Does high quality digital cables matter?

Habanero Monk

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Baluns are quirky and the good ones are to expensive and quirky too....not about bean counting it's about reliability

Tell that to the bean counters

Our experience is that the ones we have should give us long term usage. It's been three years with nary a problem. As part of our duties are installation and running LV cable we are all rooting for HDBaseT to become THE standard.

We are like Pavlovs dog when discussing being able to stream content and power a 42" LCD with a single Ethernet cable on the HDBaseT standard. POE of 100watts! Yay.

I know a few technicians at custom home AV outfits that would like it too. HDMI is just an oddball standard.

tonyb

Habanero Monk wrote: »

HDMI is just an oddball standard.

...and how many HDMI cables have been sold ?

Yes Sir....it's all about the money, all the time. Not about making an installers life easier. I would imagine another form of connection is soon to come down the pike forcing everyone once again to switch out legacy gear and replace it.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

...and how many HDMI cables have been sold ?

Yes Sir....it's all about the money, all the time. Not about making an installers life easier. I would imagine another form of connection is soon to come down the pike forcing everyone once again to switch out legacy gear and replace it.

Lot's I'm sure. But plenty of displays still have other legacy connectors. One can hope.

tonyb

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Lot's I'm sure. But plenty of displays still have other legacy connectors. One can hope.

...and they will sell even more cables to convert. Remember those HDMI-DVI cables ? Lots of money in consumer cables, profit margins are pretty big.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

...and they will sell even more cables to convert. Remember those HDMI-DVI cables ? Lots of money in consumer cables, profit margins are pretty big.

Oh, I don't think that will be a problem:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-ethernet-cables

tonyb

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Oh, I don't think that will be a problem:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-ethernet-cables

You think that's expensive ? I guess to some it is, but remember they aren't in business to swap dollars either. Profits baby, that's the American culture.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

You think that's expensive ? I guess to some it is, but remember they aren't in business to swap dollars either. Profits baby, that's the American culture.

No, I think the $500 Denon Link is expensive.

I think with the AQ your assessment of "profit margins are pretty big" is spot on. There is big (AQ) and then there is big (Denon).

I'll stick with a cable that I know passes spec and not worry about the rest.

headrott

I worry about what sounds best. Not about how much it costs (within what I can afford of course) or what looks good or who makes it. Usually, however who makes what cable determines how good it sounds, based upon the quality of materials used and how well it's manufactured.

If you don't "worry about the rest", you may be missing out on higher quality sound. If you aren't worried about it though, obviously it doesn't matter.

Habanero Monk

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

headrott

Not my ethernet cable. It passes an audio DSD signal (as a digital audio data signal, yes) and that becomes analog audio signal. Audio data can be passed better, worse or not at all. I have used many ethernet cables and can hear differneces in them using the same audio equipment. How many have you listened to?

steveinaz

If you search the Stereophile website, I read an interesting article there some years ago about jitter measurements and cables. Long story short; very inexpensive cables did induce much higher jitter, but you didn't have to spend much more for jitter to be negligible. IOW, as long as the cable was of "good" quality, excess jitter was not created. Another interesting note was that some digital cables actually were "directional" in respect to amounts of jitter produced, depending which way the cable was connected; and the difference was quite significant. Stereophile admitted that it had no explaination for the phenomena. It's a cool read.

tonyb

Habanero Monk wrote: »

No, I think the $500 Denon Link is expensive.

I think with the AQ your assessment of "profit margins are pretty big" is spot on. There is big (AQ) and then there is big (Denon).

I'll stick with a cable that I know passes spec and not worry about the rest.

Fair enough pal, but let me ask you this....

Do you have equipment to measure that cable....how do you know it passes spec ? Because it says so on the packaging ? Even Kurt from BJC admits a lot of cables that claim to pass spec...don't. The consumer is pretty much in the dark with no policing of claims to meet spec.

That said, your heading back to the 1's and 0's argument....which is a losing battle. None the less, I can't make any more claims on Ethernet cables since I don't use them outside the 'puter but that's a horse of a different color.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

Fair enough pal, but let me ask you this....

Do you have equipment to measure that cable....how do you know it passes spec ? Because it says so on the packaging ? Even Kurt from BJC admits a lot of cables that claim to pass spec...don't. The consumer is pretty much in the dark with no policing of claims to meet spec.

That said, your heading back to the 1's and 0's argument....which is a losing battle. None the less, I can't make any more claims on Ethernet cables since I don't use them outside the 'puter but that's a horse of a different color.

When I say Ethernet cables the underlying understanding is that they are Ethernet in that the meet or pass spec. If a cable doesn't meet Ethernet spec then you indeed have a malfunctioning cable.

Any commercial installs I have either done or participated in we bring in a 3rd party to certify it. We have a good relationship with a vendor and they use the Wavetek I posted about earlier. I think it spans the $7-9K range depending on accessories.

My two 75ft cables that I use for my HDMI extender certified past baseline for CAT6. My home networking is wireless but my music collection is local to the computer then USB (belkin) to my sound card.

