How compliant is your Cat
Posted by: Mike-B on 22 March 2015
I moved this from a hijacked Mu-so thread -
The question is how many ethernet cables comply to the required spec
I hope Richard allows the attached link as its the basis of the question
Tests (attch) on Cat 5, 5e, & 6 patch leads of unspecified make RJ45 terminated cables carried out by Blue Jeans Cables, USA show an alarming number failing to meet test compliance.
My concern is that if that is the norm, then it could be many of our home cables assy's will drift out of spec due to a bend or crush or poor termination.
Comments ...............
Mike, I expect many cables will fall out of compliance if bent too tightly or crushed.. I would have thought one really need armoured cabling if you want to protect yourself from this totally.
For RF I use hardline.. And you need a large hacksaw to cut it.. But that will keep in impedance with quite a lot of abuse and you can bury it.
Cat 5e has 100 MHz bandwidth, and is compliant to 1000BaseT at the required 100 metres. You can obtain Cat 5e in shielded varieties such Cat 5e (ScTP) and (STP). In the industry I know data centres have a recommendation that for connectivity Cat 6a or better is used, but in those environments one is sometimes going above 1000BaseT in electrically noisy environments.
Finally I had understood for Cat 7 to achieve its performance it could not use RJ45: EIA/TIA 568 connectors.. It required its own special connector?
The cables in these tests appear to be bought in new & have failed from new - straight out of the box.
I wonder if anyone on the forum has a tester & we can replicate the tests on what cables we have on the market in Europe.
Yes its my understanding that Cat 7 needs a different connector to allow the cable as an assembly to meet spec. But I also understand that even with RJ45 a cable thats well within spec & carefully terminated, it can be made to comply.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups...ly98/roos_070798.pdf
I'm surprised it's so hard to physically tell Cat5 from Cat6... Certainly if you have have unterminated cable it's obvious... Cat6 has the plastic separator down the middle that you can see. Also, because of said separator, cat6 cable tends to be larger overall diameter.
Not at all, the bloody thing does whatever it likes, leaves mice everywhere!
I'm surprised it's so hard to physically tell Cat5 from Cat6... Certainly if you have have unterminated cable it's obvious... Cat6 has the plastic separator down the middle that you can see. Also, because of said separator, cat6 cable tends to be larger overall diameter.
Since the Categories are determined by electrical properties rather than physical construction of the cable, there can be many different physical solutions to achieve a particular Category, and hence you may not be able to tell just by looking at the cable.
What about Chord C-stream Ethernet cable 5m ? Is this a waste of money at around £55 - £65 ?
Apparently a hi fi mag gave it a good review. It's classed as a cat 7 and is directional in it's connecting. If nothing else chord cables are well made and have a nice quality about them, but is this over kill ? What do you guys think ?
Madness! I did buy a USB cable in around that price bracket, and the point about being well made is certainly valid in this arena. For an ethernet cable though, assuming it's to be used with TCP/IP network protocol, then I would save the cash. At least with USB audio the data transfer is time critical and even if errors are identified, there is no retry option, it's one shot only, so there seems a little greater justification for cable spend.
What about Chord C-stream Ethernet cable 5m ? Is this a waste of money at around £55 - £65 ?
No, £50 is a bit high for bog stndard Cat 7 off the reel types, but Chord is "hifi" & its a bit fancy with maybe more cost in the pretty bits rather than the business end. But no the madness is in >£500 for 5m, the high end Chords & AudioQuests. At least C-Stream is real ethernet, unlike the more expensive Chord cables with mini-coax (not TP) (not diss'ng their SQ tho')
I use fat & pug ugly Supra 7, its bandwidth is 1300MHz (way OTT) & its a reasonable priced @ £27 for 1m, £49 x 5m & £75 x 10m
With ethernet, yes, quality is important, for speed, reliability, even aesthetics if you like, but for sound quality beyond avoiding skipping etc, does not make sense to me. I've read on this forum and in the press reviews of ethernet cables, in which people claim to hear benefits like, sweetness here, and depth there. I have some barmy ideas, and I believe in them, others do not, I could be wrong about this too, but I don't buy into 'hi-fi' ethernet cables. Yet, when I needed a new ethernet cable recently, and being fortunate enough to have an IT department at my disposal, I insisted on getting a cable made with the highest quality CAT 6 available, and terminated with top quality connectors etc. Better to be safe.
What about Chord C-stream Ethernet cable 5m ? Is this a waste of money at around £55 - £65 ?
Yes completely in my opinion. Any well made Ethernet cable is fine: no need to pay this kind of price. Maplin sell perfectly good well made Ethernet patch leads. And yes I have heard a system wired with very expensive Chord Ethernet cable and I could hear no difference at all. I have read a lot of claptrap in HiFi magazines claiming magic properties for expensive Ethernet cables.
i'm sure you'll get plenty of people saying it does though.
+1 Despite using decent quality cable myself, as mentioned, you could have bought a 100m reel for the price mentioned here for 1m.