$340 Audiophile Ethernet Cable Tested 391
An anonymous reader writes: Ars Technica has posted a series of articles attempting to verify whether there's any difference between a $340 "audiophile" Ethernet cable and a $2.50 generic one. In addition to doing a quick teardown, they took the cables to Las Vegas and asked a bunch of test subjects to evaluate the cables in a blind test. Surprise, surprise: the expensive cables weren't any better. The subjects weren't even asked to say which one was better, just whether they could tell there was a difference. But for the sake of completeness, Ars also passed the cables through a battery of electrical tests. The expensive cable met specs — barely, in some cases — while the cheap one didn't. The cheap one passed data, but with a ton of noise. "And listeners still failed to hear any difference."
Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:2)
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Informative)
The reason why it's not there is because ethernet is supposed to be just a dead simple layer 2 multi-access data protocol. Adding that kind of shit just contributes to latency (any kind of error correction involves additional parity bits and more processing.) And yes, I'll grant you that the added data and processing for error correction is tiny, but multiply that by a billion in large scale networks and you can see where there's a problem
If you need error correction, use UDP and handle it at the application layer, that way you aren't negatively impacting every other application that doesn't need error correction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gigabit (only BaseT, not fiber) ethernet has error correction inherent in the trellis coding used at the phy layer.
10GBaseT Ethernet (802.3an) uses a [2048,1732]2 LDPC forward error correction scheme. Fiber base GigE typically does not, except alternate encapsulated carriers like SDH VCAT or OTN (G.709).
G.975 for 10GBaseT over submarine cables uses a Reed-Solomon code with a 7% overhead. 10G WAN Phy has no FEC, 10G on G.709 OTN has FEC inherited from G.709.
In general 40G and 100G systems have Reed Solomon e
Re: (Score:2)
THIS! But testing Ethernet cables passing TCP is pointless anyway... Where is the Bit Error Rate specs here? Digital data is either correct at the bit level, or it's not...
It's almost as if you didn't read the article before posting that.
Hint: The problem perceived by audiophiles isn't caused by data errors.
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:4, Informative)
Ethernet at the MAC layer has digital data but the wires of course are all analog. If it wasn't analog there wouldn't be a bit error rate. The point was that even with a lot of noise the digital signal was still extracted correctly. The noise on the cheap cable was very bad, falling well outside the specs, and yet it still transmitted the data. The "noise" either causes the packet to be dropped or the packet is successful. The specification is about the limit of what is allowable so that it works even in a worst case scenario for what it is designed for, and they weren't doing anything close to having difficult operating environment for ethernet.
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in pro audio ethernet is used with proprietary protocols, handled by black box ASIC chips with special switches. I deal with this crap in the studio. Where I am they use it mostly for the personal mixers providing monitor outputs, but some places use it for inputs too.
Also, warning for those about to embarrass themselves making fun of "directional" cables, that means it is grounded at one end, and you put all the grounded ends in to the same device to avoid ground loops. If you don't know what it is, it must be brain-numbingly stupid... right? Ignorance is bliss.
We use normal cables, sure. But we do buy expensive ones with nice plug shielding, because musicians may or may not even be sober at work. Expensive cables isn't just for fancy looks, that build quality can make a real difference. Plus, it might be a lot easier to get the bean counters to agree to buy premium cables, than to get them to agree to replace equipment. They might tell you, "use the spares until they fail" in which case you'll regret not having spent their money on the "over"-priced ones.
Same with instrument cables. No, a brand new expensive guitar cable does not sound better than a cheap one. But after 300 shows, the cheap one craps out during a show or session, and the expensive "hifi" one didn't because it has premium long life rubber and better plug strength. So it does actually sound better once you factor in the way it sounds when equipment fails and you can't even hear the instrument. Most of that benefit is in the middle price range, of course. A $1000 guitar cord probably has metal mesh "shielding" that substantially increases cable strength, but the $300 one already has plastic mesh that will provide more than enough abrasion protection.
Also... some commenters don't know this, apparently, but a "placebo effect" is a real effect. It doesn't mean it is a scam, it means the people were successfully tricked into getting healthier faster, or in this case, to have more fun. If you "trick" them into thinking the artist is more artsy, they might enjoy it more too. Pretty snooty to claim they're not really enjoying the subjective aspect of their choices as much as they claim to... especially if you're also claiming that due to the placebo effect they really are enjoying it more!
