Does high quality digital cables matter?
Comments
-
You sure are doing a good job of fooling everyone else.
What did I say when I posted that link. Oh yes.
And that is basically everything in the link as a file is transferred from A to B has the potential to add jitter, which I believe is all I have ever said.
So, to answer your question, from the link, some relevent passages.
Jitter has been with us since the inception of the CD format by Sony and Philips in 1982. It is a pervasive problem with all digital audio. It has prevented digital audio, both CD's and computer-driven-audio from competing with good vinyl and tape for decades. It is only recently that manufacturers have become aware of the problem and developed improved chips and systems to deal with jitter.
Jitter in all it's forms isn't a 'digital phenomenon'. It has existed with purely analog formats in the form of WOW and Flutter.The jitter associated with digital streaming audio is usually a mix of non-correlated and correlated jitter, correlated being that jitter that is somehow related to the music data or waveform and uncorrelated usually being random jitter.
The audio data transfer must include both 1) accurate data and 2) accurate timing, whereas non-real-time transfers only require accurate data.
My take away from this sentence of his is that he is talking about digital audio data, not digital packet data.
Pay attention specifically to: whereas non-real-time transfers only require accurate data Now tie this back to where he speaks about non-realtime transfers:
it is not as much of a real-time transfer and this ties into:
Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue.Playback jitter originates from a large number of contributors, which are usually additive. These range from the master clock, which has its own jitter, to logic devices, to mechanical systems for spinning a CD. One digital cable can even add more jitter than another. Each contributor adds more jitter to the signal as it makes its way to the D/A converter. This summation of this jitter is the system jitter.
The digital audio data must make its way through the system over wires/traces and sometimes through buffers, such as the buffer to drive the S/PDIF cable. Each of these buffers has finite reaction times and imprecise detection of changing signal levels. What this means is that even though the signal may not have much jitter coming into the buffer, it may exit with additional jitter. This jitter is a result of the speed of the device, thermal effects on the silicon die, power delivery on the die and even transmission-line effects.
Again pay attention to his words since he has made a point to choose them wisely:
The digital audio data buffer to drive the S/PDIF cable Each of these buffers has finite reaction times and imprecise detection of changing signal levels
He's speaking to S/PDIF. Just as Amir is doing. He is speaking to a specific topology implementation.
And we have this:
large number of contributors, which are usually additive. These range from the master clock, which has its own jitter, to logic devices, to mechanical systems for spinning a CD and One digital cable can even add more jitter than another. Each contributor adds more jitter to the signal as it makes its way to the D/A converter. This summation of this jitter is the system jitter
Then in another section we have this where he's made another distinction:
Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue.
He is drawing distinct conclusions as it pertains to computer based :
The only clock that is important is the one in the end-point device
He is making clear distinctions.The DC power applied to each of the devices that must process or transmit the digital audio signal is critical. If this power varies in voltage, the devices will react differently to the applied digital signals. Power "noise" as it is referred to is probably one of the largest contributors to jitter. Voltage changes or "voltage droop" can happen anywhere on a circuit board, power cabling, or even on the silicon itself. Changes in power voltage will change the speed and reaction times of digital logic that is transmitting the digital signals resulting in jitter.
Cables don't actively add jitter to the signal, however they can slow the signal transitions or "edges". When the edges are slowed, the receiver or buffer at the cable destination is less likely to detect the transition at the correct time with certainty, which results in jitter.
So an outgoing tide lowers all ships. Sauce that is equally good on BJC Ethernet Cables is also good on AudioQuest, Chord, Etc...
Get a really nice battery backup with AVR function. -
Depends where the "stored" file comes from. Jitter can be present in the mastering process, which then will be present in every single copy made from that Master. You need to be more specific with your question.
H9
He did in Post 727
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?160401-Does-high-quality-digital-cables-matter&p=2054628&viewfull=1#post2054628 -
.......nm"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul!
-
Lots of BS in post 727, atleast how it relates to real audio. Jitter can be cumulative and that BS about it being reduced at every stage until it's null is the farthest thing from the truth as it relates to audio. It might be true in the world of digital data files relating to computers and that type of data transfer.
