracy involved,
the brains neuro receptors work at a threshold of around 4 microseconds so any errors greater than that will move what should be a dead centre stereo sound roughly 2 degrees, that’s the level of sensitivity, once we start talking about that same timing error in transients they affect instrument timbre as well as bass resolution and depth perception,
Just looking for reasons why that in some cases both sides can be correct, from an electrical engineers perspective as long as the hardware meets relevant specs there is no valid reason that something exceeding those specs can sound different, from an acoustic science perspective timing errors or jitter  can and do effect the analogue audio quality coming out of a DAC, 
There are some very good DAC’s out there lately with negligible jitter levels and some that are relatively poor so anything in the network chain that minimises levels going to a DAC already struggling to control Jitter may sound different in the converted analogue,
your opening line about jitter means then that the level is largely irrelevant in network data transmission,
but minimising it is vital when it’s a digital signal that needs to be accurately converted back to analogue ..


----------



## audiobomber

Leporello said:


> Sorry, that is not evidence of anything. Most of us would like to believe we can "negate" placebo effect. Usually we cannot.


I notice you said "usually". Simply being aware of placebo effect can be an effective countermeasure. I am aware that listening tests are subject to error, so I take measures to counteract it, i.e. extended listening in my own system, reverse the change when feasible. Maybe you have Nocebo: https://www.hcplive.com/view/nocebo-placebo-affect-works-in-reverse


----------



## The Jester

Worst thing to do is constantly swap and change components,cables, power supplies etc …
If you want to try a cable “upgrade” then go for it, run it for a few days and then listen normally for a week or two,
”placebo” can be just that, listening more closely than normal cause you have that new cable in there can do that too,
but just keep listening … once you‘re used to the way everything sounds switch off the system for the day and put the old cables back in,
don’t turn it on till the next day, then start listening as normal, if it’s “this sounds awful “ even after an hour or two keep the new cable,
if it sounds no different return the cable for a refund…
”You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone” can be as good a test if not better than meticulous double blind A/B testing, and a lot simpler …


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 12, 2021)

The Jester said:


> Depending on the quality of the DAC and other components and it’s handling of incoming jitter levels, nothing to do with lost packets but the timing accuracy involved,
> the brains neuro receptors work at a threshold of around 4 microseconds so any errors greater than that will move what should be a dead centre stereo sound roughly 2 degrees, that’s the level of sensitivity, once we start talking about that same timing error in transients they affect instrument timbre as well as bass resolution and depth perception,
> Just looking for reasons why that in some cases both sides can be correct, from an electrical engineers perspective as long as the hardware meets relevant specs there is no valid reason that something exceeding those specs can sound different, from an acoustic science perspective timing errors or jitter  can and do effect the analogue audio quality coming out of a DAC,
> There are some very good DAC’s out there lately with negligible jitter levels and some that are relatively poor so anything in the network chain that minimises levels going to a DAC already struggling to control Jitter may sound different in the converted analogue,
> ...



The issue I see with your view of this is that you’re not accounting for buffering and packet replacement and realignment.  If there is a jitter problem with a DAC (haven’t seen that in over a decade), a cable won’t solve that problem.  Ethernet is asynchronous, so unless someone intentionally sets buffers far too low, it can’t be an issue.

If the question is now whether some boutique dacs are so poorly designed that their analog suffers from jitter, there could conceivably be problems.  But that would be occurring after the Ethernet cable.

Ethernet buffering is very resilient which can be easily seen in a simple test.   Set your software’s network buffer to 1 minute or whatever it’s max buffer is.  Start playing a song and in the middle, pull the Ethernet cable,  wait a few seconds and reconnect the cable.  You should hear the song play with no interruption or audio degradation despite a multi second long loss of connectivity.  The buffer provides the data and Ethernet ECC ensures that the packets that weren’t received when the cable was disconnected are resent and properly ordered.

Given that, I need an explanation from a vendor claiming that jitter timing and subsequent packet replacement and reorder, which is orders of magnitude less time lost than the cable pull, would impact sound.

TLDR:  Ethernet is almost never effected by jitter as it is asynchronous- buffering allows for problematic packets to be resent and replaced in correct sequence before the audio device needs the data.


----------



## The Jester

Not ignoring it, just asking what if any specified timing tolerances are involved “less than 1us … less than 4us “ ?
A little off topic but would you say Wireless could be better, worse or just the same as Ethernet for digital audio ?


----------



## bfreedma

The Jester said:


> Not ignoring it, just asking what if any specified timing tolerances are involved “less than 1us … less than 4us “ ?
> A little off topic but would you say Wireless could be better, worse or just the same as Ethernet for digital audio ?



Thanks for the clarification.

With a few caveats, wireless should be the same.  It leverages similar buffering and ECC to address packet loss/replacement, so from a technical level, no difference.

The challenge with wireless is the variability of the operating environment.  While multiple wired networks in close proximity will have no impact on each other, multiple overlapping wireless networks do have potential problems.  Lack of appropriate channel separation of diverse networks leading to congestion.  Physical impediments reducing signal strength, sometimes low enough to constrict data.  The list goes on.  Almost all can easily be rectified but unlike wired networking which is very much plug and play, some network knowledge and tuning can be helpful to resolve issues on wireless networks.

Most people won’t see these issues and the majority can be resolved by increasing signal strengt, adding a network bridge for better Wi-Fi coverage, or finding a channel that isn’t being used by the neighbors. It can happen though - I live near a large university and when they rolled out their meshed wireless solution, they grabbed all of the common channels for their traffic.  My Wi-Fi network performance was definitely impacted until I moved my SSIDs to less commonly known 5G channels the school didn’t adopt.


----------



## griff500

With wireless you then have an active WiFi radio in your component. I prefer to use wired.


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 12, 2021)

griff500 said:


> With wireless you then have an active WiFi radio in your component. I prefer to use wired.



Wired definitely presents plenty of performance with fewer potential pitfalls and would be my first choice if installation costs aren’t an issue - I’d run in wall Ethernet in any new construction given the choice.  Might not be cost effective to retrofit into an existing house for most folks and when properly configured, wireless works equally well.


----------



## audiobomber

bfreedma said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> With a few caveats, wireless should be the same.  It leverages similar buffering and ECC to address packet loss/replacement, so from a technical level, no difference.
> 
> ...


But the issues you are describing (lost packets) will result in dropouts. I had that problem originally and resolved it with a repeater. Packet loss is not what what we should b e discussing here. The issue is, how does an ethernet cable or network gear affect sound quality? Saying it doesn't, or can't, is not a satisfactory answer for the legions of audiophile who's experience say it does. 

I've heard the same counter for years, starting with amps, then speaker cables and interconnects, then digital cables, now network gear. My current streamer and DAC are made by exaSound and are technically proficient and highly transparent. The transparency allows me to hear clear differences when I swap ethernet cables or upgrade a power supply. (I always clear the buffer after a change and before continuing).


----------



## audiobomber

griff500 said:


> With wireless you then have an active WiFi radio in your component. I prefer to use wired.


There's some truth to that. I heard a Sonore designer say that they would never have a wi-fi receiver in their renderers. I know people who added a Wi-Fi dongle to their SOtM renderer and reported diminished sound quality. 

It's a topic of interest for me, as I cannot reach my main system with a cable, even though it's only 15 feet from my router (concrete walls, floor and ceiling). My Playpoint streamer has a built-in wi-fi receiver, which I was using initially. After reading about wi-fi radios causing negative sonic effects, I added a TP-Link 580D range extender, configured to receive, but not broadcast. I connect via ethernet cable to the Playpoint, which automatically disables the Playpoint's internal radio. I did hear a significant improvement in sound quality.  

A blanket statement that "wired sounds better" however, is controversial at best. Depending on implementation, wired vs. wireless can sound equal, better or worse. If there's any consensus in the threads I've read on various audio sites, it's that a long ethernet cable is sonically inferior to a robust wi-fi signal.


----------



## bfreedma

audiobomber said:


> But the issues you are describing (lost packets) will result in dropouts. I had that problem originally and resolved it with a repeater. Packet loss is not what what we should b e discussing here. The issue is, how does an ethernet cable or network gear affect sound quality? Saying it doesn't, or can't, is not a satisfactory answer for the legions of audiophile who's experience say it does.
> 
> I've heard the same counter for years, starting with amps, then speaker cables and interconnects, then digital cables, now network gear. My current streamer and DAC are made by exaSound and are technically proficient and highly transparent. The transparency allows me to hear clear differences when I swap ethernet cables or upgrade a power supply. (I always clear the buffer after a change and before continuing).



I know this won’t be popular here, but sighted subjective evaluations are too prone to biases no human can control to serve as viable evidence.  I believe that you believe there are differences.  We simply differ on the reason for those.

Suggesting that an Ethernet cable and/or networking gear works as a reliable and repeatable EQ system is impossible within the published Ethernet specifications.  While that doesn’t preclude alteration of those standards, the burden is on the one making off standard claims to sufficiently prove them which in turn would enable the standards to be altered to reflect that proof.

I wasn’t kidding about helping someone with sufficient evidence to get in front of the correct 802 subcommittee, but will need hard data in hand to get on a future meeting agenda.  Unfortunately, there has been zero hard evidence presented that would enable even a rudimentary discussion of a gap in the current standards.  Any vendor who had that evidence and could show need to alter the 802 standards would get great press in the industry and would surely increase sales.  Yet this never happens…


----------



## audiobomber

bfreedma said:


> I know this won’t be popular here, but sighted subjective evaluations are too prone to biases no human can control to serve as viable evidence.  I believe that you believe there are differences.  We simply differ on the reason for those.
> 
> Suggesting that an Ethernet cable and/or networking gear works as a reliable and repeatable EQ system is impossible within the published Ethernet specifications.  While that doesn’t preclude alteration of those standards, the burden is on the one making off standard claims to sufficiently prove them which in turn would enable the standards to be altered to reflect that proof.
> 
> I wasn’t kidding about helping someone with sufficient evidence to get in front of the correct 802 subcommittee, but will need hard data in hand to get on a future meeting agenda.  Unfortunately, there has been zero hard evidence presented that would enable even a rudimentary discussion of a gap in the current standards.  Any vendor who had that evidence and could show need to alter the 802 standards would get great press in the industry and would surely increase sales.  Yet this never happens…


I don't see that this has to do with standards. The ethernet cables I've trialed all indicate on the jacket that they meet 802 standards.

I'm not aware of anyone doing what, to me, would be a viable blind test, of anything in audio, ever. These panel tests where random listeners sit in front of a strange system and listen to music samples have proven useless over and over through the years, no matter how many trials are conducted. I've explained my procedure; long-term listening in my own setting. Not some artificial test.


----------



## bfreedma

audiobomber said:


> I don't see that this has to do with standards. The ethernet cables I've trialed all indicate on the jacket that they meet 802 standards.
> 
> I'm not aware of anyone doing what, to me, would be a viable blind test, of anything in audio, ever. These panel tests where random listeners sit in front of a strange system and listen to music samples have proven useless over and over through the years, no matter how many trials are conducted. I've explained my procedure; long-term listening in my own setting. Not some artificial test.



That “artificial test” is a gold standard within the medical community.  Would you be comfortable if they vetted drugs based only on the subjective opinions of patients who knew they had taken a drug and where they were told in advance what the expected outcome was?  I know I wouldn’t be comfortable with that.

I’ll dig up some examples later, but there certainly have been blind tests in audio.  Meyer and Moran would be a good place to start as it was a large, long term test with good controls and enough data collected to be statistically viable.

I won’t go further here on blind testing as it’s expressly forbidden in this forum.  Happy to continue in a thread in Sound Science if you’d like to discuss DBT in detail.


----------



## bpcans

I hope this explanation helps.


----------



## bluenight

bfreedma said:


> Products either follow the 802 standards (error correct, noise rejection, galvanic isolation) or they don’t work. If that wasn’t the case, the digital world as we know it today simply wouldn’t exist. Subjective reviews of a product following these standards demonstrate how powerful the placebo effect can be.


Its not a flaw of the designs of the products. This seem to be the physical rule of how electricity can impact audio. The cleaner the better even through ethernet cables some how. Blaming it on placebo seems to be an easy escape out thing to say.


----------



## bfreedma

bpcans said:


> I hope this explanation helps.



Not really.  The part where he discusses Ethernet conveniently ignores that Ethernet is asynchronous and error corrected.  The worn out strawman about the waveform decision tree is irrelevant as a CRC check would identify the incorrectly read bit and would request a resend of the containing packet.   For some perspective, we tested the real world error rate across approximately 250000 Ethernet connected devices for a substantial period of time - the error rate due to single misread bits (what the OP is describing) was seen in less than 1 in 10 billion packets.  Given that, I wouldn’t worry about that issue as it’s simply not a problem in the real world

USB, due to being isnychronous, is, as described in your link, not able to use error correction but does leverage robust interpolation to remediate misspent data.  A much smaller sample size shows similar vanishingly low rates of actual errors, but the test wasn’t broad enough for me to be comfortable stating the data confirms this isn’t a significant issue in the real world.  It does point to that conclusion though


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> Its not a flaw of the designs of the products. This seem to be the physical rule of how electricity can impact audio. The cleaner the better even through ethernet cables some how. Blaming it on placebo seems to be an easy escape out thing to say.



But every Ethernet connector following spec is galvanically isolated.  And twisted pair has low susceptibility to electrical noise.

So how is this electrical noise end running the galvanically isolated connector?

For some perspective, large electrical power plants where electricity, RFI, and EMI are at levels far above a normal home, normal Ethernet cables are used and connected to highly sensitive analog data gathering devices.  You would think we would see issues there and that there would be regulation in place insisting on “better” Ethernet.  Yet ther is not, because it isn’t needed.


----------



## audiobomber (Sep 12, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> That “artificial test” is a gold standard within the medical community.  Would you be comfortable if they vetted drugs based only on the subjective opinions of patients who knew they had taken a drug and where they were told in advance what the expected outcome was?  I know I wouldn’t be comfortable with that.
> 
> I’ll dig up some examples later, but there certainly have been blind tests in audio.  Meyer and Moran would be a good place to start as it was a large, long term test with good controls and enough data collected to be statistically viable.


Drug tests and audio DBT's are not comparable. Drug tests work.

The first audio blind test I read about was in the 1970's, where The Absolute Sound reviewers were unable to distinguish between a Pioneer receiver and an expensive Audio Research (IIRC) tube amp. Similar failures have been repeated, ad infinitum. To you that means there is no difference, sighted listening is useless. To me, it demonstrates that DBT's are useless for judging sound quality. On a related topic, I won't say that all measurements are useless, but static tests such as those performed at Audio "Science" Review, are useless for determining sound quality.



> I won’t go further here on blind testing as it’s expressly forbidden in this forum.  Happy to continue in a thread in Sound Science if you’d like to discuss DBT in detail.



Thanks for the invitation, but to quote an old expression; "I'd rather stick pins in my eyes".  I've participated on the internet since its inception. I've seen and heard just about everything. Audio blind tests have been the cause of a million death spirals, and talking about it again will change no one's mind.


----------



## Leporello

audiobomber said:


> I notice you said "usually". Simply being aware of placebo effect can be an effective countermeasure. I am aware that listening tests are subject to error, so I take measures to counteract it, i.e. extended listening in my own system, reverse the change when feasible. Maybe you have Nocebo: https://www.hcplive.com/view/nocebo-placebo-affect-works-in-reverse


Sorry, not convincing at all.


----------



## bluenight (Sep 13, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> But every Ethernet connector following spec is galvanically isolated.  And twisted pair has low susceptibility to electrical noise.
> 
> So how is this electrical noise end running the galvanically isolated connector?
> 
> For some perspective, large electrical power plants where electricity, RFI, and EMI are at levels far above a normal home, normal Ethernet cables are used and connected to highly sensitive analog data gathering devices.  You would think we would see issues there and that there would be regulation in place insisting on “better” Ethernet.  Yet ther is not, because it isn’t needed.


The data is never corupt. I think the noise in the electricity effects the dac conversion and may reach the analogue section messing with what we here. Maybe the noise levels we are talking about slips even throug the galvanical isolation maybe it cant block out everything? There most be some gradiations on how clean the power can be that passes through the Ethernet Cable and entering my streamer for exemple. 

So how does the data electrical signals pass over then because it sure dosent block them out? Are they some special electrical signals? 

I am not that technically bewildred to explain the why. Im just drawing the conclusion after listening experience replacing router and switch original smps to ifi ipowerx and hearing nice improvements. And i dont think its placebo.


----------



## griff500

It seems to be assumed that galvanic isolation is 100% effective, which is odd considering the M-Scaler has this and yet is still improved by cables that deal with RFI. My streamer also had galvanic isolation and yet was improved by an improved power supply.

Galvanic isolation does not need to be 100% effective for the purpose of reliable data transfer. Banging on about data integrity is a red herring and a strawman argument. For audio, this can make an audible difference.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> The data is never corupt. I think the noise in the electricity effects the dac conversion and may reach the analogue section messing with what we here. Maybe the noise levels we are talking about slips even throug the galvanical isolation maybe it cant block out everything? There most be some gradiations on how clean the power can be that passes through the Ethernet Cable and entering my streamer for exemple.
> 
> So how does the data electrical signals pass over then because it sure dosent block them out? Are they some special electrical signals?
> 
> I am not that technically bewildred to explain the why. Im just drawing the conclusion after listening experience replacing router and switch original smps to ifi ipowerx and hearing nice improvements. And i dont think its placebo.





griff500 said:


> It seems to be assumed that galvanic isolation is 100% effective, which is odd considering the M-Scaler has this and yet is still improved by cables that deal with RFI. My streamer also had galvanic isolation and yet was improved by an improved power supply.
> 
> Galvanic isolation does not need to be 100% effective for the purpose of reliable data transfer. Banging on about data integrity is a red herring and a strawman argument. For audio, this can make an audible difference.



So many maybes, so many guesses, so much uneducated speculation, so much hand waving.  Yet none of you can offer any actual objective evidence supporting your claims that the 802 standard is incorrect/insufficient.

This discussion perfectly and depressingly encapsulates 2021.  Welcome to the world where established science and hard facts are less accurate than something posted on the internet with no viable support.  You would have thought people would have learned over the last 18 months - apparently not.


----------



## Leporello (Sep 13, 2021)

audiobomber said:


> Drug tests and audio DBT's are not comparable. Drug tests work.
> 
> The first audio blind test I read about was in the 1970's, where The Absolute Sound reviewers were unable to distinguish between a Pioneer receiver and an expensive Audio Research (IIRC) tube amp. Similar failures have been repeated, ad infinitum. To you that means there is no difference, sighted listening is useless. To me, it demonstrates that DBT's are useless for judging sound quality. On a related topic, I won't say that all measurements are useless, but static tests such as those performed at Audio "Science" Review, are useless for determining sound quality.


Your logic is not sound. As you probably know, blind tests are conducted in order to lessen the well known problems of sighted tests. You mention the early Absolute Sound amplifier test. How do you know the test was faulty? How was it then determined that the differences were real even if they did not show in the blind test? This is a common fallacy among audiophiles: when the test does not support their dearly held beliefs, they are not willing to reconsider their beliefs. Instead they blame the test. Self-deception 101.

Now, it is true that there are good and bad blind test arrangements. The bad ones may be confusing enough to actually prevent the hearing of real audible differences. May be the test you mentioned was one of these. But in that case you take a single badly conducted test and then decide to paint blind testing in general with a very broad brush because it suits your agenda. Sighted listening is not an alternative to badly designed blind tests. Well designed blind tests are.

You should also note that no amount of blind testing can show there is no difference. It can only support the idea that there is a difference. As for ethernet cables, audiophile switches etc. there is no evidence of any kind.


----------



## griff500 (Sep 13, 2021)

Leporello said:


> You should also note that no amount of blind testing can show there is no difference. It can only support the idea that there is a difference. As for ethernet cables, audiophile switches etc. there is no evidence of any kind.


Blind testing of the type you refer to is known to be unreliable.

People do not need to satisfy anyone other than themselves. This is the big mistake people make when jumping all over these types of threads with their repetitive 'it makes no difference and you have to prove it does' posts. People are under no obligation to prove anything - they are simply trying to discuss their subjective findings in this area, such discussion usually being drowned out by a few persistent posters. This seems to happen on all forums, some being worse than others.

The vast majority of people who try this sort of thing believe that they hear a difference and it is often significant. You can either take the position that every single one of them is wrong and you, despite not having tried it, are right, which is somewhat arrogant, or you can take the view that perhaps there is something in it and it might be worth investigating, as I did despite my strong bias and belief that it would not make any difference. I found my belief to be incorrect. I don't need graphs or a scientific study to know that I hear a difference.

A truly scientific mind is naturally inquisitive and subjective experiences would usually lead such a person to see if that experience can be replicated and, if it can, to try and figure out why. A scientific mind tends not to dismiss these sort of things out of hand but remains open to the unexpected.

Edit: When I say 'you' I am not referring specifically to the person I responded to, just in case it is taken in that way.


----------



## bluenight

bfreedma said:


> So many maybes, so many guesses, so much uneducated speculation, so much hand waving.  Yet none of you can offer any actual objective evidence supporting your claims that the 802 standard is incorrect/insufficient.
> 
> This discussion perfectly and depressingly encapsulates 2021.  Welcome to the world where established science and hard facts are less accurate than something posted on the internet with no viable support.  You would have thought people would have learned over the last 18 months - apparently not.


So many "it cant be" from your side, thats also a bias . Maybe keep an open mind for the unexplained.


----------



## griff500

bluenight said:


> So many "it cant be" from your side, thats also a bias . Maybe keep an open mind for the unexplained.


Such breathtaking condescension in the post you quoted. And now he's saying that people are making claims about the 802 standard being insufficient or incorrect... despite nobody having said that. It's looking more and more like trolling.

On the plus side, peeking at the quoted post was a good reminder of why I have him on my ignore list.


----------



## bfreedma

bluenight said:


> So many "it cant be" from your side, thats also a bias . Maybe keep an open mind for the unexplained.



Facts aren’t biased.  That’s the problem with this discussion - one side is based on fact/science and the other is essentially belief/religion/unexplained.

So many posts on this thread and yet neither the manufacturers or their customers can point to a single element of objective information to support the case that Ethernet switches, cables, and whatever other black boxes they can conjure up actually impact audio playback over IP.  Not a measurement, not a properly constructed test, not tests from a system where two Ethernet cables are switched and the two outputs are nulled, which would show a difference at even the bit level.  Nothing but crickets

As said before, producing any of the evidence listed above would result in huge sales.  Yet no manufacturer shows such evidence.   Either it doesn’t exist or the entire audiophile Ethernet product manufacturing community is willingly withholding the most valuable piece of marketing material they could ever possibly have as part of some strange conspiracy to avoid making money.


----------



## bluenight

audiobomber said:


> Placebo effect is real, no doubt, but I have ways of negating it. I've had many, many experiences where I rejected pricier audiophile gear in favor of something more common. Just yesterday in fact, I replaced a $500 audiophile cable with a $20 no-name cable in my desktop system, because the sound of the cheap cable is more complementary.
> 
> I can be mistaken over the short term, but extended listening in my room, with my music through my system, will eventually show up any failings in the device I'm evaluating. The Supra CAT8 fooled me for quite a long time, because it has some very strong qualities. Extended listening showed a flaw in transient performance that I could not abide. The Supra is a popular audiophile choice, so it may suit other systems better than mine.
> 
> The Tera Grand CAT7 and Yauhody CAT8 each have strengths but are on opposite ends of the spectrum tonally. In my system, they work together beautifully, each ameliorating the other's faults. If you have any interest in investigating the effects of ethernet cables on sound quality, these two are an inexpensive way to do so. I believe they're available on Amazon for around $10, a fraction of the cost of Supra. Caution required for the grounded shielding, as previously described.


I use supa cat 8 all the way. Im happy with them, smoother and darker more detailed more resolutuon, more musical, better timber, more body compared to generic cat5 i had. 

But what do you mean with transients? I know its an audiophile term i usually hear but dont quite understand it. Can you explain what this describe in audio listening?


----------



## audiobomber (Sep 14, 2021)

bluenight said:


> I use supa cat 8 all the way. Im happy with them, smoother and darker more detailed more resolutuon, more musical, better timber, more body compared to generic cat5 i had.
> 
> But what do you mean with transients? I know its an audiophile term i usually hear but dont quite understand it. Can you explain what this describe in audio listening?


I agree with your description of how the Supra CAT8 cable sounds. My concern is how it handles transients. The initial whack of the transient is slightly damped or softened, which removes some excitement from the music. I am only able to detect this characteristic in comparison to my CD transport and my computer audio system using the other two ethernet cables. The Supra cable is otherwise exemplary, but unfortunately that one flaw makes it unsuited to my system and preferences. Note, these differences are subtle, only evident through extended listening.

_*attack transient*_ _The initial energy pulse of a percussive sound, such as from a piano string, triangle, or drum head._
https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

More on "attack" here: https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/logicpro/lgsife419620/mac


----------



## The Jester (Sep 14, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> Facts aren’t biased.  That’s the problem with this discussion - one side is based on fact/science and the other is essentially belief/religion/unexplained.
> 
> So many posts on this thread and yet neither the manufacturers or their customers can point to a single element of objective information to support the case that Ethernet switches, cables, and whatever other black boxes they can conjure up actually impact audio playback over IP.  Not a measurement, not a properly constructed test, not tests from a system where two Ethernet cables are switched and the two outputs are nulled, which would show a difference at even the bit level.  Nothing but crickets
> 
> As said before, producing any of the evidence listed above would result in huge sales.  Yet no manufacturer shows such evidence.   Either it doesn’t exist or the entire audiophile Ethernet product manufacturing community is willingly withholding the most valuable piece of marketing material they could ever possibly have as part of some strange conspiracy to avoid making money.


Just back here after spending a morning cleaning and listening to some original 70’s LP’s,
Back when the first CD’s came out with their ” perfect sound forever” and being inially impressed I always thought there was “something missing” and from then until now trying to work out what the “something” was, through various digital components and cables despite the continued derision that ”all digital is just 0‘s and 1’s “ etc and where I am now is my digital replay system is closer to the emotional connection with music than its ever been, ever listened to a piece of music and had an emotional reaction, hairs on the arms or the back of the neck stand up ?, suddenly feel happy or sad ?
For me that wasn’t always there with digital in the 80’s, now, after trialing countless components and cables over that time my digital replay system is capable of doing just that, am I interested in trialing more and more, not really as it’s all to easy to go backwards, especially when carefully selected things are at stake, ever more so when there’s little to no scientific evidence that anything I’ve done can make a difference,
A few years ago I may have jumped at the chance to trial something new and see (hear) for myself but for now at least I’m happy as I am, although I’d always encourage those who keep looking, we can accurately measure and test everything in the audio chain we know about that could make any differences, but is there something at the end of the chain we don’t even now fully understand ?
Don't get me wrong, I’m not offering myself as some “golden eared” expert … in my 60’s now and everything above 15khz is a distant memory, but if to me say a recorded violin can sound so sweet where I am now please don’t try and tell me that it’s all placebo or expectation bias with a perfectly good analogue system as a long term reference,
Equally I’m not denying there‘s plenty of “snake oil“ vendors out there, after the journey I’ve had it became all too obvious that price, fancy connectors and pretty braiding had little bearing on sound quality, solid engineering, the various combinations of quality materials and how they are implemented  are more likely to ….


----------



## griff500

The Jester said:


> ever listened to a piece of music and had an emotional reaction, hairs on the arms or the back of the neck stand up ?, suddenly feel happy or sad ?


You need to measure the number of degrees those hairs on your arm raised by and have it independently verified and a report published or it didn’t happen.


----------



## The Jester

griff500 said:


> You need to measure the number of degrees those hairs on your arm raised by and have it independently verified and a report published or it didn’t happen.


Don’t you start …. 😬


----------



## cpurdy (Sep 18, 2021)

bpcans said:


> bfreedma, with your over 30yrs of extensive Ethernet experience, can you please explain to me why these three cables sound completely different from one another in my headphone system if all they are doing is transferring nothing but 1’s and 0’s. The yellow one is the stock cable that came with my ROON Nucleus Rev B music server. The black cable was made by Network Acoustics. And the red Ethernet cable is from L-Com and it costs $20.


I assume that you have had friends help you blind test these? As in, you had your friends randomly switch those ethernet cables (or not) without you seeing it happen, and then you were able to reliably determine which cable was being used after each "cable switch"? If so, please do not change anything in your system, because it is unique and various electronics companies would pay you millions of dollars just for the rights to examine and test it. In fact, I'll fly to your place myself, to witness this ... you could be the modern day Bernadette Soubirous!



Leporello said:


> The question that needs to be answered is this: do they sound different or do you just think they sound different? This can be tested, you know.


Exactly.



The Jester said:


> Within your knowledge of the 802 specs is there anything concerning maximum allowable timing errors between data packets ?


No, nothing in 802 that I'm aware of. Linux (which most devices seem to be running these days) has some hard-coded 5000ms time-outs on some TCP/IP retries, so _in theory_, with super high packet loss, you could hear an interruption after 5 seconds (plus the period of time represented by the buffer on the audio).



bfreedma said:


> TLDR:  Ethernet is almost never effected by jitter as it is asynchronous- buffering allows for problematic packets to be resent and replaced in correct sequence before the audio device needs the data.


^ this



The Jester said:


> Not ignoring it, just asking what if any specified timing tolerances are involved “less than 1us … less than 4us “ ?
> A little off topic but would you say Wireless could be better, worse or just the same as Ethernet for digital audio ?


The issue with wireless is that there are many devices (and other things) polluting that spectrum, so your packet loss rate will often be much higher. In the real world, this doesn't usually have any noticeable impact, since the packets are resent as necessary until everything gets through correctly, but ask an engineer, and they'll tell you to wire it.



audiobomber said:


> I've heard the same counter for years, starting with amps, then speaker cables and interconnects, then digital cables, now network gear. My current streamer and DAC are made by exaSound and are technically proficient and highly transparent. The transparency allows me to hear clear differences when I swap ethernet cables or upgrade a power supply. (I always clear the buffer after a change and before continuing).


I assume that you have had friends help you blind test these? As in, you had your friends randomly switch those ethernet cables (or not) without you seeing it happen, and then you were able to reliably determine which cable was being used after each "cable switch"? If so, please do not change anything in your system, because it is unique and various electronics companies would pay you millions of dollars just for the rights to examine and test it. In fact, I'll fly to your place myself, to witness this ... you could be the modern day Bernadette Soubirous!

(I swear I've heard this before, somewhere.)



griff500 said:


> Blind testing of the type you refer to is known to be unreliable.
> 
> People do not need to satisfy anyone other than themselves. This is the big mistake people make when jumping all over these types of threads with their repetitive 'it makes no difference and you have to prove it does' posts. People are under no obligation to prove anything - they are simply trying to discuss their subjective findings in this area, such discussion usually being drowned out by a few persistent posters. This seems to happen on all forums, some being worse than others.
> 
> The vast majority of people who try this sort of thing believe that they hear a difference and it is often significant. You can either take the position that every single one of them is wrong and you, despite not having tried it, are right, which is somewhat arrogant, or you can take the view that perhaps there is something in it and it might be worth investigating, as I did despite my strong bias and belief that it would not make any difference. I found my belief to be incorrect. I don't need graphs or a scientific study to know that I hear a difference.


Blind testing of the type being described _is_ reliable. That is why you do not like it.

However, you are correct about this: "*People do not need to satisfy anyone other than themselves.*" I totally agree! My cables are made from special materials, by artisans, by hand, and I pay way (_way!_) too much money for them. They are beautiful, and therefore they sound awesome, to me.

Is it placebo effect? 100% you better believe it is! That's why I pay so much for those beautiful cables -- *I gladly, 100% rely on placebo effect!* And I am not at all ashamed to admit it. Why should I suffer through my relatively horrible sounding music with ugly cables, when I can spend gobs of my hard-earned money on beautiful cables, and personally perceive that it sounds better? Why would *anyone* not spend lots of money on cables with this wonderful, magical property? (And as a bonus, they look great!)

So you are correct: "*The vast majority of people who try this sort of thing believe that they hear a difference and it is often significant.*" And that is fine, *as long as you are not making false claims to sell those products*.

In other words, the placebo benefit is for us, the consumer. If we want to lie to ourselves in order to increase our pleasure of listening to music, then more power to us! But when a snake-oil seller is lying, that is immoral, unethical, and in most places, illegal.

So, for example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this user (bluenight) enjoying the placebo benefits from his "supa cat 8" purchase, and in fact I applaud the brilliant choice of spending his money on something that increases his joy of listening ....



bluenight said:


> I use supa cat 8 all the way. Im happy with them, smoother and darker more detailed more resolutuon, more musical, better timber, more body compared to generic cat5 i had.


However, I do think that there is something wrong with making technical claims about the differences (since there are none).

But then again, maybe that "Supra CAT8 cable" isn't all that it's cracked up to be:



audiobomber said:


> I agree with your description of how the Supra CAT8 cable sounds. My concern is how it handles transients. The initial whack of the transient is slightly damped or softened, which removes some excitement from the music. I am only able to detect this characteristic in comparison to my CD transport and my computer audio system using the other two ethernet cables. The Supra cable is otherwise exemplary, but unfortunately that one flaw makes it unsuited to my system and preferences. Note, these differences are subtle, only evident through extended listening.


We have come full circle.

Despite there being absolutely zero _actual_ difference in the audio between the $.99 monoprice cable, the $1.99 Amazon Basics cable, the $.37 Alibaba cable, the black one that came for free with some other random device, the $50 Supra CAT8, and the $1000.00 snake oil cable sold by some guy on this thread, here we have the careful and nuanced critique of that $50 cable.

This is the equivalent of comparing the audio coming out of your headphones when you're streaming TIDAL FLAC, and saying that you notice differences in the audio quality between your COMCAST cable modem connection and your Verizon FIOS connection. For example, based on what I've learned in this thread, I could pseudo-sincerely posit that:


> The FIOS connection has a more antiseptic quality to it, probably caused by the photons in the fibre-optic connection being sterile from the use of non-organic compounds; it's a good reason to avoid fiber, unless you're using it for professional, clean-room audio mixing. The COMCAST connection, on the other hand, is far warmer, thanks in no small part to the heaviness of the RG6 coaxial wire, with its custom Mylar sheath, which massages the audio signal and adds significant depth and unbelievable stage width to the listening experience. Note, these differences are subtle, only evident through extended listening.



--

TLDR: *you should -- if at all possible -- take advantage of, and enjoy the placebo effect*. But speading misleading information is not OK. And profiting from the spread of purposefully misleading information is immoral, unethical, and in most places, illegal.


----------



## bpcans (Sep 18, 2021)

@cpurdy, I live on Madeline Island in northern Wisconsin, which is on located Lake Superior. Just let me know when you plan on stopping by. I’m retired now and my schedule is more flexible these days. If you can’t hear the difference between an Amazon Basics CAT6 Ethernet cable and one that is properly shielded and has good connectors then maybe you should get your hearing checked. I’ve been into high-end audio for over 45yrs, and I’ve heard and seen it all. Unless your a audiologist, an accredited engineer whose designed, built, marketed, and sold, any kind of high-end music recording or playback equipment, or that’s had any experience buying and trying different cables for yourself, I’ll just dismiss your comments as coming from yet another cable denier who has nothing better to do than to troll on the internet.


----------



## audiobomber (Sep 18, 2021)

cpurdy said:


> Despite there being absolutely zero _actual_ difference in the audio between the $.99 monoprice cable, the $1.99 Amazon Basics cable, the $.37 Alibaba cable, the black one that came for free with some other random device, the $50 Supra CAT8, and the $1000.00 snake oil cable sold by some guy on this thread, here we have the careful and nuanced critique of that $50 cable.


There is a clear and measurable difference between the various categories of ethernet cable; CAT6a, CAT7 and CAT8 allow higher bandwidth than CAT5e or 6 because RFI and EMI are shielded. Your precious 802 standard recognizes this, but 802 standard stops at the "ethernet to USB bridge" input, and certainly contains nothing about digital to analogue conversion. RFI and EMI grunge bouncing around in an ethernet cable matters when it is converted to analogue audio, along with a lot of other factors. That's why there are a bazillion methods for handling and processing audio from a network.


cpurdy said:


> TLDR: *you should -- if at all possible -- take advantage of, and enjoy the placebo effect*. But speading misleading information is not OK. And profiting from the spread of purposefully misleading information is immoral, unethical, and in most places, illegal.


OH PLEASE! You should report all these audiophile companies for their crimes. LMAO!


----------



## cpurdy

bpcans said:


> @cpurdy, I live on Madeline Island in northern Wisconsin, which is on located Lake Superior. Just let me know when you plan on stopping by. I’m retired now and my schedule is more flexible these days. If you can’t hear the difference between an Amazon Basics CAT6 Ethernet cable and one that is properly shielded and has good connectors then maybe you should get your hearing checked. I’ve been into high-end audio for over 45yrs, and I’ve heard and seen it all. Unless your a audiologist, an accredited engineer whose designed, built, marketed, and sold, any kind of high-end music recording or playback equipment, or that’s had any experience buying and trying different cables for yourself, I’ll just dismiss your comments as coming from yet another cable denier who has nothing better to do than to troll on the internet.


Ethernet cables don’t carry audio.

Let me repeat that: *Ethernet cables don’t carry audio*.

If they did, then you might have a point.


----------



## bpcans (Sep 19, 2021)

cpurdy said:


> Ethernet cables don’t carry audio.
> 
> Let me repeat that: *Ethernet cables don’t carry audio*.
> 
> If they did, then you might have a point.


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.


----------



## bfreedma

bpcans said:


> cpurdy, but they do carry RFI and EMI that compromises the music streaming signal before it gets to a DAC. But 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 slight chuckle to me.



Ignoring for a second the reality that Ethernet cablIng’s built in galvanic isolation prevents RFI and EMI from entering the connected device, please explain how RFI and EMI “compromises the music streaming signal” given that the data is packetized and error corrected before it gets to the DAC.

Since you state you have extensive experience in this, please be specific and detailed in explaining how this would be technically possible considering not only Ethernet’s robust ECC but also the multiple hardware and software buffers that the EMI and RFI would need to traverse within the computer/streamer in parallel with the data before being sent to the DAC.


----------



## cpurdy

bpcans said:


> 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 light entertainment.



Weird. You and I have a different definition of “all capital letters”, too.


----------



## bpcans

I’ve been listening to music streaming through my headphones with the ENO Ethernet Filter System Ag for some 30 plus hours now, and I’m really beginning to enjoy the smoother more analog sound and the improved instrument separation and dynamics. In two words I’d say that the music sounds more “relaxed” and “natural“. And one of the things that I appreciate most about adding a simple network switch and the ENO is that it was a very easy experiment in sound quality enhancement to try. I’ve done several A/B tests with and without the ENO in the listening chain, and to my ears the music streaming from ROON + Tidal and Qobuz sounds better, which is all that really matters to me.


----------



## bluenight

bfreedma said:


> Facts aren’t biased. That’s the problem with this discussion - one side is based on fact/science and the other is essentially belief/religion/unexplained


No we base this on listening experience. Thats the problem with this discussion one side is baseing this only on reading 802 textbooks. Thats not how you evaluate sound.


----------



## daggah

I've lurked many times on head-fi mostly just reading about headphones, but after reading all 39 pages of this I figured it was time to register and weigh in.  Wow.  Just.  Wow.

First, my background.  I've been in the Air Force for almost 18 years doing IT as a server administrator.  I've worked in numerous datacenters on three continents and provided IT support on mission critical systems at various classification levels fueling senior leadership decisions on the employment of air power.  Never have I seen any sort of high end filtering equipment in use to improve the quality of network connections or improve overall network or system performance in use in any of these datacenters.  Never have I heard a single subject matter expert recommend their deployment or configuration in any of these datacenters.  In every datacenter I've ever worked in, standard cabling meeting minimum required specifications for networking as defined by the IEEE were used - whether it was needed for a standard unclassified print server or much more advanced servers handling highly classified data.

Coming from that understanding, I believe that the following are completely reasonable assumptions:

None of this "audiophile-grade" network equipment or ethernet cables are in use at any datacenter owned by Google, Amazon, Tidal, or Spotify where streamed music is stored as ones and zeros on their servers.  (Such an investment is not cost effective.)

None of this "audiophile-grade" network equipment or ethernet cables are in use at any point in the network infrastructure owned by your internet service providers supplying the ones and zeros that make up streamed music to your playback devices.  (Still not cost effective.)

None of the power infrastructure supplying electricity to your playback devices is in any way "audiophile-grade."  (Still not cost effective.)

None of the electrical wiring in your house meets any kind of "audiophile-grade" standard.  (Again - not cost effective.)

So from these assumptions, IF the scenario that there exists any kind of interference, EMI, RFI, or whatever you want to call it running along your network cables in your home in such a way that the final audio signal you hear in your headphones or speakers is effected, then your "audiophile-grade" cables are responsible for filtering out that interference and that is the difference you hear between "audiophile-grade" cables and regular old Ethernet cables.

If that filtering were indeed possible and necessary, why wouldn't it simply be done at the DAC?  Why wouldn't DAC manufacturers simply advertise higher-end equipment with better filtering capabilities?