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the $300 cable isn't grounded on either end, and shows a high level of crosstalk. So the arrows on this cable are just to make people think it's worth the $300.
This cable is better than a $2 cable: It's well built, and meets the specs - barely. But you can get $10-$20 cables that are as well built, and meet the specs with less margin for error (these literally tested as 'within the specs' by less than the margin of error on the testing device) easily.
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Informative)
They did the listening test first, before the cable quality check. And yeah, they were really, really skeptical of the cable, but they'd had enough of the 'if you've never listened to it, how can you know?' kook crowd - they wanted a to do a real test just because people don't test these types of claims. They either write them off as ridiculous (as they nearly always are) or they buy into them completely.
So here: Objective, blind test. No difference as far as anyone they tested could reliably tell. (They did have one person in the test correctly guess which cable was which. Out of two who tried - the rest didn't even try.)
Obvious fail is obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
I think I see the problem: They didn't allow any burn-in time for the cables before doing the listening test - they just plugged them in and started listening as if that was going to sound correct.
A real listening test needs at least of couple of weeks for the atoms in the cable to settle down after moving/bending it in any way.
Re:Obvious fail is obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Poe's law applies here.
I honestly don't know if you're being sarcastic or audiophile.
Re: (Score:3)
You've never talked to an audiophile before have you.
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
As with many things there's a grain of truth, which is enough to get someone hooked. Oxygen free copper is a real thing and you can buy it in bulk. The main property is that it has far fewer small inclusions of copper oxide (hence oxygen free). While this does lower the elctrical resistance very marginally, that's not what it's for.
The problem with oxyide inclusions comes when working with compressed hydrogen. The hydrogen diffuses through, and slowly strips the oxygen from the copper creating tiny pockets
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact the company claims that they determine which way to face the arrow by plugging the cable in and listening in both directions and choosing the best.
Re: (Score:2)
They did it because that's how the company that makes the cables describes their test environment. They claim "clear unmistakeable" improvements in the audio quality in the setup Ars used, but only if you plug the cable in in the correct direction (denoted by an arrow on the connectors). In fact the company claims that they determine which way to face the arrow by plugging the cable in and listening in both directions and choosing the best.
The direction of the cable? Are you shitting me?
Re: (Score:2)
It's common to have polarity, but not directionality. It's always been common to have them denoted in some way (usually a white stripe on the jacket, or gold/silver wire, etc). This denotes your "common" and your "signal" (alternating). Polarity is different than directionality. The arrow would indicate that a signal travels through better one way than another, which would mean your cable is acting as a diode. If that doesn't fail spec I don't know what would.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the directionality is based on extra shielding that is grounded only on the far end so extra electronic noise isn't brought into the DAC. Doesn't mean it's not completely bogus, but they have great reasoning behind it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you wonder if ground loops might be a bogus concern, you've never worked in pro audio. ;)
Ask anybody working on the stage before or after a concert. They can set you straight on this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Ground loops are a real concern in many audio hookups, but not for these cables, which have no way for the shielding to connect. Only the twisted pairs can connect and none of these carry ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Almost but the idea is not to terminate it at the "far" end but rather the "near" end. The noise should be brought back to the low-impedance source. It's completely bogus in any residential or living room but not completely unrealistic when talking about long cable runs.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget that cables need to be burnt in for a month or so before they achieve full sound.
(Moving them or bending them in any way de-aligns the atoms and means another burn-in period...)
Re: (Score:2)
The makers of the cable didn't know WTF they were doing; they claimed it was better for music.
The testers merely were merely thorough by explicitely testing the claims, asinine as they might be.
By doing so, they are taking away any dumbshit rebuttal the makers might have had otherwise.
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The cheap one passed data, but with a ton of noise. "And listeners still failed to hear any difference."
Well, duh. It's digital, not analog. As long as bits are not irrecoverably lost, how is it going to sound any different?
Audiophile ethernet cable .... there's one born every minute.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And audiophile microSD cards!
