Non-motoring > Audiophile ethernet cables	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: RattleandSmoke	Replies: 55

New Wed 13 Apr 11 23:16   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

I had an idea that an Audiophile ethernet cable doesn't exist and that that by bribing the magazines are a thousand quid in advertising I could have a £3000 per metre award winner on my hands, However Denon have beaten me to it. www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/06/snake-oil-alert/ Now I can tell a difference between a £1 internconnect and a £15 Qunex spending £100's on cables is madness. I also do not believe that digital cables can really differ that much as it is all digital, I can see a very cheap cable causing jitter because of higher of errors but any half decent cheap cable should be more than up to the task. How can Denon justify that cable? I typically spend around £4 on HDMI cables and they are fine. Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 13 Apr 11 23:19   Audiophile ethernet cables - rtj70

As you know Rattle this is 'snake oil' territory. Any large datacentre is using good quality cable costing a lot less than this. And some fibre at times. Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 13 Apr 11 23:24   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

I wonder if they actually sell? I know the standard line in the electrical shops is you must spend £40 on an HDMI cable to make that £100 Blueray player perform properly. I really just don't get how they get away with these claims. I know Russ Andrews have have been in a bit of bother for making big bold claims about their cables. Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 13 Apr 11 at 23:25 Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 13 Apr 11 23:34   Audiophile ethernet cables - Zero

Anyone who buys them is crackers. ANd I bet they will try and claim it makes a difference to the sound. Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 13 Apr 11 23:39   Audiophile ethernet cables - Hard Cheese

Digital either works or it doesn't hence there is no point spending a fortune on HDMI, USB, ethernet etc cables. As far as I am concerned one of the well know hifi and av mags sails a bit close to the wind on this one. However analogue cables can make a difference, hifi interconnects and speaker cables. Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 13 Apr 11 23:47   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

That is not quite true, the receiver (that could be an Ethernet card, a DAC or whatever) will have some sort of error correction. It will either guess or ask the sender to resend the data. In the case of audio that process can cause jitter. When a CD is read there will sometimes be errors that that is one reason CDs can sound a little harsh. That is why more expensive CD players not only have better quality DACs but also better quality and more sturdy transports. However most cables are more than capable of sending digital data as it is just 0s and 1s without error. If I was to make a really crude HDMI cable I am sure I could demonstrate the difference between that and a better quality £5 one. However spending £50 on digital cables is just madness. I have three good quality analogue interconnects and I can tell the difference I have:- Qunex 1 Qunex 2 Some Ixos Gamma thing I bought cheap at a show but had an RRP of £40. The two Qunex cables sound very similar but I get more detail with the 2 but the Ixos sounds quite a bit brighter and not as musical to my ears. The rest of my cables are just reasonable gold plated things. With the freebie cables the big thing I notice is the lack of bass more than anything else. Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 13 Apr 11 at 23:50 Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 13 Apr 11 23:57   Audiophile ethernet cables - Stuartli

I buy my HDMI and other cables from 7DayShop.com at very reasonable prices (see: tinyurl.com/3uf3dzw) The cables myths examined and test results: pcworld.about.net/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm The one area where a good component I've found is important is broadband ADSL filters/splitters - the difference can be several thousand kbps bandwidth with cheap ones. But now I have a BT filtered face plate. Last edited by: Stuartli on Wed 13 Apr 11 at 23:59 Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 00:00   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

I used very high quality filters in our house, it stopped all the drops we were experiencing. The cost around £15 each compared to £1 for the cheap ones but when you open them up you will see why. They look quite similar to speaker cross overs inside. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 10:26   Audiophile ethernet cables - John H

>> I used very high quality filters in our house, it stopped all the drops we >> were experiencing. The cost around £15 each compared to £1 for the cheap ones but >> when you open them up you will see why. They look quite similar to speaker >> cross overs inside. >> >> The one area where a good component I've found is important is broadband ADSL filters/splitters >> - the difference can be several thousand kbps bandwidth with cheap ones. >> Absolute claptrap, all IMO but confirmed by experts, of course. See previous discussion on this "high quality filters for ADSL" nonsense. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 12:24   Audiophile ethernet cables - Stuartli

