Expensive Cables. Are they worth the Money?

analogmusic posted:

Absolutely never.

Not for Ethernet.

i don’t care what Nigel Finn and Chord says I’m not interested at all.  

Not even if it was the equivalent in sound to a black box upgrade ?

analogmusic posted:

Absolutely never.

Not for Ethernet.

i don’t care what Nigel Finn and Chord says I’m not interested at all.  

Listen before saying no, it will surprise you especially on NDS, 552, 500 level......, while I still would need to think a long time to convince myself...

Innocent Bystander posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Expensive wires may or may not be worth the money but they can’t be worth the debate

But debate costs nothing except time, and for a fair proportion of people time is easier to find than money...

and without debate, this forum would br dead in the water.......

How does does an expensive Ethernet cable actually achieve the perceived improvement in sound?

I understand how materials and construction reduce the degradation of sound in analogue cables, I understand how better digital cables can reduce the degradation of temporal accuracy of S/Pdif transport, I understand how Ethernet cables can alter the RFI conducted into a streamer, I understand how this can influence the sound quality of any individual streamer design; but I don't see how this can be universally correlated to sound quality for all different streamers.

Can anyone help my fill this gap in my knowledge?

james n posted:

analogmusic posted:

Absolutely never.

Not for Ethernet.

i don’t care what Nigel Finn and Chord says I’m not interested at all.  

Not even if it was the equivalent in sound to a black box upgrade ?

Absolutely not interested. 

To the point that I will not buy any black box that requires such a cable

and I didn’t. My chord Dave sounds very good with Vertere USB and there’s simply no interest for me on what Chord cables are selling. 

I am concerned how the Naim forum is being abused to help sell Chord cables.  

Huge posted:

How does does an expensive Ethernet cable actually achieve the perceived improvement in sound?

I understand how materials and construction reduce the degradation of sound in analogue cables, I understand how better digital cables can reduce the degradation of temporal accuracy of S/Pdif transport, I understand how Ethernet cables can alter the RFI conducted into a streamer, I understand how this can influence the sound quality of any individual streamer design; but I don't see how this can be universally correlated to sound quality for all different streamers.

Can anyone help my fill this gap in my knowledge?

I'd agree Huge - it's an interesting one, never backed up by measurements just subjective differences.

To be fair though, if you try one and like what it does and it increases your musical enjoyment then that's all that matters at the end of the day. 

Chord (for example) does make that clear on its website and makes it very easy to borrow cables to assess their effect in your particular system.

I suppressed the RFI on my (relatively cheap) 'better than Cat6' Ethernet cable using a couple of wideband ferrite chokes - I now can't hear a difference between the network and playing the same files played back from a USB stick.  Any change wouldn't be an improvement, it would be a degradation!

analogmusic posted:

james n posted:

analogmusic posted:

Absolutely never.

Not for Ethernet.

i don’t care what Nigel Finn and Chord says I’m not interested at all.  

Not even if it was the equivalent in sound to a black box upgrade ?

Absolutely not interested. 

To the point that I will not buy any black box that requires such a cable

and I didn’t. My chord Dave sounds very good with Vertere USB and there’s simply no interest for me on what Chord cables are selling. 

I am concerned how the Naim forum is being abused to help sell Chord cables.  

It's not being abused - these cables seem to work well with Naim kit. People just report what they find with no agenda and it helps guide others 

Despite the fact that I believe many of the expensive cables are horrendously overpriced for the engineering and materials involved (£0.99 connectors on a £3,500.00 cable anyone?), I do agree with James N.

Provided people have no ulterior motive (for instance, commercial links) and genuinely believe what they write, it's not an abuse of the forum.

Some background material...

Increasing the sound quality of your music, by switching from Cat 5 networking to Cat 7
By Sebastian Anthony on January 17, 2014 at 12:12 pm 147 Comments
167
shares
Facebook
Twitter
Google Plus
Reddit
Hacker News
This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.
Audioquest "Vodka" Cat 7 cable
When it comes to listening to music, almost every aspect of an audio setup affects how the music sounds. Obviously, the speakers or headphones are the most important variable, closely followed by the amplifier, but the interconnecting speaker cables, interconnects, and power supply also play a significant role. If you have poor quality cables running from your computer or amplifier to your speakers, the music will sound bad. In today’s world, though, where streaming music from the internet or NAS is now the norm, there’s another variable that you need to watch out for: Your Ethernet cables. According to some new research, the quality of your networking cables really does affect the sound of your music — though, here in the ExtremeTech bunker (which has a surprisingly high density of networking specialists), we’re not sure if his claims hold up.

René van Es, over at The Ear, is an audiophile who has been testing audio equipment, speaker cables, and interconnects for decades. He claims that, back in the ’70s, he was one of the first people to write about the differences in speaker cables — and now, he’s researching the difference in Ethernet cables.

As you may know, most wired networking uses Category 5 (Cat 5) cabling, which consists of twisted pairs of copper wire, surrounded by a plastic sheath. Cat 5 is generally unshielded, which is why it can only be used over fairly short distances — especially if you want to use transmission methods with higher data rates, such as Gigabit Ethernet. There are, however, higher categories of cabling, such as Cat 7, which have shielding around each pair, the entire cable core, and also the connector (which tends to be more rigid than the normal, plastic RJ45 that you see in Cat 5). As you can see in the photo at the top of the story, Cat 7 cables and connectors are pretty hefty.

