Ethernet cables

[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? 

[Speedskater]

I notice that the audiophiles that hear these differences are seldom interested in due diligence. 

 

With Ethernet or USB cables it's easy to investigate differences, all by yourself.

Throw the different cables in a box, turn out the lights, select one, install it and cover it with a towel.

Turn the lights back on and do your normal listening test and write your impression down.

Remove the towel and log what cable it was. Put that cable back in the box and repeat several times.

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

I notice that the audiophiles that hear these differences are seldom interested in due diligence. 

 

With Ethernet or USB cables it's easy to investigate differences, all by yourself.

Throw the different cables in a box, turn out the lights, select one, install it and cover it with a towel.

Turn the lights back on and do your normal listening test and write your impression down.

Remove the towel and log what cable it was. Put that cable back in the box and repeat several times.

Yes, this is really easy. However, most people don’t care about doing such a test. 

 

Everyone is is different and has different means. Live and let listen. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Enough of the insults and delusional diagnosis from unqualified persons over the internet. 

 

I love opinions and facts and even a good questioning of authority, but I can’t stand personal attacks 

[Speedskater]

56 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, this is really easy. However, most people don’t care about doing such a test.

If they did do such tests these threads would be much shorter.

[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 $. 

[plissken]

2 hours ago, davide256 said:

It's also funny how people take a sample of 1 and declare it the earth.

 

I hear you there. It's a struggle to even get that sample of 1 let alone 50. 

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

As for her experience with Ethernet cables, she claims music was louder with one than the other. This effect is simply not possible. Not even if allowing for the possibility of noise coupling in some form.

 

A music file with less "Jitter" may often sound a little quieter at times, but with greater overall dynamics.

Perhaps you need to read the very informative much earlier post by Barrows on the effects of "Jitter"?

Attached is from another one that I had saved on the subject. John Kenny assisted me with the extra points where we posted this.

Quote

This is a quotation from Bob Katz, well known recording & audio mastering engineer posted here www.digido.com/audio-faq/j/jitter-better-sound.html

After an engineer learns to identify the sound of signal-correlated jitter, then you can move on to recognizing the more subtle forms of jitter and finally, can be more prepared to subjectively judge whether one source sounds better than another.

Here are some audible symptoms of jitter that allow us to determine that one source sounds "better" than another with a reasonable degree of scientific backing:

It is well known that jitter degrades stereo image, separation, depth, ambience, dynamic range.

Therefore, when during a listening comparison, comparing source A versus source B (and both have already been proved to be identical bitwise):

The source which exhibits greater stereo ambience and depth is the "better" one.

The source which exhibits more apparent dynamic range is the "better" one.

The source which is less edgy on the high end (most obvious sonic signature of signal correlated jitter) is the "better" one.

And a reply:
The better one, and it is better, is also easier to listen to. . . less fatiguing. I would also add to this that the low end just "feels" bigger and more solid. This is perhaps a psychoacoustic affect more than a measurable one. It may be that the combination of a less edgy high end and greater depth and width makes the bass seem better.

All of this makes sense if thought of in terms of timing (that is what we're talking about isn't it ;-]). With minimal jitter nothing is smeared, a note and all its harmonics line up, the sound is more liquid (a term probably from the "audiophile" crowd but one which accurately describes the sound none the less), and images within the soundstage are clearly defined.

Now some extra points:
- listener fatigue is reduced or completely eliminated
- the sound can be turned up higher without any distortion being evident
- the sound can also be turned down lower & the full dynamics are still retained but at a lower volume

 

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, plissken said:

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

 

It would appear from this statement that you consider that the vast majority of C.A. members are morons .

Charming !

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 

 

If #$%^&*()_(*&^%$#^&*()*&^%$&*()*&^%$^&*()(*&^%&*(*&^%&*(*&^%^*&^%$#%^&*(&^%$#%^&*^&%$#%^&*(&^%$^%^&*(&^%$#%^&^%$

 

Hey Dood!  Quit Lying about the Ignore!

 

Now stop the nonsense

 

 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto said:

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 $. 

 

Thanks.  That is useful information.

 

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

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

It would appear from this statement that you consider that the vast majority of C.A. members are morons .

Charming !

 

You appear to share the same sentiments:

 

17 hours ago, sandyk said:

Several of these guys live in hope that their closed minded views will remain uncontested, and that their views may then be more widely accepted by the silent majority of members.

 

Why don't you stop acting like the self-appointed hall monitor and let people figure out for themselves who and what information to trust? 

[plissken]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

It would appear from this statement that you consider that the vast majority of C.A. members are morons .

Charming !

 

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?

[sandyk]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

You appear to share the same sentiments:

 

 

Why don't you stop acting like the self-appointed hall monitor and let people figure out for themselves who and what information to trust? 

 

 Getting a wee bit touchy, eh ?

Why should a few of you have free reign  to post stuff that many members don't agree with , without being challenged ?

 Several members from your side regularly ridicule almost all subjective posts by members in other areas of the forum.

[Ralf11]

13 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You appear to share the same sentiments:

 

 

Why don't you stop acting like the self-appointed hall monitor and let people figure out for themselves who and what information to trust? 

 

You must NEVER say that to the Mullah

[Ralf11]

7 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?

 

SQ differences seem unlikely; confirmation bias seems likely.

 

But... is there any possibility that connections could cause SQ differences?  Either poorly made ones, or corrosion being broken when making/remaking one?

 

And... what about cheap transformers in an Ethernet setup?

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Getting a wee bit touchy, eh ?

Why should a few of you have free reign  to post stuff that many members don't agree with , without being challenged ?

 Several members from your side regularly ridicule almost all subjective posts by members in other areas of the forum.

 

Not touchy, just tired of your content-free rants and your need to protect others from the dreaded objectivists.

[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? 

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Not touchy, just tired of your content-free rants and your need to protect others from the dreaded objectivists.

 Content free ?

About 50 minutes ago, in this thread, I posted a detailed reply to an incorrect statement by mansr.

 

I would again suggest that in the spirit of this thread, that members should involve themselves with Cookie Marenco in an effort to settle this dispute about the audibility, or otherwise, of differences between different Ethernet cables.

 

 What are you guys so afraid of, that you don't wish this to happen ?

[kumakuma]

Just now, sandyk said:

 Content free ?

About 50 minutes ago, in this thread, I posted a detailed reply to an incorrect statement by mansr.

 

I read your post. It is fundamentally incorrect.

[plissken]

36 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

And... what about cheap transformers in an Ethernet setup?

 

Are we talking about cabling or the magnetics package? 

[plissken]

11 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

 

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

 

Nah,  I could have never afford to offer $2000 if I was 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.