What is the difference between Cat 6 and Cat 7 Ethernet cable?

[icehockeyboy]

Following on from the thread on here re wifi or hard wired, I noticed there is a sexy Cat 7 cable with gold looking plugs and wondered what the difference is?

I will also have to use an adapter as I've run out of outlets on the hub, will they detract from SQ, assuming there is an improvement in the new cable?

[brian2957]

I'm sure some of the experts on here will be along to explain Craig . I've been using Spotify with a 15m CAT6 patch cable and things were sounding pretty good , better than Wifi in my system and to my ears . Well , I just can't leave things alone and curiosity got the better of me and I installed a 15m CAT7 patch cable between my Virginmedia Superhub and my Korus music server and to these ears there's a further improvement is SQ . Early days though and much listening to be done :) YMMV of course .
Anyone know if CAT7 cable is directional , and how long it will take to burn in :scratch::uhho:

[Jimbo]

Cat 7 cable has better shielding than CAT 6, each individual cable and outer cable is shielded. Used for ultra fast data and large data transfer. It certainly does make a difference to sound quality and is definitely better than wifi!

[brian2957]

Good to know I'm not hearing things James :D

[robtweed]

i can't see any reason why you'd hear any difference based on Ethernet cable category - the stuff they're handling is already in the digital domain and the stream of bits representing the audio file or stream will either get transmitted or not - same is true of wi-fi. The only reason for choosing a wired connection is to prevent drop-outs from an unreliable or congested wi-fi service.

[brian2957]

I can't explain it either Rob , but then there's a lot of stuff in this hobby of ours which I can't explain . I just use my ears :)
I must admit that I was more than a bit surprised when I plumbed in the CAT7 cable and got this result .

[dave2010]

i can't see any reason why you'd hear any difference based on Ethernet cable category - the stuff they're handling is already in the digital domain and the stream of bits representing the audio file or stream will either get transmitted or not - same is true of wi-fi. The only reason for choosing a wired connection is to prevent drop-outs from an unreliable or congested wi-fi service.My first reaction is to agree with you. However, there may be different modes of transmission, and Cat 7 should be better able to withstand interference, and transmit bursts at higher data rates. It doesn't necessarily follow that audio is transmitted at low bit rates if transfers are asynchronous. If some form of resend on error protocol is used, then reducing errors to avoid resends could improve the perceived SQ. Also, it's possible that jitter might be reduced - but a lot depends on how the digital data is transmitted/received, and what clocks are used at the receiver end - e.g in the DAC.

On the other hand, if there are no errors .... and listeners don't have "golden ears" then lower standards of cable may work just as well. Cable suppliers may have a vested interest in persuading people to buy cable which is over specced for applications in order to increase their profits.

Just read Brian's post above - could definitely be worth checking out, though not spending a fortune on unless it works well for you.

I don't believe in cable directionality though, or burn in, to any significant extent. However, if you have a supply of virgins (optionally naked) to stroke the cables before you install them, then you might get a further improvement.

[brian2957]

The cables weren't overly expensive ( yet ) so well worth a punt :)

[robtweed]

Extending this logic, then you'd notice a difference between a file played from local storage on the streamer and files streamed across your network which I would suggest you won't hear. You'd also expect a noticeable quality difference between a streaming service in the UK, Europe and the USA - more cables, switches, routers etc in between you and the source.

The way to confirm whether or not these are real or imagined differences is to run a blind test

[Jimbo]

It's not only Ethernet cable that affects sound quality in the digital domaine, I have also heard other cables making a difference to digital encoded music.

[brian2957]

I normally use an external hard drive which my music files are stored on . Last week I started using Spotify wirelessly and wondered if I would get an improvement using CAT6 cable from my Superhub to my music server . The CAT6 cable was a big improvement over wireless , but not quite as good as HD to Server . However , the CA7 cable , sounds even better than CAT6 and HD to server . All in my system and IMO of course .
I'm not really into blind testing , but I will get the troops round for a listen .
As I said earlier , this isn't some outrageously expensive upgrade , it's very cheap and well worth a punt IMO . :)

[robtweed]

..and furthermore this logic would suggest that the same track played from Spotify would sound different each time you heard it due to the source coming from different servers at Spotify, connected by different wires and cables, and the packets taking different routes through the Internet before reaching you, across a mixture of fibre and copper of varying quality. Perhaps worth testing/confirming?