>>Absolute claptrap, all IMO but confirmed by experts, of course.>> The claptrap is, with all due respects, coming from you. I know because I've used quite a few ADSL filters over the years and the better the filter the higher the handwidth. I don't make it up as I go along. For instance I once made a distress purchase of one of those ADSL "double phone adapter" types to replace a splitter whose bandwidth figure had dropped permanently by about a third. The new adapter returned a bandwidth figure that was even lower.....:-) My best mate has just had a similar problem with a splitter and replacing it with one of my old ones immediately restored the status quo. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 12:33   Audiophile ethernet cables - Alanovich

one of my old ones immediately restored the status quo. >> >> Please don't mention those three-cord hackers in a thread about musical quality. ;-) Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 12:47   Audiophile ethernet cables - CGNorwich

"Please don't mention those three-cord hackers in a thread about musical quality." Whatever you want Reply to this message | Report message       6

New Thu 14 Apr 11 13:09   Audiophile ethernet cables - John H

>> I know because I've used >> quite a few ADSL filters over the years and the better the filter the higher >> the handwidth. I don't make it up as I go along. >> >> My best mate has just had a similar problem with a splitter and replacing it >> with one of my old ones immediately restored the status quo. >> Sorry to learn that you and your best mate are deluded. Your anecdotal evidence is just that. Open up the filters and post the wiring diagram to show us the differences on the ADSL side of the signal you claim to have found. The best ADSL signal is one which goes straight through unfiltered. That is what ADSL filters do - they pass the ADSL signal straight through, at least all those that I have seen do. If you know different, post your evidence. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 13:41   Audiophile ethernet cables - Stuartli

>>If you know different, post your evidence.>> I already have..... Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 13:52   Audiophile ethernet cables - Focusless

Discussed here? www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=3734&v=f Includes a link to this page which rates different filters - I don't understand it myself: www.adslnation.com/support/filters.php Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 14:02   Audiophile ethernet cables - John H

>> www.adslnation.com/support/filters.php >> Yes, as the circuit diagrams at the bottom there show, the ADSL signal goes straight through unfiltered. Just as it does on a BT "filtered" faceplate. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 14:10   Audiophile ethernet cables - Focusless

>> Yes, as the circuit diagrams at the bottom there show, the ADSL signal goes straight >> through unfiltered. This might be a daft question, but is there a danger on a 'bad' filter that although it should go through unfiltered, it doesn't ie. it gets 'corrupted' in some way? Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 14:28   Audiophile ethernet cables - Stuartli

See: www.pcpro.co.uk/features/205980/7-replace-your-filters forums.thinkbroadband.com/technical/3811688-why-filters-go-bad.html www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/connectionprobs.htm Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 14:29   Audiophile ethernet cables - spamcan61

Whilst I wouldn't think the performance requirements are particularly demanding, it is quite possible to design a filter in such a way that it will screw up the ADSL signal, either through inherently bad design, or use of poor quality components, so it is not beyond belief that different performance can be obtained from different filters. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 15:38   Audiophile ethernet cables - Stuartli

>>..so it is not beyond belief that different performance can be obtained from different filters.>> See: www.adslnation.com/support/filters.php Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 15:42   Audiophile ethernet cables - Focusless

>> See: >> >> www.adslnation.com/support/filters.php ...as posted 6 posts up. Last edited by: Focus on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 15:43 Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 18:21   Audiophile ethernet cables - Stuartli

>>...as posted 6 posts up.>> Noted. I'd gone straight to a "New" post and responded to that...:-) Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 13 Apr 11 23:57   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