Rene van Es's network diagram
Rene van Es’s network diagram. The main thing is to note the connections between the NAS, Switch 1, Switch 3, and the NAD M50.
Van Es plays his music over a fairly standard home network setup: He has a NAS where he stores his music (ripped to lossless FLAC of course), a NAD M50 digital music player that can play those FLAC files, and an Ethernet network connecting the two. The actual network setup is a bit more complex than that (as seen in the diagram above), but we’ll keep things simple for the sake of clarity.

According to Van Es, there was a significant change in audio quality when he replaced his original Cat 5 cables with Cat 7. “Changing from [Cat 5] to Cinnamon [an Audioquest Cat 7 cable] with only one switch in my network produces a surprising result. One Million Bicycles from Katie Melua’s CD Live At The O2 Arena opens up and suddenly the public plays a much more important role at the beginning and end of the song.” After some more testing, he continues: “[Switching to Cat 7] gives me back a more detailed sound that’s very easy on the ear with better instrument detail. Like the organ that comes to the foreground, the whistle is now tonally richer and Katie’s voice is more exciting. Small recording errors that appear, for instance when Katie gets too close to the mic, add to the live experience.”

NAD M50
At around $3000, the NAD M50 is a serious piece of Hi-Fi gear.
If you know anything about Ethernet, or packet-switched networking in general, this takes a bit of effort to get your head around. Bits are bits; Ethernet transports error-checked IP packets from one point to another. There’s no such thing as a good bit or bad bit or “better-sounding” bit — you either receive the packet of data (the FLAC stream in this case), or you don’t. I have spent a good while thinking about this one, and I have a background in networking, but I can’t work out why one Ethernet cable would sound different from another. In the case of speaker cables or HDMI, where the actual audio signal is transmitted, I can see how there might be a difference between cables. Likewise, I can see how the noisiness of the power source could play a big role. Packetized, error-checked digital data, though… I just don’t know. (Read: HDMI 2.0 released: 18Gbps of bandwidth allowing for 4K @ 60 fps, 32 audio channels.)

Van Es really does seem adamant about a change in sound quality — but as an audiophile, though, he must surely know that double-blind testing must be carried out if he wants his findings to be taken seriously. He needs to be blindfolded and then have someone else change the cables, to see if he can still hear the difference. I’d also be very interested to see if Ethernet cables can affect the quality of compressed streams from Spotify, iTunes, or Rdio — or whether it’s just super-high-quality 16/44, 24/96, and 24/192 recordings that are impacted.

And another one...

Cables, Bits, and Noise: How Cables Can Make A Sound Difference

Michael Lavorgna | Mar 24, 2015 

"It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see." Henry David Thoreau
Noise. It's everywhere. When we're talking about hi-fi, noise can present a particularly thorny problem ranging from stuff we can readily hear apart from the music, to noise that is more insidious sneaking into our playback chain and infesting our precious analog signals and our music along with it. Some people like to think that noise is a non-issue, especially when it comes to digital (after all bits are bits), but that's simply not the case since we're talking, ultimately, about the analog world. First a real-world story where we measure the effects of cable related noise.

Back when I reviewed the Pure Vinyl software (see review), Rob Robinson of Channel D delivered the loaner TC Electronic Impact Twin which I used to rip my vinyl using my Rega P3. The Rega has captive single-ended RCA interconnects which necessitated the use of converters, which Channel D also supplied, to connect to the Twin's front-mounted Neutrik combi jack/XLR sockets. Once everything was set up on the hardware side, we launched Pure Vinyl on my MacBook Pro only to find that the noise level of the connection from the TT to my MacBook Pro was unacceptably high.

As we were trouble shooting this problem, Rob picked up the Impact Twin to make sure the connections were all solid and the cables all seated firmly in place. While he did so, Rob noticed that the noise level changed. Aha! Must be a loose connection. After checking and re-checking, the connections were not the problem. Hmm.

We moved the Impact Twin again and saw the noise jump around along with the movement. Then it occurred to Rob that the noise level jumping was directly related to the RCA cables proximity to my La Cie d2 hard drive, which was sitting on my equipment rack in standby mode. The closer the cables from my TT got to the La Cie drive, the more noise crept into my system. With the cables within a few inches of the La Cie drive, the noise level increased by about 20dB. When we removed the La Cie drive, the noise level dropped dramatically.

Interesting.

My best guess is the source of the noise coming from the La Cie was largely due to its switch-mode power supply emitting RF both from the device itself as well as its power cord and the proximity of this noise emission to the turntable cables. This noise made its way into my MacBook Pro through the analog RCAs coming from my Rega 'table making the task at hand, ripping vinyl, impossible due to its high level. Simply moving the La Cie and Rega cables apart solved the problem.

