Vodka dissection

I'm intrigued by the bit about high frequency signals travelling on the surface of the conductor as a justification for silver plating. Do the electrons carrying the ones and zeros representing high frequency notes know what frequency the digital signal represents, and therefore migrate to the silver plating due to the laws of physics?  

..... the manufacturer's claim that the silver coating is "excellent for very high-frequency applications, like Ethernet audio"

what a load of pffle, if the cable is a legitimate Cat 5e or better its bandwidth is irrelevant for Ethernet other than it will certified to work in 100BaseT or 1000BaseT configurations using upto 4 pairs upto 100 metres.. Talk of crosstalk is mostly  and silver coating of copper is a complete irrelevance. Perhaps this sort of rubbish will disappear once today's kids who I hope are actually taught about information technologies start to buy this stuff.

Simon

Hard to weed through the marketing rubbish and figure out if any Audioquest ethernet cables actually improve sound quality. Yesterday a dealer, that I know well, told me that a rep connected two different Audioquest ethernet cables to two Sonos Play speakers and that everybody could hear a difference/improvement without knowing which was which. Was one cable altered to sound ''off''?  Would they stoop that low?

... thought this might get some reaction

You might also like to do a search on the usual platform for 'archimago' - he is quite vocal too.

Chris - I also wondered about this frequency/silver thing - I thought it was data, not audio that was being transferred along the wire and so how does frequency of music come into it  ... confused ... verging on advertising misrepresentation?

Anyway, worth a few moments amusement.

Allan

... as an aside ...

Wonderful web site for accessibility in that, even though there are, I believe, a lot of pictures, the tagged commentary made it all very clear to me.

Well done that site.

Allan

Buy patch of beldin with connectors make your own vodka to a fraction of Price!  

This is one good Web page that we must fallow before our hard earned Money! 

Vodka Dissection...

40% Ethanol
60% Water
Other components in trace amounts.

Allan Milne posted: 

Chris - I also wondered about this frequency/silver thing - I thought it was data, not audio that was being transferred along the wire and so how does frequency of music come into it  ... confused ... verging on advertising misrepresentation?

I've heard a similar claim for analogue cables, which I am not in a position to argue against, but I can't see how it could apply to a digital cable. 

On a similar note, I remember reading on Audioquest's website that they avoid using "distortion causing nickel" plating on their banana plugs, only silver or gold. I wonder if there's any science behind that, especially given Naim's preference for nickel plating on theirs. 

Definitely a case of distortion - most probably distortion of the truth!

Huge posted:

Vodka Dissection...

40% Ethanol
60% Water
Other components in trace amounts.

Distilled from either rye or potatos.

The ARS-Tech AQ Vodka dissection www has been around for a while.  Its technically interesting in that it challenges the cable engineering which has all the indicators of non-compliance considering its supposed to be Cat-7 - which BTW isn't recognised by TIA/EIA;  but does that mean that much in the audiophile world?

Twisted pair twist rates:   These vary within the cable with each of the 4 pairs different to the others.   Cat-5 has a lower twist rate than Cat-6 & Cat-6 is lower than Cat-7 .     Looking at the twist rate of Vodka,  it visually looks closer to Cat-5 IMO.

The Telegartner RJ45 Cat6 plugs have a section of print circuit board connecting the cable to the plug pins,  this PCB does not carry the twisted pair configuration & is liable to unbalance the pairs & introduce cross talk.  This reduces the cable bandwidth & the ability to conform to the various TIA/EIA standards.  

A qualified test of Vodka - to TAI/EIA Cat6 (500MHz)  standard [Cat-7 (600MHz) is not a standard] - has shown it was a "marginal pass",  meaning it only just made it to Cat-6A.    Yes it was well above the stnd for Cat6 (250MHz) & miles better than the Naim 100BaseT requirement of Cat-5 (100MHz)   

But the bottom line is how does it perform to the Mk-II ear'ole test,  does it sound better ??  then who are we to say it can't be so. 

Mike - not that it really matters, but 'Cat 7' is a standard - specifically more formally ISO/IEC 11801 Class F. The standard defines a 4 pair cable and connectors providing a bandwidth of 600 MHz - but is not specific to Ethernet. The US TIA/EIA don't recognise Cat 7 as a suitable standard for Ethernet cables... but if I am honest I can't work out why and possibly looks a bit 'political'.

Of course the effectiveness of the  bandwidth is relevant over a given length - for Ethernet that is specified to 100m for many BaseT standards. The tests you cite were they conducted over 100m do you know? Or would the Vodka cable fail its marginal 6_A test at 100m?

