Ethernet cables

[charlesphoto]

I’ve tried four different Ethernet cables between my FMC (ground shunted that proceeds a ground shunted FS105) and microRendu. All four sound different, but it is subtle and you have to LISTEN. Of the four, I would definitely say the Ghent JSSG is best. The others are fine - Teragrand (Amazon) Cat 7 - good and neutral, maybe not so detailed as the others; Miecord Opal - big and meaty and musical but can be a bit much; AQ Cinnamon - detailed but seems to carve out the bass; Ghent JSSG - more of everything without anything being left out. Really nice. No idea why they sound different but they do. Good enough for me. 

[charlesphoto]

36 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

some people will believe anything - e.g. anti-vaxers, audiophools, assorted placebophiles, etc.

 

 

 

Are you conflating me with an anti-Vaxxer? I think I’m so done with this forum....

[charlesphoto]

All forums actually. This is what I wrote on a Naim forum discussing cables. Of course the discussion had to go south, and has since been taken down. Some people just need to get a life.

 

It’s usually at this point in a thread that everyone needs a reminder that hifi is a hobby. Nobody actually needs it, like we do air, water, food, shelter, and civil rights. Whether it is a Sonos or a 555, it is all a luxury. So no need to get knickers in a twist, over anything to do with this distraction of ours. Some, who’ve done well in life financially, are able to go to a dealer, take his or her word, and plonk down $60k, have it delivered and set up and never have to think about it again. Others, like myself (a perpetually broke freelance photographer) have built up mour systems piece by piece, with careful consideration for vfm. My stereo budget this year was set at $0. So far I’ve gone over that by about 200% with some ground and cable tweaks learned about over on the CA forum, but for the increase in sound quality I achieved it sounds like at least a box step up or two. 

So the moral is, lets not be so serious about this. Same with camera forums, car forums, etc etc. Leave the vitriol for politics. This is just stuff. There’s room for people to spend to their heart’s delight on esoteric boutique items, and room for people to pull out the soldering iron and give it a go. Again, it’s a hobby - it’s supposed to be fun, fascinating, informative, and rewarding, no matter how one goes about it.

[charlesphoto]

Whatever....

[charlesphoto]

Oh, I forgot the yawn....

[charlesphoto]

It’s very well known and documented over on the Naim forum that wav sounds better than flac on Naim streamers. Heard it myself, even on their lowly Unitiqute. Reasoning is the streamer has less processing to do.

 

Again some members just need to LISTEN. But I have a feeling their stubbornness and inordinate amount of time pissing (Plisskening) on other people on online forums. Maybe an ear cleaning is in order for some? 

[charlesphoto]

41 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

My theory is people are quite handily separated from their beliefs. 

 

What kind of moron walks away from making $2000 in 30 minutes?

 

What kind of moron actually invites you into their home? 

[charlesphoto]

For the record I no longer transcode my compressed flac files to wav for a number of reasons so can’t comment on any sound differences with the microRendu but I know what I heard with the Naim. As far as dB differences go, I too have ‘perceived” a difference between cables, but I think that’s all down to lowered noise and the ability to listen at higher volumes in a non-fatiguing way, and or the music is fleshed out more so sounds “bigger.” But again It must all be in my head...  oh, isn’t that what my ears are connected to? 

[charlesphoto]

I didn’t do a blind test, but all I know is I could easily tell the discernible differences between them, upon repeated swapping, exactly the same each time, and on two different systems. I typically use the beginning of Miles’ “So What” for testing. Mile’s trumpet coming in after the bass lines is quite telling as it’s right on the edge of being unlistenable (due to the engineer running too hot), no matter the system. So how well it gets tamed by whatever I’m introducing tells me what I need. And then after that it all comes together in the recording and so you get first bass, then piano, then drums and then trumpet and then all together. 

 

Unqualified and delusional? Possibly, but I know what I hear upon repeated listening. And honestly I wish I didn’t because then we wouldn’t be having this argument... er... discussion and it would have saved me some $. 

[charlesphoto]

47 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Thanks.  That is useful information.

 

Specifically, it seems there was less 'glare' - is that right?

 

Yep, exactly. 

[charlesphoto]

34 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Anyone that claims they can tell the difference in Ethernet cabling that would walk away from $2000... Would it help assuage your hurt feelings if I posted it somewhere else so you don't erroneously conflate a statement and the fact of where I made it?

 

Stop with the idiotic bet nonsense. Are you still in high school? 

[charlesphoto]

5 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

 

Yep, exactly. 

 

Also the bass. The Opal is really bass strong, sometimes almost too much, too bloated - works best with my UQ and Ls50’s which could use a bit of a bump in the bass; the Cinnamon is bass light though the bass is very well detailed, the Ghent, designed by our very own Cornay, seems to pull it altogether. But like I said, these are differences you have to listen to very carefully, and repeatedly, and best if you have two different systems to try them on. Down the chain I really haven’t noticed any differences with better cables - it’s really that last leg to the renderer that makes a difference.

 

Although a few on here just write it off as snake oil, I’m pretty sure if the manufacturers didn’t hear some kind of difference they wouldn’t bother - they can’t all be charlatans!. Of course YMMV depending on your setup, and your VFM may be entirely different from others. But to entirely write this off as fiction is just ignorance or a stubborn inability to not try something new due to ingrained beliefs. 

[charlesphoto]

Also, I’ve had the stated cables for at least a couple of years now, if not more, and switch things around now and then. Always with the same results. 

