Does high quality digital cables matter?

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"?

agfrost

villian wrote: »

What about "Flux Capacitators"?

BlueFox

villian wrote: »

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?

Possibly. They don't say who listens to the cable. Just that every batch is screened when it arrives. If you don't believe it then take it up with them instead of whining on a audio forum. For once, actually have something to post.

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.

If we take it literally then it means the conductors are placed in the order that enhances the digital signal. That is inline (pun) with their philosophy that there is an optimum conduction direction for each strand.

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"?

So far, only your posts "are complete and utter BS". In regard to "Flux Capacitators", if they exist then what did they say about them? Or are you just making something up? If you are then why? It is irrelevant and stupid.

villian

"GEOMETRY STABILIZING SOLID-POLYETHYLENE INSULATION"
"PERFECT-SURFACE SILVER"
"TRIPLE-BALANCED GEOMETRY"
"DOUBLE COUNTER-SPIRAL GEOMETRY"
"MULTI-POSITION CARBON-BASED NOISE-DISSIPATION"
-Audioquest


The fact that they write everything in CAPS should be a dead give away! If anyone could show exactly what these words mean and how they differ from a standard cable, I would be thrilled. IE: What exactly is "Perfect Surface Silver", in words and pictures NOT associated with their marketing jargon!

DarqueKnight

villian wrote: »

That in no way answers my question.

It did answer your question...in detail.

villian wrote: »

Those two lines make absolutely no sense.

Of course not...not to you. If I read a sales brochure on brain surgery instruments it wouldn't make sense to me, but I would not be so ignorant and arrogant to say that the brochure absolutely made no sense. I would assume, correctly, that the brochure made sense to those interested in, and engaged in, the use of such instruments. The larger question is, why would someone who is not a brain surgeon be reading and critiquing brain surgery instrument ads?

villian wrote: »

"GEOMETRY STABILIZING SOLID-POLYETHYLENE INSULATION"
"PERFECT-SURFACE SILVER"
"TRIPLE-BALANCED GEOMETRY"
"DOUBLE COUNTER-SPIRAL GEOMETRY"
"MULTI-POSITION CARBON-BASED NOISE-DISSIPATION"
-Audioquest

The fact that they write everything in CAPS should be a dead give away! If anyone could show exactly what these words mean and how they differ from a standard cable, I would be thrilled. IE: What exactly is "Perfect Surface Silver", in words and pictures NOT associated with their marketing jargon!

You should get out more. Capitalization is a standard feature in marketing displays.

I am not sure why you are devoting so much attention to products you have no use for. You can go to the "Theory and Education" section of Audioquest's website for more insight on their cable technologies. There is also a link for contacting them to ask questions directly. They are quite patient with skeptics and will break down the technical explanations to whatever level you require.

Good luck with your research.

tonyb

DarqueKnight wrote: »

They are quite patient with skeptics and will break down the technical explanations to whatever level you require..

Which in this case....is pretty low.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I am not sure why you are devoting so much attention to products you have no use for. You can go to the "Theory and Education" section of Audioquest's website for more insight on their cable technologies.

Been trying to close the loop on their Etherenet cables:

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. Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router, Router to Network Player.

1. Ethernet, transporting packet data, isn't an audio cable. It's a data cable. No matter if it's extremely low payload email, slightly higher payload 16/44.1 audio, median payload like streaming or mpeg4, or really high bit rate found typically in H.264 / VC1 etc.

2. Ethernet cables are full duplex. They can send and receive data in either direction, at the same time, at full speed.

It would be nice to see some actual data to support their marketing claim. I've sent an email to their rep covering my area.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

1. Ethernet, transporting packet data, isn't an audio cable. It's a data cable. No matter if it's extremely low payload email, slightly higher payload 16/44.1 audio, median payload like streaming or mpeg4, or really high bit rate found typically in H.264 / VC1 etc.

