Does high quality digital cables matter?

DarqueKnight

villian wrote: »

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.

villian wrote: »

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..)

villian wrote: »

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.

villian wrote: »

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.

villian wrote: »

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.

I addressed your concerns in this thread:

Why Are You Mad At Cables You Can't Afford?

villian wrote: »

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.

I don't understand why you would be concerned with AQ's business address since you have said you won't be buying any of their merchandise. AQ's business address is

2621 White Road
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 585-0111
(800) 747-2770

I put AQ's corporate address into Google Earth and found these pictures. There are several businesses listed at that address, all of which are owned by the Quest Group, AudioQuest's parent company.


Aerial view of AudioQuest's corporate headquarters and warehouse.


Front view of AudioQuest's corporate headquarters.


Entrance to AudioQuest's corporate headquarters. The sign says "Audioquest".

Interior shots of AQ's headquarters facility can be found here:

AudioQuest Headquarters Tour

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm challenging someone that says they can unequivocally tell the difference between two cables that meet the 802.X standards body.

OK, well, it seems that ZLTFUL is tied up until the end of the summer. I don't listen to network audio, therefore I wouldn't be a good subject for your study. Perhaps someone at the following links could participate sooner than ZLTFUL:

Chord Ethernet Cables

AudioQuest Ethernet Cable Review

Computer Audiophile Forum Discussion On Ethernet Cables

villian

tonyb wrote: »

Jitter doesn't matter in the end ? Seriously ?

Then obviously you've never heard what the absence of jitter sounds like. Granted, once below a certain level, jitter being audible is questionable. But jitter in general...matters a lot.

Yes, jitter matters..when it's present. But it gets reclocked and corrected, therefore it doesn't matter because by the time your speakers output the sound it's no longer present.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

OK, well, it seems that ZLTFUL is tied up until the end of the summer. I don't listen to network audio, therefore I wouldn't be a good subject for your study. Perhaps someone at the following links could participate sooner than ZLTFUL:

Chord Ethernet Cables

AudioQuest Ethernet Cable Review

Computer Audiophile Forum Discussion On Ethernet Cables

I thought about that last week. You certainly read my mind.

DarqueKnight

villian wrote: »

Yes, jitter matters..when it's present. But it gets reclocked and corrected, therefore it doesn't matter because by the time your speakers output the sound it's no longer present.

But the reclocking clock will have some amount of jitter. There are also sources of jitter beyond the clock:

Common sources of jitter include:
•Internal circuitry of the phase-locked loop (PLL)
•Random thermal noise from a crystal
•Other resonating devices
•Random mechanical noise from crystal vibration
•Signal transmitters
•Traces and cables
•Connectors
•Receivers

Source: http://www.altera.com/support/devices/pll_clock/jitter/pll-jitter.html

Habanero Monk

villian wrote: »

Yes, jitter matters..when it's present. But it gets reclocked and corrected, therefore it doesn't matter because by the time your speakers output the sound it's no longer present.

Technically, if you have sensitive enough measurement gear, you will always measure timing variance.

If you measure jitter that is -116dB it really doesn't matter.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

But the reclocking clock will have some amount of jitter. There are also sources of jitter beyond the clock:

Source: http://www.altera.com/support/devices/pll_clock/jitter/pll-jitter.html

Agreed. But for audio applications if it's -110dB down it's a non issue. You can't hear what you can't hear.

WilliamM2

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Agreed. But for audio applications if it's -110dB down it's a non issue. You can't hear what you can't hear.

Oh yes they can!

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Agreed. But for audio applications if it's -110dB down it's a non issue. You can't hear what you can't hear.

The unfortunate thing is that every aspect of an audio signal relates to something else in the signal. In that regard, things we can't hear affect things we can hear. Some people point out one little thing and say "oh, that's not important because it's inaudible". To be scientifically valid, due to the interrelated nature of signal components, it needs to be said, and verified, that "that's not important because it is inaudible and it does not affect anything that is audible".

