Ars prepares to put “audiophile” Ethernet cables to the test in Las Vegas

[sandyk]

When are you going to man up and buy a Mac? You have no idea how good your music can really sound until you do. And your conclusions are all erroneous.

 

If I could afford it, I would even perhaps consider a Mac, but not a Mac Mini without at least a JS2 Linear PSU and fan controller. Unfortunately that puts it well out of my price range. Perhaps you should man up and buy a real Mac, and not a jam packed , RF/EMI ridden baby Mac without even room for expansion cards or a decent internal Optical Reader,

or anything other than the limited choice of Motherboard Optical Out or the flawed USB which needs a lot more cash thrown at it in the way of expensive USB cables , Regens or other devices?

[firedog]

In a blind taste test of Chocolate vs Vanilla and the tasting experts where is the control? The test parameters are based on claims. I'm not making the claims. I'm designing a test around those claims and also around the objections that are normally going to thrown up. I'm mitigating the variables of questionable electronics.

 

Ever studied about how proper (objective) taste tests are done? Not the kind used in commercials.

 

It's extremely difficult, even for experienced testers, to design a test that doesn't have a bias, and actually tests which food is preferred. There are dozens of little things that can prejudice the test.

 

My guess is that an amateur like you will get it wrong, but will be sure he is being the height of "scientific". There are reasons there are very few peer reviewed articles on audio. And even many of the "serious" ones that don't have peer review - AES, for instance - are full of scientific holes when you examine them. Like the famous Meyer/Moran study of hi-res that is full of holes that render it meaningless.

 

So there are reasons for people of good will not to want to participate in a test you set up: Lack of qualifications, and bias.

[sandyk]

c'mon admit the truth. But when it's a company YOU like, suddenly it's okay. What happened to science and objectivity?

 

That is so true in general, but unfortunately it probably applies to almost everyone here.

[firedog]

Because selling a cable that is some how CAT7 when CAT7 doesn't exists and compound that with the fact that it's not even CAT6A, regardless of price, is false advertising.

Interesting claim, as the BJC spokesman in the ARS article clearly said that

Denke opened his explanation by saying that BJC isn’t equipped to test to "category 7" specifications, to which the Vodka cable is labeled as conforming (indeed, there is no universally agreed-upon "category 7" standard for Ethernet cables—it has an ISO spec, but not a TIA type)

 

So in no way is the claim that it is a CAT 7 cable a "false one". And the cable was given a "marginal pass" as CAT6a - not a failure. So just another tendentious claim of yours.

 

If you want to have credibility - you have to show credibility. You don't.

[firedog]

I agree with that suggestion. I'd use something like a range of digital SRC filters, from minimum-phase to linear-phase with some differing slopes. Audibility and measurability of those is not particularly controversial, and it is the sort of thing that reveals itself--and the listeners' abilities--as variation in attack and harmonic envelope. I won't say that all cable differences fall into that category, but if a person can tune into the aspects of musical "rightness" or "wrongness" wrought by filters, then they are more likely to be able to discern other subtle cues.

 

Problem is, I don't think such participant screening necessarily helps pick people who are not thrown off by the process. What I believe would go FAR further in providing a test environment where users can reliably identify differences would be to allow each participant to use his own music--and to direct when a switch occurs and what tracks to go back to. Thus I believe that valid testing REQUIRES that users essentially listen alone to their own music at their own pace.

 

What do the rest of you think of that?

 

+1

[esldude]

Mentions of flavors and such. Blind testing for preference of (artificial) flavours is big business. Pretty simple criteria too. It works and the products sell very well or it doesn't and money is lost. Mostly it works, and works pretty well. It is essential for many products that use artificial flavoring. Such testing is often 2 alternative forced choice testing. A method I thought might work well for audiophiles vs the normal ABX version done. I can explain more, but it bores most people it seems.

 

In any case, this works in the business world, why would it not work in the audiophile world?