Any cable that transports an audio signal is an audio cable. An audio signal can be acoustic and transported through the air, or it can be optical and transported over glass or plastic fiber, or it can be electronic and transported over electrically conductive wire. An electronic audio signal can either be analog or digital. A digital cable can be used to transport analog signals and an analog cable can be used to transport digital signals.

Some people use Ethernet cables as speaker cables.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

2. Ethernet cables are full duplex. They can send and receive data in either direction, at the same time, at full speed.

This is true of most analog audio cables as well. Directionality in audio cables concerns differences in noise characteristics rather than differences in propagation speed.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

It would be nice to see some actual data to support their marketing claim. I've sent an email to their rep covering my area.

I love data. Let us know what the AQ rep says.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Been trying to close the loop on their Etherenet cables:

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. Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router, Router to Network Player.

1. Ethernet, transporting packet data, isn't an audio cable. It's a data cable. No matter if it's extremely low payload email, slightly higher payload 16/44.1 audio, median payload like streaming or mpeg4, or really high bit rate found typically in H.264 / VC1 etc.

As DK said, it is an audio cable if it is transporting audio signal (including as "data"). I will re-post this reply I posted way back on page 2 since perhaps you forgot about it. It clearly demonstrates that transporting data as an audio signal is more difficult and is subject to more errors than the transfer of data as graphics on a screen and refutes your thoughts that it doesn't matter what the data being transferred is. The reply from page 2 is:

headrott wrote: »

Exactly Tony. transferring and viewing computer data as 1's and 0's is "easier" for a cable than for the same cable to transmit music as 1's and 0's.

As proof, I will offer up this: A couple years ago I bought some Belden solid copper core Cat 5e ethernet cable along with RJ45 ends to install onto the ends. I also bought some RJ45 crimpers costing $75.00 (NOT cheapies). I built the Ethernet cable and hooked it up to my router to transmit my online service to my compueter (I now use wireless). The cable worked fine. tranmitted data with no hiccups.

I then hooked the same DIY ethernet cable up to my modified Denon DVD-1920 DVD/SACD player, which I installed an RJ45 output jack into and the other end hooked up to my (at the time newly built) DAC, also with an RJ45 input jack to transmit thepure DSD signalbetween the two.

The result was that while the DIY ethernet cable worked between the my router and computer without hiccups, te same cable did not work between my modified DVD-1920 and DIY DAC. The data digital signal was not passed accurately enough between the Denon player and DAC (music). The digital data signal was passed between the router and computer with "seemingly" no problems.

So, if they are just 1's and 0's and "just a digital data signal" why would one digital data signal work (between the router and computer, but not work between the Denon DVD-1920 and my DIY DAC?

Answer: there's a lot more going on with 1's and 0's than what HabiMonk and other scoffers are admitting to and/or realise.

Edit: I should point out that the same RJ45 jacks I initially installed in the Denon DVD-1920 and the DIY DAC are the same ones I used with a different ethernet cable and worked perfectly. Meaning the RJ45 jacks on the player/DAC were NOT the problem. It was the ethernet cable that was the problem and went away after switching to this cable: http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_cable.html

Although I now use a modified Denon DVD-5910 as my DSD output player to my DAC.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

2. Ethernet cables are full duplex. They can send and receive data in either direction, at the same time, at full speed.

AQ never stated that the audio data could not be sent in either direction. They are saying that the audio quality is improved if the signal flow is in the direction of the arrows on the cable. That is pretty straight forward by their statement, that is what they are saying.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

It would be nice to see some actual data to support their marketing claim. I've sent an email to their rep covering my area.

Do you feel data given to you by AQ will convince you that Ethernet cables sound different?

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Any cable that transports an audio signal is an audio cable. An audio signal can be acoustic and transported through the air, or it can be optical and transported over glass or plastic fiber, or it can be electronic and transported over electrically conductive wire. An electronic audio signal can either be analog or digital. A digital cable can be used to transport analog signals and an analog cable can be used to transport digital signals.

