Audioquest Cinnamon Ethernet Cable

After having the cinnamon lead for a few weeks , connecting to the apple extreme, I purchased another lead and a switch. I fitted the second cinnamon lead to the NAS drive wdcloud and to be honest on this occasion the results where not as good. The sound is now very tinny and undesirable. I have not yet used the switch as another plug socket is required and its starting to look like a telephone exchange with all the wires.

Ricto

Jinjuku posted:

Huge posted:

The variations in the timing of the digital signal result in changes in the rate of filling the buffer and hence smaller changes in the rate of emptying the buffer, and thus frequency modulation of the analogue output of the DAC subsystem.  This same variation of timing also causes a variable load on the digital processing system, and that in turn causes variation on the load on the power supply, which then breaks through to the output of the DAC and to the analogue amplifiers..

You may not understand what buffers in the context of computers do. They are clock domain boundaries. Buffers allow an application or device driver to read data out of said buffer with no care for the signaling or packet rate on the other side filling it. 

From "http://www.sunburst-design.com/papers/CummingsSNUG2008Boston_CDC.pdf"

'5.8.1 Multi-bit CDC signal passing using asynchronous FIFOS

Passing multiple bits, whether data bits or control bits, can be done through an asynchronous FIFO. An asynchronous FIFO is a shared memory or register buffer where data is inserted from the write clock domain and data is removed from the read clock domain. Since both sender and receiver operate within their own respective clock domains, using a dual-port buffer, such as a FIFO, is a safe way to pass multi-bit values between clock domains. A standard asynchronous FIFO device allows multiple data or control words to be inserted as long as the FIFO is not full, and the receiver and then extract multiple data or control words when convenient as long as the FIFO is not empty.'

 

Variation in the analogue levels that represent the digital bits can also vary the load on the power supply and although attenuated by the PSRR of the DAC subsystem and analogue stages, this can also make it's way through to the analogue output.

So you are saying a $233/Foot, or $112/Foot, or $27/Foot cable offer better power supply stability than a $1 / Foot certified CAT6 cable from the likes of Blue Jeans Cable?

The bits are bits argument (i.e. the interpretation that bits are only bits and nothing else) only applies when looking exclusively at the digital domain; it doesn't apply to hybrid (i.e. mixed digital and analogue) systems, where the effects of the analogue signal carrying the digital data can have an effect on the analogue parts of the circuit.

1. You have to show the altered analog output as a function of said mystical cable. In my testing I was actually able to get the ADC capture of 24/192 so well that people couldn't tell the captured sample from the original track with a 315 foot cable. Think about what that means. 

2. If you have equipment that is that susceptible to cabling that is in spec and standards then you have poorly designed equipment. 

1   Before retirement I was a professional computer systems designer, so I understand computers and comms systems like Ethernet, and buffers and overrun / underrun conditions.

2   I have a qualification in, and practical experience of, electronic design, so I understand the issues of RFI.

3   I have also worked as a scientific instrument designer including mixed mode systems with highly sensitive analogue + digital logic + computer components, so I understand how these signal domains interact.

4   I didn't say whether the expensive cable or the cheap cable would perform better, just that they can be different (particularly in terms of RFI injection).

In my real world practical experience, the signals in the digital and analogue domains can and do interact, just as predicted by theory (when you take a complete view of the theory rather than just analysing the individual parts in blissful isolation of each other).

Jinjuku posted:

Huge posted:

The variations in the timing of the digital signal result in changes in the rate of filling the buffer and hence smaller changes in the rate of emptying the buffer, and thus frequency modulation of the analogue output of the DAC subsystem.  This same variation of timing also causes a variable load on the digital processing system, and that in turn causes variation on the load on the power supply, which then breaks through to the output of the DAC and to the analogue amplifiers..

You may not understand what buffers in the context of computers do. They are clock domain boundaries. Buffers allow an application or device driver to read data out of said buffer with no care for the signaling or packet rate on the other side filling it. 

From "http://www.sunburst-design.com/papers/CummingsSNUG2008Boston_CDC.pdf"

'5.8.1 Multi-bit CDC signal passing using asynchronous FIFOS

Passing multiple bits, whether data bits or control bits, can be done through an asynchronous FIFO. An asynchronous FIFO is a shared memory or register buffer where data is inserted from the write clock domain and data is removed from the read clock domain. Since both sender and receiver operate within their own respective clock domains, using a dual-port buffer, such as a FIFO, is a safe way to pass multi-bit values between clock domains. A standard asynchronous FIFO device allows multiple data or control words to be inserted as long as the FIFO is not full, and the receiver and then extract multiple data or control words when convenient as long as the FIFO is not empty.'