Apples and oranges
H9
So what exactly does this have to do with the conversation at hand of a BJC certified CAT6 cable and an AudioQuest Vodka RJ/E cable?
We are talking about computer audio. There is still going to be jitter. It's just not coming from the Ethernet cable. The Ethernet cable is not an accumulator in this instance.
Using Amir's CS chip and the PLL recovery mechanism, if the computer is feeding via it's S/PDIF output you still have a problem at the S/PDIF output. There is no Ethernet jitter to worry about. -
Meh.
-
You're better than that.
I don't like it better than anyone else to be called a troll when clearly making cogent points using someone else's supporting references.
I'm certainly not always going to be above it even though I would like to be.
I believe all the detail out of the WBF and Empirical Audio write ups have been teased out and the proper differentiation's made.
I didn't even know about Mr Nugents write up but his findings if not exactly mirror come very close to matching the points about computer based audio I was making pages ago. It's a really good read and I am saving that to pdf in case the link dies at some point.
Sometimes all that is needed for people to realize a factual point being made is for some 3rd party to corroborate it. -
And to think, this "test" will likely not take place until September?! (if at all, IMO)
Wonder how many pages this thread will be by then...So, are you willing to put forth a little effort or are you happy sitting in your skeptical poo pile?
http://audiomilitia.proboards.com/ -
And to think, this "test" will likely not take place until September?! (if at all, IMO)
Wonder how many pages this thread will be by then...
Remember that both ZLTFUL and myself have agreed to terms. I have publicly asked for technical comments as it pertains to the testing structure, the testing apparatus, and the testing protocol.
Keep in mind the testing has actually been changed per ZLTFUL's request that it include an A/B/C choice.
FYI the domain in your sig isn't resolving. -
Wire is an electrical "component" and like any electrical component, can potentially impart it's own character to the signal. To what degree is highly arguable. Since I lack lab equipment to "explore" the virtues of a given cable/topology, I'll trust my ears---it's free; afterall, that IS all that matters, right?
There's science, then there's reality--since I live in reality, I'll play by its rules.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Source: Rotel CD14MkII CD Player - Speakers: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 -
Monk... is your take on this on ethernet only or does it also apply to USB cables? I can tell you I heard a noticeable difference going from standard printer cable > AQ Forest > AQ Cinnamon. If it applies to all digital cables, do you have a reason why I heard a difference? Like I said earlier, I'm ignorant on most things digital, but I do know what I heard and continue to hear.
I'm only speaking to Ethernet. There is no standards body that is in charge of USB measurements like there is for Ethernet that I am aware of.
Ethernet is simply delivering packet data, at GB speeds, at a rough ratio of 1:428 given a 50 minute album worth of playback. -
Wire is an electrical "component" and like any electrical component, can potentially impart it's own character to the signal. To what degree is highly arguable. Since I lack lab equipment to "explore" the virtues of a given cable/topology, I'll trust my ears---it's free; afterall, that IS all that matters, right?
There's science, then there's reality--since I live in reality, I'll play by its rules.
You could always send your Ethernet cables to Kurt at BJC. If a $10K fluke meter can't tell you what is going on with your cable.... -
Does the USB not do the same thing when connected to the DAC? Both are supplying digital information (however you want to call it) that is then decoded by the same chip.
There are a lot of different types of digital signaling. I'm not sure of the mechanism for USB as it pertains to audio so I can't speak to that. What I have more than solid fundamental grasp on, as corroborated by that most excellent article that BlueFox provided, is how data networking works.
USB is a peripheral interconnect. Ethernet is a systems interconnect. Both based on digital signaling that get the respective job done.I'm sure the Forest, the lowest cable AQ produces, meets the standard that AQ sees as a minimum to achieve proper performance. Yet I get better results when I move up the line, expecting the standards to be higher for each cable I move up to. Are ethernet cable standards so high that it really is a moot point once you hit it?
Much of this thread gives me tired head as it really appears to be mostly semantics. I'm trying to bring it back down to something the rest of us won't beat our heads up against the wall trying to read.