What else emits RF? Computers, laptops, monitors, NAS, routers, switches, and more. WiFi and Bluetooth obviously also emit RF. Power cords are also noise emitters so where possible, keep all of these things away from any cables that attach in any way to your hi-fi. That includes analog cables, USB cables [footnote 1] (that's why they make some USB cables with ferrite beads), and Ethernet cable (which we'll talk about soon). It also makes sense to use shielded cables and ideally balanced cables where applicable. For a more technical look at shielding and balanced cables, refer to Audio Interconnections and Grounding – Dispelling the Myths by Henry Ott.

Here's some good general advice about cables and avoiding noise from recording technology magazine Sound on Sound:

"While we're discussing such 'proximity' interference, remember that the screening of even high-quality audio cables isn't perfect, so keep external analogue and digital ones at least several inches away from mains cables where possible. Also, try to avoid running such cables in parallel with each other, crossing them at right angles if possible and keeping them well away from CRT monitors, wall-wart power supplies, and particularly the switched-mode PSUs often used by laptops and flat-screen monitors. Analogue cables should also be kept away from digital ones where possible."
What About Ethernet Cables?
Extrapolating is tricky business but I'm going to go there anyway. There are two types of Category 5 Ethernet cables; unshielded and shielded. Typically, cheap Category 5 patch cables are unshielded. Back when I reviewed the AudioQuest Ethernet cables, I used an unshielded Category 5 patch cable in my comparisons. As you know if you've read those reviews, I heard a distinct difference between the quality of my music when using different Ethernet cables, the AudioQuest offering a perceived lower noise floor, "There also seemed to be a greater sense of ease as if some underlying noise had been removed." as I initially wrote back in 2012.

The AudioQuest Ethernet cables are solid core Category 7 cables. One difference with Category 7 cables as compared to Cat5/6 is their shielding. From Wikipedia, "...shielding has been added for individual wire pairs and the cable as a whole. Besides the shield, the twisting of the pairs and number of turns per unit length increases RF shielding and protects from crosstalk." It's also worth noting that while all Ethernet cables are designed to reject noise, Cat 6 offers improved noise rejection over Cat 5, and shielded cable like Cat 7 offer even greater rejection. "This means that screened and fully-shielded cabling theoretically offers 100 to 1,000 times the immunity protection from electric field disturbances than UTP [unshielded twisted pair] cabling does!" from a paper by Siemon titled Screened and Shielded Cabling - Noise Immunity, Grounding, and the Antenna Myth.

"...this noise will not affect the transfer of data one iota but it can most certainly be audibly apparent when injected into an audio playback system, i.e. a hi-fi."

Other devices like my multiple NAS, computers, etc. are also emitting RF/EMI that can easily hitch a ride on unshielded Ethernet cables and inject sonically harmful noise directly into the audio path in a networked audio environment. Let's also state the obvious, to hopefully avoid another smattering of outrage, this noise will not affect the transfer of data one iota but it can most certainly be audibly apparent when injected into an audio playback system, i.e. a hi-fi [footnote 2].

Here's an interesting example from reader "CG":

"What do you consider to be a reasonable and acceptable noise current on an Ethernet router? One micro ampere? That's pretty small, right?
"Across the Ethernet termination impedance of 100 Ohms, that's 0.1 millivolts. Compared to the Ethernet signal level of 5 volts peak-to-peak, that's relatively nothing for a properly working digital receiver.

"What is the current output of a typical DAC chip? Somewhere around 2-5 millamperes, peak. So, with 1 micro ampere of noise current getting into the analog portion of the DAC, that gives a 65-70 dB SNR, assuming the DAC is fed a 0 dBfs signal. That's around 11 bits of resolution. How great is that? That's also assuming that noise current is truly random noise and doesn't have any sort of coherent spectral characteristics. It also assumes that the noise doesn't affect the conversion clocking system at all.

"This is the difference between networking guys and the guys who design networking equipment. The latter worry about this stuff so that the former can plug equipment in and it will work. The networking guys have other things to do, like software issues and unhappy users. But, make no mistake, this all comes to electrical engineering and beyond to physics. Even if it isn't obvious."

Ethernet Cable Advice
What's a computer audio, networked music loving audiophile to do?
Use good quality shielded Cat 6a or better yet Cat 7 cables. Why did I say "good quality"? Read this report from Blue Jeans cable where they tested 20 Category 6 and 6e Ethernet cables only to find that "four met spec, and of those, two did it by a hair." That's an 80% failure rate. If you take issue with a cable company doing the testing, check out what the Fluke Corporation who make Ethernet test devices had to say. Spoiler Alert: Fluke found the same 80% failure rate in Cat6 cables so this is no...fluke. Cables that fail to meet spec, note that every cable from brick-and-mortar stores used in the Blue Jeans test failed, can also inject unwanted noise and errors into your system. You can also avoid this noise issue completely by using optical isolation, i.e. an Ethernet to Fiber media converter, which is something I may explore in the future.