 

Variation in the analogue levels that represent the digital bits can also vary the load on the power supply and although attenuated by the PSRR of the DAC subsystem and analogue stages, this can also make it's way through to the analogue output.

So you are saying a $233/Foot, or $112/Foot, or $27/Foot cable offer better power supply stability than a $1 / Foot certified CAT6 cable from the likes of Blue Jeans Cable?

The bits are bits argument (i.e. the interpretation that bits are only bits and nothing else) only applies when looking exclusively at the digital domain; it doesn't apply to hybrid (i.e. mixed digital and analogue) systems, where the effects of the analogue signal carrying the digital data can have an effect on the analogue parts of the circuit.

1. You have to show the altered analog output as a function of said mystical cable. In my testing I was actually able to get the ADC capture of 24/192 so well that people couldn't tell the captured sample from the original track with a 315 foot cable. Think about what that means. 

2. If you have equipment that is that susceptible to cabling that is in spec and standards then you have poorly designed equipment. 

Have you actually tried these cables before coming up with these bald statements? There is a clear difference on my 272, which therefore means that it's poorly designed. And there was me thinking it was pretty good. Oh well. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Jinjuku posted:

Huge posted:

The variations in the timing of the digital signal result in changes in the rate of filling the buffer and hence smaller changes in the rate of emptying the buffer, and thus frequency modulation of the analogue output of the DAC subsystem.  This same variation of timing also causes a variable load on the digital processing system, and that in turn causes variation on the load on the power supply, which then breaks through to the output of the DAC and to the analogue amplifiers..

You may not understand what buffers in the context of computers do. They are clock domain boundaries. Buffers allow an application or device driver to read data out of said buffer with no care for the signaling or packet rate on the other side filling it. 

From "http://www.sunburst-design.com/papers/CummingsSNUG2008Boston_CDC.pdf"

'5.8.1 Multi-bit CDC signal passing using asynchronous FIFOS

Passing multiple bits, whether data bits or control bits, can be done through an asynchronous FIFO. An asynchronous FIFO is a shared memory or register buffer where data is inserted from the write clock domain and data is removed from the read clock domain. Since both sender and receiver operate within their own respective clock domains, using a dual-port buffer, such as a FIFO, is a safe way to pass multi-bit values between clock domains. A standard asynchronous FIFO device allows multiple data or control words to be inserted as long as the FIFO is not full, and the receiver and then extract multiple data or control words when convenient as long as the FIFO is not empty.'

 

Variation in the analogue levels that represent the digital bits can also vary the load on the power supply and although attenuated by the PSRR of the DAC subsystem and analogue stages, this can also make it's way through to the analogue output.

So you are saying a $233/Foot, or $112/Foot, or $27/Foot cable offer better power supply stability than a $1 / Foot certified CAT6 cable from the likes of Blue Jeans Cable?

The bits are bits argument (i.e. the interpretation that bits are only bits and nothing else) only applies when looking exclusively at the digital domain; it doesn't apply to hybrid (i.e. mixed digital and analogue) systems, where the effects of the analogue signal carrying the digital data can have an effect on the analogue parts of the circuit.

1. You have to show the altered analog output as a function of said mystical cable. In my testing I was actually able to get the ADC capture of 24/192 so well that people couldn't tell the captured sample from the original track with a 315 foot cable. Think about what that means. 

2. If you have equipment that is that susceptible to cabling that is in spec and standards then you have poorly designed equipment. 

Have you actually tried these cables before coming up with these bald statements? There is a clear difference on my 272, which therefore means that it's poorly designed. And there was me thinking it was pretty good. Oh well. 

I've had all three of the cables I mentioned. On everything from a $250 with and Intel CT GBe PCIe NIC to a $4000 Cary DMS-500 and some equipment in between (Cambridge Audio and TEAC). The ADC capturing I did, when people loaded up the results in Foobar, or if I randomly labeled the files did no better than a coin flip. 

If the designers have done their job then it's not going to matter. The interesting thing is I offered $1600 to a few people to come out with a long length of cable and terminate it on the spot and compare. If they couldn't pick it out blind they would pay my travel expenses. So far no takers. 

