Rerouted Ethernet Cable

all this then makes comparisons between different ethernet cables somewhat more involved, unless proper precautions are taken to ensure single point grounding if using shielded cabled. take for example, comparison between Meicord and AQ Cinnamon.

enjoy...

ken

Got it!

it is interesting Nigel -- that there was SQ improvement yet to be uncovered by your latest fettle. i guess this is the reason why we tweak -- so get more performance without necessarily upgrading a black box. the trick then is to know when one has absolutely maxed out at a given level of black boxes before actually upgrading.

hope it all still sounds good -- all OK on my side  

i am a little disappointed that i ended up not using the Meicord 12m length that was meant for the switch-NDS connection (currenly this is just using a rather inexpensive Maplin CAT6 cable), but if i figure out how to route it optimally -- then i might reconsider -- absolutely no hurry -- but  it would be shame end up not using such an expensive cable...

enjoy

ken

Ken, I would only use the Meicord if you have the right application for it. One thing I have learnt (or at least strongly suspect) is that properly deployed and carefully routed inexpensive ethernet cables will usually outperform expensive cables that are poorly installed and/or incorrectly grounded.

I know Mike might feel that I place too much emphasis to the detrimental effects of noise but I believe I have made significant gains in SQ through a quest to optimise my LAN and minimise noise. I do however believe I am at (or near) the end of this journey but the improvement I have gained I feel is at least equivalent to a black box upgrade so well worth the effort IMHO. But you are right, you never know if you have fully exploited the full potential of your current system until you try some of these enhancements. Unfortunately I think I am now at the stage where a further stepwise improvement in SQ will require a black box upgrade. But right now I am so pleased with the SQ I have no desire to upgrade my boxes. Now that is a real result and I am sure my wife would agree!

By the way the phrase is neither 'felttle' nor 'tweak', it is 'fine-tune'! Remember we are highly skilled technicians who know exactly what we are doing! Right? 

Right!

i agree... 

enjoy

ken

nigelb posted:

I know Mike might feel that I place too much emphasis to the detrimental effects of noise.............. 

Not so Nigel,  noise is one of those things that is so hard to pin down & you probably didn't know you had it until its gone.  Then when its gone as a result of a single change & over a short period of time (thinking memory retention), it is very noticeable.  Your description of the change when you removed a 2nd ethernet earth point in a simple single move is indicative of that, it removed some form of pollution interference in the data stream, what exactly we don't/won't know for sure,  so I prefer to chalk it up as a positive result in the correctness of having one ground point on a LAN.  And the final point is that despite that we might not be too sure about the cause & we can't measure cause & effect change,  its without doubt all down to your Mk-II audio receptors & if they say its good,  then thats the way it is.     I will go back again to my ethernet (LAN) benchmark test of a USB stick plugged in & the ethernet plugged out - thats probably as good as it gets as the audio target to aim for.

Now,  as for Ken installing that 12m of MeiCord  ..........  needs to try harder IMO      his Mk-II audio receptors are in need of a treat.  

"Now,  as for Ken installing that 12m of MeiCord  ..........  needs to try harder IMO      his Mk-II audio receptors are in need of a treat.  "

i agree 

enjoy...

ken

Mike-B posted:

nigelb posted:

I know Mike might feel that I place too much emphasis to the detrimental effects of noise.............. 

Not so Nigel,  noise is one of those things that is so hard to pin down & you probably didn't know you had it until its gone.  Then when its gone as a result of a single change & over a short period of time (thinking memory retention), it is very noticeable.  Your description of the change when you removed a 2nd ethernet earth point in a simple single move is indicative of that, it removed some form of pollution interference in the data stream, what exactly we don't/won't know for sure,  so I prefer to chalk it up as a positive result in the correctness of having one ground point on a LAN.  And the final point is that despite that we might not be too sure about the cause & we can't measure cause & effect change,  its without doubt all down to your Mk-II audio receptors & if they say its good,  then thats the way it is.     I will go back again to my ethernet (LAN) benchmark test of a USB stick plugged in & the ethernet plugged out - thats probably as good as it gets as the audio target to aim for.

Now,  as for Ken installing that 12m of MeiCord  ..........  needs to try harder IMO      his Mk-II audio receptors are in need of a treat.  

Thanks for some reassurance that I am not entirely self-dillusional. I don't think I am....no I am sure I am not.....really!

If I had heard (or thought I had heard) an improvement in SQ from one change then I would have probably chalked it up as a 'maybe'. And one or two changes I was not convinced of any real change in SQ at all. But there has been more than a single improvement in SQ over the several changes I have made in the quest to remove noise. This tells me that some changes are ineffectual in removing noise but others appear to make a (positive) difference. Indeed such 'improvements' in the integrity of the LAN appear to have a cumulative effect on SQ. Furthermore I have found that the presence of noise is difficult (if not impossible) to 'hear', but it is possible to detect (hear) the positive effect of the removal of said noise.

