How COULD upgraded Ethernet cables make a positive difference? What's behind it?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
I'm not a believer in fancy Ethernet Cables but I would be interested in seeing how the Ethernet traffic flowing thru these Cables look compared to a bog standard Eth cable. Are there any TX/RX errors, Discards...etc, are these Cables made to Spec in terms of their Impedance, does the fact that some of them use a totally different approach to how the wires are arranged within the jacket change their Spec compared to a "certified" bog standard ETH cable?
Just a few passing thoughts as a sip my wine and enjoy a night of Disco music in my favorite chair
Just a few passing thoughts as a sip my wine and enjoy a night of Disco music in my favorite chair
In such a short cable, you have to really, really go out of your way to corrupt any data. Rated at 100 meters/330 feet, a 3-6 foot section has way high of a signal to noise ratio to suffer from any ills.
I am going to go back to sipping my Earl Gray tea just the same.
I am going to go back to sipping my Earl Gray tea just the same.
No and maybe
. If you ask an airplane mechanic what brand and type of tire is best, do you think his answer would apply just the same to automobiles?Your son is in the computer field. In that domain, fiber optic is far superior to twisted wire in that it is immune to noise and the signal can travel for literally miles/kilometers depending on type of fiber used. Twisted wire (standard) Ethernet cable has a maximum range of 100 meters/330 feet so clearly underperforms fiber optic. I am running a fiber connection to my workshop and greenhouse which are located almost 1000 feet from our main house for those reasons.
Our application for audio is different. We are using very short cabling of single digit feet. As I noted in my last post, the signal is going to be quite strong so we are in no need of any benefits of fiber optic from computer technology point of view. We do incur a cost in our domain that is not material in computer world. Namely, our machinery be it computer server, DAC or streamer don't usually have fiber input. Adapters from fiber to Ethernet are cheaply available but the issue now is that you have lots more electronics in that conversion box. The box can generate noise of its own which is not material in computer world but in the domain of "everything matters" in audio, you now have added components to the system that were not there before.
So in summary, your son is definitely competent. You just have to consider that what is an improvement in his world, may not be so in audio.
In such a short cable, you have to really, really go out of your way to corrupt any data. Rated at 100 meters/330 feet, a 3-6 foot section has way high of a signal to noise ratio to suffer from any ills.
I am going to go back to sipping my Earl Gray tea just the same.
Indeed!
But one thing to consider is this. We humans are, maybe, fully aware of what we are trying to do by utilizing a fancy Ethernet Cable, with fancy jackets, fancy materials, fancy cable routing and esoteric prices but the dumb ass computer itself which is responsible for the heavy lifting could care less what all this means in terms of SQ improvements. Did anyone tell the computer why an ETH cable that looks nothing like the typical ETH cable has been connected to it and how to handle that change? Looking at the Wireworld offering, from a computer standpoint, I can imagine its geometry looks similar to a China man trying to talk to an Arab thru an old school paper cup and string.
Its no wonder things sound "different" while using these various "Fancy" ETH cables with obscene prices attached to them
Well, speaking for myself, I talk to my computer all the time. If I had a wireworld cable, I would tell it that it is his Christmas present for example. And that he better have just as an expensive gift for me.
Anytime that two or more devices having individual power mains safety ground connections are interfaced via wire link, common-mode noise has the opportunity to couple between them. It doesn't matter whether the signal interfaces are digital or analog or a mix of the two. It also doesn't matter should the devices be seprated from each other by other devices in a signal chain, such as from a data transport, through a DAC, then through a preamp and finally to a power amp. Common-mode noise could still couple between the data transport and the power amp across a wire digital signal interface and subsequent chain of analog signal interfaces.
Below, is a link to an AppNote regarding common-mode noise suppression along ethernet interfaces.
https://www.digikey.es/Web Export/S.../laird-sip-an-common-mode-choke-filtering.pdf
Last edited:
Consumer grade stuff rarely ever has safety ground for ethernet. And I've already mentioned CMC's for ethernet.
Safety ground has nothing to do with the ethernet, it's only there for electrical shock protection of the device enclosure. Common-mode noise can transfer across ethernet despite differential signaling. Common-mode noise can increase data conversion jitter, as well as cause various analog domain artifacts. Transformers greatly help, but feature a CMRR that degrades significantly as noise frequency increases, hence the app note's recommendation of including high frequency CMCs.
Yes, in fact the parasitic capacitance between primary & secondary windings of transformers (including ethernet transformers) convert differential noise into common mode noise - adding to whatever CM noise was there already & which wasn't reduced by these differential ethernet transformers
Last edited:
The problem with CM chokes in this scenario seems to be that they are designed to address CM noise in a limited frequency bandwidth necessary to ensure noise elimination for the digital signal being transmitted - this is not necessarily the CM noise bandwidth that has consequences in the analogue side of audio.
The digital signal integrity issues are not the issues of concern
Last edited:
Yea, now that it is becoming a recognised sonic issue complete isolation & signal reconditioning should be designed into converters but prior to this I don't believe it was generally known (don't even know if it's generally accepted by designers, currently - depends on the designer)
One of the problems is that in digital signalling the noise budget considerations are focussed on minimising bit errors - not so on the analogue side. It's now becoming evident that certain types of low level noise audibly effect audio output. This is without any bit errors being introduced in digital signal communication.
You have some data on that relative to the topic of this thread, i.e. differences between Ethernet cables?
If by data you mean measurements then no, it's too early - this is still at the investigative stage & like any such investigation evidence of effect & circumstances are being accumulated. This may eventually lead to some solid measurements but it will only come from people who understand the underlying premise for what is going on & as a result, employ careful measurement techniques designed to uncover the mechanism - it won't come from those who employ standard measurements & don't understand the noise that is being discussed here.
You know that you often have to go under the surface to uncover facts - for instance, seeing as you are so interested in Ferris Buellers Day Off, you know that it wasn't really a 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California, they used in the film, don't you?
I have no direct experience with ethernet cables making an audible difference but have with USB cables & USB transmission - that's my data point. Not too dissimilar operational factors, differential, packet based protocol but ethernet is pure differential & can make use of a transformer, conferring a certain amount of isolation while USB needs to drop back to single ended transmission for certain messages & therefore can't use transformers.
You could have stopped at No... you know
You think? I don't deal in binary - I find the world much more interesting & nuanced than that
Anyway, I'm Irish & we don't use one word when we can do so in 100 words instead - we're nothing if not story tellers
You think? I don't deal in binary - I find the world much more interesting & nuanced than that
Anyway, I'm Irish & we don't use one word when we can do so in 100 words instead - we're nothing if not story tellers
OK
Besides, it's also important to point out that we are discussing things that are at early stages of investigation so that looking for measurement data is somewhat premature & will require a particular set of skills & techniques that are not commonly encountered.
Members online
- 3rdRock
- dan31
- HeavyD
- andromedaaudio
- Salectric
- J007B
- MarcelNL
- Giotrude2
- hopkins
- highendpassion
- Atmasphere
- StefanT
- Argonaut
- Dezy
- jadis
- Labpro
- SPaul
- Jimkrell42
- oeno
- ingemar
- Hobblecreek
- Notdead
- Foxbat
- danfl75
- Birdwatcher
- mohawk195
- mainelotus
- Cantus
- bonzo75
- UEM
- SlapEcho
- audiom3
- jbrrp1
- alexx
- DividedSky
- Low325
- Adelmor
- Bruce B
- Oracle1974
- ecwl
- Nsxturbo
- simorag
- audio42
- willgall
- WildPhydeaux
- morricab
- DW101
- Miramunt
- Juiced
- cal3713
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |