This topic was split out from a thread where someone asked about a specific cable that did not work with Roon. The topic quickly devolved into a typical situation on this topic.
Leaving this all here in case you want to argue it out, or if you want to ignore it. Enjoy!
ORIGINAL
No. Despite the fact that some people desperately want there to be audiophile Ethernet cables, there simply is no such thing. The IEEE standards do not include a superset of specifications that make a regular Cat-7 cable into an āaudiophileā Cat-7 cable.
And a $500 price tag also does not make it an āaudiophileā cable, especially as it doesnāt even adhere to published specifications.
Nope.
Cause the shield is NOT connected to the plugs.
The shield together with the small wire creates a Faraday Cage.
The suggested Amazon cable is a Cat 6a, with shield connected to the connectors.
But Blue Jeans Cable 6a as another example does not have metal plugs, and hence the shield in that case my cause a problem. So better use a BJC cat 6 cable, which use Belden Bonded pair.
I have never read more incorrect or misleading information about how digital audio or computer networking works than the things Iāve read over the years at Computer Audiophile. I quit reading there years ago, but occasionally get pulled back in when someone posts a link. Afterwards, after shaking my head, I repeat 10 times: āNever click on a computeraudiophile linkā.
Iāll probably take a lot of flak by saying it, but this is in no small part a generational problem: Audiophiles in their 60ās, 70ās and 80ās that are completely mystified by computers, canāt accept that they really are mostly a matter of plug-and-play, and desperately trying to apply their analog tinkering habits of decades ago to equipment where itās no longer relevant.
Great theory to prove/disprove by a survey of forum members. Iāll try to think of an appropriate way to phrase the question and see if there are enough responses to make any judgements. Objective, you know, not subjective.
I understand your point and tend to agree with the premise. There probably is some age correlation on this. On the other hand, Iām a (recovering) audiophile in my 60s, but happen to be pretty computer/network savvy. And I learned many years ago to not try to apply analog concepts to digital music. It may be because I work in a scientific field and Iāve been forced to keep up with (and use) technology.
I think the other side of the coin is the younger crowd that wants the next best āinsert marketing hypeā thing that looks cool, NOW, but donāt really understand the physics and reality behind how it works. Gotta have the newest phone, sunglasses, fidget spinner, etcā¦
Before I start, I need to say that while I understand what the opposing argument is, I am not endorsing the impact of these comments on sound quality.
The claim here is not that the digital bits on the cable (via the Ethernet frames -> IP frames -> TCP packets) are being altered. The claim, especially in regards to ground loops, is that the ethernet cable is connecting the ground of power going into the switch and the ground of the power going into the device. Thus, you have a system that has ā2 groundsā. It is then further claimed that these ground loops, using the hardware given, produce a notable hum or degradation of quality in the D->A conversion, or even later in the chain in analog.
If someone claimed that the bits were being altered and this was impacting audio streams over digitally reliable protocols (in a way other than skips or pops), I would delete that post/topic, because that would be entirely bullshit.
The ethernet cable will definitely contribute to having a sound if itās passing a groundloop and leakage current loop in the system, through itās shield (not talking about the transformer isolation at each end here, but the shield). It will be system (and hearing) dependent as to whether the effect is big or small or canāt be heard at all, but I do think groundloops and leakage current loops can be a real problem, not something of fiction.
I could be wrong (please do correct me if so) but the Cat 7 spec specifies the shielding to be grounded. If thatās the case I would avoid any Cat 7 cable for audio unless the groundloop/leakage current loop is broken further downstream of course.
As suggested earlier, a great and cheap ethernet cable with a floating shield design is the Blue Jeans Cable Cat 6a (based on the Belden 10GX series). The shield is not connected to the connectors (not grounded) at each end, so groundloops and leakage current loops are broken.
An ethernet cable will also āhave a soundā if itās not even properly constructed to a specification (dropped bits). Blue Jeans Cable also provide a test certificate with each ethernet cable they ship, so you will know that each individual cable is built and tested to the spec.
My recommendation to anyone is stick with Blue Jeans Cable Cat 6 (unshielded) or Cat 6a (floating shield) and be done with it for the reasons above: theyāre built and individually tested to a standard and they will break groundloops and leakage current loops. Just my opinion but if an ethernet cable ticks these boxes, then they shouldnāt have a sound (parasitic capacitance is another thing for another day lol).
I donāt think itās particularly helpful or nice to insult audiophiles in their 60ās or above either. Letās try not to become the Computer Audiophile forum.
That is not at all what I am implyingā¦ When a digital audio stream is altered it can happen a few ways:
bits are changed and/or lost and caught by error correction techniques causing a retransmit
bits are changed and/or lost and not caught by error correction techniques so they are allowed to be played
In the case of #1, if the errors are caught, a retransmit can be requested and if the retransmitted data arrives fast enough that the buffer is not emptied, then the resultant stream is still perfect with no error.
Checksums and sequences numbers can prevent #2 easily, but #1ās retransmits can still take too long to arrive. This can result in a buffer emptying. If the buffer is emptied, you will hear a loop of the buffer or zeros or something else bogus. The sound wave has been damaged; the DAC will not find a continuous audio wave, and will output very unexpected results.
This usually can be heard as a large click or pop, or as silence. A non-networked example of this that we have all heard is a CD that skips. That just means it couldnāt read the data off the CD (and it can verify that the data is valid using the same techniques listed above) before the buffer ran out. There is no āquality lossā when a CD skipsā¦ itās just an āobvious errorā. Itās not like the sound got muddy or lost fidelity in some way, it just went to ā ā ā ā ā
The worst of the worst ethernet cable would result in the bits being damaged/lost ā a good protocol can catch #2, so #1 is the case to worry about. That case would result in retransmits, which if the cable was bad enough, wouldnt arrive in time in a verifiable manner, meaning you would hear āobvious errorsā, and not fidelity loss.
The reality of these retransmits is that they happen fast and buffers are relatively long, so even if your network is ā ā ā ā ā things probably just work fine. The digital stream can not be altered along the way. Thatās the point of making it digital.
Note that ALL of the above is purely in the digital part of this signal path, and claims about a bad cable, noise, ground loops can not affect it, because digital is built on mathematics, and not the realities of electricity. Either it arrives there good and verifiable, or it does not. This binary good or bad nature of a āreliable digital streamā is what drives the ābits are bitsā guys nuts when audio guys talk about digital streams being affected by anything.
The claims about noise, ground loops, or whatever else is purely in how that digital stream is interpreted into analog, which is not a digital process. That stuff can not be verified ā thus all the trouble. This is what drives the audio guys nuts when the ābits are bitsā guys tell them they are old and not versed in information theory.