Some people use Ethernet cables as speaker cables.

All trucks are vehicles, not all vehicles are trucks. Is that what you are trying to get at?

DK, respectfully, you are making a straw man argument. It's not audio at that point. It's packet data. It's in a frame that can be up to 9014 bytes (Jumbo Frame). It only becomes audio once it is fetched into buffer (RAM) and decoded by the CODEC and CPU.

I think you are being disingenuous and detrimental to your fellow members here. I made a point early on in thread about: does someone's cheap Linksys router affect the quality of the HD Tracks 24/192 file that they downloaded? DSkip was the only one that this point wasn't seemingly lost on.

So how about it: Does a 24/192 file downloaded off of HD Tracks sound worse if your router is a Linksys? Does it sound better if it's a custom Linux box running IPTables ? Or maybe Watchguard, Zyxel, Sonicwall, Cisco?

Could you tell the difference from a file of your choice downloaded on a $60 firewall/router appliance or a $1000 one?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

This is true of most analog audio cables as well. Directionality in audio cables concerns differences in noise characteristics rather than differences in propagation speed.

And what does this have to do with fixed frequency signaling used in Ethernet where speeds are 100-600MHz? One of my BJC cables worst case margin is 5.9 dB above baseline. Almost 200% better then spec.

My return loss is 9.5 dB above baseline almost over 400%. All in a $13 cable.

What does AQ know? How do they Measure? Do they know something about Ethernet cabling that FLUKE doesn't? Yes all questions for AQ. So I will ask.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I love data. Let us know what the AQ rep says.

If AQ can provide me with 3rd party measurements I will let everyone know.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Some people use Ethernet cables as speaker cables.

Then it's not an Ethernet cable at that point. It can be a CAT cable of some spec at that point. But Ethernet is data. I'm not talking about, nor ever have, about Category 5/5e/6/6a/7 used other than in a packet switched environment.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

As DK said, it is an audio cable if it is transporting audio signal (including as "data"). I will re-post this reply I posted way back on page 2 since perhaps you forgot about it. It clearly demonstrates that transporting data as an audio signal is more difficult and is subject to more errors than the transfer of data as graphics on a screen and refutes your thoughts that it doesn't matter what the data being transferred is. The reply from page 2 is:

Where have I went outside the parameters of Ethernet standards?

Anyway I am waiting for ZLTFUL to post the Fluke Measurements of both his cables so we can move onto the next step.

ZLTFUL

We are going to have to postpone your visit either until later in the summer or early fall.
I have had several opportunities presented to me that will be tying up most of my weekends from now until early September. All of them too good to pass up. I wanted to make sure of schedules and events before posting up.

Not backing out in any way but I am asking that we postpone.
Right now, it is looking like the soonest weekend I will have free is September 27th. I have 2 weekends "free" between now and then but both of those are tentatively set aside for vacations with my wife and daughter. No offense, but I would rather spend those with them than you. :-p

Sorry but having the opportunity to help out friends chasing their dreams and spending paid time doing my other hobby takes priority over proving you wrong atm. :loneranger:

I will wait to send off my cables for certification to closer to a date we set after Sept 27th.

EndersShadow

So...... which motorcycle team are you working for this summer

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

We are going to have to postpone your visit either until later in the summer or early fall.
I have had several opportunities presented to me that will be tying up most of my weekends from now until early September. All of them too good to pass up. I wanted to make sure of schedules and events before posting up.

Not backing out in any way but I am asking that we postpone.
Right now, it is looking like the soonest weekend I will have free is September 27th. I have 2 weekends "free" between now and then but both of those are tentatively set aside for vacations with my wife and daughter. No offense, but I would rather spend those with them than you. :-p

Sorry but having the opportunity to help out friends chasing their dreams and spending paid time doing my other hobby takes priority over proving you wrong atm. :loneranger:

I will wait to send off my cables for certification to closer to a date we set after Sept 27th.