 

I once had access a decade or so ago of failed products. Things test marketed that don't do well and get dumped. Snack foods in this instance. Sometimes you can see why they failed even if they somewhat worked. The most memorable is a product that wasn't too different from popcorn which had a few choices. The one I remember was pepperoni pizza. Heat it up a bit in a microwave, and pop it in your mouth. If you were blind folded, other than the mouth feel (very important in the artificial food biz), you would be hard pressed to tell it from a real pizza. Hard pressed indeed. It was a bit disconcerting to taste popcorn like food that at the same time was screaming in your brain this is a pepperoni pizza. Hence I think why it failed. I found it novel enough, and pleasant enough (I really like good pepperoni pizza or even better proper hand tossed Neopolitan pizza with fresh ingredients) that I loved the stuff. But it was a bit of a shock in a sense too. I can see why it didn't work. But the flavoring was so good in this case it was a problem. Who would have thought you can mimic pizza in such a form so well it was difficult to deal with the cognitive dissonance when it was puffed chips in a bag? All thru the magic of 2AFD blind testing to hone the formula for preference.

 

Ah, yeah, right who cares? Blind testing doesn't work in audiophilia. Bad MoJo. Somehow no one has yet to explain to me how things which work with all of our other senses doesn't work with our hearing. Our bulk brain processing is for visual stuff. Hearing is merely second fiddle. Vision slops up nearly 90% of the processing power. Hearing takes lots of shortcuts since it is allocated much less to work with. Yet somehow all this stuff that works for vision and other senses is no good, bad mojo for hearing. Yeah right!

[sandyk]

Vision slops up nearly 90% of the processing power.

 

Is that why most females close their eyes when being kissed ? ( I don't mean by me either, which could be understandable )

[esldude]

Is that why most females close their eyes when being kissed ? ( I don't mean by me either, which could be understandable )

 

Quite possibly. Tactile touch gets very little bandwidth. Closing your eyes will very obviously intensify that experience and make it much more memorable.

[Snowmonkey]

Is that why most females close their eyes when being kissed ? ( I don't mean by me either, which could be understandable )

Quite possibly. Tactile touch gets very little bandwidth. Closing your eyes will very obviously intensify that experience and make it much more memorable.

Or they're just trying to pretend it's Hugh Jackman they're kissing.

[plissken]

I'll try to be clear:

 

You are designing a test to try and prove a negative. (Ethernet cables do not cause a system to sound different.)

 

I suggest you need to be designing it to *prove* that Ethernet cables *do* cause a system to sound different.

 

And yes, there is a strong component of perceptual testing involved, and no, it is not at all like putting a component on the bench and hooking it up.

 

-Paul

 

Not correct. I'm testing to see if an audio enthusiast populace will trend with the claims I already mentioned. There is no negative to prove. The results may show that the population I test with can't discern with any reliability but it doesn't mean differences don't exist. They just don't exist for the context and on the equipment, in the venue, and for the people I end up with as a sample pool.

 

You can't prove a negative and I'm not about to try.

[mmerrill99]

Here's my issue with this whole premise - the concept of "night and day" means something different to all of us. And frankly, if ANY cable presents a "night and day" difference such that your average person who really doesn't "listen" to music can pick it out, something was wrong with one cable or the other. It's just a very dumb way to market a product IMO. And regardless of the testing procedures, this outcome was readily predicted from the outset.

 

Sure, there are some things in audio that ARE night and day - compare a dCS Vivaldi to a Schiit Modi and you have a stark difference, price notwithstanding. Same for a SET amp vs the amp in a common AV Receiver. But I truly do not think that a consensus will ever be reached when it comes to the "cable debate" whether it's speaker, analog interconnects, and especially digital cables. For someone who is intimately familiar with their own material in their own space with their own gear? Yes, I don't doubt they may find some subtle changes happening. But to claim those are "night and day" no matter how dramatic the author tends to be, is just a silly claim and is shameless marketing hype. No amount of testing, proper procedures, lab environments, will change that.

 

Again, just my opinion as an untrained ear in the literal sense.