Re: (Score:2)
don't remind me [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
CompUSA used to sell "Music CD-R"s. I think the only difference was that the MAFIAA got a cut of the sales.
Re: (Score:3)
You're full of shit.
CD-Rs are not bin-sorted in this way. The data that differentiates a "music" CD-R from any other CD-R is mechanically molded into the disc itself at the same that the disc is manufactured.
And so, by the time the molding is done, BEFORE the dye is applied, the sputtering of the reflective coating is complete, and the protective lacquer is applied, BEFORE a batch is ready to test before (possible) batch bin-sorting and silkscreening: The music CD-Rs are already irrevocably music CD-Rs.
T
Mod parent up. (Score:3)
I've had similar arguments with telco people. If the DIGITAL part of the system is not dropping (or delaying) packets then there is no problem with the DIGITAL part of the system.
Swapping cables that are not causing dropped/delayed packets for other cables that won't drop/delay packets is useless.
And testing the digital portion is very easy.
If you think you hear a difference, it is probably your imagination or the analog portion on either end.
Re: (Score:2)
And testing the digital portion is very easy.
Yep, you just need a superwhamadyne gozinta gozouta comparator.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the cable you used in the digital part of the system spews out so much EMI it could have a effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that the "directional" cables are grounded at only one end, and you can't guarantee that digital and analog will have separate ground paths. They won't be separate, actually. So the noise from the digital system really does leak into the analog side. Most of that can be filtered out, but it isn't always easy to filter it just enough but not too much, in varying conditions that are only partially under control of the sound team.
For home use, perfect filtering should be easy, and problems are lim
Re: (Score:3)
From the cable tear-down, it does not appear that either end had any of the shielding connected to the plug shield.
With XLR cable connections, you have your shield, which IS connected at both ends, and your signal ground, which is isolated from the shield.
Jitter (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as bits are not irrecoverably lost, how is it going to sound any different?
Jitter, the relative timing of when bits arrive. Audiophile tests led to its having been identified as a measurable problem in S/PDIF installations, which led to use of a circular buffer to mitigate jitter. True, S/PDIF is connection-oriented, and networks using Ethernet are packet-switched with such a buffer being implemented in the network stack and in the application. TCP in particular retransmits packets corrupted by noise. But if the retransmitted packet doesn't arrive in time, emptying of the buffer c
Re: (Score:2)
You can not have jitter at the bit level and still receive the signal error free. It is ethernet and you will get your jitter simply because there is other traffic on the cable, so there is no guarantee that the line is free for immediate transmission of your packet. Even with QoS you will have to wait until the current transmitting packet is done.
But jitter is a non issue because all applications that receive audio via ethernet will have buffers to deal with it.
And last, because ethernet is a packet networ
Re: (Score:2)
And last, because ethernet is a packet network, you will need to buffer your audio so you can collect enough bytes to send a packet.
True, but you usually don't want a 48 ksample buffer in a LAN environment because that'd introduce a second of latency.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the almost-plausible arguments is that a poor quality Ethernet cable can pick up analog noise which can leak into the actually-analog speaker output, since the Ethernet cable and the speaker cable go into/out of the same system. Like I say, it's almost plausible: noise from within the computer really can leak into the speaker output, and RF signals really can propagate through the Ethernet cable into the computer. The question is: does that actually make a difference, especially one that is in any wa
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:4, Funny)
You can actually hear the whore snorting coke in the recording studio bathroom, it is insane!
Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, digital data is supposed to be easy 1 and 0 communication. But when you get down to the physical media, said binary digits are represented by physical phenomenon. So +3.3V = 1, 0V = 0 type stuff.
Voltage, resistance, EM waves, magnetics, etc... You're actually back in the world of Analogue, and here you have to worry about noise.
When you're moving data as fast as you can, or storing it as densely as you can, interference becomes more likely. For example, you'd think that +3V =1 and 0V = 0 would be easy, but when you're flipping the signal as fast as you can, you end up with the cable possibly acting like a transformer or capacitor. So the voltage might run a bit higher, a bit lower, a bit faster, a bit slower, etc...
Radio transmissions, Solar noise, close by electrical cables, other data cables with parallel runs, etc... The world is 'noisy' even if you're using wires.
