Does high quality digital cables matter?

ZLTFUL

It isn't that difficult. 3 different "levels" of cable connected to 3 identical NICs. Plain and simple.
Your BJC, my Cat5 Belkin and my "high dollar" Cat6 cable.
We make some baseline comparisons to "get my bearings" and then I tell you, out of 30 runs if it is A, B or C. (I am upping it to 30 to give each cable a "fair shake".)
I am allowed to take notes on each of the baselines and am able to take up to 3 complete albums per cable to generate the baseline.
My proposal of 3 cables was simply to lower the chances of me simply guessing correctly. Taking my chances of "guessing" from 50/50 to a 33.333333...% chance of simply guessing right. In reality, I am weighting the test in your favor. Not sure why that doesn't appeal to you.

Habanero Monk

PSOVLSK wrote: »

If cables don't matter, why would you not advocate this.

On a lighter note, the cheapest $0.99 IC I've been able to find cost $0.99:)

I didn't say cables don't matter. Jeez...


In the context off CAT6 cables it is OBVIOUS cables matter. All the testing BJC did shows a ton of cables failing even though they advertise CAT6.

I'm saying after you have, lets say a 6 ft patch cable, that passes NEXT/FEXT (near and far end cross talk), inter-pair skew, round trip latency (delay) and the thing is 25% over tolerance, what else is there to do?

PSOVLSK

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I didn't say cables don't matter. Jeez...

I guess I'm missing something here. What's the point of the big blind A/B/C test then?

BlueFox

Since this is a contrived test it will not prove anything. If ZLTFUL is able to identify the cables then we have a piece of data, but if not then we are still at ground zero with no data.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

It isn't that difficult. 3 different "levels" of cable connected to 3 identical NICs. Plain and simple.
Your BJC, my Cat5 Belkin and my "high dollar" Cat6 cable.
We make some baseline comparisons to "get my bearings" and then I tell you, out of 30 runs if it is A, B or C. (I am upping it to 30 to give each cable a "fair shake".)
I am allowed to take notes on each of the baselines and am able to take up to 3 complete albums per cable to generate the baseline.
My proposal of 3 cables was simply to lower the chances of me simply guessing correctly. Taking my chances of "guessing" from 50/50 to a 33.333333...% chance of simply guessing right. In reality, I am weighting the test in your favor. Not sure why that doesn't appeal to you.

I was just establishing that you are indeed going to tell me A/B/C. So you are going to stone cold tell me which is which when the dice is rolled.

So on a six sided dice: A= 1-2 B=3-4 C=5-6. You obviously don't know the result you just tell me to make the roll. It will be change, no change. You tell me if its same or different and if different then which.

I have an AMD based mainboard with three PCIe connectors so 3 cards shouldn't be a problem.

How long to do you want to take? I was thinking 1 day. I come in on a Friday and out again on a Saturday. My other concern is if it's a day of thunder storms like yesterday here. Not much one can do about that though it is what it is.

Habanero Monk

PSOVLSK wrote: »

I guess I'm missing something here. What's the point of the big blind A/B/C test then?

Testing a claim that even though an Ethernet cable passes CAT6 spec that there are still audible improvements to be gained in a typical computer networked environment.

There are $70-$500 Ethernet cables out there.

In the case of Ethernet they do matter. If you have a cable that has skew in the 100ns you could certainly have some performance issues.

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

Since this is a contrived test it will not prove anything. If ZLTFUL is able to identify the cables then we have a piece of data, but if not then we are still at ground zero with no data.

If ZLTFUL can't hit the 86% mark on what cable the dice indicate that is indeed data. I still don't know what possible, real world based objection you could have.

Given that typical GB Ethernet runs can certify out to 20 meters the lengths we are talking about are trivial.

Plan also on making sure the same nic silicon is used.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If ZLTFUL can't hit the 86% mark on what cable the dice indicate that is indeed data. I still don't know what possible, real world based objection you could have.

Given that typical GB Ethernet runs can certify out to 20 meters the lengths we are talking about are trivial.

Plan also on making sure the same nic silicon is used.

Once again (I believe we are marking a record number of times in one thread of stating that) any type of blind test should not be used in sterephonic evaluation. What do you not understand about this statement? You just have no other comeback than your irrational "well it wasn't design for it's use, but it still can be used to evaluate it." Please tell us WHY blind tests SHOULD BE used?

Why was any type of blind test not to be used for stereophonic evalutation (but was designed for monophonic, low resolution evalutaion)?

1) The test type used should be able to evaluate all the aspects of stereophonic reproduction (i.e. soundstage width and depth, detail level, transparency, imaging, tonality, image weight, and a number of other spects). A blind test, as you are suggesting is only testing to see IF there is a difference. That is not sufficiet for a valid test in stereophonic audio.