 

But here's the shocker - put those two examples (dCs Vs Schiit & SET amp Vs AV receiver amp) in a similar blind test to the one that's being proposed here & guaranteed you will get a "no difference" result.

 

This will happen for two reasons - the first is got to do with the design of the test; the second is that these "night & day" differences disappear when put in a blind situation. The question is why this happens? One side will say that it is because they are very subtle differences to begin with; another side will say that the blind testing itself introduces self-doubt & confusion in the listener.

 

The answer, I believe, is a combination of these factors & whatever is the underlying reason, the fact is that audio blind testing tends towards a null result unless it is very carefully designed

[plissken]

What does that have to do with my claim the taking their cable to a direct competitor for a test is both scientifically and ethically questionable. You claim to be interested in objectivity and science. Do you think having a cable tested at a direct commercial competitor is either? Would any kind of peer reviewed academic journal accept such a test? I think not.

 

No, an Academic Journal would ask how BJC did the test and then attempt to reproduce the results therefore either confirming or debunking their results.

 

My god how do some of you roll out of bed and not continually put both legs into the same pant hole?

 

The fact that either you or I may trust BJC is irrelevant, other than to ourselves. If some "audiophile" company that I think has an "unassailable reputation" did something that and showed the opposite, you'd be the first to scream "bias" - c'mon admit the truth. But when it's a company YOU like, suddenly it's okay. What happened to science and objectivity?

 

All that need be done is for AQ to make an investment on a $10,000 tester. If a company selling $14 cables can purchase one and certify their cables then a company who's least expensive cable is twice the price can.

 

This is AQ's golden opportunity to show egg on BJC's face. Grab 20 unopened cables send them to an outfit that installs and certifies data networks for a living and have them measure and publish the results. I think we all know why that's not going to happen.

 

And judging by the test result and the pic's of the termination AQ just has cable drawn out in bulk, hand terminated, and straight to packaging. For them not to make such a basic investment leaves me wondering about their cable know how on the rest of their line. You think Ethernet is hard to get right? Try HDMI terminations.

[plissken]

Interesting claim, as the BJC spokesman in the ARS article clearly said that

 

So in no way is the claim that it is a CAT 7 cable a "false one". And the cable was given a "marginal pass" as CAT6a - not a failure. So just another tendentious claim of yours.

 

If you want to have credibility - you have to show credibility. You don't.

 

??

 

I would just settle for AQ to stop advertising their cable as CAT7 (i.e. stop the false advertising). Their CAT7 claim is indeed false and I can prove it.

 

2nd I would take a cable that is solidly in the pass vs marginally and pocket the $325 difference in the process.

 

3rd Purchase $325 of music.

[Jud]

??

 

I would just settle for AQ to stop advertising their cable as CAT7 (i.e. stop the false advertising). Their CAT7 claim is indeed false and I can prove it.

 

2nd I would take a cable that is solidly in the pass vs marginally and pocket the $325 difference in the process.

 

3rd Purchase $325 of music.

 

Companies advertise compliance all the time with standards that have yet to be finally adopted. The certainty that the AQ cables would not pass CAT 7 at this point appears to exist in your mind rather than in the form of CAT 7 test results in the open. So the entire "false advertising" theme seems premature at this point.

[plissken]

Companies advertise compliance all the time with standards that have yet to be finally adopted. The certainty that the AQ cables would not pass CAT 7 at this point appears to exist in your mind rather than in the form of CAT 7 test results in the open. So the entire "false advertising" theme seems premature at this point.

 

AQ uses the Telegaernter and this is from their spec page:

 

Additionally CAT7 working group has excluded the current 8P8C from the spec. The GG45 is a backward compatible connector with 4 additional connectors.

 

When a Vodka cable is plugged into a tester capable of analyzing a standard that uses a 12 conductor vs 8 conductor cable I'm assuming that you get the significance as to why it won't pass spec.

 

Some people around here would be better off accepting there are indeed the possibilities of absolutes.