Here are a few more references addressing these same issues:

"The biggest benefit of Category 6 cabling is the much-improved Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) using the Bandwidth employed by today’s applications and also for future applications. The main result is that Category 6 provides about 12 dB (or 16 times) better Signal-to-Noise Ratio compared to Category 5e over a wide frequency range." from Category 6 vs Category 5e Cabling Systems and Implications for Voice over IP Networks Belden CDT Networking
"Different types of Ethernet cables can vary by as much as 30 dB (or 32X) in common mode rejection ratio, so picking a well designed cable will minimize your bit error rate after installation." from Connectivity: The Last Frontier

And here's another from Electronic Design that gets back to my Cat 5 UTP cable:
"Ethernet’s unshielded twisted pair (UTP) data-transmission cable acts as an antenna. Common-mode noise that leaks to it will show up as conducted or radiated emissions, creating unique electromagnetic interference (EMI) issues."
Are All Cat 6a and Cat 7 Ethernet Cables Created Equal?
In terms of Ethernet in audio applications, I was unable to find any data other than subjective reviews with one unsighted test. If you have no use for these, please skip to the end.

How does the Blue Jean Cat 6 cable compare to the AudioQuest Cat 7 cable? John Darko over on Digital Audio Review compared his Blue Jean Cat 6a cable to the AudioQuest Pearl and Vodka Ethernet cables and in his unsighted listening comparisons (not double-blind), the listener heard a clear difference, with the AudioQuest cables delivering better sounding music.

What about comparing different Category 7 Ethernet cables? While I do not have any other Cat 7 cables, René van Es over at The EAR does and he compared them to the AudioQuest Ethernet cable (read his review) and found that he heard a difference between them, the AudioQuest cables outperforming his Supra CAT-7 cable.

Here's one more example where Computer Audiophile's Chris Connaker talks about his experience with the AudioQuest Vodka Ethernet cables (see his Network Audio Refresher for more great info) and states, "However, I did notice an interesting difference after the complete swap to AQ Vodka cable was finished. My audio system had a lower noise floor."

Silencing Noise Conduits
It's also worth pointing out that the exact equipment we use, including hard drives, NAS, switches, routers, etc. as well as the audio device in question and its ability to handle incoming noise, will all directly relate to how much of an audible difference Ethernet cables will make in our hi-fis. Some manufacturers of hi-fi equipment which attach to a LAN take more care than others when it comes to isolating the Ethernet input. In other words, YMMV so by all means make sure when buying Ethernet cables, or any cables for that matter, you have the option of returning them for a full refund.

Our networked hi-fi's live in increasingly electrically noisy environments. While bits are bits when they remain in the digital world, our analog systems are not immune to noise and cables provide an open invitation for letting sonically deleterious noise in. 

And another interesting article from blue jeans..

Is Your Cat 6 Cable a Dog?
Why Your "Cat6" Cable Might be Cat5e -- Or Not Even That
Category 6 cables -- and to a lesser extent, Category 6a cables -- are widely available from a variety of vendors, including variety stores, office supply stores, consumer electronics stores, and online shops. While a great many people are content to run wireless networks in their homes, the fact is that if you need truly high data speeds and a secure network, nothing beats a wired connection. But is that cable in the store, or in the online shop, really Cat 6?

It's a vexing problem, if you've got a cable in a bag and you'd like to know how well it conforms to Category 6 specifications. None of the tools you're likely to own, such as a volt-ohmmeter, will shed any light on the subject. Indeed, if you haven't spent a lot of time digesting cable specifications (we do that here, but it's definitely an acquired taste), you may have no idea at all what makes a cable "Cat 5e" or "Cat 6" or "Cat 6a." You can pick bulk cable up at the hardware store, and physical examination is rather unrevealing; in fact, the similarities are much greater than the differences, and you may well wonder what makes one bundle of eight little wires better at running high-bitrate data than another.

So, What's the Difference Between Categories?
Network cabling, in whatever "Category," is at root a simple paired-conductor cable design. Signals are sent down each data pair, and the two wires in the pair are twisted together to improve noise rejection and to ensure that they have very similar length; these are important aspects of the cable because signals are sent in a "differential mode" where neither wire is grounded and the receiving circuit has to measure the difference in voltage between the two wires in the pair. Good control over twisting results in excellent "common mode" noise rejection, where noise which affects each conductor equally effectively disappears from the signal, and control over lengths is important both to common mode noise rejection and to keeping the signal from falling apart due to intrapair skew (this is not the "skew" you are likeliest to be familiar with--it's the difference in timing between the two wires in the pair). Because the frequencies involved here are high, the dimensions of the pairs, and their spacing and relationship to other pairs in the bundle, are all important. These attributes of the cable affect its characteristic impedance, which must be kept as stable as possible to prevent signal degradation, because impedance variations cause portions of the signal to reflect within the cable or connector.

These simple features--the physical layout of the cable, the consistency of its dimensions, the rate and consistency of twist--cause a variety of effects upon high frequency signals run through the cable. To perform reliably and up-to-spec, network cabling needs to be able to meet some rather exacting specifications, which relate directly to just that: what happens to high-frequency signals run through it. High-speed data signals are not at all easy to convey reliably from point to point. If you've heard people say that it's very easy to do because, after all, it's digital, and "just ones and zeros," -- well -- that's one of those ideas which is intuitively very appealing and which turns out to be terribly wrong. To put it simply, the difficulty of actually getting those ones and zeros, at very high bitrates, through a cable and out the other end is surprisingly great, and sometimes for reasons which are far from obvious. In fact, contrary to common belief, it's not even really just ones and zeros--the different encoding schemes involve as many as sixteen distinct signal levels. There are, in fact, very good engineering reasons why data centers are generally not built using the cheapest available imported data cabling.

