Does high quality digital cables matter?

ken brydson

NVM. Rethought my comment...

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

Here is an interesting article by John Curl where he shares his thoughts on various topics. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the iPad to copy anything, so you have to read it. One point though is he really condemns A/B type 'testing'.

http://www.q-audio.com/johncurl.pdf

I'm not sure what forum it's on but Jneutron tore Mr. Curl up over some sighted A/B over I believe speaker jacks/binding posts. So there is always a counter point. Any conversation that Jneutron is in I have google opened up to research the topics he is speaking about. It's an education every time.

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

Here is an interesting article by John Curl where he shares his thoughts on various topics. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the iPad to copy anything, so you have to read it. One point though is he really condemns A/B type 'testing'.

http://www.q-audio.com/johncurl.pdf

Link is broken for me...

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm not sure what forum it's on but Jneutron tore Mr. Curl up over some sighted A/B over I believe speaker jacks/binding posts. So there is always a counter point. Any conversation that Jneutron is in I have google opened up to research the topics he is speaking about. It's an education every time.

I am not familiar with the exchange between Jneutron and John Curl over speaker jacks/binding posts. I am familiar with a bitter dispute that John Curl had with Parasound engineers over the binding posts for the JC 1 amplifier. Curl insisted on using Superior Electric BP302BR10 binding posts that were 5x the cost of the generic binding posts preferred by Parasound. John Curl held his ground because he said the SE posts were much better sounding. Parasound management decided to "humor" him on this point.

Curl could have set up a blind test and proved his ability to hear the difference in binding posts, but he doesn't believe in blind audio tests. Ironically, he was the subject of an unplanned blind test that certified his ability to distinguish sonic differences in binding posts.

A batch of JC 1s arrived from the Taiwan factory and John Curl and Bob Crump noticed something was "off" about the random samples they tested. They eventually went through each amplifier in the batch and each had the same "off" sound, even though they measured to spec. It turned out that the Taiwan factory had ran out of Superior Electric binding posts and had substituted lower quality lookalike posts.

I was not aware of the incident above until I contacted Parasound and inquired if changing my JC 1's "cheap looking" binding posts to Cardas posts would void the warranty. I was given permission to change the posts, but I was advised that the Cardas posts were a lower quality alternative sound wise, although they cost nearly twice as much as the Superior Electric posts. I kept the SE posts.

JC 1 designers John Curl and Bob Crump briefly mention the controversy in this Audio Asylum thread:

John Curl on JC 1 binding post controversy.

Bob Crump on JC 1 binding post controversy.


Superior Electric BP302BR10 binding post assembly, $26.


Cardas CCGR binding post assembly, $53.50.


Cardas CCGR binding posts on my SDA SRS 1.2TL speakers.


Cardas CCGR binding posts on Dreadnought AI-1 Isolation transformer.

I prefer Cardas posts because of their appearance and because of their sturdy metal construction. I could have spent half the money and chose equally as sturdy all-metal Vampire BP-Hex posts, but the Vampire posts are not as pretty.

I have never heard a sonic difference or improvement among any of the binding posts I have auditioned (various models of Cardas, Superior Electric, Vampire, various stock speaker posts).

In the future, when I am more dedicated to audio than I am now, I will do a binding post shootout and settle the matter in my mind once and for all.

Habanero Monk

Thanks for the read. If I had the funds to spend I wouldn't mind Parasound/Bryston/Theta/Pass. Speakers upgrade is next for me however.

BlueFox

Here is a relevant link. However, $2,200 is a lot for a 1 meter Ethernet cable.

http://soundorg.com/news/story/150

http://www.chord.co.uk/blog/tag/c-stream/

BlueFox

Yes, you are right. The $1200 Ethernet cable is probably good enough.

I am surprised nobody has come up with a better cable for direct attached USB drives. I wonder how much would be charged for an 8 inch cable?

BlueFox

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Link is broken for me...

Try this site.

http://jockohomo.net/data/johncurl-v.0.1.pdf


I don't know what the top level site is, and am not interested in finding out. :eek:

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If you want to know why I used headphones in this case (that headrott attempted to snipe me for)

If what you consider "sniping" to be the fact that you are in error suggesting the usage of headphones for stereophonic music evaluation (of ethernet cables) then yes. If you meant some other derogatory meaning, then you are incorrect.

If, after reading DK's responses as to why headphones should not be used in sterophonic evaluation then you need to do some more research as to why; this way you will hopefully gain the understanding.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

If what you consider "sniping" to be the fact that you are in error suggesting the usage of headphones for stereophonic music evaluation (of ethernet cables) then yes. If you meant some other derogatory meaning, then you are incorrect.

If, after reading DK's responses as to why headphones should not be used in sterophonic evaluation then you need to do some more research as to why; this way you will hopefully gain the understanding.

Find my words where I said to use them for stereophonic evaluation... What I disagreed with is your ill advised sounstage comment. Because it's not true.

I even posted a video to a purposeful binaural recording. Put on some head phones and listen for yourself. You talk about people not trying stuff....

Even DK finally admitted I'm not testing any performance metric in any given way. I'm administering a test and bringing cables.

11tsteve

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I spent time with my AKG 701's and this setup going over my sound interface. If there is a difference to be heard it's beyond me.

pretty sure it all started here.

Habanero Monk

11tsteve wrote: »

pretty sure it all started here.

I know where it started. My problem is the ignorance displayed because they don't know what metric I was using to evaluate with for starters.

There are certain things that I hear on head phone not in the stereophonic field, but resolution wise, that I then use on loudspeakers to key in to. That is outside the fact that headphones were a portable way, a nod to convenience, for testing out the setup. Two birds one stone. I also evaluated with the video I posted.

And none of that precluded me putting this into my 2.1 setup. I am left wondering if people think that a 4 pair cable is built to enhance one particular aspect of audio play back: Stereophony? HF, LF, resolution, Pace, Rythm, Timing, Slam?

Three pages of me pointing out gross error of assumption on others parts.

Honestly if people think that is such a huge mistake they shouldn't help me correct it. It should be to my detriment right? :rolleyes:

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Even DK finally admitted I'm not testing any performance metric in any given way. I'm administering a test and bringing cables.

There was noting for me to "admit" to. It was always clear to me what you were testing for. The following three comments were clear to me:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

We are talking Ethernet cables. They don't have a sound they pass data.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm not testing cables. I'm testing claims.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm not testing ZLTFUL's cables. I'm testing his claim to discern the audible difference in the confines of a cable the meets CAT6 spec in a packet switched network.

When you take the dubious step of saying it does X/Y/Z to the sound vs another competent CAT6 cable then I have to take issue since I understand how packet switched networks operate.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Honestly if people think that is such a huge mistake they shouldn't help me correct it. It should be to my detriment right? :rolleyes:

You mistakenly believe that I, and others, are in some sort of competition with you. We are not. We are not interested in your detriment or failure. We are only offering suggestions to make the best test possible. It is you who are projecting your "competitive mindset" on others. You are the one who "took issue" with ZLTFUL's assertion that he can hear a difference in Ethernet cables. You are the one who offered the challenge. ZLTFUL was just minding his business, listening to his network-based stereo, and commenting on what he heard.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm so open minded that I'm offering to pay off a member here to simply demonstrate their ability to discern one CAT6 from another CAT6 cable (that is they pass the 802.11 specification).

Since you say that you do not hear a difference in Ethernet cables, one must assume that you are in this for "bragging rights" rather than the pursuit of knowledge. If ZLTFUL demonstrates that he can hear a difference in Ethernet cables, you will still be insensitive to such differences, just as I am (currently) insensitive to sonic differences in binding posts, even though such differences have been demonstrated with a blind test. ZTLFUL's success will only prove that he can hear a difference among Ethernet cables under certain conditions. It does not prove that anyone else can or should be able to. If ZLTFUL does not demonstrate that he can hear a difference in Ethernet cables, you will have proven that he cannot hear a difference under the test conditions. You will not have proven that ZLTFUL, or anyone else, could not hear a difference under their normal listening conditions or under other test conditions.

Habanero Monk

BTW have an AQ Vodka 1.5 meter Ethernet cable in. Nicest looking Ethernet cable I've ever had in hand and built like an M1 Abrams Tank. I don't care for it being solid core conductor. Had a friend do some switching out and can't tell where the music changes in P.R.A.T, soundstage (width, depth etc). Horns sound the same on Copland material, Piano's didn't change on Debussy, Rachmaninoff, Bach, Shostakovitch. Bass was authoritative either way on Trinity, Rob Zombie, HALO sound track, Dweezil Zappa off of Angelica. Alan Parsons, Steely Dan AJA, Michael Hedges, Via, Satriani, Johnson, Malmsteen all sounded great either cable.