[brian2957]

Good grief now things are getting really confusing Rob :lol: . I can't find a '' really confused ''emoticon , I suppose this will have to do :scratch::confused:

[struth]

Never say never...open mind for most things me unless its rediculous of course. My music doesnt travel down my ethernet so i wont get any benefit that way but it is happier id imagine with as good a cable as you can use for task. I didnt use cat7 as it is screened and wont be earthed so would likely attract rfi emi etc. It has to run beside mains cables. Not saying it would but my reasoni!g for selecting cat6. Sending instructions and data did speed up and i did actually think it sounded better too but that may be foo in this instance.. Sure Brians isnt

[brian2957]

Foo or not :)Well it remains to be seen Grant . I'll get the troops together and have a little CAT cable '' bake off '' . You are most welcome to attend , as ever :)
Some of those big flouncy dresses are verging on the ridiculous BTW :lol:

[struth]

Didnt say your improvement was foo.... Your ears are good at noticing differences..mine aint so mine might be lol... And you leave my dress collection out of this:ner:

[Gazjam]

..and furthermore this logic would suggest that the same track played from Spotify would sound different each time you heard it due to the source coming from different servers at Spotify, connected by different wires and cables, and the packets taking different routes through the Internet before reaching you, across a mixture of fibre and copper of varying quality. Perhaps worth testing/confirming?

:no:

In this hobby, is it fair to say that not everything is known about or can be quantified, measured or dismissed without hearing for ones self?
I'd suggest that to dismiss something "because of what I read on the internet" could mean missing out on some cheap improvements...

I have heard differences between moving from Cat5 to Cat6 UTP.
I've ordered a length of Cat7 to try as per Brian's reccy as I trust his ears and its worth trying imo.

[brian2957]

Hah ! That's difficult to do as they're all over the house mate :ner:

Yes I know you don't think it's foo mate , we hear what we hear :D

[struth]

Mostly back in wardrobes mate...except this one of course

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/04/ae2ebd3509093a3641e220c4f7320f30.jpg

[brian2957]

Ah , the summer of 2015 ( or lack of it :lol: ) I remember it well :lol:

[mikmas]

However, if you have a supply of virgins (optionally naked) to stroke the cables before you install them, then you might get a further improvement.

I have a network of Virgin's at my disposal - does that count :lol:

[TheMooN]

1 CAT

[NRG]

If people are hearing changes in the audio output of their kit with a swap of Ethernet cable then I would suggest something in their kit is badly broken or the Ethernet cable does not meet spec. I doubt anybody is using a port faster that 10/100 and with the actual audio stream rate being even lower than this the demands for high bandwidth cables are unnecessary. Now, there may be secondary effects in play here that are affecting the analogue output and shielding is an interesting avenue to explore, has anybody tried substituting a STP CAT5e cable as this would be an interesting experiment.

And just for the record I have tries CAT6a and CAT7 on my SB and RPi and not noted any difference when compared to my home made CAT5e cable. As for the suggestion of 'burn in' and being directional.....! Well, I'll leave that one with the fairies! LOL!

On the other hand when using a MAC mini on WiFI connected to my system I could clearly hear a drop in sound quality, it became harder and grittier in the treble with a hard to pinpoint low level noise in the background. What was also odd was the remote access app I used on an iPad to control the Mini produced a scratching sound through the speakers every time I moved the mouse pointer! I think with WiFi there is a very real secondary affect possible with some types of Kit, maybe amplifiers with a high bandwidth...

[brian2957]

I have a network of Virgin's at my disposal - does that count :lol:

No virgins here, or cats either , but a very audible upgrade in SQ for the price of a couple of pints :dance:

[robtweed]

Here's some of the best debate I've seen on this issue:
http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/measurements-ethernet-cables-and-audio.html

As an IT guy who also has pretty good ears (and who hasn't simply "read it on the Internet") I'm in the "it doesn't make a blind bit of difference" camp I'm afraid. But if people are willing to believe it really does make a difference, then fair enough. I shall leave it at that :-)

Rob

[Audio Advent]

It's not only Ethernet cable that affects sound quality in the digital domaine, I have also heard other cables making a difference to digital encoded music.

This is where mis-understanding and foo combine.

