Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
plissken

WireWorld Starlight CAT 8 cable review

Recommended Posts

r_w, the main point is plissken started this thread, posted a pic of a cable he would test, and we have not heard from him since except to kibbitz or argue a bit. I think he plugged it in, liked it, and has not turned off his system because he is enjoying listening to his new cable :)

 

Must be amazing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
r_w, the main point is plissken started this thread, posted a pic of a cable he would test, and we have not heard from him since except to kibbitz or argue a bit. I think he plugged it in, liked it, and has not turned off his system because he is enjoying listening to his new cable :)

 

Must be amazing!!

 

Or you missed the post where I said it was going to take a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patience is a virtue.

 

;-)

 

Or you missed the post where I said it was going to take a little bit.

Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you missed the post where I said it was going to take a little bit.

 

No harm done enjoying your new cable, its all good we can wait a little :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks kind of familiar:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32971[/ATTACH]

 

This one though is no doubt missing the secret ingredients. I hear a few dashes of Unicorn hide blended with a side of Pixie dust all roasted over an open flame for exactly 30sec per shielded run are what results in that smoothing out of the sound while using the fancy ETH Cable in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This one though is no doubt missing the secret ingredients. I hear a few dashes of Unicorn hide blended with a side of Pixie dust all roasted over an open flame for exactly 30sec per shielded run are what results in that smoothing out of the sound while using the fancy ETH Cable in question.

 

I checked out the pics of your system, looks nice. Really like the DIY rack. How do you like the gear from herbie's audio lab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I checked out the pics of your system, looks nice. Really like the DIY rack. How do you like the gear from herbie's audio lab?

 

Nice setup. How do you like the Shunyata Denali 6000T?


Steve Plaskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The audible differences among Ethernet cables are not the result of BER differences, but rather how hard the Ethernet PHY of the receiving device has to work to deliver error-free data packets downstream to the rest of the circuitry.

 

Sorry but this is completely untrue. An Ethernet NIC knows nothing about the quality of data that is being received by the NIC on the other side of the cable. It does not work harder to transmit data better.

 

What people seem to be missing completely in this discussion is that you are transmitting digital data which are ones and zeros represented by electrical signaling. Those ones and zeros represent packetized data.

 

When the music that is transmitted inside of the packet data is lost due to signal errors buffering issues or any number of possible combinations of problems that could happen on a network they are retransmitted by the TCP protocol. Packet loss happens all the time at very low levels along the internet and you would never even notice it when you're listening to music.

 

The idea that replacing one meter of cable make such a huge difference is completely ridiculous due to the reliability mechanisms built into upper layer transport protocols like TCP.

 

Your musical ones and zeros go across your home network no differently on an expensive table than they do on a cheap cable.

 

This is Science!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but this is completely untrue. An Ethernet NIC knows nothing about the quality of data that is being received by the NIC on the other side of the cable. It does not work harder to transmit data better.

 

What people seem to be missing completely in this discussion is that you are transmitting digital data which are ones and zeros represented by electrical signaling. Those ones and zeros represent packetized data.

 

When the music that is transmitted inside of the packet data is lost due to signal errors buffering issues or any number of possible combinations of problems that could happen on a network they are retransmitted by the TCP protocol. Packet loss happens all the time at very low levels along the internet and you would never even notice it when you're listening to music.

 

The idea that replacing one meter of cable make such a huge difference is completely ridiculous due to the reliability mechanisms built into upper layer transport protocols like TCP.

 

Your musical ones and zeros go across your home network no differently on an expensive table than they do on a cheap cable.

 

This is Science!

 

The argument is that since the PHY is driven by a range of voltages dependent on the quality or I should say various metrics of the cable.

 

The howl at the moon crowd is arguing that out of 328 possible feet of cable that one expensive 4/6/12 foot run of Ethernet is going to some how be less work for the PHY to decode data off of vs another 4/6/12 run of other, spec exceeding cable.

 

External EMI and RFI are out of the equation since UTP CAT6 is proven to be noise immune to 30Mhz and STP, if done correctly can give you 1000% increase in rejection and is good up to 100Mhz noise rejection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument is that since the PHY is driven by a range of voltages dependent on the quality or I should say various metrics of the cable.

 

The howl at the moon crowd is arguing that out of 328 possible feet of cable that one expensive 4/6/12 foot run of Ethernet is going to some how be less work for the PHY to decode data off of vs another 4/6/12 run of other, spec exceeding cable.

