[Closed] £1600 audio ethernet cable

LOL, gobuchul, maybe I bit too easily, but then I have just bought a 1987 B&O CDP and amp 😀 and everyone loves to slag of B&O 😉

I know what you mean on the 20k stuff, each to their own. My pet hate is the cable thing though, especially in the digital realm.

Like I said just bought some old B&O kit LOL, my friends laugh at me behind my back 😉 but I have the last laugh with the sleek, clean minimilist design.... sounds good to boot 🙂

Nothing uses psycho-acoustics, something which is quite well understood

Except it's not.

There are some really vast areas where there are gaps, and we can talk in terms of ranges of possibility (like frequency response changes in response to loudness changes) but there are some aspects (like the transition between the use of ITD and IID in localisation) which are poorly understood, and seemingly inconsistent.

We can do a lot with what we know about psycho-acoustics - just look at how effective MP3's are at compressing audio down and retaining most of the information (particularly compared with other methodologies.) There is however, and insufficient amount of knowledge to use this to create a useful measurement of quality.

If we start to try and look at audio quality as a whole in any kind of detail, then Heisenberg pops up his head and says no - because we're dealing with interacting variables, once we get any detail in terms of, for example, frequency, then we automatically lose detail in terms of timing and indeed phase.

People don't really laugh at B&O any more though - they just realise that it's slick-looking/functioning rather than the best hi-fi. It doesn't offend anyone like it used to when they sold hi-fi separates 🙂

Anyway - everyone just buys Sonos now

[img] [/img]

bellerophon listening to some banging beats on his B&O earlier.

My pet hate is the cable thing though, especially in the digital realm.

Totally agree, although I tend to buy decent quality interconnects simply as they are more physically robust. By decent quality I mean a tenner, not £100!

Do Ethernet cables have an effect on sound quality?
Yes. Particularly when connected to a streamer. We did a lot of listening with various streaming devices, and every time changing the connection to the streamer made a big difference.

Well I'm convinced.

Reminds me of the reasoning in that article that was posted on here about creationists and dinosaurs on the ark...

LOL, I can't see the image (work is blocking it) but going by the image name 😆

Anyway, I seem to be matching perfectly the hi fi and the music, both being from the same era 😉

yeah, know what you mean with everyone buying Sonos - not me though Ha ha

Anyway - everyone just buys Sonos now

How very dare you.

It's an Apple Airport Express streaming from iTunes*.
Oh. The. Horror.

*Lossless FWIW.

🙂
It's ok - I don't have any Sonos either. But I used to sell it and still recommend it to friends.

I have no need for multi-room therefore I have one nice hi-fi. If I need to hear music in another room, I turn it up!

Now don't have a cd. It's all on NAS or vinyl.

I know a guy with a high end hi-fi shop, he sell speaker cable for >£1000/m! When I asked him what the best cable he sells i, he said it was the £2.99 stuff, why, because it sounds the same as the most expensive!

100!

Anyone spending £1000/m on loudspeaker cable needs to look at the inductors inside their crossovers, see how great a length of wire is in each, and realise the cost of that wire (even with the usual comedic hi-fi retail margin added)!

Until audio gets into the air (ie out of the loudspeakers) it's pretty easy to accurately measure distortion (of any kind), so there's so excuse for the stupidity that happens on the electronic side of things. Once you're dealing with creating sound waves in a room and the oddness and complexity of the human ear and brain then we're entering into fields that are far from fully understood.

"In a blind test I would wager that most could not tell you which is the £1000 and which is the £10,000."

Horse poo. Sorry, but if you design two systems to be as close as possible in terms of tonal presentation to try and maintain a similar 'sound' a £10k system will be far superior; soundstage, dynamics, imaging, pretty much anything than can be used to analyse performance would be improved. Whether the listener can or would justify the extra expense is a different question and highly subjective though.

Needless to say most of my favorite systems cost a lot less than £10k.

Cables?

Cables can very easily change the tonal character of a system and the cable manufacturers capitalise on this, you can't measure it so it's very easy to say "hey look, it's better isn't it?". The thing with cables is that we all like to 'believe' we've made the right decision(s) to justify expense; in Hi-Fi it's cabling and with bikes it's weight; I mean do we really believe we'll ride faster with an XTR rather than XT cassette? Deep down we know not but when spending £5k on a bike you want to 'believe' this is the right choice. Not trying to start a new discussion here but you get my point. Cable manufacturers, websites and high street retailers all take advantage of this to add margin to a sale.