This is not audio data at all, not even digital audio data. It is computer data, computer data in a TCP/IP protocol format.

Given that, people appear to be saying that the TCP/IP protocol packaged computer language data is somehow different depending on what cable they use. Well, if those packets are not EXACTLY the same (between what is being sent and that received) then they are rejected for errors and requested again until they are correct. In other words one is saying that ethernet is completely broken due to the whole world having been using the wrong cables all this time! Doh! How silly the whole world has been for so many decades...

If there were massive problems with people's networks then it still wouldn't be a problem for audio because all the data will be gathered in buffers so that those packet resend delays don't effect playback. So either the cables don't work and there are audible drop-outs and buffering or they work perfectly fine.

Now, there COULD be something going on with RFI and earthing and other electrical interference through changing cables but it would mean that something along the line isn't designed properly (and could quite possibly be the situation). Try solving that instead of keeping the problem and finding work arounds.

[Macca]

As Sam and others have pointed out the likelihood is that there is some secondary effect or effects not related to the actual data transfer. 'Once you have eliminated the impossible...etc...'

This to my mind is more likely than the 'you're imagining it' solution or the 'one cable transfers the data better than the other' solution.

[Audio Advent]

Never say never...open mind for most things me unless its rediculous of course.

Where is the line drawn? One person's rediculous is another person's closed mind!

[Audio Advent]

As Sam and others have pointed out the likelihood is that there is some secondary effect or effects not related to the actual data transfer. 'Once you have eliminated the impossible...etc...'

This to my mind is more likely than the 'you're imagining it' solution or the 'one cable transfers the data better than the other' solution.

Whilst I did say that....

... I can still accept that I don't know enough about what's exactly going on and there very well could be a data-transfer reason behind it, one that is complex and specific to the workings of the whole system and software/firmware etc etc etc.

And equally I think it could be being imagined too! If we are going to be open minded, then we need to be open minded to that too rather than taking a closed position of the infallibility of the listener - making mistakes is indeed the stated mark of a human being! It's a real shame we can't even make that suggestion without people taking offence on forums (a generalisation, of course some people are open minded to that possibility).

[Marco]

Where is the line drawn? One person's rediculous is another person's closed mind!

Rediculous? For those with a ruddy complexion? :eyebrows: ;)

Marco.

[struth]

Where is the line drawn? One person's rediculous is another person's closed mind!

well, for me, I draw that line.

[icehockeyboy]

No one has answered whether or not a 2 into one adaptor will affect the sound?

[brian2957]

Unlikely IMO Craig but I would have to have a comparison . Can you try the system with and without the adaptor in place .

[wee tee cee]

I look forward to the wee bake off. Human beings listening to music they love tend to pick up on slight changes-good or bad. Fun to be had breaking bread with a few mates, listening to some new music.

All part of this game...

[Stratmangler]

No one has answered whether or not a 2 into one adaptor will affect the sound?

What is this 2 into 1 adapter of which you speak?
If you have run out of ethernet ports on your router/switch you need a patch lead and another switch.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xh791ExUbh4/TTBG7885-cI/AAAAAAAAACo/mlxNgOZ6Qec/s1600/unmanaged_switch_and_hub.gif

[brian2957]

I look forward to the wee bake off. Human beings listening to music they love tend to pick up on slight changes-good or bad. Fun to be had breaking bread with a few mates, listening to some new music.

All part of this game...

Promise not to blindfold you mate , somebody might cut one yer eyebrows off :lol:

[Clive]

Digital cable differences are almost certainly down to RFI getting into the DAC. Talk of "well designed" etc miss the mark. It's actually very hard to prevent RFI bleeding into ground planes. John Westlake is currently designing his "Detox" unit to go infront of the DAC. John states that this decive won't be effective if placed in the DAC. To be clear....this is not about incorrect digital data entering the DAC.

[mikmas]

Have to admit that I tend to think of WiFi as radio signals susceptible to all sorts of interference possibilities twix router and PC (both in separate rooms) and have spent some time moving the hub around to get the 'best' set-up (bit like Mr Bean faffing with the TV aerial) In the end all it achieved was the best spread around the house to pick up a signal in most rooms with the fewest drop-outs. I did lay on one cable connection to my daughter's gaming PC upstairs because drop-outs in that situation are a no-no. I used to have my Mac connected directly by wire to the router before moving it to the other room and quite frankly I don't really believe using WiFi has had any particular (or even noticeable) detrimental effect on the signal quality of A/V material I access online. Surely this would be most noticeable with video rather than audio anyway?