For that matter, if all this hypothetical interference were effecting the audio signal then it would seem rudimentary to simply record and analyze the analog output of a DAC being fed by "audiophile grade" cables with the analog output of the same DAC being fed by standard cables.  If there is a significant measured difference then all of these companies could effectively market and demonstrate that and conclusively end the debate.  For good.  No (insert banned objective testing methodology) required.  Wonder why they haven't gone that route...


----------



## daggah

And one other point.  For a couple years of my career, I was an Emissions Security manager.  You can search that on Wikipedia for an open source unclassified brief on the concepts.  I can't go into full details about what I did because some of the regulations surrounding Emissions Security (EMSEC) and TEMPEST and DoD countermeasures are classified.  But the basic idea is that electrical equipment has emanations that, with the right equipment, can be captured and thus the information being processed can be intercepted.

Interestingly enough, it seems to me that if the base ideas used to justify the existence and purchase of this "high end" ethernet cable craziness were true, then those base ideas would interfere with the potential interception of data from an information technology system.  The (very real, proven) emanations from electrical equipment would be mixed in with the noise/EMI/RFI that you guys are talking about and make it harder to produce and interpolate the intercepted data.

At no point during any of my training for EMSEC did we ever learn that these electrical emanations also interfere with the data integrity of our systems.  We were only taught how to employ various countermeasures (which are actually quite basic, believe it or not) to minimize the risk of sensitive data being compromised.


----------



## endless402 (Sep 22, 2021)

Do your own test instead of complaining ? It’s like any audiophile cable. There will always be a camp that believes in it and there will always be a camp that doesn’t.

this has nothing to do with data transfer.

there are many companies with free trials


----------



## daggah

endless402 said:


> Do your own test instead of complaining ? It’s like any audiophile cable. There will always be a camp that believes in it and there will always be a camp that doesn’t.
> 
> this has nothing to do with data transfer



Data transfer has everything to do with it.  In this case, the music is the data being transferred.


----------



## endless402 (Sep 22, 2021)

daggah said:


> Data transfer has everything to do with it.  In this case, the music is the data being transferred.



it has to do with picking up noise along the path. Either from external or from your router / switch.

they’re powered by cheap switching power supplies and different clocks


----------



## audiobomber (Sep 22, 2021)

I read about technology and I read audiophile views, then I listen for myself. I suggest you try it. No need for expensive audio cables, try the inexpensive ones I favour from Yauhody, available on Amazon. If you can't hear any difference, then you can continue to disagree. Disagreeing without listening however disqualifies your opinion, speaking as an audiophile.


----------



## daggah

You're almost there.  There is noise being picked up along the path.  You just have the wrong path.

The real path where this noise exists is the path between your eardrums and your brain, where psychoacoustics are deceiving you into thinking a difference is there where none really exists.

The idea that these "audiophile grade" cables, which, if used, almost certainly only make up less than 1% of the total signal chain from your music provider to your ears, can filter out this unwanted noise, means that effectively a device close to or in your DAC can filter out all of it.  And thus the overpriced "audiophile" cables aren't even needed because they could be replaced by filtering equipment placed just before or even IN your DAC.

But then you wouldn't have pretty cables.  And without pretty cables, your brain wouldn't be convincing you that you hear a difference that isn't there.


----------



## daggah

audiobomber said:


> I read about technology and I read audiophile views, then I listen for myself. I suggest you try it. No need for expensive audio cables, try the inexpensive ones I favour from Yauhody, available on Amazon. If you can't hear any difference, then you can continue to disagree. Disagreeing without listening however disqualifies your opinion, speaking as an audiophile.



It's pretty unfair to insist on listening for myself when discussing a reasonably objective method for doing so is *banned* from this forum.

I'm sure tests that have shown that people can't accurately identify differences between expensive speaker cables and a coat hanger are probably also *banned *here as well.


----------



## endless402

Why is it unfair for you to listen to it yourself?


----------



## griff500

Good grief. You actually read the entire thread and still didn’t understand that it’s nothing to do with data integrity…


----------



## bfreedma

griff500 said:


> Good grief. You actually read the entire thread and still didn’t understand that it’s nothing to do with data integrity…



What’s more amazing is that you’ve read this whole thread and still don’t understand that it’s only about data integrity.  Because the other “problems” with Ethernet being espoused by posters lacking operational and technical knowledge don’t exist.  If they did exist, as stated above, we would see it in other Ethernet applications where the need for accuracy and associated risks are far higher than audio reproduction.

Once again, evidence supporting claims Ethernet cables sound different would be a literal gold mine for vendors.  Yet none can produce that objective data.  Nor can their customers.  I guess the vendors just don’t want to make more money…

Have to love when people who acknowledge they don’t have a deep understanding of Ethernet and/or hands on expertise make claims that counter the existing knowledge base.  You would have thought the last 18 months would have illustrated the risk of believing people with an agenda over hard science.  Apparently not.


----------



## audiobomber (Sep 22, 2021)

daggah said:


> It's pretty unfair to insist on listening for myself when discussing a reasonably objective method for doing so is *banned* from this forum.
> 
> I'm sure tests that have shown that people can't accurately identify differences between expensive speaker cables and a coat hanger are probably also *banned *here as well.


Listen any way you want, but do try listening. The only method I've found that works is long term listening in my system and reversing the change if possible. 

To you, the fact that a test can't tell the difference between a coat hanger and audiophile cables means there's no difference. To me, it means that the test methodology was invalid.

Double blind test discussions are banned in most audiophile forums because some technocrats cant leave off with their evangelism and can't bear to see audiophiles enjoying their hobby.


----------



## bfreedma

audiobomber said:


> Listen any way you want, but do try listening. To you, the fact that a test can't tell the difference between a coat hanger and audiophile cables means there's no difference. To me, it means that the test was invalid.
> 
> Double blind test discussions are banned in most audiophile forums because some technocrats cant leave off with their evangelism and can't bear to see audiophiles enjoying their hobby.



DBT discussions are banned in most audiophile forums because the vendors who fund/advertise/support those sites demand it.  People determining they can’t identify differences is bad for audiophile sales.


----------



## audiobomber (Sep 22, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> DBT discussions are banned in most audiophile forums because the vendors who fund/advertise/support those sites demand it.  People determining they can’t identify differences is bad for audiophile sales.


I must disagree, and I'm sure most forum management would be insulted by your insinuation of corruption. Technocrats are a fringe group in audiophile circles, not a majority by any means. 

The Audio Asylum banned DBT discussions a long time ago, well before they started taking advertising. They were banned because they invariably lead to death spirals like this one.


----------



## daggah

Bingo, bfreedma.  That's a definite bingo.  

The argument that we're the ones trying to prevent true audiophiles from enjoying their hobby is an odd one to make, because we're the ones trying to tell people they don't need to spend crazy amounts of money to *enjoy their audio*.


----------



## daggah

Let's try to tackle this from another angle.  If you buy an audiophile ethernet cable and then "hear a difference" in your audio quality, one of three scenarios must be happening.

1)  The audiophile cable is enhancing the sound.  In this scenario, the cheaper cable is audibly transparent, but the audiophile cable is improving the sound in some way.

2)   The cheaper cable is degrading the sound.  In other words, the audiophile cable is more audibly transparent, and the cheaper cable is getting in the way of achieving that goal.

3)  The sound isn't actually changing, only your perception of it is.  In this scenario, various unavoidable human biases are coming into play to color your perception of what you are hearing.

Obviously I take position #3.  But for you subjectivists, which is happening?  Is the expensive cable enhancing the sound, or is the theorized noise or interference on the cheaper cable somehow making its way through the rest of your signal chain, to your transducer of choice, and into your ears?


----------



## bfreedma

audiobomber said:


> I must disagree, and I'm sure most forum management would be insulted by your insinuation of corruption. Technocrats are a fringe group in audiophile circles, not a majority by any means.
> 
> The Audio Asylum banned DBT discussions a long time ago, well before they started taking advertising. They were banned because they invariably lead to death spirals like this one.



I’m stating this based on first hand experience (Not on this site).  Have been told by numerous vendors that they had certain requirements for paid advertising.

Not sure how being a majority is relevant here.  Facts aren’t determined by popular opinion.


----------



## bfreedma

daggah said:


> Bingo, bfreedma.  That's a definite bingo.
> 
> The argument that we're the ones trying to prevent true audiophiles from enjoying their hobby is an odd one to make, because we're the ones trying to tell people they don't need to spend crazy amounts of money to *enjoy their audio*.



It’s not even about spending large amounts of money, it’s about spending money where it can actually make an audible difference.  Transducers, room treatments, buying content, etc.


----------



## daggah

audiobomber said:


> Listen any way you want, but do try listening. The only method I've found that works is long term listening in my system and reversing the change if possible.
> 
> To you, the fact that a test can't tell the difference between a coat hanger and audiophile cables means there's no difference. To me, it means that the test methodology was invalid.



The problem with "do try listening" is that we subject ourselves to known biases when we do so.  It's also incredibly arrogant of us to believe that we have the golden ears necessary to discern such refinements and enhancements that other people cannot hear.

The problem with insisting that the test methodology is invalid is that you're ignoring that the tests are repeatable and consistent.  Repeatability and consistency is essential to any scientific approach.  To throw out the proposed methodology without offering up an alternative methodology that isn't also repeatable and consistent is madness.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark


----------



## audiobomber

bfreedma said:


> I’m stating this based on first hand experience (Not on this site).  Have been told by numerous vendors that they had certain requirements for paid advertising.
> 
> Not sure how being a majority is relevant here.  Facts aren’t determined by popular opinion.


Forums want members and traffic, so they will naturally try to please the majority. Audiophiles want to pursue their hobby without harassment and death spiral discussions that convince no one. I usually hang out at Audiophile Style, formerly called Computer Audio. The mod there recently purged a half dozen or so technocrats, who constantly disrupted threads with their dogma, usually delivered in an acerbic tone. Then he created a sub-forum for Objectivists. The place is much more peaceful and pleasant now. Please note that a few people are disrupting this thread, which is intended for discussion of audiophile ethernet cables and switches.


----------



## audiobomber

daggah said:


> The problem with "do try listening" is that we subject ourselves to known biases when we do so.  It's also incredibly arrogant of us to believe that we have the golden ears necessary to discern such refinements and enhancements that other people cannot hear.
> 
> The problem with insisting that the test methodology is invalid is that you're ignoring that the tests are repeatable and consistent.  Repeatability and consistency is essential to any scientific approach.  To throw out the proposed methodology without offering up an alternative methodology that isn't also repeatable and consistent is madness.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## daggah

Then what do you propose as a test that isn't flawed?  Or are you just trying to get me banned by trying to guide the discussion over to a banned topic on this forum?

Which of my three scenarios do you think is happening?  Are audiophile ethernet cables enhancing the sound vs the standard cables?  Are the standard cables just degrading the sound?  Or is it all in the listener's head?


----------



## griff500 (Sep 22, 2021)

daggah said:


> Then what do you propose as a test that isn't flawed?  Or are you just trying to get me banned by trying to guide the discussion over to a banned topic on this forum?
> 
> Which of my three scenarios do you think is happening?  Are audiophile ethernet cables enhancing the sound vs the standard cables?  Are the standard cables just degrading the sound?  Or is it all in the listener's head?


Are you really looking for the answer to this or simply wanting to further a debate about whether or not people hear what they hear?

You will already know that a cable cannot add anything to the sound so that suggestion is a strawman argument waiting to happen.


----------



## daggah

Can someone answer the question without evading it or being rude?


----------



## griff500

You have a low threshold for what qualifies as rude.

Your question was answered, not that you are really interested in the answer.


----------



## daggah

griff500 said:


> You have a low threshold for what qualifies as rude.
> 
> Your question was answered, not that you are really interested in the answer.



So if you are saying that you are going with scenario #2, that the "audiophile" ethernet cable is audibly transparent and the standard cable is reducing the sound output quality through degradation, then what is causing the degradation?  There's been a lot of speculation in this thread about interference, EMI, etc., etc.

I am trying to understand how those who believe that a digital cable can impact the sound quality actually think this impact *happens.*

Yes, I have an argument in mind but I am trying to find the exact point where your belief begins to diverge from what we understand about electronics and electrical signals.


----------



## griff500

daggah said:


> So if you are saying that you are going with scenario #2, that the "audiophile" ethernet cable is audibly transparent and the standard cable is reducing the sound output quality through degradation, then what is causing the degradation?  There's been a lot of speculation in this thread about interference, EMI, etc., etc.
> 
> I am trying to understand how those who believe that a digital cable can impact the sound quality actually think this impact *happens.*
> 
> Yes, I have an argument in mind but I am trying to find the exact point where your belief begins to diverge from what we understand about electronics and electrical signals.


I don’t need to understand how it works and I have no interest in debating it. I cannot remember the last time someone tried it and said they didn’t hear a difference. That should at least pique the curiosity of anyone with a scientific way of thinking.

Try it for your self with a decent cable, assuming you’ve got a decent system. If you hear no difference then report it and that’s fine. If you do hear a difference then maybe you’d like to figure out why that might be.


----------



## daggah

That's a cop-out if I've ever seen one.  Who's next to attempt to explain their thinking?


----------



## griff500

daggah said:


> That's a cop-out if I've ever seen one.  Who's next to attempt to explain their thinking?


And that’s why these discussions are pointless and you really should move on. I heard a significant difference and that’s good enough for me. I’ve no idea why you think people need to prove something to you.


----------



## daggah

So you've literally spent several thousand pounds of your local currency on equipment to improve your audio signal chain and you don't have any thoughts on exactly how it does so?


----------



## griff500

daggah said:


> So you've literally spent several thousand pounds of your local currency on equipment to improve your audio signal chain and you don't have any thoughts on exactly how it does so?


I spent more than several thousand on my system and it works exceptionally well. I have not been tempted to take a degree in engineering to understand how it works.


----------



## cpurdy

daggah said:


> Let's try to tackle this from another angle.  If you buy an audiophile ethernet cable and then "hear a difference" in your audio quality, one of three scenarios must be happening.
> 
> 1)  The audiophile cable is enhancing the sound.  In this scenario, the cheaper cable is audibly transparent, but the audiophile cable is improving the sound in some way.
> 
> ...


This is a very reasonable question.

Which is why you are not getting any reasonable answers.

By the way, I really do not appreciate your previous comment about pretty cables 🤣 ... my gorgeous, over-priced cables do a great job at making everything sound better _to me_. And yes, I am 100% certain that physics and science do not support my conclusion, because I am 100% certain that it is purely the placebo effect.

Which is fine. Even nice. Frankly, I'd even say it's pretty cool.

On the other hand, I'm not trying to take people's money for my placebo effect.


----------



## endless402

griff500 said:


> I spent more than several thousand on my system and it works exceptionally well. I have not been tempted to take a degree in engineering to understand how it works.


several thousand is quite an understatement lol.


----------



## daggah

griff500 said:


> I spent more than several thousand on my system and it works exceptionally well. I have not been tempted to take a degree in engineering to understand how it works.


I'm not expecting you to be an engineer.  If you did hold those qualifications I'm sure you'd be over on my side of the debate though. 

Do you have any thoughts on the fact that everyone who's come to this discussion with a background in IT and networking all agree that an ethernet cable transports ones and zeros and won't be able to influence the final sound output?


----------



## griff500

daggah said:


> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that everyone who's come to this discussion with a background in IT and networking all agree that an ethernet cable transports ones and zeros and won't be able to influence the final sound output?


How does a background in IT networking  quality someone to comment on sound?All that’s required for IT networking is data integrity.

Do you have any thoughts on the fact that everyone who has posted here that has tried different cables has reported a difference in sound?

Those with the strongest opinions against this seem to be those who have not tried it. I was of the same opinion before I tried it.


----------



## bpcans

griff500 said:


> How does a background in IT networking  quality someone to comment on sound?All that’s required for IT networking is data integrity.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that everyone who has posted here that has tried different cables has reported a difference in sound?
> 
> Those with the strongest opinions against this seem to be those who have not tried it. I was of the same opinion before I tried it.


griff500, when I came to this thread I was hoping to garner some useful information from other music lovers as to some of the ways that they have enhanced their music streaming experience. But that doesn’t seem to be a possibility given the contrarian nature of several of the commenters who are dead set on making this just another social media avenue for them to vent and stigmatize folks whom they don’t agree with. I swear that there should be a completely separate forum for these people called the “It’s only 1’s and 0’s Big B Party”.


----------



## daggah

Oh you poor persecuted audiophiles.  Gimme a break.

I'm just trying to establish a rational, reasonable explanation for how these audiophile ethernet cables and networking equipment can possibly make a difference.  If you guys are incapable of doing so, why not just admit to yourselves and the rest of us that it is truly all in your head?  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.  If you disagree, I once again ask you to explain which scenario is more likely:  is the audiophile-grade networking equipment enhancing the audio compared to audibly transparent standard networking equipment, or is the standard networking equipment degrading the audio instead?  If the standard networking equipment is degrading the audio, then by what phenomena is that happening?

Furthermore, the language used by those who believe in the effect of audiophile ethernet tend to point to measurable phenomena, but despite this, still no actual evidence is ever presented (remember folks - the plural of anecdote is NOT data.)  Words like "too bright and harsh" were used to describe the sound of bog-standard ethernet cables early on.  "Too bright and harsh" is something we can see on a frequency response graph in the forms of peaks in the treble regions.  But no frequency response graph has been shown.  Words like "sounds more analogue," while pretty vague and a weird way to describe a supposedly better *digital* cable, have also been used to describe the effects of audiophile ethernet, but since audiophile ethernet is not capable of performing digital signal processing (DSP) due to the limits on the devices of operating at the early layers of the OSI model (physical/data link/network) which are all data-agnostic.  DSP would have to be done at the application layer where packets can actually be opened up and manipulated...but the application layer, which is the final layer of the OSI model, is far beyond the scope of network cables and switches.  Finally, if the analog signal from your DAC is being effected by the networking in place on the digital side, then comparing the analog signals coming off the same DAC after swapping the networking equipment in and out should be able to show a difference.  Again, that evidence is never presented.

As a general rule, you shouldn't add devices from sketchy sources into your internal networks.  This includes your home network, which will inevitably process a lot of personally sensitive data as you use your home internet to do things like online shopping, pay bills, apply for lines of credit, manage finances...  I personally would certainly call any company willing to sell me audiophile networking that I can surmise doesn't actually do anything based on my own understanding of networking protocols and standards as a sketchy company that has no business on my home network...or yours.


----------



## daggah

bpcans said:


> 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

daggah said:


> 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

griff500 said:


> 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

audiobomber said:


> 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

daggah said:


> 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

daggah said:


> 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 (Sep 24, 2021)

daggah said:


> 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 (Sep 23, 2021)

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

griff500 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 23, 2021)

bpcans said:


> @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.


----------



## daggah

Before you all pound those ignore buttons, can you at least try to come up with a reasoned, rational response to my arguments?

Or even just try to answer these two questions.  Does audiophile snake oil exist, and if so, what is the threshold at which a product ceases to be legitimate and begins to be snake oil?


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 23, 2021)

bpcans said:


> @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.



One of my past clients is one of the largest streaming companies on the planet.   I’ve also been streaming in a home environment for many years, so saying I have no experience with streaming audio is false. 

objective evidence is simple.  Either the results of properly controlled testing, or better, nulling the output of a DAC using an audiophile network component against the same DAC with a standard network component.

Oddly, I’ve repeatedly presented facts describing 802/Ethernet and all I see in response is “but my ears”.   I’m not a “cable denier”, I’m a “facts supporter”.

BTW, you asked for my qualifications and I responded with some details.  I ask you for the same and instead of answering, you resort to insults.  So let’s try again:

_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._


----------



## AxelCloris

[mod comment] As a reminder we ask that any general debates regarding cables and comparisons take place in the multitude of active threads dedicated to the subject in the Sound a science forum. Let’s please keep this thread focused on sharing our first-hand experiences with different cables. Thanks everyone.


----------



## bluenight (Sep 26, 2021)

daggah said:


> 3) The sound isn't actually changing, only your perception of it is. In this scenario, various unavoidable human biases are coming into play to color your perception of what you are hearing.
> 
> Obviously I take position #3. But for you subjectivists, which is happening? Is the expensive cable enhancing the sound, or is the theorized noise or interference on the cheaper cable somehow making its way through the rest of your signal chain, to your transducer of choice, and into your ears?


And thats the bias. You haven even tried and listen to them. 

My theory.
I think its like our ears taste the mix of electricity that these trancducers produce depending on the chemistry on atom level of this electricity mix in the audio chain entering the circuit boards. You can think of it as a parable to cooking or baking a change in ingredient and amount will make it taste different. Or like one wanting the best beans for coffey or best flour for baking. For best taste.

Changes depending on the copper being used, an copper dig up on Hawaii, Sweden, or China may have different chemistry. Or ofc, occ, silver copper will change these electrical chemistry or behaviour. I think these can make up for subtle changes. Like the one hearing diffrences between yahoudy, amason basics, supra or whatever, or when audio bacon guy heard diffrences begween regular generic ethernet cables in same cat. Also the noise levels in the electricity probebly most impactful. This electricity improvement from say ipowerx vs generic regular psu being used "The iPower X leakage noise is 20x lower than normal SMPS (100pf vs 2,200pf)" is not to be taken lightly. 

So i think the electricity being used as "data" enters our equipment and analogue stage. Yeah buffering and resent means more of dirty or clean electricity is being sent to our equipment. Of course the electricity being sent must enter despite galvanic isolation theres no way around it for wired. 

Good question about why dac makers dont build in filtering for better audio. Maybe its possible to do but not cost effective. Some higher end dac makers maybe do i havent studying there tech.


----------



## daggah

bluenight said:


> So i think the electricity being used as "data" enters our equipment and analogue stage. Yeah buffering and resent means more of dirty or clean electricity is being sent to our equipment. Of course the electricity being sent must enter despite galvanic isolation theres no way around it for wired.



OK, then get an UPS (uninterruptible power supply.)  Most good UPSes will include an in/out port for Ethernet to prevent electrical interference from damaging your equipment.  If it's capable of protecting your equipment from damage caused by a lightning strike, for example, it's more than capable of filtering out this theoretical electrical interference you think is acting on your audio signal in a controlled manner to make your audio sound harsh, overly bright, less analogue, less musical, etc., etc.  (All of these are the counter descriptions for what you claim your snake oil cables are improving in your audio chain.)

The UPS will filter your power.  And provide battery-backup capabilities.  No BS cables, audiofool-grade switches, or snake oil filters required.


----------



## bluenight (Sep 25, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> It’s not even about spending large amounts of money, it’s about spending money where it can actually make an audible difference.  Transducers, room treatments, buying content, etc.


For me its improving on what you allready got and have a solid foundation for future purchases. Instead of craving for new headphones, amp or dacs. I have never been in the hobby to collect on stuff.


----------



## bpcans (Sep 25, 2021)

@bluenight, have you tried any new streaming cables, network switches, or Ethernet filters lately? 😃


----------



## bluenight

bpcans said:


> @bluenight, have you tried any new streaming cables, network switches, or Ethernet filters lately? 😃


No if i do i surely post about it here 

Happy with what i got at the moment. An power conditioner for my router and switch replacing my generic powerstrip would be nice but i dont find one with the power switch at the top for easy shut of with toe tapp for my convinience. Otherwise ifi powerstation would be top of my list.


----------



## bluenight

daggah said:


> 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.


Everyone have experienced gravity and know it exist. Or is gravity all in your head. Have you measuared it? 

Many curious and free willing that have tried different ethernet cables, switches, psu for router/switch have experienced improved audio or sound difference. Maybe everyone with trained  listening experience in a well known audio chain that nothing else been replaced for a while could hear the diffrence if audiophile grade network gear or quiet psu is introduced. And the degration when going back to previous generic stuff. As been mentioned before i think this is the best testing methodolgy, normal listening in a relaxed manner. Blind test is not normal in any way for consumers   may be only good for scientific studys.


----------



## OCC7N

What about this one:
Emo Systems EN-70HD.

Instead of using shielded network cables, which can cause more trouble?


----------



## PointyFox

Those people who hear a difference will also hear a difference when they think there is one even if nothing has changed. The best way to do this is to know what the change is and to test in a "relaxed manner" over a long period of time so that your 3-second "sonic memory" complete goes out the window.


----------



## OCC7N

PointyFox said:


> Those people who hear a difference will also hear a difference when they think there is one even if nothing has changed. The best way to do this is to know what the change is and to test in a "relaxed manner" over a long period of time so that your 3-second "sonic memory" complete goes out the window.


Like hearing the grass grow?😂


----------



## chesebert

Why are we rehashing this one again?

1. Ethernet is magnetically coupled (transformers on both sides) 
2. Ethernet jacks are galvanically isolated
3. checksums are run at both sender and receiver to ensure data integrity
4. no clock signal is transferred via Ethernet

If you are hearing differences, the chances are:
1. your cables were not properly made to ethernet spec
2. your ethernet sockets on either end may not have been made to spec
3. your modem is consumer grade and may not be up to the ethernet spec
4. your streamer designer may not know what he/she is doing and did not design the receiver to ethernet spec
5. your streamer designer may not have a good handle on minimizing noise generated by the receiver


----------



## griff500

Why are we rehashing this one again?

There's more to it than 1s and 0s and systems are not immune to their environment.


----------



## OCC7N (Feb 8, 2022)

ok ok ok. I was thinking today.

In theory data is data, it "lives and breeds" in the digital world right?

When noise is introduced in the cable while listening to music from a nas it doesnt interfere with data but is CARRIED from start to the listeners ear.

So we are actually comparing two different things when we say it doesnt matter. We think data is data, because it has nothing to do with the external worlds vibrations/noise.

But if your house has f´d wires and leakage. It does matter?


----------



## chesebert

OCC7N said:


> ok ok ok. I was thinking today.
> 
> In theory data is data, it "lives and breeds" in the digital world right?
> 
> ...


Noise is carried but stopped right at the jack before the transformer. Unless your streamer is not competently designed (honestly how many hifi shops have actual networking engineers on payroll), you should not be able to “hear” noise on the Ethernet line.


----------



## OCC7N (Feb 8, 2022)

And I just found this


The more I read about these network isolators, the more I think about surge protection.


EDIT:
Emo system recommends two for Audio. Im curisous to know what difference there are between there isolators, they also got 10Gbps version.
Network Isolator emosafe EN-70HD​Network Isolator emosafe EN-1005+​


----------



## griff500 (Feb 8, 2022)

chesebert said:


> Noise is carried but stopped right at the jack before the transformer. Unless your streamer is not competently designed (honestly how many hifi shops have actual networking engineers on payroll), you should not be able to “hear” noise on the Ethernet line.


‘Should’ being the operative word. Next you’ll be saying that galvanic isolation is 100% effective.

It only takes the smallest amount to make a difference as we are dealing with exceptionally small signals that are then significantly amplified, along with the results of any interference. The environment and other items connected to the circuit have the potential to introduce this. My understanding is that the standards require any interference to be dealt with to the extent required to eliminate issues with data integrity and that doesn’t mean such interference has been eradicated.

If you accept the possibility that not all interference might be eradicated at the jack then the question becomes whether or not removing it makes a worthwhile difference and that’s going to depend on the system, the room and the listener’s ears.

I don’t think you’d ‘hear’ the type of ‘noise’ being discussed anyway. I prefer to think of it as interference rather than noise. I’ve no idea why you bring network engineers into it either - it’s got nothing to do with data integrity.

Regardless of this, there was an immediate and obvious difference in the sound produced by my system when switching between a standard ethernet cable and the one I upgraded to. The sound was fine before changing the cable but there was no question that it made a worthwhile improvement to my system.


----------



## teknorob23

OCC7N said:


> And I just found this




This is fine up to a point, but there is a critical problem with optical, which is that at some point the optical signal has to be converted back to an electronic signal to produce audio. This conversion process is inherently "noisy"generates unwanted RFI, so if you connect supply your data optically directly into the Streamer, you then have no control over how the electronics in the streamer makes this conversion of light back to electrons. In my experience you can achieve better results or a better sounding streaming set up by cleaning up the signal in electronic form before it reaches the streamer.  We have lots of customers who come to using fibre either in this way or more commonly (as not many streamers have an optical network connection)  using it like this:

Router or switch  > ethernet cable > 1st fibre convertor - fibre cable > 2nd fibre convertor > ethernet cable > streamer.

The problem here is that the Fibre convertors are active so while they act as a buffer preventing noise passing through, they create and emit noise of their own generated  converting back to ethernet and of course picked up from their power supply.

All of this said, fibre convertors offer a cheapish improvement over running your streamer straight out of the router, but its not a cure-all for removing unwanted noise.

Disclaimer: i am an evil maker and seller of snake oil


----------



## chesebert (Feb 8, 2022)

OCC7N said:


> And I just found this





teknorob23 said:


> This is fine up to a point, but there is a critical problem with optical, which is that at some point the optical signal has to be converted back to an electronic signal to produce audio. This conversion process is inherently "noisy"generates unwanted RFI, so if you connect supply your data optically directly into the Streamer, you then have no control over how the electronics in the streamer makes this conversion of light back to electrons. In my experience you can achieve better results or a better sounding streaming set up by cleaning up the signal in electronic form before it reaches the streamer.  We have lots of customers who come to using fibre either in this way or more commonly (as not many streamers have an optical network connection)  using it like this:
> 
> Router or switch  > ethernet cable > 1st fibre convertor - fibre cable > 2nd fibre convertor > ethernet cable > streamer.
> 
> ...


@griff500  What can I say buy better streamers and don’t use the free cable that comes with your router. I can assure you $20k+ steamers don’t have that many issues with networking cabling - any well constructed cat 7/8 will do just fine.

Also, stop being neurotic about networking cables and “audiophile” switches.


----------



## OCC7N

teknorob23 said:


> This is fine up to a point, but there is a critical problem with optical, which is that at some point the optical signal has to be converted back to an electronic signal to produce audio. This conversion process is inherently "noisy"generates unwanted RFI, so if you connect supply your data optically directly into the Streamer, you then have no control over how the electronics in the streamer makes this conversion of light back to electrons. In my experience you can achieve better results or a better sounding streaming set up by cleaning up the signal in electronic form before it reaches the streamer.  We have lots of customers who come to using fibre either in this way or more commonly (as not many streamers have an optical network connection)  using it like this:
> 
> Router or switch  > ethernet cable > 1st fibre convertor - fibre cable > 2nd fibre convertor > ethernet cable > streamer.
> 
> ...


Thats the only part I don´t like. Its conversion... I need less of that...... I think you are right, it doesn´t actually make sense to buy these things if the signal is not clean to start with. 

But in this:
Router or switch > ethernet cable > 1st fibre convertor - fibre cable > 2nd fibre convertor > ethernet cable > streamer.

We still need a DAC and that dac has to go to a pc....and these things connects to the wall, and if the electric signal is dirty there, the whole thing loses its purpose right?


----------



## chesebert (Feb 8, 2022)

The main noise issue in dac has been mostly solved for like over a decade now. The solution was a carefully designed and regulated switching power supply. It’s in my Linn and in my Emm Labs and both dacs don’t benefit all that great from super expensive power cables.

Honestly just go and try some $10k steamers and dacs. It pays to move up the ladder and stop dicking around with these bandaid approaches to noise.


----------



## griff500

chesebert said:


> @griff500  What can I say buy better streamers and don’t use the free cable that comes with your router. I can assure you $20k+ steamers don’t have that many issues with networking cabling - any well constructed cat 7/8 will do just fine.
> 
> Also, stop being neurotic about networking cables and “audiophile” switches.


Neurotic? Name calling works well in a discussion.

You previously stated that a competently designed streamer should not have issues and you are now talking about $20K+ streamers not having ‘that many issues’. Are you seriously saying that you need to spend that much to get something that has been competently designed? Streamers of that cost still have issues then, just ‘not that many’.

Perhaps I’m not getting whatever point it is that you are trying to make. Perhaps it would be easier for you to say what components you use and what cables you have tried?


----------



## chesebert

griff500 said:


> Neurotic? Name calling works well in a discussion.
> 
> You previously stated that a competently designed streamer should not have issues and you are now talking about $20K+ streamers not having ‘that many issues’. Are you seriously saying that you need to spend that much to get something that has been competently designed? Streamers of that cost still have issues then, just ‘not that many’.
> 
> Perhaps I’m not getting whatever point it is that you are trying to make. Perhaps it would be easier for you to say what components you use and what cables you have tried?


I use Linn Klimax DS. No difference in networking cable once I put in regular cat8.


----------



## griff500

OCC7N said:


> We still need a DAC and that dac has to go to a pc....and these things connects to the wall, and if the electric signal is dirty there, the whole thing loses its purpose right?


Perhaps that’s why my power distributor seemed to make a difference. These components are very often connected to circuits that are also connected to the cheapest of cheap power supplies for other household items, chargers, etc.


----------



## griff500

chesebert said:


> I use Linn Klimax DS. No difference in networking cable once I put in regular cat8.


When you say no difference, what did you compare your regular cat8 with?

Are you using a normal household router or something else?


----------



## griff500

chesebert said:


> The main noise issue in dac has been mostly solved for like over a decade now. The solution was a carefully designed and regulated switch power supply. It’s in my Linn and in my Emm Labs and both dacs don’t benefit all that great from super expensive power cables.


That’s interesting. I found that my Dave was improved by a different power cable but the same cable seemed to make no difference to my streamer.


----------



## chesebert

griff500 said:


> When you say no difference, what did you compare your regular cat8 with?
> 
> Are you using a normal household router or something else?


audio quest or something. Too long ago. I just use regular consumer router


----------



## chesebert (Feb 8, 2022)

griff500 said:


> That’s interesting. I found that my Dave was improved by a different power cable but the same cable seemed to make no difference to my streamer.


Does Dave also use a switching PS? (Okay appears to be yes.) I honestly don’t know. I can’t tell the difference between power cables that are few hundred from the ones that go over $1k.  Obviously I have not tried them all and I have no desire to. My systems sound just right to me.

Oh I forgot to say this, I run a dedicated AC line from the breaker box to my gear and I run an isolation transformer between the dac/streamer and the dedicated line.

Edit 2: I noticed you are in UK, why not ask a Linn dealer to let you borrow the Klimax KDS to test yourself - lucky UK folks with local Linn dealers.


----------



## teknorob23

chesebert said:


> The main noise issue in dac has been mostly solved for like over a decade now. The solution was a carefully designed and regulated switching power supply. It’s in my Linn and in my Emm Labs and both dacs don’t benefit all that great from super expensive power cables.
> 
> Honestly just go and try some $10k steamers and dacs. It pays to move up the ladder and stop dicking around with these bandaid approaches to noise.



You’d be surprised.


----------



## griff500

chesebert said:


> Does Dave also use a switching PS? (Okay appears to be yes.) I honestly don’t know. I can’t tell the difference between power cables that are few hundred from the ones that go over $1k.  Obviously I have not tried them all and I have no desire to. My systems sound just right to me.
> 
> Oh I forgot to say this, I run a dedicated AC line from the breaker box to my gear and I run an isolation transformer between the dac/streamer and the dedicated line.
> 
> Edit 2: I noticed you are in UK, why not ask a Linn dealer to let you borrow the Klimax KDS to test yourself - lucky UK folks with local Linn dealers.


Your power setup is something I would expect to help matters - I am certainly a believer in the quality of the power making a worthwhile difference. Upgrading the PSUs in my streamer made a a difference and I have no doubt that the internal switching PSU in the Dave can be improved upon.

I am no longer in the UK but I am very happy with every part of my system. If I was going to spend on anything it would be going up the ATC active speakers range before anything else.


----------



## iFi audio

griff500 said:


> I am certainly a believer in the quality of the power making a worthwhile difference.



Indeed and here many people would agree that any accessories related to power actually make a far bigger difference than every other additive used downstream.


----------



## bluenight

I heard an improwement when i changed my tv from wifi to wired connection(which take advantage of all my network tweaks:netgear switch after router and ipower x for router and switch, supra cat8)with cleaner sound with less sibilant sss ,better bass and more dynamic to my ears. Also i saw sharper picture quality. I took the wired connection that i had for my apple tv 4k and switched it to my tv and put wifi on my apple tv 4k instead. 

After some weeks i switched back to apple tv being wired and tv to wifi. Again i heard and saw apple tv improve sound and picture, and tv degrade sound. I have hugo 2 connected with optical to my tv.

I had before used wifi for my tv for years without changing. What made me try wired is because disney+app lagged on sound and picture every now and then, wired solved it. Netflix never lagged though. 

So now i need to buy a new 5 meter supra cat 8 so i can have both tv and apple tv wired  Worth it for me.

Also i guess the Lg oled tv and apple tv 4k are noisy places for digital signals to travel just like using a pc or laptop for streaming. I know in the past people have said it not might be worth network tweaking for already noisy sources. But it seems to me it is.


----------



## bluenight

@teknorob23 or others for that matter
Regarding if its best using optical or not . I saw Lumins priciest streamers using optical network is it not the better solution over standard one?

Still the optical conversion to electrons could be a problem? Couldent a reclocker solve it?

https://www.luminmusic.com/lumin-x1.html

Also i found it interesting that big name like innuos released a network switch. I wonder how it compares to competition, its expensive. 

https://innuos.com/phoenixnet/

Also could battery powered switch be a good solution ? https://krispyaudio.com.au/products/entreq-empire-primer-pro.html

And does this makes any sense to you 
that 19V DC router would be a good thing?

"First of all, you need a good router. That is priority one. The routers you been provide from your internet distributor is mostly of weak quality. If you want good quality on your sound you need to replace that router with a high-quality router. We use to recommend ASUS routers for two reasons. They use 19 V DC for power.They are easy setup and are reliable."


----------



## bpcans

@bluenight, that would be a hard pass on the Lumin X1 for me. I think that you could put together a very fine sounding system for much less money.


----------



## bluenight

Yeah i only linked it because it use optical fiber network. Its not for me neither.


----------



## OCC7N

After connecting my TV with toslink/optical. I clearly heard a difference. Amazing.

This made me more curious of setting my whole home network up with Fiber cable(TV, Computer and sound devices)

I am going to look into RME MADI devices.


----------



## cpurdy

iFi audio said:


> Indeed and here many people would agree that any accessories related to power actually make a far bigger difference than every other additive used downstream.


Yes, it is pretty funny that people are buying $1000 and $10000 *digital* cables, yet plugging their equipment into the wall.

If you're not running all of your AC loads on an isolated pure sine wave power source, then you're simply polishing a turd.

And for your DC power loads, there is definitely a difference between the free USB charger that came free with a $5 rechargeable flashlight, and a low noise power supply. However, for digital processing, the power supply doesn't make a difference ... it only *might* matter when powering something that is dealing with analog (and most high end devices will be doing their own power filtering as well).

At any rate, good power handling (and obviously: good surge protection) is arguably a very reasonable investment, especially for the analog portion of your systems.


----------



## iFi audio

cpurdy said:


> However, for digital processing, the power supply doesn't make a difference ... it only *might* matter when powering something that is dealing with analog (and most high end devices will be doing their own power filtering as well).



You make some valid points, but power impacts digital components as well and at times even more than analog products. What DACs make can't be fixed later on but gets amplified and goes into our speakers and headphones. So if a DAC does a poor job, it'll bottleneck each component downstream and even something as simple as an external clean 5V line for USB makes a rather noticeable difference.

Unless by mentioning digital processing you had in mind digital equalization etc. and not D/A conversion


----------



## cpurdy

iFi audio said:


> Unless by mentioning digital processing you had in mind digital equalization etc. and not D/A conversion


As soon as there's any "A", the power handling becomes important, so I would definitely put a DAC squarely into the "good power matters" category.

Most modern electronic devices are built to deal very well with crappy power supplies, so my _theory_ (i.e. not tested, proven facts) is that most good DACs are very good at cleaning up their incoming power. On the digital side of the DAC, it wouldn't matter much if at all, but since the device is creating the analog signal, at that point (the D/A conversion) it matters quite a bit! I used to use your iFi brand of power supply with a Topping D50 DAC for this very reason, but I could not tell any difference at all in the output (probably because the DAC was already doing a fine job of cleaning up the DC power, e.g. caps, VRs etc.). On the other hand, my tube amp is on a pure sine wave power conditioner / surge protector / battery backup.


----------



## iFi audio (Mar 22, 2022)

cpurdy said:


> so I would definitely put a DAC squarely into the "good power matters" category.



OK, we're on the same page then. Still, it's surprising how much feedback we got regarding power supplies for our ZEN Stream which is a streamer, so a fully digital device that needs anything from 9 to 15V to get going. Linear versus switching types are one thing, but there's several users who reported that their ZEN Streams sound noticeably better upon powering them with 15V PSUs.


----------



## griff500

cpurdy said:


> As soon as there's any "A", the power handling becomes important, so I would definitely put a DAC squarely into the "good power matters" category.


Isn't the digital data carried in an analogue signal? Personally, I think it all matters, to a greater or lesser extent.


----------



## iFi audio

griff500 said:


> Isn't the digital data carried in an analogue signal? Personally, I think it all matters, to a greater or lesser extent.



It is, but the question is about how much an audio accessory matters: how much it does (or doesn't) in the context of its price. Answering those questions is a subjective subject and one's individual reference points, though. Some will report that i.e. a PSU change for a DAC made a night and day difference for them, others will mention just slight improvements and some folks won't detect any change at all.