Congrats! You don't need fancy cables in your system. Good for you!

Huge posted:

Jinjuku posted:

Huge posted:

The variations in the timing of the digital signal result in changes in the rate of filling the buffer and hence smaller changes in the rate of emptying the buffer, and thus frequency modulation of the analogue output of the DAC subsystem.  This same variation of timing also causes a variable load on the digital processing system, and that in turn causes variation on the load on the power supply, which then breaks through to the output of the DAC and to the analogue amplifiers..

You may not understand what buffers in the context of computers do. They are clock domain boundaries. Buffers allow an application or device driver to read data out of said buffer with no care for the signaling or packet rate on the other side filling it. 

From "http://www.sunburst-design.com/papers/CummingsSNUG2008Boston_CDC.pdf"

'5.8.1 Multi-bit CDC signal passing using asynchronous FIFOS

Passing multiple bits, whether data bits or control bits, can be done through an asynchronous FIFO. An asynchronous FIFO is a shared memory or register buffer where data is inserted from the write clock domain and data is removed from the read clock domain. Since both sender and receiver operate within their own respective clock domains, using a dual-port buffer, such as a FIFO, is a safe way to pass multi-bit values between clock domains. A standard asynchronous FIFO device allows multiple data or control words to be inserted as long as the FIFO is not full, and the receiver and then extract multiple data or control words when convenient as long as the FIFO is not empty.'

 

Variation in the analogue levels that represent the digital bits can also vary the load on the power supply and although attenuated by the PSRR of the DAC subsystem and analogue stages, this can also make it's way through to the analogue output.

So you are saying a $233/Foot, or $112/Foot, or $27/Foot cable offer better power supply stability than a $1 / Foot certified CAT6 cable from the likes of Blue Jeans Cable?

The bits are bits argument (i.e. the interpretation that bits are only bits and nothing else) only applies when looking exclusively at the digital domain; it doesn't apply to hybrid (i.e. mixed digital and analogue) systems, where the effects of the analogue signal carrying the digital data can have an effect on the analogue parts of the circuit.

1. You have to show the altered analog output as a function of said mystical cable. In my testing I was actually able to get the ADC capture of 24/192 so well that people couldn't tell the captured sample from the original track with a 315 foot cable. Think about what that means. 

2. If you have equipment that is that susceptible to cabling that is in spec and standards then you have poorly designed equipment. 

1   Before retirement I was a professional computer systems designer, so I understand computers and comms systems like Ethernet, and buffers and overrun / underrun conditions.

2   I have a qualification in, and practical experience of, electronic design, so I understand the issues of RFI.

3   I have also worked as a scientific instrument designer including mixed mode systems with highly sensitive analogue + digital logic + computer components, so I understand how these signal domains interact.

4   I didn't say whether the expensive cable or the cheap cable would perform better, just that they can be different (particularly in terms of RFI injection).

In my real world practical experience, the signals in the digital and analogue domains can and do interact, just as predicted by theory (when you take a complete view of the theory rather than just analysing the individual parts in blissful isolation of each other).

Since I won't answer errata based on an appeal to authority, and rather discuss dialectically, You should feel free to cite credible sources like Ott, Metzger, etc... I didn't say whether expensive or inexpensive would perform better. I ordered over a $1000 in three cables and used a generic 315 foot CAT5e UTP cable to bench against 4 pieces of gear: A computer with a $20 Intel NIC, $1000 TEAC, $1700 Cambridge, and a $4000 Cary. Based on the captures, based on the FFT's, if you want recommendations on equipment that can keeps it's schitt together using cabling that is within spec then I have some solid recommendations. 

If the spec is 328 feet for cabling and a piece of equipment is having it's output altered by one 12 foot cable vs another 12 foot cable... The equipment is crap. 

I hear if you coat your ethernet cables with the oil of snake that it will improve their coherence and timing.

MangoMonkey posted:

Congrats! You don't need fancy cables in your system. Good for you!

Funny, I can't seem to give away $1600 either. 

Do you guys know we are talking about a £65 lead ?

Ricto posted:

Do you guys know we are talking about a £65 lead ?

I think the larger conversation is about equipment losing its composure when used with various Ethernet cables that all meet the spec. My experience is that it hasn't at the price and manufacturer points I've provided. My guess is that if it does, it's not the cable, it's the equipment and the designer. Tail wag dog. 