2) It has been shown that (in the past) when audiophiles who do blind tests and correctly identify a change or no change in a piece of audio equipment that naysayers simply state "they got lucky" and dismiss the results. Also please see #1 again, as regardless of whether audiophiles "got it right" there is no definitive answer as to HOW two pieces of gear are different. What good does this do for furthering stereophonic audio listening sessions?

Please learn something about listening to stereophonic audio from a high resolution system before trying to submit others to a test that should not be used in a stereophonic (high resolution) system (for the reasons above).

polrbehr

Wow. Another Energizer Bunny cable debate thread.

Don't see nearly enough of these anymore... LOL

Habanero Monk

Hey ZLTFUL,

I don't have any issue with the CAT5e cable other than, just like your CAT6 cable, it needs to be certified to hit or exceed it's CAT5e rating.

F1nut

Why is it always the naysayers that try to shove their beliefs on others? Be it cables, gear or whatever audio related, it's never the other way around. It's a curious attitude that someone into audio would think that with all the various options available they would not result in differences, be it for the better or for the worse. In fact, it is a belief completely devoid of any sort of logic and borders on the lunatic fringe.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Why is it always the naysayers that try to shove their beliefs on others? Be it cables, gear or whatever audio related, it's never the other way around. It's a curious attitude that someone into audio would think that with all the various options available they would not result in differences, be it for the better or for the worse. In fact, it is a belief completely devoid of any sort of logic and borders on the lunatic fringe.

To justify why they won't spend over 40 bucks on cables I guess. Then they seem to define a whole industry by a few bad snake oil companies which is like saying Ford sucks because of one bad model.

It's also can be contributed to a generational thing when applying logic. Today, it appears the desired outcome is first thought of, and then the logic created to achieve that outcome. Applies to more than audio too. Forcing beliefs on others ? Look around....pretty evident in todays society isn't it ?

The thought of someone being able to hear things they can't isn't logical to them, when logic clearly dictates the opposite. Then they result to making wagers which also only entices people to lie. Logic Jess ?? Unfortunately there's a lot of people devoid of using any or even knowing how.

11tsteve

F1nut wrote: »

Why is it always the naysayers that try to shove their beliefs on others? Be it cables, gear or whatever audio related, it's never the other way around. It's a curious attitude that someone into audio would think that with all the various options available they would not result in differences, be it for the better or for the worse. In fact, it is a belief completely devoid of any sort of logic and borders on the lunatic fringe.

a former buddy of mine, whose audio life focussed more on pro audio rather than home applications, claimed he was arguing with me for my own good. It was his effort to be a good friend, and to stop me from throwing money away on useless audiofool cables and doodads. Wire is wire, every 10 ft. run of 10 gauge wire is the same.
His entire stance started with .... "Well, if it makes a difference, why don't sound companies use better wires in live situations"....

tonyb

11tsteve wrote: »

"Well, if it makes a difference, why don't sound companies use better wires in live situations"....

Because live situations aren't about the SQ. Most have mixers to enhance the sound. A home environment, a live stadium, and a recording studio are all different in their own way. To achieve good sound in each takes a different approach.

A lot of sound companies have their cables made specifically for a certain purpose too. They aren't using off the shelf Wal-mart suff. Plus the majority of cables used are balanced, and they make up for any sound characteristics with the mixers or enhancers costing a lot of coin. Can you do that in a home environment....on the cheap ? Hardly....

Habanero Monk

So here is where we are at AFAIK:

1. The testing rig I suggested, modified with one additional NIC and Belkin CAT5E cable. The discrimination will be an absolute pick of either it's BJC, Belkin 5E, unnamed CAT6. All cables certified.

2. Air fare paid by the person incorrect in their assumption. Haven't heard back.

3. Who will hold checks in escrow?

4. Wryed DAC valued at $1600 to be used

5. Audio Quest Forest USB Cable acceptable?

6. What are the cable lengths? Need to know this so the computer and network switch can be accommodated out of sight to facilitate switching of cables.

ZLTFUL

1. The testing rig I suggested, modified with one additional NIC and Belkin CAT5E cable. The discrimination will be an absolute pick of either it's BJC, Belkin 5E, unnamed CAT6. All cables certified.
Actually, the testing rig, yes but with 3 identical NICs. I actually have 3 identical high end GB NICs that can be used and you are welcome to test them beforehand.
2. Air fare paid by the person incorrect in their assumption. Haven't heard back.
I don't really agree to this. Splitting it 50/50 regardless of outcome is more than fair. The wager has been and will be for a $1600 Wyred 4 Sound DAC or cash equivalent.
3. Who will hold checks in escrow?
Still up in the air as to me, it would only be fair for a neutral third party, someone with "no dog in this fight" if you will.
4. Wryed DAC valued at $1600 to be used
Allowing for some time for me to familiarize myself with the sound signature of the DAC, I have no problem with this. But I have countless hours listening to my Peachtree DAC and am much more familiar with it...Something to keep in mind.
5. Audio Quest Forest USB Cable acceptable?
Considering that it is the same cable I use in my own system, acceptable.
6. What are the cable lengths? Need to know this so the computer and network switch can be accommodated out of sight to facilitate switching of cables.
2-3M cables would be sufficient. There is a wall between the network hardware and the audio gear with a physical pass-through.