----------



## griff500

iFi audio said:


> It is, but the question is about how much an audio accessory matters: how much it does (or doesn't) in the context of its price. Answering those questions is a subjective subject and one's individual reference points, though. Some will report that i.e. a PSU change for a DAC made a night and day difference for them, others will mention just slight improvements and some folks won't detect any change at all.


Different ears, different systems, different rooms. 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.

For me, a decent power cable made an immediately noticeable difference for my DAC and the same cable made no difference to my streamer (which already has upgraded power supplies internally). I was also surprised to find that a USB cable made an immediately noticeable difference. I accept that other people might find that the same cable made no difference in their system to their ears. 

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.


----------



## gregorio

griff500 said:


> Isn't the digital data carried in an analogue signal?


No, it's carried in an electrical (sometimes optical or radio) signal but not an analogue signal.


griff500 said:


> [1] 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. [2] I'll never understand the obsession some people have with telling others that they are wrong.


1. If it can't make a difference then it can't make a difference. I don't have to try painting a "go faster" stripe on my car before I can deny that it actually makes my car go faster. However, no one is denying the experience of others. They may well have the experience that a "go faster" stripe makes their car go faster, I wouldn't deny that experience, only what's causing it.
2. Really? It's so that newbies don't get scammed and marketing nonsense doesn't completely dominate and ruin being a true audiophile. Although this thread apparently indicates it's loosing battle!

G


----------



## iFi audio

griff500 said:


> 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.



griff500 said:


> 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

gregorio said:


> 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

Mark200 said:


> 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

griff500 said:


> 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

Mark200 said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2022)

griff500 said:


> 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

Mark200 said:


> 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

Mark200 said:


> 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.


Mark200 said:


> 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.


Mark200 said:


> 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. ...


griff500 said:


> 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?


griff500 said:


> [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

gregorio said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2022)

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

Mark200 said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2022)

audiobomber said:


> 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

griff500 said:


> 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

Mark200 said:


> 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.


----------



## griff500

Mark200 said:


> 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).
> 
> ...


I certainly agree that cables are not at the top of the list in terms of components and upgrades. There is no sense in polishing a turd…


----------



## gregorio

griff500 said:


> Nobody denies that data is data or argues about data integrity.


You say that but in the very next sentence that’s exactly what you do!


griff500 said:


> 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.


Digital data has just 2 states, zero or one, that’s it, there are no other states. There is no state for a noisy zero or a noisy one. Any noise or other interference picked up in the digital signal during transport is therefore eliminated when the data is buffered, converted or otherwise processed because it cannot be represented, it’s not a zero or a one. 

That’s what digital data is, that’s why it was invented and that’s what you are denying!

G


----------



## Mark200

griff500 said:


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


Let me explain it this way. When I travel by car 500 miles to see my relatives, I usually go to a car wash when I arrive in the destination city to remove all the dirt, bugs, etc that accumulate on the car during the trip. If I were to get my car washed halfway through the trip, that wouldn't help very much and I still would have to wash it again when I arrive.


----------



## audiobomber (Mar 23, 2022)

Mark200 said:


> 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).
> 
> ...


Garbage in, garbage out, and there seems to be a lot of garbage (noise and jitter) in a digital system.

I have spent most of my money on my amps and DAC. Upgraded power supplies have cost from $100 to $500. I bought my Cardas cables second hand, and I've spent virtually nothing so far on ethernet cables. Upgrading my DAC, amp or speakers would cost at least $10,000. The Signature ethernet cable I will audition is $400. If it improves the sound quality, it's an easy choice.

I neglected to mention that I use Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro headphones, plugged directly into the exaSound DAC. This is a match made in heaven. I listened to the big dollar headphone rigs at the Toronto hi-fi show, and left envying no one. Using the DT 1990 in my desktop system (Schiit Modius, Hafler HA15) is a major compromise, even though the technical specs are pretty much equal.


----------



## audiobomber (Mar 23, 2022)

Mark200 said:


> Let me explain it this way. When I travel by car 500 miles to see my relatives, I usually go to a car wash when I arrive in the destination city to remove all the dirt, bugs, etc that accumulate on the car during the trip. If I were to get my car washed halfway through the trip, that wouldn't help very much and I still would have to wash it again when I arrive.


This is an old article, but explains jitter better than anything else I've found.
https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0509/

Uptone Audio white paper:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386


----------



## Clive101

This debate is in some ways similar to many others in regard to digital data and noise.
It is not the data that is the problem (usually) but moreover noise ending up in the amplifier.
I must admit I have tried some fancy networks switches and they did nothing for me but I do trust others that state they help as I found differences in USB cables and network cables.
Listen to a laptop putting out files via USB vs a quite high end server there will be a difference in SQ although the data is likely to be the same. 
In the former (laptop) network switches and for that matter USB cables make more of a difference in SQ .....that is what I have experienced. I guess they try to clean up the noise in some way.


----------



## griff500

Mark200 said:


> Let me explain it this way. When I travel by car 500 miles to see my relatives, I usually go to a car wash when I arrive in the destination city to remove all the dirt, bugs, etc that accumulate on the car during the trip. If I were to get my car washed halfway through the trip, that wouldn't help very much and I still would have to wash it again when I arrive.


Sorry, I don’t get your analogy. If you’re trying to say that it’s only necessary to clean things up at the end then I would say it’s a lot easier to clean something that was recently cleaned.

Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## Mark200

audiobomber said:


> Garbage in, garbage out, and there seems to be a lot of garbage (noise and jitter) in a network.


I don't agree that there is any noise or jitter *inside *a digital network.

Jitter is the time distortion of recording/playback of a digital audio signal. The potential problem occurs when an signal is converted from analog to digital, or converted from digital to analog, but not when a digital signal is transferred in digital format from one digital device to another digital device (such as with a switch/router or Ethernet cable).

Digital-analog converters (DAC) transform sample sequences (digital values) to analog voltage level sequences. In the ideal case, the same time distance between the samples should be maintained. The distance is defined by what is called clocking. However, clocking is not perfect and the restored signal can be somewhat distorted. Jitter is thus a deviation of time between the digital and analog samples (deviation of the sampling rate) only when the conversion from digital to analog is performed (or vis versa).

Therefore, digital jitter cannot be prevented or removed by using audiophile switches or Ethernet cables, since they are not involved in the conversion from digital to analog (or vis versa). Obviously, DAC's are important in preventing jitter.


----------



## Mark200

griff500 said:


> Sorry, I don’t get your analogy. If you’re trying to say that it’s only necessary to clean things up at the end then I would say it’s a lot easier to clean something that was recently cleaned.
> 
> Garbage in, garbage out.


If there is any garbage in the digital data, a switch/router or Ethernet cable cannot remove it (and cannot prevent it).

And no, it is not easier to clean the electrical noise halfway through, because the noise (if it exists) is not in the data, it is in each device.


----------



## griff500

Mark200 said:


> If there is any garbage in the digital data, a switch/router or Ethernet cable cannot remove it (and cannot prevent it).
> 
> And no, it is not easier to clean the electrical noise halfway through, because the noise (if it exists) is not in the data, it is in each device.


You completely missed my point. Almost the exact opposite. All of the devices are connected to each other… It’s a system.


----------



## Mark200

griff500 said:


> You completely missed my point. Almost the exact opposite. All of the devices are connected to each other… It’s a system.


Yes, but the whole point of digital audio is that there is no loss and no noise added to the data when transferring one digital signal to another digital device. This is the opposite of an analog signal where the noise and the data can be intermingled.


----------



## audiobomber

Mark200 said:


> Yes, but the whole point of digital audio is that there is no loss and no noise added to the data when transferring one digital signal to another digital device. This is the opposite of an analog signal where the noise and the data can be intermingled.


You didn't read the jitter and digital noise links I posted above, did you?


----------



## gregorio

audiobomber said:


> This is an old article, but explains jitter better than anything else I've found.
> https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0509/


I’ve seen way better. Most of it isn’t too bad but the section on jitter audibility is pretty much wall to wall nonsense. He avoids being called a liar by littering it with IME and IMO. Even from the very start, the first jitter audibility tests were in 1950, the first published study I know of was by the BBC in 1974 and there’s been a lot since, so not in its infancy at all!

But you seem not to have read the section on networking, which states:
“_Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue. The only clock that is important is the one in the end-point device. Examples of end-point devices are: Squeezebox, Duet and Sonos. This would seem to be the ideal situation, which it certainly is._”



audiobomber said:


> Uptone Audio white paper:
> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...enson_EtherREGEN_white_paper.pdf?v=1583429386


That’s marketing material for a supposed Ethernet regenerator. Do you really expect them to say that there can’t be jitter issues with Ethernet and therefore you shouldn’t buy the unit they’re selling? Of course not, they’re going to come up with some supposed problem that their unit supposedly fixes. A typical example of an age old audiophile marketing tactic. 

G


----------



## chesebert (Mar 23, 2022)

network protocol eliminates jitter as clock signal is not actually transmitted. networking also provides built-in error correction bits; but up to the streamer to determine how they want to deal with it. competently designed streamers will buffer up and ask to resend packet if there is a checksum error.

Buy routers, switches and cables that are built to spec. Cat 6 or better is recommended due to higher data transmission rate requirements - i.e., less noise tolerance.


----------



## iFi audio

Mark200 said:


> 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.



Headphones/speakers, then either an amp for them or a DAC and then all else seems to be the most common way and it works. But interestingly, accessories such as i.e. USB reclockers or quiet power supplies don't cost an arm and leg these days, so even budget setups can accommodate them. Many users don't have resources for any major purchases above what they already have, so for them experimenting with accessories often is an extension of this hobby.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 23, 2022)

iFi audio said:


> Headphones/speakers, then either an amp for them or a DAC and then all else seems to be the most common way and it works. But interestingly, accessories such as i.e. USB reclockers or quiet power supplies don't cost an arm and leg these days, so even budget setups can accommodate them. Many users don't have resources for any major purchases above what they already have, so for them experimenting with accessories often is an extension of this hobby.


I can personally attest iFi USB reclocker and AC purifier thing do work and work quiet well for my situation. I keep buying them - I have like 5 of those now


----------



## iFi audio

chesebert said:


> I can personally attest iFi USB reclocker and AC purifier thing do work and work quiet well for my situation. I keep buying them - I have like 5 of those now



Thanks and I'm happy to read that these little buggers work well for you. Thanks again and enjoy


----------



## bibbs

chesebert said:


> network protocol eliminates jitter as clock signal is not actually transmitted. networking also provides built-in error correction bits; but up to the streamer to determine how they want to deal with it. competently designed streamers will buffer up and ask to resend packet if there is a checksum error.
> 
> Buy routers, switches and cables that are built to spec. Cat 6 or better is recommended due to higher data transmission rate requirements - i.e., less noise tolerance.


correct but most people cant or dont want to understand how it works. there is a whole complex chain of events with networking to make sure that the bytes of data sent from one end get to the other end intact but you can still get corruption of data. your not sending 1.s and 0.s your sending algorithms and code in a voltage/light carrier in chunks of data which is compiled/decompiled. depending on the compiler. yes at the very core of every compiler you are dealing at machine code level and 1-0. you need the same one at the other end to decompile. then there is handshaking, memory stacks so on and so on. its all a very very complex matter and works at the blink of an eye. if you are truly interested then take an online course with CISCO.

instead of voltage or light wireless networking uses radio waves as the carrier signal.

IIR audio data also has modulation of the 1-0 so a 1 can be high voltage where the next 1 can be low voltage but 0 is always off (sort of).

but hey i could be wrong......


----------



## griff500

Relevance?


----------



## chesebert (Mar 23, 2022)

bibbs said:


> correct but most people cant or dont want to understand how it works. there is a whole complex chain of events with networking to make sure that the bytes of data sent from one end get to the other end intact but you can still get corruption of data. your not sending 1.s and 0.s your sending algorithms and code in a voltage/light carrier in chunks of data which is compiled/decompiled. depending on the compiler. yes at the very core of every compiler you are dealing at machine code level and 1-0. you need the same one at the other end to decompile. then there is handshaking, memory stacks so on and so on. its all a very very complex matter and works at the blink of an eye. if you are truly interested then take an online course with CISCO.
> 
> instead of voltage or light wireless networking uses radio waves as the carrier signal.
> 
> ...


Not sure where you are going with this. You work in abstraction in the digital domain and you use error correction to maintain data integrity. Otherwise you would need to also consider via resistance and CMOS gate leakage.


----------



## bibbs (Mar 23, 2022)

griff500 said:


> Relevance?


i guess what i'm saying is up to a certain length of network cable it makes absolutely no difference what you use but if you have dodgy termination it will. yes shielding from EMI, AC voltages (the twisting in the cable takes care of a lot though) etc.etc is a must but apart from that it makes no difference... nada.... none. dont believe me then go and talk to a CCNP about it.

you have to remember that the internet is full of cheap cable transmitting between devices and it works pretty well.

its all about the audio industry ripping the hard earned from your pocket... but hey if it makes you sleep at night spending wonga then great.


----------



## griff500

bibbs said:


> i guess what i'm saying is up to a certain length of network cable it makes absolutely no difference what you use but if you have dodgy termination it will. yes shielding from EMI, AC voltages (the twisting in the cable takes care of a lot though) etc.etc is a must but apart from that it makes no difference... nada.... none. dont believe me then go and talk to a CCNP about it.
> 
> you have to remember that the internet is full of cheap cable transmitting between devices and it works pretty well.
> 
> its all about the audio industry ripping the hard earned from your pocket... but hey if it makes you sleep at night spending wonga then great.


So apart from the stuff that makes a difference it makes no difference...

I have no idea why you mention cheap cable transmitting between devices - are you *still* talking about data integrity?

I have found a noticeable difference in the sound produced when using different ethernet cables. Many others have reported the same (this being what the thread is supposed to be about). Some participants persist in banging on about data integrity, which is not what's being discussed.

This thread asks you to share your experience based on listening. Could those who persist in posting that this makes no difference actually take a moment to state exactly what their listening experience was that made them reach this conclusion?


----------



## gregorio (Mar 24, 2022)

griff500 said:


> So apart from the stuff that makes a difference it makes no difference...


Effectively yes. However, it depends on what you mean by “a difference”, a difference in what? A difference in the digital audio, a difference in the analogue audio, a difference in the sound, a difference that is audible or a difference in the perception of a listener? In the latter case, everything can potentially make a difference, a green marker pen on a CD, wooden cable lifters, different Ethernet cables, etc., literally everything and anything can produce a difference in what we perceive/hear. In fact, absolutely no difference whatsoever can make a big difference to what we perceive/hear and musicians have been trained to do exactly that for at least 6 centuries and probably a great deal longer.

If we’re talking about a difference in the sound that is audible though, then most of it makes no difference whatsoever. With some pathological exceptions, the only thing that really makes a difference with modern audio reproduction technology are the speakers/HPs/IEMs and the listening environment.


griff500 said:


> This thread asks you to share your experience based on listening. Could those who persist in posting that this makes no difference actually take a moment to state exactly what their listening experience was that made them reach this conclusion?


For the above reason, the answer to this question tells us little to nothing at all about the performance of audio equipment. All it tells us in most cases is the susceptibility of the listener to biases and perceptual error, which is hardly useful information because everyone suffers from perceptual error virtually all the time. In fact just appreciating music in the first place is dependent on that fact.

As it’s been specifically requested though, and is in the thread title, here is a brief history of my listening experience:

My listening skills started being formally trained when I entered my teens and played an orchestral instrument. Later in my teens I attended one of Europe’s most respected music conservatories and then for several years played with various orchestras. Then I became a sound engineer, toured and recorded with an international concert soloist for quite a few years, worked with a number of the world’s great orchestras, at many of the world’s famous concert venues and several of the world’s best recording studios. I also worked with a number of well known artists from other musical areas, jazz and popular genres. Later, for about 6 years I was a senior university lecturer and course designer, where I taught, among the other areas of music technology, listening skills. I still currently earn my living as a music/sound engineer.

My listening experience is probably greater or at least equal to anyone on this site but again, that tells us next to nothing. The facts aren’t the facts because I say so, because of my experience or even because a more famous musician, engineer or scientist says so. They’re the facts because they have been reliably evidenced/proven.

Incidentally, in case I haven’t made it clear, I, like all other humans, experience perceptual errors. I have at times perceived/heard differences in cables and all sorts of things, and of course I’ve been trained for decades to deliberately perceive the exact same thing differently.  The difference in my situation is that my livelihood depends to a certain extent on knowing what’s really going on and I have the facilities to test, when necessary, whether what I’m perceiving is actually what’s happening.

G


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> 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


The numbers doesent exist. Its electrical signals. High or low voltage. Yes in binary code form.


----------



## F208Frank

Digital audio is always so interesting to read about. I still do not understand switches and never had one.


----------



## audiobomber (Mar 25, 2022)

gregorio said:


> I’ve seen way better. Most of it isn’t too bad but the section on jitter audibility is pretty much wall to wall nonsense. He avoids being called a liar by littering it with IME and IMO. Even from the very start, the first jitter audibility tests were in 1950, the first published study I know of was by the BBC in 1974 and there’s been a lot since, so not in its infancy at all!
> 
> But you seem not to have read the section on networking, which states:
> “_Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue. The only clock that is important is the one in the end-point device. Examples of end-point devices are: Squeezebox, Duet and Sonos. This would seem to be the ideal situation, which it certainly is._”
> ...


Clearly Steve Nugent believes jitter is a problem, which is why Empirical Audio makes a product to correct for it.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154408.0

Maybe jitter can be fully corrected by the last clock, I don't know, but that does not appear to be the case for digital noise. My evidence is that I can hear changes in my network gear (cables, power supplies) which are separated from my audio system by switches, cables and wi-fi.

*John Swenson is widely known as a talented engineer, with decades of experience in silicon chip design (he was a senior project lead at a major integrated circuit firm for 30 years).*
https://uptoneaudio.com/pages/j-swenson-tech-corner
So should I believe your claimed expertise, telling me I can't hear what I clearly can hear, or someone with verified credentials, who explains why I hear what I hear?


----------



## gregorio (Mar 25, 2022)

bluenight said:


> The numbers doesent exist. Its electrical signals. High or low voltage. Yes in binary code form.


True but it makes no difference because as you say it’s still binary. There is no tertiary, so there is no state for say a noisy on or noisy off or noisy high voltage or noisy low voltage.


audiobomber said:


> Clearly Steve Nugent believes jitter is a problem, which is why Empirical Audio makes a product to correct for it.


Clearly Steve Nugent didn’t believe that in the previous article you referenced but now he’s got a product for it, he does. Doesn’t that make you even the tiniest bit sceptical? For me, it’s a big red flag that at the very least requires some investigation before quoting as a reference.


audiobomber said:


> *John Swenson is widely known as a talented engineer, with ….*


With … a product to sell.


audiobomber said:


> So should I believe your claimed expertise, telling me I can't hear what I clearly can hear, or someone with verified credentials, who explains why I hear what I hear?


Careful here, I’m not telling you what you can’t experience when you listen/hear, I’m telling you what’s not in the sound (that is audible).

Your question is effectively: Should you believe someone who changes their stated belief when they’ve got a product sell, someone with a lot of specialist knowledge who has a product to sell or some anonymous stranger (me) on the internet who claims to have some knowledge but is not selling a product?

I don’t know about you but personally, it’s hard to think of 3 crappier choices! I wouldn’t consider believing any of them but especially those with a financial interest in me believing them. If it were me, I’d either go and find out for myself (using independent reliable information instead of marketing materials) or, if I wasn’t that interested and/or couldn’t be bothered, I’d refrain from commenting publicly to avoid the possibility of making a fool of myself, spreading marketing lies even further and misleading others. But that’s just me.

G


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> True but it makes no difference because as you say it’s still binary. There is no tertiary, so there is no state for say a noisy on or noisy off or noisy high voltage or noisy low voltage.


From my listeningen experience the lower the noise the smps for router and switch emits in the electricity the better the sound. For exe ifi ipowerx vs generic smps. I think the noise travels somehow in the Ethernet cable and enters music streamer or audio chain.


----------



## gregorio

bluenight said:


> I think the noise travels somehow in the Ethernet cable and enters music streamer or audio chain.


Yes but as soon as the data is received, it is stored in a buffer, which can ONLY store a binary value, so noise is eliminated because there is no state that can represent it. Obviously, when that data is sent onwards to the next device in the chain, as a digital (electrical) signal, it can pick-up some noise/interference again, until it enters the data buffer of that next device and so on down the chain until the data hits the data buffer in your DAC. This removal of noise picked-up in transit is why digital was invented in the first place. 

Now maybe some enterprising audiophile DAC designer could engineer a way around this automatic consequence of how digital data works and somehow allow the noise/interference from the last transfer to pass through at audible levels but I’m not aware of any such DACs and why would an audiophile DAC designer do that anyway? Are there any audiophiles who want a DAC with deliberately audible noise/interference?

G


----------



## bluenight

gregorio said:


> Yes but as soon as the data is received, it is stored in a buffer, which can ONLY store a binary value, so noise is eliminated because there is no state that can represent it. Obviously, when that data is sent onwards to the next device in the chain, as a digital (electrical) signal, it can pick-up some noise/interference again, until it enters the data buffer of that next device and so on down the chain until the data hits the data buffer in your DAC. This removal of noise picked-up in transit is why digital was invented in the first place.
> 
> Now maybe some enterprising audiophile DAC designer could engineer a way around this automatic consequence of how digital data works and somehow allow the noise/interference from the last transfer to pass through at audible levels but I’m not aware of any such DACs and why would an audiophile DAC designer do that anyway? Are there any audiophiles who want a DAC with deliberately audible noise/interference?
> 
> G


Like with anything i think there can be gradations of how much noise can enter the audio device. Can anything exist without gradations? Digital audio/video through ethernet does have a very High minimum level quality that will satisfy most people. But can be improved upon in my experience.


----------



## griff500

I thought this was a thread for sharing your personal experience…


----------



## audiobomber

griff500 said:


> I thought this was a thread for sharing your personal experience…


You're right. I'm still auditioning the Supra+ and AS Signature cables, not ready to say for a few more days.


----------



## chesebert

The key factors in Ethernet performance: transformer coupling on both ends and correctly built shielded cat6 or better cable with metal jackets.


----------



## Mark200

bibbs said:


> correct but most people cant or dont want to understand how it works. there is a whole complex chain of events with networking to make sure that the bytes of data sent from one end get to the other end intact but you can still get corruption of data. your not sending 1.s and 0.s your sending algorithms and code in a voltage/light carrier in chunks of data which is compiled/decompiled. depending on the compiler. yes at the very core of every compiler you are dealing at machine code level and 1-0. you need the same one at the other end to decompile. then there is handshaking, memory stacks so on and so on. its all a very very complex matter and works at the blink of an eye. if you are truly interested then take an online course with CISCO.
> 
> instead of voltage or light wireless networking uses radio waves as the carrier signal.
> 
> ...


Cisco network devices are typically much more complex that one would use in a home network, or even in a music studio. That is because they are typically "managed" devices that run code to continuously monitor the performance, provide security, report on errors, etc.


----------



## Mark200 (Mar 26, 2022)

F208Frank said:


> Digital audio is always so interesting to read about. I still do not understand switches and never had one.


Switches for home networks just give a way to get more than 4 hard-wired Ethernet connections to your LAN than is typically provided by your ISP supplied WiFi Router. So a switch is kind of like a power strip extender (but for Ethernet, not power) that you connect to one of the 4 Ethernet connections from your ISP supplied router to get more Ethernet connections to your LAN.

A managed switch from companies like Cisco are used on commercial network applications and can have remote monitoring, security, and other features built into them, not suitable for home use.

Audiophile switches sit between the router and end component, and supposedly remove impurities in the digital signal (which is not possible).


----------



## F208Frank

Mark200 said:


> Switches for home networks just give a way to get more than 4 hard-wired Ethernet connections to your LAN than is typically provided by your ISP supplied WiFi Router. So a switch is kind of like a power strip extender (but for Ethernet, not power) that you connect to one of the 4 Ethernet connections from your ISP supplied router to get more Ethernet connections to your LAN.
> 
> A managed switch from companies like Cisco are used on commercial network applications and can have remote monitoring, security, and other features built into them, not suitable for home use.
> 
> Audiophile switches sit between the router and end component, and supposedly remove impurities in the digital signal (which is not possible).


When you wrote (which is not possible) are you implying that switches do not much?

Or am I absorbing your information wrong?


----------



## iFi audio

bluenight said:


> Its electrical signals. High or low voltage. Yes in binary code form.



That is factually correct


----------



## Mark200

F208Frank said:


> When you wrote (which is not possible) are you implying that switches do not much?
> 
> Or am I absorbing your information wrong?


You mean do not "do" much? They are like splitters of Ethernet networks to expand the number of connections on the LAN, sort of like Ethernet hubs. Although hubs also expand the number of possible hardwire connections in a Ethernet network, the total bandwidth of all the combined connections is limited to the bandwidth of a single main line going into the hub, but a switch is much more efficient when there are multiple connections to the switch. Switches are more used in large enterprises for that reason.

Audiophile switches claim to clean up the signal for better sound. Some people claim to hear differences in the sound with these audiophile switches, which I don't understand because the the signal is in digital format and since it is Ethernet and TCP/IP, there can be no data corruption or errors (if there are errors, the data is automatically retransmitted), unless there is a total failure to connect. That doesn't mean one can't hear difference is cables that carry analog signals, which is certainly possible.

The only way a digital signal transmitted by Ethernet and TCP/IP through an Ethernet cable or audiophile switch can sound different than no audiophile switch is if the switch actually changes the digital signal (Ethernet cables don't have any electronics in them so they cannot change the digital information). It is possible that they reduce the amount of electrical noise along the cable path, but that noise is not in the digital signal, and any downstream device can just as easily have noise filters to keep out any noise that travels with the cable (but outside the digital data).


----------



## AxelCloris

Folks, this thread has shifted too far from listening impressions and personal experiences, so let's please bring the discussion back on topic. If anyone would like to debate non-subjective thoughts, we welcome you to join one of the threads already underway in Sound Science or to start a discussion thread there of your own. Let's please keep this thread on topic of the OPs original question regarding first-hand listening experiences between components. Thanks everyone.


----------



## bluenight

griff500 said:


> I thought this was a thread for sharing your personal experience…


I see you have the innous phoenixnet. Any good? heard a difference from what you previously used?


----------



## cpurdy

bibbs said:


> correct but most people cant or dont want to understand how it works. there is a whole complex chain of events with networking to make sure that the bytes of data sent from one end get to the other end intact but you can still get corruption of data. your not sending 1.s and 0.s your sending algorithms and code in a voltage/light carrier in chunks of data which is compiled/decompiled. depending on the compiler. yes at the very core of every compiler you are dealing at machine code level and 1-0. you need the same one at the other end to decompile. then there is handshaking, memory stacks so on and so on. its all a very very complex matter and works at the blink of an eye. if you are truly interested then take an online course with CISCO.
> 
> instead of voltage or light wireless networking uses radio waves as the carrier signal.
> 
> ...


You got most of the terms wrong, but I almost kind-of follow what you're trying to say.

And at a low level, there are no ones and zeros; there's just voltage. And for the last 20 years, it's not even about off vs. on (e.g. 0v vs .5v). Rather, there are multiple values encoded into a wave. So where we used to send 1 value in every wave, we might send 4 now, or more. Conceptually, those 4 values are 0 or 1, but in reality, it's more like a number from 0..15 (4 binary digits, i.e. 2^4 potential combinations). This is how the PCIe bus has kept doubling in throughput, for example, with the same number of wires: it is now sending data on the leading edge and the trailing edge of each wave (that is a simple doubling of data rate), etc.



griff500 said:


> I have found a noticeable difference in the sound produced when using different ethernet cables. Many others have reported the same (this being what the thread is supposed to be about). Some participants persist in banging on about data integrity, which is not what's being discussed.


I don't mean to be pedantic, but you have not found a noticeable difference in the sound produced when using different ethernet cables.

You may happen to like the same sound more when you plug in a more expensive ethernet cable, but the sound is exactly the same.

And your increased enjoyment that results from a more expensive cable makes your purchase worth it; *there's nothing fake about the placebo effect*. I have no problem with your approach; I do the same exact stupid thing with beautiful expensive cables (carrying digital data) that cannot make any difference in the resulting sound. Of course I enjoy the sound more when the cables are prettier; who wouldn't?!?



gregorio said:


> Yes but as soon as the data is received, it is stored in a buffer, which can ONLY store a binary value, so noise is eliminated because there is no state that can represent it. Obviously, when that data is sent onwards to the next device in the chain, as a digital (electrical) signal, it can pick-up some noise/interference again, until it enters the data buffer of that next device and so on down the chain until the data hits the data buffer in your DAC. This removal of noise picked-up in transit is why digital was invented in the first place.


It's even less noisy than that. As it is passed around and processed, digital data is never "stored" or "held" in a way that degrades, no matter how many trillions of hops it takes, and no matter how long it is held. Whether it's in a register in a CPU, or in a DRAM cell, that 0 is "any charge kind of close to 0", and that 1 is "any charge that isn't around zero". And many times every second, an automatic process occurs (called a refresh, e.g. see "DRAM refresh rate") that "tests" the data, and then "sets" the data to a "zero" or "one", based on whether the voltage was around zero or not.

So basically, a digital device like an audio player is juggling 100,000,000s of "hot potatoes" (bits) many many times every second, and never, ever, ever drops one of them. And every time it juggles one, it "re-cleans up" the bit.

(OK: Technically, a cosmic ray *might* randomly flip *a single bit* in your computer *once every couple of months*. See https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/658626 and https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.206.4420.776 ... this can be a design issue in building hardware for outer space, for example.)



bluenight said:


> Like with anything i think there can be gradations of how much noise can enter the audio device. Can anything exist without gradations? Digital audio/video through ethernet does have a very High minimum level quality that will satisfy most people. But can be improved upon in my experience.


There are two different issues here.

First, there is the data being transmitted and received, and it is *always* received bit perfect. (Because if it is not received bit perfect, it is not received at all. That's why TCP exists: any packet that is not 100% bit perfect is just tossed, which forces TCP to re-send the tossed packet until it is received bit perfect. 99.99% of packets come through bit perfect on the first try. Do the math: 99.999999% of packets are bit perfect on the first retry, and 99.99999999999999% on the second retry, and so on.)



chesebert said:


> The key factors in Ethernet performance: transformer coupling on both ends and correctly built shielded cat6 or better cable with metal jackets.


I'm not really sure what the key factors are on the hardware side, and I work with this stuff. Each generation has tighter and tighter tolerances; just read the specs and tolerances for CAT5 vs 5e vs 6 vs 6e vs 7 vs 8 vs 8e.

The main thing, for this particular conversation, is that the data that comes through is digital and it is transferred *bit perfect*. There are no errors. There is no noise. No matter how bad the power supplies are. No matter how crappy the cables are. The data either comes through bit perfect, or not at all.

So *the very first step in the chain that can affect audio quality is the DAC*, because up to that point the data is digitally communicated in a bit perfect manner, whether that is Ethernet or USB or coax or fiber or whatever.


----------



## gregorio

cpurdy said:


> As it is passed around and processed, digital data is never "stored" or "held" in a way that degrades, no matter how many trillions of hops it takes, and no matter how long it is held. …


Yes, I realise that. I was referring to the digital signal picking up noise/interference in transit though the Ethernet cable/s, much of which is rejected due to the differential signalling but what’s left is then removed by the process you described. 

Back on topic though, there can be a difference in sound between Ethernet cables. Nothing to do with the digital signal passing through them of course but they do make some sound when you plug them in or step on them. Based on listening, a marginally different click or crunching sound, probably only once or twice in the life of the cable, is not worth buying more expensive Ethernet cables for me personally.

G


----------



## griff500

cpurdy said:


> You got most of the terms wrong, but I almost kind-of follow what you're trying to say.
> 
> And at a low level, there are no ones and zeros; there's just voltage. And for the last 20 years, it's not even about off vs. on (e.g. 0v vs .5v). Rather, there are multiple values encoded into a wave. So where we used to send 1 value in every wave, we might send 4 now, or more. Conceptually, those 4 values are 0 or 1, but in reality, it's more like a number from 0..15 (4 binary digits, i.e. 2^4 potential combinations). This is how the PCIe bus has kept doubling in throughput, for example, with the same number of wires: it is now sending data on the leading edge and the trailing edge of each wave (that is a simple doubling of data rate), etc.
> 
> ...


I did not see any first-hand experience related in your post?

Telling me that I have not heard what I have heard is not being pedantic - it is something else.

The DAC is not the first thing in the chain that can affect audio quality as it is not the first thing in the audio chain.

Again, please post your first-hand experience only - that is what the thread is about. As has been suggested by moderators on several occasions, if you want to discuss theory then there is a sound science forum for that.


----------



## moriez

cpurdy said:


> I don't mean to be pedantic, but you have not found a noticeable difference in the sound produced when using different ethernet cables.
> 
> You may happen to like the same sound more when you plug in a more expensive ethernet cable, but the sound is exactly the same.
> 
> And your increased enjoyment that results from a more expensive cable makes your purchase worth it; *there's nothing fake about the placebo effect*. I have no problem with your approach; I do the same exact stupid thing with beautiful expensive cables (carrying digital data) that cannot make any difference in the resulting sound. Of course I enjoy the sound more when the cables are prettier; who wouldn't?!?



He said he did hear a difference, and you're saying he isn't. Okay man.. How person A precisely knows what person B is experiencing is a trip. Possibly a big help to humanity!


----------



## griff500 (Mar 28, 2022)

bluenight said:


> I see you have the innous phoenixnet. Any good? heard a difference from what you previously used?


I was not able to assess this as I would usually like to do as I bought and installed it a week before I moved to a new home in a different country. I seem to recall that my initial impressions were that I felt there was a difference but it was not as obvious as the ethernet cable, but I then broke the system down and shipped it to the new place and then simply set everything up again, so I hadn't really assessed it properly and I've been too busy to do so since moving.

I was previously using a cheap ethernet 'hub', so the Sean Jacobs power supply in the PhoenixNET might be a major factor in any differences that people notice and the rest is perhaps better quality connectors, assuming that's the case. Just speculating...

I am now used to the sound of my system in it's new location so if I can motivate myself to do so I'll remove it from the chain and see if I notice a difference.

I am getting internet over a wireless (mobile) system in the new location, whereas it was over the usual telephone cables in my previous location, although it was not connected to a telephone and I don't think this should be a factor. It's perhaps worth noting this change though.

So to conclude, I cannot provide a conclusion at this time.


----------



## iFi audio

griff500 said:


> The DAC is not the first thing in the chain that can affect audio quality as it is not the first thing in the audio chain.



That's true. Power is the first thing that affects audio quality 



bluenight said:


> I see you have the innous phoenixnet. Any good? heard a difference from what you previously used?



The word is that their USB reclocker is very good.


----------



## audiobomber (Mar 30, 2022)

I've finished my ethernet cable trial. From Wednesday until Sunday, three cables were auditioned, for several hours daily, connected between the etherREGEN and my Playpoint streamer. All cables were 3-ft long or shorter:
https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...8-Ethernet-Cable/p/380224641/category=4059160
https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...able-***-New-***/p/322022400/category=4059160
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07WRX7YBZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Yauhody CAT8 cables are dead cheap, but in previous listening tests vs. other CAT5e, 6, 6a, and CAT7 from U-Green, Monoprice, CableCreations, and even vs. Supra CAT8, I always ended up in the same place; with a full chain of Yauhody. I know someone who runs a 10Gbps system using this cable, so it is technically very capable.

Yauhody CAT8 has what I call a chocolatey tonal balance; great bass power but lacking a bit of definition, very good soundstage, loses a bit of detail due to its warmth, great PRaT and listenability. I know it's too warm to be accurate, especially since I added the etherREGEN, that's why I borrowed the Audio Sensibility cables from a friend. His system is much more expensive than mine and shows off the Audio Sensibility cables very well. He uses three Supra+ cables, one of which is 50 feet long, with a short Signature cable to the streamer. The Signature cable with all Yauhody was not good, even warmer than my all-Yauhody system. To better mimic my friend's system, I replaced all three upstream cables with Supra CAT8 and removed the LAN Isolator/filter, which was feeding the etherREGEN, for the remainder of the tests.

Supra CAT8 cable has some excellent qualities, but is flawed, IME. Soundstage is very good, detail is excellent, and it adds a bit of glossiness, which audiophiles tend to love. Treble is a little too bright, bass is very articulate but suppressed. The Supra+ cable has similar tonal balance, but is livelier, with better dynamics. Both versions lack bass heft, and with some music, a bit of ethereal quality lacking solidity, which disappoints me. What's worse is that I don't find Supra cable very musical. I find it fatiguing over time, at least in my system.

The expensive Signature cable was the winner in this shootout. It had all the audiophile goodies; smooth, great soundstage, micro detail, etc. Tonality was an oddity, because it adds an obvious bass kick, which goes a long way to making up for the reticent bass of the Supra cable. However, even with the bass bump, I could still hear some lack of solidity from the Supra.

I considered ordering the Signature, but I felt my system would be more musical without Supra, and I had one more setup to try. When I borrowed my friend's cables, I left him with a few cables so he could at least play his system when he returned from his trip. One of the cables I left him was a Tera Grand CAT7 like this one, except 18" long:
https://www.teragrand.com/products/...-feet-purple-blue?_pos=8&_sid=16618c888&_ss=r

I had used this cable several time previously and loved its superior midrange clarity and awesome bass definition, medium soundstage size, but the treble energy was always too much to handle, long term. Predictably, it was too bright using Supra upstream, pretty good with Yauhody. Putting the LAN Isolator back into the system upstream of the etherRegen brought the joy. Bass is tight and powerful, treble is revealing and appropriately controlled, midrange clarity is outstanding. I wasn't able to compare directly with Supra/Signature, but I am confident that Yauhody/TeraGrand is the sound for me.

The lesson I take from these tests is that *synergy* with my system, and the other cables in the chain, *is paramount*. Another expensive cable might be better than what I have, but could just as easily spoil the sound and require me to start over to find suitable upstream cables. I am no longer actively shopping for ethernet cables. YMMV, HTH.


----------



## teknorob23

audiobomber said:


> I've finished my ethernet cable trial. From Wednesday until Sunday, three cables were auditioned, for several hours daily, connected between the etherREGEN and my Playpoint streamer. All cables were 3-ft long or shorter:
> https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...8-Ethernet-Cable/p/380224641/category=4059160
> https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...able-***-New-***/p/322022400/category=4059160
> https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07WRX7YBZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> ...



really interesting read, thanks for sharing your experiences, out of interest have you ever tried configuring your ether regen whereby you connect both the input and output via side "a" instead of outputting from side "b"?


----------



## cpurdy

moriez said:


> He said he did hear a difference, and you're saying he isn't. Okay man.. How person A precisely knows what person B is experiencing is a trip. Possibly a big help to humanity!



"_That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence_." (Hitchen's razor)

These are not holy relics, imbued with some sacred-yet-capricious spirit. There is no _deus ex machina_ yet to appear that will magically cause the workings of these devices to suddenly deviate from the well-understood physics upon which their designs were based.

"_Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence_." (Carl Sagan)

QED


----------



## audiobomber

teknorob23 said:


> really interesting read, thanks for sharing your experiences, out of interest have you ever tried configuring your ether regen whereby you connect both the input and output via side "a" instead of outputting from side "b"?


I have not. Are you suggesting that could be better? The moat is one of the reasons I chose the ER.


----------



## teknorob23

audiobomber said:


> I have not. Are you suggesting that could be better? The moat is one of the reasons I chose the ER.



I prefer it but thats not to say you will. I found the moat gave an initial impression of improved clarity, but also sounded slightly unnatural and compressed, yet running it all through the a side, the clarity is there but it sound tonally right and the stage is more open. Everyone's, system, hearing, etc is different which is why if you had the time and inclination, i'd love to hear what you find with it configured this way. Apologies if you've already mentioned this in previous posts, but it would be great to know DAC, streamer, etc you used.


----------



## chesebert

audiobomber said:


> I've finished my ethernet cable trial. From Wednesday until Sunday, three cables were auditioned, for several hours daily, connected between the etherREGEN and my Playpoint streamer. All cables were 3-ft long or shorter:
> https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...8-Ethernet-Cable/p/380224641/category=4059160
> https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...able-***-New-***/p/322022400/category=4059160
> https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07WRX7YBZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> ...


Need to confirm:
1. Are you using UPNP/DLNA?
2. Does your streamer's UPNP module take advantage of the error correction and retransmission protocol as part of the UPNP protocol? 
3. Can you confirm both ends of the ethernet connection are transformer coupled


----------



## griff500

cpurdy said:


> "_That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence_." (Hitchen's razor)
> 
> These are not holy relics, imbued with some sacred-yet-capricious spirit. There is no _deus ex machina_ yet to appear that will magically cause the workings of these devices to suddenly deviate from the well-understood physics upon which their designs were based.
> 
> ...


I think you accidentally posted in the wrong topic buddy. Have a look here:

https://www.head-fi.org/forums/sound-science.133/


----------



## griff500

audiobomber said:


> I've finished my ethernet cable trial. From Wednesday until Sunday, three cables were auditioned, for several hours daily, connected between the etherREGEN and my Playpoint streamer. All cables were 3-ft long or shorter:
> https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...8-Ethernet-Cable/p/380224641/category=4059160
> https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...able-***-New-***/p/322022400/category=4059160
> https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07WRX7YBZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> ...