If I have 5 Ethernet based audio reproduction systems and 4 of them work the same with 3 foot or 100 foot cables where they are all passing spec and the 5th one has altered output. Is it the design of the equipment or the cable? 

Jinjuku posted:

I think the larger conversation is about equipment losing its composure when used with various Ethernet cables that all meet the spec. My experience is that it hasn't at the price and manufacturer points I've provided. My guess is that if it does, it's not the cable, it's the equipment and the designer. Tail wag dog. 

If I have 5 Ethernet based audio reproduction systems and 4 of them work the same with 3 foot or 100 foot cables where they are all passing spec and the 5th one has altered output. Is it the design of the equipment or the cable? 

Actually I think the larger confusion lies in the difference between whether a different cable can theoretically make a difference, whether that difference is audible, and whether what people clearly hear, is placebo.

The point Huge keeps making is that it is theoretically possible that a different cable could make a difference in a system. He's right. Well designed systems compensate for RFI through isolation, and jitter through buffering. But that buffering takes more or less energy depending on the amount of jitter. Theoretically those fluctuations in the power consumption of the buffer circuit would modulate the load on the power supply and depending on the power-supply rejection ratio of the analog output circuitry and the design of the power supply unit (and isolation between different voltage regulators) contribute to the signal output. This is all indisputably possible.

Whether that theoretical chain of events is measurable using the most exquisite test equipment is another matter. Whether it's audible is another matter still. My understanding is that it's not measurable on good equipment, at least guys like Rob Watts haven't been able to measure it with his designs. That doesn't mean it's not there! My belief, and it's only a belief, is that being unmeasurable it's also inaudible. That leaves placebo effect. In my opinion. And with my decidedly average ears.

But even if that's the case, so what? As someone working in the medical field I know placebos can cure all manner of diseases. The placebo effect is extraordinarily powerful. If there is an expectation that something will sound better, then it very likely will be perceived as sounding better. For all intents and purposes that means it does sound better. So why go through the trouble of proving to the patient their effective medicine is just a sugar pill? Let them benefit from it!

Me, I'm a big fan of Blue Jeans cabling, can't hear the difference. Not with their Cat 6 compared to others, not with their speaker cables compared to others. So I go with Blue Jeans. But I do buy high-res downloads. Doubt I could A/B those apart from redbook but I buy them anyway. I feel like I want to listen longer with them than redbook. It's totally undemonstrable, and unmeasurable in the audio band at human levels of sensitivity. But I could swear... Anyway, who cares. It's a hobby, we're not putting a man on the moon, if it makes me happy why not? Similarly if others are delighted with their superlumina cables let them be! Doesn't cost you or me anything. 

I find it's more fun on this forum talking about what we have in common than trying to prove others to be idiots because they made a different spending decision than me. Honestly, I installed a Naim Muso Qb at my mother's a couple weeks back, and the thing sounds so fantastically good that I can't justify for a second the cost of my system. 30 times more expensive and it certainly doesn't sound 30 times better. Maybe 50%, maybe. But it's my money so what the heck.

Jinjuku posted:

Huge posted:

Sorry Judge, we just get that particular argument so often, and I and others have refuted it so often, I simply didn't think that there was anyone who yet hadn't seen one of the many instances of it being played out.

If I had a penny for each time we've had that argument, I'd have ... well a little collection of pennies anyway!  

Allan J has explained CRC and how it's used.

RFI is 'Radio Frequency Interference' (not to be confused with Radio Breakthrough*).  RFI is a contamination of a wanted signal (or power source) by unwanted signals in the radio frequency range.  These unwanted signals can be anything from digital noise from computers, cordless phones, switch mode power supplies (SMPSs) etc. in your home to switching pulses from industrial activity many hundreds of metres away.

*  Radio Breakthrough is where you hear the radio signal through something other than a radio, RFI usually produces a 'mush' behind the signal you want or just generally causes the signal to degrade, such as by losing clarity.

Siemons write up "The Antenna Myth" specifically takes your supposition about RFI to the woodshed and buries it:

'The good news is that the balance performance of the cable itself is sufficient up to 30 MHz to ensure minimum susceptibility to disturbance from these noise sources regardless of the presence of an overall screen/shield.'

Translated: Unshielded CAT5e is pretty robust at noise rejection. 

