Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

He’s been digging around inside digital gear for 25 years?! Well, that blows my theory that he’s only 15 years old all to hell. 

geoffkait

He’s been digging around inside digital gear for 25 years?! Well, that blows my theory that he’s only 15 years old all to hell.

His "Go give yourself a cookie" rejoinder and temper tantrums reveal that he probably hasn’t reached 15 yet.

@markalarsen is your Ethernet cable directly connected to your DAC?
If so - can you please provide your understanding how digital data becomes analog inside your DAC?

What is the source of your data on the other side of the Ethernet cable?

Toward the end of this thread a member having a very high end system reported that to his amazement inserting a cheap network switch between his router and his Bricasti M1 Special Edition DAC (ca. $10K) + optional network interface resulted in a substantial improvement in sonics. Another member who had suggested to him that he do that had experienced similar benefits in a different high quality system, after having done so based on a number of experiences that were reported by others at a different forum.

Why would that be? Certainly not because adding the switch would improve the accuracy with which 1s and 0s are communicated, which was undoubtedly perfect to begin with. As I stated in that thread:

Almarg 12-25-2017
... the benefit that might result, if any, [would] depend on the particular router and perhaps also on the ethernet cabling that is being used, as well as on the particular switch and DAC. Presumably any sonic difference that might occur would result from differences in the waveform characteristics (e.g., risetimes, falltimes, and distortion) and also the noise content of the signal received by the DAC. Which in turn may affect the degree to which the RF content of that signal may find its way around the ethernet interface in the DAC and affect DAC circuitry that is further downstream.

Almarg 12-25-2017
My point is that no matter how good a job the DAC does in cleaning up the signal it receives, and no matter how good the design of the DAC may be, signals and noise don’t necessarily just affect or entirely follow only their intended pathway. And the waveform characteristics and the noise characteristics of the signal that enters the DAC will affect how and if RF energy present in that signal may to at least a small degree find its way via unintended pathways to unintended circuit points "downstream" of the ethernet interface and the internal reclocker you referred to.

Steve N. of Empirical Audio (member "Audioengr"), who of course is a respected designer of high end DACs and other digital audio components, subsequently seconded my comment, while suggesting different terminology:

Audioengr 1-5-2018
Very true, however I would avoid the term "RF". Its mostly what is referred to as "conducted" interference. In the case of Ethernet, it is leakage across the transformer interface.

I don’t see any reason why differences among cables might not have similar effects on the signal, albeit probably to a lesser degree.

Regards,
-- Al

For those interested in real world results, read "Ethernet Cables - Yes I’m going there… I was a skeptic and I was wrong" on the PS Audio Forum.

https://forum.psaudio.com/t/ethernet-cables-yes-im-going-there-i-was-a-skeptic-and-i-was-wrong/4393/10

There are similar theads on the PS Audio Formum with the same result.

OMG, Ted Smith, the designer of the PS Audio DirectStream, agrees that ethernet cables do make a difference.  I will bet Steve Nugent will agree.  Both great product BTW.

kosst_amojan has not tested his theory.  He has not designed a streaming DAC, apparently does not own one, and has never tested his theory, although he has "dug around inside of them."  Often wrong, but never uncertain.