That's why you have error correction in digital communications. So the 'occasional' bit can become flipped and the system transparently recovers it, and you get your transmitted data, identical from the other side.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you're in an exceptionally noisy environment with a long cable run, it might make sense to buy a more expensive cable that features things like additional shielding, thicker gauge wires, etc...(or just go fiber).
Otherwise the ECC does it's job and there's no practical difference between the cheapest wire possible and the most expensive.
Hell, audiophiles can't tell when the testers are using coat hangers as speaker wires, and that's an actual analogue signal!
But the cases where a decently constructe
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with spending a bit more money to get a quality cable, so long as what you're looking for is better physical quality that meets the expected spec, and not "magical fairy dust" quality.
Re: Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score:5, Funny)
(or just go fiber)
Using fiber is a difficult expense for true audiophiles. The fibers typically used can contain a lot of impurities which distorts the color of the light signal, introducing noise into your audio. This is why when using fiber for audio, true audiophiles only use diamond fibers extruded through Emerald dies enchanted by a wizard after he puts on his robe and hat.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, noise is the right term, when used properly. To imply that the noise is in the data, as they do, but 'you can't hear it', is quite ridiculous.
They being who ever wrote the summary because it is not implied in the articles (yea, I know, who the fuck RTFAs).
Re: (Score:2)
Even the most rabid speaker cable true-believer audiophiles will admit that digital is digital—at this point, almost everyone has accepted that the bits will arrive, or they won’t. However, the audiophile contention is that some amount of electromagnetic interference or noise is transmitted up unshielded Ethernet cables, through the Ethernet port, and into the computer’s DAC (the digital-to-analog converter), which then makes itself apparent to the listener by coloring the sound in some way.
So, the contention is not that these cables will differ in a "DATA" setting, but that the cheaper cable may introduce unwanted noise into the circuit after the DAC. Now we can argue whether that does or does not happen (I believe it to be highly unlikely), but the argument is not about digital noise.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument is about people wanting to spend extra money without feeling bad about doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this data passing noise?
What they should have meant: the raw bit error rate was high and there were many retransmits.
What they probably meant:: The square waves weren't very square.
Re: (Score:2)
How much did they charge to test it? (Score:3)
Mission accomplished (Score:3, Funny)
They sold at least 2 of them now. I'm betting someone just won a bet.
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:4, Funny)
Don't buy the cheapest cable (Score:5, Insightful)
This comes up whenever audiophile cables are discussed, but it's worth repeating: don't buy the cheapest cable.
There may be no useful difference between a $10 cable and a $1000 cable, but very often there's a real difference between a $10 cable and a $1 cable. Even for digital data, really cheap cables often don't meet spec, and can cause frustrating intermittent problems. You don't need anything exotic to avoid that, just avoid the bottom tier.
An example from my living room: I use a 45 foot HDMI cable to plug my TV directly into my HTPC (for reasons of convenience that aren't that interesting). The spec calls for thicker-gauge wiring for HDMI cables over 30 feet (IIRC), and you'll quickly see the price jump between cables that meet that spec and cables that don't. Don't buy the cheapest junk possible, that's all it takes.
It used to be that Dayton Audio was the only "solidly built, not too expensive" brand I knew about for cables, but Amazon changed that - now there are a bunch of options, including some sort of Amazon store brand that seems to be fine.
It's worth paying a bit more for solidly-built cables that meet spec (and especially for Ethernet cables, for some guard on the cable that keeps the clip from snagging or breaking off it you need to pull it through a tangle). Anything beyond that is a bit silly.
Re: (Score:3)
For mini-jack to dual RCA cable (line level audio) you can absolutely go for the cheapest cable. Sometimes a more expensive cable will have a complicated RCA connector that breaks down.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had cheap longer mini-jack cables fail - just break inside the insulation. I've had cheap RCA cables break, short, and most annoyingly have the center-pins break off and get stuck in my equipment.
Yeah, avoid the $40 job with the weird connectors, but a $4 patch cable can save a lot of headache over a $1 cable.
Re: (Score:3)
No - because they pick up so much noise. And the wire can literally break inside from being too cheap. I know, because I threw out my cheap one.
