I stream music via TIDAL and the only cable in my system that is not an "Audiophile" cable is the one going from my Gateway to my PC, it is a CAT6 cable. Question is, do "Audiophile" Ethernet cables make any difference/ improvement in sound quality?
Any and all feedback is most appreciated, especially if you noted improvements in your streaming audio SQ with a High-End Ethernet cable.
I've tested out 3 botique cables from $27 to $233 a foot. In three systems, didn't do anything more or less than 315 foot of 5e. Also in a forum members system a $13, 100 foot cable, put the bamboozle on that members system when blinded.
Why not just listen for yourself, or join in when someone is doing a comparison ? Like any other cable, Power cord, speaker cable, etc, most people hear a difference and proceed to select their preferences.
Absolutely. A friend of mine installed a cat8 "audio grade" cable between his modem and router and it changed the sound when listening to Tidal. His modem is another part of the house and he didn't tell me anything he had changed anything. After listening for less than a minute I told him his system's bass was tighter and stronger. I am very familiar with his system and know almost instantly when he changes something.
I get it that you have no clue how this stuff works but it at least should be a ’woke’ moment for you...”
Oh I know exactly how the streaming works, but you can’t seem to grasp a simple fact that once 10, 20 or 30 seconds of downloaded 1’s and 0’s runs out of buffer, you need that Ethernet cable to download the next 10-30 seconds of bits and so on.
Unlike you I enjoy listening to my music uninterrupted, not in 10-20 seconds of voodoo crap you have been trying to peddle.
Well that depends on the size of the buffer. Tidal has the ability to buffer the entire track. Williams 11 minute piano piece played entirely after the cable was pulled after the first 10-15 seconds.
Buffers are designed to never entirely allow to run out. There are hold down algorithms that make sure the buffer never even comes close to running out.
Then we have wire speed to contend with. I get ~36MB/s over my cable broadband. I can cue up entire 24/96, 10 minute tracks, in 6 seconds.
Sorry that your playback system is so completely compromised.
“I get it that you have no clue how this stuff works but it at least should be a ’woke’ moment for you...”
Oh I know exactly how the streaming works, but you can’t seem to grasp a simple fact that once 10, 20 or 30 seconds of downloaded 1’s and 0’s runs out of buffer, you need that Ethernet cable to download the next 10-30 seconds of bits and so on.
Unlike you I enjoy listening to my music uninterrupted, not in 10-20 seconds of voodoo crap you have been trying to peddle.
lalitk “When I start playing a song, pull the Ethernet cable, and the song plays on for the duration, like it does with Tidal, what effect is the cable having?”
There won’t be any music to play if there was no cable between the switch and renderer to begin with....so by pulling Ethernet cable proves nothing 😉
Eggs ackly! It proves nothing. If it did prove anything audiophiles would be lining up in droves for car CD players that have a similar feature. Perfect sound forever! It’s only 1s and 0s! Whatever.
@geoffkait >>>>>I have serious problems with long term listening as a definitive method of testing. And I’m going to tell you why. First, things change over time for any number of reasons, even day to day and hour to hour the sound can change on a whim, for no apparent reason. But sometimes the listener does make actual physical changes to his system during the long term listening. And those changes, conscious or not, can affect the sound. So, which is it, the sound on Sunday morning at 7 am or the sound on Thursday afternoon at 3 pm? Second, audiophiles frequently complain of audio memory being an issue, so what’s to prevent audio memory from being an issue in long term listening?
Once again it looks like we’re faced with the likelihood that there is no such thing as a scientifically valid listening test. There are too many variables in the case of long term listening to be able to definitively conclude anything about the device under test. If someone can’t hear it in a short term test there’s no guarantee he can hear it in a long term test
Understood. But, for me, I’ve found that in some cases, I need to hear lots of familiar music played mostly in it’s entirety, to get a handle of just what the change I made did to the music. I try my best to not introduce other changes until I’m satisfied but hey, I’m only human.
Unlike visually, where we see everything at once when we enter a room, only to have our mind sort things out, aurally, we need to hear things in their entirety, or close to it, to make a determination. Gestalt in the visual sense doesn’t work the same in the aural sense, or at least in the same time frame.
Short term listening tests can help to see if one can pick out a note’s pitch, scale or tone and not the whole contribution a change can make to the music. Long term listening can at least help get one a handle on what’s happening, in a better sense, but I agree it’s not definitive.
“When I start playing a song, pull the Ethernet cable, and the song plays on for the duration, like it does with Tidal, what effect is the cable having?”
