Do better ethernet cables matter?

[MattHooper]

Do better ethernet cables matter?

Is that a rhetorical question, or a real invite to alternate viewpoints? (It's just that opinions that aren't "of course it matters" often aren't really welcome in some forums).

I did a comparison between Blue Jeans Cat 6A and Foundation SX ethernet from Synergistic Research. Here are my thoughts…

Foundation SX Ethernet Cable Review | Synergistic Research - YouTube

The mention of SR stuff is already a red flag for me.

I didn't find the "I heard a difference between ethernet cables under the standard sighted conditions" particularly convincing on the matter.

Given this is technically controversial territory, since audiophiles are at least as prone as other human beings to imagining differences, I'd ask:

Is there any reason you did not, or could not control for sighted bias?

If it altered the signal audibly did you measure these differences?

It's no problem of course if anyone wants to buy in to reviews like this. I still use subjective reviews of some equipment myself. On the other hand, it seems the demand is increasing by many audiophiles for more rigorous evidence than the old Golden Ear-type testimonials, which is making this type of review...especially of this type of controversial audio gear...start looking a bit old in the tooth. And that comes from a long time Absolute Sound reader. But...the guys who can actually measure the claims of audio companies are nipping at your heels.

 

[Feanor]

Do better ethernet cables matter?

Is that a rhetorical question, or a real invite to alternate viewpoints? (It's just that opinions that aren't "of course it matters" often aren't really welcome in some forums).



The mention of SR stuff is already a red flag for me.

I didn't find the "I heard a difference between ethernet cables under the standard sighted conditions" particularly convincing on the matter.

Given this is technically controversial territory, since audiophiles are at least as prone as other human beings to imagining differences, I'd ask:

Is there any reason you did not, or could not control for sighted bias?

If it altered the signal audibly did you measure these differences?

It's no problem of course if anyone wants to buy in to reviews like this. I still use subjective reviews of some equipment myself. On the other hand, it seems the demand is increasing by many audiophiles for more rigorous evidence than the old Golden Ear-type testimonials, which is making this type of review...especially of this type of controversial audio gear...start looking a bit old in the tooth. And that comes from a long time Absolute Sound reader. But...the guys who can actually measure the claims of audio companies are nipping at your heels.

Ethernet cables, AC cords, and cables in general have never -- even subjectively -- made any noticeable difference for me. Only rigorous bind testing could ever convince me that there are audible difference among cables.

"Digital" signals are indeed analog as are analog audio signals. But whereas, conceptually at least, in the latter case there is no upper limit to desirability of perfection, that is not the case for "digital" signals. Digital signals only have to be "good enough".

I'm not a "sound difference denier" myself but I do believe that a very many differences perceived by subjectivist audiophiles are best explained by their imagination.

 

[mep]

Ethernet cables, AC cords, and cables in general have never -- even subjectively -- made any noticeable difference for me. Only rigorous bind testing could ever convince me that there are audible difference among cables.

"Digital" signals are indeed analog as are analog audio signals. But whereas, conceptually at least, in the latter case there is no upper limit to desirability of perfection, that is not the case for "digital" signals. Digital signals only have to be "good enough".

I'm not a "sound difference denier" myself but I do believe that a very great deal differences perceived by subjectivist audiophiles ar best explained by their imagination.

Sure sounds like you are 100% a "sound difference denier."

 

[Feanor]

Sure sounds like you are 100% a "sound difference denier."

Not true at all. I certainly have heard differences between amplifiers for example.

 

[mep]

Not true at all. I certainly have heard differences between amplifiers for example.

So it's only cables?

 

[Feanor]

So it's only cables?

Since you ask, no necessarily just cables. I haven't heard any differences personally from anti-vibration devices and electrical isolation device. But these are things that might be useful in some instances, just not in mine.

I've mentioned hearing differences between amps; also between preamps and DACs, and for that matter, tubes and op amps. But I have to say that I don't always hear a difference between any two components of a type.

 

[Mr Peabody]

For those who demand measurements how can you be sure there is a way to measure every aspect of sound or audio? More and more evidence is being revealed that many things cannot be measured but have a good explanation as to why they can be heard.

 

[Shadowfax]

For those who demand measurements how can you be sure there is a way to measure every aspect of sound or audio? More and more evidence is being revealed that many things cannot be measured but have a good explanation as to why they can be heard.