It's not semantics it's a failure for some to understand what it is, misinterpret data that they go out and find and link to as a basis for their position. It's just been a task to tease out all the details and in a few soundbite length quotes tie it all together.
Read the write up that BlueFox linked to. Mr Nugent did a killer job laying it all out and explaining the in's and outs. It was written 5 years ago so I would love to see an update as it pertains to his section on USB audio.
I wonder if he would write up an addendum if asked. -
Ask him if you would like. Amir is a genuine guy from all accounts I've seen. I enjoy his write ups, though most of them can speak above my technical knowledge.
Mr Nugent has another write up in relation to Computer vs CD Players
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/nugent.htm
Items of note that I spoke to prior in this thread:
5. Tune the buffer sizes in the players options
7. Insure a large RAM size for data caching
8. Specify fast seek-time and fast spindle rate hard disk drive*
*He wrote this in 2005 before SSD existed. -
So using an ethernet between a computer/whatever to the DAC is using the cable in the same capacity as any other digital cable, right?
Could you flesh this out for me as to where your train of thought is going?I mean, the music (regardless of form) is being sent from the source to the DAC, where it then gets processed. I don't see how the interface changes the nature of the transfer. Just because the cable is ethernet doesn't mean its acting in its traditional sense, no? Its just a digital cable. For this to be true, you would also have to argue that HDMI's are all the same once they meet spec since its the same cable.
I'm not talking about HDMI in this thread. There is another thread where its been well hashed out. HDMI is based on TDMS and Ethernet is based on systems such as MLT-3. These are very complex hardware/software and very different stacks.There is nothing that states HOW an ethernet must be used (some people even use them for speaker cable), so I could see an opening in the argument depending on the application.
You could use it to tow your car. It's just not its' intended use and I don't have any interest in speaking to anyone about that. Safe to say that ZLTFUL and myself have agreed in a particular instance to test it as it was intended and designed for use: Computer networks. -
Mr. Nugent references this thread for USB connected devices:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/7719.html -
Habanero Monk wrote: »From the article YOU (Bluefox) linked:
Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue.
Feel free to point out my error as to the article that you linked to about jitter.
Bingo.
Man Dark night and blufox have been awfully quiet...
..Ironic after they called me out earlier in this thread for "Being quiet" and not answering questions.
So am I, still waiting...for answers to these easy questions! All it takes is a simple yes or no...And so we ask again...
Q: Where does this audible distortion exist in the digital music file, if each bit as verified by the CRC remains correct?
Q: Does or does not jitter exist in a file? On a stored file?
Q: Does jitter exist in a file within storage mediums?
Looks like this debate is over boys! Thanks for the laughs BlueFox and DK!Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo.
-
Habanero Monk wrote: »Remember that both ZLTFUL and myself have agreed to terms. I have publicly asked for technical comments as it pertains to the testing structure, the testing apparatus, and the testing protocol.
Keep in mind the testing has actually been changed per ZLTFUL's request that it include an A/B/C choice.
FYI the domain in your sig isn't resolving.
Having read most of the posts in this thread, I do realize that the particulars have been agreed to by both parties.
I just have a feeling that it will be all buildup and no outcome, that's all. I am curious as to what will happen after all this back and forth, but I have my doubts that the results will be anything close to conclusive. JMHO, that's all.
Yeah, I've been meaning to change that to Audiomilitias' URL, just haven't gotten to it yet :O, thanks for the reminder!So, are you willing to put forth a little effort or are you happy sitting in your skeptical poo pile?
http://audiomilitia.proboards.com/ -
Having read most of the posts in this thread, I do realize that the particulars have been agreed to by both parties.
I just have a feeling that it will be all buildup and no outcome, that's all. I am curious as to what will happen after all this back and forth, but I have my doubts that the results will be anything close to conclusive. JMHO, that's all.
The testing has no conclusion other then what the outcome is. It's going to be a data driven event.
How do you define conclusive? -
Monk, remind me how you guys are setting it up. This thread is too long to go digging.
This video should give the pertinents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOp3WtOeDnEIf the Ethernet is used to transmit sacd to a receiver, like the denon interface does, does the Ethernet cable still not matter?
