Does high quality digital cables matter?

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Why don't you simply ASK ZLTFUL what he is using for playback?

I didn't have to. He volunteered the information.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm sure ZLTFUL would welcome you to the audition if you could just keep mum.

Why would I want to keep mum on a discussion board? Furthermore, I am not communicating in a disrespectful way that would make a reasonable person want to exclude me from attending a listening test ... am I?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm not doing this to be statistically significant.

This we can agree on.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Your equipment perhaps? Problem: I can guarantee you if I used your modded SDA's there would be a whole contingent of Audiophilum that would laugh that out of the room.

You would take offense rightfully so.

My signature should provide a reasonable clue that I don't take insults against SDA's seriously. Indeed, the fact that I have been an advocate of heavy modifications for the SDA series speakers should be sufficient indication that I believed there to be significant room for improvement in the stock speakers.

I would not be offended in the least about anyone laughing at my modded SDAs because they have never heard my SDAs on my electronics in my room. Furthermore, I think that anyone sufficiently experienced in audiophile stereophony would surmise that I had a compelling reason for continuing to upgrade my source components, electronics, cables, and accessories, to the tune of $116,000 retail, yet chose to keep and continually modify my 20+ year old SDAs. Rather than a laughing point, I think my choice of loudspeakers lends some credibility to my claim to be performance driven, rather than brand and price driven.

Lastly, I am not sure why any knowledgeable person would laugh at SDAs. Even in their stock form, SDAs exhibit low levels of distortion, stable impedance over a wide frequency range, and spectacular stereophonic spatial performance. While there are other speakers that beat SDAs in some areas of performance, I have not found a better loudspeaker in the areas of stereophonic performance most important to me: image stability, image placement, sweet spot stability and width, and sound stage size.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Scientifically valid huh? So what speakers, amp, DAC would be universally, scientifically, accepted? What I should ask is what do the MEASUREMENTS look like for speakers, amp, DAC look like for them to be scientifically accepted?

Scientific validation is not about brand names and spec sheets, it is about being able to prove a hypothesis or theory with repeatable results using observation and experimentation. It is not recommended to use apparatus and methodology more complex than is required to prove your hypothesis. Therefore you have a wide latitude in selecting experimental gear.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Hmmm. I did the entire thing on my headphones.

Congratulations. I could have done the entire thing on my headphones, but I chose what was easiest on my ears. If there had been a strict requirement for headphone use, I would have adhered to it.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I guess that explains why I did sweat the stereo field portion but did pass without error. I finished the challenge in 3 non-consecutive sessions over the period of a week.

Great. This is a perfect example of the fact that using binaural playback for stereo material is not optimal. You were "sweated" by stereo sound field examples that were not particularly challenging and did not have a wide array of sound images. Think what might have happened if you had been presented a complex musical selection like a choir or had been asked to pick out the location of a violin section of an orchestra.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Scientific validation is not about brand names and spec sheets, it is about being able to prove a hypothesis or theory with repeatable results using observation and experimentation. It is not recommended to use apparatus and methodology more complex than is required to prove your hypothesis. Therefore you have a wide latitude in selecting experimental gear.

You will find no argument from me there. You may have your hands full with others.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Think what might have happened if you had been presented a complex musical selection like a choir or had been asked to pick out the location of a violin section of an orchestra.

I would have used my speakers. And on parts that I might have had a problem with using speakers I might have thrown on my headphones. But that isn't how I went through it. I'm not sure how others would go through it, not sure what they would use for evaluation, don't care.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Why would I want to keep mum on a discussion board? Furthermore, I am not communicating in a disrespectful way that would make a reasonable person want to exclude me from attending a listening test ... am I?

I didn't say you were communicating in a disrespectful way. Certainly enthusiastic on the points you want to make and it's appreciated. Really.

I say that because you seem awfully vocal on how someone else chooses to evaluate. So I am to assume if they broke out their favorite headphone rig you would just keep in silent attendance...

I too find my eagerness pushing me in certain scenarios to just get in there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfKL6RM8hsY

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I say that because you seem awfully vocal on how someone else chooses to evaluate.

This is an audio discussion forum, therefore someone being awfully vocal on the audio-related activities of others is to be expected.

Thinking further, the following comments are in general and not particularly aimed at you or anyone else.

In order for me to be vocal on how someone else chooses to evaluate, the evaluator must first be vocal on how they choose to evaluate, otherwise, I would have no knowledge of what they were doing. In this regard I am no more vocal than the person who reveals and discusses their evaluative activities.

If someone else publicly documents a past, present, or future evaluation, then they should have a reasonable expectation of some sort of feedback.

If someone is claiming that their evaluation method is scientifically justified, then they should expect to be held up to awfully vocal (I prefer the term scientifically rigorous) feedback and scrutiny.

Some people use inappropriate evaluation techniques for malicious purposes in order to deceive. Others use inappropriate evaluation techniques out of benign ignorance. The latter group would appreciate someone being awfully vocal and pointing out the potential pitfalls and erroneous conclusions that might occur.

Some people have accepted erroneous concepts at face value and appreciate it when an alternative viewpoint is respectfully presented. For example, most people are not aware that the term "stereo headphones" is an oxymoron. Headphones are a binaural playback system and cannot be "stereo", although they can be used to playback stereophonic material.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

So I am to assume if they broke out their favorite headphone rig you would just keep in silent attendance...

Sure, the same way I keep silent when I am at a big box electronics store or specialized audio store and the sales person is feeding a ton of BS to an unsuspecting consumer or even to me...the same way I keep silent when I am at some person's home and they are bragging about the prestigious brand names and how much money they spent on their stereo system, when I know the salesman just bent them over and had his way with them...and their credit card. The only people who have "bragging rights" in audio are the ones who bag top performing gear at a ridiculous "steal" of a price.

Like Bruce Lee, I find it far better to just walk away most of the time.

BlueFox

While my file player (Bryston BDP-1) uses a direct attached USB drive, I do find this thread/subject interesting. On one hand, I can accept the idea that the data should be the same, but on the other hand, every preconceived idea I have had about how cables should work have been proven wrong. So, I am approaching this with an open mind.

Anyway, here is an interesting article on the sound quality of digital music bring affected by the storage device being used. The gist of this is that there is still a lot to be resolved, and/or understood, in music reproduction. To assume that some technology is infallible for music reproduction is both arrogant, and stupid. Hopefully, the test write-up will be on par with this.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol5_no3/listening_to_storage.htm

BlueFox

Here is another relevant article on this subject. The point I am trying to make here is there are no absolutes when it comes to music reproduction, and no technology is perfect.

"Most network audio websites and also manufacturers involved discount the idea that the choice of network cable can affect the sound, either because they are sure it does not, or simply because this is a convenient view to take. Since 15m of network cable costs about £13, it was easy to buy two lengths of Belkin Snagless UPTP (unshielded and recommended for audio use) in Cat5e and Cat6 varieties. They arrived in tight coils and needed to be stretched out for a day or two to 'relax' and lay flat before gently smoothing out the bends. With the network audio system up and running, the two test cables were used between the NASconnected router a hard disk drive Naim UnitiServe. Patience was required, as the system had to synchronise after each disconnection. Multiple trials were carried out, but this was not really necessary, as the differences were not trivial. Using Cat6 as the reference, reversion to Cat5e dropped sound quality by around 20 per cent – jaw dropping in view of the trivial cost involved, especially when compared with the price of the whole audio system.

Variations in the sound of digital audio replay don't necessarily correlate with those in the analogue domain; sometimes different terms are needed. By comparison, Cat5e sounded 'greyer', with less contrast and somewhat dulled detail. Specifically, low level detail and image depth were impaired, unwanted grain and sibilance were increased, and there was a shortfall in coherence and involvement. Dynamics were softened and the sense of rhythm was significantly reduced. Three DACs were tried (the Metrum Octave, the MSB Platinum Signature and the Naim DAC), all with very similar results, so I do not think that the differences are down to failures of the DACs to re-clock or reject jitter, nor the S/PDIF performance of the UnitiServe, which has proved a first rate source of data in this format.


"Most network audio websites and also manufacturers involved discount the idea that the choice of network cable can affect the sound, either because they are sure it does not, or simply because this is a convenient view to take"


We therefore believe that network cables have a significant influence on audio replay. (Incidentally, we have been warned against using screened types.) Other factors may well affect performance too, such as the quality of termination to the plugs and the fit and tightness of these plugs for these not wholly reliable 'telephone' connectors. And we hope to try out some 'audiophile' network cables soon."

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol6_no1/audio_networking.htm

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

"Errata" is a list of errors with accompanying corrections. I have not provided such in this thread. Either you have me confused with someone else or you don't know the meaning of the word.

BTW my "Errata" comment was to your diatribe pointed at me because the use of headphones for X form of evaluation was mentioned. You most certainly went on a multiple page diatribe about something I never specifically mentioned as it pertains to a best practice when it comes to the playback of Stereophonic recordings. You got all wound up on that one on your own.

I simply pointed out the purposefully mastered binaural recordings do a killer job of simulating objects in a three dimensional space. Something I haven't heard with a strictly 2.0 loudspeaker setup.

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

The computer was on a bench, cabling hanging out everywhere, motherboard sitting on a piece of cardboard, just finished the LAG config in both OS and the Switch and I wanted to listen to audio out of the mainboard jack just to make sure I wasn't having any drop outs as I switched out cables on the switch.

It was certainly easier than lugging my amp, source, loudspeakers down.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I stated that I think this is a good test as long as the conditions are mutually agreed upon and followed. Obviously this is not the case as ZLTFUL has mentioned several concerns about the test conditions.

Most of his concerns are addressed at this point. Please keep in mind I have invited comment as far as my proposed test setup is concerned. I've yet to see anything mentioned that is data driven. I think there are a few more items of understanding to get worked out but I see nothing that is a show stopper.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You keep projecting your hangups on others. Isn't your Ethernet cable exercise your attempt to square your circle of disbelief that someone can hear something that you can't?

We're going to find out pretty soon whether I have a hang up or ZLTFUL can hear the audibility of Ethernet cables. We'll have to see who squares their circle.

BlueFox

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

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.