News flash : businesses are out to make money and not every sales tactic is entrenched in scientific theory. Yes, I bought XTR! but I never spent more than £100 on all my cables for a system. ❓

I moved from high street to contract sales nearly ten years ago and I still giggle at the things I believed and the tactics I used. Yes most CD players had very similar internal components but you'd be amazed how differently they sounded, sometimes very slight but everyone likes choice. £20k on a CD player though, nope! £20k on speakers? Quite possibly.

I spend most of my time now focusing on user interface. When you install £500k+ Multi-room systems high quality is a given, it's more about how easy it is to use as no amount of quality will fix a system that's difficult. What do I use for music? Sonos. I don't care how much money a client has Sonos offers the best user experience and is easily good enough for pretty much everyone.

Cables can very easily change the tonal character of a system

Sure. But Ethernet cables? No chance.

Until audio gets into the air (ie out of the loudspeakers) it's pretty easy to accurately measure distortion (of any kind)

Yeah but don't tell anyone.

And if they do find out, give them one of these to measure it with:

[img] [/img]

Cables can very easily change the tonal character of a system and the cable manufacturers capitalise on this, you can't measure it so it's very easy to say "hey look, it's better isn't it?".

What can't you measure? I'd wager that there are a whole host of things you could measure to identify the differences - probably more than you can for a specific cassette that's for sure - the problem is that these are abstract to most people. i.e. You can describe the attenuation, resistance or inductance of a cable over it's length, or the phase linearity or having an FEXT characteristic in a particular range based on particular stimulus and measurement circuit arrangements can tell you something about a cable, but it won't mean much to most people.

However, given the nature of digital transfers of information, this does't matter - there is no way for the signal degradation* in the cable to impact on the data in the cables - which is of course the whole point of ridicule in this particular thread. However much perceivable difference there is between two cables in the analogue domain, due to the nature of digital audio, data in = data out, unless you've screwed it up something rotten, in which case, the error protection kicks in and you get nothing.

*because even good analogue cables are not about improving the sound, they are about minimising degradation, even if that's poor messaging in terms of sales.

ask1974 - Member
"In a blind test I would wager that most could not tell you which is the £1000 and which is the £10,000."

Horse poo. Sorry, but if you design two systems to be as close as possible in terms of tonal presentation to try and maintain a similar 'sound' a £10k system will be far superior; soundstage, dynamics, imaging, pretty much anything than can be used to analyse performance would be improved

BLAH BLAH BLAh

user experience and is easily good enough for pretty much everyone.

This is classic meaningless diversionary twaddle.

Come up with some measurable effects that those cables produce and you will have us, otherwise it's just marketing bollocks.

Hahaha this thread has turned into a parody of itself. Keep up the good work lads.

Gizmodo featured an interesting article where the double blind tested audiophiles to see if they could tell the difference between speaker cables.

THe two 'cables' on test were high end Monster cabing and.... soldered wire coat hangers. The reviews rated both as 'excellent', but were unable to tell the difference, or to assess which they reckoned sounded 'better'.

IMO a lot of this is down to teh placebo effect - you *think* you're listening to high quality, therefore you perceive it as such.

Whether the listener can or would justify the extra expense is a different question and highly subjective though.

Are you seriously suggesting that in a double blind test most people could tell the difference? Despite numerous properly conducted tests proving otherwise? Why will the hifi companies not allow proper double blind testing of their equipment? Why does What HiFi not conduct proper blind testing?

Horse poo. Sorry, but if you design two systems to be as close as possible in terms of tonal presentation to try and maintain a similar 'sound' a £10k system will be far superior; soundstage, dynamics, imaging, pretty much anything than can be used to analyse performance would be improved.

FFS.

Cables can very easily change the tonal character of a system and the cable manufacturers capitalise on this,

Really? What happens to the electrons in a $200 interconnect compared to a $20 interconnect that makes such a difference?

IMO a lot of this is down to teh placebo effect - you *think* you're listening to high quality, therefore you perceive it as such.

Ears are pretty rubbish microphones compared to good mics. However the brain is the best audio post-processor ever made - and if you tell the brain it's going to hear better sound then it'll work harder at deciphering the data coming from the ears. The placebo effect is HUGE in audio.