Focusrite now has a line up of networked interfaces. Meridian Audio uses Ethernet Cables for their systems also.

tonyb

Commercial installs for what though....audio...computers ? We don't listen to files being transferred over Ethernet from point A to point B.

You can achieve different sound signatures. If you listen to any digital cables, different metallurgy, different designs, shielding, build, also can produce different sound characteristics transferring the same 1's and 0's. If an Ethernet is used for sound, I would imagine the same principles apply as other different digital cables transferring 1's and 0's.

The best way to find out is try a few yourself, some may sound better...some may even sound worse, but you'll know differences exist.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

Commercial installs for what though....audio...computers ? We don't listen to files being transferred over Ethernet from point A to point B.

You can achieve different sound signatures. If you listen to any digital cables, different metallurgy, different designs, shielding, build, also can produce different sound characteristics transferring the same 1's and 0's. If an Ethernet is used for sound, I would imagine the same principles apply as other different digital cables transferring 1's and 0's.

The best way to find out is try a few yourself, some may sound better...some may even sound worse, but you'll know differences exist.

AFAIK we are talking Ethernet both in the physical sense of twisted pair cabling (CATx) and 802.11x standards body which also encompasses wireless. Wireless outside of range and MIMO/Multiplexing issues can also be a great solution for pristine audio. Look at the WISA standard it supports 24/96 which is certainly a rich enough format with 120dB of dynamic range.

There are plenty of high end, Ethernet (802.11x) connected, players out there: Oppo, NAD, Cambridge, Marantz, Naim, Lumin.... The list goes one.

Even if you are talking about a computer you can take J River as an example and increase it's buffer. That means while you may be streaming to it via a network cable, you are PLAYING the audio out of RAM.

Sorry guys but the cable doesn't matter at this point. In my best case scenario, using the FTP protocol from my Ubuntu server, I hit ~86MB per second. I can transfer an entire CD in 6 seconds. Something that would otherwise take 50 minutes to play back in real time. So circling back to something like J River, you could technically set the buffer to 6000 seconds, load a 50 minute song over GB networking, wait 10 seconds into the song and pull the network cable.

It's all played back from RAM. Even if the storage is local it goes from disk to RAM.

Habanero Monk

I'm game for about any mid west audio event where someone wants to throw on a blind fold and they can bring any Ethernet cable they want and I'll bring one from BJC.

headrott

How many times must we point out that blind tests should not be used to evaluate stereophonic audio. The blind tests that the people at Bell laboratories designed, were meant to be used for monophonic (low resolution) audio.

Why do cable scoffers not understand this? Do you have no other comeback other than "Well, if you really think you can hear a difference then come and listen **to my system that I cannot hear a difference in** and I'll switch out two cables without you knowing which one you're listening to; if you can hear a difference, then I'll believe you. Until then, you're delusional." That's an interesting point of view. If you cannot hear a difference in your system, why should I be able to? Granted, if your level of listening training comes into play. But, if the system resolution is not at a level to be able to hear differences in equipment, then even a well trained listener won't be able to hear a difference.

Also, it takes becoming familiar with a high resolution system to be able to listen for differences in changing audio equipment. So, please don't ask say " You've never heard this system before, but put on this blind fold and listen to the differences in these cables." How can possibly be a rational point of view.

In summary, please stop asking people to use a test (DBT's) to evaluate stereophonic audio equipment as there is no place for it's use in stereophonic audio evaluation. Also, please stop asking people to evaluate different cables using a system they have never heard before (whether using blind tests or not, but see above).

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

How many times must we point out that blind tests should not be used to evaluate stereophonic audio. The blind tests that the people at Bell laboratories designed, were meant to be used for monophonic (low resolution) audio.

Why do cable scoffers not understand this? Do you have no other comeback other than "Well, if you really think you can hear a difference then come and listen **to my system that I cannot hear a difference in** and I'll switch out two cables without you knowing which one you're listening to; if you can hear a difference, then I'll believe you. Until then, you're delusional." That's an interesting point of view. If you cannot hear a difference in your system, why should I be able to? Granted, if your level of listening training comes into play. But, if the system resolution is not at a level to be able to hear differences in equipment, then even a well trained listener won't be able to hear a difference.

Also, it takes becoming familiar with a high resolution system to be able to listen for differences in changing audio equipment. So, please don't ask say " You've never heard this system before, but put on this blind fold and listen to the differences in these cables." How can possibly be a rational point of view.

In summary, please stop asking people to use a test (DBT's) to evaluate stereophonic audio equipment as there is no place for it's use in stereophonic audio evaluation. Also, please stop asking people to evaluate different cables using a system they have never heard before (whether using blind tests or not, but see above).

Who said MY system. I'm advocating SBT not DBT nor AB/X.

Again, AFAIK, when speaking about packet transmission of data (Word Processing, Video, Audio). You simply can't ignore how these systems work and that ultimately data is being played back out of RAM.

