MrWoppit to the thread! MrWoppit to the thread!

Are they directional.?

Each to their own I say.

There’s a £5000 WATCH thread down there! VVVV

Have the 1s and 0s really gone through the ring main? Surely once the electric fairies have been filtered through your gold contacted, filtered UPS they’re only travelling between the source and your ears?

Each to their own I suppose, I hear there are some people that think spunking a ton of money on a push bike is a little silly

Phew – finally!

Someone (cough) has just commented- have a look before they take it down!!!

(titter)

Very good. 😀

Alternatively, if you’ve got stuff on there that’s out of stock but don’t want to de-list it, jack up the price high enough to stop anyone buying it. They may have not lowered it again.

The root of the problem is that there is no easy way to assess absolute sound quality, it’s very subjective. This Audiophile nonsense is very much like the Emperor’s Clothes, e.g.

i.e. If you can’t hear the difference you’re a moron.

I’m in the wrong business.

Quite.
Some audio types* seriously maintained that wearing a digital watch while listening to a high-end system could degrade the sound quality, because it was an un-driven transducer.
Or on the wrong wrist, or just voodoo.
Usually Linn/Naim owners… 😉

It’s hard to know where to start on that write-up.

I guess the crux is, it’s a digital cable so either what goes in is what comes out, or it isn’t. So the question then becomes, does (regular) Ethernet have sufficient bandwidth to transmit your audio data reliably?

CD quality audio clocks in at about 320Kbps. For lossless audio, you’re in the realms of let’s say 1.5Mbps to be generous. We’ll skip over the fact that most people are unlikely to be able to tell the difference much beyond 320Kbps and just roll with this.

Regular CAT5e is rated to 1000BASE-T; that’s 1000Mbps over 100m. That’s over six hundred times your required data rate for lossless audio.

So can regular Ethernet transmit lossless audio to an acceptable standard? I rather think it can. Hell, shitty old 20th Century 802.11b wireless is 11Mbps, even if you halve that to allow for CSMA/CA overheads you’re still golden.

Conclusion 1: You don’t need a £1600 cable.

Conclusion 2: You don’t need a cable.

Conclusion 3: What a large set of hairy bollocks.

Do hairy bollocks make good cables?

Cougar – Moderator

Only if you use twisted pairs.

Top marks for that — I doff my hat to your wit 😉

pfft. nordorst valhalla here.

CD quality audio reproduction at the standard sample rate of 44.1 kHz and 16bit sample rate gives 1411Kbps, from what has been drummed into me that’s 2 (# audio channels) × 44100 samples/sec x 16 bits/sample = 1,411.2 kbit of information per second, rather more than 320Kpbs.

Whether or not such an expensive cable makes a difference when it comes to transference of that binary data down a cable may be a mute point, especially when we take into account CIRC encoding and error correction along with the DAC that ultimately decodes the digital signal so your loudspeakers can make a suitable pleasing noise to your ears.

Everyones ears are different but 99.9% of folk would notice a vast improvement in sound quality if they spent a few £ on room acoustic treatment rather than on that fancy expensive cable.

… which is the 1.5Mbps I quoted earlier. (-: