Ethernet is a data cable. It's not an audio cable. Computer playback is buffered. Heavily. There are two buffers on the NIC itself for starters. Then you have either the USB or PCIe bus the EtherPHY sits on, then RAM, then back to buffer on the USB bus and buffer in the DAC itself.
The data has been copied multiple times.
As an experiment I picked up a $330 12 foot 'CAT8' Ethernet cable and I wired up 315 feet of generic CAT 5. All into a managed layer 3 switch with LAG and a $18 dual port Intel Server NIC (New pulls).
I setup a 2nd machine with a mastering grade ADC and captured tracks while playing back. Relying on the 6 seconds of JRivers default buffer to immunize the system from a break in play.
I posted two tracks and so far no one has been able to tell me how many changes were made, when the changes were made, what cable was in use.
Remember this is $0.30 generic CAT5 at 315 foot vs $27.50 foot at 12 feet CAT8.
If your high end streamer is affected by this then I don't have many good things to say about said streamer vs a $230 Quad Core, Passively cooled AMD Kabini system with a $18 NIC. |
|
@dgarretson
You need to re-read what I did: While I was capturing those two tracks I was ACTIVELY swapping out cables. Yes I was able to record tracks in their entirety while disconnecting Ethernet cabling and plugging another back in and as you can hear there was no break in the playback. Please let the significance of this sink in for a moment.
The tracks you are listening to are a composite of both cables. |
Douglas, what you are hearing is the direct output of the DAC. The upstream amp, cabling, speakers, room interaction, are all moot because they aren't in the loop.
People need to slow down and read what I'm typing because most are getting ahead of themselves.
If the Ethernet cable is altering the output of the DAC then it should be captured in the tracks I provided. |
dgarretson wrote:
"
That test is more Where's Waldo than ABX. Post two files of the same music, each recorded with a different Ethernet cable, and the opportunity to compare them at leisure."
I already posted two tracks. What I'm not doing is giving a 50/50 chance ;-)
You can listen to the two tracks I posted all you like. I am keen on your ears and what they can discern. Again the setup is dead simple: File Server, Switch, either 315 of dirt cheap CAT5 or 12 feet of uber expensive CAT8 (WireWorld Starlight) Client Computer, DAC, then ADC. |
"That is yet one other reason A/B testing is useless. One needs to compare over long periods of time....days and weeks before they really come to grips with changes in sound with wire, tweaks, or gear. You really need to settle in and live with the new sound over a period of many, many days."
Thanks for the laugh....
Oh to find an honest subjectivist.
|
@cleeds
I'm not the one making claims. I just testing those. When someone says they can jump 20 feet straight up and I bring out a bar that is 20 feet high, no matter if the bar is made of wood or gold, we are talking about how high someone can jump not what the bar is constructed of.
Either they can or they can not. They can do this on their own system, in their own room, using their own provided track of choice.
I would like to find an intellectually honest subjectivist.
|
@cleeds
Not one step too far as something the violates TOS but one step too far in ascribing realtime analog properties to a non-realtime system.
Did you know that during playback, for power saving purposes, parts of the NIC's power supply circuitry gets switched off?
Did you know that you can start playback, pull the Ethernet cable and still hear 3/6/10/20 or more seconds of playback? |
Here are the bottom line issues: Streaming is non realtime and buffered. There are Siemons and T.I. white papers that give very in depth analysis of Ethernet and it's resiliency: "
Magnetic field coupling occurs at low frequencies (i.e. 50Hz or 60 Hz) where the balance of the cabling system is more than sufficient to ensure immunity, which means that its impact can be ignored for all types of balanced cabling. Electric fields, however, can produce common mode voltages on balanced cables depending on their frequency. The magnitude of the voltage induced can be modeled assuming that the cabling system is susceptible to interference in the same manner as a loop antenna [1]. For ease of analysis, equation (1) represents a simplified loop antenna model that is appropriate for evaluating the impact on the electric field generated due to various interfering noise source bandwidths as well as the distance relationship of the twisted-pairs to the ground plane. Note that a more detailed model, which specially includes the incidence angle of the electric fields, is required to accurately calculate actual coupled noise voltage. Where: is the wavelength of the interfering noise source A = the area of the loop formed by the disturbed length of the cabling conductor (l) suspended an average height (h) above the ground plane E = the electric field intensity of the interfering source The wavelength, , of the interfering source can range anywhere from 5,000,000m for a 60 Hz signal to shorter than 1m for RF signals in the 100 MHz and higher band. The electric field strength density varies depending upon the disturber, is dependent upon proximity to the source, and is normally reduced to null levels at a distance of .3m from the source. The equation demonstrates that a 60 Hz signal results in an electric field disturbance that can only be measured in the thousandths of mV range, while sources operating in the MHz range can generate a fairly large electric field disturbance. For reference, 3V/m is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the average electric field present in a light industrial/ commercial environment and 10V/m is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the average electric field present in an industrial environment. The one variable that impacts the magnitude of the voltage coupled by the electric field is the loop area, A, that is calculated by multiplying the disturbed length of the cabling (l) by the average height (h) from the ground plane. The cross-sectional view in figure 3 depicts the common mode currents that are generated by an electric field. It is these currents that induce unwanted signals on the outermost conductive element of the cabling (i.e. the conductors themselves in a UTP environment or the overall screen/shield in a screened/fully-shielded environment). What becomes readily apparent is that the common mode impedance, as determined by the distance (h) to the ground plane, is not very well controlled in UTP environments. This impedance is dependent upon factors such as distance from metallic raceways, metallic structures surrounding the pairs, the use of non-metallic raceways, and termination location. Conversely, this common mode impedance is well defined and controlled in screened/fully-shielded cabling environments since the screen and/or shield acts as the ground plane. Average approximations for (h) can range anywhere from 0.1 to 1 meter for UTP cabling, but are significantly more constrained (i.e. less than 0.001m) for screened and fully-shielded cabling. This means that screened and fully-shielded cabling theoretically offers 100 to 1,000 times the immunity protection from electric field disturbances than UTP cabling does! And finally: Well balanced (i.e. category 6 and above) cables should be immune to electromagnetic interference up to 30 MHz." Then we have clock domain boundaries that are taken care of by FIFO buffers: https://youtu.be/a_RL56y8Fpo?t=622Here's the thing, despite all the backhanded jabs at my setup which you know nothing about, you simply aren't the smartest person in this context. If you were I would be getting an invite and asked to bring my cash. Your eye-brain connection is simply writing a check that can't be cashed. |
@shadorne
"
But the golden eared gurus who review and advise the masses are able to hear the difference in the quality of the coal burning at the coal-fired electric power station from 50 miles away - so why not Ethernet cables? "
I got into a conversation with William Low at WBF forum. He said people, all over the world, all the time, at all sorts of venues (trade shows) hear the difference in their Ethernet cabling.
Even in this very thread someone said they had people over that could hear the difference. Were they camping out for two weeks?
Michael Lavorgna said the differences in Ethernet cabling are 'Plain as Day' and 'Readily Apparent'.
So someone is lying. |
@geoffkait
I know Mike Lavigne couldn't tell his $30,000 Magnum Opus from Monster cable. Helpful hint: He has a $500,000 system. |
You don’t say? Was that during the period when his system was out of phase?
Would this be the same phase where he was able to deduce all sorts of flowery prose about his Magnum Opus? If you want to know at what point it's best to stop digging the hole you don't know you are standing in, well now's the time. |
"In your setup, if you have a layer 3 managed switch, and I turn on link aggregation and supply a generic CAT6 cable that all bets are off because now everything is wrong?"
I don’t agree with that statement. I don’t even know what that statement is supposed to mean. 😄 It’s because you’ve hit your technical limit of understanding about how Ethernet works but somehow you are more of a subject matter expert than I am all the same. While you don’t know what I am saying, you are still expert enough to simply disagree with what I suggested to do without realizing what it is that I would be doing? If you disagree with me setting up 802.11ad than I’m willing to listen to a well thought out technical rebuttal based on your direct experience. I know when I’m talking to a fellow network pro because soon as I mention Layer 3 Managed Switch LAG’s and an additional cable they automatically get it and know where I’m leading. |
Wait, so people can have positive results totally sighted, negative results when the answers are taken away before hand? Holy crumbs I better email institutions of higher learning and inform them of this epiphany of yours.
So you are saying sighted evaluation is the legitimate way to go about this and controlling for confirmation bias is not?
Ergo: sighted means everything goes ’correct’ and bias controlled evaluation means everything can go wrong.
In your setup, if you have a layer 3 managed switch, and I turn on link aggregation and supply a generic CAT6 cable that all bets are off because now everything is wrong?
|
@dynaquest4
I understand about gear snobbery. Thankfully I’m into at least doing some measurements to get an idea of what is going on.
It was mentioned about the Salk Streamer (just a computer), I’ve had chance to talk with Jim over the years and he’s a straight shooter as they come, but the Salk StreamPlayer, much like the Bryston that is based on the Pi, are common computers running Linux and MPD.
I can take the ECS Liva Z, add in M.2 storage and get it to sound just as good as the Salk and Bryston units. But I would rather just have a NAS elsewhere and not limit myself to just a few TB of storage.
All you need to know about the subjectivists in this thread is that if they don’t trust their ears, neither should anyone else.
Intellectual honesty is rare. |
@geoffkait
Well heck, according to posts in this thread it’s because my system wasn’t expensive enough to be highly resolving of a cable that is 2600% longer and 9100(yes 9 THOUSAND) percent less expensive per foot.
But yet the ADC tracks are some how well recorded. I’m just befuddled at how I could get the DAC=>ADC so close to the original in spite of generational loss. Gosh, how does that happen on a $250 playback machine?
At least you admit that the differences people talk about wrt to Ethernet cabling could actually just be the time of day and not that any difference exists. Did you ever consider that there’s no difference to be had?
Negative results certainly prove something: The lack of positive results.
Another interesting result: I can’t give away $2000.
|
I’m going to revert to 5 1/4 inch floppies for source material and wire my house with RG59, vampire clamps, and revert back to thinnet and use IPX/SPX for truly veil lifting bass and dance-ability of the highs. This will also add 2X to the ^57th power of sham-wowiness to vocal presence of the mids.
I’ve got audiophile resistors coming to terminate the thinnet with. Unfortunately I can’t afford IBM Token Ring, Banyan Vines, DEQNet, or AppleTalk.
Furthermore, I’m going to write all my device drivers in COBOL because C++ just sounds harsh and edgy and reformat all my disks with FAT16.
Next I’m going to let DOS 3.3 burn in for a month or two. You really do need to do OS burn-in to get the best sound. |
|
You say, "If the Ethernet cable is altering the output of the DAC then
it should be captured in the tracks I provided." Perhaps. That will
happen if the system is good enough. If it's poor then likely the
difference will not be noticeable. Seriously, a couple hundred dollar
system is what you are putting up for evidence? How about you get some
serious gear and do the test? Audiophilia is not the reduction of
quality to the lowest common denominator. You WILL get mediocre sound
that way.
I want to point out the gross error in 'logic' that is made by someone that has no idea what they are talking about. If I capture a track into my ADC and then I overlay it back over the original PCM from the 24/192 download that I recorded from and FFT shows less than a .1 dB variation in Amplitude response (or any other FFT analysis shows virtually null) then I have one simple question: How is a $250 system able to produce such accuracy if it's not 'some serious gear'? How about this. We setup your DAC and Streamer into an ADC and we setup my $250 computer into your DAC and into an ADC. Capture 9 tracks with one system. 1 track with the other. You can then analyze however you would like for as long as you like (you won't know which is which) and let us know which track is different from the other 9 and if it's the track from the $250 system or your streamer. This should be a no problem for someone with such a highly resolving system. |
As a person with a studied familiarity with established and validated scientific testing protocols I am not familiar with the term discrimnation elimination? I meant bias elimination (that of sighted input). It is a common error made by those lacking in scientific discipline to underestimate and oversimplify the requirements needed to conduct statistically valid scientific testing irregardless of the discipline under consideration in this case the components that comprise a Music Reproduction System. And anyone that is a subject matter expert is more than free to weigh in. My proposed method will either stand or modify based on input. Please also understand that I’m not out to find general norms per-se. I’m testing individual claims. If there are a group of people making the same claims then the N simply increases. Again if some one says they can jump 20 feet straight up, the bar to jump over isn’t being evaluated, it’s the claim of covering 20 vertical feet.
verity of your beliefs.