I'll keep it for another week but at this point with a bunch of play it's going back.

headrott

I have not heard the AQ Vodka Ethernet cable. I chose between the Acoustic Revive cable and the AQ Vodka cable and went with the Acoustic Revive since it was PCOCC solid core wire. I love the fact that it is PCOCC solid core wire. The AQ Vodka may be better however. I have thought about buying one and comparing, but have many other things to spend my money on so far. One day I will buy one and compare, not this week though.

There are many reasons why you did not hear a difference between the AQ Vodka cable and your BJC, all of which have been addressed in this thread.

F1nut

Curl could have set up a blind test and proved his ability to hear the difference in binding posts, but he doesn't believe in blind audio tests. Ironically, he was the subject of an unplanned blind test that certified his ability to distinguish sonic differences in binding posts.

A batch of JC 1s arrived from the Taiwan factory and John Curl and Bob Crump noticed something was "off" about the random samples they tested. They eventually went through each amplifier in the batch and each had the same "off" sound, even though they measured to spec. It turned out that the Taiwan factory had ran out of Superior Electric binding posts and had substituted lower quality lookalike posts.

I love it....still nothing better than human ears.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

I love it....still nothing better than human ears.

That's also my assertion. My ears dictate what will be in my system.....along with my wallet of course, regardless of brand name, science, data sheets, graphs, or reviews.

polrbehr

F1nut wrote: »

I love it....still nothing better than human ears.

tonyb wrote: »

That's also my assertion. My ears dictate what will be in my system.....along with my wallet of course, regardless of brand name, science, data sheets, graphs, or reviews.

^^^^ This ^^^^

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

There are many reasons why you did not hear a difference between the AQ Vodka cable and your BJC, all of which have been addressed in this thread.

Totally agree.

tonyb

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Totally agree.

Even so, all that matters is you try different stuff. If you can't hear a difference, we'll bless you with Holy water and move on. Not that big a deal really.

headrott

Tony, he agrees because he is agreeing with himself in saying that there is no difference to be heard between ethernet cables because "they just pass data". He is ignoring all the other reasons that he didn't hear differences between the AQ Vodka and BJC.

tonyb

So is that wishful thinking on my part that he'll simply listen, unbiased ?

Eh...don't answer that.

villian

headrott wrote: »

He is ignoring all the other reasons that he didn't hear differences between the AQ Vodka and BJC.

And those reasons are?

...Still waiting.

villian

AQ lost me at this part of the Vodka description...

"DIRECTIONALITY: All audio cables are directional. The correct direction is determined by **listening to every batch of metal conductors used in every AudioQuest audio cable. All signal conductors controlled for digital-audio direction in AudioQuest HDMI cables**, and care is even taken to run the conductors used in the Audio Return Channel in the opposite direction to ensure the best performance for that application. Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality."


Will someone explain the part I marked with **'s. Thanks!




Also I have a cable I'd like to throw in for comparisons sake if it's cool with Habanero. It's an awesome Cat6 I had custom built from MicroTech about 6 years ago. Best cable I've ever set my hands on. Ended up having them make me 3 or 4 when I ran a wired home network.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

So is that wishful thinking on my part that he'll simply listen, unbiased ?

If one can train their bias's away then when I single blind tested this it should have done one better than that. Computer, BJC/AQ, have been in my system and an OPPO BDP 105/Anthem/Aerial 9t setup/Seaton Submersives (Yep two of them )

Neither me nor the other system owner could tell which cable was playing when the other swapped cables out blind. The great thing about my testing rig is there isn't any delay in the audio playback. We used JRiver at its installation defaults.

I had him switch out at random intervals over the period of two hours on his system. I couldn't tell when he did. At the end he let me know he made 19 swaps.

headrott

villian wrote: »

And those reasons are?

...Still waiting.

Still waiting for what? As I said, it's all been said in this thread. If you still don't know, look it up in this thread.

Edit: If you guys listen as well as you read, it is no suprise you can't hear diifferences between gear.......

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If one can train their bias's away then when I single blind tested this it should have done one better than that.