And every ear hears differently

 

[Puma Cat]

And every ear hears differently

"The ear is not a microphone, and the brain is not a tape recorder" – Nelson Pass

 

[MattHooper]

For those who demand measurements how can you be sure there is a way to measure every aspect of sound or audio? More and more evidence is being revealed that many things cannot be measured but have a good explanation as to why they can be heard.

Examples? And perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse by assuming they can be "heard." Remember, people at a New Age Healing fair will also say "obviously our healing crystals work...too bad science can't explain why yet." This falls in to the problem of presuming something true without having put it to actual rigorous scrutiny to weed out obvious problems like bias.

If USB and Ethernet cables were as unreliable *in the ways that suggest it requires these expensive cables to fix* my job would be impossible.

I, along with countless others, work in professional sound (post production in my case) and our stuff is passing through countless USB and Ethernet cables...successfully with no one noting audible problems. Why? Because that's how it works. If you have a cable with the proper specs, competently designed...which is not remotely as expensive as these high end companies charge...the result is just as one would expect. (We had a cable-maker at my last studio...made most of our cables. It didn't take heroic measures, or boutique cable prices, in order for the cables to reliably transmit the same signals; it just took understanding how cables worked and what specs were appropriate for which application).

That's why many such audiophile shibboleths like these cables are generally laughed at by pros and techies who actually deal with this stuff all day long. It is, at the least, very controversial that boutique USB or ethernet cables will alter the sound.

So if I'm personally looking to gain insight as to the plausibility of the claim in question, I could be presented with two different routes:

1. A purely subjective review of the type given in that video by Lee Scoggins. He tells us it's a "myth" that expensive cables don't make a difference. With no evidence. Even stranger, he says that "clearly there is no dispute" at this point that expensive cables make sonic differences in signal wire. And then even wilder: "clearly in power cables I don't think there is any dispute in that."
Is he kidding? The disputes over whether expensive signal cables, or power cables are likely to make a sonic improvement over cheaper, properly spec'd and built cables never went away! It rages on! In fact, if anything the "nay" side is gaining, as more audiophiles these days seem less willing to buy in to audiophile claims of yore. (See the ascendence of sites like audiosciencereview, and other youtube channels where measurements are becoming more prominant).

Scoggins sounds like someone in his own audiophile bubble here.

And then he points out he doesn't come at these claims evaluating as an electrical engineer, in technical terms. Well...not a great start since it's a technical claim. And then...we get subjective impressions clearly taken under circumstances rife for subjective bias.

On the other hand, I can see a review like this:

Nordost Tyr 2 Review (USB Cable) | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

By someone who DOES have engineering knowledge, who CAN break down the technical claims, and who can and does use very sensitive equipment to measure any parameters likely to cause audible problems. To little surprise, the expensive cable seems to make zero (plausibly audible) difference from a properly functioning cheap cable. He shows his work. I find this much more compelling than yet another Golden Ear claim to hear differences, when it comes to such controversial areas as this. (And btw, Nordost who whoever could always say "Amir measured the wrong thing...here's the right thing to measure...and HERE are measurements demonstrating our claims. But, curiously, you don't get this usually).

So, that expresses some of my own thinking on a claim like the one made for the expensive Ethernet cables and such.

And every ear hears differently

Yes, and everyone walks differently, but nobody can walk 50mph, and everyone sees differently, but no one can see x-rays, and in the same way everyone hears differently, but no one can hear signals at 35kHz either. We have variation, but also hard limits to our senses. And if
some measurable distortion is below that threshold...ain't nobody hearing it. That is why humans invent measurement devices in the first place: because of our limitations we invent devices that can detect things we can not (and or more reliably than we can detect).

Products like the one in the review promise ever lower "noise floors." As if audiophiles are blessed with hearing that has no limit...chasing that "noise floor" down until it disappears in to the background noise of the Big Bang.

 

[JCS123]

Matt, you make some valid points. But audiosciencereview is Exhibit A for the case of measurements not telling the whole story. By whole story, I mean whether or not a product sounds good. (To me.)

Shortly after learning of ASR, I looked up a few of my favorite components and guess what - they scored terribly on ASR's measurements. That was enough for me, no need to spend any more time on that site.

Until there is a set of measurements that when taken together can reliably predict what sounds right to me and prescribe the exact components based on those measurements, I will continue to trust my ears and believe what they tell me.

 

[Feanor]

Matt, you make some valid points. But audiosciencereview is Exhibit A for the case of measurements not telling the whole story. By whole story, I mean whether or not a product sounds good. (To me.)