I simply can't trust anything but a blindfold. If you can't trust your ears only than how can I?

Trying to figure out if your position is an absolute position or more like the Drug adverts with the asterisk and the 2 pages of fine print or something in between.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Who said MY system. I'm advocating SBT not DBT nor AB/X.

Again, AFAIK, when speaking about packet transmission of data (Word Processing, Video, Audio). You simply can't ignore how these systems work and that ultimately data is being played back out of RAM.

I simply can't trust anything but a blindfold. If you can't trust your ears only than how can I?

For your offer of evaluating HDMI cables, you were going to bring your computer system to do the evaluation. You ignored an important part in my previous post: **Regardless of whose system is being used for the evaluation of two Ethernet cables, if the person listening is not familiar with the system (as well as the system needing high enough resolution to hear differences) then differences may not be heard.


Regardless of what type of blind test you are advocating, **NO** blind test was designed to evaluate stereophonic audio and was specifically "shunned" by the people at Bell Laboratories (the creators of stereophonic audio).

"Data" (audio) being played back out of RAM will **further** reduce resolution, making it more difficult to hear differences in cables.
There is no RAM used in a directly tapped DSD audio (modified player).

You cannot trust anything but a blindfold because you cannot hear differences in cables.

I cannot trust blindfolds (blind tests) because:

*Again* Bell Laboratories (the inventors of stereophonic audio)never intended blind tests be used in evaluating stereophonic audio and *again* shunned it's use.

I trust my ears, which is why I state I can hear differences in Ethernet cables. But, you completely ignored the fact that I would need to be familiar with the system to hear differences in cables (as well as needing a system with high enough resolution).

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

There is no RAM used in a directly tapped DSD audio (modified player).

'
What DSD audio player are you using?

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

'
What DSD audio player are you using?

Really? That's the response to everything I have posted? You are continuing to disregard the fact that blind tests shound't be used for evaluating stereophonic audio and th people at Bell Laboratories specifically said blind tests should not be used.

Also, you are disregarding the fact that to compare differences in audio equipment (i.e. cables, amps, pre-amps, transports, etc.) one must be familiar with the system they are evaluating, to accurately evaluate changes made to it.

WilliamM2

Harmon Kardon and Flyd Toole seem to disagree:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/HarmanWhitePaperMLLListeningLab.pdf

And the cable test proposed above isn't really "evaluating" audio. You don't have to have a preference, just the ability to discern any difference at all.

Roll the excuses...

teekay0007

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Harmon Kardon and Flyd Toole seem to disagree:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/HarmanWhitePaperMLLListeningLab.pdf

And the cable test proposed above isn't really "evaluating" audio. You don't have to have a preference, just the ability to discern any difference at all.

Roll the excuses...

Hmmmm....very interesting, William. From the links:

"As it turned out, the experienced listeners were no more or no less immune to the effects of visual biases than inexperienced listeners."

And..."It may already be too late according to Stereophile magazine founder, Gordon Holt, who lamented in a recent interview:




“Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..”"

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

Also, you are disregarding the fact that to compare differences in audio equipment (i.e. cables, amps, pre-amps, transports, etc.) one must be familiar with the system they are evaluating, to accurately evaluate changes made to it.

It's certainly not a 'fact'. Also some are claiming differences. I'm not testing cables. I'm testing claims. Discern the difference, and then form your opinion. I'm curious how this would work.

Heck if anyone is 90 minutes or so outside of Cinci it would be neat to test on their equipment.

I'm interested in the DSD player you are using. Yes.

F1nut

Tell me William, do you need a blind test to tell the difference in taste between Coke and Pepsi?


Have you researched the elastic constants of metal yet?

WilliamM2

F1nut wrote: »

Tell me William, do you need a blind test to tell the difference in taste between Coke and Pepsi?

It would figure that you never understood the point of the Pepsi challenge either. There was never any question that they tasted different, only which one people would prefer.

Have you researched the elastic constants of metal yet?

Have any reason that I should? Is that the latest looney theory on why they sound different?

Habanero Monk

WilliamM2 wrote: »

It would figure that you never understood the point of the Pepsi challenge either. There was never any question that they tasted different, only which one people would prefer.

That is one way to smack someone in the face with a Mackerel. Snap.

Now the real blind test is Coke from Mexico (made with cane sugar) and Coke from the U.S. made with corn syrup

F1nut

And yet some could not tell which was which therefore proving that some people, such as yourself are incapable of discerning differences while others have no problem.

If you call basic physics a looney theory then you're a bigger putz than I thought.

F1nut

Another epic fail by the troll, monk.

Habanero Monk

F1nut wrote: »

And yet some could not tell which was which therefore proving that some people, such as yourself are incapable of discerning differences while others have no problem.

If you call basic physics a looney theory then you're a bigger putz than I thought.

Link please.

And you still miss Williams entire point. But it does say something when you are scared to take the equivalent challenge when it comes to audio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT3IIe8Ckwc