Re: (Score:3)
This goes for life generally; people that sort everything by price and buy the cheapest one are a liability to the rest of us.
Re:Don't buy the cheapest cable (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh for Pete's sake.... You Looney audiophiles need you heads examined..
Buy the cheapest digital cable that works reliably and don't spend a dime more. If offered a $45 HDMI cable over a $2 one, save your money and go cheap, heck by 3 of the cheap ones incase it breaks while installing it, you will be money ahead and you won't hear the difference EVER.
Now, on ANALOG cables, they used to have a point (albeit a barely measureable one). Case in point is speaker cables. For audiophile like performance, speaker cables ARE something that you can demonstrate matter. However, MOST people don't have the ears or the listening environment necessary to justify what some vendors confidently say you need. Most people are fine with 18Ga Stranded, especially for short runs and middle grade equipment, and I guarantee that 12Ga stranded will not be noticeably different for ANY home installation I can imagine, at least not different enough you can hear it.
When will this hold over from the "monster cable" audiophile fad be over? There was a time when that gold plate *might* have mattered to your analog cable so paying 20X the price was justifiable from the technical perspective, but now with digital cables all you are getting is fleeced...That and the justified scorn of those who really know what's going on. Well, that and bragging rights about how much you spent, if that matters to you..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If offered a $45 HDMI cable over a $2 one, save your money and go cheap, heck by 3 of the cheap ones incase it breaks while installing it, you will be money ahead and you won't hear the difference EVER.
I hope you don't work with technology in any way. Sure, buy the cheapest cable that meets spec, but remember the first rule of engineering: the vendor is a lying bastard. There's a reason the cheapest cable is the cheapest cable. Paying $45 for a 6-foot HDMI cable is silly. Paying $45 for a 50-foot HDMI cable isn't.
Also, for HDMI specifically, the different numbered specs matter depending on use case. If your doing "4K" video, you'll want the HDMI 1.4 (or above) cable. If you want high color depth for
Re: (Score:2)
Buy the cheapest digital cable that works reliably and don't spend a dime more.
You and grandparent are saying the exact same thing. The point that GP was making is that some of the cheapest of the cheap cables don't even meet the relevant specifications and that that can cause problems.
You don't need cables made out of gold, but you often do need them to conform to the specs. I've had this problem with cheap as shit HDMI cables where my components wouldn't recognize each other until I replaced the cables with monoprice cables. So it's not like I had to spend a ton, but I did have to g
Re:Don't buy the cheapest cable (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad none of the big box stores have the 10$ cable, usually it's 30$ gold plated thing that is a rip-off. I've had good luck get cables for 1$ @ thrift stores.
Re: (Score:2)
This comes up whenever audiophile cables are discussed, but it's worth repeating: don't buy the cheapest cable.
I'm not sure if you read the follow-up article [arstechnica.com], but this bears repeating.
The cable that was used for comparison was the cheapest cable. In fact, it didn't even pass the Cat-6 certification tests [arstechnica.net] done by Blue Jeans Cable [bluejeanscable.com] after the even had finished.
But even with that nobody could tell the difference in the final sound quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Even for digital data, really cheap cables often don't meet spec, and can cause frustrating intermittent problems.
I have also experienced this with uber-cheap HDMI cables. Tried to connect components with the cheapest HDMI cables possible (they came for free with some of the components that I bought) and there were problems. I forget what it was, but I think the TV wouldn't talk to to the Blu-Ray or the Tivo or something. I don't remember, but anyway, shit wouldn't talk to each other until I replaced the crap HDMI cables with monoprice cables. Still very cheap, but at least they are tested and meet the relevant specs.
Re: (Score:2)
The cheapest cable is frequently not even close to good enough. I've seen numerous $0.99 Chinese cables that actually have a loop of the conductor that obviously was laying flat against the side of the mold when the injection process happened. As a result, it sticks through one of the molded connector walls. Just a bit of rubbing and you've got bare conductor exposed.
Let's be specific here (Score:3)
The reason that the listeners could not hear a difference is not because the cables did not differ in quality, but because Ethernet is digital and has the capabilities of error correction and retransmit. The chip might have extra signal processing as well, to do noise reduction for example. In the test, these kind of characteristics were enough to fully compensate for the flaws of the crusty cable.