Ok. I'll put a blip on my calender and follow up at the end of August.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

DK, respectfully, you are making a straw man argument. It's not audio at that point. It's packet data. It's in a frame that can be up to 9014 bytes (Jumbo Frame). It only becomes audio once it is fetched into buffer (RAM) and decoded by the CODEC and CPU.

As far as the wire is concerned, whether the signal is packet data or analog data, it is still just an electronic signal.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

It only becomes audio once it is fetched into buffer (RAM) and decoded by the CODEC and CPU.

How is this different from an analog signal that only becomes audio once it is fetched into the output stage of an amplifier and decoded by a loudspeaker?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I think you are being disingenuous and detrimental to your fellow members here.

I'm not at all surprised you would think that.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

So how about it: Does a 24/192 file downloaded off of HD Tracks sound worse if your router is a Linksys? Does it sound better if it's a custom Linux box running IPTables ? Or maybe Watchguard, Zyxel, Sonicwall, Cisco?

You generally get what you pay for, but cheap does not always equal low quality/low performance and expensive does not always equate to high quality/high performance.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Could you tell the difference from a file of your choice downloaded on a $60 firewall/router appliance or a $1000 one?

I don't know. It's possible. More expensive digital electronics generally have better noise and signal integrity performance.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Then it's not an Ethernet cable at that point. It can be a CAT cable of some spec at that point. But Ethernet is data. I'm not talking about, nor ever have, about Category 5/5e/6/6a/7 used other than in a packet switched environment.

You seem to not be able to grasp the concept that analog signals are "data" also. There is nothing inherently special about packet signals that makes them immune to the same electromagnetic wave laws that analog signals are subject to.

tonyb

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You seem to not be able to grasp the concept that analog signals are "data" also. There is nothing inherently special about packet signals that makes them immune to the same electromagnetic wave laws that analog signals are subject to.

Agreed....with the difference being we listen with our ears to that packet data, while only using our eyes in computer data transfer. So any inherit flaws in the signal/cable are only detected by audio/listening.....not visual. Generally speaking of course, because on the visual side, a good HDMI can make a difference visually.

BlueFox

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If AQ can provide me with 3rd party measurements I will let everyone know.

No. If AQ provides an answer then post it verbatim. We will decide if it is reasonable or not. So far you have not demonstrated the ability to think clearly, or understand what you read.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As far as the wire is concerned, whether the signal is packet data or analog data, it is still just an electronic signal.

How is this different from an analog signal that only becomes audio once it is fetched into the output stage of an amplifier and decoded by a loudspeaker?

In the strictly analog setup there is no D/A going on. There is no packet data. Analog data isn't 'fetched' into the output stage of an amp. It also isn't 'Decoded' by the loud speaker. There is no CODEC in a loudspeaker. Just an electrical filter.

I agree. To hear something it has to be transmitted. If it's strictly either analog all the way through or after the D/A the waveform is 20hz to 20Khz on the cable. The cable is multi-frequency. If it's Ethernet it's an order of magnitude greater in the signaling rate and the signaling rate is fixed.

Play all the packet data you want across a data cable, and throw it on a scope. You will see a fixed only frequency. It is DATA. You wouldn't know if it's Mahlers' 5th Symphony or someone posting a message here.

AQ's cable 'directionality' as it relates to Ethernet and audibility is 100% horse manure until something more substantial than marketing speak and conjecture are presented

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You generally get what you pay for, but cheap does not always equal low quality/low performance and expensive does not always equate to high quality/high performance.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I don't know. It's possible. More expensive digital electronics generally have better noise and signal integrity performance.