BlueFox

So, now the story is that jitter can be introduced by the cable, but the DAC removes it. Or, yes the jitter is there, but it is inaudible. This is starting to sound like a 'regular' cable thread. If you can't make your arguement then ignore it by saying the cable affect is inaudible.

In so far as the DAC removing the jitter, that is not a perfect science at this point. A cable that delivers less jitter to the DAC will have a different sound than a cable that delivers more jitter to the DAC. While the DAC will remove the jitter from the signal of each cable the end result is a different sound.

People can do their own research on this, but probably will not since the real world results will not jive from their fantasy world results.

I can give a real life example. I use a Bryston BDP-1 digital file player that gets the files from a direct attached USB drive. It connects to an Auralic Vega DAC. Previously, this was through a Shunyata Zitron Python AES digital cable. With this there were times with some classic rock CDs where there was a high frequency noise that would aggravate my tinnitus. If I used digital filter 4 on the DAC this was reduced. Later I upgraded to the new Zitron Anaconda cable and the signal really cleaned up. In fact I removed the flter and now run it with no filter, and the clock set to Exact, which sounds great. Auralic only recommends these settings on lines with extremely low jitter, even though the DAC 'removes' jitter from the incoming signal.

Personally, I have come to believe that DAC manufacturers claims about removing jitter, while true, is as much marketing as well as technical.

tonyb

villian wrote: »

Yes, jitter matters..when it's present. But it gets reclocked and corrected, therefore it doesn't matter because by the time your speakers output the sound it's no longer present.

Don't know about that pal. Jitter is always present, just whether or not it's below audible levels is the key. Reclocking and correction is no guarantee that the audible jitter has been eliminated. Granted, most modern gear does a good job of reducing it, further elimination is certainly audible. Thing is, it's one of those things that you don't even realize is there, until you hear the absence of it. Some associate that grunge to something else in their system, thus keep chasing a donkeys tail trying to eliminate that certain level of grunge.

scottyboy76

agfrost wrote: »

I might be mistaken, but that appears to be a key to open the lock to her butt.

Again, there is a first time for everything so i might be wrong, but there are audio cables that control that?

BlueFox

villian wrote: »

..but I'd like to hear if anyone think that different brands of Fiber all meeting a specific spec would "Sound" different at the end of the day?

Back in the good old days I went from plastic fiber to glass fiber, and the glass certainly sounded better. However, I do not remember the brands, and only know they were meeting whatever was required to pass musical data. Of course, at this point, this is just a piece of anecdotal data. The result could have been from the terminations, and not the plastic/glass difference.

BlueFox

Habanero Monk wrote: »

There is no such thing as anecdotal data. It's a formation of idea or opinion without any real data to back it up. It's an oxymoron.

This is what I meant. It appears my usage is as defined.

"
Anecdotal Data


This is when people use their intuition or personal experiences as data. It might not be bad data, but there is no way to track improvements because no measurements were established. You may say students are terrible at grammar, try some intervention, but then two terms later you cannot tell if the intervention was successful because grammar problems still exists – but you do not know if it exists to a lesser extent.


http://www.cnm.edu/depts/academic-affairs/saac/archive/SAAC_doc_archives/copy_of_SAACGlossaryofTerms0109.pdf
"

Are you saying that it is incorrect to properly use terms?

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

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.

Do you realise how much deflection you put in your post?

headrott

villian wrote: »

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.

Since you seem to be a "digital cable expert", you must realise that ethernet (and most digital cables) are made of wire. That is, aluminum, copper, silver, gold, or an amalgam of them. These wires (found in most digtal cables) have imperfections in them (to a greater or lesser degree based upon the type of wire used) that are caused by the milling and pulling of the wire. These imperfections are reduced in the direction it is pulled from and going to. When the imperfections are reduced, the digital signal errors are reduced when travelling the same direction as the wire is milled and pulled from. Obviously, since ethernet cables are duplex and travel in both directions, a cable manufacturer can have the wire travel in both directions that the wire is milled and pulled from to reduce the amount of introduced error in the signal. Since the amount of error is reduced in the audio signal, there is improvement in the fidelity of the audio signal. That is common sense, isn't it?