Anyway as you say if my Mk-II audio receptors tell my brain that things have improved, then they have. End of! The cheapest upgrade I will ever make.

It has been a fascinating journey and thanks Mike for your help and technical advice and keeping my feet on the ground when my theorising might have been, lets say less scientific! 

"Furthermore I have found that the presence of noise is difficult (if not impossible) to 'hear', but it is possible to detect (hear) the positive effect of the removal of said noise...."

i have also found that prior to removal of said noise, the system played "OK" -- with nothing obviously wrong per se, but it somehow lost "that which makes you want to play it"

enjoy...

ken

ken c posted:

"Furthermore I have found that the presence of noise is difficult (if not impossible) to 'hear', but it is possible to detect (hear) the positive effect of the removal of said noise...."

i have also found that prior to removal of said noise, the system played "OK" -- with nothing obviously wrong per se, but it somehow lost "that which makes you want to play it"

enjoy...

ken

Yes Ken, that is how I would describe my systems SQ before and after noise removal. If indeed I have actually removed noise, can never be really sure of this.

I now look forward a little more to a listening session and am keen to listen to stuff that had me mildly ambivalent towards it pre noise removal.

As you are aware, this is a tough one to explain.

Glad to hear your system has got its mojo back. Hey, that is not a bad way of describing a system that has had some noise removed! 

this is good news Nigel! i must admit your success at de-noising the LAN mains side inspired me to look more closely at my steup -- and cleaning up here definitely also paid dividends for me, i kinda suspect that the dedicated 6mm radial for the LAN side was probably icing on the cake -- but hey, it cant be doing any harm anyhow.

by the way, i dressed the mains lead from the UPS to the Olsen mains block (metal) with a shielding material that i got from MCRU -- and also made sure this is earthed. again, i dont know for sure what sonic impact this had. This is a sort of poor-man's sheilded mains lead  -- but i have since bought the Supra lo Rad mains lead -- i might need to pursuade the IEC plug to connect to the block due to limited space -- but i will see. I also now have a linear power supply for the US -- havent connected it yet -- in fact given the way my system is sounding right now -- i actually dont see the point -- so this could turn out redundant -- but we'll see...

by the way, i tried a (new) not-so-cheap shielded cable between switch and US. All other cables are UTP, so from what i understand, there cant have been any multiple earth issue here. The sound very obviously collapsed. Lost its relaxed presentation. Quickly put back the very cheap Maplin Cat 6 UTP and order was restored. Of course, i could have tried Mikes suggestion -- the very clever Lindy adapter (!!) -- but couldnt be bothered.

enjoy

ken

The Lindy is good. My whole network is AQ Cinnamon, and the little Lindy works like a dream. And it's only about £3. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

The Lindy is good. My whole network is AQ Cinnamon, and the little Lindy works like a dream. And it's only about £3. 

definitely HH -- very clever suggestion from Mike. i have bought a couple of 'up' and 'down' ones in case i ever have a need -- added bonus is that they are very cheap too...

enjoy...

ken

As you say Ken, as all your ethernet cables are unshielded you shouldn't have any issues with multiple grounding as there are no shields to ground so you won't need to use the Lindy adapter. Interesting to hear your disappointing experience with the shielded ethernet cable. Just shows that money spent on ethernet cables doesn't necessarily provide a return in SQ. Indeed it seems to have had a detrimental effect.

I would be interested to hear what effect the Supra LoRad power lead has when you install it. Likewise the linear PS for the US. I definitely got an uplift in SQ when I installed the TP linear PS for my US. Would be interested to know which one you went for if you feel able to share this. If not I understand.

HH - If you have all AQ Cinnamon (shielded) then you would have needed to pay attention to multiple grounding using the Lindy adapter as I did. I swear I enjoyed a significant improvement in SQ from simply sorting this issue out by putting the adapter on my US. So much so I referred to Mike to see if such a simple mod could possibly have made such a difference to SQ! When you say '...the little Lindy works like a dream...', do you mean you achieved a noticeable uplift in SQ? I just want to explore if my SQ improvement was related to the use of the Lindy adapter (and the removal of the multiple groundings leaving just the one), coincidence or my imagination.

Nigel, feel free to mail me -- address in profile... suitably distrorted

enjoy

ken

The sound certainly seemed a little better, but whether that's due to dealing with the paranoia that didn't exist prior to someone suggesting that I might have earthing issues......

Hungryhalibut posted:

The sound certainly seemed a little better, but whether that's due to dealing with the paranoia that didn't exist prior to someone suggesting that I might have earthing issues......

On that positive note from HH I am off to start a modern day inquisition against my own network.... A little bit of paranoia nevert hurt anyone, didn't it?

Hungryhalibut posted:

The sound certainly seemed a little better, but whether that's due to dealing with the paranoia that didn't exist prior to someone suggesting that I might have earthing issues......