'it is a fact that screens and shields offer substantially improved noise immunity compared to unshielded constructions above 30 MHz... even when improperly grounded.'

Moral of the story: Get CAT6 because by default it has a shield, not going to be any costlier than UTP CAT5e

 

OK, just got to this one.

Never did I say that the noise altered the digital data transferred over the Ethernet link (and decoded at the streamer), so that paper is completely inapplicable.

Think about common mode RFI coupling to the analogue circuits or inducing jitter in the DAC.

Jinjuku posted:

Ricto posted:

Do you guys know we are talking about a £65 lead ?

I think the larger conversation is about equipment losing its composure when used with various Ethernet cables that all meet the spec. My experience is that it hasn't at the price and manufacturer points I've provided. My guess is that if it does, it's not the cable, it's the equipment and the designer. Tail wag dog. 

If I have 5 Ethernet based audio reproduction systems and 4 of them work the same with 3 foot or 100 foot cables where they are all passing spec and the 5th one has altered output. Is it the design of the equipment or the cable? 

Maybe you don't have much RFI where you live, or maybe your sensitivity to music isn't sufficient to detect the difference.  The most variable component in a Hi Fi system is the nut in front of the speakers!

I should point out that I live in an area with high RFI energy, I need to put ferrite beads on a lot of my cables to stop a sort of 'muddyness' creeping into the sound.

perizoqui posted:

Jinjuku posted:

I think the larger conversation is about equipment losing its composure when used with various Ethernet cables that all meet the spec. My experience is that it hasn't at the price and manufacturer points I've provided. My guess is that if it does, it's not the cable, it's the equipment and the designer. Tail wag dog. 

If I have 5 Ethernet based audio reproduction systems and 4 of them work the same with 3 foot or 100 foot cables where they are all passing spec and the 5th one has altered output. Is it the design of the equipment or the cable? 

Actually I think the larger confusion lies in the difference between whether a different cable can theoretically make a difference, whether that difference is audible, and whether what people clearly hear, is placebo.

The point Huge keeps making is that it is theoretically possible that a different cable could make a difference in a system. He's right. Well designed systems compensate for RFI

I think you would be better served in continuation of this thread after reading Siemons 'The Antenna Myth' and Texas Instruments 'Reducing Radiated Emissions of 10/100 LAN Cabling'. Let's move beyond simple appeal to authority and move onto real research in these matters. 

There are external sources of noise and internal sources of noise. Twisted pair CAT6 is fundamentally noise immune up to 30Mhz. STP variants push this up to 100Mhz. STP is also 100-1000 better at overall noise rejection. This is why putting 315 foot of generic UTP CAT5e under a running microwave and a $699 3 foot cable into a LAG on a switch and capturing output into my ADC didn't show any difference whether measured or with de-biasing controls in place. The cable in and of itself is the external noise rejecting mechanism. Period. Why otherwise put so much effort into the design? 

Noise rejection is of issue in noisy environments. I don't know about any of the homes you have lived at that would meet the definition. I know mine have not. 

Now moving onto internal sources of noise. Internal sources means that the 8 copper conductors are going to carry noise introduced by the equipment it's attached to. The foil wrapped individual pairs, the foil wrapped cable with additional screen, well that isn't going to do anything for you regardless of how much screening is piled on. 

 But that buffering takes more or less energy depending on the amount of jitter. Theoretically those fluctuations in the power consumption of the buffer circuit would modulate the load on the power supply and depending on the power-supply rejection ratio of the analog output circuitry and the design of the power supply unit (and isolation between different voltage regulators) contribute to the signal output. This is all indisputably possible.

You mean in addition to all the other power operations going on? USB bus, PCIe bus, RAM, L2/L3 cache, CPU power throttling mechanisms, Interrupt processing, DMA transfers? You can't make the argument you are making in isolation. To do so ignores all the other items that are going on. 

Next you have to make the argument that a PHY capable of driving 328 foot of cable at full tilt is going to have a 'wide fluctuation' in it's power regulators for one same length cable vs another where they both pass spec. 

Sorry not buying it. I believe it's a red herring. 

Whether that theoretical chain of events is measurable using the most exquisite test equipment is another matter. Whether it's audible is another matter still. My understanding is that it's not measurable on good equipment, at least guys like Rob Watts haven't been able to measure it with his designs. That doesn't mean it's not there! My belief, and it's only a belief, is that being unmeasurable it's also inaudible. That leaves placebo effect. In my opinion. And with my decidedly average ears.