I'm afraid I have to side with the sceptics on this one and ain't planning to knock a hole through the wall to satisfy a lust for foo....

[brian2957]

My Wifi Superhub is in the same room as my server and I still got a very worthwhile improvement by using the CAT 7 cable . :)

[dave2010]

I'm not disbelieving you, though I do think it's odd. Clive's suggestions (msg37) may be relevant. Mostly the sceptics have it right. My systems currently use wired ethernet, but routed through Powerline adapters, which some people hate. I also have Gigabit switches in the system. I did try using WiFi, and for audio most of the time it seemed to make little difference. For video it makes quite a lot of difference in our home.

On the other hand, in another flat which a family member lived in for a while, I was convinced that putting in high speed wired links would make a difference to overall performance, but when we measured the WiFi the data rates were up at 30 Mbps for both WiFi and wired (again via Powerline links) - which surprised me quite a lot.

Really demanding tasks do need real wire - but everything else has to match. Audio shouldn't be so demanding, and not even video would normally need the full capacity of a 100 Mbps ethernet system unless there are a lot of users on the network. Gigabit ethernet should present virtually no problems.

[brian2957]

There are some excellent answers on here , some which I understand and some which I only partially understand . They have nevertheless provided me with information which I previously didn't have.
All the more reason ( apart from a cake-fest :) ) to get the troops round and have a nice afternoon of comparison between wifi and all the CAT patch cables . Hopefully I'll be able to revisit this thread soon and post my ( our ) findings :)

[NRG]

Digital cable differences are almost certainly down to RFI getting into the DAC. Talk of "well designed" etc miss the mark. ........

Hmmm, I think well designed is still very relevant. Just thinking aloud; Ethernet uses twisted pair cables with differential signalling to provide immunity to RFI and EMI and yet Ethernet cables still radiate some interference. As stated previously the signal pairs are galvanic isolated each end so how is this RFI getting into the DAC? Correctly implemented shielding is bound to help reduce or eliminate RFI radiation but I suspect no one here has it correctly implemented. What about circuit layout and design at each end device, poorly laid out circuits and tracks will radiate noise and cause interference as will SMPS and the lack of earthing/shielding in equipment cases won't help reduce RFI.

WiFi is RF by nature: 2.4/5Ghz depending on the standard. My experience with a Mac Mini leads me too think there are secondary issues coming into play when using it to stream. After all if we switch to wired and disable the WiFi interface on our device we haven't actually turned WiFi off.....the WiFi is still active, still transmitting and still surrounding us with RF signals...but it seemingly now no longer affects the audio output...

[dave2010]

No one has answered whether or not a 2 into one adaptor will affect the sound?Stratmangler has already had a go at this, but FWIW:

1. This should be transparent enough - TP-Link 8 port gigabit switch - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000N99BBC?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage

and even this, which (1) superseded should be good enough too -

2. TP-Link 8 port 10/100 Mbps - switch http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000MGBOHA?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage

or this one with only 5 ports -

3. TP-Link 5 port 10/100 Mbps switch - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000FNFSPY?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

I'd probably opt for Gigabit or faster kit if possible if I had to buy more, but really the 10/100 Mbps stuff was fine for most practical purposes around this house, including audio. The newer kit has eco modes, which switch to low current consumption when idling - in case that concerns anyone unduly.

Perhaps some users may want PoE (power over ethernet) but most of us won't I guess. That might just make a difference - but again, probably not.

[lurcher]

As stated previously the signal pairs are galvanic isolated each end so how is this RFI getting into the DAC? Correctly implemented shielding is bound to help reduce or eliminate RFI radiation but I suspect no one here has it correctly implemented.

This is more of a question than a statement. How can it be both isolated and shielded? The shielding mut be connected somewhere to a low impedance grounding point, if so, I would imagine that would 1). provide a path for EMI to the devices at both ends, b) connect the two devices ground plain together at some point.