It has been a hell of a long time since I studied this (9 years) but I I think with computer data certainly the general rule is that that a checksum will be performed and if there was any errors it would request a resend of the data. With live video or audio that is not practical so it just has to guess if there is any errors in the transport process. I am guessing that the headers would still have to be correct though otherwise the entire packets would be meaningless junk. A good example of digital not quite working is when a freeview signal is poor you get all the blocks because the receiver can't get all the data but the picture in some cases still works. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 00:53   Audiophile ethernet cables - rtj70

For any data transmission over IP, if it's important enough that it has to arrive and know it's there then you use TCP (TCP over IP). But there's an overhead and for anything like live video you would use UDP (over IP) because there is no point resending data already missed. As for reference to ADSL... old hat. You want VDSL ;-) Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 08:16   Audiophile ethernet cables - Focusless

Don't they add forward error correction (FEC)? Ie. include extra information with the data to allow up to a certain number of errors to be corrected? Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 10:05   Audiophile ethernet cables - Zero

>> Don't they add forward error correction (FEC)? Ie. include extra information with the data to >> allow up to a certain number of errors to be corrected? Nah, UDP is checksummed, so the receiver knows if its good or not, if its not its just a case of "dump it and move on" Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 10:08   Audiophile ethernet cables - Focusless

>> >> Don't they add forward error correction (FEC)? Ie. include extra information with the data >> to >> >> allow up to a certain number of errors to be corrected? >> >> Nah, UDP is checksummed, so the receiver knows if its good or not, if its >> not its just a case of "dump it and move on" Yeh - I was thinking of the sender/receiver doing it themselves on top of whatever it is they use. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 10:36   Audiophile ethernet cables - rtj70

You might as well use TCP if your application is going to do any checks and ask for resends etc. UDP packets might not even get to the destination and the receiver would know nothing about it. But the applications using UDP typically wouldn't be effected, e.g. a few missed packets of a streaming video. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 08:46   Audiophile ethernet cables - Hard Cheese

>> That is not quite true ......... >> However most cables are more than capable of sending digital data as it is just 0s and 1s without error. If I was to make a really crude HDMI cable I am sure I could demonstrate the difference between that and a better quality £5 one. >> However spending £50 on digital cables is just madness. >> That's my point, once you have a cable that is good quality in that it works there is no point at all in spending any more. I too have bought HDMI cables from 7DayShop. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 10:01   Audiophile ethernet cables - Skoda

Tesco value HDMI cables, ~£4 a go Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:00   Audiophile ethernet cables - spamcan61

>> That is not quite true, the receiver (that could be an Ethernet card, a DAC >> or whatever) will have some sort of error correction. It will either guess or ask >> the sender to resend the data. In the case of audio that process can cause >> jitter. When a CD is read there will sometimes be errors that that is one >> reason CDs can sound a little harsh. That is why more expensive CD players not >> only have better quality DACs but also better quality and more sturdy transports. >> >> However most cables are more than capable of sending digital data as it is just >> 0s and 1s without error. If I was to make a really crude HDMI cable >> I am sure I could demonstrate the difference between that and a better quality £5 >> one. >> >> However spending £50 on digital cables is just madness. >> The thing is though, the level of jitter measured in a typical HiFi system is less than that found to be audible in reasonably scientific tests, by a factor of a hundred or more, so far. I did get into a discussion on this issue over on AV Forums, some links to proper papers rather than Russ Andrews adverts in this thread:- www.avforums.com/forums/streamers-network-music-players/1310560-surprisingly-sata-cables-do-sound-different-2.html Scientific tests have indeed proved that a properly designed 2 quid HDMI cable gives 100% exactly the same picture as a 100 quid one:- www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-hdmi Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 10:52   Audiophile ethernet cables - teabelly