I am also open to Polk Fest being a potential venue for this if that makes it closer for you.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I am also open to Polk Fest being a potential venue for this if that makes it closer for you.

I already have 3 Intel CT EXP19301CTBLK's and Cisco switch for this.

Fair enough on the airfare. Perfectly reasonable.

I have seen so many posts about it 'having' to be on their system that I am not willing to change that up. I think with how much importance that has been placed on this that I would like to honor all those sentiments. I don't think I am off the mark on this one as there are plenty of posts here in that regard.

I want it to be the most comfortable environment for you. But if you have some fellow PF members that want to come in (I know of at least one). If your o.k. with that and they don't interfere.

Let me see about getting you the Wyred DAC before hand. It will come to me prior for integration and testing. Looking at the DAC-2 with Femto Recovery Clock upgrade.

Your USB cable is fine.

Can the entire setup: Computer, DAC, Switch, me sit on the other side with just line level passing through to your pre or amp?

steveinaz

Some people can make a chore out of anything. Hang up the lab coat, and go listen to some music. One thing is for sure, a better quality cable is certainly going to do no harm. Once in awhile you'll run into an inexpensive "performer" like I found in the Blue Jeans Belden 1694A ($16.00/mtr) digital coaxial---and when that happens, I'm all over it. So much for placebo. Now, mind you I haven't compared this cable to super high-end stuff, but I do prefer it over a number of $70-$100 1mtr coax's, such as DH Labs ($89), and preferred the belden.

tonyb

Absolutely Steve, it can also work in reverse as I too have found in certain instances. More money isn't a guarantee of better sound. That's why I like to try a variety to find my own personal huckleberry....and why I encourage others to do the same. Once I'm happy, I get off the merry-go round and enjoy the tunes.

BlueFox

11tsteve wrote: »

His entire stance started with .... "Well, if it makes a difference, why don't sound companies use better wires in live situations"....

What are 'sound companies'? Recording studios, professionals? If so then, at least, some do. Those that care about the final product.

http://www.shunyata.com/index.php/reviews-all/professional-endorsements

badchad

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I have seen so many posts about it 'having' to be on their system that I am not willing to change that up. I think with how much importance that has been placed on this that I would like to honor all those sentiments. I don't think I am off the mark on this one as there are plenty of posts here in that regard.

This will be an important aspect of the study. In most types of blind, "discrimination" testing, participants get better with training. That is, if subjects go through several "unblinded" trials of "training", they perform better at the discrimination phase. I think you should start with a basic A/B discrimination as that will make the statistical analysis a bit easier.

I'm always surprised at the lack of data on the subject. There should be enough data that this isn't really a question anymore.

Habanero Monk

Also I'm Ok with the Peach Tree DAC in lieu of the Wyred.

So who would be a neutral 3rd party for escrow?

11tsteve

BlueFox wrote: »

What are 'sound companies'? Recording studios, professionals? If so then, at least, some do. Those that care about the final product.

http://www.shunyata.com/index.php/reviews-all/professional-endorsements

just to be clear, his views not mine. I meant to demonstrate the stance of his non- belief.

BlueFox

I understand. Others say the same thing. Show them it isn't true and they then say the manufacturers gave them the cables for free in exchange for the endorsement. It's just one excuse after the other.

polrbehr

I'd be OK wit holding da money for youse guys (less my customary 15% fees, of course).

Habanero Monk

polrbehr wrote: »

I'd be OK wit holding da money for youse guys (less my customary 15% fees, of course).

I was thinking maybe CFrizz, XCapri, WilliamM2.

That brings us to the next item.

I think it would as simple as after the results the Escrow Agent is called up and the checks are sent to the proper party.

WilliamM2

Not me. I don't want to be in the middle holding $3200 should there be any dispute over the results.

I don't think the third party has to be impartial either, just honest, and willing to do it.

ZLTFUL

Having some third party "hold" the funds is asking for trouble. I would prefer an actual escrow company to hold it or for a trust to be created (Legal Zoom for like $49) for the protection of both parties.

polrbehr

Of course I was joking about holding the money. Unless 15% sounds reasonable, in which case I will be happy to... ; )

IMO this is taking cable debates to new levels of silliness, so with that in mind, I have a better idea. Rather than a monetary wager, how about the loser has his account at Club Polk deleted with the promise to never return even under another username?

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Having some third party "hold" the funds is asking for trouble. I would prefer an actual escrow company to hold it or for a trust to be created (Legal Zoom for like $49) for the protection of both parties.

I would be fine with that. It needs to be discussed if there is a disagreement over the results. I personally have no problem just bringing a cashiers check and trust ZLTFUL to the process.