Gobuchul, as someone who designs fancy loudspeakers for a living I can tell you that it's very hard to make two accurate loudspeakers for £1000. It is a hideously difficult job to get electrical energy to turn into pressure changes in a air in a manner which is truly representative of the source signal. However I've also noticed that I prefer listening to 6music through a little digital radio most of the time because I can hear the music without it taking over my life!

This site is makes good reading on the subject:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/

You'll notice that little on that site concurs with the silliness you can read in hi-fi magazines...

Really? What happens to the electrons in a $200 interconnect compared to a $20 interconnect that makes such a difference?

😀

Gobuchul, as someone who designs fancy loudspeakers for a living I can tell you that it's very hard to make two accurate loudspeakers for £1000

they seem to manage it with reference monitors

they seem to manage it with reference monitors

Do they? I've not come across any which are accurate in anything other than a very heavily acoustically treated room and even then really struggle at lower frequencies.

a $20 interconnect

how much??, you must be mad 😉

they seem to manage it with reference monitors

Monitors aren't accurate, and their not designed to be either - if anything, a good pair of monitors for studio recording will punish the sound in the worst ways imaginable, showing up the worst aspects of a recording or a mixing the post production stage, so that consumers don't get it later on - because audio engineers are not there to make it sound good, they are there to stop it sounding crap. If you can make it sound good on the most popular monitors around, then it will sound good on anything.

This is the fundamental problem with HiFi types - they are chasing something that doesn't exist - the recordings they start with are flawed from the start because they have been specifically designed not to sound good per se, but to sound good on any old playback system - from a big expensive one to a crap cheapy car stereo. If the intention was ultimate audio quality from the start, then the process would be very different.

If the intention was ultimate audio quality from the start, then the process would be very different.

that being the reason why there are such recording outfits as Linn Records...

that being the reason why there are such recording outfits as Linn Records...

Who release content at 24/192 which, for a number of reasons, is slightly inferior and certainly not better than 16/44.1 - they sit on the "snake oil salesperson" side of the audio divide as far as I'm concerned.

Who release content at 24/192 which, for a number of reasons, is slightly inferior and certainly not better than 16/44.1

[i]but you can't argue with maths[/i]

I can, I make it 2.90249433106575963718820861678 betterer. Or worserer.

Monitors aren't accurate, and their not designed to be either - if anything, a good pair of monitors for studio recording will punish the sound in the worst ways imaginable, showing up the worst aspects of a recording or a mixing the post production stage, so that consumers don't get it later on - because audio engineers are not there to make it sound good, they are there to stop it sounding crap. If you can make it sound good on the most popular monitors around, then it will sound good on anything.

OK I was generalising quite a bit in a very short answer and I guess there is a bit of interpretation in the word accurate. I'd certainly agree with you saying monitors are designed to show every element of the recording/sound they are reproducing, without flattering the audio to sound 'nice' at all, but that is what I personally would call an accurate reproduction of the sound, whereas the hifi sound I would say is designed to flatter the sound, and sound as pleasing as possible, rather than show up every bit of sibillance, 400hz mud, aliasing, etc etc that is present in the actual recording and audio signal being turned into sound. As you say the point of the monitors is so you can hear everything that is there in the audio signal, and that is what I would call being accurate.

I'd argue that a pair of modern Adam, Mackie or JBL monitors are very accurate, brutally honest and non flattering in terms of reproducing all the frequencies and amplitudes of sound in the recording compared to hifi speakers. In terms of things like NS10s, I've never experienced them but you always read if you can make your mix sound good on them then it will sound good on anything, but I see them as a different thing from modern reference monitors.

but you can't argue with maths.

Not to subtract from your point at all, but all things being equal, opinion is divided... and going by this thread, division is multiplying.

Feel free to come back at me if you have anything to add.

what type of ethernet cables are they? You can even get them made espcially for you, with the right ends and you can choose the cable. We got audio cabled made like that and it was cheaper getting them already made from the shops.

Adam, Mackie or JBL monitors are very accurate

All of them use reflex cabinet designs which are inherently poor at "accurately" reproducing the bottom end simply due to the design - you can do a lot to design out serious problems, but using a ported design is always going to incur at least some time based obfuscation in the bottom end as the signal from the port mixes with the direct signal from the driver.

Don't get me wrong, I use HR824's all the time and they do a great job, but they suffer - like essentially all speakers - from inherent compromises to the sound.