Okay--So, How Do We Measure Compliance?
Category 5e, 6 and 6a patch cords are governed by specification; the usual spec cited is the TIA spec, TIA-568.C.2, part 6.9, though there is also an ISO spec which is somewhat more stringent. By contrast to the standards that apply to such things as "horizontal" installed cabling and the like, the specification for patch cords is fairly simple. First, it requires that patch cords be built out of cable and connectors which comply with the relevant cable and connector specifications. Second, it requires that the cable meet or exceed performance standards for two things: Near-End Crosstalk, or NEXT, and Return Loss. Both of these attributes measure how much signal degradation a cable causes, and both are highly dependent upon the dimensional characteristics of the cable, which in turn depend upon good manufacturing practices. Consistent drawing and extrusion of the cable, consistent twist rates, and consistent dimensions and materials make for good cable. Additionally, the connectorization of the cable is a major issue: if there is too much untwisting, or other rearranging of the conductors in order to get into the connector, both crosstalk and return loss will suffer; likewise, if the connectors that are used are not up to snuff, they can cause all manner of trouble.

If you're not familiar with these attributes, some short definitions are in order. Crosstalk is the tendency of the signal in one pair to induce a signal in one of the neighboring pairs, and the specification requires that crosstalk be measured from each pair to each other pair, as crosstalk frequently is much worse between some pairs than others. In particular, due to the unfortunate decision made long ago to make network cable pinouts compatible with telephone wiring pinouts, the pair which is split between pins 3 and 6 (green, in T568B) tends to have higher crosstalk with the pair it passes around, which is on pins 4 and 5 (blue, in T568B). Return loss is the loss caused by signal reflecting when it hits impedance discontinuities in the cable. Both crosstalk and return loss are heavily affected by cable manufacturing quality, and in particular by the internal layout of the cable, the consistency of the dimensions of the pairs, and the consistency of twist rates and spacing. Both crosstalk and return loss are also affected by termination; the worst impedance bump in any cable, well-made or not, is encountered at the connector, and the worst crosstalk performance occurs at the connectors as well because conductors need to be straightened out and, in the case of the 3-6 pair, split up.

So, the difference between Cat 5e, Cat 6, and Cat 6a cable is not so much in the basic design as it is in the tolerances. As the bitrate, and correspondingly the frequency, of the signal increases, smaller and smaller discontinuities and inconsistencies in the cable become relevant. Cat 5e is required to meet certain specs for signals up to 100 MHz (one "Hertz" is one complete wave, e.g., a sine wave, per second, and a "Megahertz" is one million of those per second). Cat 6 is required to meet tighter specifications, and to meet those specs to 250 MHz. Cat 6a must meet the same specifications as Cat 6, but must also meet similar specification limits all the way out to 500 MHz. So, while the basic cable architecture doesn't change between Categories, the demand for consistency and quality in manufacturing does; for example, a sloppy connectorization that's "just good enough" for a Cat 5e cable will almost certainly cause the cable to fail at Cat 6.

The Slippery Side of the Cable Business
The fact that it's hard to tell the difference between Cat 5e, Cat 6 and Cat 6a by looking at them opens the door, unfortunately, to some deceptive practices in the industry. The door is further opened by the fact that, unlike some specifications which have a licensing agency and an enforcement squad (e.g., HDMI Licensing, which licenses the use of the HDMI trademarks and enforces the specification), these Ethernet specs are operated purely on the honor system. If a manufacturer wants to sell "Cat 6" cable, all he has to do is change the jacket lettering on his Cat 5e cable to read "Cat 6." Beyond that, it's pure caveat emptor -- it's the buyer's job to figure out whether he's being scammed.

The idea that somebody would just change the jacket lettering on his Cat 5e cable and call it "Cat 6" might seem just a bit too brazen, even for a sharp operator. If you have just a bit of faith in humanity, you'd think that nobody would label a cable "Category 6" on the jacket and sell it in a major national store chain without ascertaining that the cable actually met Category 6 specifications--but if you thought that, you'd be wrong. A few years ago, Fluke corporation, who make various Ethernet test devices, announced that in its survey of the market approximately 80% of the patch cords sold as "Cat 6" did not meet the specification (see Fluke article). This can be a severe problem in data networks, even when the permanent link cabling is of high quality -- for more detail on this point see this excellent Fluke online presentation.

The Ugly Truth
When we began work to develop our own Cat 6 and Cat 6a cables, we knew we would need to test every assembly; while Cat 5e cables are easy to assemble without a lot of cause for worry over compliance, Cat 6 and Cat 6a are another matter. Defects in assembly that one barely notices when putting the connector on -- things like just a bit too much split of the members of a pair, or too-abrupt bends in conductors as they route into the connectors -- can cause failure. Near-End Crosstalk and Return Loss are both sensitive to termination quality, and a failure of either means failure to meet spec. Accordingly, we invested in a Fluke "certification tester," model DTX-1800. The DTX is basically a purpose-built network analyzer programmed to evaluate network cables; instead of needing to do four passes through a network analyzer to evaluate return loss on the pairs, and then six more passes to evaluate crosstalk between all pair combinations, the operator can just press a button and the DTX runs all of those tests, sweeping through the whole range of frequencies and measuring the cable's compliance with relation to the specification. You can see a sample report, and explanation of what it means, at this page. The Fluke is a lovely piece of gear. We'd tell you that everyone who ever uses network cable should have one, if the unit with its various patch cord adapters didn't cost over $12,000.

Fluke's claim that 80% of so-called Cat 6 patch cords were noncompliant seemed surprising, and we wondered whether things had gotten any better -- surely they had? -- since then. With the DTX on the desktop, this became a fairly easy question to answer, and we decided to go shopping.

Now, let's have a look at some Ethernet cables in common circulation. We've gone around and purchased a variety of patch cords that were labelled "Cat 6" and "Cat 6a" from four brick-and-mortar and four online vendors, and we've tested these on the DTX against the actual spec. We don't want to get a sheaf of letters from lawyers threatening litigation over our publication of these results, and so have made the decision to keep the vendors, and the brand names, anonymous (and please don't ask us about it over the phone; the individual who performed the testing has intentionally not informed the others at our office as to who these vendors are, or which results correspond to which vendor). What we will say, however, is that this is very, very far from being a list of no-name fly-by-night offshore vendors. These are serious, large companies with well known names and with reputations to lose, and if you are a US resident familiar with places to buy cable on the street and online, you know and probably have purchased something (even if not a cable) from most if not all of them. We did not cherry-pick these results; every cable we tested is shown.

A couple of quick testing notes: we used the TIA specification (easier than ISO) for all of the Cat 6 and 5e testing below. For 6a, our tester supports only ISO, so we used ISO there. Also, we have in a couple of cases noted "marginal pass" results; what this means is that while the cable passed testing, it did so by a margin narrower than the tester's margin of error. All of the test reports, in .pdf form, are linked to the result column and, where applicable, the "Additional Tests, Notes" column.

Vendor Description Length
(feet) Category Result in
Stated
Category Additional Tests in Lower Categories, Notes
Consumer Electronics Chain 8 6 FAIL Passed Cat 5e
Consumer Electronics Chain 50 6 FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Office Supply Chain 7 6 FAIL Marginally passed Cat 5e
Office Supply Chain 7 6 FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Office Supply Chain 50 6 FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Office Supply Chain 50 6 FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Hardware Store Chain 7 6 FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Hardware Store Chain 50 6 FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Online Cable Vendor 5 6 PASS
Online Cable Vendor 5 6 FAIL Passed Cat 5e
Online Cable Vendor 10 6 PASS Marginal Pass Only
Online Cable Vendor 50 6 FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Online Cable Vendor 50 6 PASS Marginal Pass Only
Online Cable Vendor 50 6 FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Online Cable Vendor 1 6a PASS
Online Cable Vendor 6 6a FAIL Failed Cat 6, Passed Cat 5e
Online Cable Vendor 7 6a FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Online Cable Vendor 50 6a FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Online Cable Vendor 50 6a FAIL Failed Cat 6, Marginally Passed Cat 5e
Online Cable Vendor 50 6a FAIL Failed Cat 5e
Well, That Wasn't Very Good, Was It?
No, it wasn't. A few observations are in order.

To start with, of course, the near-unanimity of the results is pretty surprising. Out of twenty cables tested, four met spec, and of those, two did it by a hair. This 80% failure rate is, as it happens, exactly what Fluke reported a few years back, and our sample certainly shows no improvement over that time. Plainly enough, most of these cables aren't designed to meet Cat 6 or 6a specifications, and they're certainly not tested for compliance before leaving the plant.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the results is that, out of the sixteen cables which failed their stated spec, all but five also failed Cat 5e testing. Cat 5e is not a difficult standard to pass; using conventional, non-bonded, twisted-pair Cat 5e of good quality (e.g., Belden 1583A) and ordinary RJ-45 connectors, not only is it easy to build compliant Cat 5e assemblies, but it's common to see them pass the specification by several dB both on NEXT and RL. Contrast that with some of the shockingly bad test results--e.g., the 50-foot major-brand cable from the hardware store, which failed the 5e spec's return loss requirements by a whopping 8 dB. Plainly, many of these vendors are using very, very poor cable stock. Anybody with an extruder and a wire-twisting machine can make paired data cables; making them meet spec, however, is another matter entirely.

Note that of all of the brick-and-mortar store cable purchases we made, the grand total score is zero passes, eight fails with only two of the purportedly "Cat 6" cables even passing Cat 5e. That's shameful, and what it means is that there is a good chance that, in your community, there is not a single place you can go and buy an honest-to-gosh Cat 6 patch cable; the closest you can come is to buy a cable that says "Cat 6" on the package and which may, if you're lucky, be Cat 5e.