It's not that simple. In the absence of bias, there is still system resolution and ear sensitivity to consider. Here may have been no audible difference under any circumstance or there was no audible difference with the system you used or there was a difference, but you could not perceive it.

As I stated, I don't hear a difference in binding posts. Others have proved that they can. Does that mean that John Curl's ear's are quantitatively "better" than mine? Likely not. It definitely means John Curl's ears are better trained than mine. I do not have decades of experience listening to the distortions and colorations of thousands of parts. I do not have decades of experience selecting parts for high end audio gear based on sonic performance.

Some of my cable reviews indicate that I returned a cable because it provided no audible improvement. In some of those cases I measured better noise performance with the new cable, but still didn't hear it. Sometimes, when I revisited the same cable after upgrading my equipment, I did hear an improvement in performance.

villian wrote: »

AQ lost me at this part of the Vodka description...

"DIRECTIONALITY: All audio cables are directional. The correct direction is determined by **listening to every batch of metal conductors used in every AudioQuest audio cable. All signal conductors controlled for digital-audio direction in AudioQuest HDMI cables**, and care is even taken to run the conductors used in the Audio Return Channel in the opposite direction to ensure the best performance for that application. Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality."


Will someone explain the part I marked with **'s. Thanks!

Wire will have different resistance and noise characteristics in the direction it is pulled and milled compared to the direction opposite to that in which it is pulled and milled. Some of the electrical characteristics of a wire are changed when it is pulled through a sizing die. AudioQuest further processes some of their wire by milling operations which polish the surface of the wire. Since current travels mostly on the outer surface of a wire, smoothing the wire's outer surface reduces noise. It is similar to the difference between driving at high speed on a gravel road or driving at high speed on a smooth paved surface.

headrott

Ah Ray, you did the homework for both of them...........:sad:

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It's not that simple.

Agreed. Network cards, their chipset, PCI-e controllers and it's chipset that they run through the RAM that data is read out of, the CPU executing, the USB circuitry. I agree much more complex than some binding posts.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In the absence of bias, there is still system resolution and ear sensitivity to consider. Here may have been no audible difference under any circumstance or there was no audible difference with the system you used or there was a difference, but you could not perceive it.

So He and I meet a N of 2. Soon to be an N of 3.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As I stated, I don't hear a difference in binding posts. Others have proved that they can. Does that mean that John Curl's ear's are quantitatively "better" than mine? Likely not. It definitely means John Curl's ears are better trained than mine. I do not have decades of experience listening to the distortions and colorations of thousands of parts. I do not have decades of experience selecting parts for high end audio gear based on sonic performance.

I don't doubt it was anecdotal. He may even be able to hear the differences from batch of shipped amps to batch of shipped amps.

The claim that is going to be tested however in the instance of Ethernet cables is: Switch and its' either Belkin, BJC, Highend. All certified.

I believe ZLTFUL has trained himself to the point that he is unbiased in even sighted testing. We are going to find out if his unbiased sighted assesment is still calibrated with a system designed to measure his ability to discern.

If he passes we know he is fully calibrated for sighted, and honest, evaluation.

villian

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Wire will have different resistance and noise characteristics in the direction it is pulled and milled compared to the direction opposite to that in which it is pulled and milled. Some of the electrical characteristics of a wire are changed when it is pulled through a sizing die. AudioQuest further processes some of their wire by milling operations which polish the surface of the wire. Since current travels mostly on the outer surface of a wire, smoothing the wire's outer surface reduces noise. It is similar to the difference between driving at high speed on a gravel road or driving at high speed on a smooth paved surface.

That in no way answers my question. I get how AQ manafactures their wire, but what I'm asking is what they mean by...

"..listening to every batch of metal conductors used in every AudioQuest audio cable. All signal conductors controlled for digital-audio direction in AudioQuest HDMI cables,"

Those two lines make absolutely no sense. Listening to every bath of metal conductors used in every AQ cable? Seriously? And what is meant by "All signal conductors controlled for digital-audio direction on AQ HDMI cables,"? Talk about a comma splice if there ever was one.

Basically I'm just pointing out that their cable descriptions are complete and utter BS. If a company is so easily willing to create marketing BS like that, what makes you think that any of it is true? Are you believing it simply because it says so? What about "Flux Capacitators"?