Thanks for sharing an actual experience! Synergy is certainly important. Some mix and matching can be useful, much like you might match certain amps with certain speakers or headphones, although I've pretty much stuck with one type for similar cables where I can - I found that if I liked a cable then there was a good chance that I'd like it even more when I used it through the system where possible.


----------



## audiobomber (Mar 30, 2022)

teknorob23 said:


> I prefer it but thats not to say you will. I found the moat gave an initial impression of improved clarity, but also sounded slightly unnatural and compressed, yet running it all through the a side, the clarity is there but it sound tonally right and the stage is more open. Everyone's, system, hearing, etc is different which is why if you had the time and inclination, i'd love to hear what you find with it configured this way. Apologies if you've already mentioned this in previous posts, but it would be great to know DAC, streamer, etc you used.


OK, I like trying things that are no hassle and free. 

*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.


chesebert said:


> Need to confirm:
> 1. Are you using UPNP/DLNA?
> 2. Does your streamer's UPNP module take advantage of the error correction and retransmission protocol as part of the UPNP protocol?
> 3. Can you confirm both ends of the ethernet connection are transformer coupled


1. I use Minimserver with BubbleUPnP, streaming is bitperfect.
2. The streamer is an exaSound PlayPoint, which I believe is pretty sophisticated. https://exasound.com/Blog/tabid/74/...-UPnPOpenHome-Step-by-step-Configuration.aspx
3. Not sure what you mean. All ethernet cables are terminated with transformers.


----------



## audiobomber

griff500 said:


> Thanks for sharing an actual experience! Synergy is certainly important. Some mix and matching can be useful, much like you might match certain amps with certain speakers or headphones, although I've pretty much stuck with one type for similar cables where I can - I found that if I liked a cable then there was a good chance that I'd like it even more when I used it through the system where possible.


Yes, system synergy is synergy. If I had one cable that did it all for me, that would be quite satisfactory and efficient. What are you using? I was only using Yauhody, but mix and match is now working better for me.


----------



## griff500

audiobomber said:


> Yes, system synergy is synergy. If I had one cable that did it all for me, that would be quite satisfactory and efficient. What are you using? I was only using Yauhody, but mix and match is now working better for me.


USB and ethernet are from Sablon Audio. I was particularly impressed with their ethernet cable - an immediately and obvious difference when changing it in and out - it didn't need a period of adjustment to be able to notice the difference. I'll probably try their XLR cables for my active speakers at some point.


----------



## audiobomber

griff500 said:


> USB and ethernet are from Sablon Audio. I was particularly impressed with their ethernet cable - an immediately and obvious difference when changing it in and out - it didn't need a period of adjustment to be able to notice the difference. I'll probably try their XLR cables for my active speakers at some point.


I have heard only great things about Sablon, but four of their cables for my system would be beyond what I am willing to spend.


----------



## griff500

audiobomber said:


> I have heard only great things about Sablon, but four of their cables for my system would be beyond what I am willing to spend.


A line has to be drawn somewhere.


----------



## teknorob23

audiobomber said:


> OK, I like trying things that are no hassle and free.
> 
> *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,
> ...



Cool thats a lovely looking, and i bet, sounding system. looking forward to hearing you get on.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 30, 2022)

audiobomber said:


> OK, I like trying things that are no hassle and free.
> 
> *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,
> ...


Thanks for the info and your impression.


----------



## chesebert

audiobomber said:


> I've finished my ethernet cable trial. From Wednesday until Sunday, three cables were auditioned, for several hours daily, connected between the etherREGEN and my Playpoint streamer. All cables were 3-ft long or shorter:
> https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...8-Ethernet-Cable/p/380224641/category=4059160
> https://audiosensibility.com/blog/p...able-***-New-***/p/322022400/category=4059160
> https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07WRX7YBZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> ...


I did pick up Yauhody CAT8 and compared to my custom cat6 I do hear an obvious difference in the upper mid. 😬 I need more time to make sure I am not being neurotic myself. 😂


----------



## chesebert

Looks like I need to start reading this thread from page 1. Okay I think network streamers need to start using optical SFP as opposed to RJ45. RJ45 is obviously not ideal at actually decoupling streamer even with transformers at both ends. This is more than frustrating.


----------



## teknorob23

chesebert said:


> Looks like I need to start reading this thread from page 1. Okay I think network streamers need to start using optical SFP as opposed to RJ45. RJ45 is obviously not ideal at actually decoupling streamer even with transformers at both ends. This is more than frustrating.



The problem with fibre/ optical, is that it has to be converted back to an electronic signal at some point as it’s not technically possible to turn light pulses into music. This conversion process is an inherently noisy one and if you leave it until the signal is inside the streamer it’s very hard to mitigate this. While standard Ethernet via rj45 is by no means perfect it is easier to “clean” or remove what is mainly radio frequency interference that piggy backs the data coming from your switch or router before it reaches the streamer. Optical sadly is no silver bullet at least not for now


----------



## ScrofulousBinturong (Apr 2, 2022)

Nm


----------



## audiobomber (Apr 2, 2022)

chesebert said:


> Looks like I need to start reading this thread from page 1. Okay I think network streamers need to start using optical SFP as opposed to RJ45. RJ45 is obviously not ideal at actually decoupling streamer even with transformers at both ends. This is more than frustrating.


There are three methods for a network connection to your audio system; ethernet cable, wi-fi and fiber. Each has advantages and disadvantages. This is a good video on the topic. .

Note the caveat on shielded cable. Some CAT6a, 7 and all CAT8 ethernet cables have a shield that can conduct leakage current. These must be connected at both ends with grounded power supplies, or else an isolator should be used. Here's an easy and inexpensive solution for adding a ground to any power supply: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/37034-smps-and-grounding/#comment-721414

As you've mentioned, perfect galvanic isolation is not possible with ethernet cable. Fiber and wi-fi provide perfect galvanic isolation, but require converters, which can inject digital noise. Upgraded power supplies is the usual route for minimizing the impact of conversion. I've heard praise and condemnation regarding sound quality for each pf the three methods. IMO, which is best is system dependent, i.e. how much effort has gone into cleaning the signal?

I use wi-fi between my network gear and audio system. The construction of our house means running cable is impossible. I am happy with this solution, as I have a robust wi-fi signal. I can stream 384/24, 4X DSD or DXD reliably, with no dropouts. Wi-fi radios are noisy. For best sound quality, don't use wi-fi in your streamer, even if it's available and convenient. Use an access point ahead of the streamer to receive wi-fi, and connect to the streamer via ethernet cable. The access point should be configured to receive wi-fi only, and transmit via ethernet only, no wi-fi broadcast. I suspect that wi-fi is better than ethernet to connect an audio system to a network, but I've not had an opportunity to test this on a level playing field. I will be able do this sometime, in my own system, because I know where I can borrow 65 feet of Yauhody CAT8. Should be interesting.


----------



## audiobomber

teknorob23 said:


> really interesting read, thanks for sharing your experiences, out of interest have you ever tried configuring your ether regen whereby you connect both the input and output via side "a" instead of outputting from side "b"?


I gave this a try. Like many things in computer audio, the moat does some good, and does some harm. In my system I preferred the B side, but I could certainly see the A side sounding better in another system. I've even relocated my LAN Isolator so that it's on the output of the EtherRegen instead of the input. I'll need to start my ethernet cable testing all over again, because this changed the sound.


----------



## teknorob23

audiobomber said:


> I gave this a try. Like many things in computer audio, the moat does some good, and does some harm. In my system I preferred the B side, but I could certainly see the A side sounding better in another system. I've even relocated my LAN Isolator so that it's on the output of the EtherRegen instead of the input. I'll need to start my ethernet cable testing all over again, because this changed the sound.



Interesting. We have a lot of customers come to us who already have ERs and it’s about 50:50 as to which configuration is preferred. Its a good idea to use the Ethernet filter last in your chain between the switch and streamer. Being passive it should remove noise without adding any of its own.


----------



## iFi audio

chesebert said:


> I did pick up Yauhody CAT8 and compared to my custom cat6 I do hear an obvious difference in the upper mid. 😬 I need more time to make sure I am not being neurotic myself. 😂



If what you hear is obvious, you're not neurotic. Things either happen or they don't


----------



## chesebert

iFi audio said:


> If what you hear is obvious, you're not neurotic. Things either happen or they don't


Human hearing can be fickle. It could be the food that day for all I know 😂


----------



## iFi audio

chesebert said:


> Human hearing can be fickle. It could be the food that day for all I know 😂



Yep, that sense is particularly malicious to us audiophiles. But at the end of the day, if a product makes any difference to you and contributes to better performance overall, that's all that matters really. Or perhaps it was the food you ate that day, who knows


----------



## chesebert

iFi audio said:


> Yep, that sense is particularly malicious to us audiophiles. But at the end of the day, if a product makes any difference to you and contributes to better performance overall, that's all that matters really. Or perhaps it was the food you ate that day, who knows


I need more time. Sufficient to say I liked what I heard that day and mind blown on Ethernet cables’ ability to make any sonic different. I will take things slow and see where this goes - I bought few different cables already to test 😅


----------



## iFi audio

chesebert said:


> I need more time. Sufficient to say I liked what I heard that day and mind blown on Ethernet cables’ ability to make any sonic different. I will take things slow and see where this goes - I bought few different cables already to test 😅



Sure thing, these subjects shouldn't be rushed. Take your time and please report back once you know more. Enjoy!


----------



## F208Frank

How come most people get the ether regen over the innuous ethernet regen? Is it mainly due to price? Anyone happen to try both?

I myself have never messed with audiophile switches, and am a bit afraid to as it is extra boxes!


----------



## iFi audio

F208Frank said:


> How come most people get the ether regen over the innuous ethernet regen? Is it mainly due to price? Anyone happen to try both?


I would say that price factors in a lot in this case, Innuos PhoenixNET is roughly four times more expensive.


----------



## audiobomber

iFi audio said:


> I would say that price factors in a lot in this case, Innuos PhoenixNET is roughly four times more expensive.


And some people have EtherREGEN's that are 10+ times more expensive than the original, adding an external clock, linear power supply and premium DC cables. Ouch!

Price was certainly a main factor in my decision to buy an EtherREGEN, did not consider Innuos. I was convinced to buy the ER by the designer's explanation of the technology. It seemed like better parts value, and a better thought out design, than competing audiophile switches.


----------



## F208Frank

audiobomber said:


> And some people have EtherREGEN's that are 10+ times more expensive than the original, adding an external clock, linear power supply and premium DC cables. Ouch!
> 
> Price was certainly a main factor in my decision to buy an EtherREGEN, did not consider Innuos. I was convinced to buy the ER by the designer's explanation of the technology. It seemed like better parts value, and a better thought out design, than competing audiophile switches.


Seems like ether regen is a very popular product, I myself do not doubt its use, but I am being stubborn right now and not wanting to add an extra box.

=/


----------



## teknorob23 (Apr 12, 2022)

F208Frank said:


> Seems like ether regen is a very popular product, I myself do not doubt its use, but I am being stubborn right now and not wanting to add an extra box.
> 
> =/



Do you currently run a switch between your router and your K50? if you dont and your curious theres very cheap and quick way to test the merits of doing so, by adding something like a D-Link dgs105 ($20) with an ifi ipower 5v ($50). I'd be 99% confident, in system such as yours you will hear a significant uplift and if you dont just ping it back to amazon. I've mentioned it before but this combo is delivers performance way beyond its price and the sum of its parts


----------



## iFi audio

teknorob23 said:


> Do you currently run a switch between your router and your K50? if you dont and your curious theres very cheap and quick way to test the merits of doing so, by adding something like a D-Link dgs105 ($20) with an ifi ipower 5v ($50). I'd be 99% confident, in system such as yours you will hear a significant uplift and if you dont just ping it back to amazon. I've mentioned it before but this combo is delivers performance way beyond its price and the sum of its parts



Oy, thanks! I've just googled that D-Link and it's tiny 



audiobomber said:


> And some people have EtherREGEN's that are 10+ times more expensive than the original, adding an external clock, linear power supply and premium DC cables. Ouch!



Yep, but as long as one hears audible progress upon adding this stuff, it's all good!


----------



## teknorob23

iFi audio said:


> Oy, thanks! I've just googled that D-Link and it's tiny
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, but as long as one hears audible progress upon adding this stuff, it's all good!



Yes its nothing extraordinary to look at but its really well made and we have compared it to the the raft of $500-600 audiophile switches, and if you add your PSU and earth it, theres not much to be gained spending the extra $500. We have customers with £100K+ systems who are using this combo with great success. The D-link board is used as the basis of quite very expensive network switches... At the very least this is great way for those who are skeptical but intrigued to dip their toe, see what they hear with the minimum of risk


----------



## iFi audio

teknorob23 said:


> Yes its nothing extraordinary to look at but its really well made and we have compared it to the the raft of $500-600 audiophile switches, and if you add your PSU and earth it, theres not much to be gained spending the extra $500. We have customers with £100K+ systems who are using this combo with great success. The D-link board is used as the basis of quite very expensive network switches... At the very least this is great way for those who are skeptical but intrigued to dip their toe, see what they hear with the minimum of risk



Yep, it's a $20 switch from what I can tell, so a great starter for folks skeptical about input of such products on our setups. Great find, thanks for sharing!


----------



## F208Frank (Apr 12, 2022)

teknorob23 said:


> Do you currently run a switch between your router and your K50? if you dont and your curious theres very cheap and quick way to test the merits of doing so, by adding something like a D-Link dgs105 ($20) with an ifi ipower 5v ($50). I'd be 99% confident, in system such as yours you will hear a significant uplift and if you dont just ping it back to amazon. I've mentioned it before but this combo is delivers performance way beyond its price and the sum of its parts


No I actually never tried a switch myself due to the extra box, cords, etc. 

When you say system "such as yours"

Wouldnt the switch be more significant for folks without servers?

Can you please kindly elaborate a little? I was always under assumption of having less boxes but higher quality boxes to be giving the most "bang for buck" in terms of box count to final sound.

Thanks for the reply. I just may try what you mentioned....

Say if I do feel the gains are quite significant, which switch would you reccomend?


----------



## teknorob23

gregorio said:


> 1. What else is there? Apart from the science and of course the fact that it's demonstrated in practice trillions of times a second all over the planet and has been for years, what else do you think is going on in an ethernet cable, some sort of magic?
> 
> 2. Ah yes, the old audiophile cry: Dismissing some of the most proven and demonstrated science, without which the modern digital age would not exist, in favour of the sense of hearing, the fooling of which is not just a fundamental fact known for more than 5 centuries but an actual requisite. If our hearing couldn't be fooled, then music (and nearly all commercial audio) could not exist! .... It's easy enough to verify that the ones and zeros coming out of an ethernet network are identical to the ones and zeros that went in, indeed, this verification is effectively built into the ethernet protocol to start with and if the ones and zeros are identical, by definition there is no difference because digital data only has these two states. So if a difference is heard, it MUST be a function of our hearing/perception and cannot be a function of the ethernet cable (or other ethernet equipment)!
> 
> ...



i knew it wouldnt long


----------



## teknorob23

F208Frank said:


> No I actually never tried a switch myself due to the extra box, cords, etc.
> 
> When you say system "such as yours"
> 
> ...


DM'd


----------



## F208Frank

Holy crap reading through all 52 pages was the most exhausting ever... this thread was basically a lot of back and forth arguments with a splash of gems sown into the thread.

Tomorrow (or more accurately since past 12am now) today I will receive the basic switch with the ifi power 5v, will see if I hear any differences that are notable.

Am excited and nervous at the same time, as it will be my VERY first experiment with ethernet switches, though a very basic one.


----------



## gregorio

F208Frank said:


> Tomorrow (or more accurately since past 12am now) today I will receive the basic switch with the ifi power 5v, will see if I hear any differences that are notable.


You might hear a difference or you might not. Human perception has evolved to identify patterns and make sense of our experiences. So if you know there’s something different in your system (say a new switch) but you don’t hear a difference, your brain may well create a difference in your perception to avoid that conflict between your  knowledge/experience and what you’re actually hearing.

It’s not easily predictable though, obviously your exact knowledge/experience is unique to you.  So you might hear (perceive) a difference, even possibly a very significant difference but even if you do, there’s no knowing how long you will continue to experience that perception.

G


----------



## F208Frank (Apr 13, 2022)

gregorio said:


> You might hear a difference or you might not. Human perception has evolved to identify patterns and make sense of our experiences. So if you know there’s something different in your system (say a new switch) but you don’t hear a difference, your brain may well create a difference in your perception to avoid that conflict between your  knowledge/experience and what you’re actually hearing.
> 
> It’s not easily predictable though, obviously your exact knowledge/experience is unique to you.  So you might hear (perceive) a difference, even possibly a very significant difference but even if you do, there’s no knowing how long you will continue to experience that perception.
> 
> G


Thank you for your perspective, will definitely keep these words in mind.

EDIT: Damn, items are delayed until 3 days later. Will update once I get a chance to.


----------



## F208Frank

gregorio said:


> You might hear a difference or you might not. Human perception has evolved to identify patterns and make sense of our experiences. So if you know there’s something different in your system (say a new switch) but you don’t hear a difference, your brain may well create a difference in your perception to avoid that conflict between your  knowledge/experience and what you’re actually hearing.
> 
> It’s not easily predictable though, obviously your exact knowledge/experience is unique to you.  So you might hear (perceive) a difference, even possibly a very significant difference but even if you do, there’s no knowing how long you will continue to experience that perception.
> 
> G


Do you see that a normal switch (not even talking about "audiophile switches") improving overall sound quality for you?


----------



## gregorio

F208Frank said:


> Do you see that a normal switch (not even talking about "audiophile switches") improving overall sound quality for you?


No. A switch doesn’t carry any sound and cannot affect sound quality.

G


----------



## audiobomber (Apr 16, 2022)

I tried a few generic switches before getting the EtherREGEN. In order of sound quality, here's the ranking from best to worst:
1. Netgear GS108 and Netgear GS105v2. I never compared these directly, the GS108 was borrowed. I suspect they sound the same but can't say for certain. Both sound better than the ones below.
2. TP-Link TL-SG108E, compared directly with the GS108, this was the loser. I gifted it to my son.
3. Netgear GS105Ev2. The three switches above were managed network switches. I had heard that an unmanaged switch could be better for audio, and since it was so cheap and I'd had good results from Netgear, I tried the GS105. It was awful. I returned it to Amazon.

All of the above were powered by an iFi iPower or iPower X PSU. I use two switches in my system. The GS-105v2 at the network end of my system is powered by a grounded iPower X. Adding a ground wire to the barrel of the DC plug made a significant difference. The EtherREGEN in the audio rack is powered by the supplied PSU, as recommended by Uptone Audio. 

Switch mode power supplies dump noise into the AC lines, so my network gear is plugged into a Furman PST-8, with an added iPower AC iPurifier. The audio system, including the ER is powered though a Furman Elite-15 PFi.

Knowing that switches don't contribute to sound quality without trying for yourself means you have no credibility, IMO.


----------



## audiobomber (Apr 17, 2022)

As I mentioned previously, I have relocated my LAN filter to in-between the EtherRegen and streamer. This changed the sound enough that I started testing again with three cables I own, Supra CAT8, Yauhody CAT8 and Tera Grand CAT7. My final choice is Yauhody for all four cables in the chain, but I'm not quite happy with the sound, as it's a bit dark and after hearing the Audio Sensibility Statement cable, I know I can get a better sense of depth. As a result I've ordered the Furutech LAN-8 NCF cable. Should be here by Friday, but will require extended listening before I express an opinion. For anyone interested, there's a review on 6-Moons:
https://6moons.com/audioreview_articles/furutech16/


----------



## griff500

audiobomber said:


> As I mentioned previously, I have relocated my LAN filter to in-between the EtherRegen and streamer. This changed the sound enough that I started testing again with three cables I own, Supra CAT8, Yauhody CAT8 and Tera Grand CAT7. My final choice is Yauhody for all four cables in the chain, but I'm not quite happy with the sound, as it's a bit dark and after hearing the Audio Sensibility Statement cable, I know I can get more depth. As a result I've ordered the Furutech LAN-8 NCF cable. Should be here by Friday, but will require extended listening before I express an opinion. For anyone interested, there's a review on 6-Moons:
> https://6moons.com/audioreview_articles/furutech16/


Have you tried the Sablon Audio ethernet cable? When I got it I was told that I could return if for a refund if I didn't like it and so I tried it out of curiosity as I like to keep an open mind. I was of the opinion that it should make no difference but I was surprised at the quite obvious difference it made. I guess you could get something equivalent at a cheaper price point but you can also pay a lot more of course. I've not felt the need to try anything else.


----------



## audiobomber

griff500 said:


> Have you tried the Sablon Audio ethernet cable? When I got it I was told that I could return if for a refund if I didn't like it and so I tried it out of curiosity as I like to keep an open mind. I was of the opinion that it should make no difference but I was surprised at the quite obvious difference it made. I guess you could get something equivalent at a cheaper price point but you can also pay a lot more of course. I've not felt the need to try anything else.


Sablon ethernet cables have an amazing rep. Unfortunately the price is over three times what I paid for the Furutech, and beyond what I wish to spend on an ethernet cable. I would upgrade my LAN filter rather than buy a more expensive cable. Some Isolator/Filter devices come with an integral cable, which becomes the final cable in the chain, the most important position.


----------



## griff500

audiobomber said:


> Sablon ethernet cables have an amazing rep. Unfortunately the price is over three times what I paid for the Furutech, and beyond what I wish to spend on an ethernet cable. I would upgrade my LAN filter rather than buy a more expensive cable. Some Isolator/Filter devices come with an integral cable, which becomes the final cable in the chain, the most important position.


We all have to set our own limits. One thing in their favour is that I've not felt any desire or need to try anything else, so that's saved me money... Man maths at it's best.


----------



## teknorob23

audiobomber said:


> Sablon ethernet cables have an amazing rep. Unfortunately the price is over three times what I paid for the Furutech, and beyond what I wish to spend on an ethernet cable. I would upgrade my LAN filter rather than buy a more expensive cable. Some Isolator/Filter devices come with an integral cable, which becomes the final cable in the chain, the most important position.



Interested to hear how you get on with the furtech. It’s has good rep but I’ve not hear it


----------



## audiobomber

griff500 said:


> We all have to set our own limits. One thing in their favour is that I've not felt any desire or need to try anything else, so that's saved me money... Man maths at it's best.


That's a great place to be, and I'm not trying to cause discomfort , but a cable can't do what a filter does.


----------



## griff500

audiobomber said:


> That's a great place to be, and I'm not trying to cause discomfort , but a cable can't do what a filter does.


Indeed, and of course I did not claim that the cable was a filter or that it negated whatever benefits a filter might provide.


----------



## F208Frank

griff500 said:


> Indeed, and of course I did not claim that the cable was a filter or that it negated whatever benefits a filter might provide.


I noticed you have a Phoenix net, did you ever get a chance to compare that to a regular non audiophile switch?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## griff500

F208Frank said:


> I noticed you have a Phoenix net, did you ever get a chance to compare that to a regular non audiophile switch?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I didn't. I bought it about a week before my system was packed and shipped to another country. I set everything up in the new house and I've not bothered to compare with a cable bypassing it.

If I can be bothered then I might give it a try but I've got plenty of other things to take up my time at the moment.


----------



## audiobomber

I've been using the Furutech LAN-8 NCF ethernet cable for a few days, between my EtherREGEN and Playpoint streamer. The search is over, this is the cable for me! It sounds exactly the way I hoped it would, tonality is spot on through my system, detail is exemplary, big soundstage. It combines the best qualities of all the cables I tried in past, with no weaknesses that I can identify, and highly complementary with the inexpensive Yauhody CAT8 cables upstream. I've repurposed the LAN filter, I no longer need it in the main system.


----------



## bluenight

griff500 said:


> We all have to set our own limits. One thing in their favour is that I've not felt any desire or need to try anything else, so that's saved me money... Man maths at it's best.


I can say the same for supra cat 8 as i got it all the way. But i havent tried anything else audiophile ethernet cable either  I suck at being experimental. 

I was really close in getting this one though https://www.oehlbach.com/en/audio-equip/cable/usbnetwork/stream-primus 

As i need 5 meter more expensive ones i am not willing to pay for.

It seems to me it has great sheilding and has silverplated ofc.


----------



## teknorob23 (Apr 30, 2022)

Deleted


----------



## teknorob23

bluenight said:


> I can say the same for supra cat 8 as i got it all the way. But i havent tried anything else audiophile ethernet cable either  I suck at being experimental.
> 
> I was really close in getting this one though https://www.oehlbach.com/en/audio-equip/cable/usbnetwork/stream-primus
> 
> ...



Could you install a 2nd switch near the endpoint and the use another supra for the last metre. This cable looks well made but I doubt it will perform up to the supra, which is one of the best bang for bucks cable I’ve heard


----------



## bluenight

teknorob23 said:


> Could you install a 2nd switch near the endpoint and the use another supra for the last metre. This cable looks well made but I doubt it will perform up to the supra, which is one of the best bang for bucks cable I’ve heard


Im all good with supra cat8 cables as i got it all the way. I only needed one last one at the moment for my tv.


----------



## chesebert (Apr 30, 2022)

audiobomber said:


> I've been using the Furutech LAN-8 NCF ethernet cable for a few days, between my EtherREGEN and Playpoint streamer. The search is over, this is the cable for me! It sounds exactly the way I hoped it would, tonality is spot on through my system, detail is exemplary, big soundstage. It combines the best qualities of all the cables I tried in past, with no weaknesses that I can identify, and highly complementary with the inexpensive Yauhody CAT8 cables upstream. I've repurposed the LAN filter, I no longer need it in the main system.


Is the Furutech cable sftp? Did anyone measure the cable?

Btw, these discussions about Ethernet cables offends my engineering sensibility and bs meter to no end. I wish I never heard any difference between Ethernet cables.


----------



## audiobomber (Apr 30, 2022)

chesebert said:


> Is the Furutech cable sftp? Did anyone measure the cable?


I have not seen any measurements.  

_"3 Layered Shielding with superior noise isolation aluminum foil and copper braiding"_. 
https://www.thecableco.com/cables/digital-cables/digital-ethernet/lan-8-ncf-ethernet-cable.html#:~:text=OD: 7.0±0.1mm approx.&text=Production Lengths: 0.6M/1.2,7.5M/10M by request.&text=α (Alpha) conductor is the,the α (Alpha) process.


chesebert said:


> Btw, these discussions about Ethernet cables offends my engineering sensibility and bs meter to no end. I wish I never heard any difference between Ethernet cables.


Mechanical Engineering Technology grad here. I spent months telling a friend that ethernet cable cannot affect sound, as it is only carrying packets, and buffering. Then I replaced my CAT5e and had to eat my words.


----------



## chesebert

audiobomber said:


> 3 Layered Shielding with superior noise isolation aluminum foil and copper braiding. I have not seen any measurements.
> https://www.thecableco.com/cables/digital-cables/digital-ethernet/lan-8-ncf-ethernet-cable.html#:~:text=OD: 7.0±0.1mm approx.&text=Production Lengths: 0.6M/1.2,7.5M/10M by request.&text=α (Alpha) conductor is the,the α (Alpha) process.
> 
> Mechanical Engineering Technology grad here. I spent months telling a friend that ethernet cable cannot affect sound, as it is only carrying packets, and buffering. Then I replaced my CAT5e and had to eat my words.


Okay so it’s SFTP cable. Silver plated conductor makes sense in high freq application. The cable looks good. 

Have you compared the cable to other cat 8 SFTP speced cables? Example  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08DP4DJMH/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_SWR0K0SCJPDG9V25WW2X?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## helloh3adfi

Oh god no, why is there another cable vodoo thread?


----------



## chesebert

I hate cable voodoo as well but here we are…


----------



## audiobomber (Apr 30, 2022)

chesebert said:


> Okay so it’s SFTP cable. Silver plated conductor makes sense in high freq application. The cable looks good.
> 
> Have you compared the cable to other cat 8 SFTP speced cables? Example  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08DP4DJMH/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_SWR0K0SCJPDG9V25WW2X?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1


That cable looks interesting, but I've not tried it. The SFTP cables I've tried are Yauhody CAT8, Supra CAT8, Audio Sensibility Signature CAT8, and Supra+ CAT8 (Cryogenically treated Supra cable with Telegartner connectors). All sounded different, my preference by a large margin was the Furutech.


----------



## chesebert

got it. I have not tested this but in theory the only Ethernet cable that would have any affect on sound is the one connecting from the switch to the streamer and may be in very corner cases the cable from router to the switch. I guess I will try to Furutech cable at some point. Everything in the thread subverts my expectations


----------



## audiobomber

chesebert said:


> got it. I have not tested this but in theory the only Ethernet cable that would have any affect on sound is the one connecting from the switch to the streamer and may be in very corner cases the cable from router to the switch. I guess I will try to Furutech cable at some point. Everything in the thread subverts my expectations


My empirical testing says your theory does not hold. 
I can hear a difference when I change any ethernet cable in my cable chain (NAS to switch, switch to router, router to EtherRegen, EtherRegen to network player). I'm using Yauhody CAT8 upstream, Furutech in the final link, all three feet long or less.


----------



## F208Frank

Trialing the MUON filter + MUON ethernet cable really soon, it should be on its way to me, beyond excited.


----------



## bluenight

I cancelled my order on one supra cat 8 and ordered an furutech lan 8 ncf it was out of stock so the delivery time is 1-4 weeks. Interesting to find out if i can hear a improvement or difference  compared to supra cat 8.


----------



## bluenight (May 14, 2022)

Also recently i have been looking and shopping some power products to power my router and switch. I have wanted for a long time to replace my generic powerstrip with built in power cable. So to improve the electricity from the wall outlet.

I have  ordered one hifi power cable with good sheilding and pure ofc copper. Not expensive Taga TPC

Hifi Power strip Dynavox x2000 with 5 filtered outlets. 

2 ifi ac iPurifier to place in empty power strip socket. Clean and isolate noise. 

Intrestingly one of them being an furutech clear line ncf that caught my attention before i read about @audiobomber had bought an furutech Ethernet cable with ncf. Anyway i like the description of the improvements it claims for audio/video. Also nice this products improve all things connected to same powerline/powerstrip not just one endpoint.

First i will try  in my main system to see how it compares to niagara 1000 that is full so no empty sockets. So dynavox 2000x power strip can free up some sockets on niagara 1000 also so i can insert acipurifier and furutrch ncf clear line to see if it improve things. 

If they have little effect on router and switch side i can move them to main system where they probebly will have most impact. 

Or if it have good results on router/switch side i have to shop an extra ncf clear line and more ac iPurifiers for main system also. Much to experiment with.


----------



## endless402

bluenight said:


> I cancelled my order on one supra cat 8 and ordered an furutech lan 8 ncf it was out of stock so the delivery time is 1-4 weeks. Interesting to find out if i can hear a improvement or difference  compared to supra cat 8.


improvement depends on what you're looking for? i've always found the supra cat8 slightly dark and recessed in the mids but still good value. 
i'm enjoying the lan8 on my zen streamer, i think it's good value


----------



## bluenight

endless402 said:


> improvement depends on what you're looking for? i've always found the supra cat8 slightly dark and recessed in the mids but still good value.
> i'm enjoying the lan8 on my zen streamer, i think it's good value


I will be disappointed if it's just different rather then better. Considering the price difference. Hoping for less sibilance and digital harshness better details darker background.


----------



## audiobomber

bluenight said:


> I will be disappointed if it's just different rather then better. Considering the price difference. Hoping for less sibilance and digital harshness better details darker background.


The Furutech LAN-8 is better in every way than Supra CAT8, IMO. The Supra has some exceptional qualities, but is overlaid with what I would describe as a high frequency hash that makes it fatiguing in the long term. You might want to replace any Supra in the chain ahead of the Furutech with the very inexpensive Yauhody CAT8 from Amazon, which is highly complementary with the Furutech.


----------



## endless402

There’s always AQ diamond


----------



## bluenight (May 3, 2022)

audiobomber said:


> You might want to replace any Supra in the chain ahead of the Furutech with the very inexpensive Yauhody CAT8


No that wont happen for me. : )

Also different people seem to have different opinion about supra cat 8. With a good enough recording i dont find them bright. Also i dont like dark or veiled like yahody cable seems according to your description .


----------



## audiobomber (May 4, 2022)

bluenight said:


> No that wont happen for me. : )
> 
> Also different people seem to have different opinion about supra cat 8. With a good enough recording i dont find them bright. Also i dont like dark or veiled like yahody cable seems according to your description .


LOL! You're right, you would not like the Yauhody.

I spent all day tweaking. I ended up replacing the EtherRegen SMPS for a Zero-Zone LPS, and changed out the Yauhody feeding the ER for a Supra and my LAN filter. The LPS and Isolator calmed things noticeably, so I think I'll be able to leave the Supra in the chain. It's sounding very good right now.

EDIT: Nope, as in multiple previous attempts, the Supra did not survive 24 hours. It was not brightness that bothered me, system tonality was spot on. What bothered me was was lack of PRaT and musical involvement, something I've noted with the Supra previously. I'm trying a Supra further back in the chain instead. I would like to keep the good it does, ameliorate the flaws.


----------



## bluenight

audiobomber said:


> What bothered me was was lack of PRaT


PRaT meaning?


----------



## audiobomber (May 5, 2022)

bluenight said:


> PRaT meaning?


Pace, rhythm and timing. A Brit concept, often used by Linn and Naim fans. Popularized in North America by Martin Colloms. Are you bobbing your head, tapping your feet to the music, or thinking about something else entirely? Just think of it as musical involvement. How well does the music command attention, hold your interest?

Maybe I shouldn't use the term, but it is common. Personally, I readily understand Pace, i.e. sometimes the music seems to be slowed, the tempo is dragging. Or it can seem too fast and frantic, which is not pleasant. Rhythm is the beat of the music, it's infectious, it bops. I don't see how Timing can be separated from the other two.

Musicians use a similar concept: attack, delay, sustain, release.


----------



## endless402

Prat


----------



## F208Frank

endless402 said:


> Prat


LOL


----------



## audiobomber (May 12, 2022)

The Zero-Zone 50W linear power supply was not good with the EtherREGEN, so I am back to the manufacturer's PSU. Hans Beekhuyzen tried an SBooster in his review of the EtherREGEN and reached the same conclusion; it was better with the supplied SMPS. He noted that the ER was the third network switch he'd tried with a linear power supply and all were better with switching power.

I tried an AliExpress 3A dual power supply with my Netgear GS105e. The LPS provided a cleaner background and improved detail, but lost bass power compared to the grounded iPower it replaced. I wanted the best of both presentations, and couldn't get there with the Netgear, so I bought a Silent Angel N8. It was OK out of the box, but not great until I replaced the supplied MeanWell SMPS with an iPower2 and separate ground.

*Network:*
NAS->Silent Angel switch (iPower2)->Archer C9 router (Zero-Zone 3.3A)->TP-Link 580D (Zero-Zone 50W)->LAN Filter->EtherREGEN.
Ethernet cables are Yauhody CAT8, with Furutech LAN-8 from the ER to the PlayPoint renderer.
I have no plans to upgrade any further.


----------



## chesebert

audiobomber said:


> The Zero-Zone 50W linear power supply was not good with the EtherREGEN, so I am back to the manufacturer's PSU. Hans Beekhuyzen tried an SBooster in his review of the EtherREGEN and reached the same conclusion; it was better with the supplied SMPS. He noted that the ER was the third network switch he'd tried with a linear power supply and all were better with switching power.
> 
> I tried an AliExpress 3A dual power supply with my Netgear GS105e. The LPS provided a cleaner background and improved detail, but lost bass power compared to the iPower it replaced. I wanted the best of both presentations, and couldn't get there with the Netgear, so I bought a Silent Angel N8. It was OK out of the box, but not great until I replaced the supplied MeanWell SMPS with an iPower2 and separate ground.
> 
> ...


How did you ground your switch? Did you build a cable and connect the switch to the outlet ground?


----------



## audiobomber

chesebert said:


> How did you ground your switch? Did you build a cable and connect the switch to the outlet ground?


I've been told, by people I trust, that a CAT8 cable needs grounded devices on both ends to perform properly. I used this post as a model for the one I built: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/37034-smps-and-grounding/#comment-721414
Instead of the extra barrel connector shown above, I used a tight fitting spade connector. The iPower has a 5.5x2.1mm plug, the N8 switch has a 5.5x2.5mm port. The iPower comes with an adapter for this transition. I simply inserted my spade between the iPower plug and the adapter port.


----------



## bluenight

audiobomber said:


> I wanted the best of both presentations, and couldn't get there with the Netgear, so I bought a Silent Angel N8. It was OK out of the box, but not great until I replaced the supplied MeanWell SMPS with an iPower2 and separate ground.


Hmmm ipower2 is not an smps from what i can tell on their website?

I got the ipowerx for router and switch i wonder whats the difference between the two? . Ipowerx is more expensive i hope it's better then.


----------



## audiobomber (May 17, 2022)

bluenight said:


> Hmmm ipower2 is not an smps from what i can tell on their website?
> 
> I got the ipowerx for router and switch i wonder whats the difference between the two? . Ipowerx is more expensive i hope it's better then.


IFi only make switching power supplies, at three levels; regular, X and Elite. The iPower2 replaces the standard version. I believe it has the same electronics as the original, with an upgraded DC cable.
The X is an upgrade over the original, and sounded cleaner than the standard with my SOtM sms-200. I was not able to hear any difference however on the Netgear switch in my installation.
I am unable to test the iPower X on the Silent Angel switch, as it needs 5V. My X is 9V.


----------



## bluenight

Edit


----------



## bluenight

One and a half said:


> Use an EtherRegen before the Lumin, this device drastically cleans up noise and mess on network cabling, and worth every penny. If the ER is too steep a price, try the DXE-ISO plus filters, also take out a lot noise for very low price commitment.


Someone at the Lumin thread recommended this. Could be good for the money.

https://www.dxengineering.com/parts/dxe-iso-plus-2


----------



## chesebert

audiobomber said:


> IFi only make switching power supplies, at three levels; regular, X and Elite. The iPower2 replaces the standard version. I believe it has the same electronics as the original, with an upgraded DC cable.
> The X is an upgrade over the original, and sounded cleaner than the standard with my sms-200. I was not able to hear any difference however on the Netgear switch in my installation.
> I am unable to test the iPower X on the Silent Angel, as it needs 5V. My X is 9V.


I don't like you...I have now lost all credibility with my engineering friends. Yes I did replace the SMP (with an ifi unit) on my wifi bridge that's connected to a switch that goes into my audio network bridge that is outputting via toslink to a dac, and I heard an improvement in sound that absolutely should not have happened. I was using DLNA protocol which does parity check to ensure bit perfect transmission. I have no explanation of why I heard a difference.


----------



## endless402

chesebert said:


> I don't like you...I have now lost all credibility with my engineering friends. Yes I did replace the SMP (with an ifi unit) on my wifi bridge that's connected to a switch that goes into my audio network bridge that is outputting via toslink to a dac, and I heard an improvement in sound that absolutely should not have happened. I was using DLNA protocol which does parity check to ensure bit perfect transmission. I have no explanation of why I heard a difference.


at least you tried it! there are those that refuse to try…


----------



## audiobomber

bluenight said:


> Someone at the Lumin thread recommended this. Could be good for the money.
> 
> https://www.dxengineering.com/parts/dxe-iso-plus-2


An interesting product for sure. Note that the specs say:
 Works with CAT5, CAT5E, CAT6 and CAT6A cables with RJ45 connectors
 Provides common mode RF attenuation from 160 meters through 10 meters

For networks with shorter and/or higher category ethernet cables, consider this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/334340331704?hash=item4dd83c98b8:g:aUUAAOSwTeNfXeDT

I use the LNF-C8G in my main system, ahead of the EtherRegen. There are similar, more expensive, and probably better filters from SOtM and ENO for example, but I am happy with this Korean version, as it has a positive effect in my system, even after all the network improvements I've made.

I use this one in a secondary system, ahead of a SOtM sMS-200, but I've never compared it to the LNF-C8G:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/334340331693?hash=item4dd83c98ad:g:HgAAAOSwSFBZ5uZh


----------



## audiobomber

chesebert said:


> I don't like you...I have now lost all credibility with my engineering friends. Yes I did replace the SMP (with an ifi unit) on my wifi bridge that's connected to a switch that goes into my audio network bridge that is outputting via toslink to a dac, and I heard an improvement in sound that absolutely should not have happened. I was using DLNA protocol which does parity check to ensure bit perfect transmission. I have no explanation of why I heard a difference.


Good for you! Maybe you can convince your engineering friends to actually listen instead of just quoting techy scripture.

May I ask why you use Toslink to your DAC? There is a definite hierarchy, when properly implemented:
USB and I2S better than coax, coax better than Toslink.


----------



## chesebert (May 17, 2022)

audiobomber said:


> Good for you! Maybe you can convince your engineering friends to actually listen instead of just quoting techy scripture.
> 
> May I ask why you use Toslink to your DAC? There is a definite hierarchy, when properly implemented:
> USB and I2S better than coax, coax better than Toslink.