The online vendors didn't do all that much better, though there are some passes amid the fails. We found no vendors who consistently passed, but some who consistently failed. What this suggests is that even those who do a better job than the others fail to consistently test their assemblies against the specification, and whether any particular assembly passes the spec is purely a guess unless you've got the gear to check it.

We've had a few calls and contacts from people who really just do not believe the testing results above. Surely, they think, it can't be that bad, because data professionals who build server farms have got to rely upon quality patch cords. But it really is that bad, and when we talk to people who build data centers, one of the things we hear often is that the quality of commonly-available patch cords is very poor. There are other companies, like us, who build individually-certified patch cords for data networks, but we don't know of anyone else who does that for the consumer market. If you're buying a thousand patch cords through a professional electronic, broadcast or data supply house, yes, you can get quality patch cords; but unless that's the business you're in, chances are that you wouldn't recognize the names of the vendors or the manufacturers of those cords, and you won't find them at the typical consumer-market price-driven cable vendor.

Our sales pitch at this point seems a bit obvious, if not redundant, so we'll keep it short. With every Cat 5e, Cat 6, or Cat 6a cable we sell, you will receive the test report for your cable, run on the same test apparatus on which these cables were tested, and confirming that your cable meets the specification. If we build a cable that doesn't pass, it doesn't ship.

Huge - It's back to the perceived value question again. How do you put a price on increased subjective performance ?

As some have mentioned, if it's equivalent to a black box upgrade then it's worth it to them. As you say Huge, the material and engineering involved seem to not reflect the actual price being charged and that's where the value (for me) becomes difficult to judge. 

To nail my colours to the mast, i'm not a cable sceptic and understand that different cables do make a difference. I do believe, especially with today's rather crowded RF spectrum, that differences and major improvements that people find with cable changes (LCR changes aside) are more down to the interaction between various components from EMC effects rather than some magical properties of the cables themselves. The average audio system with a few boxes, multiple interconnects, speaker cables etc will certainly interact with it's environment and cable changes can alter this interaction - either for the better or in some cases make it worse. 

At the end of the day, if it works for you and you get more enjoyment from your system then that's all the matters 

james n posted:

analogmusic posted:

Absolutely never.

Not for Ethernet.

i don’t care what Nigel Finn and Chord says I’m not interested at all.  

Not even if it was the equivalent in sound to a black box upgrade ?

Well I am glad I do not listen to you then! 

well I do like the Blue jeans sales pitch, but the thing is, their cables are sensible money.

When it reaches 3800 GBP per meter for ChordMusic, for ethernet, I'm not interested at all. 

blue jean cables cost less than50 dollars ...

analogmusic posted:

I am concerned how the Naim forum is being abused to help sell Chord cables.  

It is very difficult not to conclude that your comment was directed at me (and possibly others).  I find it borderline insulting.

Firstly you are wrong, 100% wrong.  My only interest in seeing Chord sell cables is that good turnover will allow a company I think have a proven track record to develop new high quality products.  I vaguely knew Alan from when he ran a Hi-Fi dealership in Glasgow but dealt primarily with another member of the sales team.  I met Alan fairly briefly for the first time in a quarter of a century a few weeks ago.  He seems a nice guy but I am not for a single second giving my honest opinion about Chord Music so that he can afford a super yacht or whatever else might take his fancy.  Never even heard of 'Nigel'.

Why are my comments on Chord Music more 'abusive' than your comments on Chord Dave in this post (2 different Chords is confusing) , or indeed a positive comment about any non-Naim product or indeed a Naim product?  We don't live in North Korea after all.  Surely the goal is that we all enjoy listening to our music as much as possible.  I have been asked (legitimately) why I opted to spend my hard earned cash on cables rather than a NAP300 to 500 upgrade.  I would like to turn that question around and suggest that anyone considering a NAP300 to 500 or a NAC252 to 552 upgrade listens to what better cables (Chord, Naim, however) can do, forget any 'it's only a cable preconceptions' and decide what's best bang for their buck.

Bert, I have removed your links - please don;t post unauthorised links in the Hifi Corner. And, rather than just copying and pasting off the web, could you paraphrase in future.  Thank you.

Analog, your fellow members on here have every right to write about their experiences with Chord cables.  The only ones who don't have that right here are dealers or anyone connected with Chord's business. 

Bert Schurink posted:

The Chord Music Ethernet Cable was a revelation. It blew the best audioquest cable out of the water and kicked it’s ass even when it was crying while getting dry....

Now the other question is if we would be willing to spent 4K on an ethernetcable........

Stop it really 4,000 for a digital data cable you lot are hardcore. I had a talk with myself over upgrading audiquest cinnamon to vodka. 

Richard Dane posted:

Bert, I have removed your links - please don;t post unauthorised links in the Hifi Corner. And, rather than just copying and pasting off the web, could you paraphrase in future.  Thank you.

Thanks for the guidance - will do. Is it ok for you to copy and paste reviews of music albums .

Bob the Builder posted:

Bert Schurink posted:

The Chord Music Ethernet Cable was a revelation. It blew the best audioquest cable out of the water and kicked it’s ass even when it was crying while getting dry....

Now the other question is if we would be willing to spent 4K on an ethernetcable........