There's still many scenarios in which you can benefit from better EMI shielding and conductivity, even when talking about a digital application.
Forward error correction (Score:3)
Wouldn't a layer of forward error correction using a BCH code, as used in Compact Disc Digital Audio and QR code, help with real-time UDP streaming?
Re: (Score:2)
ECC inside individual packets? Pointless. Every network standard worth its salt has at least a CRC32 covering the entire frame.
CRC32 is just error detection. It doesn't actually correct errors. Or are you claiming the packets would just get dropped along the way by intermediate routers that check the CRC?
wait, what? (Score:2)
ETHERNET cable?
Oh come on.
The sad thing is, people will assume by this that people can't hear a difference between, say, speakers or playback devices. Way to just idiocrafy the world a tiny bit more, guys :P
Re: (Score:3)
The idiots in question [audioquest.com] had this to say about the quality of their digital data:
"Extremely high-purity Perfect-Surface Silver minimizes distortion caused by the grain boundaries which exist within any metal conductor, nearly eliminating harshness and greatly increasing clarity"
"Sound appears from a surprisingly black background with unexpected detail and dynamic contrast."
"All audio cables are directional. The correct direction is determined by listening to every batch of metal conductors used in every AudioQuest audio cable."
If that's your starting point for idiocy, the only next step is to start painting equipment with magic symbols to repel gremlins and evil noise fairies.
Whenever something is being sold with a made-up .. (Score:2)
sometimes it seems to me (Score:4, Informative)
that audiophile either means "wealthy" or "sucker" or maybe both...
I get that you want the best possible sound... and in some cases the placebo effect may actually help you enjoy your music more... but are there really enough of these people to base a business on?
I suppose, if you don't have to do anything except throw some gold plating on a connector and you are already in the cable business.. why wouldn't you?
This reminds me of another product, I think I saw on /, a while back... it was just a little plastic riser that kept your cables elevated off the floor and separated from each other... the cost was something like $100 per "device"...
Well... whatever floats your boat...
Re: (Score:3)
I get that you want the best possible sound... and in some cases the placebo effect may actually help you enjoy your music more... but are there really enough of these people to base a business on?
If you're effectively making a cable that costs maybe $10 to manufacture, but selling it for $340, you don't need many "audiophiles" to make a significant profit. If you have a few hundred of them, you're already making 6-figure profits. (Obviously some cables may cost a little more to manufacture, but certainly not anywhere near as much as they are charging.)
It's kinda like wine. There have been studies that show that if you serve cheap wine in expensive bottles, people like it better. There have bee
On Stage With The Amazing Randi (Score:3)
You begin with a lecture to your Vegas audience of confirmed skeptics about the pseudoscience of high end digital audio cables ---- and afterwards claim with a straight face that confirmation bias didn't taint your so-called experiment.
The entire affair was inexcusable pop-science crap and wholly unworthy of Ars.
Re:On Stage With The Amazing Randi (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The inexcusable part is - as lousy as this test was - it was a lot more than any cable company has done as far as proving their cables make an audible difference.
You'd think a company hawking a $6,000 RCA analog interconnect would be eager to show how much better it is than even their own lower end cable.
Forgot the important part (Score:2)
Noise also wasn't heard. Checksum still worked. (Score:2)
Latency (Score:2)
Fewer retransmits lets you push the buffer length lower for less audio latency. This can become important for real-time applications such as gaming and music production.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only a very small window where a bad cable gets you bit errors, but not so many that the networking becomes completely unusable. If just 1% of the packets are dropped, your effective TCP transmission rate will drop do 1 Mbit/s or lower.
If you are doing a file download from your NAS you will be doing a lot of 1,500 bytes ethernet frames. That is 15,000 bits per frame. If just one if those bits fail, the packet is dropped. Less than 1% of the packets can be dropped before you will notice that somethi
Problem with blocking (Score:2)
It looks like there is some unaccounted for variance in their design: "The listeners would be asked which audio sample (electronica, male vocal, female vocal, or instrumental) they wanted to audition. The requested sample would then be played through one cable, then we'd swap and repeat per the test protocol."
They should have either made people listen to the same audio sample or made everyone listen to all the samples.