Guilty as charged  .......  but you know it makes sense       

Mike-B posted:

....Thats the simple stuff,  now from my perspective, my latest "position"  ....... I used to have an all STP Cat7 screened LAN, I know the importance of & made sure the screen ground was correct.  But since I've moved to all UTP Cat6 I have been more than pleased with the improved SQ.    I understand why people are attracted to high MHz Cat7,  but I now know a well made, quality, verified performing Cat6 does it as well, if not better,  for sure without the ground complications.   And no Ken, this is not trail & error.  

Mike, may have asked you this specifically -- but dont recall -- but have you been able to explain why properly earthed STP Cat 7 cables seem, in your case (and i have read similar reported elswhere) to underperform compared to Cat 6 UTP?  if so, i'd love to hear the explanation please...

enjoy...

ken

ken c posted:

Mike-B posted:

....Thats the simple stuff,  now from my perspective, my latest "position"  ....... I used to have an all STP Cat7 screened LAN, I know the importance of & made sure the screen ground was correct.  But since I've moved to all UTP Cat6 I have been more than pleased with the improved SQ.    I understand why people are attracted to high MHz Cat7,  but I now know a well made, quality, verified performing Cat6 does it as well, if not better,  for sure without the ground complications.   And no Ken, this is not trail & error.  

Mike, may have asked you this specifically -- but dont recall -- but have you been able to explain why properly earthed STP Cat 7 cables seem, in your case (and i have read similar reported elswhere) to underperform compared to Cat 6 UTP?  if so, i'd love to hear the explanation please...

enjoy...

ken

It does strike me as odd that many, if not all, 'audiophile' Ethernet cables seem to be STP, if this is only going to increase the likelihood of problems caused by multiple earthing.

It is very easy to rectify the issue of multiple earthing, you just have to be aware of it. There are of course some benefits to using shielded cables, which others on here with superior technical knowledge are better able to explain.

I have all STP ethernet cables in my LAN and now I have sorted the multi grounding issue and taken some other steps to reduce noise, they are performing extremely well. 

 Ken,   I don't have an explanation,  it just sounds better.  I have some theories, some may be pure bunkum,  some is my imagination & some is based on a few years of work in electrics.  My (long time ago) training was in marine electrics, or more precisely military marine & we had to install & perfect all sorts of voltages & frequencies & that made screening, shielding, separating & clamping all mandatory.  As a result I am am a bit EMI/RFI OCD & very careful to have screened power cables in my system & be careful (within reason) to keep cables separated.   But even so I don't believe an ethernet screen is that important in most domestic network situations,  nothing wrong to use it & it will do no harm provided its installed properly.    The problem is Cat7 especially is used by the cable makers for all the wrong reasons - & I'm thinking boutique cables - they use it to get 600MHz bandwidth & play on that bandwidth to "sell" the super performance advantages (& the price) of their cables.  Truth is for audio network replay 600MHz is way OTT as the renderer works at 31MHz & 100mb/s.  Second point is a incorrectly applied screen may possibly add to problems,  but will it be audible, I don't know ....... 

In my case I believe - theorise - the SQ improvement is because the MeiCord is better constructed than my previous Supra Cat7+..   MeiCord, based on their research, take great care with the twisted pair geometry into the RJ45 pin connections,  plus they have an excellent bulk cable design with amongst other things optimised twist rates & it all comes together to minimise the various negative effects on cable performance.  MeiCord easily meets the TIA/EIA-568 Cat6 (250MHz) spec & has a healthy dB reserve in NEXT & RL, plus each cable is tested for conformance.  My previous Supra Cat7+ is an excellent cable on paper, Supra claim it will achieve 1300MHz bandwidth (which I got suckered into) but I now know that that is impossible,  the bare cable might do that,  but not with RJ45's on the end.  Any/all Cat7 will struggle to meet the required 600HMz bandwidth spec. because of this.   I tried the Supra vs AQ Cinnamon when I first started with streaming & could not tell the difference, so bought the cheaper one.   I was very happy with it & would not normally have changed it,  but it broke a plug clip & another plug clip on the other cable felt dodgy,  so I changed it for a cable (with an audio pedigree) with a better designed plug clip - & the MeiCord has that for sure - plus my electrical mind was impressed by the technical correctness in the MeiCord design.   I was not actually expecting an SQ improvement - I'm a bit sceptical with cables - it was an added bonus.  

Thanks for taking the time to respond Mike.

Says Inspector Clouseau in 'Return of the Pink Panther'

"See, this is where you are wrong. Wax is NOT just wax. In this case it is a clue. French wax, English wax, domestic wax..."

I guess we could extend that to "Data is NOT just data"  ?

I am still trying to figure out a possible route for my 12m Meicord from switch to NDS. 

enjoy...

ken

As I still maintain, its a Black Art not helped by the fact we all apparently hear differently and hear different things. Also we are all capable of convincing ourselves to varying degrees that something is better (define better!), particularly when we have invested a fair amount of dosh in the 'new best thing'. It is therefore good to have some grounding (preferably only one - geddit?) in some scientific and electrical theory/principles. If only theory and actual results always aligned - life would be so much simpler.

Interesting though!