[NRG]

The data lines are isolated. Yes implementing shielding will connect the grounds together...I was thinking aloud. The twisted pair / differential signalling used should minimise radiation so any induced noise into the now shared ground plane would be minimal I would have thought, and if of low enough impedance there would be no noise to talk of...I think Chris was talking about this earlier in the thread. Our consumer devices, on the whole, have no low impedance earth connection, mine don't at least, well except my DIY TDA DAC/RPI does as I've used a linear supply but I don't use STP ethernet to the NAS which is not earthed nor are my switches...
My little iBasso DAC has isolated grounds from the USB interface to the DAC section so it is possible and I think you do the same with yours Nick? A Metal case even ungrounded acts as a faraday cage so isolation and shielding is possible...

[icehockeyboy]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/315EN59YK8L.jpg

One of these or similar is what I'm talking about.

[icehockeyboy]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vandesail%C2%AE-Computer-Networking-Professional-10-meters-Black/dp/B00M7UAHIG/ref=sr_1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1446738161&sr=1-1&keywords=cat+7+ethernet+cable

And this.

[lurcher]

My little iBasso DAC has isolated grounds from the USB interface to the DAC section so it is possible and I think you do the same with yours Nick? A Metal case even ungrounded acts as a faraday cage so isolation and shielding is possible...

Yes, I isolate the USB input. But I was just thinking that the action of coupling the ground that a screened cat-x would do instead of a unscreened cat-x could have some impact on whats being heard, and would make it very device dependent. I agree that the screen would act as a faraday cake to the twisted pairs inside it, but to the device connected to it it might look like a nice antenna.

[Clive]

Re data lines being isolated, I discussed this with John Westlake. I can't say if he's right or not...but galvanic isolation he says is ok at low frequencies but typically is poor at high (RF) frequencies. The RF he's talking about is being pumped into the cable via the USB port (all sort of noise in PCs), it's not RF in the ether. He says it will get into the ground plane of most DACs and hit the analogue stage. He's paranoid about this and reckons it must be filtered outside the DAC.

[Stratmangler]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/315EN59YK8L.jpg

One of these or similar is what I'm talking about.

I'm going to be blunt Craig - I've been working late, I'm tired, and I'm not in the slightest bit interested in being diplomatic.
I have beer, so not all is bad in the world.

This device is a total waste of time.
It's a cable maximiser.
It's designed to use the unused pairs of an ethernet connection.
It is not a switch adapter of any sort!
If you need to have more switch ports then you will have to use a switch port on your router and uplink it to another switch. I can thoroughly recommend something like a Netgear GS108 - they're cheap enough and they do what they say on the tin.
I have 2 on my home network and they just do what they do with no fuss. If you want to save a few pennies get the GS105 - you get less ports, but it's just a smaller version of the same kit.

Back onto the cable maximiser - a 100M data connection uses 4 of the 8 cable legs in a Cat5e/6/7 cable port. Which means there are 4 cable legs doing diddly.
The cable maximiser uses the unused legs, and gives the capability of running two 100M connections over one bit of cable.
If you have Gigabit capable devices hanging off your switch they require all 8 legs to run the connection at Gigabit speed.
One of the maximiser units is useless on its own - you require one at each end of an ethernet cable, and you require two patch leads at each end. You also require two switch ports spare in order to patch out two discreet computing devices.

[Stratmangler]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vandesail%C2%AE-Computer-Networking-Professional-10-meters-Black/dp/B00M7UAHIG/ref=sr_1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1446738161&sr=1-1&keywords=cat+7+ethernet+cable

And this.

Shielded ethernet cables are a waste of time in data installations where electrical grounding is not up to spec.
If the grounding is not up to spec it (the shielding) can act as an aerial.
It may also provide a ground path between devices that might be detrimental to the performance of either device.

[Stratmangler]

Re data lines being isolated, I discussed this with John Westlake. I can't say if he's right or not...but galvanic isolation he says is ok at low frequencies but typically is poor at high (RF) frequencies. The RF he's talking about is being pumped into the cable via the USB port (all sort of noise in PCs), it's not RF in the ether. He says it will get into the ground plane of most DACs and hit the analogue stage. He's paranoid about this and reckons it must be filtered outside the DAC.

It's often audible too!
It might be at very low amplitude, but if it's audible it will have a negative effect on sound quality, subtle as that may be.

[icehockeyboy]

Shielded ethernet cables are a waste of time in data installations where electrical grounding is not up to spec.
If the grounding is not up to spec it (the shielding) can act as an aerial.
It may also provide a ground path between devices that might be detrimental to the performance of either device.