I don’t have a ’verity of beliefs’. I have data that leads me to a conclusion that: 1. I can’t hear the difference between 315 foot of generic CAT5 and 12 foot of boutique CAT8 2. Three other people that have tried the ADC’d tracks can’t tell when 315 foot or 12 foot of cabling was in play 3. No one has debunked my DA/AD setup is of inadequate resolution 4. So far I’ve interacted with 12 audiophiles that believe in the audibility of a data cable but I can’t give $2000 away. Even in this thread no one that has DL’d the tracks has hazarded a guess. |
What are you feeding with Ethernet? I can always order and evaluate.
|
@geoffkait
I see selective memory abilities are on full display.
In addition to FFT analysis I've also suggested 9 tracks recorded with one setup, 1 track with another.
Anyone can FULLY SIGHTED and with any bias affirming, ears only manner, evaluate the tracks and tell us when they hear a track that sounded like it came from either a $250 computer or a $2500 or even an $8000 streamer.
Most here strike me as the type that if they are in the hospital for a medical emergency that they are going to want all the diagnostic and measurement gear and procedures brought to bare.
|
There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time.
The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft
used logical fallacies of them all.
You may have missed the evaluation of a $250 computer output and that of high end streamer where the claimant could listen at their leisure fully sighted. On their own equipment, their own room, their own material, their own time frame. Fully sighted testing and complete control of the tracks. |
It comes down to this there are more than double blind testing for discrimination elimination.
|
this proposed testing protocol is not valid for several reasons including the simple fact that it is not double-blind Who said it was going to be double blind? I say "relatively simple" because of course you would need a proper ABX comparator and you would need to level-match the two signals to within a tight tolerance Why would you think there are going to be level differences at either the DAC or Amp output via change in Ethernet cabling? You don’t understand how this works.
any proposed alternative testing protocol would itself have to be established as scientifically valid which this proposed protocol would probably not be considered because it is so suspect on so many points
There there are two protocols here depending what is being tested. One is double blind but not strictly AB/X since it is self administered. Another is Single Blind since the person at the network switch would know what cable is in situ. The order would be randomly selected. the obvious truth of his hypothesis strongly suggest that he suffers extreme bias in this instance and should be disqualified from formulating the test but could perhaps participate in the testing as an observer or contributor. The obvious truth is hypothesis are meant to be reviewed by others and either reproduced or debunked. Anyone could be shown how to plug and unplug Ethernet cabling. Or I can do it and it can be recorded and monitored. No biggie either way. I’ve stated under what conditions I would accept being incorrect in my suppositions. Including a cable that is 2600% longer and 9100% cheaper per foot than a 12 foot boutique cable. All on a $250 system that others said produced well recorded DAC => ADC. My proposed method is also open to pointed and technically sound critique. You are welcome to bring experts into the discussion if you wish and can. |
I don’t think you are understanding the proposed in situ method. I would take a track of the claimants choosing, take a 1 minute interval of their choosing of said track. I would tack on a 15 second elevator clip of music.
This would be two rounds of 8 and changes would or wouldn’t happen during the 15 second interval. A cable will ALWAYS be unplugged/plugged in. Could be the same cable could be the other.
There could be anything from 0 to 7 changes. The order would be randomly chosen prior to each evaluation run.
Of course I encourage the claimant, prior to sitting for the sight bias controlled portion, to interact directly with the switch and they could play music and swap cabling out to their hearts content. I would hope 1 - 3 hours would be enough. As long as your streamer has 6-10 seconds worth of buffer you should be able to swap in real-time without interruption in playback.
Part of the origin this approach was me listening through the Phillips Golden Ear Challenge and seeing that it could work for other evaluation.