Because my Emm Labs is back at Emm Labs and I am using my backup Chord, which sounds best using toslink. Also, as fyi different digital inputs tend to sound different and are dac dependent. So you do need to find out the preferred input option for your specific dac.

Also I am not crazy enough to suggest to engineers power supply to a networking equipment has any appreciable effect on sound. I still want whatever little dignity I have left. Thank you.


----------



## audiobomber

chesebert said:


> Because my Emm Labs is back at Emm Labs and I am using my backup Chord, which sounds best using toslink. Also, as fyi different digital inputs tend to sound different and are dac dependent. So you do need to find out the preferred input option for your specific dac.


Yes, I agree.


chesebert said:


> Also I am not crazy enough to suggest to engineers power supply to a networking equipment has any appreciable effect on sound. I still want whatever little dignity I have left. Thank you.


LOL! Understood.😋


----------



## F208Frank

Very happy with my muon filter/ethernet cable. I wanted to not keep them, but ended up doing so during trial. I would suggest trying them out yourself when in the mood to.


----------



## cpurdy

chesebert said:


> I don't like you...I have now lost all credibility with my engineering friends. Yes I did replace the SMP (with an ifi unit) on my wifi bridge that's connected to a switch that goes into my audio network bridge that is outputting via toslink to a dac, and I heard an improvement in sound that absolutely should not have happened. I was using DLNA protocol which does parity check to ensure bit perfect transmission. I have no explanation of why I heard a difference.


Regardless of whether there actually is a difference, you like the result. Money well spent.

I am, of course, curious if you can identify which cable is which in a blind A/B test. But doing so might destroy your result, so maybe you shouldn't try to test it 🤣


----------



## OCC7N

I ordered the Baaske MI1005 and standard Cat7 cables with Cat6 connector.

I have tried to find the advantages of this isolator. Voltage leaks is the only advantage I could find.

What about Jitter ?


----------



## dougms3 (Jun 11, 2022)

I wanted to try out a high quality ethernet cable but didn't want to spend alot.  Out of curiousity, I wondered how much of an improvement if any these knockoff cables from aliexpress offered.  First thing I noticed when I got this thing, the build quality is ridiculously good.  

Not sure what thats called but I have a verizon fiber optic digital converter box going to my router then wifi to my pc.  I placed this ethernet cable from the verizon box to my router, the difference was staggering.  Bear with me because I know it seems like I'm exaggerating but I assure you I'm not. 

The ethernet cable that was originally there is a run of the mill cheap ethernet cable.  I normally listen to music from files and use dsd upsampling, this didn't seem to improve much if at all but streaming services like spotify, the sound quality was greatly improved.  I know this because I don't like to stream music because the sound quality is not comparable to dsd upsampling, not even close.  After I installed this ethernet cable it comes very close.  Even netflix and youtube videos seem brighter and the color is improved.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3256803871083091.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.200816d9yHp6bQ&algo_pvid=453e7dfe-741b-4dce-8261-aaddff149063&algo_exp_id=453e7dfe-741b-4dce-8261-aaddff149063-6&pdp_ext_f={"sku_id":"12000027889350385"}&pdp_npi=2@dis!USD!!43.2!!!!!@2101e9d216549878691507794e3e7d!12000027889350385!sea


----------



## Gazza

dougms3 said:


> I wanted to try out a high quality ethernet cable but didn't want to spend alot.  Out of curiousity, I wondered how much of an improvement if any these knockoff cables from aliexpress offered.  First thing I noticed when I got this thing, the build quality is ridiculously good.
> 
> Not sure what thats called but I have a verizon fiber optic digital converter box going to my router then wifi to my pc.  I placed this ethernet cable from the verizon box to my router, the difference was staggering.  Bear with me because I know it seems like I'm exaggerating but I assure you I'm not.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the impressions! I placed an order for 3 of them as I've been hemming and hawing over whether to spend any money upgrading my network gear (cables, ethernet switch, etc) as I'm skeptical it would make any difference. With these cables I figure at worse they'll offer no improvement but at least will be better made than the cheap, ancient ethernet cables I'm using at the moment without making much of a dent on my wallet. Any sound quality increase is merely a bonus.


----------



## dougms3

Gazza said:


> Thanks for the impressions! I placed an order for 3 of them as I've been hemming and hawing over whether to spend any money upgrading my network gear (cables, ethernet switch, etc) as I'm skeptical it would make any difference. With these cables I figure at worse they'll offer no improvement but at least will be better made than the cheap, ancient ethernet cables I'm using at the moment without making much of a dent on my wallet. Any sound quality increase is merely a bonus.



I knew it would make some difference but I didn't expect much.  The reason why it would make a difference is the shielding alone.  Almost all the cheap ethernet cables are made from UTP (unshielded twisted pair wiring).  Since the wan cable is usually in close proximity to alot of other wires and devices as well as the antennaes, its going to be affected by EMI.  I haven't opened it up but it looks like the conductors are of a thicker gauge wire at least 24awg if not lower.  

The build quality of these cables is surprisingly good, really wasn't expecting this good.  The connectors are shielded as well and these type of rj45 connectors tend to be very expensive, the belden shielded rj45 connectors cost about $50 a piece.  I ran a magnet over the rj45 connector and it seems to be non magnetic.


----------



## dougms3

Here are some pics, if anyone is interested.

The other cable is a sata cable, I asked the seller to make me a sata cable out of the same wire for experimental purposes.


----------



## Gazza

They look really well constructed. I actually ended up ordering an Odin 2 XLR cable knock-off as well as I want to hook up my STAX SR-009/007tII combo to my new Aqua DAC which outputs RCA and XLR simultaneously. As I don't have a XLR cable lying around and don't know if this combo will sound better than my 800S/Manley combo I didn't want to spend $1,000+ on a cable I might not use again. Hopefully the quality of the XLR is as good as the ethernet knock-offs.


----------



## OCC7N

My impression of the Baaske 1005 is pretty positive.

It is connected after the router/moden and before the switch that connects to all network devices.

The background of the music is more relaxed/dark. Also feel that the tempo of the songs is more on point.

EDIT: I also did change to CAT7 cables together with the baaske, dont know if that counts also


----------



## dougms3

OCC7N said:


> My impression of the Baaske 1005 is pretty positive.
> 
> It is connected after the router/moden and before the switch that connects to all network devices.
> 
> ...


Interesting device.  

Its a galvanic isolator.  All ethernet cables are designed to carry power in the cable, even if its not providing POE it still carries some power.  

By blocking the power from getting to your switch, its preventing incoming power from the modem router from getting into the switch.  One less device contributing to noise in the signal path.

Good find.


----------



## OCC7N

dougms3 said:


> Interesting device.
> 
> Its a galvanic isolator.  All ethernet cables are designed to carry power in the cable, even if its not providing POE it still carries some power.
> 
> ...


When I look back to remember I actually also upgraded the power supply for my diablo.

Powersupply
Network Isolator
Cat7 cables

So all in all, there is an improvement. But this is also related to the right amount of power/volume to my ears/Arya. The perfect volume settings makes a big difference.


----------



## bpcans (Jul 24, 2022)

@teknorob23, I’m liking the improved clarity and definition of the transients, bass, midrange, and treble since I added a Cisco SG250-08 Smart Switch w/iFi iPower X - Low Noise Power Supply and an AudioQuest Cinnamon 0.75m Ethernet cable between my router and my D-Link network switch. It only took a couple of minutes to plug it all in and I immediately went to one of my favorite operas, Die Walkure by Wagner, which is very busy with a lot of singers and instrumentalists playing simultaneously, and within an hour of going back and forth I was pretty sure I was hearing good things coming through my headphones.

     My question is does it matter in which order I have the two switches before the streaming signal enters my ENO Ethernet Filter? Right now the chain is CAT6 router > AQ Cinnamon Ethernet cable > Cisco network switch > L-Com Ethernet cable > D-Link network switch > ENO Ethernet System Ag > Roon Nucleus server. Is this the optimal setup for what I’ve got, or should I change things around?


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> @teknorob23, I’m liking the improved clarity and definition of the transients, bass, midrange, and treble since I added a Cisco SG250-08 Smart Switch w/iFi iPower X - Low Noise Power Supply and an AudioQuest Cinnamon 0.75m Ethernet cable between my router and my D-Link network switch. It only took a couple of minutes to plug it all in and I immediately went to one of my favorite operas, Die Walkure by Wagner, which is very busy with a lot of singers and instrumentalists playing simultaneously, and within an hour of going back and forth I was pretty sure I was hearing good things coming through my headphones.
> 
> My question is does it matter in which order I have the two switches before the streaming signal enters my ENO Ethernet Filter? Right now the chain is CAT6 router > AQ Cinnamon Ethernet cable > Cisco network switch > L-Com Ethernet cable > D-Link network switch > ENO Ethernet System Ag > Roon Nucleus server. Is this the optimal setup for what I’ve got, or should I change things around?


Do you have cable or fiber optic internet?  If there is one, you may also want to upgrade the ethernet cable going from the modem/fiber optic box to router.

I like to think of the data flow to and from the internet as a river that flows both ways.  Because each switch is powered, it will contaminate the data stream with noise from the power source along with internal device generated noise and EMI.  I don't know the extent of how much noise the switches contribute since I use wifi but they will at the very least add artifacts from the switching power source.  Its often overlooked that all ethernet cables carry power and they will transport power back and forth between devices even if the devices don't need or use it.  

Usually, something like that ENO device would probably be most effective when connected at the highest point upstream in the chain but since you have multiple switches it gets tricky.  You could theorize and try to account for this and that but its probably easier and alot faster to just test it out with the most reliable scientific method, good ole trial and error.  

If you wanted to optimize things, you could try to minimize the number of switches in the chain or upgrade to an "audiophile" switch and use linear power supplies for those switches.  I recently got this linear ps from aliexpress to replace my ifi power x and it made a significant difference, not huge but definitely worth the price imo. Also, the use of good shielded ethernet cables will always help. Don't worry too much if a cable is limited to cat6, unless you have multi gig ports on the switches and router, it will be bottlenecked at the max bandwidth of whatever the ports are limited to. Music files are small and a cat6 cable is not going to be a limiting factor. You could also upgrade the wall outlet to an audiophile duplex, I upgraded mine to a Furutech GTX-D and the difference was huge with that one.

Power filtration is one more thing you could do as well but that is a huge money pit, the linear PS will help with the noise generated by AC power oscillation at 50/60hz but won't filter the power unless its a specific feature.  

I've to come to understand why the music servers are so good for music.  I know the PC is major contamination source but I didn't realize how much it affected sound.  

If you do upgrade anything, I'd be interested to hear your observations on the changes.


----------



## bpcans

@dougms3, luckily our house is wired with fiber optic cable throughout. Both network switches are plugged into my AQ Niagara 1200 power conditioner which uses an AQ Thunder power cable going into an isolated wall socket. So the sound floor of my hp system is pretty black and bereft of any background noise. 

Adding a second switch was one of those small not too expensive tweaks that IMO has helped give the sound of the music that I listen to a tad more clarity, soundstage, and definition to the vocals and instrument separation.


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> @dougms3, luckily our house is wired with fiber optic cable throughout. Both network switches are plugged into my AQ Niagara 1200 power conditioner which uses an AQ Thunder power cable going into an isolated wall socket. So the sound floor of my hp system is pretty black and bereft of any background noise.
> 
> Adding a second switch was one of those small not too expensive tweaks that IMO has helped give the sound of the music that I listen to a tad more clarity, soundstage, and definition to the vocals and instrument separation.


That must be nice.  They should make that a requirement for any new buildings or houses.  

Seems like you got the power conditioning taken care of.  There may be yet some improvements to be yielded from the audiophile network switch and linear ps.  Every electronic device generates noise and in the case of the network switches, they spread it around the network.  Probably not alot though since you've got good power conditioning, might not be worth the money for maybe no noticeable improvement.

Maybe next logical step is a DDC and/or master clock.  You'll be surprised at the difference that makes, I just got the audio-gd DI20HE last week and the improvement was really something.

My chain is GTX-D Duplex > ifi supanova > Furutech ETP80 PLC > PC > Jcat femto card with linear PS > nordost knockoff usb cable > audio-gd di20he (furutech 314ag power cable) > audioquest carbon coax > denafrips ares ii (nordost odin knockoff power cable) > audio-gd master 19 (furutech fp-s55n power cable with fi-46 plugs).


----------



## teknorob23

bpcans said:


> @teknorob23, I’m liking the improved clarity and definition of the transients, bass, midrange, and treble since I added a Cisco SG250-08 Smart Switch w/iFi iPower X - Low Noise Power Supply and an AudioQuest Cinnamon 0.75m Ethernet cable between my router and my D-Link network switch. It only took a couple of minutes to plug it all in and I immediately went to one of my favorite operas, Die Walkure by Wagner, which is very busy with a lot of singers and instrumentalists playing simultaneously, and within an hour of going back and forth I was pretty sure I was hearing good things coming through my headphones.
> 
> My question is does it matter in which order I have the two switches before the streaming signal enters my ENO Ethernet Filter? Right now the chain is CAT6 router > AQ Cinnamon Ethernet cable > Cisco network switch > L-Com Ethernet cable > D-Link network switch > ENO Ethernet System Ag > Roon Nucleus server. Is this the optimal setup for what I’ve got, or should I change things around?



@bpcans great news youre hearing an improvement with the 2nd switch and in terms of optimising you your set up.. have you tried switching the positions of the switches by running the CISCO where you currently have the D-link and if logistics allow i would experiment with moving the aq ethernet cable along the chain running it between switch 1 and 2. Essentially i suggest front loading your network chain running "best" into the streamer and "worst" into the router


----------



## bpcans

teknorob23 said:


> @bpcans great news youre hearing an improvement with the 2nd switch and in terms of optimising you your set up.. have you tried switching the positions of the switches by running the CISCO where you currently have the D-link and if logistics allow i would experiment with moving the aq ethernet cable along the chain running it between switch 1 and 2. Essentially i suggest front loading your network chain running "best" into the streamer and "worst" into the router


@teknorob23, thats funny that you suggest “switching the switches“, because I just got up to do that very experiment. I find that when my wife and 7yr old daughter are asleep at night that it is the best time to do some critical listening. I front loaded the Cisco switch and the AQ Ethernet cable as you’ve suggested. But it’s going to take some more listening before I can say with any certainty which configuration sounds the best.


----------



## teknorob23

bpcans said:


> @teknorob23, thats funny that you suggest “switching the switches“, because I just got up to do that very experiment. I find that when my wife and 7yr old daughter are asleep at night that it is the best time to do some critical listening. I front loaded the Cisco switch and the AQ Ethernet cable as you’ve suggested. But it’s going to take some more listening before I can say with any certainty which configuration sounds the best.



My rabble are off to Spain to visit the inlaws for month and get away from the heat in the UK  starting tomorrow, so while obviously miss them, critical listening and mountain biking should see definite uplift! These changes in your chain probably wont lead to night and day differences but could be worthwhile nonetheless. One question are you earthing both switches, as i've found this brings appreciable improvements to both these switches.


----------



## bpcans

teknorob23 said:


> My rabble are off to Spain to visit the inlaws for month and get away from the heat in the UK  starting tomorrow, so while obviously miss them, critical listening and mountain biking should see definite uplift! These changes in your chain probably wont lead to night and day differences but could be worthwhile nonetheless. One question are you earthing both switches, as i've found this brings appreciable improvements to both these switches.


Safe travels my friend. I love Spain! The Iberian coast is a marvelous place to vacation, and I’d love to take my girls there one day. Have you seen my fat tire bike? If not I’ll PM you a picture. I have the D-Link switch grounded. But because I’ve been going back and forth moving things around behind my gear rack, I think I’ll wait until I’ve settled on a final setup. As it is I’m going to have to do some serious rearranging of my audio chain to accommodate for this second switch and Ethernet cable. I like to give everything plenty of room to breath if you know what I mean.


----------



## bpcans

Has anybody tried swapping the stock SMPS on their routers for an aftermarket one like an iFi iPower, and did it make any difference at all? I’m using one of these GigaSpire Blast CAT6 routers plugged into its own wall socket now. I asked my audio gear dealer if it would, and he said probably not. But I’m just checking. https://www.calix.com/platforms/exos/exos-systems/gigaspire.html.


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> Has anybody tried swapping the stock SMPS on their routers for an aftermarket one like an iFi iPower, and did it make any difference at all? I’m using one of these GigaSpire Blast CAT6 routers plugged into its own wall socket now. I asked my audio gear dealer if it would, and he said probably not. But I’m just checking. https://www.calix.com/platforms/exos/exos-systems/gigaspire.html.


Well it just so happens i got this today for that specific purpose.

Well let you know.


----------



## bpcans

dougms3 said:


> Well it just so happens i got this today for that specific purpose.
> 
> Well let you know.


@dougms3, thank you sir. Your information is write on time. Is that an iFi Power X that you’ll be demoing on your router? I ask because I recently added one to my second wife, oh 😟 I mean my 2nd network switch.


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> @dougms3, thank you sir. Your information is write on time. Is that an iFi Power X that you’ll be demoing on your router? I ask because I recently added one to my second wife, oh 😟 I mean my 2nd network switch.


Yep.  And I forgot to bring it home from work lol.


----------



## bluenight

Hans said this is popular in Asia to use with network switches. Might not be as bang for buck as ifi psu though.


----------



## OCC7N

dougms3 said:


> Well it just so happens i got this today for that specific purpose.
> 
> Well let you know.


What are you using this for?

I use the entry model ipower for a switch together with a baaske 1005MI. I actually hear the difference. It feels like the music is just playing the right "tempo" with a silent background. Silent is the new dark. I never understood dark. Its silent to me


----------



## dougms3

OCC7N said:


> What are you using this for?
> 
> I use the entry model ipower for a switch together with a baaske 1005MI. I actually hear the difference. It feels like the music is just playing the right "tempo" with a silent background. Silent is the new dark. I never understood dark. Its silent to me


Its going on my router to see if it makes any difference.

I noticed a nice bump in noise reduction when I swapped out the ethernet to a better quality cable from the router to the verizon box.  Also better picture quality when streaming youtube and netflix.

So I thought I'd try the ipower x on the router and see if that would make a difference.


----------



## OCC7N (Jul 28, 2022)

dougms3 said:


> Its going on my router to see if it makes any difference.
> 
> I noticed a nice bump in noise reduction when I swapped out the ethernet to a better quality cable from the router to the verizon box.  Also better picture quality when streaming youtube and netflix.
> 
> So I thought I'd try the ipower x on the router and see if that would make a difference.


I think you it will improve. I also switched out my diablo standard ipower with ipower x and for cat7 in the house. Feels like music is playing in "space" no distortion everything is just on time now. Sounds weird but maybe jitter also has improved by this, I don´t know.

Upgrades I made:
Powersupply, iPower X on Diablo/DAC
Cat7
Switch with Regular iPower supply 5v
Shielded main cables for PC(Brand is Supra)
Network Isolator: Baaske 1005MI


----------



## dougms3

I got the ipower x but I made a mistake, I thought my router was 12v but its 19v 
🤦‍♂️


----------



## bpcans

dougms3 said:


> I got the ipower x but I made a mistake, I thought my router was 12v but its 19v
> 🤦‍♂️


I’m thinking that since my router only retails for about a hundred bucks, then maybe the $69 USD iFi iPower should be enough for me to see if replacing its stock SMPS has any benefits whatsoever.

Just to be sure I went and tracked down the voltage requirements for my router. https://www.calix.com/content/dam/c...em/i/u6-u12/index.htm?toc956596.htm?95787.htm. If I’m not mistaken mine takes a 12v power supply. 😀


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> I’m thinking that since my router only retails for about a hundred bucks, then maybe the $69 USD iFi iPower should be enough for me to see if replacing its stock SMPS has any benefits whatsoever.
> 
> Just to be sure I went and tracked down the voltage requirements for my router. https://www.calix.com/content/dam/c...em/i/u6-u12/index.htm?toc956596.htm?95787.htm. If I’m not mistaken mine takes a 12v power supply. 😀


I decided to test it on my loxjie p20 amp which happens to 12v, I think I'm going to keep it there.  It provided a nice bump in noise reduction and sound.

I think its going to be impossible to find a decent ps for that 19v router though.


----------



## bpcans

dougms3 said:


> I decided to test it on my loxjie p20 amp which happens to 12v, I think I'm going to keep it there.  It provided a nice bump in noise reduction and sound.
> 
> I think its going to be impossible to find a decent ps for that 19v router though.


I found this 19v PS on eBay. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1119815591...ul91bNkTOO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY


----------



## teknorob23

bpcans said:


> I found this 19v PS on eBay. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1119815591...ul91bNkTOO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY



noooo dont do it!


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> I found this 19v PS on eBay. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1119815591...ul91bNkTOO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY


I think for that price its cheaper to swap out the router lol.


----------



## bpcans

dougms3 said:


> I think for that price its cheaper to swap out the router lol.


Whatever router you get you’re going to still have to address the power supply issues.


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> I think its going to be impossible to find a decent ps for that 19v router though.


If that 19v router doesn’t already have a decent ps, how does it work without going round in circles retransmitting error packets or in fact working at all?

G


----------



## dougms3

gregorio said:


> If that 19v router doesn’t already have a decent ps, how does it work without going round in circles retransmitting error packets or in fact working at all?
> 
> G


Theres a big difference in doing the bare minimum to function and working at a high level.  

Google linear power supply.

D


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> Theres a big difference in doing the bare minimum to function and working at a high level.


A router either routes the data at the specified rate with few/no errors or it’s faulty. So there’s no difference whatsoever between “the bare minimum and a high level”,  let alone a big difference!

G


----------



## dougms3 (Jul 30, 2022)

gregorio said:


> A router either routes the data at the specified rate with few/no errors or it’s faulty. So there’s no difference whatsoever between “the bare minimum and a high level”,  let alone a big difference!
> 
> G


You've come up with your own theories and conclusions there, apparently you're an expert in networking and power now.

No one said it affects the rate of errors, also do some research on what TCP vs UDP is.  There is always interference in the data signal, whether from power or within the network transmissions, the fact that you don't understand this says you should google before making statements like you're an expert.

The linear power supply helps reduce noise from the switch mode power source, depending on the type of LPS, it may also do some additional filtering but the LPS alone will yield improvements.  Again this seems to be beyond your comprehension, I recommend google before commenting on such things.

Just fyi these two have come here to troll.  They've never tested anything and believe an LPS, high quality switch, or cables are all snake oil.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 30, 2022)

dougms3 said:


> You've come up with your own theories and conclusions there, apparently you're an expert in networking and power now.


Of course I haven’t come up with my own or anyone else’s “theories”. What I came up with is what a router actually does, namely it routes Ethernet data, hence why it’s called an Ethernet Router. I’m more than surprised you think someone has to be an expert to realise that obvious fact or to realise that if it can’t do that job, then it’s broken/faulty.


dougms3 said:


> There is always interference in the data signal, whether from power or within the network transmissions, the fact that you don't understand this says you should google before making statements like you're an expert.


I do realise there always interference in the data signal but what you don’t appear to realise is that when the data is received and buffered it’s just (stored) data. Therefore, there obviously cannot be any “_interference in the data signal_” because there is no signal, it’s just stored data!


dougms3 said:


> The linear power supply helps reduce noise from the switch mode power source


Maybe but what difference can it possibly make when the data is buffered and there is no signal to contain noise?


dougms3 said:


> Again this seems to be beyond your comprehension, I recommend google before commenting on such things.


You really should take your own advice BEFORE trying to give it to others, especially when such a low level of comprehension is required!!

G


----------



## bfreedma

dougms3 said:


> You've come up with your own theories and conclusions there, apparently you're an expert in networking and power now.
> 
> No one said it affects the rate of errors, also do some research on what TCP vs UDP is.  There is always interference in the data signal, whether from power or within the network transmissions, the fact that you don't understand this says you should google before making statements like you're an expert.
> 
> ...



I’ve been testing and implementing Ethernet since the mid 80s.  Arcnet and Token Ring before that.  As mentioned before, I currently sit on one of 802 steering committees and sat on two other 802 committees for two decades.  In that time, Ive learned that every Ethernet cable built to standard is galvanically isolated, so if there is noise on a switch or router, it can’t traverse beyond  the cable.  I’ve also learned that Ethernet utilizes buffered data, so if any Ethernet packets are corrupt, they fail an integrity check and the packet is rerequested, with packets reassembled prior to retransmission.  If you don’t believe that data is being buffered, pull the Ethernet cable while playing back audio - the audio will continue for some time without any active connection. Because it’s buffered.

I’ve implemented dozens of Ethernet based solutions where data errors have serious consequences.  Consequences like mass casualty events.  None of that required anything beyond the published Ethernet standards.

These are not my ”beliefs”, I’m quoting and adhering to published 802 standards.  Despite what some want to believe, all audio related data must follow and adhere to the same standards - it’s packetized, so there is literally no distinction between audio and any other type of data carried by by Ethernet. If that weren’t the case, the internet and it’s connected devices wouldn’t operate cohesively.

That said, if you can document what you claim with hard evidence, I’d be happy to get you in front of the right 802 subcommittee to present it.  If you’re correct and can patent your new methodologies, you’ll be a billionaire many times over.

It would be fantastic if you could reply with hard data supporting your case instead of insults and personal attacks.


----------



## joe

*Mod note: *Let's drop the personal attacks. Let's try to be civil, okay? I don't want to have to hand out vacations.


----------



## bfreedma (Jul 30, 2022)

Edit.  This is in reference to a question about POE and how it works given a galvanically isolated connector.

What’s needed for POE is a switch specifically capable of providing that POE by injecting power into the cable.  Signal and current in the wire have no relationship to the galvanic isolation provided by the connector itself due to transformer coupling.  The concerns stated in recent posts are related to electrical signals occurring outside of the wiring and carried by other components of the Ethernet cable originating from poor power management on a switch.  Galvanic isolation is important there.

If the wires carrying the actual signal/data were galvanically isolated, there would be no path for data to enter the device connected to the wire and therefore no Ethernet connectivity at all..  To directly answer the question, all properly constructed CAT5 and CAT6 Ethernet cables can be used where POE is required.

Wiring detail and which wires carry POE are described here. https://satoms.com/power-over-ethernet-poe-explained-and-specifications/


----------



## bfreedma

Here is the IEEE current doc on POE.  I’m happy to answer any questions you have once you have time to read it.  It’s fairly complex, so will probably require a good baseline of Ethernet knowledge to fully consume and understand.  https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9034552

There is no paywall but you do need to sign up for a free account.  Hopefully that minor inconvenience isn’t a barrier to those with genuine interest.


----------



## joe

*Mod note: *Cleaned up some posts.


----------



## cpurdy

bfreedma said:


> I’ve been testing and implementing Ethernet since the mid 80s.  Arcnet and Token Ring before that.  As mentioned before, I currently sit on one of 802 steering committees and sat on two other 802 committees for two decades.  In that time, Ive learned that every Ethernet cable built to standard is galvanically isolated, so if there is noise on a switch or router, it can’t traverse beyond  the cable.  I’ve also learned that Ethernet utilizes buffered data, so if any Ethernet packets are corrupt, they fail an integrity check and the packet is rerequested, with packets reassembled prior to retransmission.  If you don’t believe that data is being buffered, pull the Ethernet cable while playing back audio - the audio will continue for some time without any active connection. Because it’s buffered.
> 
> [..] all audio related data must follow and adhere to the same standards - it’s packetized, so there is literally no distinction between audio and any other type of data carried by by Ethernet. If that weren’t the case, the internet and it’s connected devices wouldn’t operate cohesively.


This is all technically correct.

As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with splurging on beautiful cables, and if you think that your music sounds better with better looking cables, then that's (usually) a relatively cheap upgrade that will make you happy. I personally think good looking cables are worth investing in, because they make me happy. And psychosomatic improvements in audio are certainly possible, so there's nothing wrong with telling *yourself* that your fancy new Ethernet cables improved your sound.

I'll avoid explaining anything technical on the topic, as science may not be appreciated in this particular arena.


----------



## bpcans

After a few days of using a 2nd network switch between my router and my ENO Ethernet filter, I‘ve become convinced that two network switches in sequence are better than one. The problem was that the Cisco switch that I purchased was out of current production, and it had a 4-pin DIN connection for its power supply instead of the standard tubular one which is most common these days.

So now I’m researching which 8-port network switch might work well with my present setup. My budget would be $500 USD for both the switch and a good power supply like an iFi iPower X SMPS. All suggestions are welcome.


----------



## endless402

bpcans said:


> After a few days of using a 2nd network switch between my router and my ENO Ethernet filter, I‘ve become convinced that two network switches in sequence are better than one. The problem was that the Cisco switch that I purchased was out of current production, and it had a 4-pin DIN connection for its power supply instead of the standard tubular one which is most common these days.
> 
> So now I’m researching which 8-port network switch might work well with my present setup. My budget would be $500 USD for both the switch and a good power supply like an iFi iPower X SMPS. All suggestions are welcome.


Prob silent angel or one of the aliexpress ones with a nice clock inside


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> After a few days of using a 2nd network switch between my router and my ENO Ethernet filter, I‘ve become convinced that two network switches in sequence are better than one. The problem was that the Cisco switch that I purchased was out of current production, and it had a 4-pin DIN connection for its power supply instead of the standard tubular one which is most common these days.
> 
> So now I’m researching which 8-port network switch might work well with my present setup. My budget would be $500 USD for both the switch and a good power supply like an iFi iPower X SMPS. All suggestions are welcome.




Hans does a nice overview of the options and what they do.


----------



## dougms3 (Aug 5, 2022)

https://www.vinshineaudio.com/post/...mail&cid=9fb8d3f8-2b55-4a56-afe3-c69ba3b48782


If Alvin from Denafrips is recommending it must be pretty good.

I'm told LHY is a subsidiary of Jay's Audio.  Internals look nice, linear ps, oven controlled crystal oscillator, thick aluminum walls shielding from EMI bleeding into other compartments.

Although I'd prefer a toroidal or R core transformer, the linear power supply is a very nice addition.  Can't complain at this price point, perhaps they'll make one with a better transformer later on.

The benefits of the toroidal and r core transformers are that they produce less mechanical hum, less noise injected into the system and emit smaller magnetic fields vs something like that encapsulated transformer.


----------



## gregorio

bpcans said:


> The problem was that the Cisco switch that I purchased was out of current production, and it had a 4-pin DIN connection for its power supply instead of the standard tubular one which is most common these days.


If it had an unusual power connection and no working power supply, you should request a refund. 


bpcans said:


> So now I’m researching which 8-port network switch might work well with my present setup.


Any functioning 8-port Ethernet switch will work equally well.

G


----------



## bpcans

@gregorio, the Cisco SG250-08 switch that I ordered did come with its own power supply that worked fine. I did send it back and I got a full refund. 

Before I had bought the Cisco switch I was able to demo an English8 and a NetGear 8-port switch at the same time. The English8 had a more positive effect on the sound of my system than did the far less expensive switch from NetGear.


----------



## bpcans

@iFi audio, I’m waiting for the arrival of a 12v iFi iPower Elite to use on my Cisco GS250-08 network switch. What benefits if any am I most likely to notice after I plug it in? Luckily I have a few days of listening with the Cisco supplied SMPS that I have plugged into my power conditioner to acclimate my hearing.


----------



## bpcans

Has anyone tried this network cable from Moon Audio? https://www.moon-audio.com/silver-dragon-network-cable.html. I’m thinking about getting one to use between my two network switches that I have in cascade to replace the AudioQuest Cinnamon cable that I have there now. Then I could move the AQ Cinnamon to go from my router to my first switch.

     Of course getting this Melco S10 network switch would solve all of my problems. https://melco-audio.com/s10/


----------



## cpurdy

bpcans said:


> I’m waiting for the arrival of a 12v iFi iPower Elite to use on my Cisco GS250-08 network switch. What benefits if any am I most likely to notice after I plug it in?


In theory, you may have a less noisy electrical environment, since cheap DC power converters can (at least in theory) make some noise on your mains.

The power supply that came with your Cisco network switch is designed to meet the requirements of the Cisco switch and/or the switch is designed with tolerances to deal with the power supply, so there will be zero difference on the network itself.



bpcans said:


> Has anyone tried this network cable from Moon Audio?


Moon Audio makes beautiful, functional cables. I have a few myself, and have never had a problem with any of them. If you are looking for a beautiful, functional Ethernet cable and money is no object, then Moon Audio is a reasonable choice. However, compared to a $.99 cable, it will make zero difference on the network itself.



bpcans said:


> Of course getting this Melco S10 network switch would solve all of my problems.


What are the problems that you are trying to solve? The Melco switch is beautiful, so if you are attempting to match the finish of an amplifier, and money is no object, then it may be a reasonable solution.


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> Has anyone tried this network cable from Moon Audio? https://www.moon-audio.com/silver-dragon-network-cable.html. I’m thinking about getting one to use between my two network switches that I have in cascade to replace the AudioQuest Cinnamon cable that I have there now. Then I could move the AQ Cinnamon to go from my router to my first switch.
> 
> Of course getting this Melco S10 network switch would solve all of my problems. https://melco-audio.com/s10/


I would recommend trying one of these cables.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/325...00030044134170!sea&curPageLogUid=CIaPBjqv9EzB







They are fairly cheap compared to the moon audio ethernet cable.  And I'm 100% sure it will at least outperform that cinnamon cable.  

I have the silver one and it made a significant and noticeable improvement in streaming vs a cheap standard unshielded cable, even youtube and netflix looks better.  This is not guaranteed for everyone as we all live in different environments with varying levels of exposure to interference.  I live in an apt complex where there are at least 30 wifi signals my router picks up so I benefit greatly from having this ethernet cable.

I used to work for a large corporation with a ton of DOD contracts and long list of corporate customers some of which included google, facebook and twitter.  My primary role was troubleshooting and problem solving issues and 90% of the time it was networking issues.  One of the biggest problems that I used to come across, is that the installers would use the cheap unshielded ethernet cables everywhere.  Because they are *unshielded *they are prone to interference.  Even though they are rated for 100 meters max distance, depending on the environment they may experience enough interference where they may not be reliable for even 10 meters distance.  This is easily verified by pinging the ip addresses where theres interference.  Alot of packet loss indicates an unreliable connection.  Alot of installers dont like making the shielded ethernet cables in the field because they cost more and its annoying to make, assuming they even know how to make them.  Considering they're installing equipment upwards of $300k you'd think they'd spend the extra bit on shielded cables.

Both of the cables I posted have heavy shielding.  I took apart one of these cables and the cores look to be 24 awg sterling silver conductors sleeved in teflon with a spiral wrapped aluminum shield on each conductor.  If you notice even the connectors are shielded vs plastic on the cheap ethernet connectors, this makes a huge difference.

It looks like the moon audio and aq cinnamon ethernet cables are also shielded and have shielded connectors.  I'm not sure how the knockoff cable will compare vs the moon audio but it will definitely outperform that Aq cinnamon.


----------



## bpcans

@cpurdy, I’ve found that adding the iFi iPower Elite to my 8-port Cisco network switch made a positive improvement in what I’m hearing thru my headphones. It was a simple tweak that I feel was worth the expense. I mentioned the Melco S10 switch as an example of a one box solution to buffer the internet streaming signal between my router and my music server. But for now the two moderately priced switches that I’m using in cascade will do just fine. I’d rather use the $5000 cost of the Melco to take my wife and daughter on a ski trip this winter. 

@dougms3, there are a couple of different ethernet cables that I have around the house that I will try before giving the Moon Audio Silver Dragon network cable a try. Thank you both for your input.


----------



## cpurdy

bpcans said:


> @cpurdy, I’ve found that adding the iFi iPower Elite to my 8-port Cisco network switch made a positive improvement in what I’m hearing thru my headphones. It was a simple tweak that I feel was worth the expense. I mentioned the Melco S10 switch as an example of a one box solution to buffer the internet streaming signal between my router and my music server. But for now the two moderately priced switches that I’m using in cascade will do just fine. I’d rather use the $5000 cost of the Melco to take my wife and daughter on a ski trip this winter.


I use a couple of the iFi power supplies for analog equipment. I don't notice any difference in audio, but I do know that cheap power supplies aren't great at producing stable voltages, and can be hard on some analog equipment. So my thought is: iFi power adapters are cheap insurance. (And this is all sitting behind a pure sine wave power conditioner.) So I do take this stuff pretty seriously -- despite understanding that it probably makes no difference.

But I still have a hard time understanding how the iFi on the network switch could change what you hear on your headphones, unless your old power supply was trashing the quality of the power in your A/C mains and that was showing up in your analog equipment (which is unlikely, but certainly possible).

The thing with audio streams and Ethernet cables is that even if you are losing 99 out of every 100 packets (i.e. 99% noise on the wire), you won't notice anything different in the audio because *the data for the audio is buffered and the network is still bit perfect even with 99% data loss*. (TCP stands for Transmission Control Protocol, and it automatically resends any of the packets which get corrupted.) And a really bad Ethernet cable with a vacuum cleaner running back and forth over the cable which is also wrapped around a running microwave oven and all this while you are running a hair drier off of the same outlet ... that cable is probably going to "lose" (corrupt) a few percent of its packets, which will have no effect on the audio stream.

This is the up-side of digital. As long as your audio is being handled in digital form, it can easily be kept bitperfect and lossless. (Now, if you use lossy compression like mp3, or run it through digital algorithms like auto-tune that are built on the goal of "losing" data, then all bets are off.)


----------



## EMINENT

What does one do if the modem is in another room? What do you do to combat the cheap ethernet in the walls?


----------



## dougms3

EMINENT said:


> What does one do if the modem is in another room? What do you do to combat the cheap ethernet in the walls?


Not much you can do about that.

But if you're using a cable modem, even having the modem to router connection upgraded to a better quality cable will help significantly.


----------



## gregorio

EMINENT said:


> What do you do to combat the cheap ethernet in the walls?


Nothing, unless the cables or connectors are broken then there’s nothing to combat. 

G


----------



## bpcans

cpurdy said:


> I use a couple of the iFi power supplies for analog equipment. I don't notice any difference in audio, but I do know that cheap power supplies aren't great at producing stable voltages, and can be hard on some analog equipment. So my thought is: iFi power adapters are cheap insurance. (And this is all sitting behind a pure sine wave power conditioner.) So I do take this stuff pretty seriously -- despite understanding that it probably makes no difference.
> 
> But I still have a hard time understanding how the iFi on the network switch could change what you hear on your headphones, unless your old power supply was trashing the quality of the power in your A/C mains and that was showing up in your analog equipment (which is unlikely, but certainly possible).
> 
> The thing with audio streams and Ethernet cables is that even if you are losing 99 out of every 100 packets (i.e. 99% noise on the wire), you won't notice anything different in the audio because *the data for the audio is buffered and the network is still bit perfect even with 99% data loss*. (TCP stands for Transmission Control Protocol, and it automatically resends any of the packets which get corrupted.) And a really bad Ethernet cable with a vacuum cleaner running back and forth over the cable which is also wrapped around a running microwave oven and all this while you are running a hair drier off of the same outlet ... that cable is probably going to "lose" (corrupt) a few percent of its packets, which will have no effect on the audio stream.


@cpurdy, the sound quality difference between using the supplied stock SMPS from Cisco and the 12v iFi iPower Elite is literally like night and day in comparison. The iFi Elite being that much quieter by an order magnitude IMO. I listen to music for a couple hours a day, and I had the stock Cisco SMPS in my system for almost a week. So when the iFi Elite arrived it didn’t take long, as I ran through my list of go to test tracks, to hear the increased detail and clarity that having a quieter background allows. Most noticeably with having two network switches in sequence is the sense of there being a much wider soundstage as opposed to when I was only using one switch.


----------



## bpcans

I thought that I’d share this review of several network switches and how they perform. https://alpha-audio.net/review/multitest-de-beste-switch-voor-streaming-audio/. It states better than I have the words for when describing how one’s music streaming listening experience can be improved by the use of a good network switch in combination with a decent power supply.


----------



## gregorio

bpcans said:


> https://alpha-audio.net/review/multitest-de-beste-switch-voor-streaming-audio/. It states better than I have the words for when describing how one’s music streaming listening experience can be improved by the use of a good network switch in combination with a decent power supply.


Thanks for a great example!:

“_Anyone who connects two electrical devices via a conductive connection – whether copper or something else – builds a bridge for energy transfer. The in this case “pulses” that form the ones and zeros get from A to B nicely. However…. also noise. Common mode mostly, we guess. And that is not desirable._”

But then:

“_Now we normally play music via a connection where the Meraki MS220-8P throught fiber to a converter (SFP to ethernet). The converter is fed with an Sbooster. Without question, that plays nicely. So this direct connection is really a step backwards. It feels rough and somewhat cold. Almost distant. Jacques Loussier has lost his rhythm and the James Taylor track has some really hard S-sounds. So: not pleasant._”

Hang on, they’re transferring data through fibre (optic) cable which is NOT conductive and uses light to transmit data. There is no electrical connection or signal and it’s therefore immune to electrical or radio interference/noise! That’s the whole point of fibre in the first place.

How do people believe this nonsense?

G


----------



## bpcans

@gregorio, with your obvious wealth of audiophile knowledge, I hope that you were only being sarcastic? Of course I’m was only being facetious. 

Do you have any experience with using network switches in cascade between a router and a passive RFI filter like the ENO, or going directly into a music server without using a filter like the EtherREGEN?


