Does high quality digital cables matter?

villian

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

Trying to compare Analog and Digital sound reproduction processes in the way you are trying to do is the same as comparing Walther PPK pistols to dolphins.

It doesn't make much sense because they just can't be compared or likened to each other.

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

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.

I'm not disagreeing. But you have to ask yourself this:

How in the world do you know that a $350 AQ Vodka is doing a better job at having lower jitter than the BJC? The fact is you don't. Do you even know what jitter is going to be from 12ft to 12ft Ethernet cable?

BlueFox wrote: »

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.

If you are so loaded for bear both $$ and your vast knowledge of all things networking then why don't you take my $1600? That and bragging rights.

All signals are analog. Period. Wireless or Wired. What's your point?

Look there is only one person here so far that has any faith in their convictions. And the date is now pushed back. Again.

So far he's the only person that isn't all talk.

Speedskater

Habanero Monk wrote: »

.....................................................
All signals are analog. Period. Wireless or Wired. What's your point?
............................................................

While all transmission systems are analog in a sense.

The "signal" may be "analog or "digital".

villian

While we're on the topic of digital cables..

What would everyone's thoughts be on Fiber? I used to run a fiber channel throughout the house before switching to Cat6 Gb for everything (More cost effective, same results)..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?

BlueFox

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing. But you have to ask yourself this:

How in the world do you know that a $350 AQ Vodka is doing a better job at having lower jitter than the BJC? The fact is you don't. Do you even know what jitter is going to be from 12ft to 12ft Ethernet cable?

I don't. I never said I did. I said there is a lot of anecdotal data suggesting there is an audible difference between Ethernet cables. To much data to flippantly dismiss. Just because I never experienced something does not mean it doesn't exist. That is the problem with so many of you guys. You try to project your experience, or lack of, on others, and expect it to be true. It might be, but I will hold off for a while before faling into either camp.

If you are so loaded for bear both $$ and your vast knowledge of all things networking then why don't you take my $1600? That and bragging rights.

Since I do not use networked audio I have no basis to even try that, although I can understand how it is possible from a theoretical perspective. If I ever do go to a NAS storage system then I most certainly will try different cables.

All signals are analog. Period. Wireless or Wired. What's your point?

Analog in the sense it is a voltage. The point is it can be changed as it goes from one format to another. :rolleyes:

There is a difference between transistors switching on and off on a 32 bit wide bus, and a varying voltage on a cable.

Look there is only one person here so far that has any faith in their convictions. And the date is now pushed back. Again.

So far he's the only person that isn't all talk.

Many people have faith in their convictions. Personally, I subscribe to the Missouri state saying of 'Show me". So far, based on what I am reading, others are doing a good job of showing me there is a discernable difference in cables. This comes from listening, not some A/B test.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

I'm fully aware what a D/A converter does. I think BlueFox should also keep in mind what a D/A converter does: Re-Clocks data due to timing variances. AKA Jitter.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

CODECS do conversion, cross overs do electrical filtration. Are Linkwitz Transforms and Butterworth filters part of CODECS?

You are reaching.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

We have a break through now. Thank you for admitting the difference.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

Exactly: Packet based HAM is a perfect example.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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

You would certainly have a better idea of what is going on by being able to look at the realtime frequency response. You could certainly make more inferences as to what is going on.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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

I totally agree. Let me check and see if I used the word "Until". Yep. It's right there in my post.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

You are having a failure to understand: 1. What I actually posted 2. If the MD5 hash ends up the same you have the same exact file. There is no error macro or micro.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

You are getting closer but not quite there. The fact of the matter is they are just parts. Parts are parts. A car is all the parts put together. We also aren't talking about a purely multi-frequency analog stream vs an fixed frequency stream that is used for data. We are talking two Ethernet cables.

Even when the data, an entire CD's worth, makes it over in ~7 seconds the DAC is going to apply it's own clock.

So two ships arrive at port 4 hours apart. They are going to sit in port for another day in queue and then have all those parts off loaded. Brought to assembly, trucked to a show room, and the driver will never know if the car he drove was 4 hours behind the other ship.

Car analogies are just that Car analogies.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

I would disagree. For the intents and purposes of the TCP protocol you can have a perfect transmission EVEN if there is some variance in the amplitude response. As long as the variance meets a threshold of properly deriving a 1 or 0.

You can throw anything underneath a strong enough microscope or measuring device and find error. That is an error that is a ridiculously low threshold. Threshold below human perception I believe. One I am offering up $1600 to.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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?

You are assuming Microsoft Windows, or MAC OSX, the networking stack, the drivers, all the things that make up the OS soup to nuts are REAL TIME.

You want real time get Wind River VX or QNX.

Listening on our computers is near real time for us humans. But it isn't real time on the computer scale. It doesn't matter because we don't have the ability to discern that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_operating_system

Funny that jitter is mentioned in the first few sentences.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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?

None. I also didn't say there wasn't variance. I'm quite positive with really high resolution measuring gear there is.

You could have one CAT6 cable with 5ns of pair skew and another with 2ns. Certainly measurable. Certainly in-audible. Certainly not material to reliable, error free transmission of data.

My insistence on a measured / certified cabling is data driven however. Based on the data I am assuming that a person will fail to hit above 86% in reliably picking out cable A or cable B.

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

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

I said there is a lot of anecdotal data

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.

villian

Habanero Monk wrote: »

None. I also didn't say there wasn't variance. I'm quite positive with really high resolution measuring gear there is.

You could have one CAT6 cable with 5ns of pair skew and another with 2ns. Certainly measurable. Certainly in-audible. Certainly not material to reliable, error free transmission of data.

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

Exactly. Variance doesn't matter with digital signals unless it actually interrupts the signal (To the point that you would fail to receive and reproduce a proper signal at all). If you "Hear" anything different or see anything different in the final output it's something that has NOTHING to do with the actual signal transmitted and reproduced. It's more than likely electrical interference that was carried or introduced on top of that signal at some point and is output via noise in the sound or the final picture displayed. But, that has nothing to do with Signal A traveling through miles of cable and being output as a 1:1 reproduction of the original signal A.

I've been waiting to hear what anyone has to say about Jitter being re-clocked and corrected at every step along the way, to the point that it does not matter whether jitter exists or not (Because none of us are debating that it exists, just that it simply doesn't matter in the end).

tonyb

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.

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.