Slashdot Mirror
$340 Audiophile Ethernet Cable Tested
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."
I am thinking $340 thousand to test it seems reasonable. After all, when I test a $3.40 cable, they easily spend 34 thousand to test it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The fact that they even wasted time thinking about doing a listening test is enough data I need to know they don't know WTF they are doing.
They sold at least 2 of them now. I'm betting someone just won a bet.
"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.
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.
I don't read AC A human right
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Hey, lets sell some audiophile routers!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 causes an audible interruption. And if the buffer is enlarged to prevent this, this can affect perceived responsiveness in interactive applciations such as music production and video games.
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?
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
That needs to go away. We need an Ethernet protocol extension with BCH or Hamming code support.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
No sig today...
The idiots in question 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.
I got into this with an audiophule type a few years ago. He, with a completely straight face, asserted that double-blind testing was an inherently flawed methodology for evaluating the objective marvelosity of some silly audiophule crap he was touting. (This obviously being some entirely new definition of the word "objective" that I was previously unacquainted with.) In that case it was 12-gauge solid copper speaker cables at $$$$$/foot. I said "And that is different from $0.12/foot Romex... how, exactly?" He started going on about how these things were oxygen-free rectangular cross section, hand-forged by the Kebler Elves with tiny silver hammers... and then summarily dismissed double-blind testing when I suggested it.
(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.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
You can actually hear the whore snorting coke in the recording studio bathroom, it is insane!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
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.
The argument is about people wanting to spend extra money without feeling bad about doing so.
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 way perceivable? The answer, as TFA found, is a decided "no".
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
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!
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.
I was an audiophile, worrying about the last 0.00001% THD and IM and noise and everything else, until a transducer Engineer (read: a professional who designs microphones and speakers for a living) casually mentioned that the very best, cost-is-no-object, hand-assembled microphones and speakers distort at least several percent.
Each.
Which means that no matter how great the ELECTRONIC portion of your signal path, the beginning and end have distortion measured in numbers with nonzero digits to the left of the decimal point. Doesn't matter how clean your electronics or special magic cables or whatever are, they can't remove the distortion that's already there in the original signal (unless your source is purely electronic) nor prevent your speakers/headphones from adding even more right before you listen.
After that, I paid attention mostly to noise floors and ignored everything else. I keep a lot more of my money and I have a lot more self-respect because I know I'm not wasting said money imagining that I can hear something that I cannot.
It's your money, spend it how you like.
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.
The designation is part of the ATIP data. It is as set in stone as any non-recordable, molded/stamped CD ever was -- despite the rest of the contents being recordable.
Kid-proof tablet..
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.
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 error correction on 25GBaud carriers, and not on 10GBaud carriers. Of course on G.709 there is FEC in the transport.
So really it's a mixed bag, but to say ethernet has no error correction is a false-hood, especially if you are talking about the most common layman GigE. It's likely in future that all higher baudrate fundamental carriers will have RS-FEC builtin, as they are running into limitations of the physical optical channel that can be mitigated with FEC.
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.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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 of very high pressure steam. This causes serious embrittlement problems.
So unless you're operating your hifi deep on jupiter, in the native atmosphere, you probably don't need oxygen-free hifi cables.
SJW n. One who posts facts.