Audiophile Network Cables..... REALLY...REALLY!

[chessman]

Bud, no worries.

[AudioNut]

Originally Posted by Antonmb

I am not necessarily a believer in ultra expensive Ethernet cables, although I do believe there's value in spending extra for a well-made cable with quality connectors - but I am a believer in scientific methodology, and this ain't it. A listening test conducted in a large, open, probably reverberant hall with "a few hundred people" coughing and scraping their chairs, using open-backed headphones, and the cheap DAC and amp built into a Dell laptop running Windows Media Player that kept hanging up? I'm surprised they could tell what song they were listening to. This test was as much pseudo-science as some of the claims it was intended to debunk. It's like asking someone to tell the difference between how a Porsche and a Chevy handle by testing them at 10 mph on a washboard dirt road.

People who don't believe that there are differences in wires probably don't believe there are differences in ropes either . . .

There really aren't any differences are there Tony?

[blacsno]

Originally Posted by chessman

Ken, ok, I'll play. Let's start with some common assumptions:

1) There is a measurable difference between Cat 5, Cat 6 and Cat 7 cables;

2) That difference is primarily the result of close (or not) tolerances at the connectors;

3) DACs do NOT read 1's and 0's, but rather voltage variances triggered by a scan of 1's and 0's in a given time frame.

Are we in agreement so far?

1.) I'll play along with the ability to measure something, we need some sort of common ground metric. I'll refer to my earlier analogy.... Network cables are no more than a truck carrying "X" volume of bricks to a job site. So what metrics can be assigned to this truck task?

a.) Load capacity.
b.) How fast can the delivery be made.
c.) Right truck for the task. ie fire truck vs dump truck
d.) How clean is the truck.

I'm sure the list could go on. I'll return again to the analogy on what the truck can't DO!

The accuracy of the amount of bricks should be a metric, but that ISN'T the truck job! In all of computer land that task is handled by the CPU(s)"dispatcher". The CPU(s) calculates the same task a number times for accuracy. Hence your router does the same task also. The truck "network cable" has been given a task to deliver "X" number of bricks to a job site nothing more. In short when the UPS truck brings new equipment to your home. That act alone DOESN'T do anything to enhance or degrade your system performance. Hence the fallacy of audiophile network cables. I know what about Wi-Fi vs Lan see bullet "a" that is a measurable metric. Dropouts are cause by loss of information due to router "dispatcher", using a 3/4 ton truck vs 8 ton truck for data capacity. Now that we have a common applied measurable metric that now could apply to your points "2" and "3".

Ken

[chessman]

The analogy is flawed, so let's forget bricks. The deeper issue is this: Is a USB cable really digital or is it really analog in its transmission method? I say it is analog carrying voltage variances intended to be be square waves to simulate 1's and 0's and, further, that they must arrive within strict time limits or risk being reconstructed incorrectly by the DAC. Am I wrong?

Edit: I know that USB cables are supposed to be digital. My point is that they may not function that way when timing matters.

[BlueFox]

I think one issue is some people confuse a correct CRC with musical accuracy. Data with induced jitter will still give a correct CRC, but not sound right. Sort of like a turntable that has a very slight speed variation.

[chessman]

Originally Posted by BlueFox

I think one issue is some people confuse a correct CRC with musical accuracy. Data with induced jitter will still give a correct CRC, but not sound right. Sort of like a turntable that has a very slight speed variation.

Exactly.

[Masterlu]

My Accuphase digital gear uses HS-Link cables which could be looked at the same as Ethernet cables. This is a proprietary digital transmission, and audiophile cables make a world of difference.

[blacsno]

Originally Posted by chessman

The analogy is flawed, so let's forget bricks. The deeper issue is this: Is a USB cable really digital or is it really analog in its transmission method? I say it is analog carrying voltage variances intended to be be square waves to simulate 1's and 0's and, further, that they must arrive within strict time limits or risk being reconstructed incorrectly by the DAC. Am I wrong?

Edit: I know that USB cables are supposed to be digital. My point is that they may not function that way when timing matters.

Please don't lump network cables into the same lot as USB,coaxial,XLR,BNC,RCA, and optical. Those interface cables have a common function that network cables just don't share. Sure network cables are made of copper wire and can used for speaker wire or RCA! The posting was only dealing with audiophile network cable, nothing to do with USB. Now is USB digital or analog? If staying within USB 2.0 specification "Digital". An OEM could write their own proprietary driver, then it could be either analog or digital. Its all about the interfaces. It's within that interface improvement can be had. Not every/all interface improvement can be applied to each other. Just because you can make boron gas infused gold wire connection with rabbit fur covering. Then state that this product will do "please insert any claim"! That is why I used the truck delivery bricks analogy. It has to pass the GIGGLE test!!

Ken

[cleeds]

Originally Posted by Antonmb

... I am a believer in scientific methodology, and this ain't it. A listening test conducted in a large, open, probably reverberant hall with "a few hundred people" coughing and scraping their chairs, using open-backed headphones, and the cheap DAC and amp built into a Dell laptop running Windows Media Player that kept hanging up? ... This test was as much pseudo-science as some of the claims it was intended to debunk ...

Antonmb, I agree completely. The "test" also had has numerous other shortcomings. For example, it says "interested potential test subjects screened for suitability basically making sure the person ... didn’t appear to have an agenda." Those could be some of the most valuable subjects to test - experienced, well-trained listeners - and any bias they might have would be negated by a properly designed and conducted blind test. That is one of the very raisons d'etre for blind testing in the first place - separating bias from result! Oops!

Instead the "test" organizers promoted their own bias. Prior to being selected, subjects were instructed that audiophile network cables were "magical" and pseudo-scientific. Oops!

The organizers had planned to test 20 subjects. But, after testing only seven, "According to the test criteria, this many misses counted as a meaningful result, and the test was terminated." But the same statistician also concluded - after the test was complete - that gee, once he really really thought about it, the test's equating an inability to detect a difference with a "fail" introduced another variance into the test. Ooops!

I could go on, but I won't. The test proves nothing. Blacsno says the very notion of audiophile network cable fails his "giggle" test. That's ok; some people think South Park is funny.

I don't know if audiophile network cable has value or not. But neither giggles nor pseudoscience will resolve that for me.

[chessman]

Ken, I am ok with confirmation bias as long as my ears consistently fool me.

You do, however, make several spot on points. I will have to be satisfied with being confused.