It also doesn't mean that it's there. I've done both instrumented analysis and de-biased listener analysis. The listener analysis follows with my measured results. Two of the people that swore they could hear a difference when I provided tracks labeled with with the name of the cable in use suddenly couldn't do better than 7/16 when de-biased.

But even if that's the case, so what? As someone working in the medical field I know placebos can cure all manner of diseases. The placebo effect is extraordinarily powerful. If there is an expectation that something will sound better, then it very likely will be perceived as sounding better. For all intents and purposes that means it does sound better. So why go through the trouble of proving to the patient their effective medicine is just a sugar pill? Let them benefit from it!

Never saw a sugar pill cure cancer. 

Me, I'm a big fan of Blue Jeans cabling, can't hear the difference. Not with their Cat 6 compared to others, not with their speaker cables compared to others. So I go with Blue Jeans. But I do buy high-res downloads. Doubt I could A/B those apart from redbook but I buy them anyway. I feel like I want to listen longer with them than redbook. It's totally undemonstrable, and unmeasurable in the audio band at human levels of sensitivity. But I could swear... Anyway, who cares. It's a hobby, we're not putting a man on the moon, if it makes me happy why not? Similarly if others are delighted with their superlumina cables let them be! Doesn't cost you or me anything. 

Totally reasonable and I'm simply providing information in the Siemons and T.I. links as a starter for people that would like to read up CAT5 and better cabling.  Yes, I'm going to steer people away from overpriced Ethernet cabling. That doesn't cost me anything either.

Here is the point I'm trying to make: I would rather the consumer have people in whom they can give some credence in what they purport to hear. My testing so far has lead me to the conclusion that when people start talking about the audibility of Ethernet cables is that they are simply making stuff up which has the knock on effect that anything they say about SQ or variation in any other piece of equipment is also equally derived of self delusion. 

Jinjuku posted:

Totally reasonable and I'm simply providing information in the Siemons and T.I. links as a starter for people that would like to read up CAT5 and better cabling.  Yes, I'm going to steer people away from overpriced Ethernet cabling. That doesn't cost me anything either.

Here is the point I'm trying to make: I would rather the consumer have people in whom they can give some credence in what they purport to hear. My testing so far has lead me to the conclusion that when people start talking about the audibility of Ethernet cables is that they are simply making stuff up which has the knock on effect that anything they say about SQ or variation in any other piece of equipment is also equally derived of self delusion. 

Point 1 applies to the transfer of the digital data, not how the electrical system making up the digital transport interacts with the analogue side electronics.

Point 2; do you believe the same logic applies to these...

Amplifiers (If FR is <+/-0.5dB 20Hz to 20kHz and distortion <0.01%, then the amplifier must be effectively perfect and therefore no sound differences can be heard).

CD (The red book standard has a dynamic range >96dB, <+/-0.5dB 20Hz to 20kHz and distortion <0.01%, so is effectively perfect; and therefore there is no point in distributing any form of HiDef digital music encoding).

Analogue interconnect cables (The input impedance of a typical amp is >10kΩ and the typical cable <0.1Ω (20Hz to 20kHz), therefore no signal degradation can occur).

Tip... In each case, whilst looking correct superficially, the analysis as presented above ignores one or more relevant factor(s).

Huge posted:

Jinjuku posted:

Totally reasonable and I'm simply providing information in the Siemons and T.I. links as a starter for people that would like to read up CAT5 and better cabling.  Yes, I'm going to steer people away from overpriced Ethernet cabling. That doesn't cost me anything either.

Here is the point I'm trying to make: I would rather the consumer have people in whom they can give some credence in what they purport to hear. My testing so far has lead me to the conclusion that when people start talking about the audibility of Ethernet cables is that they are simply making stuff up which has the knock on effect that anything they say about SQ or variation in any other piece of equipment is also equally derived of self delusion. 

Point 1 applies to the transfer of the digital data, not how the electrical system making up the digital transport interacts with the analogue side electronics.

Point 2; do you believe the same logic applies to these...

Amplifiers (If FR is <+/-0.5dB 20Hz to 20kHz and distortion <0.01%, then the amplifier must be effectively perfect and therefore no sound differences can be heard).