You're not really doing this for the music are you?

I mean you're not sitting there singing along because the song makes you feel good, or dancing around the room like nobody is watching?

No, you're not.

You're playing my willy is bigger than your willy, aren't you?

Hmmm?

You're not really doing this for the music are you?

Me personally, at home I listen to music on [url= ]this[/url] or [url= ]this[/url] my interest in audio technology is professional, so the specifics of it matter to me - in the same way that things about your job probably matter to you.

All of them use reflex cabinet designs which are inherently poor at "accurately" reproducing the bottom end simply due to the design - you can do a lot to design out serious problems, but using a ported design is always going to incur at least some time based obfuscation in the bottom end as the signal from the port mixes with the direct signal from the driver.

Don't get me wrong, I use HR824's all the time and they do a great job, but they suffer - like essentially all speakers - from inherent compromises to the sound.

Yeah I'm definitely not saying they are perfect, just designed to bring the contents of the audio signal into your ears more honestly than a hifi speaker, which needs to sound 'nice', which seems to be doable in the pro-audio world for £1000 but not hifi, going back to the comment I was originally replying to. Having said that I've not looked at monitor prices for a good 5 years so they might have gone up a bit since then, certainly I think you used to be able to get a pair of mackie's like yours, or Adams, for a grand back then.

You're playing my willy is bigger than your willy, aren't you?

no idea I'm just copying and pasting from KVR

I think you used to be able to get a pair of mackie's like yours, or Adams, for a grand back then.

I have no idea how much they cost, other people equip the studios, I just use them.

OK I was generalising quite a bit in a very short answer and I guess there is a bit of interpretation in the word accurate. I'd certainly agree with you saying monitors are designed to show every element of the recording/sound they are reproducing, without flattering the audio to sound 'nice' at all, but that is what I personally would call an accurate reproduction of the sound, whereas the hifi sound I would say is designed to flatter the sound, and sound as pleasing as possible, rather than show up every bit of sibillance, 400hz mud, aliasing, etc etc that is present in the actual recording and audio signal being turned into sound. As you say the point of the monitors is so you can hear everything that is there in the audio signal, and that is what I would call being accurate.

This is one of the myths of hi-fi which the industry uses to keep people buying hi-fi speakers rather than often superior active monitors for similar cost. Once you've bought active speakers it's much easier to break the endless upgrade cycle because you have amp/crossover/loudspeaker all in one unit which is designed to work together.

Until I started designing loudspeakers I had no idea quite how far from truly accurate a good hi-fi loudspeaker is. But accurate is good! The biggest problem in hi-fi is not achieving flat frequency response but managing that whilst also achieving excellent polar response (dispersion), dynamic response and transient response (timing) and very low distortion (of which there are many contributory mechanisms). Get that right and you've made as good a loudspeaker as is possible. It's the polar pattern that is the killer with hi-fi speakers - that's why they struggle to sound real with acoustic, orchestral or choral music.

My old hi-fi speakers are pretty rubbish but I still love good music on them - though I have some much much nicer components waiting to be measured and have crossovers and enclosures designed and built when I get a moment. Maybe I'll measure them tomorrow as I was testing a new quasi mass-loaded transmission line enclosure today so everything is set up and calibrated!

One upside of getting into loudspeaker design was discovering that when it comes to speaker cable you'd be very well served by standard 13A mains cable! 😛

new quasi mass-loaded transmission line enclosure

you lost me at new!

CGG who do you work for?

chiefgrooveguru - Member

One upside of getting into loudspeaker design was discovering that when it comes to speaker cable you'd be very well served by standard 13A mains cable!

Can you tell the difference between different types of speaker cable in your home setup?

CountZero - Member
And cables?
Pah! Voodoo, innit.

Well, I can tell the difference between solid core and stranded speaker cable quite easily and my hearing is knackered. 🙂

I have a relatively expensive Nordost digital interconnect cable between my streamer and DAC/preamp, and guess what? It sound about the same as the cheapo cable it replaced, and I have ears like a bat! (Well, only in appearance terms :-))

neilsonwheels - Member
Are they directional.?

CGG who do you work for?

www.barefacedbass.com

Can you tell the difference between different types of speaker cable in your home setup?

It's not something I've experimented with in a very long time but I feel once you're getting into expensive cables amounts of money you should be going active anyway!