You are correct that the tracks I uploaded had a change made during playback as some people are fans of quick A/B.
|
Not only that but the simple act of unplugging one set of cables and inserting another destroys the subtle electric mechanical interface
Not sure what a 'subtle electric mechanical' interface is supposed to be. BUT Ethernet is intentionally designed to be hot plugged. Let's take this to its logical conclusion however. Cabling is really meant to be a device of least damage to the signal. The thing that is going to be better than any cable is no cable at all. Anyone here can test out if a generic cable is going to deteriorate SQ by starting playback and having someone remove the cable and see if SQ improves. Here's the thing: a cable can not improve SQ. It's a passive device there is nothing additive about it.
Preferably on a cable cooker
Anyone that has used any cabling long enough has cooked cables. What happens if they are using optical? We all have fully baked systems. the proper directionality of all cables involved should be predetermined. Otherwise the whole exercise would be more than a little fruitless IMHO
What direction would that be? Ethernet is bidirectional. Think about how you want to answer that because it's going to take us into shielded data cabling and it's something I know a lot about since I've installed and designed countless networks from multi site office to heavy industrial (auto manufacturing and the like). Is anyone here from the North West KY / Cincy region?
|
There’s the problem! Buy declaring it "data cabling" you’re completely ignoring the fact that the actual signal is the same as any other signal through wire or cable. It’s an electromagnetic wave that obeys the same laws of physics as any other signal, whether the signal contains data or music or doodlebugs. This is all starting to look like the same old bits is bits argument we’ve heard so much about over the past what, 35 years?
Not ignoring it at all. Since you brought it up: How is one cable with 4 pair of copper going into the Ethernet port of a device going to deviate from the laws of physics vs another cable with 4 pair of copper? We are talking multiple copy stack. Two buffers on the NIC, Then PCIe Bus, then RAM set aside by OS, then RAM set aside by the player application, Then more RAM set aside by the USB bus, then buffer in the DAC itself. These are all Clock Domain boundaries because the timing is different for each of these sub systems. The data has most likely been copied 6-8 times in transit and it's not real time. How come no one will answer this simple question: When playing back audio and you pull the Ethernet cable, and of course it will still play back (with most systems) for a few seconds, DOES THE SOUND IMPROVE? It's really a simple question and yet for some reason... |
The silence of the evangelists in response to your $2000 challenge is absolutely deafening. Any rational person has to ask, "how real can these claimed audible effects be if the evangelists refuse to pocket easy money and dismiss the opportunity to prove their claims?" What you are seeing is the same convolution of logic applied to a straight forward evaluation method that is applied to all sorts of baseless and unproven claims about data cabling.
|
Sorry, everyone is entitled to their preferences here. What’s "bonkers" is denying them that.
There is a difference between preference and potential self delusion. The primary problem is ascribing realtime flowery prose to non-real time systems.
I’ve never suggested a "sighted evaluation." I’ve suggested that if you seek a scientific test, you should follow established scientific protocols for conducting the test. Instead, you’ve proposed a convoluted "test" of your own design with multiple variables that isn’t scientific and isn’t double-blind.
1. I never said, or didn't say that the method is scientifically rigorous. That's for the naysayers to point out the pitfalls. The claims are simple and the testing method is simple. I've yet to see anyone actually point out a real fault with it. If you say you can jump 20 feet straight up, I don't have to contact the Psychology department, the Math department, the Physics department, at University just so I can show up with a tape measure and a bar. 2. Get off the Double Blind wagon. Not all tests that control sighted bias are double blind. The Pepsi taste challenge is one such, so is Penn and Tellers 'Organic Food' experiment. Now you can go the the YouTube comments and argue about the 'Scientific Validity' the 'Not Double Blindedness' of it all you want. People in general have pretty good BS meters and will see you are just being an apologist for the poor saps that are so easily hoodwinked. What are the convolutions of my test and what are 'all the variables'? In the testing with a L3 Managed Switch there are only two variables: The boutique cable and the garden variety cable. Everything else is the claimants own setup. They even get to experiment with swapping out cabling and evaluating fully sighted. I'm also going to bring along a much longer cable then they are most likely currently using. How about 400% longer? So if they have a 2 meter cable, I'll, right in front of them, construct an 8 meter cable? In what way am I being unfair? In what way am I being convoluted? In what way am I introducing too many variables? |
If the cables are copper they are directional. All bets are off.