CD (The red book standard has a dynamic range >96dB, <+/-0.5dB 20Hz to 20kHz and distortion <0.01%, so is effectively perfect; and therefore there is no point in distributing any form of HiDef digital music encoding).

Analogue interconnect cables (The input impedance of a typical amp is >10kΩ and the typical cable <0.1Ω (20Hz to 20kHz), therefore no signal degradation can occur).

Tip... In each case, whilst looking correct superficially, the analysis as presented above ignores one or more relevant factor(s).

Lets cut through the chase. Most of these playback systems are buffered. I've seen system play for a 7-20 seconds after the Ethernet cable is removed. Now surprisingly I've asked this question multitudinous times and the proponents of Ethernet cabling have yet to engage in attempting an answer. Here goes to kicking the football that Lucy is holding:

If playback is started, and I pull the Ethernet cable, and you still hear sound for several seconds after... How has the sound changed?

Jinjuku - you're the man! And Happy Birthday tomorrow.

Jinjuku posted:

If playback is started, and I pull the Ethernet cable, and you still hear sound for several seconds after... How has the sound changed?

Interesting:  When I'm under less stress and my ear/brain combination is working better I'll try that (as usual the most variable component in my system is also the nut in front of the speakers    ).

My current combination of £65 cable and ferrite beads was derived by comparing the sound through Ethernet to the same files played off a USB stick until they each sounded as good as the other (initially the Ethernet connection presented less audible detail than playing the files off a USB stick).

But the full buffer test is an interesting one; I'll try with both the £65 cable with ferrites, a shielded Cat6a SFTP and an unshielded Cat5e UTP.

I've tried disconnecting ethernet & running from buffer.  Also the same with a USB stick.    But prior to that I could detect a small/subtle difference between some cables - but not all.   I assumed I was hearing the effects in twisted pair balance   and/or   sub-optimum TP termination     & any/all of these can cause differences in crosstalk, skew delay & return losses & thats what I was hearing.    Disconnecting the ethernet gives a short time of continued play,  but its way too short to make a meaningful SQ assessment,  but even so I could not detect any difference with & without the cable connected.  I assumed whatever anomalies the cable carried between NAS & player remained in the buffer after disconnect.    

posted:

 Disconnecting the ethernet gives a short time of continued play,  but its way too short to make a meaningful SQ assessment,  but even so I could not detect any difference with & without the cable connected.  I assumed whatever anomalies the cable carried between NAS & player remained in the buffer after disconnect.    

There are some absolutes in this hobby and here is one of them: Analog anomalies cannot be stored along with the data in a static FIFO buffer.  It simply can't. The reason why is our entire internet, banking, e commerce, the forum here couldn't work if that was the case. Data integrity has to be 100% absolute. When it's not we do know. 

Let's take this to the next step: You start playback. You pause playback. You disconnect the Ethernet cable. You come back 5 hours from now and hit play and the music streams forth. This is no different from storage perspective of USB, HD, SSD, SD Card, whatever as long as the power doesn't go out. You have simply, in non-realtime transferred blocks of data same as if you were to download a track from HDTracks. I don't see people worrying about the integrity at that point. This is just data transfer. 

Huge posted:

OK, just got to this one.

Never did I say that the noise altered the digital data transferred over the Ethernet link (and decoded at the streamer), so that paper is completely inapplicable.

Think about common mode RFI coupling to the analogue circuits or inducing jitter in the DAC.

 And one 12 foot cable vs another of similar construction solves this how? Ethernet cables are restricted in their design by the standard. 

So the copper in an Audioquest behaves differently in regards to physics vs the copper in Belden Bonded Pair? Now that you bring up 'inducing jitter in the DAC' I remember Benchmark Audio connecting a DAC of theirs with a 100' cable that was way beyond spec. They had 100% fidelity in extracting all the data and playing back w/o any sound quality issues. 

Again: Do you have anything other than bogey men? Any papers? Any research? 

Jinjuku posted:

Huge posted:

OK, just got to this one.

Never did I say that the noise altered the digital data transferred over the Ethernet link (and decoded at the streamer), so that paper is completely inapplicable.

Think about common mode RFI coupling to the analogue circuits or inducing jitter in the DAC.

 And one 12 foot cable vs another of similar construction solves this how? Ethernet cables are restricted in their design by the standard. 