 

AQ is falsely advertisting their cables.

[Jud]

AQ uses the Telegaernter and this is from their spec page:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20051[/ATTACH]

 

Some people around here would be better off accepting there are indeed the possibilities of absolutes.

 

AQ is falsely advertisting their cables.

 

I'm an attorney. Thank you for instructing me in the finer points of false advertising law, and for your assurance that it is an "absolute" that AQ is engaging in false advertising. This statement of yours in my area of expertise provides a data point with regard to reliability of your previous "absolute" declarations outside my expertise.

[jabbr]

One conclusion (which doesn't negate others, such as BJC making a fine product and wanting customers to be sure of that as well) is that this is an aspect of BJC's overall marketing which would very likely be completely lost on AQ's customers.

 

Ha! ... Well one wonders. For those of us who could afford at least a few AQ cables without batting an eye, and could also afford Mercedes, Porsche, Maserati, BMW, one could not imagine buying a car without first reading a review which contains specs such as HP etc. and then taking a test drive under which certain aspects of the car are tested. If I found out that the wood was actually plastic, for example, I wouldn't purchase. Similarly if the 400HP were only 220. etc. etc. ***

 

In any case I still strongly advocate going optical for anyone in the market for AQ but for those people with a strange fixation on electrical Ethernet wouldn't you at the very least want Belden mediatwist under the hood?

 

*** for those of you whose goal is to pick up girls, glass is far better than silver plated copper. You can always impress her by driving your Bugatti to the Corning glass museum in Corning NY and touring the place where your cables are made :)

[Jud]

Ha! ... Well one wonders. For those of us who could afford at least a few AQ cables without batting an eye, and could also afford Mercedes, Porsche, Maserati, BMW, one could not imagine buying a car without first reading a review which contains specs such as HP etc. and then taking a test drive under which certain aspects of the car are tested. If I found out that the wood was actually plastic, for example, I wouldn't purchase. Similarly if the 400HP were only 220. etc. etc. ***

 

In any case I still strongly advocate going optical for anyone in the market for AQ but for those people with a strange fixation on electrical Ethernet wouldn't you at the very least want Belden mediatwist under the hood?

 

*** for those of you whose goal is to pick up girls, glass is far better than silver plated copper. You can always impress her by driving your Bugatti to the Corning glass museum in Corning NY and touring the place where your cables are made :)

 

I'm interested in the work being done on Ethernet in computer audio, certainly including optical. As products come out I'll be curious to see how they deal with known issues (e.g., noise created by opto-electrical conversion), and what other new and unfamiliar issues may arise.

[jabbr]

I'm interested in the work being done on Ethernet in computer audio, certainly including optical. As products come out I'll be curious to see how they deal with known issues (e.g., noise created by opto-electrical conversion), and what other new and unfamiliar issues may arise.

 

Very reasonable consideration. Again noise is a very certain consideration in the design and implementation of high performance networks and so a lot has been measured and discussed. Generally electro-optical conversion is considered to be a low noise process -- consider the LED for example, which is used as a very low noise diode in high performance low noise linear regulator circuits -- see the Salas Shunt Regulators (and others on DIY Audio) for example -- now there are different electro-optical converters such as for multimode vs singlemode fiber, for example. Generally, the lower the noise, the faster and farther the signal can be sent. Singlemode can take 100g+ over kms. Needless to say: known noise issues are vastly improved. New and unfamiliar issues are just that:)

 

 

http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GNGOPTX/public/jul12/nicholl_01_0712_optx.pdf

http://www.jdsu.com/ProductLiterature/jc2-10lx4aa1-ds-oc-ae.pdf

100 Gb/s Physical-Layer Testing Tips and Tricks >> Evaluation Engineering

IEEE Xplore Abstract - A 25Gb/s low noise 65nm CMOS receiver tailored to 100GBASE-LR4

[Paul R]

If I could afford it, I would even perhaps consider a Mac, but not a Mac Mini without at least a JS2 Linear PSU and fan controller. Unfortunately that puts it well out of my price range. Perhaps you should man up and buy a real Mac, and not a jam packed , RF/EMI ridden baby Mac without even room for expansion cards or a decent internal Optical Reader,

or anything other than the limited choice of Motherboard Optical Out or the flawed USB which needs a lot more cash thrown at it in the way of expensive USB cables , Regens or other devices?