How come no one will answer this simple question: When playing back audio and you pull the Ethernet cable, and of course it will still play back (with most systems) for a few seconds, DOES THE SOUND IMPROVE? It's really a simple question and yet for some reason...
|
I don’t have an ethernet connection in my audio system, so I can’t answer that based on experience. However, assuming (as I do) that the several highly experienced and widely respected audiophiles who have reported realizing significant sonic benefits by changing from one inexpensive ethernet cable to a different inexpensive ethernet cable are correct, and if the explanation of those benefits that I hypothesized in my post in this thread dated 3-27-2017 is correct, the sound may or may not improve depending on the specific system.
As you will realize in reading that post, and **if** my hypothesis is correct, whether or not the sound improves would depend on the path(s) by which, and the degree to which, the signals in the cable reach and affect downstream circuit points that are ostensibly unrelated to the ethernet interface. It would also depend on how the content of the signal sent into the cable by the source component changes when the cable is disconnected, as a result of that component having nothing to talk to at the other end.
So flipping this on it's head: It's not the cable, it's the device. I'm able to show via FFT that an $18 Intel NIC allows for 3 separate DACs to have un-altered output regardless of if I'm maxing out the driving voltage with a 315 foot generic cable or a 12 foot boutique cable. Ethernet spec has 328 ft / 100m single segment length. We are talking lengths that are, I would guess, that are typically 10 foot or less in in 95% of the consumer installations. So if really expensive equipment is actually susceptible to this then the EE's that are designing it don't know what they are actually doing. They may want to re-read Ott. |
It would also depend on how the content of the signal sent into the cable by the source component changes when the cable is disconnected, as a result of that component having nothing to talk to at the other end.
Why would it matter what the source is sending if you have disconnected it at the client? These are buffered (FIFO) systems and the audio is still playing. The only change in 'content' is the 100% lack thereof. Once again: What sonically changed about the audio when the cable was disconnected. What does the cable, what does mixed signal systems wrt to analog and digital ground plane mixing, have to do with the DAC playing out of buffer (that isn't going to get refilled unless the cable is plugged back in)? A good litmus test for these multi-thousand dollar pieces of audio gear is to evaluate it blinded and start playback and see if you can hear when a friend, without cueing you in on it, has disconnected the cable. If I / you hear a clear difference I would take a pass on it personally. |
Because as I indicated in my 3-27-2017 post possible pathways by which RFI may find its way from the cable to circuit points that are downstream of the ethernet interface include radiation into power wiring, or into other cables, or directly into various circuit points within the DAC or other components. And the degree to which that may occur may be affected by the bandwidth, shielding, and other characteristics of the cable being used. And perhaps also because noise generated by the ethernet interface circuitry at the receiving end may change as a result of having nothing connected to it.
Then I would suggest as T.I. does in "Reducing Radiated Emissions in 10/100 Ethernet LAN Applications" one uses a balanced power supply for the benefits of CMNR. Bottom line is that selecting well engineered componentry is what is needed for fidelity. I'm already able to produce ADC'd tracks, that given the natural losses of generational copy, are extremely close to the source PCM when compared. So that means, by fact, my $250 is indeed very transparent and high resolution, and that an $18 NIC, a $69 mainboard, $24 stick of 4GB DDR3, $55 240GB SSD, $25 PICO PSU, $60 LPS is impervious to changes in cable vs some that claim their $8000 device is capable of 'resolving' when it's really a failure for it to protect the output from something as simple as a change in one short run of cable vs another. |
As far as I can recall, everything that has been said in this thread by those who deny that the reported sonic differences are real has focused on the robustness and accuracy of ethernet communications. While ignoring or discounting what I would consider, based on my experience, to be the very real possibility of interactions between signals and circuits that are ostensibly unrelated. Designs should not be assumed to behave in a manner that is theoretically ideal, IMO, and signals should not be assumed to only follow their intended pathways.