[charlesphoto]

Then why is it always referred to as transcoding in minimserver? I guess they and all of their users are putzes too. Thank god I use LMS now. 

 

And of course it would uncompress the flac in order to make it a wav. Any more pearls you would like to unload on us? 

[charlesphoto]

Well, tiffs and jpegs are something I know about. And before that film speeds, paper grades, and chemistry. And how to align an enlarger. Now I have an Imacon, a $10k scanner that has paid for itself over and over again. This year’s purchase was a Leica M10, therefore the near zero hifi budget. 

 

I’m not going to get into the semantics game of audio file management though. 

[charlesphoto]

Good for you.... I’m out of this thread.

[charlesphoto]

8 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

@charlesphoto

 

Suggesting that Ethernet cables could affect the sound quality is akin to suggesting that the SD card used in your camera could affect the quality of the photos.

 

Like I said out of here. I’m done being insulted (which makes me want to insult back which I don’t like). Enough drama out there in the real world to contend with.

[charlesphoto]

36 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

@charlesphoto

 

Suggesting that Ethernet cables could affect the sound quality is akin to suggesting that the SD card used in your camera could affect the quality of the photos.

 

Ok, out of here soon, but this analogy is totally wrong. More like those on here that can here a difference between hard drives. Many manufacturers use off the shelf sensors, but it’s how they get from the sensor to the card that makes the difference. And Mansr thanks for that on the tiff - jpeg analogy. I thought that was wrong too but just tired of getting beat up. And being referred to as “people like you.” 

 

As far as glare, it’s more like extra sibilance. Not being an audiophile I’m not always certain of the correct verbiage. Why couldn’t an ethernet cable clean up high impedance noise as well, like the ground shunts? It’s all electrical - those ones and zeros aren’t sprinting there on their own. 

 

Anyway, I’m very happy with the sound of my setup. Little to do except for a 1.4 board upgrade (probably during our Hawaii vac in Feb). Personally, I think the ear is a lot more subjective than the eye. I think it a shame that “objectivists” feel the need to take the greatest variable out of the equation. When was the last time you had your ears checked and cleaned? 

[charlesphoto]

13 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Not really. Not the image data. Yes, feature sets are different. Buffers may be bigger or smaller. The sensor is everything when it comes to the actual image. Autofocus systems may be faster or slower and better or worse. Exposure control can be different too. But, put the same lens in front of the same sensor on different model cameras and, with same focus, f-stop, and shutter speed, the RAW image with be virtually the same. 

 

The sensor is king. Without a great sensor, all that other stuff is worthless. Just like all of our great audio gear is worthless without great recordings. 

 

That is not true. If all things were equal yes, but that is never the case. Manufacturers take the sensor and then tweak the software for output - their special sauce so to speak. The color from the same Sony sensor in a Nikon will result in different colors, etc than one put in one of Sony’s own cameras. The rendering software also makes a difference - Camera One will be different than Lightroom and so on. So lots of variables that happen from light hitting the sensor to ultimate output. Having been a photographer for almost forty years (from the age of 12) this one area I know about. There’s also been a big debate in the past about the look between CCD and CMOS sensors. I prefer the CCD in my M9, though had to move on to the CMOS in M10 as the functionality of the camera is so much better. Some say it’s easy to match the two sensors so no difference. I totally disagree. The CCD in the M9 has a special look like no other that is typically good to go straight out of the camera. My M10 usually needs more work to the file, and my Nikon a lot more work. But man this is a digression. 

[charlesphoto]

Again, are you counting the A/D converter, etc etc? Sure if ALL of the hardware post sensor was the same, and there was no hidden software trickery going on you would be correct.  I certainly know what a RAW file is. If all RAW files were the same, then there would never be any need for LR etc to update the software for new cameras. They are not, and not even if the same sensor is used. I really don't know why we are arguing this point and can't even remember how it relates to ethernet cables. 

 

I haven't been taking pics quite as long as you - got my late start at 12 in 1976. I'm fairly well known for my music photography, therefore my passion for music (and music replay). I don't listen to grunge much more, but this is probably my most famous shot. Good times. Now I MUST get some prints off to a client. Sick five year old home from school today so plenty of time to play forum games earlier. 

[charlesphoto]

44 minutes ago, plissken said:

 Can you convert a PNG back to the original .tiff?

 

Yes.

[charlesphoto]

10 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

Most top shelf image sensors today have the ADC built in to the sensor.

 

Ah that is true. In reality this is a straw argument, because most top end cameras take stock sensor designs and then modify it to their specs (ir thickness etc). Since many come from Sony the likes of Nikon are actually forced to so that they don't compete. I do know that the sensor in the M10 and 240's were purpose built for Leica by smaller companies, the M9 a modified Kodak sensor. I'm still on the D600 which is by Sony. Never had the oil problems with mine. Best, CP

[charlesphoto]

7 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

The D850 has a custom Nikon sensor. Nikon does use Sony sensors in most of their cameras. But they make their own for a select few cameras. 

 

I’ve always lusted after the pseudo-retro DF but never been able to pull the trigger. 

[charlesphoto]

I don’t know, transcoding seems to be the correct terminology for going from one format to another, whether compressed, uncompressed, lossy, or lossless, whether it be audio or video file. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcoding

[charlesphoto]

https://www.encoding.com/blog/2013/12/12/whats-difference-encoding-transcoding/

 

In a nutshell:

 

encoding: analog to digital conversion

 

transcoding: digital to digital conversion