 

External EMI and RFI are out of the equation since UTP CAT6 is proven to be noise immune to 30Mhz and STP, if done correctly can give you 1000% increase in rejection and is good up to 100Mhz noise rejection.

Ethernet (1000Base-T and 100Base-TX) uses point-to-point connections. We are not talking about concatenating a short cable with a 100m cable with a passive RJ-45 coupler. The PHY in the streamer sees a signal waveform that is a function of the PHY transmitter at the other end of the cable, and the cable itself. If you connect a router to a switch with a 100m cable, then connect the streamer to the same switch with a short cable, the streamer will NOT be affected by the 100m cable, since it's not talking on the same switch port that 100m cable is plugged into.

 

I believe the SQ difference between different makes of Ethernet cable of the SAME short length (e.g. 1 foot) would be very hard, if at all possible to hear. This is because for short length, the variance of electrical characteristics among the brands should be very small to non-existent. For longer lengths, however, the difference in characteristics, especially for things like per-foot capacitance and differential impedance consistency, can be significant. The difference between and 1 foot and 100m cables of the same brand & type should be easier to hear, though as mentioned before, the audibility depends on the streamer sensitivity (or lack thereof) to Ethernet PHY noise, and the resolution of the rest of the system to reveal any difference, so there is definitely a YMMV factor.

 

This theory is essentially a parallel to the one where better USB signal integrity helps raise SQ for USB-input DACs, as reported by many users of the UpTone REGEN. To experiment on whether a different Ethernet cable can make a sonic difference, only the Ethernet cable plugged into the streamer should be changed. All other Ethernet cables involved in transporting digital audio from source to streamer (but not plugged into streamer itself) are on different Ethernet links and should have no impact on streamer SQ. As for the Ethernet switch, it should be beneficial to power it with a linear power supply, to minimize the effect of the switch being a noise source.

 

I don't have a 100m Ethernet cable, but my friend and I have listened to a 50' Cat5E and a 3' BJC Cat6A cable plugged into an Aries Femto, and the difference was quite audible. Ditto for replacing the Netgear wall wart with a small Teradak LPS for the FS105v3 Fast Ethernet switch linked to Aries. I will, however, not invest in expensive "audio-grade" Ethernet cables, as I don't believe they will make anywhere near enough difference (or at all) to justify the expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ethernet (1000Base-T and 100Base-TX) uses point-to-point connections. We are not talking about concatenating a short cable with a 100m cable with a passive RJ-45 coupler. The PHY in the streamer sees a signal waveform that is a function of the PHY transmitter at the other end of the cable, and the cable itself. If you connect a router to a switch with a 100m cable, then connect the streamer to the same switch with a short cable, the streamer will NOT be affected by the 100m cable, since it's not talking on the same switch port that 100m cable is plugged into.

 

I believe the SQ difference between different makes of Ethernet cable of the SAME short length (e.g. 1 foot) would be very hard, if at all possible to hear. This is because for short length, the variance of electrical characteristics among the brands should be very small to non-existent. For longer lengths, however, the difference in characteristics, especially for things like per-foot capacitance and differential impedance consistency, can be significant. The difference between and 1 foot and 100m cables of the same brand & type should be easier to hear, though as mentioned before, the audibility depends on the streamer sensitivity (or lack thereof) to Ethernet PHY noise, and the resolution of the rest of the system to reveal any difference, so there is definitely a YMMV factor.

 

This theory is essentially a parallel to the one where better USB signal integrity helps raise SQ for USB-input DACs, as reported by many users of the UpTone REGEN. To experiment on whether a different Ethernet cable can make a sonic difference, only the Ethernet cable plugged into the streamer should be changed. All other Ethernet cables involved in transporting digital audio from source to streamer (but not plugged into streamer itself) are on different Ethernet links and should have no impact on streamer SQ. As for the Ethernet switch, it should be beneficial to power it with a linear power supply, to minimize the effect of the switch being a noise source.

 

I don't have a 100m Ethernet cable, but my friend and I have listened to a 50' Cat5E and a 3' BJC Cat6A cable plugged into an Aries Femto, and the difference was quite audible. Ditto for replacing the Netgear wall wart with a small Teradak LPS for the FS105v3 Fast Ethernet switch linked to Aries. I will, however, not invest in expensive "audio-grade" Ethernet cables, as I don't believe they will make anywhere near enough difference (or at all) to justify the expense.