Agreed, but that is going to happen regardless of Audioquest or WireWorld or Nordost. Bottom line is there are only so many ways to engineer an Ethernet Cable and the standards body steers these considerations. When a $340 AudioQuest Vodka was measured it was actually marginal for 6A operation for NeXT. Where as my $12 6A cable was 200% better in this regard. I'm able to show up and terminate UTP CAT5 or STP CAT6 to the same as is whatever they are using. I understand the theory and not in disagreement. All the same I stand by what I have said I would do and that is show up with ~40-50 feet of cabling, terminate on the spot and with a L3MS in LAG let the claimant A/B sighted for 1-3 hours and then we can move through the rounds of testing. |
Here is a good presentation of Audio and Ethernet by Belden. |
If you’re not interested in a scientifically valid test, then this exercise is really just a waste of time, imo. But it’s fine if you’re having fun with it - that’s no problem. Just please don’t assail what you call our lack of "intellectual integrity" because we’re interested in a valid, repeatable test. I believe the method is scientifically valid and I haven’t seen any material counterpoint to it. The method is 100% repeatable. Easily. As a matter of fact I’ll make available my SG200-8 configuration file. Anyone can get this 8 port switch for less than $100, download the configuration file and apply it. Ports 7/8 will be the a Dynamic LACP LAG (802.11ad) and you can use any other port for a connection to a file server. You can hang two cables(7/8) and plug into your device and swap out without issue during playback assuming you have about 3 seconds worth of buffer. The LAG on the switch assigns both ports the same MAC address in the CAM table so when layer 2 frames are routed both ports receive and send it. |
Sorry to say you’re a long way from the going rate for audiophiles. Self respecting Audiophiles would turn their noses up at the suggestion of $2000
Glad to see you speak for all of Audiophilia. My alternative theory, and it lines up with the Chris Wiggles / Michael Lavigne session, is that subjectivist can't cash any of the checks they write. |
At least three contributors in this thread have explained how your test fails to meet scientific protocol. So either you’re not paying attention, or you’re just here to argue. Post numbers please. Let’s say you maintain you can jump 20 feet straight up. If I show up with a tape measure and a bar and offer $2K for you to jump, what is non-scientific about it? Their sighted evaluation certainly holds no water. So not sure why you would give the credence over a well controlled evaluation rig. |
And perhaps more significantly there are jitter effects that will arise as a result of noise whenever D/A conversion is performed, of course.
Is this jitter at the DAC or else where? If at the DAC then it's nothing to do with the Ethernet cable since there is no audio clocking on Ethernet. If it's on the Ethernet cable then it's of no issue since FIFO will take care of all that and make it 100% a non-issue. |
That doesn't mean that your audio reproduction gear is going to be susceptible to it like an AM Antenna is. The Antenna is doing what it's designed to do.
It’s an interesting experiment. It’s also why when I do structured, low voltage cabling, I take all external factors into account when choosing what and how I’m going to run.
But if there are no cofounders then there is nothing to mitigate. That is going to be the norm for most installations and it’s an easy norm to hit.
Shield is part of the 6A spec. Again the IEEE standards body defines the #’s to hit. This in turn dictates cable construction. There are only so many ways to do this. If a string and two cans could hit the spec then that would work also.
I prefer wireless. Try to pick up 2.4GHz or 5GHz with AM sometime. |
I'm referring to jitter at the point of D/A conversion, within the DAC component. If the explanation for the reported differences that I stated in my post dated 3-27-2017 is correct (and both I and Shadorne have stated that we cannot conceive of any other possible explanation, assuming the reported sonic perceptions are correct), it **does** have to do with the ethernet cable, **even though** the signals being conducted by that cable ostensibly have no relation to the timing of D/A conversion.
Careful reading of my 3-27-2017 post should make what I am saying clear.