You must have already known this since you are such a "digital cable expert", however. I'm sorry to have been a bore.....

Please carry on.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The unfortunate thing is that every aspect of an audio signal relates to something else in the signal. In that regard, things we can't hear affect things we can hear. Some people point out one little thing and say "oh, that's not important because it's inaudible". To be scientifically valid, due to the interrelated nature of signal components, it needs to be said, and verified, that "that's not important because it is inaudible and it does not affect anything that is audible".

We are speaking about Jitter. It's form of measurable distortion. You play a fundamental tone (lets say 11KHz) and you watch for the side bands. They are derivatives of the fundamental.

In this regard there is no inverse knock on effect that you may or may not be alluding to. Jitter is well understood, and measurable even by the lay person with nominal equipment.

In the scope of jitter, if your derivatives are -110dB down they don't matter and I haven't seen any other measurement that would support your point.

When I get a chance next week I will setup my mic take a jitter measurement using the BJC and AQ Vodka and post them.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

Do you realise how much deflection you put in your post?

I am interested primarily given a large enough N what % of listeners is that could:

1. Hear a difference
2. See if difference is preference
3. See if preference tracks to cost

I have my personal opinion on the matter but in light of seeking a data driven approach the above is what I have come up with.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

We are speaking about Jitter. It's form of measurable distortion. You play a fundamental tone (lets say 11KHz) and you watch for the side bands. They are derivatives of the fundamental.

In this regard there is no inverse knock on effect that you may or may not be alluding to. Jitter is well understood, and measurable even by the lay person with nominal equipment.

In the scope of jitter, if your derivatives are -110dB down they don't matter and I haven't seen any other measurement that would support your point.

Where in the system are you saying the -110 dB would be measured?

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I am interested primarily given a large enough N what % of listeners is that could:

1. Hear a difference
2. See if difference is preference
3. See if preference tracks to cost

I have my personal opinion on the matter but in light of seeking a data driven approach the above is what I have come up with.

You are veering further from what was brought up in my post 2 responses prior to this one.

I have never talked about sample sizes in any response I have posted.

BlueFox

Good to see the discussion has evolved into something actually useful since jitter is common in digital audio, and it can be introduced at any point in the digital chain. While there is nothing that can be done about the jitter introduced in the recording process, the A/D portion, there are a lot of smart people working on understanding, and fixing, the jitter on the D/A side.

For the lurkers interested in learning more about the subject, here are some useful links to start with, and The Google will give you more if needed.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/jitter1_e.html

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter

http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/DigitalAudioJitter.html


http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/documents/uploads/misc/en/Specifying_Jitter_Performance.pdf

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

You are veering further from what was brought up in my post 2 responses prior to this one.

I have never talked about sample sizes in any response I have posted.

You said I was deflecting. I thought I would clear it up for you some.

I have spoken to sample size before, Myself, another enthusiast I know makes and N of 2, I said when I do this with ZLTFUL (before the date change from July 18th to sometime now in September) would make an N of 3.

No big deal in not catching that. There have been a lot of posts.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Where in the system are you saying the -110 dB would be measured?

At the speaker. ArnyK lists out a method using a measurement mic. I have the Omni Mic V2. I'll mic it near field.

Although nothing leads me to believe Jitter is an issue of significance in my system.

Habanero Monk

An addendum to the above: No one knows what their system is doing, outside of their own listening, unless measured. I've measured FR and CSD of my system (and applied corrections) but not jitter.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

At the speaker. ArnyK lists out a method using a measurement mic. I have the Omni Mic V2. I'll mic it near field.

I remember ArnyK. My last interactions with him was him was a couple of years ago when he was complaining on the Polk and AVS forums about my stereo evaluation publications:

arny wrote:

You badmouthed my friends and claimed the authority to properly do that in public.

You have said, and not modified or retracted:

"ABX and blind testing proponents say that they want to apply a scientifically rigorous testing methodology to stereophonic audio in order to determine if the claimed differences in audio components actually exist. However, they ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound."