So you don't keep dodging the question:

If I were to take 1411 bit rate PCM audio file, generate a hash with MD5 checksum. Take any $60, $600, $58,000 Switch would you agree that if after transmission you perform a consistency check on the file and the hash is the same then you have the same exact 1411 bit rate PCM encoded audio file?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You seem to not be able to grasp the concept that analog signals are "data" also. There is nothing inherently special about packet signals that makes them immune to the same electromagnetic wave laws that analog signals are subject to.

Where did I say it wasn't? Ethernet is a CMNR, Differential, Galvonically isolated, fixed frequency, high bandwidth (comparatively to RCA, XLR, SP/DIF, AES-EBU, I2s, Toslink), fully duplex, solution. It isn't passing 20hz to 20Khz multi-frequency signals.

You are failing to grasp the concept that once a cable hit's spec and data is transferred without error the computer is now handling things. The cable isn't even involved accept for fulfilling requests to make sure there isn't a buffer under-run.

Spec means that for it's intended purpose that "makes them immune to the same electromagnetic wave laws" has been accounted for. The standard isn't meant to defy any laws of physics. That is why in BJC and other CAT6 cables the pairs are bonded, they are twisted per unit of measurement, and the tranceivers are balanced, isolated. The CAT7 spec even calls for foil wrapped pairs, and then another entire cable shield.

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

So far you have not demonstrated the ability to think clearly, or understand what you read.

The feeling is mutual.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

In the strictly analog setup there is no D/A going on. There is no packet data.

A D/A converter just converts one type of electrical signal to another. An analog amplifier just converts an analog signal to a bigger analog signal.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Analog data isn't 'fetched' into the output stage of an amp. It also isn't 'Decoded' by the loud speaker. There is no CODEC in a loudspeaker. Just an electrical filter.

What does a CODEC (Coder-Decoder) do? It encodes a digital data signal for transmission and then decodes it for playback. What do the filters and transducers in a loudspeaker do? They "decode" the signal from the speaker cable from electronic form to acoustic form that humans can interpret. Music is encoded in electronic signals that must be decoded into acoustical signals. A microphone codes acoustic signals into electronic signals. Coding and decoding are not the exclusive domains of digital devices.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I agree. To hear something it has to be transmitted. If it's strictly either analog all the way through or after the D/A the waveform is 20hz to 20Khz on the cable. The cable is multi-frequency. If it's Ethernet it's an order of magnitude greater in the signaling rate and the signaling rate is fixed.

The signaling rate may be fixed, but there is some variation (modulation) in the data, otherwise information could not be encoded. You could have a fixed signaling rate analog signal and encode information in changes in amplitude or phase.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Play all the packet data you want across a data cable, and throw it on a scope. You will see a fixed only frequency.

The same could be said of an AM radio signal, where the carrier signal remains constant and information is encoded in changes in the signal's amplitude.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

It is DATA. You wouldn't know if it's Mahlers' 5th Symphony or someone posting a message here.

If I connected a scope to an amplifier's output, how would I know what was playing? It's just an analog data stream.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

AQ's cable 'directionality' as it relates to Ethernet and audibility is 100% horse manure until something more substantial than marketing speak and conjecture are presented.

I prefer to reserve such judgments until after I have reviewed any pertinent documentation. Condemnation without investigation is not scientific.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

So you don't keep dodging the question:

There was no dodging, you just perceived it as such.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If I were to take 1411 bit rate PCM audio file, generate a hash with MD5 checksum. Take any $60, $600, $58,000 Switch would you agree that if after transmission you perform a consistency check on the file and the hash is the same then you have the same exact 1411 bit rate PCM encoded audio file?

No, I wouldn't agree to that because gross measurements don't always show every thing that can make an audible difference in a signal. This is a basic concept that most people who have a serious interest in audio understand.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Ethernet is a CMNR, Differential, Galvonically isolated, fixed frequency, high bandwidth (comparatively to RCA, XLR, SP/DIF, AES-EBU, I2s, Toslink), fully duplex, solution. It isn't passing 20hz to 20Khz multi-frequency signals.