Audiophoolery (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always wondered about people who buy these kind of cables. I mean, they're expensive cables, but what do they plug them into? Do they spend $340/$4000/$10000+ on a cable only to plug them into a cheap $15 D-Link switch?
I mean, what are the "audiophile" switches out there? Do they buy those $10,000 Cisco Catalyst switches? Or do they prefer HP ProCurve? Or do they just plug them in any old switch or whatever came with their $20 router?
It's just like power cables. You're telling me that the power, which came from a power station hundreds or thousands of miles away, travelling through copper wires, then coming into your house wired with regular Romex style house wiring, that some special cable used in the last 6 feet really matter? Or do they rewire their house with special audio quality wire? Do they buy special electrons from their power company? Or paid to have their house wired using the special cable? Are you telling me that after hundreds/thousands of miles, the last 6 feet really matter?
Re:Audiophoolery (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Audiophoolery (Score:5, Funny)
You need to upgrade your house shielding to prevent muons from wreaking havoc on the up/down quark balance in the helium-injected conductors. You do use helium-injected wiring, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
If you have that much money, you are not doing your own wiring. There are audiophile "contractors" who will come in and install the most expensive setup possible. Since most expensive is better, right? These are the things install to justify the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Or paid to have their house wired using the special cable?"
I really, really, really would like to find out how one starts such a contracting business.
I would be *delighted* to rewire your house with "cost is no object" cables. My service invoice will be comparable.
Where is the direction arrow? (Score:2)
These can not be very good cables because they lack the direction arrow that the Belden audiophile Ethernet cables have (had?). This was so you would know which way to plug them in. Packets flow from hub/switch to the device.
And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.
It is orange and you will make your money back in picture postcard royalties.
Directional arrows aren't as silly as you'd think (Score:2, Insightful)
These can not be very good cables because they lack the direction arrow that the Belden audiophile Ethernet cables have (had?). This was so you would know which way to plug them in. Packets flow from hub/switch to the device.
And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. It is orange and you will make your money back in picture postcard royalties.
It's in the caption of the very first picture:
Audiophile-grade "Vodka" Ethernet cables, from AudioQuest. They even have directional indicators!
But, surprisingly for Ars, they missed the point of those directional indicators. The article on electrical testing hints at it:
Finally, the braided shield inside the cable drew some comments. "There is no continuity from the body of the one connector to the body of the other, indicating that the shield has not been terminated to one or both of the connector," noted Denke. "Our 6A uses an absorptive shield—that is, the cable is shielded but the shield is not terminated at either end. Alien crosstalk is the crosstalk which occurs between cables, as opposed to the internal crosstalk which occurs between the pairs in a cable. This may also be why there are unterminated shields on the Audioquest cable—I’m not really sure what the reason is there, though I had thought that the shields on Cat 7 were required to be tied to ground. It is also possible—I have no handy way to test—that they've tied the shield to one end only, though this would be highly nonstandard for network cabling." (emphasis added)
It's highly nonstandard for network cabling, but highly standard for audio cabling - it's called a telescoping shield [belden.com] and is used to prevent ground loops and audible (60 Hz) hum. Typically, you leave the shield connected at the low-impedance source, and disconnect it at the high-impedance load... as a result, the cable actually does hav
Blindfold test (Score:5, Funny)
I'm starting to wonder if all the loud music when I was younger damaged my ears. Every time I turn on the radio, everything sounds like shit.
Oblg. old. Audio Joke: (Score:2)
There is an old joke in the audio industry.
* If you want to make a million, spend a million.
Works for crap such as Monster Cable, Bose, Beats, etc.
-- :-)
Married Audiophile Joke:
"When I die I hope my wife sells my speakers for what they're worth rather than what I told her I paid for them."
Re: (Score:2)
MP3, Vorbis/AAC, Opus (Score:2)
An upgrade from 96K MP3 to 112K Opus would probably provide substantial fidelity improvement to your CELTic music, as it's 2 codec generations later.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no ethernet cable in the world which is sufficiently bad, that there are enough retransmits for mere audio to stutter or stall.
I think you'll find that this very expensive cable [arstechnica.net] has sufficiently poor quality that it will impact the reception of data.