Also with such vagaries of transmission line tuning' and cross talk noise - I suspect the 'sound' of the cable is entirely dependent on the two devices it is connected between.....

And of course for those who want to burn money - the new kids on the block are Cat 8.1 and Cat 8.2 - ISO/IEC 11801 Class I and Class II respectively....  

People can dissect the Vodka cables, put them through an MRI machine, study them under an electron microscope and assess them against every Cat standard there is, and it says absolutely nothing about what impact they make, or don't make, on the sound of one's music. The fact that these cables 'shouldn't' make a difference 'because bits are bits' is irrelevant to what they do in the real world. We all accept that one Beaujolais cru tastes different from another because of differences in terroir. Do we need a chemical analysis before believeing what our tastebuds tell us? So why do we need to know the exact reasons why these cables make a difference? Why can't we just trust our ears? 

If the cables sound good enough to justify the cost, then it's fair enough to buy them, and after all, we live in a market economy. So yes, I'll trust my ears, but low frequency digital data travelling better through silver plate than copper cable? Really? If I smell snake oil, I'm inclined to trust my nose as well. 

Nigel - you can and should trust your ears obviously  - but two considerations

• The effects to a large extent are going to vary on the two devices the cable is connecting and probably over a specific length
• Other significantly cheaper industrial/commercial ethernet cables may well achieve the same or better effect - but clearly there may be trial and error finding them.

But other than that, I have no issue people using whatever they want to connect their streamers  clearly  - perhaps I do have an issue with misleading jargon to justify the product exploiting potential customers lack of knowledge. I would have far more respect for the vendors to say their cables sound good with these devices rather than trying to justify it with some almost certainly irrelevant technobabble.

Of course some of what AudioQuest say is complete bollocks. It's called marketing. The Chord Company were done by the ASA for some of their claims and nobody seems to hold it against them, and they remain Forum darlings. 

I think the Chord Company are equally suspect in their claims (IMO). I guess the likely very large margins require a little risk taking to justify...

It's funny - people spend £1,100 per metre on Chord Music speaker cable and are met with a chorus of adulation, yet someone spends £295 on a 1.5m AudioQuest Vodka ethernet cable and is met with a barrage of doubt or accusations of deafness. 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Mike - not that it really matters, but 'Cat 7' is a standard - specifically more formally ISO/IEC 11801 Class F............   I can't work out why and possibly looks a bit 'political'............   were they (tests) conducted over 100m do you know? 

I'm aware of 11801,  but ethernet globally is TIA/EIA led.  I'm sure it is political,  no other logical explanation

I haven't got into the testing protocol,  at £2000++ per tester its bit steep even for my wallet.   However the tester automatically calculates & reports the test cable length & I believe that is used in the 100m compliance assessment.  

Mike  

>> but ethernet globally is TIA/EIA led

that might be considered exceedingly contentious in some quarters      Ethernet of course is an RFC 802.3 and is and has been led by the  IEEE/IEC as a published standard since 1985 .  EIA/TIA is a US regional profiling organization - speaking as an ex IT networking standards rapporteur - there is/was a certain amount of tension between standards bodies and regional profile groups.

Where the EIA/TIA have effectively implemented a global deficto standard is for  the 8P8C modular connector ('RJ45') format  used in many BaseT formats and pin outs and cable colours for pass through and cross over cables

Despite the fact that I must be the only Pole who hates the drink, I think I need a shot of vodka now, having read this thread...

Now... that's much better...

You were saying...?

Adam Zielinski posted:

Now... that's much better...

You were saying...?

Nothing, Adam, you must have been having a bad dream 

Cheers Adam - I'm following you with a wee dram of scotch

Seriously, I didn't realise I'd stir the pot quite so much with this thread but its about trust I feel.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and my little knowledge of IT has obviously made me cynical about bits and bytes as I've raised in other threads ...

... but then I don't discount what others hear

... and it also occurs to me that even in IT there are different "qualities" of cable with different shielding etc

... and all that stuff that Simon and Mike talk about

... and clock accuracy

... and RF noise

... etc etc

... so maybe there are improvements to be made in our SQ with digital cables.

HOWEVER, coming back to trust, my lack of knowledge makes it incumbent on the manufacturers to be accurate and truthful so that I can trust them with my hard-earned dosh.

If they do double-blind listening tests then I'm happy for them to say that 8 out of 10 people found our cables better than ... but we don't know why.

- that's truthful and that I can take and make a judgement on.

Allan

Adam Zielinski posted:

Now... that's much better...

You were saying...?

If it leally good boddka one eannot determinne whele it is made flom ...

 ... hips...

... back to tessts ...