James Randi is still waiting for someone to prove audio cables work under matched conditions. No one has managed it. HDMI is all digital so any cable which performed worse is arguably not fit for purpose. Analogue is a different thing. Good quality shielded scart cables are noticebly better. S video is dreadful over long lengths but a better quality cable is slightly less dreadful. Audio cables are only different with different types of construction. If the construction and materials are the same, they sound the same. Unfortunately some people believe they can hear differences. One of the hifi forums did a blind test with identical cables but with different coloured sleeves. There was some howling when the results were published with those convinced that a different colour must have influenced the sound! Only reasonable way to test cables is a double blind test with matched volume levels and repeating some of the same cables. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:02   Audiophile ethernet cables - spamcan61

>> >> Only reasonable way to test cables is a double blind test with matched volume levels >> and repeating some of the same cables. >> Indeed, something the audiophool magazines never do! Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:08   Audiophile ethernet cables - teabelly

>> >> >> >> Only reasonable way to test cables is a double blind test with matched volume >> levels >> >> and repeating some of the same cables. >> >> >> >> Indeed, something the audiophool magazines never do! >> Hi-Fi Choice were about the only one that did blind and matched volume tests. I don't know whether they randomly repeat some cables though. I think they do repeated tests with them in different orders in subsequent tests. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:19   Audiophile ethernet cables - spamcan61

>> Hi-Fi Choice were about the only one that did blind and matched volume tests. I >> don't know whether they randomly repeat some cables though. I think they do repeated tests >> with them in different orders in subsequent tests. Fair enough, I'll withdraw the 'never' then! Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 12:46 Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:27   Audiophile ethernet cables - Iffy

I reckon good quality audio cables make a difference, and there seems to be some support for that. What I don't understand is what is a digital and what is an analogue signal. My hi-fi of CD, amp and speakers is all analogue, although there might be an optical (digital?) output from the CD which I've never used. Moving to the telly/Sky+ box, is scart analogue or digital? I've only ever used basic scart cables. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:32   Audiophile ethernet cables - spamcan61

SCART is analogue, although to muddy the waters SCART cables can carry different types of analogue video signal, with a difference in quality - noticeable to me, but nobody else at Spamcan towers. Using leads a metre or two long then there is unlikely to be a noticeable difference in quality between SCART cables, but at 5 metres or more than a properly constructed cable (not necessarily expensive) is likely to give a visibly better picture than a poorly made one. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:37   Audiophile ethernet cables - Iffy

...SCART is analogue... Fine, got that. The scart runs between my Sky box and the telly. If I were to go mad and replace both appliances, then I would have an HDMI cable between the two. Does that mean HDMI is analogue or digital? Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:44   Audiophile ethernet cables - rtj70

HDMI is digital. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 11:44   Audiophile ethernet cables - spamcan61

HDMI is 100% digital guv. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 12:05   Audiophile ethernet cables - Iffy

...HDMI is 100% digital guv... Thanks. So the output on a new Sky HD + box must be digital. I have a cheapo DVD player at the caravan which is scart, but I'm guessing that 3D Blu-ray player I fancy for the house will be HDMI. I read something about a new HDMI standard, might have been 1.4, which is better suited to 3D. Some televisions are described as: "Four HDMI sockets, one 3D." The 3D one is usually socket two. OK as far as it goes, but I wonder what would happen if you went 3D crazy and wanted to plug in a PS3 for 3D gaming, a 3D Blu-ray player and a 3D Sky box? Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 12:05 Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 12:07   Audiophile ethernet cables - spamcan61

HDMI is not my specialist subject but if I was tempted to go 3D crazy I would want the telly to meet 1.4 spec. on all HDMI inputs. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 14:15   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

The only reason why you would use the digital output on your CD player is if you want to use an external DAC. My Marantz CD players DAC is of a much better quality of any DACs I have seen anyway, so much so that the modern versions of it have a USB port which some how allows it to be connected to the PC by passing the sound card. My soundcard has a decent DAC on it anyway but the output stage is a bit poor. As said HDMI is pure digital but the voltage has to be accurate or the reciever will get the binary data mixed up so I do believe digital cables do have an effect but nothing like as much as analogue ones. Also my own tests have proven that there is quite a bit of leakage of main cables so it is important to keep any AV cables away from it. Something I actually still need to spend some time sorting out. By far the most important thing that will have an effect on sound quality is speaker positioning though and is probably the most over looked. I also try and keep each separate on a separate shelf to minimise the effects of leakage from transformers and isolate vibrations but I have no idea if it helps sound in real life but it just looks a lot neater. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 15:43   Audiophile ethernet cables - Fursty Ferret