Easily tested. Have someone at random pull the cable during playback. Archimago even showed 8Khz USB packet rate noise showing up in a DAC. The advice, and it mirrors, shadorne, and I think you would agree: "Think you have a jitter issue? Save up the cash and buy a better asynchronous USB DAC - forget cables and tweak products IMO." Use the Dunn J-Test. I've read the literature by the likes of Siemons, T.I. and others and I'll stand by my position. Properly built cables CAT 6 that certify out on Fluke/Tektronix will be neutral. What good is a standard if it doesn't offer consistency. I've certainly provided more actual information in the form a ADC'd tracks with a 315 cable coiled up on the floor vs 12 foot. |
Of course AM radio is affected by unshielded Ethernet wires. This quite normal observation does not mean that in corollary the Ethernet signal has all kinds of digital static from the radio. Digital signals are extremely robust and there are error detection methodolgies to reject and retransmit packets of data in the event of interruption or data Tx collision from multiple devices (to the point of a hot swap of cable).
The SNR of PAM 16 encoding is 30dB. I don't hear anyone talking about that and how it affects audio output. |
You shouldn't be scared. The offer is one of transparency.
As David Lee Roth once said: You can either do it one take or you can't.
|
What’s been ugly about this thread? No name calling, a ton of real data produced. Good questions asked that subjectivists either won’t or can’t answer.
My position is no one here can hear a difference. I’ll offer this: $10,000 to anyone’s $2000 and loser pays travel expenses.
I’ll do this on their setup and they need to hit 18 / 20 possible changes and what cable it was. I’ll bring a BJC Ethernet cable. How about twice or three times longer than the Boutique cable?
Of course they won’t know what cable is in use.
These are the conditions that I’m willing to be proven incorrect. I have to ask what conditions would have to happen for a person that thinks they can hear realtime differences in a non-realtime system?
I only care about experience if the claimant has a good track record. When it comes to people hearing all sorts of audible differences in Ethernet cabling I have to question any opinion they have on anything else audible.
|
I’ve seen some claims about the stark contrast of cables. Those either can stand up to a straight 20 run.... or it can’t.
I’m testing claims.
If you claim you can hear night and day, easy and readily apparent, differences. Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy to test.
The fact of the matter is you aren’t going to get 400 subjetivists to participate. So I’ll shoot for going one at a time.
If I have a group of people that state they can flap their arms and fly, do I still need 1000 people in the N? |
Also, while my own system does not utilize an ethernet connection, the many posts that have been made here over the years by members such as Grannyring, DGarretson, Bryoncunningham, and others who have reported finding audibly significant differences among inexpensive ethernet cables warrant a great deal of respect for their reported perceptions, IMO.
1. I don't believe them 2. I have a different IMO that I'm willing to put $$ where my mouth is. Out of a spec that allows for 328 foot, will routinely drive 380 foot without BER, I'll stand pat on a properly constructed, passes spec, Blue Jeans CAT6 vs a boutique cable that also passes spec and similarly constructed. And when I say of similar construction I'm talking the shield if any and how it's connected (or not). Anyone that thinks 3/6/12/20 foot of spec compliant cables that are all constructed the same is going to make a difference is fooling themselves. There is is now $20,000 to someones $2000 out there for the easy taking. |
It could be any ’cology’ but it doesn’t prevent claims from being testable.
You can flap your arms and fly, you can leap 10 foot tall beams in a single bound, the earth is flat, you can walk on water, boutique Ethernet cables sound better.
None of these require a rigorous 1000 N sampling for the sake of science or statistics. Neither does the delusion that people are hearing all these differences in same constructed, passes spec, Ethernet cabling. It’s pure looney bin type stuff.
Is there anyone that has the faith in their ears, that they routinely posture with, here? The real issue is that if you are delusional about Ethernet and all these perceived differences then you find it all disappears when bias is controlled for it singularly brings into question everything else you have to say. It’s a credibility buster no doubt. I understand the apprehension that some aren’t the golden ears they’ve allowed their ego to be pumped up to. |
Ah, the controlled double blind test rears its ugly head.
It's not a double blind test. |
That's usually what controlling bias, your words, implies.
This would be SBT. It's still controlling the lister BIAS. Toole and Olive are fans of bias controlled testing. I could even setup the testing rig to be operated by someone the claimant chooses. Just a quick bit of training is all it would take. |