I don't know. If Denon is using a custom signalling method then it's not Ethernet. Again you can separate water once it is mixed. It's just a CAT5/6/7 cable at that point.
I don't want you to think I'm splitting hairs either. Google the OSI model and you will see that as a whole the cable or wireless PHY sits at the bottom of the stack. It has to be view holistically.If a computer is hooked up via sod if, USB, or Ethernet to a dac, does the cable still not matter?
Not sure what sod is. If you have a DAC with Ethernet it is it's own end point device there is not computer outside of file storage servicing it.Regardless of which cable is used, if one makes a difference transmitting the same signal from the same point A to the same point B, then shouldn't they all?
In short it's not the same signal. See the links to Steven Nugents write ups. Read them in their entirety. If you attempt to try to cherry pick it won't make much sense because his writing style is on of building up to a point in my estimation.My main point stems back to this being an argument about networking vs. a final step in the audio chain. Is the application of the Ethernet important, and if not, then why would other digital cables have varying sonic attributes?
Ethernet is not involved in the audio data chain. It's involved in the computer data chain. Steven Nugent in the linked articles goes into this point rather eloquently.
The main take away from his articles is that he makes specific mention of audio digital data and computer digital data. He places a very stark emphasis on this. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »The testing has no conclusion other then what the outcome is. It's going to be a data driven event.
How do you define conclusive?
Not the actual test results; sure, there will be one who is correct and one who is not. But I think most people will probably still want to decide with their own ears whether cables, any cables, make a difference in their systems.
So yes, it should be conclusive, one of you will be $1600 richer, and the other $1600 poorer. Much ado about nothing?
My link is fixed now.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVSo, are you willing to put forth a little effort or are you happy sitting in your skeptical poo pile?
http://audiomilitia.proboards.com/ -
Not the actual test results; sure, there will be one who is correct and one who is not. But I think most people will probably still want to decide with their own ears whether cables, any cables, make a difference in their systems.
Why would my testing methodology rule this out? It won't influence what you hear.So yes, it should be conclusive, one of you will be $1600 richer, and the other $1600 poorer. Much ado about nothing?
That data will be conclusive. -
Man Dark night and blufox have been awfully quiet...
Don't take it personally. I have reached my monthly allotment for forum troll interaction and entertainment.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Don't take it personally. I have reached my monthly allotment for forum troll interaction and entertainment.
Exactly. After a while you get tired of trolls. They have both already hung themselves. Now let them twist in the wind and tighten the noose. It is fun to watch them demonstrate their lack of reading comprehension skills.
DK, I don't know if you are familiar with this umbilical for your pre, but I have one on order. It should be here tomorrow, or Thursday. I read about it on another forum where the poster was very happy with it. I figured what-the-heck, why not try it.
http://www.revelationaudiolabs.com/cables-power/#PassageDB-25Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Know what I find hilarious ?
27 pages of back and forth, semantics....even a "test" subscribed to. That "test"....amounts to letting one's own ears be the judge.
Well frickin' HELLO.....didn't we say that from the git-go ?HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Exactly. After a while you get tired of trolls. They have both already hung themselves. Now let them twist in the wind and tighten the noose. It is fun to watch them demonstrate their lack of reading comprehension skills.
That begs the question why, when I take your own referenced links and simply expose your gross misunderstanding with them, all we hear is the sound of crickets.
You can't sweep this under the rug by ignoring it.
1. You didn't understand that Amir was talking about PLL induced jitter on the S/PDIF interface as it re-clocked the incoming data.
2. You didn't understand that Mr Nugent made purposeful distinction between Digital Audio Data and Computer Packet Data
3. You failed to realize the Mr Nugent pointed out there there is cumulative jitter or system jitter for a CDP but there isn't cumulative jitter for a computer based playback system and only the final end point device matters
4. There is no jitter on a file stored in a hard drive or a RAM buffer with 6/10/20 seconds of hold time or even a 1GB buffer
You certainly thought you were bringing a noose to the party, you just didn't realize you were hanging yourself with it.
I warned you to stop digging the hole you were. It finally collapsed in on you with your own linked articles. Your reading comprehension is poor, your understanding of Ethernet delivered audio is poor.
