Jump to content
IGNORED

EtherREGEN - Formal Video Imaging and Audio Review


Recommended Posts

  • Superdad changed the title to EtherREGEN - Formal Video Imaging and Audio Review
  • Superdad pinned this topic
9 hours ago, Summit said:

Nice report!

 

I could not help but noticing that you are using the Polk Audio SDA SRS 1.2TL (modified), not many seems to do that anymore.

 

 

Yes. It is the lone survivor from my many equipment upgrades through the years. I have not been able to find a better imaging loudspeaker.

 

A summary of the modifications can be found here:

 

https://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/148092/improvements-to-the-sda-srs-1-2tl-summary-of-modifications

 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, plissken said:

 

When you did this did you simply pause the video and swap out cables? If not how did you get to the exact same frame?

 

What jib had the camera locked in place? Were the pictures snapped on remote or actuated on body?

 

 

1. The video was restarted each time after a cable change and allowed to run to 01:01:14, then paused with the remote control. While still in pause mode, the fast forward button was pressed which cased the video to advance in slow motion at 1/16th speed. I held my breath beginning at 00:01:16 and and paused via the player's remote control as soon as the player's display timer changed to 00:01:17. The picture below was taken with my cell phone to give an idea of what the player's timer display looks like.

 

2. Since the UDP-205 player does not measure time in terms of frames, I had some concern about frame to frame variation with my manual stop method. I examined a series of photographs from from 00:01:16 to 00:01:18 to look for pixel level consistencies and variations in sharpness, blooming, black level, and detail. I was confident that my manual frame stops gave an accurate assessment of the picture quality changes in the different cable trials. Therefore, if my manual frame stops at 00:01:17 for the different trials weren't exact to the same nano-pico-femto second, they were close enough for the purposes of this exercise.

 

3. The camera was mounted on a Manfrotto BG468MGRC4 Ball Head camera mount. The Manfrotto ball head was mounted on a Slik AMT PRO700DX tripod.

 

4. The camera shutter was activated with a Nikon MC-30 cable release.

 

5. The lens autofocus was turned off. Focus, exposure, ISO, aperture, and shutter speed were set manually: All photos taken at f/3.2, ISO 1000. Room lights were turned off.

 

6. The rear of the OLED TV screen is braced against the rear wall with a cardboard tube. The brace is secured to the wall and to the TV with packing tape.

 

7. Photos were cropped using Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 software.

 

1935810317_AlienCovenant-CellPhonePic-DisplayTimer-s.thumb.jpg.e8ebabfe52c9832009d4c9d376422582.jpg

7 hours ago, plissken said:

Why not do this with a 4K HDR photo?

 

Because I don't watch photographs. I watch movies.

 

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 

The photographs of the screen show a likely focus shift or possibly different frames, as well as, exposure differences that have nothing to do with ethernet. A more careful experiment is needed, with much better stabilization of the equipment (TV and camera), an exact frame fix, as well as completely fixed focus and exposure.

 

All the Ethernet cable trial photos were taken at the same exposure and same fixed focus. See response to plissken above. In which photographs are you seeing a difference in focus?

 

5 hours ago, plissken said:

That's why I suggest a high resolution picture instead of video just as a start.

 

 

That would be an interesting exercise. Thanks for the suggestion.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

This is comparing two photos used in Figure 11, Worst to best. As I said, possibly different frame, or frame in transition, not necessarily focus difference. Obvious exposure and color balance differences, though.

 

 

Make sure your browser can show loop GIF image animations and click on the image to see the larger version:

 

 

 

There is no difference in exposure. The TV put out different amounts of light depending on the power supply attached to the NAS. The camera settings remained constant. The color balance also changed when the NAS's power supply was changed. All the pictures were cropped and then resized to the same size, so there are small aspect differences due to the cropping and resizing. That is why the two white flecks and the two eye lashes alternately move toward and away from each other in the circled portion of a screen capture from your looped video.

 

1458446434_Image002-Noted.thumb.jpg.9cfd3689fe661718aeb09595d5be117e.jpg

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

But you posted photos's not videos....

 

Does your camera record videos like I've seen some others?

 

With a photo you don't have to guess what frame you are on. There is only one.

Yes, my Nikon D800 records high definition video.

 

You are correct that a static image alleviates guessing which frame to stop on. I could have also used some of the static test patterns from my Spears & Munsil UHD Benchmark calibration disc.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You are missing all the other parts of the eye moving and changing relative positions and sizes between the two shots. It's much more than the two flecks you circled.  These are just not comparable exposures. You need much better controls on your 'measuring' equipment before declaring that the reason for these differences is the ethernet switch. 

 

You missed my point with regard to my comment about the circled area.

Thank you for your advice and for sharing your opinions and insights.

 

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

Is the Oppo even capable of stopping on the same frame out of 60FPS with the remote control?

 

That would be a good question to ask Oppo. The player indicated that this movie's frame rate was 24FPS though.

Link to comment

The part that you ar

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

He's being actively helped out to improve a testing regimen. DK even agrees:

 

1. That using a video he's guessing that it's on the correct frame

2. That using a static pic (hopefully 4K with wide color gamut) would solve some issues

 

For the things I was looking for, I did not need to be on the exact same frame. If there was a critical need to compare exact frames, I would have done so. As I said before, I could have used static test patterns.

 

For a tight camera shot focused on an actor's eye, how much difference would you expect would occur in less than one second of 24FPS video in such areas as pixel sharpness, blooming, and black levels?