Shortly after learning of ASR, I looked up a few of my favorite components and guess what - they scored terribly on ASR's measurements. That was enough for me, no need to spend any more time on that site.

Until there is a set of measurements that when taken together can reliably predict what sounds right to me and prescribe the exact components based on those measurements, I will continue to trust my ears and believe what they tell me.

IMHO, ASR generally fails to mention, (though sometimes hints at), an aspect of measurement that goes a long way to explain the difference between what looks like nearly perfect measurement at what a lot of people like.

In fact it isn't really a mystery and has been discussed by various authors of a couple of decades. That is the effect of 2nd and/or 3rd order harmonic distortion on perceived listening quality. It's been know since first recorded mention by Pythagoras about BCE 2500 that a 2nd or 3rd harmonic added to a fundamental note sounds good, fuller, richer, but that higher-order harmonics sound progressively more strident. I and some others subscribe to the theory that 2nd/3rd harmonic distortion not only sounds agreeable to most listeners, but also masks the nasty, higher order harmonics and, probably, also the "grunge" factor of noise.

So what I'm saying here is that it's useful to look not simply at "THD+noise" or SINAD but also at the harmonic spectrum regularly revealed by ASR-type measurements. I.e., if you read a component review with highish SINAD but which happens to include a high proportion of 2nd/3rd order harmonics, that component might be right up you ally!!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Examples? And perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse by assuming they can be "heard." Remember, people at a New Age Healing fair will also say "obviously our healing crystals work...too bad science can't explain why yet." This falls in to the problem of presuming something true without having put it to actual rigorous scrutiny to weed out obvious problems like bias.

If USB and Ethernet cables were as unreliable *in the ways that suggest it requires these expensive cables to fix* my job would be impossible.

I, along with countless others, work in professional sound (post production in my case) and our stuff is passing through countless USB and Ethernet cables...successfully with no one noting audible problems. Why? Because that's how it works. If you have a cable with the proper specs, competently designed...which is not remotely as expensive as these high end companies charge...the result is just as one would expect. (We had a cable-maker at my last studio...made most of our cables. It didn't take heroic measures, or boutique cable prices, in order for the cables to reliably transmit the same signals; it just took understanding how cables worked and what specs were appropriate for which application).

That's why many such audiophile shibboleths like these cables are generally laughed at by pros and techies who actually deal with this stuff all day long. It is, at the least, very controversial that boutique USB or ethernet cables will alter the sound.

So if I'm personally looking to gain insight as to the plausibility of the claim in question, I could be presented with two different routes:

1. A purely subjective review of the type given in that video by Lee Scoggins. He tells us it's a "myth" that expensive cables don't make a difference. With no evidence. Even stranger, he says that "clearly there is no dispute" at this point that expensive cables make sonic differences in signal wire. And then even wilder: "clearly in power cables I don't think there is any dispute in that."
Is he kidding? The disputes over whether expensive signal cables, or power cables are likely to make a sonic improvement over cheaper, properly spec'd and built cables never went away! It rages on! In fact, if anything the "nay" side is gaining, as more audiophiles these days seem less willing to buy in to audiophile claims of yore. (See the ascendence of sites like audiosciencereview, and other youtube channels where measurements are becoming more prominant).

Scoggins sounds like someone in his own audiophile bubble here.

And then he points out he doesn't come at these claims evaluating as an electrical engineer, in technical terms. Well...not a great start since it's a technical claim. And then...we get subjective impressions clearly taken under circumstances rife for subjective bias.

On the other hand, I can see a review like this:

Nordost Tyr 2 Review (USB Cable) | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

By someone who DOES have engineering knowledge, who CAN break down the technical claims, and who can and does use very sensitive equipment to measure any parameters likely to cause audible problems. To little surprise, the expensive cable seems to make zero (plausibly audible) difference from a properly functioning cheap cable. He shows his work. I find this much more compelling than yet another Golden Ear claim to hear differences, when it comes to such controversial areas as this. (And btw, Nordost who whoever could always say "Amir measured the wrong thing...here's the right thing to measure...and HERE are measurements demonstrating our claims. But, curiously, you don't get this usually).

So, that expresses some of my own thinking on a claim like the one made for the expensive Ethernet cables and such.




Yes, and everyone walks differently, but nobody can walk 50mph, and everyone sees differently, but no one can see x-rays, and in the same way everyone hears differently, but no one can hear signals at 35kHz either. We have variation, but also hard limits to our senses. And if
some measurable distortion is below that threshold...ain't nobody hearing it. That is why humans invent measurement devices in the first place: because of our limitations we invent devices that can detect things we can not (and or more reliably than we can detect).