>> Now I can tell a difference between a £1 internconnect and a £15 Qunex Yeah. Right. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 15:49   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

Alfa if it was my house I would invite you round the for the test :). I am not sure if I could tell the difference between a generic £5 OFC free gold plated one, but certainly the cheap and nasty thin interconnects sound awful. There just isn't enough bandwidth to carry the full audio signal accurately. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 15:55   Audiophile ethernet cables - Zero

wider than your recievers, - your ears, Your getting on now rats, I reckon your audio bandwidth is about 20hz-12khz Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 16:03   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

It is the detail within that bandwidth which is lost from cheap cables. You can get two pairs of speakers both the same specs in terms of audio range but will both sound very different. The main issue with cheap cables is they don't fend off radio interference or voltage leaks from near by mains cables which does affect the sound. With better cables they have much better shielding. Again I am not saying spend £100 on a cable, most £10 cables are more than capable of doing a very good job. You need to think of the environment these cables work with on a big HIFI system such as mine. I have 7 transformers and 8 mains cables just on one rack. Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 15 Apr 11 09:40   Audiophile ethernet cables - Fursty Ferret

>> Again I am not saying spend £10 on a cable, most £1 cables are >> more than capable of doing a very good job. There, fixed that for you. :-) Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 16:05   Audiophile ethernet cables - sherlock47

>>>nasty thin interconnects - There just isn't enough bandwidth to carry the full audio signal accurately. <<< I have this lovely vision of of all the low or high frequency signals just failing to fit into the thin cable. I am sure Fourier would have something to say. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 19:03   Audiophile ethernet cables - AnotherJohnH

>> I am sure Fourier would have something to say. >> I'd expect a fast transform from him... Anyway, regarding HDMI cables, some are poorly screened and interfere with some channels on freeview: I have one which wipes out channel 55 when the resolution is set to 1080p (but not 1080i). Go figure. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 19:25   Audiophile ethernet cables - Iffy

...Go figure... If only could John, if only I could. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 19:32   Audiophile ethernet cables - Zero

Plugs! HDMI plugs are not the best designed in the world (did no one learn anything from scart?) and poor plug connection causes all sorts of weird and wonderful side effects. Sent back an HDMI cable to tescos because it wouldn't reliably link the two devices unless you plug wiggled! Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 20:38   Audiophile ethernet cables - Woodster

Rattle -have you seen the latest DACs? Asynchronous. They bypass the PC's internal clock and use their own higher quality clock, 'drawing' the info from the PC. Reduces jitter, apparently. I've got a macbook pro coming and I intend to try/buy such a DAC when funds permit. I'll let you know the results. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 14 Apr 11 20:49   Audiophile ethernet cables - Zero

Just wander down my road, and I will mug you. The benefits to you will be the same, but at least I would spend your money wisely, no, make that a little less foolishly., Reply to this message | Report message       2

New Thu 14 Apr 11 21:05   Audiophile ethernet cables - RattleandSmoke

I think the sound card I have does that at least I am pretty sure reading something about it having its own clock. It certainly appears to have its own clock on it. www.m-audio.com/products/en_au/Audiophile2496.html Looking at the components on it the output stage seems to be quite poor though. On my CD player there is larger Elna capacitors on the output stage just after the DAC circuit but then it did have a retail price of £330 in the early 2000's (I paid £150 for it has it had been replaced by a newer model). Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 21:06 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 16 Apr 11 09:03   Audiophile ethernet cables - Woodster

Small beer to try these things Zero! Reply to this message | Report message