 

Other attributes, such as differences in the amount of perceived depth in the video image, would remain constant even from scene to scene.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

The Supra Cat8 costs 7X the price of the Monoprice Cat8, and facilitated more information retrieval, but it was not 7X better in any aspect of stereophonic performance in my office system.A member of this forum suggested the Supra Cat8 ($49 - 1meter) cables as a higher performance alternative to the shield broken Monoprice Cat8 ($7 - 3 feet) cables. I found his advice to be correct.

 

Both the stock and shield broken Supra Cat8 cables revealed a little more fine detail and spatial information than the shield broken Monoprice cables. I did not evaluate the Supra cables in my home two channel audio and home theater systems.

 

958187943_SupraCat8001-s.thumb.jpg.95ed7a5723db1221adf974b80c753830.jpg
Figure 45. The Supra Cat8 cables come in a resealable plastic case, which is nice in case you want to return them.

 

1598752392_SupraCat8002-s.thumb.jpg.4435ed339dbf2a8ca278a71eb06aeac0.jpg
Figure 46. Distinctive ice blue jacket.

 

192263711_SupraCat8003-s.thumb.jpg.e57dbc5e50bea1b00cfaf3f65a259017.jpg
Figure 47. Each cable comes with a tag denoting the assembler.

 

1333398881_SupraCat8004-s.thumb.jpg.83c1c3f476c31826c84ad4478d19982e.jpg
Figure 48. Monoprice Cat8 and Supra Cat8 plugs.

 

Monoprice Cat8 specs:
outer shield: aluminum-magnesium alloy braid
inner shield: aluminum foil
resistance = 93.8 ohms per km
capacitance </= 3.3 pF per meter
conductor size: 24 AWG

 

Supra Cat8 specs:
outer shield: oxygen free 5N pure copper braid, tin plated
inner shield: aluminum foil
resistance = 145 ohms per km
capacitance </= 43 pF per meter
conductor size: 26 AWG
conductor material: oxygen free 5N pure copper
insulation: air injected low capacitance polyethylene
impedance: 100 ohms

 

1715099910_SupraCat8005ShieldBreakShellOff-s.thumb.jpg.a697bc12c922934ce751ffd39e303a8d.jpg
Figure 49. The Supra's metal shell is retained by four tabs and is more difficult to remove than the Monoprice's.

 

1446819574_SupraCat8006ShieldBreakShellTabBroken-s.thumb.jpg.a6002b02fe9e3a107341efca59b82a80.jpg
Figure 50. The Supra's metal shell makes contact with the braid shield via a metal tab, shown broken off here.

 

99017411_SupraCat8007ShieldBreakPlug-ShieldTab-s.thumb.jpg.c919b09b9178d184572eca3b3b8e3a00.jpg
Figure 51. The metal shell was put back on the plug. I initially was going to use the Supra cables with the metal shell removed from one end. However, I did not like the plug's looser fit in the jack with the metal shell removed.

 

1044184000_SupraCat8008Plugkit-s.jpg.d0bbabc2b14e6cc630a8e28f0cdc1037.jpg
Figure 52. If I ever want to return the cables to stock condition, plug kits are available for$6.

 

1344463878_SupraCat8009ShieldBreakPluggedInBDP-2Close-s.thumb.jpg.be4509b556a8cbbe9ece2a2fa9efeb87.jpg
Figure 53. The Supra Cat8 costs 7X the price of the Monoprice Cat8, and facilitated more information retrieval, but it was not 7X better in any aspect of stereophonic performance in my office system.

 

I read a review where the reviewer, and others, commented that the Supra Cat8 cables caused a loss of high frequency detail in their systems. I did not experience that in this system. On high frequency content such as cymbals, tambourines, shakers, and female voices, I actually heard more high frequency detail with the Supra cables compared to the Monoprice cables.

 

Speaking of diminishing returns, I ran across a deal on a pair of 1.5 meter AudioQuest Vodka Ethernet cables. The 2020 retail on these is $600. When I evaluated a loaner pair of Vodka cables in my home two channel stereo and home theater systems, I found their spacial properties to be in a class above that of the other Ethernet cables, except for the Revelation Audio Labs Cat8+.

 

243779469_AQVodkaEthernet001Boxes-s.thumb.jpg.96276046438fa752ca10135e44a501f1.jpg
Figure 54. I ran across these while shopping for something else. Purchased from an authorized AudioQuest dealer.

 

833951850_AQVodkaEthernet002Cables-s.thumb.jpg.7be73bf112925418ca95ac0bb2a4e9b0.jpg
Figure 55. The Vodkas, like all of AudioQuest's Ethernet cables, are Cat7.

 

379696995_AQVodkaEthernet003Installed-s.thumb.jpg.8cb3b20757ddca3c5bb99cc7f5932a96.jpg
Figure 56. In the distant future, when I am more dedicated to audio than I am now, I might splurge on some higher performance, higher diminishing returns Ethernet cables for my work system, but for now, these will do.

 

 

 

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...
On 8/6/2020 at 11:09 AM, kerisabe said:

 @DarqueKnightHave you had any experience with the latest Sablon Audio Ethernet 2020 cable? I need to purchase 2 more ethernet cable for my multiple switch setup and been trying to finalize my choice between the RAL, Shunyata Sigma, Pachanko Aphelion or the Sablon 2020. 

No experience with the Sablon Ethernet cable.

Link to comment

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



×
×
  • Create New...