----------



## gregorio

bpcans said:


> @gregorio, with your obvious wealth of audiophile knowledge, I hope that you were only being sarcastic? Of course I’m was only being facetious.


I do have a good knowledge of audio but I don’t think I have a “wealth of audiophile knowledge”. This is because there’s often serious contradictions between audio knowledge and audiophile knowledge and I’m not necessarily up to date with the latest audiophile beliefs.


bpcans said:


> Do you have any experience with using network switches in cascade between a router and a passive RFI filter like the ENO, or going directly into a music server without using a filter like the EtherREGEN?


I have quite a lot of experience using network switches in my and others’ audio chains, for well over a dozen years. This is between network servers, PCs and Macs. In my current setup I have some audio on a PC, some on a NAS and most on a Mac, all running simultaneously, typically around 200 channels. Some is going through 1 switch, some through 2 switches.

The environment is high noise/interference compared to most consumer systems and I’ve tested extensively, more than a few times over that entire period. I’ve never had any RFI or EMI that had any effect on the digital audio signal on my or any other system I’ve ever used/tested and indeed, there’s no mechanism by which there could be any sonic effect. I once tested some Ethernet regen device for a friend but it made no difference either to his setup or mine, which is a good thing of course. Never tried a passive Ethernet RFI filter or even seen one in the various places I’ve worked but then there’s obviously no point.

G


----------



## IanB52

This was a pretty interesting and relevant interview with Mark Jenkins of Antipodes Audio: 



https://darko.audio/2022/08/expert-opinion-mark-jenkins-goes-deep-on-digital-audio/


----------



## cpurdy (Aug 29, 2022)

bpcans said:


> I thought that I’d share this review of several network switches and how they perform. https://alpha-audio.net/review/multitest-de-beste-switch-voor-streaming-audio/. It states better than I have the words for when describing how one’s music streaming listening experience can be improved by the use of a good network switch in combination with a decent power supply.



(Edit: Warning: I should have taken a chill pill before writing this answer. While my answer was technically correct, it wasn't conducive to the enjoyment of this hobby, so I'm going to try to edit it to dial down the acerbic wit, or lack of wit, or whatever.)

OK, I'll look. Let's see ...



> Anyone who connects two electrical devices via a conductive connection – whether copper or something else – builds a bridge for energy transfer. The in this case “pulses” that form the ones and zeros get from A to B nicely. However…. also noise. Common mode mostly, we guess. And that is not desirable.



Great book link, for no particular reason, that covers "cargo cults": https://www.amazon.com/Cows-Pigs-Wars-Witches-Riddles/dp/0679724680

I am, unfortunately, an expert on the topic of networking and networking standards. (Not an expert on cargo cults.) I say "unfortunately", because it is some of the most boring knowledge in the universe, suitable only for putting wives and children to sleep. On the other hand, it beats law school.

There are strict standards governing how Ethernet works. [The rest of this paragraph met a late demise.]



> We take a standard Cisco switch: a Cisco SG110D-08. An 8-port switch that some people use as a basis to optimize it further. Think of Fidelizer. This switch costs about 40 euros. With a neat metal case, it feels solid. The step is definitely clear: more tightness and calmness in the reproduction. The harsh S-sounds are not all gone, but are somewhat less prominent now.



I *guarantee* you that they did not blind A/B test this. Digital information transferred over the network *cannot* "sound differently" based on the switch or router or cable being used, because digital information has *no sound*, and digital information has *no noise*. That digital information (an exact sequence of bits, regardless of the power supply, cable, router, and switch being used) has no sound, until a D/A converter is fed that information (which information is guaranteed to always be exactly the same information, bit perfect) and the D/A converter produces an analog signal.

As I said, in theory, a power supply for the switch could be such a pile of crap that it could put noise onto the A/C mains, and you could have such a poor D/A converter or amplifier that it picks up that noise somehow. But none of that is coming over the network, and none of that is caused by a switch or router.

If you don't believe me, here is a site that could teach you everything about Ethernet, but it will put you to sleep first: https://www.ieee802.org/

[More stuff deleted.] Even after learning absolutely everything about Ethernet, it would still be extremely hard (nigh impossible) to sneak any bad "ones and zeros through from A to B" over those "pulses". (Not impossible, as I've explained before. But nigh impossible.)



> Also, the stereo imaging is better: the space increases. But what really makes the big step, is when we connect a power supply. In this case, the NuPrime Forester. Guys… what a difference that makes! We really hear more music now.



[Lots of stuff deleted.] This claim lacks credibility, because it is similarly based on a profound lack of understanding of what "digital information" is, and how it works.


----------



## bpcans (Aug 29, 2022)

@cpurdy deleted


----------



## iFi audio (Aug 29, 2022)

cpurdy said:


> So my thought is: iFi power adapters are cheap insurance. (And this is all sitting behind a pure sine wave power conditioner.) So I do take this stuff pretty seriously -- despite understanding that it probably makes no difference.



That's a nice way to put it, thanks 



cpurdy said:


> But I still have a hard time understanding how the iFi on the network switch could change what you hear on your headphones, unless your old power supply was trashing the quality of the power in your A/C mains and that was showing up in your analog equipment (which is unlikely, but certainly possible).



In theory network switches shouldn't affect playback quality, especially if they're used with routers used just to provide wireless remote control to an audio setup. In practice some folks hear the difference with and without network switches still, which most likely relates to lowering noise floor somewhere. iPower PSUs were designed to be super-silent and perhaps that's why they factor in here.



cpurdy said:


> I *guarantee* you that they did not blind A/B test this. Digital information transferred over the network *cannot* "sound differently" based on the switch or router or cable being used, because digital information has *no sound*, and digital information has *no noise*. That digital information (an exact sequence of bits, regardless of the power supply, cable, router, and switch being used) has no sound, until a D/A converter is fed that information (which information is guaranteed to always be exactly the same information, bit perfect) and the D/A converter produces an analog signal.



Maybe this isn't about digital data, but the fact that stock chargers inject noise into audio setups and any audible differences people hear might be due to lessering that noise. Here power supplies step in.


----------



## cpurdy (Aug 29, 2022)

bpcans said:


> @cpurdy deleted



Sorry. I rewrote my answer a few times before posting myself, because I didn't want to be "that guy", a.k.a. a jerk. But I probably still failed, and it probably still came across as asinine, and for that, I apologize.

It's just so troubling to me (and I know that I shouldn't take it so seriously) that these witch-doctors are using the marvels of modern technology to spread anti-knowledge. To me, it would be like having TV shows hosted by people explaining to their viewers why electricity doesn't actually exist. Or radio shows hosted by people explaining how there is no such thing as a sound wave. Or someone writing on the Internet about how two bit-perfect copies of the same binary data sound different based on the brand of the hard drive those bits came off of (which, although when I put it that way it sounds obviously idiotic, it is no less insane than what that blog was seriously trying to claim).

As the kids these days would say: "_I can't even._"

But if I crossed a line of politeness as I ranted about my frustration with the whole thing, then please forgive me. This hobby is supposed to be fun; we should leave the arguing to the politicians and the lawyers. 

And please also forgive my future self when he goes nuts again.

I really do like nice looking cables. Not joking. They do bring me joy, and (thanks to the placebo effect, *which is real* and is as proven as anything in science is proven) they do make my equipment sound much better.


----------



## bpcans

@cpurdy, it’s quite acceptable on your part to be as passionate about this hobby as I am. No offense taking sir. 

I came to this forum to share what I’ve been doing related to my efforts with network music streaming. I started streaming music through my MacBook Pro 💻 using JRiver, Audirvana, and iTunes software. As soon as I replaced my laptop with a Roon Nucleus Rev B streamer I heard a bit of how much better my listening sessions could be. And to that end I started reading and listening to others who had similar hifi gear as I do, and who had more knowledge and experience.


----------



## iFi audio

bpcans said:


> As soon as I replaced my laptop with a Roon Nucleus Rev B streamer I heard a bit of how much better my listening sessions could be.



Yup, many people are rather stunned how much of a difference changing a streamer alone can make.



cpurdy said:


> Sorry. I rewrote my answer a few times before posting myself, because I didn't want to be "that guy", a.k.a. a jerk. But I probably still failed, and it probably still came across as asinine, and for that, I apologize.
> 
> It's just so troubling to me (and I know that I shouldn't take it so seriously) that these witch-doctors are using the marvels of modern technology to spread anti-knowledge. To me, it would be like having TV shows hosted by people explaining to their viewers why electricity doesn't actually exist. Or radio shows hosted by people explaining how there is no such thing as a sound wave. Or someone writing on the Internet about how two bit-perfect copies of the same binary data sound different based on the brand of the hard drive those bits came off of (which, although when I put it that way it sounds obviously idiotic, it is no less insane than what that blog was seriously trying to claim).
> 
> ...



Props to you for being polite


----------



## dougms3 (Aug 29, 2022)

@bpcans

Hans does some comparisons between various network switches.

Theres the pro version of the n8 which costs alot more but has a clock output 🤤

🤤


----------



## bpcans (Aug 30, 2022)

@dougms3, it was Rob Osbourn at Network Acoustics who helped me put together everything between my router and my Roon Nucleus music streamer. He first suggested that I demo his ENO Streaming System Ag. https://www.networkacoustics.com/shop/eno-streaming-system/. His handmade choke filter really made me understand how reducing RFI and EMI in my system would be crucial when streaming music over the internet.

Next he suggested that I should try putting a relatively inexpensive network switch between my router and the ENO. I remember asking him then about using a more expensive switch. And he said that I first needed to hear if adding a switch made any positive difference at all. Well it did. Unbelievable to me the little 5-port D-Link switch with a 5v iFi iPower SMPS gave a marked improvement in sound quality. Man I was happy all spring and summer until I started asking him about the practicality of adding a 2nd switch in sequence after reading more about network music streaming.

So again I brought up the idea of using something like the EE8 as the next improvement in my setup. And Rob said that he had been experimenting with one in his shop to test how well it worked, but that he thought that for my purposes using a Cisco GS250 8-port switch with an iFi iPower Elite power supply should get me where I needed to be. Again he was absolutely spot on.

In all of the months that we’ve been communicating by email, Rob has never given me the hard sell as in “you need this” or “you have to get that”. He’s always encouraged me to try things and determine for myself if his suggestions were applicable to my systems needs. Which is really cool in todays sometimes contentious hifi environment.


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> @dougms3, it was Rob Osbourn at Network Acoustics who helped me put together everything between my router and my Roon Nucleus music streamer. He first suggested that I demo his ENO Streaming System Ag. https://www.networkacoustics.com/shop/eno-streaming-system/. His handmade choke filter really made me understand how reducing RFI and EMI in my system would be crucial when streaming music over the internet.
> 
> Next he suggested that I should try putting a relatively inexpensive network switch between my router and the ENO. I remember asking him then about using a more expensive switch. And he said that I first needed to hear if adding a switch made any positive difference at all. Well it did. Unbelievable to me the little 5-port D-Link switch with a 5v iFi iPower SMPS gave a marked improvement in sound quality. Man I was happy all spring and summer until I started asking him about the practicality of adding a 2nd switch in sequence after reading more about network music streaming.
> 
> ...


Well you have alot more expertise than I with this type of equipment.

I thought you might be looking for a switch.


----------



## IanB52

FWIW, I used to own an Innuos Zenith MkII and an Etheregen which both helped the sound, esp going into DCS Bartok. But now that I have a nice streamer with an optical connection to my DAC, and attached an USB SSD, I actually stopped hearing any benefit from both network devices on stored files, and for streamed files the difference is very slight. 

Strangely, I can improve the sound from the SSD by using a couple USB filters inline (iGalvanic 3.0 and iPurifier 3.0). My theory is that these filters are reducing any noise that could be getting into the mains through the USB 5v power wire, because the noise is definitely not getting to the DAC input, and the streamer is doing all the clocking. 

It's a weird world of trial and error.


----------



## iFi audio

IanB52 said:


> a couple USB filters inline (iGalvanic 3.0 and iPurifier 3.0).



If I may, technically these are not filters  iGalvanic3.0 is a galvanic isolator for a USB and iPurifier3.0 is a USB reclocker/regenerator. Both are active devices.


----------



## iFi audio

IanB52 said:


> Innuos Zenith MkII



That's a very nice server/streamer platform and its InnuOS is awesome too 

Edit: oops, double post, sorry!


----------



## bpcans (Aug 30, 2022)

dougms3 said:


> Well you have alot more expertise than I with this type of equipment.
> 
> I thought you might be looking for a switch.


@dougms3, well I thought I was looking for another network switch, but I guess I’ve found what I need for now. My brain 🧠 is still acclimating to how different the music sounds with two iFi powered switches in sequence in my system. The most noticeable element being that the background to the music is absolutely pitch black. Which is probably why the music sounds so much more detailed and spacious.

I’m not sure that I have any more practical experience than you do sir. I started putting this hp system together at the beginning of the pandemic when all any of us could do was go to work, shop for groceries, buy gasoline, and stay at home. It was done one piece at a time as I was able to slowly upgrade, and when I had the money.


----------



## iFi audio

bpcans said:


> The most noticeable element being that the background to the music is absolutely pitch black. Which is probably why the music sounds so much more detailed and spacious.



That's true and spot on observation. The quieter a PSU is, the more and more black the backdrop behind instruments and voices gets, so they stand out more and resolution increases along with that blackness.


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> @dougms3, well I thought I was looking for another network switch, but I guess I’ve found what I need for now. My brain 🧠 is still acclimating to how different the music sounds with two iFi powered switches in sequence in my system. The most noticeable element being that the background to the music is absolutely pitch black. Which is probably why the music sounds so much more detailed and spacious.
> 
> I’m not sure that I have any more practical experience than you do sir. I started putting this hp system together at the beginning of the pandemic when all any of us could do was go to work, shop for groceries, buy gasoline, and stay at home. It was done one piece at a time as I was able to slowly upgrade, and when I had the money.


I've noticed that's the effect of noise reduction.  Increased soundstage height width and depth, better separation and imaging, more microdetails.

You have more experience than i with network audio devices.  I have only tested cables and routers.

Glad to hear it worked out well for you, your chain is quite complicated, might need to draw a map to understand it better lol.


----------



## bpcans

@dougms3, just go to my profile and touch “about”.


----------



## cpurdy

bpcans said:


> @dougms3, just go to my profile and touch “about”.


Wow.

A man after my own heart, or however that saying goes. Grados (including a PS1000 customized by Moon) and Focals. Woo Audio (WA5-LE). PRS custom 24 (in that gorgeous blue). Power conditioning. Jazz.



> Fender Eric Clapton Tremolux tweed guitar amp.


A classic Orange here.

Can I please make one little suggestion? I think you will love this, if you don't already have it: Lenny Breau, The Hallmark Sessions.


----------



## bpcans

@cpurdy, Do you mean this album? It’s not too bad at all.


----------



## cpurdy (Sep 4, 2022)

bpcans said:


> @cpurdy, Do you mean this album? It’s not too bad at all.


The story behind it is amazing. His first album. One take. i.e. The first take. Played half the album without stopping, took a quick pee break and came back and recorded the other half. Just him and his soon-to-be manager, and a tape recorder and a microphone.

He's considered by many guitarists whom I respect to be the greatest guitarist of all time. Taken too soon by his battle with narcotics.

Edit: I should add, it's a great album for picking up tiny little details that a good pair of headphones will allow you to experience ...


----------



## bpcans

Thanks @cpurdy. Yes Lenny Breau was quite the artist. Simply unbelievable talent.


----------



## OCC7N (Oct 2, 2022)

I have decided to try optical fiber at the endpoint(from switch to streamer/pc)

This is pretty cheap compared to other solutions that has a "hifi" name:
https://www.audiophonics.fr/en/ethe...-to-optical-fiber-converter-pair-p-13758.html

So my "network" chain is this:

line in to house: Fiber to converter(FMC) -> ISP router -> Network isolator(Baaske mi1005) - > switch(NAS streamer goes into this) ->[ Ethernet/fiber -> fiber cable -> Fiber/ethernet ->] PC - > JCAT USB XE -> Chord TT2......

I will be using 5V ifi power supplies for the FMC boxes.

Any recommendations is appreciated.


----------



## kingoftown1

@OCC7N very interested to hear how those FMCs work out for you


----------



## OCC7N

kingoftown1 said:


> @OCC7N very interested to hear how those FMCs work out for you


I should have received them yesterday, but I think monday will be😊🙌


----------



## OCC7N

kingoftown1 said:


> @OCC7N very interested to hear how those FMCs work out for you


I am very confused about fiber because of the single/multi mode. I still dont know if single mode is the right one to choose. But I did it anyway.


----------



## OCC7N

kingoftown1 said:


> @OCC7N very interested to hear how those FMCs work out for you


Feels very cheap, not surprised for 35euro😂

Will test it in the weekend after I receive my DDC/Matrix spdif2 and Wireworld Supernova 7 for Cjord TT2


----------



## endless402

OCC7N said:


> Feels very cheap, not surprised for 35euro😂
> 
> Will test it in the weekend after I receive my DDC/Matrix spdif2 and Wireworld Supernova 7 for Cjord TT2


Matrix was hit or miss for me. Was good with Hugo 1. Wasn’t good with Hugo 2 from laptop. Also tried with zen stream to matrix to Hugo 2.  Good luck


----------



## OCC7N

endless402 said:


> Matrix was hit or miss for me. Was good with Hugo 1. Wasn’t good with Hugo 2 from laptop. Also tried with zen stream to matrix to Hugo 2.  Good luck


I have never tried it I think I will have good power source for the matrix, for the bus power(jcat + elite) from mains its connected to ifi powerstation. What toslink cable did you use?

These FMCs hav 2.5mm and I only have 2.1😂

The included adapters can not use😅


----------



## endless402

OCC7N said:


> I have never tried it I think I will have good power source for the matrix, for the bus power(jcat + elite) from mains its connected to ifi powerstation. What toslink cable did you use?
> 
> These FMCs hav 2.5mm and I only have 2.1😂
> 
> The included adapters can not use😅


i had AQ diamond for toslink
i used a battery power source for the matrix


----------



## OCC7N

endless402 said:


> i had AQ diamond for toslink
> i used a battery power source for the matrix


Digital COAX cable. You did not use the toslink port?
https://www.audioquest.com/cables/digital-cables/digital-coax/diamond


----------



## endless402

OCC7N said:


> Digital COAX cable. You did not use the toslink port?
> https://www.audioquest.com/cables/digital-cables/digital-coax/diamond



https://hificentre.com/products/audioquest-diamond-optical-cable

Still offered in canada, it’s a discontinued item. 
I also had an audioquest diamond usb at the same time

i currently use kimber d60 from zen stream directly to Hugo 2


----------



## OCC7N (Oct 10, 2022)

Placement of network isolater.

close to the streamer of closest to modem/router?

I have decided to put it after the FMC:

Router -> Switch -> FMC/Ethernet/Fiber -> FMC/Fiber/Ethernet -> BaaskeMI1005 -> Streamer

I think the closest the network isolator is to the streamer the better. Hmm


----------



## endless402

OCC7N said:


> Placement of network isolater.
> 
> close to the streamer of closest to modem/router?
> 
> ...


My experience was that there’s more of an effect closer to the streamer, but sometimes the effect can be too much. But just my experience.


----------



## kingoftown1

My baaske is closest to the PC--minimizes the chance of the remaining Ethernet functioning as an antenna for noise.  Fwiw I don't stream, but still heard an improvement on local files just from the overall noise reduction.


----------



## OCC7N

endless402 said:


> My experience was that there’s more of an effect closer to the streamer, but sometimes the effect can be too much. But just my experience.





kingoftown1 said:


> My baaske is closest to the PC--minimizes the chance of the remaining Ethernet functioning as an antenna for noise.  Fwiw I don't stream, but still heard an improvement on local files just from the overall noise reduction.


It makes sense. Also this will protect the streamer from spikes in voltage etc.


----------



## teknorob23

I dont want pour cold water on anyone heres experimentation, because the idea of running a passive ethernet filter last in line connected to your streaming device is 100% sound, but unfortunately ethernet isolators like the Baaske, emo-safe, which are designed for medical use, essentially to stop DC currents flowing from one device to another, for safety reasons have no components inside to filter out RFI or other high frequency electrical noise. They consist of an input RJ45 socket with transformer coupling (the same device as in an Ethernet switch) which is then directly wired to an output RJ45 socket.

This is the same with the DXE device. There are no components in any of these devices that will remove electrical noise.


----------



## OCC7N

teknorob23 said:


> I dont want pour cold water on anyone heres experimentation, because the idea of running a passive ethernet filter last in line connected to your streaming device is 100% sound, but unfortunately ethernet isolators like the Baaske, emo-safe, which are designed for medical use, essentially to stop DC currents flowing from one device to another, for safety reasons have no components inside to filter out RFI or other high frequency electrical noise. They consist of an input RJ45 socket with transformer coupling (the same device as in an Ethernet switch) which is then directly wired to an output RJ45 socket.
> 
> This is the same with the DXE device. There are no components in any of these devices that will remove electrical noise.


*Audio applications:* The MI 1005 reduce the transmission of low frequency alternating currents (AC hum) over the network connection. I have noticed noise without the Baaske. Just saying 

It all want away putting it front of the switch. But this time I have fiber cables so I will put it last because I want to keep the signal clean after transmission ether to fiber, just before the streamer.


----------



## teknorob23

OCC7N said:


> *Audio applications:* The MI 1005 reduce the transmission of low frequency alternating currents (AC hum) over the network connection. I have noticed noise without the Baaske. Just saying
> 
> It all want away putting it front of the switch. But this time I have fiber cables so I will put it last because I want to keep the signal clean after transmission ether to fiber, just before the streamer.


If you can hear in improvement great, but are you saying that you have an audible"humming" sound when you listen to streaming playback, when you are not using this device?


----------



## ThanatosVI

Did anyone here try the network acoustics Eno or the newer Muon? (or ideally both and can compare?)

I read about them ~1-2 years ago, back then there still was a copper and silver version of the Eno, of which now only one is left.


----------



## bpcans (Dec 18, 2022)

ThanatosVI said:


> Did anyone here try the network acoustics Eno or the newer Muon? (or ideally both and can compare?)
> 
> I read about them ~1-2 years ago, back then there still was a copper and silver version of the Eno, of which now only one is left.


I’ve had a Network Acoustics eno Streaming System in my listening chain for some time now, and I couldn’t be happier with what it does. https://www.networkacoustics.com/shop/eno-streaming-system/. A couple of forever years ago when the pandemic started, I knew that internet music streaming was how I wanted to setup my system. So I began reading and asking questions on this head-fi forum, and others, because I literally had no clue what I was doing. I had been using my MacBook Pro as my music source running iTunes, Audirvana, and JRiver, finally settling on the Roon OS as the one that suited me the best. So I bought a Roon Nucleus music server and ran an inexpensive 50ft BestBuy Ethernet cord from my Xfinity router directly into the Nucleus thinking that I was done.

  Thankfully Mr. Rob Osborne of Network Acoustics, aka @teknorob23, came to my rescue and methodically educated me about the vagaries of internet music streaming. Slowly I began to understand that no matter how fancy and expensive your audio gear is, unless you address the issues of having clean power running through your system, and the elimination of as much RFI and EMI as possible, you won’t really be able to hear how good your system could be. I hope I have that right Rob?

 Since I plugged in the eno between my router and my Roon Nucleus I haven’t thought about removing it. With the eno the music that I listen to sounds less digital and less harsh with a more smooth and analog presentation. Some folks spend $10K to $20K plus on “audiophile music streamer/servers” to get where they want to be. I don’t blame them because I wish that I could too. But there’s other ways to get to audio nirvana if you’re patient and willing to listen to folks who know more about it. Not me of course. Lol


----------



## iFi audio

bpcans said:


> unless you address the issues of having clean power running through your system, and the elimination of as much RFI and EMI as possible, you won’t really be able to hear how good your system could be.



Agreed and it's quite cool that even affordable setups benefit from limiting noise especially from power supplies.


----------



## dougms3

I'm not very familiar with this type of device.  Perhaps someone could shed some light on this for me.

https://kamaudio.com/TeraDak-T-S211-media-converter

If I have verizon fios internet, would this media converter replace the existing device or work in tandem with it?


----------



## chesebert

bpcans said:


> I’ve had a Network Acoustics eno Streaming System in my listening chain for some time now, and I couldn’t be happier with what it does. https://www.networkacoustics.com/shop/eno-streaming-system/. A couple of forever years ago when the pandemic started, I knew that internet music streaming was how I wanted to setup my system. So I began reading and asking questions on this head-fi forum, and others, because I literally had no clue what I was doing. I had been using my MacBook Pro as my music source running iTunes, Audirvana, and JRiver, finally settling on the Roon OS as the one that suited me the best. So I bought a Roon Nucleus music server and ran an inexpensive 50ft BestBuy Ethernet cord from my Xfinity router directly into the Nucleus thinking that I was done.
> 
> Thankfully Mr. Rob Osborne of Network Acoustics, aka @teknorob23, came to my rescue and methodically educated me about the vagaries of internet music streaming. Slowly I began to understand that no matter how fancy and expensive your audio gear is, unless you address the issues of having clean power running through your system, and the elimination of as much RFI and EMI as possible, you won’t really be able to hear how good your system could be. I hope I have that right Rob?
> 
> Since I plugged in the eno between my router and my Roon Nucleus I haven’t thought about removing it. With the eno the music that I listen to sounds less digital and less harsh with a more smooth and analog presentation. Some folks spend $10K to $20K plus on “audiophile music streamer/servers” to get where they want to be. I don’t blame them because I wish that I could too. But there’s other ways to get to audio nirvana if you’re patient and willing to listen to folks who know more about it. Not me of course. Lol


What is that device? Is it just a transformer DC blocker?


----------



## chesebert (Dec 19, 2022)

dougms3 said:


> I'm not very familiar with this type of device.  Perhaps someone could shed some light on this for me.
> 
> https://kamaudio.com/TeraDak-T-S211-media-converter
> 
> If I have verizon fios internet, would this media converter replace the existing device or work in tandem with it?


I could be wrong, but the device appears to convert fiber to ethernet. Don't know if it's worthwhile to use enterprise networking for home use unless you need to run your ethernet cable over a very long distance (like running from one floor to another). I think it would make more sense for streamer to adopt fiber input so that you just get a router that has fiber output and then just connect fiber directly into the streamer. I am only aware of 1 streamer on the market with that functionality; I hope more will follow.


----------



## bpcans

chesebert said:


> What is that device? Is it just a transformer DC blocker?


This article might help. https://www.hifipig.com/network-acoustics-eno-streaming-system/.


----------



## dougms3

chesebert said:


> I could be wrong, but the device appears to convert fiber to ethernet. Don't know if it's worthwhile to use enterprise networking for home use unless you need to run your ethernet cable over a very long distance (like running from one floor to another). I think it would make more sense for streamer to adopt fiber input so that you just get a router that has fiber output and then just connect fiber directly into the streamer. I am only aware of 1 streamer on the market with that functionality; I hope more will follow.


Its a digital media converter.  If you have verizon fios or other fiber internet, you have something like this in your house already.  

The fiber line is converted to ethernet so you can connect your router to it.


----------



## kumar402

dougms3 said:


> Its a digital media converter.  If you have verizon fios or other fiber internet, you have something like this in your house already.
> 
> The fiber line is converted to ethernet so you can connect your router to it.


Now to connect router to streamer you can again convert it back to optical to remove noise from router, EMI/RFI etc and use the above device just before the streamer to convert it back to ETHERNET.
Is it effective that I don't know.


----------



## dougms3

kumar402 said:


> Now to connect router to streamer you can again convert it back to optical to remove noise from router, EMI/RFI etc and use the above device just before the streamer to convert it back to ETHERNET.
> Is it effective that I don't know.


It should yield a significant improvement if it replaces the existing media converter which is probably worth $20.

Just to be clear, this device has fiber input and ethernet out to router.  While fiber is not prone to outside interference like EMI, it still transfers noise and susceptible to jitter.  

There is an upcoming release called the sw-10 which is an upgrade from this model.

https://www.beatechnik.com/lhy-audio-sw-8

Its supposed to have a master clock input.  A switch would see a huge benefit from a nice oxco clock, especially for streaming.


----------



## kumar402

dougms3 said:


> It should yield a significant improvement if it replaces the existing media converter which is probably worth $20.
> 
> Just to be clear, this device has fiber input and ethernet out to router.  While fiber is not prone to outside interference like EMI, it still transfers noise and susceptible to jitter.
> 
> ...


the device in question 
https://kamaudio.com/TeraDak-T-S211-media-converter
does have OCXO option to re-clock. I have it on order and will report back if I notice any improvement in my Metrum Ambre.


----------



## chesebert

bpcans said:


> This article might help. https://www.hifipig.com/network-acoustics-eno-streaming-system/.


That's a marketing piece. I got nothing out of that article. Seems like a device that was priced for audio-fools.


----------



## iFi audio

kumar402 said:


> Now to connect router to streamer you can again convert it back to optical to remove noise from router, EMI/RFI etc and use the above device just before the streamer to convert it back to ETHERNET.
> Is it effective that I don't know.



Just to chime in, our NEO Stream features an optical network input and that TeraDak converter (here used as anti-noise barrier indeed) can connect to it, while its RJ45 line connects to a regular router. Our OptiBox (a part of the NEO Stream package) does the same thing as TeraDak. Thanks!


----------



## bpcans (Dec 20, 2022)

chesebert said:


> That's a marketing piece. I got nothing out of that article. Seems like a device that was priced for audio-fools.


Yeah, the eno probably wouldn’t work for you anyway. Which is okay. No worries.


----------



## iFi audio

bpcans said:


> Yeah, the eno wouldn’t work for you anyway.



Probably not, but it's fine. Some accessories will always remain beyond the scope of some folks. It's all good


----------



## bpcans

iFi audio said:


> Probably not, but it's fine. Some accessories will always remain beyond the scope of some folks. It's all good


Luckily @iFi audio, I have the time to read and learn what I can from folks who spend their days demoing and taking apart different pieces of audio kit so that I don’t have to. For example, on the face of it this network switch would seem to solve all the issues and concerns for anybody getting into internet music streaming. https://melco-audio.com/s10/. But I’ve found that music streaming isn‘t always as simple as plugging another powered box into a listening chain hoping that magically everything will sound like a really good high-end analog system.


----------



## iFi audio

bpcans said:


> Luckily @iFi audio, I have the time to read and learn what I can from folks who spend their days demoing and taking apart different pieces of audio kit so that I don’t have to. For example, on the face of it this network switch would seem to solve all the issues and concerns for anybody getting into internet music streaming. https://melco-audio.com/s10/. But I’ve found that music streaming isn‘t always as simple as plugging another powered box into a listening chain hoping that magically everything will sound like a really good high-end analog system.



Agreed, just one accessory box won't get you there and two most likely won't either. Top level systems have their key components, well, top (whatever that means) and that's the base for accessories to work on. These devices are supportive means rather than major game changers, but several here and there in a setup can make a very noticeable difference.


----------



## OCC7N

To baaske MI1005 owners. Try this:

Listen as usual and then take it out and listen a couple of minutes.

Then connect it again. Its like it is being reset and is “crispy” all over again.

Baaske MI1005 somehow needs a reset, it made my NAS slower with time. After a fast reset(unplug/plug) my NAS is on steroids!


----------



## ChJL

So I came over from another thread in which the Alpha Audio switch test was posted. 
My cheap 4G router is directly connected to a Melco N100 (HP set up) and I almost only listen to music from it's hard disk. I don't use streaming services (yet). 

Please don't give me any technical info about network standards, 1s and 0s... If read this thread from page 40, so I got it. 

Fibre, Isolators, Filters, better cable, switch... I don't know yet! 

Alpha Audio stated in this and another video about switches:

good power is mandatory 
1: a decent cheap switch is better than none
2: Silent Angel and variations, SW-8 are better
3: SotM, Meraki, Paul Pang quad are best

Does anyone have experience with the new 2022 Paul Pang "Dual PLUS" 
Thanks


----------



## bluenight

ThanatosVI said:


> Did anyone here try the network acoustics Eno or the newer Muon? (or ideally both and can compare?)
> 
> I read about them ~1-2 years ago, back then there still was a copper and silver version of the Eno, of which now only one is left.


If it helps. 


https://the-ear.net/review-hardware...aming-system-streaming-filter-ethernet-cable/


----------



## Roybenz

audiobomber said:


> An interesting product for sure. Note that the specs say:
>  Works with CAT5, CAT5E, CAT6 and CAT6A cables with RJ45 connectors
>  Provides common mode RF attenuation from 160 meters through 10 meters
> 
> ...


I got the lnf-c8g to try for my system. I do hear a difference! What does it change for your system? How do you get when the filter is connected?


----------



## audiobomber

Roybenz said:


> I got the lnf-c8g to try for my system. I do hear a difference! What does it change for your system? How do you get when the filter is connected?


Currently, I get smoother high frequencies. A layer of HF hash is ameliorated. Before I added an EtherRegen and Silent Angel N8 switch, the Isolator also tightened up the bass.


----------



## Roybenz (Dec 25, 2022)

audiobomber said:


> Currently, I get smoother high frequencies. A layer of HF hash is ameliorated. Before I added an EtherRegen and Silent Angel N8 switch, the Isolator also tightened up the bass.


You meant that the lnf-c8g filter makes it smoother? I’m not sure what I get with it. Nothing obvious change.


----------



## audiobomber

Roybenz said:


> You meant that the lnf-c8g filter makes it smoother? I’m not sure what I get with it. Nothing obvious change.


Yes, with the LAN Isolator, I get smoother highs. My main system is:
NAS > short CAT8 > Silent Angel N8 > long CAT8 > LNF-C8G > EtherREGEN > short CAT8 > Network Player
The NAS and Silent Angel are located in my office, the EtherREGEN and Player are in an adjacent room. It may be that the main benefit of the LNF is that it breaks the ground potential on the shield connection between the two physically distanced portions of the system.

It is usually recommended to connect a LAN Isolator to your router or network player, or both. I do also use one on my router, How is yours connected?


----------



## Roybenz (Dec 27, 2022)

I now have one into my Main Orbi internet port. And i have a 12 meter cat6 through wall, a Paul pang red lan cable from wall connected to one lan isolator that goes into streamer/dac

I think it makes the sound more bright and more resolution in top.

I also have an EE8 switch with Sbooster that I’m trying. Same setup only add the EE8 switch before the streamer/dac. When I do it sounds like more bass is coming in and more dynamic. With the EE8 switch I can’t hear anything if I put a lan isolator between switch and streamer/dac.


----------



## kumar402

audiobomber said:


> Yes, with the LAN Isolator, I get smoother highs. My main system is:
> NAS > short CAT8 > Silent Angel N8 > long CAT8 > LNF-C8G > EtherREGEN > short CAT8 > Network Player
> The NAS and Silent Angel are located in my office, the EtherREGEN and Player are in an adjacent room. It may be that the main benefit of the LNF is that it breaks the ground potential on the shield connection between the two physically distanced portions of the system.
> 
> It is usually recommended to connect a LAN Isolator to your router or network player, or both. I do also use one on my router, How is yours connected?


Why not use UTP like CAT6 to break ground loops then using CAT 8 which is STP and using a device to break ground loop?


----------



## dougms3

audiobomber said:


> Yes, with the LAN Isolator, I get smoother highs. My main system is:
> NAS > short CAT8 > Silent Angel N8 > long CAT8 > LNF-C8G > EtherREGEN > short CAT8 > Network Player
> The NAS and Silent Angel are located in my office, the EtherREGEN and Player are in an adjacent room. It may be that the main benefit of the LNF is that it breaks the ground potential on the shield connection between the two physically distanced portions of the system.
> 
> It is usually recommended to connect a LAN Isolator to your router or network player, or both. I do also use one on my router, How is yours connected?


Do you think that the lnf-c7 will yield any benefit from placing in between the router and digital media converter?

Unfortunately, I'm unable to have wired connection to my router so I have to use wireless to connect to the router.


----------



## audiobomber

Roybenz said:


> With the EE8 switch I can’t hear anything if I put a lan isolator between switch and streamer/dac.


Are you using a shield-tied cable between the switch and streamer?


----------



## dougms3

audiobomber said:


> Are you using a shield-tied cable between the switch and streamer?


I'm using this.  

https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256...00022650030833!sea&curPageLogUid=keZpvxVRFjFD

Shield definitely is not grounded on that cable.

I use my pc as a source, no streamer.


----------



## audiobomber

kumar402 said:


> Why not use UTP like CAT6 to break ground loops then using CAT 8 which is STP and using a device to break ground loop?


I've tried numerous generic CAT5e, 6, 6a, & CAT7 cables in my system, some with tied ground shield, some not. The best sound quality I've had is with the cheap Yauhody CAT8 from Amazon, which sounds better than Supra CAT8 in my system. I am tempted to try 50 feet of BJC CAT6a, but that would be a $100 test, and since I love the sound I have now, there's not much incentive to try.

I use Furutech LAN-8 NCF for the short connections. The tied shield is not an issue, because I use properly grounded linear power supplies on the Silent Angel and EtherRegen switches.


----------



## audiobomber

dougms3 said:


> I'm using this.
> 
> https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256802705432064.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.30c41d64vmF6T7&algo_pvid=ed3cc7ed-9e47-4394-9041-0b420349a180&algo_exp_id=ed3cc7ed-9e47-4394-9041-0b420349a180-2&pdp_ext_f={"sku_id":"12000022650030833"}&pdp_npi=2@dis!USD!66.0!17.82!!!!!@210318bb16720722030591036ec712!12000022650030833!sea&curPageLogUid=keZpvxVRFjFD
> 
> ...


I believe all CAT8 cables have grounded shields. Some CAT6a and CAT7 have grounded shields, some don't. You can test by connecting a continuity meter from one connector of the cable to the other.


----------



## dougms3

audiobomber said:


> I believe all CAT8 cables have grounded shields. Some CAT6a and CAT7 have grounded shields, some don't. You can test by connecting a continuity meter from one connector of the cable to the other.


I took apart one of these cables to get a better look at it and its sterling silver conductors but the shield is very flimsy.  Its not worth even trying to unravel it and tie to the ground.

As far as being cat anything, I don't believe the seller is being honest with that cat8 label.  

But do you think that lan isolator would yield any improvement from my verizon fios box to the router?  The connection is very short like 1 foot.


----------



## kumar402

audiobomber said:


> I believe all CAT8 cables have grounded shields. Some CAT6a and CAT7 have grounded shields, some don't. You can test by connecting a continuity meter from one connector of the cable to the other.


Or get the one that says UTP. UTP won’t cause ground loops.


----------



## audiobomber

dougms3 said:


> I took apart one of these cables to get a better look at it and its sterling silver conductors but the shield is very flimsy.  Its not worth even trying to unravel it and tie to the ground.


The exterior foil shield is tied to ground.


dougms3 said:


> As far as being cat anything, I don't believe the seller is being honest with that cat8 label.


I would be inclined to believe you, except that Archimago told me he uses Yauhody CAT8 in a 10G system and it performs.


dougms3 said:


> But do you think that lan isolator would yield any improvement from my verizon fios box to the router?  The connection is very short like 1 foot.


It was beneficial in my system, removed a bit of vocal sibilance, but like I said, my internet provider still uses copper. I'm not sure whether it would have the same benefit with a fiber feed.


----------



## audiobomber (Dec 26, 2022)

kumar402 said:


> Or get the one that says UTP. UTP won’t cause ground loops.


Ground loops are not my only concern, because cable choice affects sound quality. Also, I believe the LAN Isolator can have a positive effect by eliminating digital noise. There are some graphs here:
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/334340331704?hash=item4dd83c98b8:g:aUUAAOSwTeNfXeDT&amdata=enc:AQAHAAAAoBKA5JLkGhpbHPVbunsxp8H9CniuL1/W4V/zuuJEUJy3sawr8vsK4Z19QfsszeEwmhGe4IZvFpkaCtUtVrBejXMLbqQWwlVpuf47EBjj5+gSdNDAgRTH2MqgidTDZX4CtItTvWwhG4pf7CeEfFWikzx2dtLsZZ0ubxusnbMApyGNDjuBcOoqJStWR9e7LKqrbQTjHVerKipcYTlL5RB4KNw=|tkp:Bk9SR4DJl_ipYQ


----------



## dougms3

audiobomber said:


> The exterior foil shield is tied to ground.
> 
> I would be inclined to believe you, except that Archimago told me he uses Yauhody CAT8 in a 10G system and it performs.
> 
> It was beneficial in my system, removed a bit of vocal sibilance, but like I said, my internet provider still uses copper. I'm not sure whether it would have the same benefit with a fiber feed.


The exterior foil shield is definitely not tied to the ground on that odin knockoff cable, I opened one up to check.

Do you have a link to the yauhody cat8?

Maybe I'll try that lan isolator, when I replaced the cheap free ethernet cable with that odin knockoff ethernet, it made a huge difference in streaming audio.  Even the picture quality on netflix and youtube looked better.


----------



## audiobomber

dougms3 said:


> The exterior foil shield is definitely not tied to the ground on that odin knockoff cable, I opened one up to check.


Oh, sorry, I thought you were referencing the Yauhody.


dougms3 said:


> Do you have a link to the yauhody cat8?