Stop it really 4,000 for a digital data cable you lot are hardcore. I had a talk with myself over upgrading audiquest cinnamon to vodka. 

I have the Vodka myself, and excellent Cable. And I am not sure if I will ever consider upgrading it to the Chord Music, however I did hear a considerable difference when listening to the Chord Cable ....

The medical term ''placebo effect'' shows that people's symptoms (audiopilia nevrosia) may improve  when exposed to a new element (cable).

Bryce Curdy posted:

analogmusic posted:

I am concerned how the Naim forum is being abused to help sell Chord cables.  

It is very difficult not to conclude that your comment was directed at me (and possibly others).  I find it borderline insulting.

Firstly you are wrong, 100% wrong.  My only interest in seeing Chord sell cables is that good turnover will allow a company I think have a proven track record to develop new high quality products.  I vaguely knew Alan from when he ran a Hi-Fi dealership in Glasgow but dealt primarily with another member of the sales team.  I met Alan fairly briefly for the first time in a quarter of a century a few weeks ago.  He seems a nice guy but I am not for a single second giving my honest opinion about Chord Music so that he can afford a super yacht or whatever else might take his fancy.  Never even heard of 'Nigel'.

Why are my comments on Chord Music more 'abusive' than your comments on Chord Dave in this post (2 different Chords is confusing) , or indeed a positive comment about any non-Naim product or indeed a Naim product?  We don't live in North Korea after all.  Surely the goal is that we all enjoy listening to our music as much as possible.  I have been asked (legitimately) why I opted to spend my hard earned cash on cables rather than a NAP300 to 500 upgrade.  I would like to turn that question around and suggest that anyone considering a NAP300 to 500 or a NAC252 to 552 upgrade listens to what better cables (Chord, Naim, however) can do, forget any 'it's only a cable preconceptions' and decide what's best bang for their buck.

No, not at all directed towards you. Not one bit.

You bought 30,000 GBP worth of cables, I really do admire  your passion for the hobby. I'm also obsessed  for hi-fi by the way since the age of 12, well ever since I heard a B&O system at that age.

You have my utmost, deepest respect.

I'm open to ChordMusic interconnects and will make a serious effort on my next trip to UK to audition one, but ethernet cables, sorry, but I'm not open minded about that at all. I won't audition expensive ethernet cables.

I'd rather play files from an NDS from a memory stick than buy an expensive ethernet cables. By the way I do hear a difference when trying audio quest vodka ethernet, but it's not something I am mentally prepared to spend money on.

My comment wasn't really directed at anyone- I just see this Bitcoin like hysteria for Chord Sarum and now ChordMusic cables, and well - I've heard Sarum over a dozen times..... What can I say, the most polite version would be that people got different views, that's what makes the forum interesting.

In a Naim context, for those Naim qualities, are Sarum and now ChordMusic the best realisation of the vision that created Naim to begin with. I'm not so sure....

One recent post said ChordMusic made his Naim system sound "stress free". But playing Metallica for me, I want to hear the energy, the passion, the ferociousness of the Lars hitting those drums.

Where does "Stress free" figure in my desire to hear the Naim kit do it's best?

I don't want to hear a zero noise floor. I want to hear the energy and passion of metallica. 

If Naim think the best possible  cable advancement for a Naim system are Superlumina and Powerlines, well, maybe that's all there is to it. Maybe we are really hearing from Superlumina the real sound of our black boxes, and the next upgrade is and should be a black box upgrade?

I can understand why some people on the forum are not that impressed with Superlumina, because in fact they don't make the old cables sound broken.  How could they. They old cables are not broken !!! The kit was designed with the standard Naim cables !!!!!

They are a big improvement on the old cables, but to my ears keep the same rhythmic qualities and get out of the way even more, but they don't change the Naim sound and voicing. To me that's a major achievement.

But still the standard Naim cables are in fact very good, and while Superlumina is better, I'm not sure that SL turns a 282 into a 552. 

Maybe SL and NACA5 are the proper voicing of how a Naim amplifier is supposed to sound? well Naim HQ thinks so.

I find that all this enthusiasm for alternative cables is for a change in how the Naim equipment sounds, but is that the job of a cable?

No, Not for me at least.

The whole Naim kit is about (for me) timing - and the Naim cables preserve timing, even if some alternative cables have different voicing and more pleasant high's or bass or mids or whatever noise floor I've yet to hear a Naim cable beaten for timing and rhythmic ability.

Why does this issue not get mentioned in all the chord cable hysteria?

Bert Schurink posted:

Richard Dane posted:

Bert, I have removed your links - please don;t post unauthorised links in the Hifi Corner. And, rather than just copying and pasting off the web, could you paraphrase in future.  Thank you.

Thanks for the guidance - will do. Is it ok for you to copy and paste reviews of music albums .

I'm not a great fan of copy and paste - particularly where it's of entire essays.  A paragraph is perhaps the most that one should quote.  I tend to feel that paraphrasing not only makes life easier for the reader, but it's perhaps more respectful to the original author, and shows that you at least have a degree of understanding about what the original author was trying to convey and enables you to better express (and for us to better appreciate) what you want to add to a particular thread.