Correct. But you must consider that it is passing a digitally encoded version of the 20 Hz to 20 kHz multi-frequency signal. Your argument is the same as someone completely disassembling automobiles, shipping the parts across the ocean for reassembly, and then claiming that he is not shipping automobiles, but automobile parts.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

You are failing to grasp the concept that once a cable hit's spec and data is transferred without error the computer is now handling things. The cable isn't even involved accept for fulfilling requests to make sure there isn't a buffer under-run.

Without error? Nothing is transmitted without error. Anytime a signal passes through a cable, or anything else, it is going to be changed (i.e. have induced errors). Whether or not those changes (errors) are measurable or perceptible by the ultimate receiver is another issue.

I think computers are wonderful tools, but they are not without error either. They may have errors below a ridiculously low threshold, but they are not error free.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Spec means that for it's intended purpose that "makes them immune to the same electromagnetic wave laws" has been accounted for. The standard isn't meant to defy any laws of physics. That is why in BJC and other CAT6 cables the pairs are bonded, they are twisted per unit of measurement, and the tranceivers are balanced, isolated. The CAT7 spec even calls for foil wrapped pairs, and then another entire cable shield.

I'm glad you brought up the concept of "intended purpose". Ethernet is a packet protocol that is intended for the transmission of non-isochronous data, or data that is insensitive to time delay. When we transmit isochronous (time delay sensitive) data over Ethernet we are using it for a purpose for which it was not designed. Therefore what sense does it make to talk about specs when you are using a thing far outside of its design purpose?

What is the scientific basis for saying that the time relationships of encoded analog audio signals are not affected by various Ethernet cables and Ethernet processing devices?

BlueFox

Habanero Monk wrote: »

The feeling is mutual.

That's fine.

Of course, this is just another example of the incompetence you have exhibited in this, and other, threads. It is especially amusing since I have multiple times in this thread explained how musical data differs from other data in that the reconstruction (sound) of an analog (music) signal is timing dependent on the bits in the data. While the CRC can be correct, jitter can be introduced by the Ethernet cable in the last link to the SPDIF circuitry.

Additionally, I have supplied multiple links to articles with individuals explaining how they experience an audible difference being introduced by various Ethernet cables, and even the storage device being used. Yet, all you can do is quote text from a ‘certificate program’, and state you understand networking. While that is nice, networking has little to do with the issue of whether an Ethernet cable can introduce audible attributes into a reconstructed musical signal. You do realize the signal on an Ethernet cable is an analog signal being used to represent digital data, don’t you?

Anyway, I will give your comment to upper management. I am sure they are tired of giving me raises, bonuses, and stock options. I know I am tired of dealing with the tax issues.

villian

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Of course not...not to you. If I read a sales brochure on brain surgery instruments it wouldn't make sense to me, but I would not be so ignorant and arrogant to say that the brochure absolutely made no sense. I would assume, correctly, that the brochure made sense to those interested in, and engaged in, the use of such instruments. The larger question is, why would someone who is not a brain surgeon be reading and critiquing brain surgery instrument ads?

My point is that Audioquest's advertisements don't make sense, fundamentally and literally. They use incomplete sentences that are written in a way that you can't even begin to understand what they are talking about. Secondly, they use words and terms for things that simply do not exist. Nobody is going to read an advertisement about a obsolonic moscuilar stretcher and understand the advertisement when an obsolonic moscuilar stretcher is merely a fictional advertising term. Its true purpose is to impress and offer a perceived benefit while avoiding criticism and rebuttle. That is the only thing advertising terms are good for. They have no factual backing, and that is why I previously listed the crazy terms that Audioquest is using to impress within their advertising.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You should get out more. Capitalization is a standard feature in marketing displays.