There won’t be any music to play if there was no cable between the switch and renderer to begin with....so by pulling Ethernet cable proves nothing 😉
Michael do you even understand how async, Ethernet based audio works?
When I start playing a song, pull the Ethernet cable, and the song plays on for the duration, like it does with Tidal, what effect is the cable having?
geoffkait “Once again it looks like we’re faced with the likelihood that there is no such thing as a scientifically valid listening test. There are too many variables in the case of long term listening to be able to definitively conclude anything about the device under test. If someone can’t hear it in a short term test there’s no guarantee he can hear it in a long term test.”
Interesting so all the people that are saying they hear differences in data cabling aren’t hearing anything.
>>>>I’m not saying that at all. Please don’t shove words down my throat. Think back. I’m saying negative results are not meaningful for the rather obvious reason that there are too many things that can go wrong with the test, even one that is presumably well thought out. Mistakes happen. Positive results, on the other hand, are positive IN SPITE OF ALL THE REASONS WHY THE TEST MIGHT HAVE FAILED. Follow?
To sum it up, what I have learned is my system may have a problem, because performing a listening test (see my previous post), my friend and I both noticed a "difference in SQ for the better" when using a CAT7 compared to a CAT5e. My non-audiophile friend described it best as saying the CAT7 was "smoother sounding". I'll just leave it at that.
Can all of us please end this subject on this last note.
I thank all of you for your interest in this subject and I think we have gone full circle at this time.
I'm not sure about other readers or members but when I pop in on an HEA forum and see 420 responses on a topic like this (where the answer is fairly obvious) in only a weeks period of time, why does my mind see a bunch of senior citizens with their shirts off in a Walmart parking lot ready for a rumble?
Are you guys really this bored?
back to the OP
"Question is, do "Audiophile" Ethernet cables make any difference/ improvement in sound quality?"
Of course there's a difference anytime you make any physical change to an audio chain. The whole reason why we called it a chain is because the pathway of signal passing conduits are connected.
This doesn't answer better or worst, or, practical or not. It also doesn't address how good a person's measurement testing or hearing is. It's just a fairly simple "Q" that deserved an "A".
Now while you guys are in the parking lot getting it on, don't expect me and the "Get Tuned Girls" to stop by handing out suntan lotion.
Once again it looks like we’re faced with the likelihood that there is no such thing as a scientifically valid listening test. There are too many variables in the case of long term listening to be able to definitively conclude anything about the device under test. If someone can’t hear it in a short term test there’s no guarantee he can hear it in a long term test.
Interesting so all the people that are saying they hear differences in data cabling aren't hearing anything.
nonoise “I found this statement from John Atkinson (the one that measurement obsessed folk fall back on for support) to put a kibosh on most A/B/X tests:
...2nd order behaviors -eg-distortion signatures and noise modulations that characterize sound quality, and these things take a lot of listening to identify.
It’s what I and others have repeatedly stated: long term listening is the correct way to identify sound signatures and clues. You can get the gist of a cable or fuse or what have you but it takes immersion in the music, over time, to correctly assess anything, unless it’s something glaringly apparent.”
..........................
>>>>>I have serious problems with long term listening as a definitive method of testing. And I’m going to tell you why. First, things change over time for any number of reasons, even day to day and hour to hour the sound can change on a whim, for no apparent reason. But sometimes the listener does make actual physical changes to his system during the long term listening. And those changes, conscious or not, can affect the sound. So, which is it, the sound on Sunday morning at 7 am or the sound on Thursday afternoon at 3 pm? Second, audiophiles frequently complain of audio memory being an issue, so what’s to prevent audio memory from being an issue in long term listening?
Once again it looks like we’re faced with the likelihood that there is no such thing as a scientifically valid listening test. There are too many variables in the case of long term listening to be able to definitively conclude anything about the device under test. If someone can’t hear it in a short term test there’s no guarantee he can hear it in a long term test.
It's what I and others have repeatedly stated: long term listening is the correct way to identify sound signatures and clues. You can get the gist of a cable or fuse or what have you but it takes immersion in the music, over time, to correctly assess anything, unless it's something glaringly apparent.
Great. Love it. Then I will setup a server/client/switch where there will be power going into the black box, a USB port on the output side and a Cisco Switch were I can issue a shut/no shut on FA 0/1 or FA 0/2 and turn power off to that port.
The client will have a dual port NIC in a LACP Passive LAG (The switch would be port channeled and LACP Dynamic LAG). Use JRiver in WASAPI exclusive mode or ASIO depending on the claimants DAC and we could literally collect data for a 1-6 months EASY.
