@frank009 +1 on your summary for @jrareform
Bear with me expanding the discussion on the sequence of the digital stream from the above discussion where redundant Ethernet protocols assure bit perfect sequenced data where shielding from RF is critical but there is no direct impact on timing that would impact sound quality. I am unfamiliar with optical cables from a quality engineering perspective so I will not wax on this subject. USB and SPDIF cables carry a clocked (timed) data package between the streamer and DAC. The DAC then locks onto the signal and reclocks the data, removing and y jitter introduced over the USB cable to the DAC. AES in certain system configurations with equipment capable can synchronize the streamer and DAC clocks. Logic prevails that cable design of these cables can impact sound quality significantly, in my opinion and based on my experience. High purity copper or silver conductors, better dielectric materials (like Teflon or foam), and better connectors reduce reflections, electromagnetic interference, and signal degradation resulting stable digital stream without electronic or electromagnetic anomalies. The cables require impedance matching especially SPDIF. USB design includes galvanic isolation, separating the ground of the source and DAC preventing noise from the computer’s USB ground from getting injected into the audio circuit, reducing jitter, and lowering noise floor. The better the galvanic isolation the better the SQ. So the design and quality of these cables have more of an impact than the Ethernet cable. The physics support the and we can continue to discuss ad nauseam the degree and benefit/ cost ratio of expensive USB, SPDIF, and AES cables.
While I have no experience with optical cables, but rather photographic equipment, I agree that glass and cable quality will logically have an effect. Just consider the image quality of Leica and Hasselblad over more consumer based cameras.