So the copper in an Audioquest behaves differently in regards to physics vs the copper in Belden Bonded Pair? Now that you bring up 'inducing jitter in the DAC' I remember Benchmark Audio connecting a DAC of theirs with a 100' cable that was way beyond spec. They had 100% fidelity in extracting all the data and playing back w/o any sound quality issues. 

Again: Do you have anything other than bogey men? Any papers? Any research? 

Yet again you rely totally on the "bits are bits" argument.  Please move on from this obsession with digital only analyses.

Yes there is 100% fidelity in the digital domain, however there is no such thing as 100% fidelity in the analogue domain and jitter presented to the DAC will find it's way through to the analogue signal.  No bogey men, and the detail of the research I have is still covered by commercial confidentiality (common known principles are not so covered).

This thread has made an amusing read this evening. However what is interesting it appears arguments are going back and forward and perhaps missing each other. The loading effect of an ethernet cable (or USB, HDMI, or any cable carrying high frequency electrical current) will impact the operation of connected equipment to varying degrees in  terms of ground modulation, power supply modulation and electromagnetic coupling. Most times these issues are inconsequential - but with those with golden ears on directly coupled equipment they may indeed  hear minute perturbations from this, not dissimilar to golden ears hearing the differences between WAN and FLAC decode - its the same principles at play... However the effects of this analogue physical loading and coupling has nothing to do with - unless the equipment is broken or outside of specification -  with encoded abstract data integrity... i.e. the encoded digital payload.

I attach again the TI doc on reducing radiated emissions from 10/100Mbps ethernet couplings.. makes interesting reading

http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snla107a/snla107a.pdf

There was also a comment about ethernet cable affecting jitter.... not sure what jitter this is referring to - in anyway it would not be relevant to any encoded data payload jitter - such as encoded audio etc.

Finally there was talk of super high bandwidth cables of 200 MHz or higher - its worth noting the bandwidth required for a 100 Mbps data connection is approx 31MHz 

Huge posted:

Jinjuku posted:

Huge posted:

OK, just got to this one.

Never did I say that the noise altered the digital data transferred over the Ethernet link (and decoded at the streamer), so that paper is completely inapplicable.

Think about common mode RFI coupling to the analogue circuits or inducing jitter in the DAC.

 And one 12 foot cable vs another of similar construction solves this how? Ethernet cables are restricted in their design by the standard. 

So the copper in an Audioquest behaves differently in regards to physics vs the copper in Belden Bonded Pair? Now that you bring up 'inducing jitter in the DAC' I remember Benchmark Audio connecting a DAC of theirs with a 100' cable that was way beyond spec. They had 100% fidelity in extracting all the data and playing back w/o any sound quality issues. 

Again: Do you have anything other than bogey men? Any papers? Any research? 

Yet again you rely totally on the "bits are bits" argument.  Please move on from this obsession with digital only analyses.

Yes there is 100% fidelity in the digital domain, however there is no such thing as 100% fidelity in the analogue domain and jitter presented to the DAC will find it's way through to the analogue signal.  No bogey men, and the detail of the research I have is still covered by commercial confidentiality (common known principles are not so covered).

I'm not missing the point. You have yet to make yours. Under what conditions is a 12 foot FTP, Shielded,CAT6 cable able to BETTER reject noise then another of similar construction where they both pass spec? 

The jitter on the Ethernet cables matters naught. It gets obliterated when it hits a buffer. It is 100% inconsequential. 

When someone starts playback and pull the cable and the music still plays. What happens to the audio at that point moving forward? It's a simple question. Can you answer it or not? Oh brother "detail of the research I have is still covered by commercial confidentiality". Can't make this stuff up any faster? 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

This thread has made an amusing read this evening. However what is interesting it appears arguments are going back and forward and perhaps missing each other. The loading effect of an ethernet cable (or USB, HDMI, or any cable carrying high frequency electrical current) will impact the operation of connected equipment to varying degrees in  terms of ground modulation, power supply modulation and electromagnetic coupling.

Along with CPU power modulation, RAM, USB, PCIe, L2/L3 caching, the buffers on the NIC itself... Are you really trying to say that with everything else going on that it's so additive that it's audible through all those other processes going on?

There is a reason I've never been able to give the money away to the believers. The few that said they would backed out. 

Unfortunately I have to keep asking this question: When the Ethernet cable is pulled and the audio continues to play what happens to the audio quality?