Thanks for that Chris, font of knowledge for all things Squeezboxy!

You mention the Netgear switch, but what cables should I get then, can you do a link please?

[icehockeyboy]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61ZURe-SAzL._SX522_.jpg

Is this the same thing, but cheaper?

[Clive]

It's often audible too!
It might be at very low amplitude, but if it's audible it will have a negative effect on sound quality, subtle as that may be.
And this is when DACs can sound a little "digital"....

[Stratmangler]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61ZURe-SAzL._SX522_.jpg

Is this the same thing, but cheaper?

Without a link to the spec all I'm prepared to say is it might be.
It could be a hub, which is not the same as a switch, even though they perform the same duties in a network (a switch manages data transfer and can also switch ports off where there's no device sensed - a hub doesn't manage itself at all, so everything on all the time, and resources allocated to unused ports).

[icehockeyboy]

Chris, can you do me a link to the cable I need please, and how many?

Cheers!

[Stratmangler]

This should do you for cables http://www.cablemonkey.co.uk/cat5e-rj45-patch-leads/206-snagless-booted-lsoh-cat5e-utp-rj45-patch-leads.html
Because you mention the 2 into 1 thing I'm going to assume that the switch on your router is full, so you'll need a patch lead for the uplink, and a patch lead for the device, and you already have a patch lead for the device currently occupying the port you're going to use to uplink. So 2.

[icehockeyboy]

But they're only plastic with no sign of any foo gold or rhodium so they can't b any good! :lol:

[Gazjam]

But they're only plastic with no sign of any foo gold or rhodium so they can't b any good! :lol:

And they seem a bit coloured...

[Stratmangler]

Did anyone read the description?

http://i960.photobucket.com/albums/ae88/Stratmangler/patch%20leads_zpsycr9yhct.png (http://s960.photobucket.com/user/Stratmangler/media/patch%20leads_zpsycr9yhct.png.html)

Note the bit about stranded cable.
All properly made patch leads are stranded, just for flexibility, no other reason.
They're not really meant to be used as your network infrastructure.
The network backbone should be Cat5e/Cat6 UTP, which is solid core cable, and the patch leads from the socket to the device.
The total length end to end (device to network switch) is 100m - network cable takes up 90m, which leaves 10m for the patch leads.
Patch leads do not provide the same degree of RFI rejection as Cat5e/Cat6 network cable, and it's why I keep rattling on about patch leads not being an installation.

[brucew268]

Interesting. It seems some specific effort must be made to find terminated solid core shielded network cable. I did find that diferent ethernet cables affected the sound even when the were just an internet connection, not feeding music files. That, to my mind supports the theory of ground plane contamination.

[icehockeyboy]

Did anyone read the description?

http://i960.photobucket.com/albums/ae88/Stratmangler/patch%20leads_zpsycr9yhct.png (http://s960.photobucket.com/user/Stratmangler/media/patch%20leads_zpsycr9yhct.png.html)

Note the bit about stranded cable.
All properly made patch leads are stranded, just for flexibility, no other reason.
They're not really meant to be used as your network infrastructure.
The network backbone should be Cat5e/Cat6 UTP, which is solid core cable, and the patch leads from the socket to the device.
The total length end to end (device to network switch) is 100m - network cable takes up 90m, which leaves 10m for the patch leads.
Patch leads do not provide the same degree of RFI rejection as Cat5e/Cat6 network cable, and it's why I keep rattling on about patch leads not being an installation.

I'm now even more confused as I thought you were recommending these cables?

[Stratmangler]

I'm now even more confused as I thought you were recommending these cables?

Just keep 'em to relatively short lengths and you'll be OK.
And don't get screened. Unearthed screened is called an aerial.

[brian2957]

Hi Chris , out of necessity I'm using a 15m length of CAT cable . What would you suggest as the maximum length . I'm using this cable http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00J3VAXJA?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00 Is this suitable or should I be using something else ?

[DSJR]

The only way you can judge sound quality on these is to have a seamless switch between them and not know which is which. Under those conditions, I dare say that much of the 'difference' we perceive will actually melt away. If you make these cables up yourself, can you honestly say the soldering is perfect on both cables? Having seen some attempts to attach connectors to cable, I honestly believe that this is where any supposed differences in digital sonics may be - we're not all as neat as Brian here (and I'm speaking for myself, as I loathe making up interconnects of any persuasion!).