 

The Mac I am typing this on costs a bit over $3000, and it plays the music exactly like the $599 Mac Mini. (shrug) The Mini might even sound a little better, since it does not have video to contend with and filter out.

 

Mac Mini's also have PCI/e, and much better than those all in one box off the shelf straight from boat in the dark of Midnight Windows PCs you love. Better because it is connected via Thunderbolt and can be isolated from the computer, if one is concerned about EMI and such.

 

Man up - you can get zero percent financing from Apple for that little Mac. It will sound better than the system you use now without spending another dime. ]8)

 

-Paul

 

 

With a well designed DAC, USB is every bit as good any other interface, and often much better than S/PDIF.

[Paul R]

Not correct. I'm testing to see if an audio enthusiast populace will trend with the claims I already mentioned. There is no negative to prove. The results may show that the population I test with can't discern with any reliability but it doesn't mean differences don't exist. They just don't exist for the context and on the equipment, in the venue, and for the people I end up with as a sample pool.

 

You can't prove a negative and I'm not about to try.

 

But now once again, you have changed your test criteria! Now you are testing for a trend?! Polling works much better for that than does blind testing.

 

Anyway, I thought you were testing to see if individuals could discern an audible differences between ethernet cables...

 

SO, you have listed out a ton of different things you are testing for, and managed to toss out insults to many people whose area of expertise overlaps what you are trying to test.

 

Just step back and relax man - you are too emotionally wrapped up in the subject. A little cool and dispassionate thought is needed. Believe me, designing tests is not easy!

 

 

-Paul

[christopher3393]

Reflecting on the momentous event (for which I'll borrow the title "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas") that inspired this thread, I'm reminded of a sonnet:

 

Quite unexpectedly, as Vasserot

The armless ambidextrian was lighting

A match between his great and second toe,

And Ralph the lion was engaged in biting

The neck of Madame Sossman while the drum

Pointed, and Teeny was about to cough

In waltz-time swinging Jocko by the thumb --

Quite unexpectedly the top blew off:

 

And there, there overhead, there, there hung over

Those thousands of white faces, those dazed eyes,

There in the starless dark the poise, the hover,

There with vast wings across the cancelled skies,

There in the sudden blackness the black pall

Of nothing, nothing, nothing -- nothing at all.

 

"The End of the World"

by Archibald MacLeish

 

...and another round of Vodka for all!

[Teresa]

I am stating that ABX testing can be of use in differentiating certain types of differences..

 

Those differences would have to be gigantic since cognitive bias and listening fatigue are real problems with AB and ABX testing, either sighted or blind. And most important differences are accumulative and can only be discovered with long term listening. Heck, even for me, early CDs on the first Sony CD player (CDP-101) sounded good the first 10 minutes or so until the accumulative effects of its strident, cold sound became evident. AB and ABX testing either sighted or blind does not account for accumulative effects on sound quality.

 

I don't believe it is a "gold standard" By & large it is a test fraught with so issues & many unseen biases while at the same time pretending that it is just being used to eliminate "expectation bias" & is so badly done in 99% of cases that is nigh on useless.

 

I agree and I feel long-term listening is a better way to overcome any expectation bias a listener is likely to have, as over time any audio product will reveal its true sound.

 

I have learned the hard way never to rush to judgement as to the sound quality of anything, especially if it costs money.

 

...If the difference is night and day or easily discernible, goal posts not set by the test administrator mind you, then that's all that is needed...

 

Night and day or easily discernible differences are based on long term listening after a burn-in period and never to my knowledge discovered with AB or ABX testing, the human ear/brain system doesn’t work that way.