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07X5T9ZGK/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1


dougms3 said:


> Maybe I'll try that lan isolator, when I replaced the cheap free ethernet cable with that odin knockoff ethernet, it made a huge difference in streaming audio.  Even the picture quality on netflix and youtube looked better.


Let us know what you find if you proceed. I have three of them now, in three different systems.


----------



## bpcans (Dec 26, 2022)

I never thought that using two relatively inexpensive network switches in cascade with good iFi iPower X Elite power supplies would make such a difference when streaming music from the internet, but after trying it I was convinced that this little tweak actually worked.

The kicker being having this little box from @teknorob23 Network Acoustics eno Ethernet System between my best switch and my Roon Nucleus music server. The eno system comes with Rob and Rich’s own handmade Ethernet cable that is sublime in how it transfers the signal into the Nucleus. Which for everyone’s sake, the Nucleus does not have a discernible audible impact on the overall SQ of my system as it’s presently setup. Though I did go from using an Apple iPad Pro as my music source to the Nucleus. Go figure. 

Yes I’ve tried a couple $20K+ music streamer/server’s in my system on loan from my audio gear dealer of over 40yrs. Man! The build quality. The physical weight. How they looked in my rack was enticing. Gladly, I didn’t have tens of thousands of that kind of money at that time. But Ooh so sexy!

But here is something that I never divulge. Between the outgoing USB port on my Nucleus and my AQ Diamond USB cable, I have an AudioQuest debugafier, aka Jitterbug, that to me smooths out even some more of the digital harshness that I think that I’m hearing. Total snake 🐍 oil I know for the $30 I got it for.


----------



## iFi audio

ChJL said:


> good power is mandatory



Clean power feed is the base for everything else really, while digital components are particularly fond of it.


----------



## iFi audio

bpcans said:


> I have an AudioQuest debugafier, aka Jitterbug, that to me smooths out even some more of the digital harshness that I think that I’m hearing.



You have good ears, really! The less noise gets into our setups, the more smooth everything becomes. AudioQuest Jitterbug is one way of doing that, we have our iPurifiers and there are many more. Enjoy!

EDIT: oops, double. Sorry!


----------



## bpcans

iFi audio said:


> You have good ears, really! The less noise gets into our setups, the more smooth everything becomes. AudioQuest Jitterbug is one way of doing that, we have our iPurifiers and there are many more. Enjoy!
> 
> EDIT: oops, double. Sorry!


@iFi audio, which of your iPurifiers would you recommend that I demo in my listening chain so that I can compare it to my AQ Jitterbug Decrapifier?


----------



## iFi audio

bpcans said:


> @iFi audio, which of your iPurifiers would you recommend that I demo in my listening chain so that I can compare it to my AQ Jitterbug Decrapifier?



Thanks for asking, our iPurifier3 is the one (https://ifi-audio.com/products/ipurifier3/). Thanks!


----------



## bpcans

iFi audio said:


> Thanks for asking, our iPurifier3 is the one (https://ifi-audio.com/products/ipurifier3/). Thanks!


@iFi audio, what is the difference in what my AQ Jitterbug and your iPurifier does and what the Innuos PhoenixUSB Reclocker does? https://innuos.com/phoenix-usb/. I ask because I’ve got several friends who use the Innuos Phoenix and they consider it an essential part of their listening chains.


----------



## ChJL

iFi audio said:


> Clean power feed is the base for everything else really, while digital components are particularly fond of it.


Yes, but what surprised me that the "Alpha Audio" guys were critical of LPSs for switches. 
Plus why does ifi not produce one LPS but a few switch mode devices unlike many other companies which have LPSs only...


----------



## Roybenz (Dec 27, 2022)

Hi all. Has anyone tried changing psu for router? What change in sound did you get?

I have a Netgear orbi router (12 meters Ethernet in wall to listening room) with this LPS Psu.

Would there be anything to gain in using for example an Sbooster instead of the stock LPS psu?

I also have a fibre optic converter before the orbi, would there be anything to gain in changing this as well  ?


----------



## kingoftown1

@Roybenz I just did this a few minutes before seeing your post -- I have an orbi connected to my server by about 10-12m of basic cat6, a baaske mi-10005, and a short length of furutech lan-8 ncf.  I had an unused HDPlex 200w, so I put this in place instead of the stock power supply.   I can't really judge sound solely from that tweak though, since I have a pair of interconnects burning in and they seem to be changing by the day.  Right now, everything sounds a bit more full-bodied & impactful.


----------



## kumar402

Roybenz said:


> Hi all. Has anyone tried changing psu for router? What change in sound did you get?
> 
> I have a Netgear orbi router (12 meters Ethernet in wall to listening room) with this LPS Psu.
> 
> ...


Since you already have Fibre optic converter in between router and streamer so upgrading LPS on router will not have any impact on SQ.


----------



## Roybenz

kingoftown1 said:


> @Roybenz I just did this a few minutes before seeing your post -- I have an orbi connected to my server by about 10-12m of basic cat6, a baaske mi-10005, and a short length of furutech lan-8 ncf.  I had an unused HDPlex 200w, so I put this in place instead of the stock power supply.   I can't really judge sound solely from that tweak though, since I have a pair of interconnects burning in and they seem to be changing by the day.  Right now, everything sounds a bit more full-bodied & impactful.


What did you notice when connecting the baaske mi-10005 ? 

I have a stellarz LNF-C8G into orbi and one into my 680D streamer dac.


----------



## Roybenz

kumar402 said:


> Since you already have Fibre optic converter in between router and streamer so upgrading LPS on router will not have any impact on SQ.


The converter is before the orbi. Coming from isp on wall, sorry for not explaining properly.


----------



## kumar402 (Dec 27, 2022)

Roybenz said:


> The converter is before the orbi. Coming from isp on wall, sorry for not explaining properly.


In that case get FMC that everyone is suggesting here with LPS and put it in between your router and streamer. 
It is far better strategy then changing power supply of Router


----------



## kingoftown1

The Baaske just added a little bit of ease to the sound--not huge, but noticeable.  The same types of improvement that any decrease in system noise has, really.  If I were to do it again I'd probably take a more serious approach.  The Baaske was just meant to be a cheap test, since I only play local files.


----------



## Roybenz

kumar402 said:


> In that case get FMC that everyone is suggesting here with LPS and put it in between your router and streamer.
> It is far better strategy then changing power supply of Router


What FMC?


----------



## llamaluv

With regards to network switches or any other device that requires a linear power supply, can anyone give a reasoned argument as to why or why not just use a portable external battery in place of a much more expensive high quality LPS? For instance, in the MScaler thread, there used to be frequent discussion of doing this. 

Thanks.


----------



## dougms3

llamaluv said:


> With regards to network switches or any other device that requires a linear power supply, can anyone give a reasoned argument as to why or why not just use a portable external battery in place of a much more expensive high quality LPS? For instance, in the MScaler thread, there used to be frequent discussion of doing this.
> 
> Thanks.


Are you talking about those batteries that people take camping?

If you are its probably because its inconvenient.

And its difficult to know how much noise the battery itself is generating and dumping into the power supply.


----------



## llamaluv

dougms3 said:


> difficult to know how much noise the battery itself is generating and dumping into the power supply.


Makes sense.


----------



## dougms3

llamaluv said:


> Makes sense.


It might be worthwhile to look into there are tools to measure emi through the outlets but I don't know the validity of these tools.

Theoretically, if the battery did not add any noise into the signal, it might be an option.  But those things are still quite inconvenient.


----------



## iFi audio

ChJL said:


> Plus why does ifi not produce one LPS but a few switch mode devices unlike many other companies which have LPSs only...



Suffice it to say, we like to do things our own way 



bpcans said:


> @iFi audio, what is the difference in what my AQ Jitterbug and your iPurifier does and what the Innuos PhoenixUSB Reclocker does?



All these products address the fundamental matter of audio playback over USB, but it's our policy to not discuss devices other than our own, sorry!


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y (Dec 29, 2022)

Roybenz said:


> What FMC?


Fiber Media Converter

Here is an easy explanation:




Here are the things needed (what I have) Basic setup costs only €62:
10Gtek a Pair of 1.25G Media Converters(Kit #1), SFP Slot, with a SFP Module, MMF, 850-nm, 550-m
10Gtek OS2 LC a LC Cable patch in fiber duplex 0.5m
Options:
LPS (€129): TOPPING P50 LPS
DC Cable (€13): 2 x CableCC USB to Barrel 2.5mm

Throw in some short Cat8 25cm RJ45 cables and your done.

Total cost of tweak: €214

Here is the above setup:





Pic has Single-Mode FC, List is in Multi-Mode FC. At the end, still the same.


----------



## Roybenz

Will sbooster 12v 3a work with this psu? Its rated 12v 0,5a.


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

Yes, if the unit needs 0.5A it will only get what it needs.


----------



## cpurdy

Roybenz said:


> a Paul pang red lan cable from wall connected to one lan isolator that goes into streamer/dac
> 
> I think it makes the sound more bright and more resolution in top.


Try switching to blue and it should take some of the brightness off.


----------



## Andrew LB

audiobomber said:


> The exterior foil shield is tied to ground.
> 
> I would be inclined to believe you, except that Archimago told me he uses Yauhody CAT8 in a 10G system and it performs.
> 
> It was beneficial in my system, removed a bit of vocal sibilance, but like I said, my internet provider still uses copper. I'm not sure whether it would have the same benefit with a fiber feed.



Archimago also said...


> Which brings us to the concept of "audiophile ethernet cables" (see here also, and recent mainstream press exposure of the "madness"). Let me be clear. If I have issues with USB cables, or SPDIF cables, making any significant contribution to audible sound quality (assuming again essentially error-free transmission of data), there is no rational explanation whatsoever that ethernet cables should make any difference. The TCP/IP protocol has error correction mechanisms that allow for worldwide transmission integrity (otherwise Internet financial transactions should be banned!),  and is asynchronous so there is no temporal dependence on exact timing mechanisms (jitter not an issue with adequate buffer to reclock and feed the DAC). So long as the "protocol stack" is functioning as it should between the devices, there will not be any issue. Systematic errors causing audible distortion either means hardware failure or poorly implemented communication software. Therefore the _expectation _if we were to test or "listen to" different ethernet cables is that there would be no difference.





> I believe if there indeed is an ethernet audio device that "sounds different" because of different cables being used, then that device should be returned because it is obviously _defective_. Remember folks, it is like accepting that the earth is spherical or that 2+2=4 - because that's just the way it *is*. Ethernet communication is an _engineered system_, the parameters and capabilities of this system is not only understood but _designed _to be the way it is by humans! You really cannot claim to have "discovered" some combination of dielectric or conductor or geometry that works "better" within an already errorless digital system unless you're claiming improved performance outside technical recommendations (





> Ultimately, I'm not suggesting anyone use the cheapest ethernet cable he/she can find. If you like the esthetics and build construction, go for it! Just realize that it's essentially impossible to argue that a functioning (free of data transmission error) ethernet cable will "sound" any different or worthy of significant cost differential based on sonic quality. The idea of specialized "audiophile" ethernet cables (or "ethernet switches" for that matter) is plain nonsense.


----------



## audiobomber (Jan 3, 2023)

>> _I believe if there indeed is an ethernet audio device that "sounds different" because of different cables being used, then that device should be returned because it is obviously defective._

That's the theory. Unfortunately, not my experience. Ethernet cables sound different, when used with any of my four music players, into my any of my five DAC's. I like to look at Archimago's measurements, but I disagree strongly with most of his views regarding sonics.


----------



## kumar402

Finally it’s here.
Setup was easy, will let it play for clock(OCXO) to settle


----------



## iFi audio

kumar402 said:


> Finally it’s here.
> Setup was easy, will let it play for clock(OCXO) to settle



Yup, OCXOs need about an hour or so to stabilize.


----------



## llamaluv

Some initial impressions of the English Electric 8Switch:

It definitely makes a difference. Whether this is a positive difference in subjective terms is something I'm still forming an opinion about. But the very fact that it makes a difference is already pretty interesting to me.

I'm using it between the router and my two DACs, both of which work best through their LAN inputs -- Bartok and Bricasti M3h.

The combo which is my priority at the moment is: Bartok to Benchmark AHB2 to Utopia 2022. The best way to characterize the change is that it sounds dryer and less rich. It's an overall less "excitable" kind of sound and also less glare with upper-midrange spikes in the music. There's less lingering sparkle in the treble. Possibly less bass, too? It's drinking your morning coffee with less cream and sugar. The soundstage sounds less filled-in. It may just need some getting used to, but even after "getting used to it", the jury's out whether I will enjoy it.

I also noticed the same characteristics when using the Bricasti M3h headphone-out to the Utopia 2022.

It's pretty analogous to the change I heard when introducing the Opto-DX between the MScaler and DAVE a while back, for anyone who's familiar with that whole territory of nervosa. The rationale for the change in the latter case (which I'll have to assume applies to 8Switch as well) is that by reducing the RF noise contaminating the DAC and thereby reducing intermodulation distortion and overall noise floor, it results in less spurious "stuff" going on especially in the upper frequencies which can otherwise be interpreted as a more "exciting" or even a more "dynamic" sound. It took some time getting used to dryer sound with the Opto-DX in the chain but eventually I convinced myself I liked it, though overall I felt like the net gain was fairly marginal.

Compared to that example though, I think the changes brought on by the 8Switch are even more noticeable.

Further complicating matters, I have no qualms about the 8Switch while listening to the Susvara. It sounds good, bringing slightly more separation and depth to the soundstage. It may have something to do with the fact that the Susvara is physically incapable of sounding "dry", like ever 🤣.

Anyway that's just day 1 with this device (which is used, for what it's worth), but yea.


----------



## Roybenz

I also had the EE8 switch, in my setup it was slightly darker sounding. Using Sbooster psu. Then in double blind testing I couldn’t tell the EE8 from direct cable from wall. I scored an 6/10 first round and 2/10 next round.


----------



## bpcans

@llamaluv, what steered you toward putting an Opto.DX between your DAVE and your HMS? And what kind of Ethernet cables are you using from your router to the E8 switch, and from the E8 to your Bartok?


----------



## llamaluv

bpcans said:


> @llamaluv, what steered you toward putting an Opto.DX between your DAVE and your HMS?


I chose the Opto-DX route mostly out of curiosity. Eventually, I went with a different upscaling solution altogether ("pre-upscaling" music files using PGGB rather than using the M-Scaler to upscale in "real-time").



> And what kind of Ethernet cables are you using from your router to the E8 switch, and from the E8 to your Bartok?



Your question about cables is apt, since -- as I keep re-learning over and over -- all these details matter (as much as that really tweaks my uhh "rational" side).

What I was doing earlier was: 
​[router] -> [short Chord Electronics LAN cable] -> [8Switch] -> [long 15-foot BJC LAN cable] -> [Bartok]​​I was being a little cautious in how I described things earlier. It sounded fairly awful.​​After reading a certain post on another forum, I tried this subtle change:
​[router] ->  [long 15-foot BJC LAN cable] -> [8Switch] ->[short Chord Electronics LAN cable] -> [Bartok]​​... which also meant connecting the stock 8Switch power supply to my Niagara 1200 power conditioner instead of a A/V Furman power strip.​​It sounds better, and no longer so "dry". Keeping the device on and engaged for about three days at this point may have helped as well, who can say. It now reminds me of the change that a power conditioner can bring, or a beefy power cable: Clearer and more focused imaging, better separation, more "orderly"-sounding but also a little less loose, less liquid, less dynamic...

So, not without its tradeoffs, but a potentially legitimate direction depending on preference, musical material, or system synergy. And a positive enough experience so far (regardless of whether I keep it in the chain long-term) that I now start to wonder what a real-deal LPS might do for this little box, or how some other switches out there might fare in comparison...


----------



## Roybenz

Have you tried the dual adot fibre converter? It’s supposed to remove all noise from Ethernet because fibre can’t transport noise. And then you go short Ethernet from last adot converter to dac/streamer


----------



## llamaluv

Roybenz said:


> Have you tried the dual adot fibre converter? It’s supposed to remove all noise from Ethernet because fibre can’t transport noise. And then you go short Ethernet from last adot converter to dac/streamer


I have not, but the principal behind it sounds appealing. It'd be nice to avoid piling on more and more doo-dads, but oh well. I may have to look into it some more, thanks 😭


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

kumar402 said:


> Finally it’s here.
> Setup was easy, will let it play for clock(OCXO) to settle



So what was the difference from a plain FMC?


----------



## kumar402 (Sunday at 3:34 PM)

m-i-c-k-e-y said:


> So what was the difference from a plain FMC?


I will definitely report back my positive impression so far but unfortunately I can't compare it with plain FMC as I never had it.
However all I paid was $250 and I got this Teradek device with OCXO clock with a FMC  and SC-SC optical cable. So if anyone who doesn't have LPS can buy this and cost won't be too far off from pair of FMC (~$50)  + cost of LPS (~$150) + cable (~$10)


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

Ok no problem!


----------



## audiobomber

Roybenz said:


> Have you tried the dual adot fibre converter? It’s supposed to remove all noise from Ethernet because fibre can’t transport noise. And then you go short Ethernet from last adot converter to dac/streamer


That is a bit misleading. Fiber will transmit any noise (EMI, RFI) and jitter that enters the fiberoptic cable, but the cable itself is immune from RFI and EMI, therefore will not pick up any additional noise. Noise can still enter the system before and after it leaves the fiber, in the FMC, power supplies and connected gear.


----------



## Roybenz

I installed a heimdall 2 Ethernet, its a very noticeable difference. All the glare in top end is gone. ( i used a regular cheap Ethernet cable before)  The sound got more rounded now. Was not expecting that at all. And didnt know what to expect. But wanted to try.


----------



## kumar402 (Monday at 12:07 PM)

audiobomber said:


> That is a bit misleading. Fiber will transmit any noise (EMI, RFI) and jitter that enters the fiberoptic cable, but the cable itself is immune from RFI and EMI, therefore will not pick up any additional noise. Noise can still enter the system before and after it leaves the fiber, in the FMC, power supplies and connected gear.


Genuine question....as I'm trying to learn about reducing EMI/RFI but isn't the whole point of using fiber,which is basically light, to not let EMI/RFI creep in. How exactly will it transfer EMI/RFI? And how will EMI/RFI enter fiber optic cable?


----------



## bpcans

audiobomber said:


> That is a bit misleading. Fiber will transmit any noise (EMI, RFI) and jitter that enters the fiberoptic cable, but the cable itself is immune from RFI and EMI, therefore will not pick up any additional noise. Noise can still enter the system before and after it leaves the fiber, in the FMC, power supplies and connected gear.


I was wondering about this because even though my condo has fibre optic cable throughout, my high speed internet cable company supplies us with a standard CAT6 router that is connected via ethernet cabling. 

No upgraded PSU on the router because my cable company said it wouldn’t make any difference as long as it was isolated from the rest of the network. So it’s on its own wall socket. Everything else gets its power from here. Kinda overkill I know. But “I thought” it made a difference.


----------



## bpcans

@audiobomber, yeah and I’m looking for a one box streaming solution that doesn’t cost more the than $20K too. 😊 That doesn’t weigh more than 40 kilos hopefully. Plus, “Forever” software and 🔌 in upgrades for life included of course. That works seamlessly with all the best music streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, YouTube, Qobuz, Roon, Innuos, or whatever.


----------



## ThanatosVI

bpcans said:


> @audiobomber, yeah and I’m looking for a one box streaming solution that doesn’t cost more the than $20K too. 😊 That doesn’t weigh more than 40 kilos hopefully. Plus, “Forever” software and 🔌 in upgrades for life included of course. That works seamlessly with all the best music streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, YouTube, Qobuz, Roon, Innuos, or whatever.


Is Innuos a streaming Plattform?


----------



## dougms3

bpcans said:


> I was wondering about this because even though my condo has fibre optic cable throughout, my high speed internet cable company supplies us with a standard CAT6 router that is connected via ethernet cabling.
> 
> No upgraded PSU on the router because my cable company said it wouldn’t make any difference as long as it was isolated from the rest of the network. So it’s on its own wall socket. Everything else gets its power from here. Kinda overkill I know. But “I thought” it made a difference.


The cable company doesn't know anything about this kind of stuff.  It's like asking Dr. Dre about high fidelity music.

The router the cable company supplies is always a guaranteed POS.  But they're probably right that getting an upgraded PS for that POS won't really make a difference.

Might make sense to get a better router first before upgrading the ps for the router.


----------



## kumar402

dougms3 said:


> The cable company doesn't know anything about this kind of stuff.  It's like asking Dr. Dre about high fidelity music.
> 
> The router the cable company supplies is always a guaranteed POS.  But they're probably right that getting an upgraded PS for that POS won't really make a difference.
> 
> Might make sense to get a better router first before upgrading the ps for the router.


well that's true as you never know internally a generic router may be using lot of noisy component and hence a power supply may not be solution to such router.


----------



## audiobomber

kumar402 said:


> Genuine question....as I'm trying to learn about reducing EMI/RFI but isn't the whole point of using fiber,which is basically light, to not let EMI/RFI creep in. How exactly will it transfer EMI/RFI? And how will EMI/RFI enter fiber optic cable?


The fiber optic light is carrying whatever signal enters the cable. Anything in front of the fiber optic cable, e.g. internet provider gear, NAS, router, ethernet switches, power supplies, copper cables, etc., are potential entry points for RFI/EMI. Once this noise enters the system, it will be an alternate signal riding along with the music data signal. There are devices intended to reduce the noise, but fiber optic cable has no way to reduce digital noise. It will faithfully transmit the signal and noise through to the terminating SFP, and any downstream equipment. The benefit of the fiber cable is that it will not pick up any additional noise along its path. This is highly valuable for long runs of cable. 

My investigation of fiber optic cable for my system, via reading only, not experience, is that it is not a panacea. Sometimes it results in improved sound quality, sometimes it does the opposite, depending on the system and gear. In my case, I  have already implemented significant noise reduction measures. I am skeptical that adding an FMC, two SFP's and power supply would be a boon. 

_"Potential sources of RFI and EMI include: various types of transmitters, doorbell transformers, toaster ovens, electric blankets, ultrasonic pest control devices, electric bug zappers, heating pads, and touch controlled lamps. Multiple CRT computer monitors or televisions sitting too close to one another can sometimes cause a "shimmy" effect in each other, due to the electromagnetic nature of their picture tubes, especially when one of their de-gaussing coils is activated.

Electromagnetic interference at 2.4 GHz may be caused by 802.11b, 802.11g and 802.11n wireless devices, Bluetooth devices, baby monitors and cordless telephones, video senders, and microwave ovens.

Switching loads (inductive, capacitive, and resistive), such as electric motors, transformers, heaters, lamps, ballast, power supplies, etc., all cause electromagnetic interference especially at currents above 2 A." 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference#cite_note-10_


----------



## kumar402 (Monday at 12:52 PM)

audiobomber said:


> The fiber optic light is carrying whatever signal enters the cable. Anything in front of the fiber optic cable, e.g. internet provider gear, NAS, router, ethernet switches, power supplies, copper cables, etc., are potential entry points for RFI/EMI. Once this noise enters the system, it will be an alternate signal riding along with the music data signal. There are devices intended to reduce the noise, but fiber optic cable has no way to reduce digital noise. It will faithfully transmit the signal and noise through to the terminating SFP, and any downstream equipment. The benefit of the fiber cable is that it will not pick up any additional noise along its path. This is highly valuable for long runs of cable.
> 
> My investigation of fiber optic cable for my system, via reading only, not experience, is that it is not a panacea. Sometimes it results in improved sound quality, sometimes it does the opposite, depending on the system and gear. In my case, I  have already implemented significant noise reduction measures. I am skeptical that adding an FMC, two SFP's and power supply would be a boon.
> 
> ...


well this override the concept of dirty side and clean side then. What I was reading, there is a dirty side where it is ok to use SMPS etc and then there is a clean side at some other room connected to dirty side via fiber optic cable. The clean side will be powered by LPS.
But if EMI/RFI can be sent thru fiber optic if it exists at source then what's the point of using FMC for shorter run?
if this is true then it can never be cleaned up? as service provider fiber optics will be sending RFI/EMI from its source?


----------



## dougms3

kumar402 said:


> well this override the concept of dirty side and clean side then. What I was reading, there is a dirty side where it is ok to use SMPS etc and then there is a clean side at some other room connected to dirty side via fiber optic cable. The clean side will be powered by LPS.
> But if EMI/RFI can be sent thru fiber optic if it exists at source then what's the point of using FMC for shorter run?
> if this is true then it can never be cleaned up? as service provider fiber optics will be sending RFI/EMI from its source?


There will always be EMI, it can never be fully avoided or removed, just reduced.

We can have some control over the type that's transferred but not much we can do in terms of internally generated noise.

Fiber optic is very good because it's not prone emi, its prone to jitter and other things but i think EMI is the bigger threat to audio quality.


----------



## Roybenz

But the whole point in using FMC like the Adot kit, is that there is a clean side and a dirty side, and that it’s not going to transport any of the dirty signal noise passed the clean side. If it’s not possible I don’t see the point in getting FMC. ?


----------



## bpcans

dougms3 said:


> The cable company doesn't know anything about this kind of stuff.  It's like asking Dr. Dre about high fidelity music.
> 
> The router the cable company supplies is always a guaranteed POS.  But they're probably right that getting an upgraded PS for that POS won't really make a difference.
> 
> Might make sense to get a better router first before upgrading the ps for the router.


Luckily my internet cable provider has technicians who work remotely who have a good deal of experience with the latest music streaming technologies. As per chance I spoke with a nice young man from North Carolina who had been upgrading his own hp setup. He said he had also tried many tweaks and tangential improvements, and he found that what pretty much mattered most was the quality of the DAC first, and the source OS second. Now how you get the internet signal from your router to your DAC is the trick, which is very dependent upon your preferred sound signature, and the music you like to listen to.


----------



## Mark200 (Monday at 3:09 PM)

audiobomber said:


> The fiber optic light is carrying whatever signal enters the cable. Anything in front of the fiber optic cable, e.g. internet provider gear, NAS, router, ethernet switches, power supplies, copper cables, etc., are potential entry points for RFI/EMI. Once this noise enters the system, it will be an alternate signal riding along with the music data signal. There are devices intended to reduce the noise, but fiber optic cable has no way to reduce digital noise. It will faithfully transmit the signal and noise through to the terminating SFP, and any downstream equipment. The benefit of the fiber cable is that it will not pick up any additional noise along its path. This is highly valuable for long runs of cable.
> 
> My investigation of fiber optic cable for my system, via reading only, not experience, is that it is not a panacea. Sometimes it results in improved sound quality, sometimes it does the opposite, depending on the system and gear. In my case, I  have already implemented significant noise reduction measures. I am skeptical that adding an FMC, two SFP's and power supply would be a boon.
> 
> ...


Although it is correct that fiber channel cable is not susceptible to noise along the cable length, fiber channel is mainly used to achieve faster transmission rates and/or long cable lengths. Fiber channel is unlikely to make any audible difference for shorter cable lengths for audio or video streaming in the home.

Cat 6 (and most Cat 5e) can transmit up to 1 Gb Ethernet, while fiber channel Ethernet is typically used for 10 Gb Ethernet on computer servers and network attached storage. Most Cat 7 copper Ethernet can also achieve up 10 Gb speeds, and cat 8 is similar to Cat 7 copper except that it has shielding to help eliminate EMI, etc.

In addition to the Ethernet cable determining the maximum transmission speed, the type of cable also determines how long the cable run can be for the maximum rated speed. So for a longer run you may need a higher category cable or fiber. But this is usually not a factor inside the home (but obviously the ISP needs very long runs to get to your home, and they will use one fiber cable for multiple homes, so they want to use fiber if possible).

Even though just about any PC these days (including a laptop) has a 1 Gb ethernet adapter RJ-45 port built-in, and your ISP's router inside your home usually supports 1 Gb (even if fiber is used from the ISP to the home router), most audio and video streaming devices only connect to your router at 100 Mb (1/10 of 1 Gb) speed. This includes many audiophile network switches which cost in excess of $3,000 that limit transmission speeds to 100 Mb. So the speed demands of audio and video streaming inside the home is usually not a limiting factor. So long as the cable length is reasonable, and does not run parallel with devices that transmit EFI, etc, then it is unlikely that an Ethernet cable causes any audible difference when carrying a digital signal. Virtually all receiving devices have ways to filter out most of the cable noise that is not inside the digital signal.

My iFi Zen Stream using Ethernet (music), Roku Ethernet video streaming device, and Sony TV Ethernet connection, all have Ethernet connections at a maximum of 100 Mb speed, even though my ISP supplied router is capable of 1 Gb connections. Modern routers will individually auto-connect at the maximum speed allowed by device connected to it at the other end of the cable. I assume these devices are limited to 100 Mb so that one member of the family does not hog the entire bandwidth of the home router if multiple people are streaming music, TV, or computer Internet content at the same time, and 100 Mb is fast enough for each of them individually.


----------



## audiobomber

Roybenz said:


> But the whole point in using FMC like the Adot kit, is that there is a clean side and a dirty side, and that it’s not going to transport any of the dirty signal noise passed the clean side. If it’s not possible I don’t see the point in getting FMC. ?


I can see a few ways a fiber optic connection can provide a benefit:

EMI/RFI cannot enter the cable itself
Provides galvanic isolation between source and end point, eliminating any ground plane noise
Reconstructs the signal at the terminal end to reduce jitter
Lowers system speed from 1G to 100MBPS, which allows end point gear to work more quietly (although some gear cannot operate at 100MBPS)
Note that ADOT is directly affiliated with Melco, and the recommended use is to have an ADOT SFP in a Melco switch, into a fiber optic cable, with an ADOT FMC and SFP at the audio system end. If a fiber cable could truly shed all digital noise, why would you need an expensive Melco S100 feeding the fiber system? If no noise can come through from the source, upstream gear wouldn't matter, you would be able to use a cheap D-Link switch with SMPS feeding a second ADOT FMC.


----------



## Mark200 (Monday at 3:39 PM)

audiobomber said:


> I can see a few ways a fiber optic connection can provide a benefit:
> 
> EMI/RFI cannot enter the cable itself
> Provides galvanic isolation between source and end point, eliminating any ground plane noise
> ...


I don't understand how fiber lowers the connection speed. Fiber Channel (not talking about optical audio Toslink) is generally capable of much higher speeds than copper Ethernet cable.

Also, if the device at the other end of a 1 Gb router (music streaming device, TV, etc) only supports a maximum speed of 100 Mb (as most streaming devices do), then the 1 Gb router automatically makes the connection at 100 Mb speed even if other connections (to your PC for example) are at 1 Gb.


----------



## audiobomber

Mark200 said:


> I don't understand how fiber lowers the connection speed. Fiber Channel (not talking about optical audio Toslink) is generally capable of much higher speeds than copper Ethernet cable.


Fiber doesn't affect the connection speed, but the ADOT MC-01 kit can decrease the downstream speed to 100MB. 


Mark200 said:


> Also, if the device at the other end of a 1 Gb router (music streaming device, TV, etc) only supports a maximum speed of 100 Mb (as most streaming devices do), then the 1 Gb router automatically makes the connection at 100 Mb speed even if other connections (to your PC for example) are at 1 Gb.


Apparently not all audio devices will work at the lower speed:

_"Externally, the ADOT MC01 is a generic looking small black box, one side with both SFP and Ethernet plugs, plus LED indicators of status, and the other with a 5v input and 4 small dip switches, which amongst other things, can be used to drop the output from 1GB, down to 100mps in the quest of improved sound quality." 
"I paired the ADOT with the Melco S100 network switch and did attempt to feed it with the 100mps output, selected by flicking on switches 3 & 4, followed by power down and back up. Unfortunately, neither my Moon 280D or indeed my Chord 2Go, would work in this setting. A chat with the distributor confirmed that, indeed, the 100mps output is not compatible with certain brands, Linn being one, in particular, that is known to them. They were surprised, but not shocked at the results with my Moon and Chord streamers."
https://www.hifipig.com/adot-mc01-fibre-network-kit/_


----------



## Mark200

audiobomber said:


> Fiber doesn't affect the connection speed, but the ADOT MC-01 kit can decrease the downstream speed to 100MB.





audiobomber said:


> Apparently not all audio devices will work at the lower speed:
> 
> _"Externally, the ADOT MC01 is a generic looking small black box, one side with both SFP and Ethernet plugs, plus LED indicators of status, and the other with a 5v input and 4 small dip switches, which amongst other things, can be used to drop the output from 1GB, down to 100mps in the quest of improved sound quality."
> "I paired the ADOT with the Melco S100 network switch and did attempt to feed it with the 100mps output, selected by flicking on switches 3 & 4, followed by power down and back up. Unfortunately, neither my Moon 280D or indeed my Chord 2Go, would work in this setting. A chat with the distributor confirmed that, indeed, the 100mps output is not compatible with certain brands, Linn being one, in particular, that is known to them. They were surprised, but not shocked at the results with my Moon and Chord streamers."
> https://www.hifipig.com/adot-mc01-fibre-network-kit/_


Why are you trying to convert fiber to Ethernet to feed your streaming devices from an Internet connection? Your ISP router will convert that for you.

If you have a gigabit (1 Gb) router and a 1 Gb streaming device, you can usually lower the speed to 100 Mb by just connecting 4 of the 8 wires (or 2 of the 4 twisted pairs) of the cable from the RJ-45 plugs (I have done this because I make and terminate my own Ethernet cables). If your streaming device is auto-sensing, then it will automatically slow it down when it senses that only 4 of the wires are connected. Obviously, you have to only connect the correct 4 wires (usually the middle 4).

I suppose that it is possible that some streaming devices would not work at 100 Mb, but I doubt that, and the problem is probably something related to using the ADOT MC01, and not a normal 100 Mb connection coming from a router that automatically supports 1 Gb or 100 Mb.

But the whole idea of slowing an Internet connection to a streaming device down to 100 Mb to improve the quality of the signal is not credible unless the Ethernet cable has a very long run. The reason why most streaming devices are limited to 100 Mb is that 100 Mb is all that is needed, and prevents one user from hogging all the bandwidth of the home network when multiple people are using it for computers, streaming, etc.


----------



## iFi audio

llamaluv said:


> The combo which is my priority at the moment is: Bartok to Benchmark AHB2 to Utopia 2022. The best way to characterize the change is that it sounds dryer and less rich. It's an overall less "excitable" kind of sound and also less glare with upper-midrange spikes in the music. There's less lingering sparkle in the treble. Possibly less bass, too? It's drinking your morning coffee with less cream and sugar. The soundstage sounds less filled-in. It may just need some getting used to, but even after "getting used to it", the jury's out whether I will enjoy it.



That's interesting. Usually the sound with quality network switches gets more rich, weightier and smoother, but in your post it's the other way around it seems. Thanks for your feedback nonetheless


----------



## ChJL

I'm using a streamer with integrated storage medium and I play music exclusively from said hard drive and not from a streaming service.

The N100 has to be connected to the internet/router in order to be operated via app on a smart device... (One could play music by using the control buttons on the streamer itself and then I could unplug the ethernet cable which I don't because of inconvenience) 

Why would an audiophile switch improve the sound when I don't use streaming services but rather play music from the internal disk? 
I mean does "noise" creep in just because there is a connection to the router? 
thanks!


----------



## dougms3

Mark200 said:


> Why are you trying to convert fiber to Ethernet to feed your streaming devices from an Internet connection? Your ISP router will convert that for you.
> 
> If you have a gigabit (1 Gb) router and a 1 Gb streaming device, you can usually lower the speed to 100 Mb by just connecting 4 of the 8 wires (or 2 of the 4 twisted pairs) of the cable from the RJ-45 plugs (I have done this because I make and terminate my own Ethernet cables). If your streaming device is auto-sensing, then it will automatically slow it down when it senses that only 4 of the wires are connected. Obviously, you have to only connect the correct 4 wires (usually the middle 4).
> 
> ...


Your isp will convert fiber for you by the cheapest method possible because you're not paying for that.  Just like they will provide you with the cheapest crappiest router if you decide to get one from them.


----------



## dougms3

ChJL said:


> I'm using a streamer with integrated storage medium and I play music exclusively from said hard drive and not from a streaming service.
> 
> The N100 has to be connected to the internet/router in order to be operated via app on a smart device... (One could play music by using the control buttons on the streamer itself and then I could unplug the ethernet cable which I don't because of inconvenience)
> 
> ...


I wondered about this myself.

The answer is probably dependent on each individual and the environment.

When i upgraded the Ethernet cable from the verizon fmc to my router, i had zero expectations.  I play most music from files on a non nvme ssd drive attached in my pc.

The result was better picture quality and audio quality from streaming services but also the sound quality playing from files improved as well.  Which i don't fully understand why, but i was also thinking that there was some noise creeping in somewhere.

Unfortunately I'm restricted to using wifi to connect my pc to the network, not ideal but i have no choice.


----------



## kingoftown1

Similar situation here -- I'm running a fairly optimized audio pc playing files from local storage, wifi disabled, connected with a furutech lan-8 ncf & baaske mi-1005.  Both the furutech cable and baaske gave sq improvements, as did adding an unused hdplex lps to the connected mesh satellite.  I've been looking at switches and filters as possible next steps -- the NA Eno/Muon (Pro?), Ediscreation or LHY switches.  IDK how much to invest before I hit diminishing returns, and I don't want a nest of spaghetti as the result.


----------



## llamaluv (Monday at 7:48 PM)

audiobomber said:


> Apparently not all audio devices will work at the lower speed:
> 
> _"[...] Unfortunately, neither my Moon 280D or indeed my Chord 2Go, would work in this setting. A chat with the distributor confirmed that, indeed, the 100mps output is not compatible with certain brands, Linn being one, in particular, that is known to them. They were surprised, but not shocked at the results with my Moon and Chord streamers."_


LOL, I came across that review while reading up on the ADOT kit after @Roybenz mentioned the ADOT, and came across that caveat, which really stuck in my throat.

I'm glad I looked into the ADOT if only because I never looked into the whole world of ethernet-to-fiber before, and I'm pretty intrigued by taking this approach for our purposes.

But as for the ADOT offering specifically, the hardware appears to be a bog standard rebadge of some pre-existing enterprise IT offering (maybe from 10GTek? not sure, as all this is new to me). Even the highly touted feature of being able to configure (albeit unreliably, apparently!) the connection to 100Mbps is no big shakes, and seems to exist on this off-the-shelf ~$25 unit (Amazon link; PDF docs showing 100Mbp DIP switch setting).

As far as I can tell, the only value the ADOT "MC01" kit brings is pre-selecting for the customer a correct, compatible combination of MC units and cable, which to be fair is something of a PITA to navigate. But at a something like 500% markup, that's pretty eye-roll-worthy. The "MC03" kit adds a legit LPS into the mix, at least, but yea, overall, pretty gross. IMO.

Having said that, what I've done is order a couple 10GTek media converter units from Amazon, and a short $10 fiber cable for a grand total of $60. And if the results seem promising, maybe later I'll go for a decent LPS after (maybe a Farad Super3 5V with dual connectors, maybe something cheaper). If I ended up choosing the right parts, I'll share with the thread what I got in case, like me, all this is new to you, too


----------



## Mark200

dougms3 said:


> Your isp will convert fiber for you by the cheapest method possible because you're not paying for that.  Just like they will provide you with the cheapest crappiest router if you decide to get one from them.


Most ISP's that provide fiber to inside the home require the use of one of their routers (made by some third party company) that take the fiber input (connected to the Internet) and provides Ethernet output ports for use within the home. There is nothing crappy about them, and they rarely make an undetected mistake, partly because the TCP/IP protocol. TCP/IP transmits data in packets, and there are check-sums and other safeguards to make sure the data has not been corrupted from the source that sent the data, and also to make sure that any missing packets are retransmitted. Virtually the entire computer and Internet infrastructure of the world works with TCP/IP and rarely are there any undetected errors that are not automatically re-transmitted.

If ISP's did allow the errors you claim with "cheap" gear, then no one could trust any financial transaction or account balance, the the ISP would be liable for astronomical liability for bad data that went undetected.

Most people don't realize how many intermediate routers/switches a TCP/IP packet goes through to get from the source to your home. For example, I did a TCP/IP trace on my home computer and it took 14 hops (going through 14 routers/switches) to get from Tidal.com to my home.

The whole idea that computer networks use cheap components, and that streaming hi-res audio needs something superior, is absurd. Computers have zero tolerance for undetected errors and computers would frequently crash if that were not the case.


----------



## Mark200

ChJL said:


> I'm using a streamer with integrated storage medium and I play music exclusively from said hard drive and not from a streaming service.
> 
> The N100 has to be connected to the internet/router in order to be operated via app on a smart device... (One could play music by using the control buttons on the streamer itself and then I could unplug the ethernet cable which I don't because of inconvenience)
> 
> ...


An audiophile switch will not help you. Even if you were streaming music from the Internet via Ethernet, an audiophile switch will not help, as they are almost always scam devices.


----------



## Mark200

iFi audio said:


> That's interesting. Usually the sound with quality network switches gets more rich, weightier and smoother, but in your post it's the other way around it seems. Thanks for your feedback nonetheless


No, "quality" network switches do not result in "more rich, weightier and smoother" music transmitted over TCP/IP over Ethernet. I am now ashamed that I own 2 pieces of iFi equipment, but I will never buy any more again from your brand.