Apologies chaps, but I respectfully feel the above needs to be said. I don't think you need to pay loads here, just get something that professional installers use, ready terminated. I got some fantastic sonic results listening to some BBC radio iPlayer shows where the PC was hundreds of feet down a winding corridor from the Ethernet distributer, the myriad cables running along a ceiling in a conduit cage and then outside over a flat roof before coming back in again. Maybe this is a different scenario, but if the DAC is doing all sorts because it's fed different bits of wire, then there's summat not right with it I reckon...

[brian2957]

I would have to buy these cables fitted with plugs Dave as the plugs are tiny . I'm merely asking someone who knows better than me which cable they think is best . TBH with you I'm very pleased with what I've already got , but there may be better . You never know , and as the CAT cables are not expensive I'm willing to give a few different types a go .

[NRG]

The only way you can judge sound quality on these is to have a seamless switch between them and not know which is which. Under those conditions, I dare say that much of the 'difference' we perceive will actually melt away. If you make these cables up yourself, can you honestly say the soldering is perfect on both cables? Having seen some attempts to attach connectors to cable, I honestly believe that this is where any supposed differences in digital sonics may be - we're not all as neat as Brian here (and I'm speaking for myself, as I loathe making up interconnects of any persuasion!).
...

What soldering? These cables are crimped. They are not 'interconnects'. I agree with your first point though...

Brain what you are using now is perfectly fine.

[brian2957]

Thanks Neal , that's good to know :)

[Gazjam]

What soldering? These cables are crimped. They are not 'interconnects'. I agree with your first point though...

Brain what you are using now is perfectly fine.

Agreed.

[Stratmangler]

Hi Chris , out of necessity I'm using a 15m length of CAT cable . What would you suggest as the maximum length . I'm using this cable http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00J3VAXJA?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00 Is this suitable or should I be using something else ?

You'll be fine.
I just spotted that that some of the cables have considerably longer lengths, and it's there that their effectiveness will be compromised. Adding 50% to a 10m cable isn't going to have much effect, if any.

[brian2957]

Thanks Chris , appreciate the prompt reply :)

[Audio Advent]

I look forward to the wee bake off. Human beings listening to music they love tend to pick up on slight changes-good or bad. Fun to be had breaking bread with a few mates, listening to some new music.

All part of this game...

Music people already love means that they are listening less to the external sounds and more to the repeat firings of their brains, learned responses to that very music. Peopl are more forgiving of music they already know - studies have shown that the brain tends to "sing along" to well known tunes and therefore covers up any discrepencies between that inner tune and the real external sounds. The study involved people with a rare brain condition which means they only hear music as any other noise, a study between them and others without that condition..

Much better to test the sound of something involving either non-music or music never heard before and compare the playback (not compare with what you think it should sound like).

[struth]

Wouldnt agree with that Sam. If you want to tell differences then best to have a reference. And music you know every neuance of it the best way to do that imo. It may not tell you whats best of course...in fact it will probably null and void that a bit and thats where new music comes in.

[lurcher]

Much better to test the sound of something involving either non-music or music never heard before and compare the playback (not compare with what you think it should sound like).

But how do you "compare the playback" of music you have never heard before? You can only have "never heard it before" once, so no good using it to compare equipment. Its part of the reason (IMHO) why AB type tests are great at finding no difference between kit.

At least by using well known music you are out of the rapidly learning phase and the memory will be just about the same each time you listen to it, so more possible to compare between components.

For me the best indication of a better system, is one that can show a new aspect in music that’s already well known. of course this is no use for comparing two systems if the new insight happens on the first system, as you cant unlearn the new aspect next time.

[sq225917]

I wonder why john Westlake chose to make a flavour of the month USB filter rather than an optical coupler which would have eliminated rf?

There's a good reason people hear differences when none exist, ie Ethernet cables.

From an evolutionary standpoint its safer to think you've heard a bear outside your cave that doesn't exist than it is not to hear the bear that does exist. So we're very poor at identifying a lack of difference in sound. That doesn't make golden eared just increasingly predisposed against risk...