They would never know when the shut/no shut on either FA 01/ or FA 0/2 would have been made therefore they wouldn't know which Ethernet cable was in use.
I found this statement from John Atkinson (the one that measurement obsessed folk fall back on for support) to put a kibosh on most A/B/X tests:
...2nd order behaviors -eg-distortion signatures and noise modulations that characterize sound quality, and these things take a lot of listening to identify.
It's what I and others have repeatedly stated: long term listening is the correct way to identify sound signatures and clues. You can get the gist of a cable or fuse or what have you but it takes immersion in the music, over time, to correctly assess anything, unless it's something glaringly apparent.
geoffkait “Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative.”
Quite so. Nor does it necessarily mean anything even when the results are positive. And lawyers are certainly not required to develop a scientifically valid test protocol.
>>>>>>Nope, sorry to disagree. Positive results are - at a minimum - interesting and can be persuasive. You cannot obtain positive results rational test procedure. Obviously a one shot test that’s positive doesn’t mean as much as say a blind test with 5 trials.
There is no such thing as a scientifically valid audio test or test procedure as I’ve already explained. Looks like a Mexican standoff.
... As silly as it sounds, the A/B/X test would have to be tested since so far, it’s only been a parlor trick. There would have to be short term tests and long term tests in order to eliminate faulty conceptual constructs in the design of the tests.
I agree that ABX testing has not been shown to be the definitive listening test, although it has proven useful in some scenarios. And I agree that long-term testing - which doesn’t necessarily exclude using the ABX protocol - is necessary to produce valid results, imo.
Looking at what the testers demand demonstrates a skirting of any actual
test and instead, conditions guaranteed to scuttle any findings.
It looks like that's been their actual intent, hence the demands for contracts approved by attorneys, $25,000 advance payments, the allure of 5-1 odds and other such nonsense. I've actually yet to see any sincere initiative here to design and conduct a proper scientific listening test. Instead, the demands for such testing are placed on others as a red herring by pseudo-skeptics. At least so far.
But when conducting such tests, researchers need to be sure that the test itself is truly scientific, that variables have been eliminated and that the protocol follows established practices. That's not as easy as it might seem to the casual observer. And failing to use proper protocol yields results that are completely unreliable - perhaps even more so than sighted listening.
Totally. The tests put forth are not in any way definitive. Nor are they the test to be conducted. As silly as it sounds, the A/B/X test would have to be tested since so far, it's only been a parlor trick. There would have to be short term tests and long term tests in order to eliminate faulty conceptual constructs in the design of the tests.
Looking at what the testers demand demonstrates a skirting of any actual test and instead, conditions guaranteed to scuttle any findings that would demonstrate that there are discernible differences.
Mutually
agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever
that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are
negative.
Quite so. Nor does it necessarily mean anything even when the results are positive. And lawyers are certainly not required to develop a scientifically valid test protocol.
Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are
subject to the laws of listening tests ... If it
were true that all you needed was mutually agreed terms then any two
knuckleheads who wanted to “prove” some particular controversial tweak a
hoax
Agreed. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. While I've stated many times that I think the typical audiophile has little use for scientific listening tests - they're time consuming, cumbersome, sometimes frustrating and tedious - that doesn't mean they have no value whatsoever. But when conducting such tests, researchers need to be sure that the test itself is truly scientific, that variables have been eliminated and that the protocol follows established practices. That's not as easy as it might seem to the casual observer. And failing to use proper protocol yields results that are completely unreliable - perhaps even more so than sighted listening.
Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative. Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are subject to the laws of listening tests I described earlier today. If it were true that all you needed was mutually agreed terms then any two knuckleheads who wanted to “prove” some particular controversial tweak a hoax. Lawyers don’t actually bring anything to the table, you know, knowing as little about listening tests and what’s involved as anyone in the world. Anyone not following my logic raise your hand.
... I'm willing to do this with a few 'patients' (claimants)
to see if their drug of choice "sighted evaluation" is merely sugar
pill.
What is it that you propose to test? Are you also seeking a wager, as you did last time, with 5-1 odds? And remember, if you hope to develop some meaningful data, you'll need more than one listener to participate in the test.
They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient.
Correct and I'm willing to do this with a few 'patients' (claimants) to see if their drug of choice "sighted evaluation" is merely sugar pill.
And this is why blind testing is very fair and extremely useful in these matters. It allows the listener who is subjected to the test to "guess" or otherwise "perceive" a difference
This shows a complete misunderstanding of scientific listening tests in particular and scientific testing in general. The listener is not "subjected to the test" any more than a patient is " subjected to the test" in a drug trial. Rather, in a listening test, it is the equipment that is under test. In a drug trial, it is the drug under test, not the patient. If the drug proves ineffective, scientists don’t say "the patient failed the test." They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient.