 

I use a Netgear wall wart, thanks for the tip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, the 6000T has turned out to be worth every penny. Huge upgrade!

 

My sentiments exactly with regards to my 6000S.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile


Digital:  Innuos Zenith Mk3 > Shunyata Sigma USB > Chord Hugo M-Scaler > Wireworld Gold Startlight > OPTO DX > Shunyata Alpha S/PDIF > Chord Hugo TT2 

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali power conditioner, Shunyata Alpha power cords, Shunyata Alpha interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD60 speaker cables, ASC isothermal tube traps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After some bumps in the road, mainly finding out that MS disabled LBFO teams in Windows 10 and later versions of Windows 8, after mainly finding out that Intel doesn't support their teaming feature in Windows 10 (Their ANS suite).

 

I have Windows 8.1 Ent 64Bit going with my Cisco SG 200-8 with a dynamic LAG and an $18 Intel GBe NIC.

 

I'm able to start playback in JRiver using WASAPI Exclusive Mode and the default 6 second buffer. Working to get my cable swap plus the time it takes for the NIC to re-negotiate the connection well under three seconds so I can reduce the buffering to 3 seconds even though 6 seconds is the default.

 

I'll record a few songs, including one mentioned in thread and make several swaps during playback. Since I'm recording the analog out of the DAC this 'Mixed signal system' mantra is maintained as a possible co-founder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After some bumps in the road, mainly finding out that MS disabled LBFO teams in Windows 10 and later versions of Windows 8, after mainly finding out that Intel doesn't support their teaming feature in Windows 10 (Their ANS suite).

I have Windows 8.1 Ent 64Bit going with my Cisco SG 200-8 with a dynamic LAG and an $18 Intel GBe NIC.

I'm able to start playback in JRiver using WASAPI Exclusive Mode and the default 6 second buffer. Working to get my cable swap plus the time it takes for the NIC to re-negotiate the connection well under three seconds so I can reduce the buffering to 3 seconds even though 6 seconds is the default.

I'll record a few songs, including one mentioned in thread and make several swaps during playback. Since I'm recording the analog out of the DAC this 'Mixed signal system' mantra is maintained as a possible co-founder.

 

I applaud your effort going the extra mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing with the WW and a 15 foot cable I made yields zero subjective difference so far when playing the song.

 

Simply playing a 24/192 track I'm familiar with and swap, wait 6 seconds, and... it sounds the same as it ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the first video of $200 in computer parts with a ~$12 Intel CT GBe PCIe NIC with Emotiva Stealth DC-1 showing no perceptible difference to me in using a $330 12 foot WireWorld Starlight vs a $90 315 foot hand terminated CAT5e cable. Basically a quick proof of concept video.

 

Some common sense is injected at the end of the video. Don't be afraid.

 

 

Not sure why the forum software isn't embedding the video properly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the first video of $200 in computer parts with a ~$12 Intel CT GBe PCIe NIC with Emotiva Stealth DC-1 showing no perceptible difference to me in using a $330 12 foot WireWorld Starlight vs a $90 315 foot hand terminated CAT5e cable. Basically a quick proof of concept video.

 

Some common sense is injected at the end of the video. Don't be afraid.

 

 

Not sure why the forum software isn't embedding the video properly

 

I don't know if it is just that JBL makes great speakers and they are sensitive or my hearing is but as soon as you switched cables during the ping results your voice sounded like you are further away. Is there any reason the ethernet cable switch could cause that difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To late to edit.

 

I really applaud the effort, the video, fantastic, Great contribution to the board. The one thing I wasn't able to compare was the SQ because you were talking over the video. How about just doing an A/B blind comparison without telling us which is which until the end?

 

Here is an example using speakers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if it is just that JBL makes great speakers and they are sensitive or my hearing is but as soon as you switched cables during the ping results your voice sounded like you are further away. Is there any reason the ethernet cable switch could cause that difference?

 

Probably because I moved away from the mic. I was recording on a third computer with a USB mic and a webcam with screencast-o-matic.

 

There shouldn't be that kind of disconnect and I think you are overthinking things that aren't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really applaud the effort, the video, fantastic, Great contribution to the board. The one thing I wasn't able to compare was the SQ because you were talking over the video. How about just doing an A/B blind comparison without telling us which is which until the end?

 

Here is an example using speakers

 

 

It's an introductory video to this process. I plan on getting a few songs recorded with the cabling being swapped out while I capture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...