Products like the one in the review promise ever lower "noise floors." As if audiophiles are blessed with hearing that has no limit...chasing that "noise floor" down until it disappears in to the background noise of the Big Bang.

Matt, if you need a scientific explanation for everything then you are really going to limit your ability to put together a great system. Measurements simply are not capable of describing sound quality in a complete way.

Honestly you need to try more AC cables and signal cables if you don’t hear the difference. It’s accepted that these cables do make a difference.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Matt, you make some valid points. But audiosciencereview is Exhibit A for the case of measurements not telling the whole story. By whole story, I mean whether or not a product sounds good. (To me.)

Shortly after learning of ASR, I looked up a few of my favorite components and guess what - they scored terribly on ASR's measurements. That was enough for me, no need to spend any more time on that site.

Until there is a set of measurements that when taken together can reliably predict what sounds right to me and prescribe the exact components based on those measurements, I will continue to trust my ears and believe what they tell me.

Well said.

 

[Feanor]

Matt, if you need a scientific explanation for everything then you are really going to limit your ability to put together a great system. Measurements simply are not capable of describing sound quality in a complete way.

Honestly you need to try more AC cables and signal cables if you don’t hear the difference. It’s accepted that these cables do make a difference.

Matt will likely have his own response, but I'm going to say that the fundamental issue is audiophile enjoyment and the recognition that "audiophilia" is a hobby -- which hobby is often the end in itself.

If one enjoys swapping cables listening for that elusive ultimate sound, then fine, give in to the enjoyment of the process. It doesn't really matter whether the sound differences one hears are real or imagined; only consider -- especially when the prices are going thru the roof -- that sometimes these "differences" are going to be delusional.

 

[treitz3]

Of course they do/can. My Ethernet journey all started when I went from the cheap, yellow CAT5 E cable that usually comes with the gear and tried (just because I had it laying around the house) another cheap CAT8 cable at a whopping cost of $14. I hadn't even sat down in the sweet spot yet when I knew I was onto something special. Yes, the changes were that much.

There are so many factors, considerations and configurations in play when it comes to streaming and associated upstream/system noise, that it is nearly impossible to make a blanket statement that "X" cable will definitely improve any system. It's a hit or miss. Some components/configurations and location/type of E cables will make more of a change in some systems than in others. Then there are filters within the E cables and lines that can make as much of a change (detrimental to outstanding results) as a DAC or other component within a system, but that's another story.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Those that rely on measurements only are a laughable crowd (to me).

~ Not all things that can be measured can be heard and not all things heard can be measured ~

Measurements are overrated IMO and can't tell you how the perception of imaging is changed, it can't offer any information on height, depth or other locational cues of the reproductive effort. Measurements can't tell you how the perception of space or the size of venue is observed/perceived to the listener. They are and can be a very useful tool for those who are not intimately familiar with frequencies, nodes and the like and how they affect the end result as to what hits your ears but along my audio journey, that's it. It's a guide. A useful one but one that has its limits.

I built my system guided by my ear, tuned it by ear, adjusted everything by ear and while I may not have achieved perfection (I never will), I damned sure have exceeded excellence.

Nelson Pass really puts a nice focus on this with his quote -

"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".

It's like the measurement crowd needs confirmation bias to prove to them that something sounds good. :skeptical: That's why I stated that they are a laughable crowd.

Tom

 

[Mikado463]

~ Not all things that can be measured can be heard and not all things heard can be measured ~

this quote always cracks me up for the second part is so patently false ...........fact, anything that can be heard CAN be measured !

 

[Mike]

this quote always cracks me up for the second part is so patently false ...........fact, anything that can be heard CAN be measured !

I would be curious if things like “tone” and soundstage depth could be measured.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[rbbert]

...Honestly you need to try more AC cables and signal cables if you don’t hear the difference. It’s accepted that these cables do make a difference.

This is a broad statement that is clearly an opinion; I'm fairly sure that what data is available addressing this would suggest that the overwhelming majority of people either don't agree or don't care. What I think you mean is that in the subjectively oriented audiophile community it is accepted that these cables make a difference.

 

[Mikado463]

I would be curious if things like “tone” and soundstage depth could be measured.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mike, my reference was to 'measurement' and the fact that there are multiple means of doing said measurements. So if one states it can't be measured it's best to identify the means of measurement !