 

…If people get to find how long they have maximum acuity, they will find short sections out perform longer ones…

 

Because of cognitive bias, neither short samples or long samples will work. When switching back and forth your brain equalizes the sound, so everything sounds the same, and if you switch back and forth more than a few times everything will sound like crap.

 

AB and ABX testing either sighted or blind does not work!

 

...Blind testing doesn't work in audiophilia. Bad MoJo. Somehow no one has yet to explain to me how things which work with all of our other senses doesn't work with our hearing..

 

I have explained this to you many times. It’s not just hearing, blind testing doesn’t work with any of the fives senses. The only way I know to determine differences (if they exist) and which one sounds the best is with long term listening over several weeks using a wide variety of music.

 

On the other hand DBTs work in the medical field as the human subjects don't have to make any decisions whatsoever. The subjects either are given the real medicine or a sugar pill. Those who get well taking the sugar pill do so as unconsciously their believe the medicine is real thus their antibodies manage to kill the disease, this is known as the placebo effect. If considerably more people get well with the new drug than with the sugar pill, the drug is considered effective. None of our five senses come into play in this type of test.

 

Thus, there should be no rush to judgement with any of our five senses.

 

Science does fine when they stick with inanimate objects or natural laws of the universe. When they attempt to try to explain expected individual responses to stimulus to any of our five senses they go wildly astray.

 

Cognitive bias

- your brain will fill in missing information thus making both sound the same on repeated listening.

 

Listener Fatigue

- switch back and forth too much and both will sound like crap.

[Superdad]

The one I remember was pepperoni pizza. Heat it up a bit in a microwave, and pop it in your mouth. If you were blind folded, other than the mouth feel (very important in the artificial food biz), you would be hard pressed to tell it from a real pizza. Hard pressed indeed. It was a bit disconcerting to taste popcorn like food that at the same time was screaming in your brain this is a pepperoni pizza. Hence I think why it failed. I found it novel enough, and pleasant enough (I really like good pepperoni pizza or even better proper hand tossed Neopolitan pizza with fresh ingredients) that I loved the stuff. But it was a bit of a shock in a sense too. I can see why it didn't work. But the flavoring was so good in this case it was a problem. Who would have thought you can mimic pizza in such a form so well it was difficult to deal with the cognitive dissonance when it was puffed chips in a bag?

 

A bit close to what is known as "uncanny valley." It's why Pixar still makes their human characters look not quite human, and why voice synthesis companies always keep a little "machine" character in their systems. Get too close to real and it creeps people out.

 

I wonder if we will ever get their with our audio systems. For me that has always been the goal: to make it sound so real that you can almost believe the musicians are in the room with you. We are of course a long way off since speakers and room acoustics generally hold us back. But maybe it is like watching a film at theater with a real great projection system (IMAX?): We know that we are watching a re-creation, but our eye/brain system is happy to suspend disbelief for a little while.

[esldude]

A bit close to what is known as "uncanny valley." It's why Pixar still makes their human characters look not quite human, and why voice synthesis companies always keep a little "machine" character in their systems. Get too close to real and it creeps people out.

 

I wonder if we will ever get their with our audio systems. For me that has always been the goal: to make it sound so real that you can almost believe the musicians are in the room with you. We are of course a long way off since speakers and room acoustics generally hold us back. But maybe it is like watching a film at theater with a real great projection system (IMAX?): We know that we are watching a re-creation, but our eye/brain system is happy to suspend disbelief for a little while.

 

Yes, the uncanny valley. Had forgotten the term, but it is appropriate. There have been a handful of instances that seemed fully real in the same way with audio for me. All have involved very large and reflective spaces or partly open spaces. I think what happens there is the space dominates the character of the sound to the point even halfway fidelity upon playback sounds close enough to stop us in our tracks. The same sort of uncanny valley feeling. You are struck with something seeming fully real and knowing it is not. So yes, of course it is back to room/speaker issues.

 

Perhaps it could be solved with fully deadened listening rooms and enough channels to add in the requisite reflectivity.