The notion that a test is "fair" or not is also misguided. It is either conducted in a way that is scientific, or not. Simple.
1. The system used for the test is not sufficiently resolving to distinguish differences that might be audible on a better system.
I'll do this on their system
2. There are mistakes in the system that were not found even if there was a search for mistakes or errors. Saying that the test procedures are thorough doesn’t necessarily mean they really are thorough.
I'll do this on their system
3. The hearing capability of the testee is not up to the task.
The claimant is the testee. If they can make a claim sighted and state it's just their ears then they can do this in the dark.
4. For a blind test involving many trials, say 10 or more, the odds are high that the testee doesn’t have the focus or strength to dinstinguish audible differences for periods of time without tiring. You can’t just say oh, well, that’s the way it goes.
Then the differences aren't as 'readily apparent' and 'easy to discern' or other colloquialisms that I've seen bandied about.
5. System issues that go undetected due to naïveté of those involved in the test. Directionality of Fuses, directionality of cables, Polarity check of all connections, etc.
I'll do this on their system
6. Using unfamiliar music for the test.
I'll do this on their system
7. Using a test system unfamiliar to the testee.
I'll do this on their system. In 2015 at an AQ demo I saw a people hear differences in Ethernet cabling in a really crummy room on equipment they had no familiarity with, music that most likely they weren't familiar with.
8. Weather and other “external variables” that affect the sound of any system that could make hearing subtle differences in sound difficult or impossible.
I'll try to schedule my visit with you to avoid thunderstorms.
This is why the terms of the test must be *mutually agreed and then
bound contractually* to the satisfaction of both parties. Otherwise, no
test. Simple.
Scientists who conduct listening tests don't require $25,000 "escrows" from participants and contracts drafted by attorneys, so it's pretty obvious that you're still pursuing your rigged test, which is a ruse, a con. And it comes from a guy who repeatedly tells others they should be "honest" with themselves. Simple.
Your previous (05-04-2018 8:33am) response is well stated, genuine and therefore worthy of a meaningful response on my part.
While the points you have stated are certainly valid considerations, there is no obligation to prove anything or subject oneself to any kind of test. The blind test I’ve been advocating will always include some degree of *chance*. Everything involves chance. There is a chance you wouldn’t wake up tomorrow because "tomorrow" isn’t guaranteed to anyone.
Each person has a different "tolerance" of chance that he/she is willing to take. This is why the terms of the test must be *mutually agreed and then bound contractually* to the satisfaction of both parties. Otherwise, no test. Simple.
Let’s try to focus for a second. There are many things that can go wrong with any audio test, even or perhaps especially blind tests. Failure to acknowledge that things can go wrong is an indication of the naive nature of blind test proponents. OK, so what can go wrong? Why do I say, “no test that has negative results means anything?”
Things that can go wrong
1. The system used for the test is not sufficiently resolving to distinguish differences that might be audible on a better system.
2. There are mistakes in the system that were not found even if there was a search for mistakes or errors. Saying that the test procedures are thorough doesn’t necessarily mean they really are thorough.
3. The hearing capability of the testee is not up to the task.
4. For a blind test involving many trials, say 10 or more, the odds are high that the testee doesn’t have the focus or strength to dinstinguish audible differences for periods of time without tiring. You can’t just say oh, well, that’s the way it goes.
5. System issues that go undetected due to naïveté of those involved in the test. Directionality of Fuses, directionality of cables, Polarity check of all connections, etc.
6. Using unfamiliar music for the test.
7. Using a test system unfamiliar to the testee.
8. Weather and other “external variables” that affect the sound of any system that could make hearing subtle differences in sound difficult or impossible.
What if results are positive?
If the results of a test are positive I would probably say the test was a success and the results were positive IN SPITE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT COULD HAVE GONE WRONG.
geoffkait - ”A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from witchcraft.”
Regarding the blind test to hear an audible difference when ordinary wire is reversed, you could bring along your witchcraft, voodoo and even perform a seance just prior to the test. It won't help you 🤣 🤑
markalarsen @geoffkait. You are not interested in an explanation.
geoffkait Uh, what are you talking about?
markalarsen John Stronczer provided the explanation, and you prefer to ignore it.
>>>>>I didn’t ignore it. It doesn’t have anything to do with me. His explanation does not (rpt not) contradict anything I said. At least I don’t think so. Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