I am a blind testing proponent who you admit that you know is well known as such. That puts me on the injured party list as member of a class of people that you have publicly characterized as, for all reasonable intents and purposes, either a fool or a fraud."

I asked Arnold Krueger ("arny" on the Polk forum and "arnyK" on the avsforum) to specifically point out where I had "badmouthed" him and his friends. I also said that it was not necessary for him to engage me in the process. He could just write a strong rebuttal which would invalidate what I said. This is how he responded:

On the Polk forum:

arny wrote:

All I know is that a lot of errors were made, and I see zero interest in correcting them.

Many of the errors weren't anticipated by the papers he misinterpreted, so its not like one can just fine a reference in them that refutes his errors.

Link: A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing post#133

On the AVS forum:

arnyk wrote:

My comments are based on and interestingly enough documented in the Affordable Audio article that is the topic of this discussion, which may be found at :

http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2010-09.pdf

In this article there are many paraphrases of statements that were allegedly made by people with whom who I have had long personal and professional relationships with. Even people who don't know those people as well as well find DK.s paraphrases to be "curious" . The phrase "highly disingenuous" comes to mind.

The process of documenting the inaccuracy of really strange paraphrases is often a lengthy process because really strange paraphrases are likely to be composed of things that the authors never anticipated, simply because they are so strange. Therefore, the strange and highly disingenuous paraphrases may not clearly rebutted by anything that can be quoted.

Link: AVS Forum Thread: "2-channel-room-setup-and-listening-tests"

As for the "disingenuous paraphrases" Arnold mentioned, I wrote no such things. I specifically pointed out the direct quotations I used from the papers cited:

A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing post #38

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I remember ArnyK.

Is he competent, or just another set in his "I know everything" ways, a la Roger Russell?

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

You said I was deflecting. I thought I would clear it up for you some.

I have spoken to sample size before, Myself, another enthusiast I know makes and N of 2, I said when I do this with ZLTFUL (before the date change from July 18th to sometime now in September) would make an N of 3.

No big deal in not catching that. There have been a lot of posts.

It seems you are still deflecting..... I am referring to this:

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.

headrott wrote: »

As DK said, it is an audio cable if it is transporting audio signal (including as "data"). I will re-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/engli...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.

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.

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.

headrott wrote: »

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

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

Is he competent, or just another set in his "I know everything" ways, a la Roger Russell?

In case you are not being sarcastic, I would refer you to his comments on this, and other, forums and ask that you make your own judgment. You could also just google "Arnold B. Krueger".

BlueFox

Somehow, I seemed to have missed the AK phase, and either never heard of him, or just forgot anything I read. Like a broken clock, he is probably occasionally right, but anybody who is stubborn in their beliefs in this hobby will soon be in trash bin of knowledge.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

It seems you are still deflecting..... I am referring to this:

AQ has not responded to my request for data on the Vodka RJ/E cable as of yet. I will re-send the original tomorrow. It's going from a top 5 email service account so it should be getting through. I can always call.

Ok, I re-read all of that. How am I deflecting again?

Ethernet cables, as they pertain to being connected solely switches,computer,routers etc, pass data in both directions.

These are systems designed to be fully duplex in nature.

They aren't passing audio signals. They are passing packetized data that is re-assembled in buffer by the computer that requested that data.

GB Ethernet can support 3 full bit rate H.264 streams. Or it could support music streaming, email, web-browsing, etc all at the same time. Is it an e-mail cable? Web browsing cable, Video cable? FTP cable? SSH? Telnet

If you really want to see something that is time sensitive try establishing an HTTPS / SSL socket with 400ms delay.



DK's welcome point about transporting car parts via ship makes my point:

You have two different ships show up 4 hours apart, they could have even come by different routes. They all get parts offloaded next day, cars assembled, trucked to show room.

The consumer purchasing the car is none the wiser for knowing that the parts came by two different routes and 4 hours apart.