----------



## dougms3

Mark200 said:


> Most ISP's that provide fiber to inside the home require the use of one of their routers (made by some third party company) that take the fiber input (connected to the Internet) and provides Ethernet output ports for use within the home. There is nothing crappy about them, and they rarely make an undetected mistake, partly because the TCP/IP protocol. TCP/IP transmits data in packets, and there are check-sums and other safeguards to make sure the data has not been corrupted from the source that sent the data, and also to make sure that any missing packets are retransmitted. Virtually the entire computer and Internet infrastructure of the world works with TCP/IP and rarely are there any undetected errors that are not automatically re-transmitted.
> 
> If ISP's did allow the errors you claim with "cheap" gear, then no one could trust any financial transaction or account balance, the the ISP would be liable for astronomical liability for bad data that went undetected.
> 
> ...


Lol are you trying to flex your internets knowledge?

Yes data is sent in packets across the interwebs.  And I am well aware of a hop is.  You're confusing error correction with something else.  

The ISP absolutely gives you the cheapest crap that works.  You're arguing functional vs optimal.  Any FMC works, but as in the same way any car will get you from point A to point B, every car will do it differently.  

Question for you, what role does jitter and clocking play in those 14 hops that it took for tidal to reach your pc?  Does the tracert command tell you anything about that?

All I can say is if its absurd to you then dont buy it.


----------



## Mark200 (Monday at 10:22 PM)

dougms3 said:


> Lol are you trying to flex your internets knowledge?
> 
> Yes data is sent in packets across the interwebs.  And I am well aware of a hop is.  You're confusing error correction with something else.
> 
> ...


With all due respect, you don't understand digital communications, and TCP/IP over Ethernet in particular. The 0's and 1's cannot get changed* inside a TCP/IP packet* from the original source to final destination (which could be 14 hops later). If there is any jitter in the digital signal, it was in the original source (probably introduced when the signal was converted from analog to digital, or when undergoing audio "mixing" and editing), and jitter cannot be added or substracted inside the packets of a TCP/IP network. After the TCP/IP packet arrives and is decoded, and then goes through the DAC, then jitter can be added that way also.

Think of it this way. If you burn an audio CD, and place it in a secure CD jewel box, and put the CD box in a car and drive it 1000 miles, there would be no change to the digital signal on the CD while being transported by the car, and it would be the same digital signal when it arrived at its destination 1000 miles later. The CD may have jitter, but not from the car ride, not matter how "jittery" the highway was.


----------



## Mark200

I spent 38 years in software development, on large computer systems like worldwide airline reservation systems and credit card authorization systems. These systems I worked on processed 10's of thousands of transactions per second, and it is critical that the data be 100% accurate. All digital data is represented by 0's and 1's in the form of positive and negative voltage (or something similar like 1 volt for a "0" and 5 volts for a "1" or whatever else they want to use depending on the type of storage or transport method being used). I don't know where you get the idea that programmers don't know that 0's and 1's are the same as binary code.

The reason why programmers know that 0's and 1's represent binary bits, is because the bits are grouped together so that 8 bits form a byte, which can have an octal value or a hexadecimal value, depending on whether one is working on a octal computer or hex computer. Most computers these days are hex, but some scientific computers are octal. Each byte has an equivalent ASCII code that the programmer works with.

Take a look at this ASCII chart to understand what I am talking about:

https://web.alfredstate.edu/faculty/weimandn/miscellaneous/ascii/ascii_index.html

Having owned one of the first consumer CD players on the market from the early 1980's, I know exactly what jitter is, and what it sounds like.


----------



## Roybenz

How does jitter and noise in Lan cable sound like? I wonder if I have any of it. Since I couldn’t hear anything different from switches and the straight wall cable, when I got home the EE8 switch and Paul Pang Quad switch. (Only thing I heard with quad switch was a brighter sound)


----------



## Mark200

Roybenz said:


> How does jitter and noise in Lan cable sound like? I wonder if I have any of it. Since I couldn’t hear anything different from switches and the straight wall cable, when I got home the EE8 switch and Paul Pang Quad switch. (Only thing I heard with quad switch was a brighter sound)


Jitter cannot be added or subtracted from a TCP/IP packet running on an Ethernet cable. Any jitter in the single would have to be added before it gets transmitted via TCP/IP at the source, or after it gets received at the endpoint.

I would question whether you can consistently hear a difference between Ethernet switches in a blind test.


----------



## Roybenz

I tried a double blind with EE8 switch. And got a 6/10 first and a 2/10 in second test. So it’s not possible to point it out in blind test. I just wonder how the noise in Ethernet would sound like. Since I’m not sure I have noise in my system.

I also wonder if a baaske mi 1005 lan isolator would do anything if it’s used on a shielded or unshielded Ethernet cable?


----------



## Mark200

Roybenz said:


> I tried a double blind with EE8 switch. And got a 6/10 first and a 2/10 in second test. So it’s not possible to point it out in blind test. I just wonder how the noise in Ethernet would sound like. Since I’m not sure I have noise in my system.


Noise cannot be added or subtracted to the digital data and change the 0's and 1's as it travels via TCP/IP over Ethernet without it failing the checksum test of the TCP/IP packet, and the packet would be rejected and usually retransmitted.

However, anytime you hook devices together with a copper wire, there could be noise transmitted outside the digital data on the wire to the receiving device. But most devices have filters to reduce or eliminate any such noise. So long as you keep your Ethernet cables away from high power sources, or at least cross them at 90 degrees (and not run them in parallel to sources of noise) it should not be a problem for normal cable runs.

Some Ethernet cables are better than others (even when both are Cat 6a) and there are *shielded *Ethernet cables to help prevent noise interfering with the signal. Using shielded Ethernet cable is one upgrade that I would recommend (instead of audiophile switches) if you are worried about cable noise or have long cable runs. Here is an example of shielded Ethernet cable.

https://www.cablewholesale.com/products/network-phone/cat-6a-cable-bulk/product-13x6-521nh.php



Roybenz said:


> I also wonder if a baaske mi 1005 lan isolator would do anything if it’s used on a shielded or unshielded Ethernet cable?


Those kinds of Ethernet cable isolators are sometimes built into surge protectors or UPS devices. It's more of a safety issue than quality issue.


----------



## kingoftown1

So anyone here tried the LHY switch yet?


----------



## dougms3

Mark200 said:


> I spent 38 years in software development, on large computer systems like worldwide airline reservation systems and credit card authorization systems. These systems I worked on processed 10's of thousands of transactions per second, and it is critical that the data be 100% accurate. All digital data is represented by 0's and 1's in the form of positive and negative voltage (or something similar like 1 volt for a "0" and 5 volts for a "1" or whatever else they want to use depending on the type of storage or transport method being used). I don't know where you get the idea that programmers don't know that 0's and 1's are the same as binary code.
> 
> The reason why programmers know that 0's and 1's represent binary bits, is because the bits are grouped together so that 8 bits form a byte, which can have an octal value or a hexadecimal value, depending on whether one is working on a octal computer or hex computer. Most computers these days are hex, but some scientific computers are octal. Each byte has an equivalent ASCII code that the programmer works with.
> 
> ...


Again you confusing yourself.  This is not an error correction discussion.  You can stop bringing that up because that is not the argument.

And again, confusing yourself, no one said programmers don't know 0s and 1s are binary code.  No programmers or networking people in the industry today call data 0s and 1s.  But I'm sure you'll misinterpret this again.

And you are presuming things again, I know what ascii and hex keys are, just like I know what I know tracert is.  That does not impress me if thats your goal.  If you think bragging about knowing what tracert is, the second simplest and second most commonly used network command, makes you some kind of networking expert, you'd be mistaken.  Knowledge of tracert doesn't make you any kind of expert in networking nor network audio related things, and if you are a programmer, you should already know that these are two vastly different fields.  Perhaps in the 80s you fancied yourself an "expert" in all computer trades, but then again in those time, anyone who owned a computer was an expert.

While I majored in computer science, I never liked programming, however I did learn it.  I worked in the networking field for many years, setting up, configuring and troubleshooting networks.  I have seen many instances where people use cheap bulk per roll ethernet cable, where they required a shielded cable due to the EMI from HVAC units, generators and all kinds of other equipment.  They always used to say the same thing, "I've always used this cable and never had a problem".  

You have a misunderstanding of what network jitter is, it is not the same thing as CD jitter.  Its more complex than you think it is.

You also have a misunderstanding of noise and how its transferred.  And to dictate in this thread what it is to others that have devices you've never even heard of is not nice.


----------



## iFi audio

Mark200 said:


> No, "quality" network switches do not result in "more rich, weightier and smoother" music transmitted over TCP/IP over Ethernet. I am now ashamed that I own 2 pieces of iFi equipment, but I will never buy any more again from your brand.



Of course you don't have to agree with my previous post, but please bear in mind that it encapsulates what is often said about switches in general. Knowing this I simply asked @llamaluv about his impressions, that's all


----------



## audiobomber

Mark200 said:


> But the whole idea of slowing an Internet connection to a streaming device down to 100 Mb to improve the quality of the signal is not credible unless the Ethernet cable has a very long run. The reason why most streaming devices are limited to 100 Mb is that 100 Mb is all that is needed, and prevents one user from hogging all the bandwidth of the home network when multiple people are using it for computers, streaming, etc.


Audiophile companies Melco, SOtM and Uptone Audio disagree, and provide a means of slowing the ethernet connection. The reasoning is that lower speed generates less digital noise, because the circuits don't have to work as hard to process the data. I have an SOtM sMS-200 Neo, and have heard the sonic improvement when I select 100Mb vs. 1G.


----------



## dougms3

audiobomber said:


> Audiophile companies Melco, SOtM and Uptone Audio disagree, and provide a means of slowing the ethernet connection. The reasoning is that lower speed generates less digital noise, because the circuits don't have to work as hard to process the data. I have an SOtM sMS-200 Neo, and have heard the sonic improvement when I select 100Mb vs. 1G.


It makes sense.  Any time there are higher speeds, in rpm orclock speeds it generates a larger EMF, hence more noise.  

In the new DDR5 ram standards, they are aware that the noise generated from the higher clock speeds will become a problem and have implemented tech in an attempt to reduce it.  I'm not familiar with how it works as its difficult to find literature on it but I do know they have highlighted it as a feature to improve performance.

I think theres also the same concept with power supplies, for audio devices, I have read articles that its beneficial to use multiple smaller transformers vs a single large one because of the smaller EMF, lower inrush current, ripple, etc.



kingoftown1 said:


> So anyone here tried the LHY switch yet?


I think @Gazza has one, he was one of the first people to get it.

Perhaps he can chime in on the benefits?


----------



## ChJL

Mark200 said:


> An audiophile switch will not help you. Even if you were streaming music from the Internet via Ethernet, an audiophile switch will not help, as they are almost always scam devices.



I've considered this switch and also talked to a friendly Mr. Lübke (Aqvox) who took some time to explain "things" to me, a random caller. Props for just picking up a phone in these days... 

Later I came across the video of this Linus tech guy. I was happy that he actually opened/destroyed the switch to lift the guarded Aqvox secret. Although I decided against this switch I really don't resonate with him and his crews "style". There is also an older video on his channel with this DMS character in which he was brought to to tears listening to an Abyss setup although the overall vibe I get from him is "jittery". 



kingoftown1 said:


> So anyone here tried the LHY switch yet?



So I went for a LHY SW-8. Dealing with Alvin and Annie was a AAA experience! Recommended! 

The Alpha Audio switch Videos - recommended - made me try out an audiophile switch. They got into the 1's and 0's argument. 

First listening session/notes/tracks... hold on 
My interest, scepticism kind of switched instantly, like a switch was flipped, am I a believer now?

Anyways I'll get used to it and take it out again in a few days and see if a switch actually improves the sound. As I perceive it...


----------



## Mark200

dougms3 said:


> Again you confusing yourself.  This is not an error correction discussion.  You can stop bringing that up because that is not the argument.
> 
> And again, confusing yourself, no one said programmers don't know 0s and 1s are binary code.  No programmers or networking people in the industry today call data 0s and 1s.  But I'm sure you'll misinterpret this again.
> 
> ...


1. Any decent programmer knows that bytes are made of bits (usually 8) and they are normally referred to as 2 hexadecimal numbers. But they understand that underlying the hexadecimal numbers (0-9, A-F) they know that there are 0's and 1's as shown in the ASCII chart I provided a link for. So your claim that "No programmers or networking people in the industry today call data 0s and 1s" is misleading at best.

2. I ran a trace and determined it took 14 hops (went through 14 switches/routers) to get from Tidal.com to my computer in my home. That is a fact Jack.

3. I recommended above that anyone concerned about EMI, etc interference should buy shielded Ethernet cable.

4. Jitter is a problem with digital and can be introduced in different places. However, if data (representing music) is transmitted via TCP/IP over Ethernet, the data cannot be changed (cannot add or subtract jitter) and still pass the TCP/IP checksum calculation, and if it failed the check, the entire packet would be rejected and possibly retransmitted. Also, TCP/IP packets do not have to be sent or received in correct order, as that is resolved on the receiving end with the use of buffers. However, digital music transported over other protocols other than TCP/IP can have errors that the system just skips over and causes distortion or jitter. This includes, but not limited to, Toslink, USB, or Coax digital music data. Non-music data has stricter integrity requirements.

5. I didn't dictate anything to anyone. I just explained how TCP/IP works, and that adding additional switches in the path is not a solution for better music. Better cables (shielded) might help in some cases.



audiobomber said:


> Audiophile companies Melco, SOtM and Uptone Audio disagree, and provide a means of slowing the ethernet connection. The reasoning is that lower speed generates less digital noise, because the circuits don't have to work as hard to process the data. I have an SOtM sMS-200 Neo, and have heard the sonic improvement when I select 100Mb vs. 1G.


If you want to slow down an Ethernet connection capable of 1 Gbps to 100 Mbps, all you have to do is use a cable where only 4 (2 twisted pairs) of the Ethernet cable wires are connected at both ends to the RJ-45 plug, instead of using all 8 wires (4 twisted pairs). You don't have to buy a $3K audiophile switch to do that.

Most (although not all) of streaming devices only support 100 Mbps anyway, and the router/switch at the other end will automatically make the connection at the slower  100 Mbps speed so that both ends match. The same is true if the cable only has 4 of the 8 wires on the Ethernet cable connected. With some devices, the connection speed can be determined by looking at the color of the LED's next to the jack on the router, or on the Router configuration screen from a PC. Unfortunately, the colors used (such as green or orange) are not standardized for indicating which is 100 Mbps and which is 1 Gbps.

This technique is sometimes used to provide POE (power over Ethernet) to a security device (like a camera, etc), so that one Ethernet cable can be used to transmit data at 100 Mbps using 4 of the wires, and 2 of the remaining 4 wires are used to provide power to the device.

Here is a link that explains how the wiring works for 4 wires vs 8 wires used in the cable.
https://hardwaresecrets.com/how-gigabit-ethernet-works/


----------



## bluenight

About fibet optics vs regular RJ45 wired connection. I think it just a matter of what sounds best for you when listening.  If your willing to try.


----------



## Mark200

bluenight said:


> About fibet optics vs regular RJ45 wired connection. I think it just a matter of what sounds best for you when listening.  If your willing to try.


Fiber would be great if you got the original fiber feed from your ISP into your home and sent it directly to a device (like a streamer) via fiber. The problem is that I don't know of a streamer, etc that accepts fiber channel (Toslink optical is something different and not very good). Plus fiber channel does not have a single standard like Ethernet.

Also, if you used the fiber channel cable directly from your ISP to feed your streamer (if there was streamer that accepted it), you would have to have another fiber channel to feed your ISP supplied router for everything else on your home network. If you merely took the Ethernet output from the ISP supplied fiber router and converted it to fiber to send to a streamer, the conversion is one more place where distortion can happen. But since no streamers that I know of can accept the kind of fiber channel input you get from your ISP (not the same as Toslink optical), you would need yet another device to convert it back to Ethernet before connecting to the streamer.

Seems better to me to just get _shielded_ Cat 6 or 6a Ethernet cable. If your streamer connects at 1 Gbps and you want to slow it down to 100 Mbps, just cut 4 of the 8 wires one one end of the Ethernet cable (I posted a link above showing which ones).


----------



## Roybenz

Ok guys. I need your opinion. I’ll try to explain. 

I have fibre cable into house with an isp fmc that brings Ethernet to my main router- orbi mesh. From here I have 10-12 meters of cat6 cable in wall to listening room. So my choise is to: 

1. Use the Ethernet wall outlet in my room direct to dac (outlet comes from main orbi 10-12 meters away) 

2. Place one of my orbi sattelite on Wi-Fi and use Ethernet from sattelite to dac. (Will this be true Ethernet signal, when sattelite is connected with Wi-Fi?) 


I was thinking maybe the sattelite to Ethernet solution would be the best way regarding noise, but I’m not sure if the Ethernet signal coming from orbi sattelite which is Wi-Fi connected will be the same as the true wall cable Ethernet signal. (If that make sense) I have tried listening and I’m not sure which is better.


----------



## Mark200

Roybenz said:


> Ok guys. I need your opinion. I’ll try to explain.
> 
> I have fibre cable into house with an isp fmc that brings Ethernet to my main router- orbi mesh. From here I have 10-12 meters of cat6 cable in wall to listening room. So my choise is to:
> 
> ...


In most cases, hard-wired Ethernet cable is better than Wi-Fi overall. If you are concerned about noise, use shielded Cat 6 or Cat 6a Ethernet cable. Also, don't run any power cords along side of an Ethernet cable, but crossing them at 90 degrees or so is usually OK.


----------



## Roybenz

Mark200 said:


> In most cases, hard-wired Ethernet cable is better than Wi-Fi overall. If you are concerned about noise, use shielded Cat 6 or Cat 6a Ethernet cable. Also, don't run any power cords along side of an Ethernet cable, but crossing them at 90 degrees or so is usually OK.


But is it Wi-Fi when the sattelite orbi has Ethernet outtakes? Even though it’s connected to Wi-Fi mesh. That is the big question


----------



## bpcans (Tuesday at 3:04 PM)

@griff500, I find it very interesting how a lot of us are trying to integrate this new fangled internet music streaming thing into are present or future listening systems, and how so many folks are trying to find an “easier simpler way” without having to spend handfuls of thousands to make the music sound good.
Well from experience you don’t have to spend all sorts of crazy money unless you want to. But if you can more power to ya.
What I’ve found to be more important than the build quality of any particular network switch is if it’s powered properly, and is connected using shielded ethernet cable that has the good metal German RJ45 connectors, then that’s not too expensive per meter.


----------



## Mark200

Roybenz said:


> But is it Wi-Fi when the sattelite orbi has Ethernet outtakes? Even though it’s connected to Wi-Fi mesh. That is the big question


I looked at the Netgear Orbi website to see how your device works, although you didn't mention what model number Orbi you have. From their website it looks like the main Orbi router is hard-wire connected (via Ethernet) to your main ISP router, and then the signal goes to satellite Orbi stations via Wi-Fi. If your satellite Orbi device also has Ethernet outputs (that then goes to your streamer via Ethernet cable), then the signal from your ISP to your streamer is part Wi-Fi and part Ethernet cable. Whether it is Ethernet or Wi-Fi, it is all TCP/IP. I hope I understood your Orbi configuration correctly, but if not let me know.


----------



## griff500

bpcans said:


> @griff500, I find it very interesting how a lot of us are trying to integrate this new fangled internet music streaming thing into are present or future listening systems, and how so many folks are trying to find an “easier simpler way” without having to spend handfuls of thousands to make the music sound good.
> Well from experience you don’t have to spend all sorts of crazy money unless you want to. But if you can more power to ya.
> What I’ve found to be more important than the build quality of any particular network switch is if it’s powered properly, and is connected using shielded ethernet cable that uses the good metal German RJ45 connectors. That’s not too expensive per meter.


Different ethernet cables can make a surprising difference in my experience.

I agree regarding the importance of power supplies connected to the network.


----------



## bpcans

griff500 said:


> Different ethernet cables can make a surprising difference in my experience.
> 
> I agree regarding the importance of power supplies connected to the network.


Yes! _*Clean 🧼 power is the key 🔑. *_But your experience with different ethernet cables is similar to mine in that I’ve noticed this too. I think if you have to use more than two cables you should have the best one going into your music server/streamer/dac. Cheapest from the router to any decent BestBuy internet switch with a $50 or less SMPS, and then to your next component or filter as the signal makes its way to a hopefully decent dac. I’m just not seeing the need for a $5K+ music streamer/server with how I listen to music when I’m home 🏡. 

My audio gear dealer sent me one of these to check out. https://www.choiceaudio.com/innuos-music-servers-and-streamers/p/innuos-statement. And *OMG 😱!* Freaking unbelievable! If I had stupid money I’d get one of these. Fortunately, I’m married.


----------



## kingoftown1

ChJL said:


> So I went for a LHY SW-8. Dealing with Alvin and Annie was a AAA experience! Recommended!
> 
> The Alpha Audio switch Videos - recommended - made me try out an audiophile switch. They got into the 1's and 0's argument.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing!

I'd agree LTT videos on audio are pretty rough, but what can you expect from them in an area they have no expertise in.  Hopefully they can continue to improve and bring a more balanced, knowledgeable approach in the future.  They could have a positive impact on the hobby financially, and drive more innovation if they take a decent approach.

I'll also second your impressions of Alvin & Annie.  I've dealt with them a couple times in the past with Denafrips items and get nothing but amazing service from them.


----------



## Roybenz

Mark200 said:


> I looked at the Netgear Orbi website to see how your device works, although you didn't mention what model number Orbi you have. From their website it looks like the main Orbi router is hard-wire connected (via Ethernet) to your main ISP router, and then the signal goes to satellite Orbi stations via Wi-Fi. If your satellite Orbi device also has Ethernet outputs (that then goes to your streamer via Ethernet cable), then the signal from your ISP to your streamer is part Wi-Fi and part Ethernet cable. Whether it is Ethernet or Wi-Fi, it is all TCP/IP. I hope I understood your Orbi configuration correctly, but if not let me know.


Thanks for looking. I have the RBR750 main orbi. It’s hard wired to fibre optic converter from isp in fuse box. Signal goes Wi-Fi to sattelites (and I also have a hard wired cable to in wall to listening room) 

Been in contact with 2 dealers, one said to use the orbi sattelite with Wi-Fi then use Ethernet out from it to dac to avoid noise from main rig. 

The other one said to use the hardwired cable in wall (10-12 meters to main orbi router) 

I do think I hear a small difference, but since I just got a Heimdall 2 Ethernet cable I would like to know if the Ethernet from orbi sattelite does provide “real” Ethernet or not. I can’t figure it out with Google.


----------



## Mark200

Roybenz said:


> The other one said to use the hardwired cable in wall (10-12 meters to main orbi router)


I don't understand this connection. How is it connected to the main Orbi router that is 10-12 meters away? If it is Ethernet cable all the way from your ISP router to the wall outlet (with intermediate connection to the Orbi main and then to the Orbi satellite via Ethernet cable) that is the best connection in my opinion. However, that is from a connection stability standpoint, and not a noise standpoint. But I think that external noise is rarely a factor in streaming music over Ethernet, especially if you use a high quality Ethernet cable (such as shielded Ethernet cable).


----------



## Roybenz (Tuesday at 5:29 PM)

@Mark200  main orbi router is next to the fmc module. Then Ethernet goes 10-12 meters to listening room outlet in wall. I just chatted with Netgear support, and they said that Ethernet out of a sattelite which is connected with Wi-Fi is the same Ethernet signal as I would get from a hard wired Ethernet


----------



## audiobomber

I've listened to objectivist claims about audio for decades. My conclusion is that measurements are nice to have, but they cannot fully describe sound quality. Only long term listening in my own system will tell the truth.

Audiophile switches do a lot more than just lower ethernet speed. For example, you can read about the technology used in the EtherREGEN here:
https://uptoneaudio.com/products/etherregen

Most of the people in the 100 page sMS-200 thread at Audiophile Style use 100Mb speed, for a reason. They know it sounds better, whereas you are just speculating.

Neither of my two audiophile switches comes anywhere close to $3000, even when the linear power supplies are included and the costs are summed.


----------



## Mark200

Roybenz said:


> @Mark200  main orbi router is next to the fmc module. Then Ethernet goes 10-12 meters to listening room outlet in wall. I just chatted with Netgear support, and they said that Ethernet out of a sattelite which is connected with Wi-Fi is the same Ethernet signal as I would get from a hard wired Ethernet


Yes, it is the same data (TCP/IP packets being transmitted), but technically Ethernet and Wifi are different: Here is info from an ISP called Spectrum.

A WiFi connection transmits data via wireless signals, while an Ethernet connection transmits data over cable.
No cables are needed to access a WiFi connection, providing greater mobility for users who can connect to a network or the Internet while moving freely around a space. To access a network via an Ethernet connection, users need to connect a device using ethernet cable.
An Ethernet connection is generally faster than a WiFi connection and provides greater reliability and security.
https://enterprise.spectrum.com/sup...n transmits data,moving freely around a space.

Many people prefer a wired Ethernet if available for better connection reliability, but that may not be a big factor in your home. Some people on this forum seem to think that wireless (such as WiFi) will have less noise than a wired connection, but I personally think that would be rare if one is using a decent quality Ethernet cable, preferably shield cable if you think noise could be a problem.

IMO, the whole subject of noise on an Ethernet cable is widely misunderstood, because the data is sent in TCP/IP "packets" with a checksum calculation, and if any of the bits gets changed on arrival such that they don't match the checksum of the whole packet, the packet is rejected and retransmitted. WiFi also transmits data in TCP/IP packets.



audiobomber said:


> I've listened to objectivist claims about audio for decades. My conclusion is that measurements are nice to have, but they cannot fully describe sound quality. Only long term listening in my own system will tell the truth.
> 
> Audiophile switches do a lot more than just lower ethernet speed. For example, you can read about the technology used in the EtherREGEN here:
> https://uptoneaudio.com/products/etherregen
> ...


I never said that measurements are the "end all" for evaluating audiophile equipment. I never said anything like that. In fact I advocated listening tests, although I believe such tests should be blind tests if they are to be believed.

Most of my comments about audiophile network switches are based on my knowledge of how TCP/IP over Internet works, and not based on any measurements. If TCP/IP allowed for any errors to exist in data transmission without detection and eventual rejection of the entire packet (so that the data received was not the exact same data that was sent), the the entire world of the Internet would collapse, and financial transactions could never be trusted, among a zillion other problems. Airplanes that rely on automated navigation would fall from the sky, and the world would descend into chaos. This has nothing to do with measurements, just data integrity. TCP/IP can have bad packets, but only in extreme rare cases does any data corruption go undetected.

Keep in mind that other kinds of digital audio transmission, such as used in Toslink optical, digital coax, digital USB, etc, does not have such stringent error detection as does TCP/IP, and usually the errors are skipped over, with the assumption that most people can't hear them. When they transmit data (instead of music) they typically do have error detection.


----------



## dougms3

Roybenz said:


> @Mark200  main orbi router is next to the fmc module. Then Ethernet goes 10-12 meters to listening room outlet in wall. I just chatted with Netgear support, and they said that Ethernet out of a sattelite which is connected with Wi-Fi is the same Ethernet signal as I would get from a hard wired Ethernet


The connection will always be more stable and reliable with a hardwired connection.

Once the connection goes part wifi, I'd consider it all wifi because it will be bound to the limits of the wifi connection.  It doesn't mean you won't gain any benefit from using a wired connection at the last leg but its definitely not the same as hardwired.  Sounds about right from netgear support, might as well call cuisineart support for help with your network.

Depending on your environment, there may be varying levels of noise added to the connection.  For instance if you live in a house vs apt.  There will be alot more stray interference in an apt with so many wifi, bluetooth, radio signals in the area.  I don't know how much this will affect the audio but a house is definitely the more desirable option.


----------



## Roybenz

I was thinking the wifi connected sattelite Would bring in less noise than the long Ethernet in wall ( idk if they put powercable next to it or not but they might have) I could also Connect the sattelite to the Ethernet outlet in wall. But that Would basically be the same as just Using the wall outlet by itself?


----------



## dougms3

Roybenz said:


> I was thinking the wifi connected sattelite Would bring in less noise than the long Ethernet in wall ( idk if they put powercable next to it or not but they might have) I could also Connect the sattelite to the Ethernet outlet in wall. But that Would basically be the same as just Using the wall outlet by itself?


The wifi is exposed to more interference than the wired connection, especially in your situation with the redundant wifi mesh topology, more avenues for the connection to pick up stray noise.

The hardwired connection has the benefit of being in the wall and being somewhat shielded from some stray interference.  A shielded cable is always better but sometimes not practical, especially if the cable is in the wall.  Fiber optic connected network is best since its not prone to external EMI but again not practical unless your apt or house was built with it.  

As I said, whats ideal and optimal may not have much of an effect in terms of audio quality, theres alot of other factors involved that can affect it as well.

I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you're having an issue with audio quality, just work with what you have, sometimes convenience is > sound quality.


----------



## Mark200

Roybenz said:


> I was thinking the wifi connected sattelite Would bring in less noise than the long Ethernet in wall ( idk if they put powercable next to it or not but they might have) I could also Connect the sattelite to the Ethernet outlet in wall. But that Would basically be the same as just Using the wall outlet by itself?


The biggest problem with noise on a TCP/IP data packet (transmitted by Wired Ethernet or WiFi) is not that you would hear noise on your headphones or speakers. The problem would be that the noise could cause a bad connection resulting in TCP/IP packets having to be retransmitted, or losing the connection completely.


----------



## Currawong

Interesting thread. Someone linked to a couple of these posts in another thread.


llamaluv said:


> The combo which is my priority at the moment is: Bartok to Benchmark AHB2 to Utopia 2022. The best way to characterize the change is that it sounds dryer and less rich. It's an overall less "excitable" kind of sound and also less glare with upper-midrange spikes in the music. There's less lingering sparkle in the treble. Possibly less bass, too? It's drinking your morning coffee with less cream and sugar. The soundstage sounds less filled-in. It may just need some getting used to, but even after "getting used to it", the jury's out whether I will enjoy it.


Noise ends up making the sound in many devices "brighter" or "harder". When you remove it, the sound ends up seeming to be darker and warmer very often.  I found this consistently as I improved the quality of the power supply in my system.


audiobomber said:


> That is a bit misleading. Fiber will transmit any noise (EMI, RFI) and jitter that enters the fiberoptic cable, but the cable itself is immune from RFI and EMI, therefore will not pick up any additional noise. Noise can still enter the system before and after it leaves the fiber, in the FMC, power supplies and connected gear.


No it wont. That's not physically possible.  An optical transmitter only switches on and off. High-frequency noise above the transmission rate is eliminated.


audiobomber said:


> If a fiber cable could truly shed all digital noise, why would you need an expensive Melco S100 feeding the fiber system? If no noise can come through from the source, upstream gear wouldn't matter, you would be able to use a cheap D-Link switch with SMPS feeding a second ADOT FMC.


More than likely what is going on has to do with the amount of error correction and and the like going on at the receiving end, which will cause the electronics to generate more noise.


----------



## iFi audio

bpcans said:


> Clean 🧼 power is the key 🔑



Agreed, it sure is and it's also relevant pretty much everywhere in this hobby


----------



## Roybenz

Tried the baaske mi 1005 today. 0 difference.


----------



## audiobomber

Currawong said:


> An optical transmitter only switches on and off. High-frequency noise above the transmission rate is eliminated.


What about low frequency noise? Or noise at the switching frequency?


Currawong said:


> More than likely what is going on has to do with the amount of error correction and and the like going on at the receiving end, which will cause the electronics to generate more noise.


Are you saying that it doesn't matter how clean the signal is before the optical conversion? I find it very difficult to believe that an audiophile quality front end, i.e. switches, ethernet cable, power supplies, etc. will sound the same at the receiving end as a consumer laptop, or off the shelf router, switch, FMC/SFP and SMPS. If your view is correct, there should be no market for ethernet cleaning devices, everyone could just use generic gear with fiber.


----------



## Roybenz

ive been trying the orbi sattelite wifi Connected with Ethernet cable from it to dac, vs straight wall Ethernet. I cant tell any difference.


----------



## AxelCloris

As a quick reminder, let's please keep the discussion in this thread on personal listening experiences with the devices in question. Those who would like to discuss and debate topics like blind testing devices should look for the various other threads related to those topics, many of which can be found in the Sound Science section of the forums. Please keep all discussions in this thread focused on first-hand subjective experiences. Thanks everyone.


----------



## Currawong

audiobomber said:


> What about low frequency noise? Or noise at the switching frequency?
> 
> Are you saying that it doesn't matter how clean the signal is before the optical conversion? I find it very difficult to believe that an audiophile quality front end, i.e. switches, ethernet cable, power supplies, etc. will sound the same at the receiving end as a consumer laptop, or off the shelf router, switch, FMC/SFP and SMPS. If your view is correct, there should be no market for ethernet cleaning devices, everyone could just use generic gear with fiber.


Let's start with fundamentals: An optical transmitter, unlike an electrical one, can only be in an on state, or an off state. So, that means that if the incoming signal would have to have a significant amount of distortion as to cause an actual bit-level error. I reckon if that's the case, you have more major problems, such as actual, faulty equipment. So, what we really need to know is if high-quality switches (such as the Melco ones) have a significantly lower error rate. However, I'd be surprised if any hub causes even a small amount of errors, sufficient to result in enough noise from the receiving electronics that the result is audible. 

I'm very curious about this, as I have the Neo Stream here and the sound out of a Gustard R26, and even, slightly, an MScaler/TT2 set-up, is different with and without the Optibox. There must, surely, be software to test this. 

I'm also considering testing things such as network optical isolators, and using ethernet direct from a computer versus using a hub with other computers connected.  My conjecture is that it's interrupts and errors that are the main causes of any differences. Hopefully I can figure out a way to test that.


----------



## dougms3

audiobomber said:


> What about low frequency noise? Or noise at the switching frequency?
> 
> Are you saying that it doesn't matter how clean the signal is before the optical conversion? I find it very difficult to believe that an audiophile quality front end, i.e. switches, ethernet cable, power supplies, etc. will sound the same at the receiving end as a consumer laptop, or off the shelf router, switch, FMC/SFP and SMPS. If your view is correct, there should be no market for ethernet cleaning devices, everyone could just use generic gear with fiber.


This was also my understanding of it.  I thought fiber was immune to external interference but is very efficient at transferring digital data including noise.

I know theres a benefit to using multimode vs single mode fiber as well.  

I'm not that familiar with optical, maybe @JaMo can help shed some light on the subject?


----------



## Currawong

I installed Wireshark and did a bit of packet capture, and this screenshot alone shows the complexity of TCP/IP communication, with a bunch of different types of errors (such as duplicate and out-of-order packets) that have to be dealt with.


----------



## dougms3

Currawong said:


> I installed Wireshark and did a bit of packet capture, and this screenshot alone shows the complexity of TCP/IP communication, with a bunch of different types of errors (such as duplicate and out-of-order packets) that have to be dealt with.


Were you getting any audio issues related to this capture?

Duplicate packets are not uncommon and theres a known bug in wireshark, where it tags packets as out of order when they aren't, not sure if they ever fixed that.  It would be a red flag if there were alot of them but it could also be that bug.


----------



## Odezra

Hey guys. 

On the topic of fmc - I have just put this in between my router and Gustard r26 including some dxe engineering isolators. Both fmc and the audio gear are connected to a power board which does emi / rfi filtering. 

For me - after blind a/b testing - there’s clearly a change in sound, and I prefer that change. 

On the science of it - colour me confused at this point. I had thought that there was full isolation going on and that any noise preceding the first conversion was being reduced or washed out. The conversation here  seems conflicted - some say preceding noise before the fmc can travel and some say not?

Is there anyway to verify what exactly is going (eg existing peer reviewed literature or direct measurements)?

Subjective impression only here - but I also a/b’d moving router / first fmc over to a second cheap power board and keeping all audio gear and second fmc on the ‘clean side’, and then moving everything back over to the ‘clean side’ and I am not sure I am hearing any differences. I am going to repeat that test again today but am not sure there’s much of a difference for me.


----------



## Currawong

dougms3 said:


> Were you getting any audio issues related to this capture?
> 
> Duplicate packets are not uncommon and theres a known bug in wireshark, where it tags packets as out of order when they aren't, not sure if they ever fixed that.  It would be a red flag if there were alot of them but it could also be that bug.


I wasn't streaming audio, this was just a capture of the computer's network interface.  I'm thinking up what kind of experiments I might do to see how transmission is affected.


----------



## audiobomber (Yesterday at 10:58 AM)

Currawong said:


> Let's start with fundamentals: An optical transmitter, unlike an electrical one, can only be in an on state, or an off state. So, that means that if the incoming signal would have to have a significant amount of distortion as to cause an actual bit-level error. I reckon if that's the case, you have more major problems, such as actual, faulty equipment. So, what we really need to know is if high-quality switches (such as the Melco ones) have a significantly lower error rate. However, I'd be surprised if any hub causes even a small amount of errors, sufficient to result in enough noise from the receiving electronics that the result is audible.


It has been stated repeatedly in this thread that sonic differences in ethernet gear are not due to errors. The errors are corrected at various stages before they reach the DAC. Regarding your Wireshark post, maybe heavier error correction results in poorer sound?

Audiophile quality ethernet gear results in better sound because EMI/RFI rides on the data stream. Eliminating noise results in a blacker background, more detail, more solid bass and cleaner highs, IME.


Currawong said:


> I'm very curious about this, as I have the Neo Stream here and the sound out of a Gustard R26, and even, slightly, an MScaler/TT2 set-up, is different with and without the Optibox. There must, surely, be software to test this.
> 
> I'm also considering testing things such as network optical isolators, and using ethernet direct from a computer versus using a hub with other computers connected.  My conjecture is that it's interrupts and errors that are the main causes of any differences. Hopefully I can figure out a way to test that.


Measurements are great to see, as long as a credible listening session is also referenced (which I know you do).


----------



## Roybenz (Yesterday at 11:29 AM)

I just found out my cat6 cables that goes in wall 12 meters from Orbi router in fuse box to my listening room is unshielded cat6.

it runs parallel to power cables in different cable tubes.

What is my best option in my house.?

1. Use walloutlet as is connected to dac?

2. Put a orbi sattelite in listening room with mesh Wi-Fi connection and connect it with Ethernet to dac to avoid noise from wall cable? Will this be real Ethernet signal or Wi-Fi quality since it’s connected with Wi-Fi?(No audible noise just theoretically)

3. Run new shielded cables in wall to listening room?

4. Get a melco s100 switch? To remove any noise if there is noise through lan cable in wall. (Tried EE8 earlier and couldnt take it out in blind test)


----------



## iFi audio

Currawong said:


> I'm very curious about this, as I have the Neo Stream here and the sound out of a Gustard R26, and even, slightly, an MScaler/TT2 set-up, is different with and without the Optibox. There must, surely, be software to test this.



That's good to hear, thanks Amos! If I may ask, do you fancy NEO Stream more with or without OptiBox?


----------



## Mark200

Currawong said:


> I installed Wireshark and did a bit of packet capture, and this screenshot alone shows the complexity of TCP/IP communication, with a bunch of different types of errors (such as duplicate and out-of-order packets) that have to be dealt with.


Yes, all those kind of TCP/IP events happen on a regular basis. But TCP/IP deals with them even on the cheapest network equipment. Out of order packets cannot be fixed by an intermediate router, only at the destination (the packets are cached at the destination, so most events can be handled transparently). Also, a typical path from Tidal.com may go through 14 hops (14 different switches on the Internet) and it is not necessary that they all follow the same path, as the final destination device (streamer, etc) can put them back in order or request a retransmission of any packets that are missing.


----------



## Currawong

iFi audio said:


> That's good to hear, thanks Amos! If I may ask, do you fancy NEO Stream more with or without OptiBox?


So far, with the Optibox. It's interesting to discover which equipment is affected by it more, and which less.


----------



## llamaluv

llamaluv said:


> Having said that, what I've done is order a couple 10GTek media converter units from Amazon, and a short $10 fiber cable for a grand total of $60. [...] If I ended up choosing the right parts, I'll share with the thread what I got in case, like me, all this is new to you, too



The components came in, it worked out immediately, and with no fuss:

10Gtek [Mini Size] Gigabit Ethernet Media Converter with MMF Module (Amazon link, $22.49) x 2
OM3 fiber patch cable (Amazon link, $8.99) (I'm sure OM2 would be fine too)



So the current setup is: 
[router] > [generic, long lan cable] > [MC] > [fiber cable] > [MC] > ["good", short lan cable] > [Bartok]

And the MCs are using just their stock power supplies.

After a couple hours of listening and couple quick direct comparisons with vs. without the MC's, I'm super-impressed. The main word that comes to mind is "natural". It's more free-flowing, "ease-ful" and relaxed. Cleaner bass. And a greater, easier conveyance of low-level information -- more sustain, more microdetails, smoother treble. No changes in tonality.

I feel like the 8Switch (in my system at least) was committing sins of omission, subtracting stuff in order to create a sense of greater separation and a blacker background. But this is not like that, and nor is it committing sins of commission either. Just revealing more of what's already there.


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

Next LPS on your FMC.  Jameco Reliapro should do the trick.


----------