[brian2957]

:lol: Love the analogy Simon . I think that's called appropriate fear and / or self preservation .

[Audio Advent]

But how do you "compare the playback" of music you have never heard before? You can only have "never heard it before" once, so no good using it to compare equipment. Its part of the reason (IMHO) why AB type tests are great at finding no difference between kit.

At least by using well known music you are out of the rapidly learning phase and the memory will be just about the same each time you listen to it, so more possible to compare between components.

For me the best indication of a better system, is one that can show a new aspect in music that’s already well known. of course this is no use for comparing two systems if the new insight happens on the first system, as you cant unlearn the new aspect next time.

Obviously if you're doing a comparison and playing the music several times then taking the literal, absurd stance on that makes no sense...

You don't have to learn the music before you can compare things - in fact "learning the music" is exactly what you need to avoid. You want to compare the SOUND of the music and how it changes between the two set-ups. The music itself is irrelevent.

[Audio Advent]

Wouldnt agree with that Sam. If you want to tell differences then best to have a reference. And music you know every neuance of it the best way to do that imo. It may not tell you whats best of course...in fact it will probably null and void that a bit and thats where new music comes in.

If the replay is different in some way on a new system then your brain is more than capable of re-firing all the neurons as have been fired every time you listen to the same music on your usual system. Your perception of the world is determined by the recreation of it by your brain - you only hear, see, smell etc everything your brain recreates. And in that aspect, your memory and imagination can be as strong or stronger than real experience. If you fear meeting a bear in some woods then when you glimpse a prankster in a bear suit you will be convinced by your imagination that the bear is real and your body and mind will react as appropriate to that imagination, including smells and thngs which weren't there. That aspect comes up in witness psychology all the time and is well known.

Perhaps this is related to what I read in New Scientist, although I'm sure the research I read about was more recent than 2005: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2005/03/09.html


"It's fascinating that although the ear isn't actually hearing the song, the brain is perceptually hearing it," says coauthor William Kelley, Assistant Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Dartmouth.

If you don't know the music then your brain is unable to recall memories of it and confuse matters.

[Audio Advent]

I wonder why john Westlake chose to make a flavour of the month USB filter rather than an optical coupler which would have eliminated rf?

There's a good reason people hear differences when none exist, ie Ethernet cables.

From an evolutionary standpoint its safer to think you've heard a bear outside your cave that doesn't exist than it is not to hear the bear that does exist. So we're very poor at identifying a lack of difference in sound. That doesn't make golden eared just increasingly predisposed against risk...

There is no proof for that assessment of evolution - it's a thought experiment which sounds "logical" but with nothing to back it up. So many times I've heard scientists address such common myths about evolution and say that such uses of evolution as an explanation of this and that are a twisting of science simply for people to "prove" their own points..

[struth]

Well I dont fear much bar my nightmares Sam. As for the rest, you are entitled to your opinions, but others are too. There is no scientific fact on these things, and probably never will be; I hope... as the Frech say,"vive la difference" ..... if everyone though t the same way and observed the same then we would likely be still in the stone age.

[Audio Advent]

Well I dont fear much bar my nightmares Sam. As for the rest, you are entitled to your opinions, but others are too. There is no scientific fact on these things, and probably never will be; I hope... as the Frech say,"vive la difference" ..... if everyone though t the same way and observed the same then we would likely be still in the stone age.

There is no such thing really as scientific fact, only evidence that things are a certain way, discovered by people who have got off their arses to actually find out!

I guess folks are free to ignore the evidence and make up their own view of the world - but it does make for absolutely pointless conversation and discussion if people just want to repeat their personal fantasies regardless of what goes on around them..

The last bit you have completely wrong - if people didn't agree on things and observe the same then humankind really would be floundering in the stoneage, all of us individually isolated and separate, never able to exchange and impart ideas and discoveries to each other, it wouldn't even be called the stoneage... It is exactly the agreement that we observe the same that allows the human race to act collectively and build upon previous knowledge and moved us from stoneage to the bronze age to the iron age etc etc. Refusing to acknowledge evidence and choosing to ignore it, favouring your own musings is what prevents human progress.

....and so knowledge and best practice progress in the audiophile world too.

[walpurgis]

Suggesting that there is an obligation to agree with 'evidence' implies that people have no right to their own view if that differs. Smacks of The Spanish Inqisition!