So what's all this hype about Audioquest being so much more reputable and high quality than the other standard, theiving, cheating, companies that simply rip off consumers..when they can't even make an honest advertisement? Last time I checked Blue Jeans didn't use any CAPS or fictional advertising terms. Crap companies trying to nickel and dime everyone do however mislead, and use advertising strategies like CAPS for emphasis. What's THAT say about Audioquest? Making excuses for them is absurd, especially when you double down and defend them by relating them to the standard advertising features of every average company (A category to which AQ is NOT supposed to belong..)

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I am not sure why you are devoting so much attention to products you have no use for.

I love how you openly criticise members here for jumping to conclusions while you do the exact same! Hypocrite much? What makes you think I have no use for high quality digital cables? You have yet to ask, and I have yet to mention ANY of the products I use. The ONLY thing you know is what's in my sig, which is ****. While I may have no use for Audioquest (Because I believe they are truly full of crap and are simply overpriced) I do have a use for high quality cables from a reputable, respectable, honest cable maker (Of which Audioquest is NOT) who sells their cables for what they're truly worth. Kimber comes to mind.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

It would be nice to see some actual data to support their marketing claim. I've sent an email to their rep covering my area.

Agree'd, but good luck finding a single datasheet or spec listing for anything related to an Audioquest product. It's quite interesting how they refuse to publish anything, or prove anything themselves. If I had to bet I'd put money on it that AQ is being run out of someone's basement turning 7 figures a year worth of income by creating a cult-like following for their (Potentially) made in china cables. Anyone smart enough to set up an operation like that would run it in the exact way that they have. It's quite genius to be honest.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Any cable that transports an audio signal is an audio cable.
Absolutely not! A coat hanger can transport audio, but is it an audio cable? NO. It's still a coat hanger. Ethernet cable is used to transport data packets, end of story. Some may use it for things other than its intended purpose, but that does not change the fact that it is designed for packet data. 0's and 1's. I get the theory of what you're saying, but the reality is much different. Many things have multiple uses, but it does not change what they are. Saying that "Some people use ethernet cables as speaker cables" is the worst excuse and cop out that I have ever heard. You obviously know that you are on the losing side of the argument as far as this thread pertains and the experiement that Habanero has set up and are now making lame excuses to try and cover your own ****. Pathetic, and as much as I admire most of your posts I am not afraid to call you out on that one.

headrott wrote: »

AQ never stated that the audio data could not be sent in either direction. They are saying that the audio quality is improved if the signal flow is in the direction of the arrows on the cable. That is pretty straight forward by their statement, that is what they are saying.

What habanero is saying is that direction doesn't matter with digital cables (So it's another ****ty advertising terms that AQ is using to mislead everyone) because they're duplex and are CONSTANTLY sending data in BOTH directions. There is NO break in data going one way or the other. Full Duplex means that a 1Gbps cable is actually performing 1Gbps in EACH direction. 2Gbps of full rated bandwidth. That is why directionality does NOT matter in data cables.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You seem to not be able to grasp the concept that analog signals are "data" also. There is nothing inherently special about packet signals that makes them immune to the same electromagnetic wave laws that analog signals are subject to.

The difference is the threshold that is required to have a tangible loss of fidelity. An Analog signal with ANY amount interferrence becomes something other than it originally was. A digital signal can sustain multitudes of interferrence and be correctly reproduced and output in a form that 100% true to the original. 1:1. You either get the signal, or you don't. There is no half this, half that, as with an Analog signal.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If I were to take 1411 bit rate PCM audio file, generate a hash with MD5 checksum. Take any $60, $600, $58,000 Switch would you agree that if after transmission you perform a consistency check on the file and the hash is the same then you have the same exact 1411 bit rate PCM encoded audio file?

Believe it or not I've been using a $9 25ft HDMI for my projector for the last week to see how big of a difference it would make from my normal cabling. So far, none. Not going to lie, I'm impressed. Granted, this isn't what I would ideally use for the long term, but it's been so impressive that I've had it on for the last week or two now! Just goes to show the power of digital information and the massive misunderstanding around it!