Feel free to bring up anything of merit either out of Amir's thread or Steve Nugents write ups. It's interesting that you posted in the WBF forum about linking here for Amir but DIDN'T. It's interesting that you didn't pose a single question about whether Amir could deduce the source of the audiodata based on the jitter measurement.
All your name calling is simply that of someone that has no leg to stand on technically or factually. -
DK, I don't know if you are familiar with this umbilical for your pre, but I have one on order. It should be here tomorrow, or Thursday. I read about it on another forum where the poster was very happy with it. I figured what-the-heck, why not try it.
http://www.revelationaudiolabs.com/cables-power/#PassageDB-25
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know about this. I'll run this by Pass Labs first and see if they have done any studies with different DB-25 cables.
Please send a link to the forum thread.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Is the application of the Ethernet important, and if not, then why would other digital cables have varying sonic attributes?
Because of the electrical noise (And other junk from outside sources) that gets carried along with those cables. Not within the digital signal that's being transmitted (Or in any which way effecting it..as it still results in a 1:1 carbon copy of the original), but overlying and creeping alongside the digital signal. It's the exact same reason that a couple .99c Ferrite Cores snapped on each end of any cable (Power, data, digital or analog) will get rid of amp hum and many other things.
It's very similar to the same reason speakers were originally built with magnetic shielding..not to improve the speakers quality, but to prevent interference with your tube tv set from the driver magnets!
I appreciate the honest questions DSkip..very refreshing to say the least!!Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Don't take it personally. I have reached my monthly allotment for forum troll interaction and entertainment.Exactly
Right, because it's not like I've got 27 pages stating otherwise...
Excuses, excuses. You fools ever going to answer these simple questions????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
And so we ask again...
(For the 4th time now, yes or no answers will suffice)
Q: Where does this audible distortion exist in the digital music file, if each bit as verified by the CRC remains correct?
Q: Does or does not jitter exist in a file? On a stored file?
Q: Does jitter exist in a file within storage mediums?
You and DK are nothing more than frauds when it comes to the digital domain. Trying to pass off rumors as facts based off past performance in an unrelated field..and calling others "Trolls" when they prove you wrong (Soundly prove you wrong at that). Nice try.Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Easy on the name calling and character bruising or this thread will be closed down. Keep it friendly!
-
Habanero Monk wrote: »That begs the question why, when I take your own referenced links and simply expose your gross misunderstanding with them, all we hear is the sound of crickets.
You can't sweep this under the rug by ignoring it.
Nothing is being ignored. As has been pointed out many times, and in the referenced links, every link in the digital audio path has the potential to introduce jitter into the file being transferred. Whether it does or does not is another story, most likely dependent on the equipment and network topology. For whatever reason, you and your buddy simply quote sentences out of context in order to try and prove your point.
So, back on point for the lurkers. As has been pointed out, every link in the digital chain has the potential to introduce jitter into the data. If so then this can then be audible to the listener.
All that has been written is simply to propose some possible scenarios or reasons where this is technically possible, even if unlikely. Since an Ethernet cable, like any other cable, will attenuate the signal, or be subject to interference from outside sources, it certainly seems reasonable that the signal can be degraded enough to result in the receiver circuitry adding jitter as the musical data is reconstructed. The question is can this jitter make it to the DAC, or will it be eliminated as it travels through the rest of the circuit.
My assumption is, it depends. It depends on the topology used, and the ancillary equipment, but is possible. If so then it is also possible a different Ethernet cable can result in a different audible sound.
Why you and your buddy have this irrational obsession with always being right, and anybody else is wrong is beyond me. After a while when dealing with zealots it does become pointless in trying to have a discussion. Personally, I like to have an open mind, and realize there is a lot I don't know. As I learn more every day at work, or reading, I realize there is still a lot to be discovered. So, for now, even though at this point in time I am not dealing with network audio, I have to side with those who say they hear a difference between Ethernet cables. There simply is not enough data to outright dismiss those claims.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits.
![[Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/83b82048d67877ca27bbc25d5d38f9d3_100.png)
This discussion has been closed.