Author Topic: Random videos/images/memes thread (Read 1977350 times)

Expensive Ethernet Cables
I hemmed and hawed. I procrastinated. I averted, diverted, rescheduled, delayed, prolonged, and put off reviewing the AudioQuest Vodka and Diamond Ethernet Cables hoping that something would change. Namely, I was hoping someone would be able to tell me why, in no uncertain terms, they do in fact make a difference in the way my music sounds coming through my hi-fi. In many ways and for many reasons I wished they made no difference at all. I wish they were just some audiophile nonsense that I could plug in, listen to, unplug, and simply shrug at their utter ineffectualness. But that's just not how these things work.

The line of AudioQuest Ethernet cables are all rated as Category 7 Ethernet cables and include the least expensive Pearl ($29/1.5M), Forest ($49/1.5M), Cinnamon ($89/1.5M), Vodka ($339/1.5M), and the top of the heap Diamond ($1,195/1.5M). I reviewed the Forest and Cinnamon (see review) and found that they improved the sound of music played through them and the rest of my hi-fi. When Steve Silbermann of AudioQuest told me, "You've got to try the new Vodka and Diamond cables. They're sick." I couldn't resist.

Quote

I really could have written this review months ago. The perceived differences between the Vodka, Diamond, Cinnamon, and Cat. 5 cable are plainly apparent and easy to hear. I'd sum up these differences as more. You get an increasingly large sound picture as you move up the line, greater differentiation between sonic elements, and a greater sense of clarity. I would classify these changes as being better in each case.

I've spent a few months with these cables, and I swapped them in and out any number of times. With quick A/B swapping, which I admit to finding one of the most annoying ways one can listen since you're no longer listening to the music!, I was still able to perceive a clear difference but longer listening allowed me to more fully appreciate the greater clarity and relative ease the Vodka and Diamond cables impart. You can picture the changes when going from the standard Cat. 5 Ethernet cable to the Cinnamon, Vodka, and Diamond as adding more and more color to a faded image. It's as if the sound blossoms more fully with the more expensive cables.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

The reviewer in the comments, two years later:

Quote

Perhaps.
Submitted by Michael Lavorgna on February 10, 2015 - 12:06pm
But I'm not the only person to have perceived a difference between Ethernet cables. Far from it. Not counting other reviews, manufacturers, and some of my colleagues, I have experienced a number of AudioQuest demonstrations to audiences at hi-fi shows where it was clear that the majority of people heard the same difference. Now, in each and every case we could be experiencing confirmation bias or we could be perceiving a change in the sound.

While I appreciate the seemingly overwhelming logic that would suggest the former is the case, I am for better or worse bound by what I experience.

Quote

I've read lots of books.
Submitted by Michael Lavorgna on February 10, 2015 - 1:18pm
I've also listened to different Ethernet cables and heard a difference between them. If I felt the AudioQuest Ethernet cables were simply snake oil I would say so. That has not been my experience.

Quote

Well put.
Submitted by Michael Lavorgna on February 10, 2015 - 12:26pm
As I said in my review, "I can in fact think of more reasons why they can't make a difference." That said, I also said, "The veracity of anything and everything [in hi-fi] is decided by listening." Since this review was written, I've had additional opportunities to compare AudioQuest Ethernet cables to standard Ethernet cables and in every instance I perceived a difference.

Quote

I appreciate your well considered comment.
Submitted by Michael Lavorgna on February 10, 2015 - 2:07pm
As well as your proposed reason for why I perceived a difference. I will say that I've experienced this difference between Ethernet cables in many different rooms/circumstances. This includes numerous hi-fi shows with rooms full of people, the AudioQuest headquarters, as well as my own listening room over the course of a few months. There are also other reviews out there that pretty closely reflect the differences I've noted. I just happen to be the lucky one to have been quoted in a few recent articles ;-) All of this would suggest to me that your proposed solution is not correct.

Quote

I'm not an electrical engineer, for what it's worth.
Submitted by Michael Lavorgna on August 2, 2015 - 8:25am
Regarding #2, higher CAT levels offer improved noise rejection. So I don't follow when you say, "Note how these are all functions of the transceivers common to each of your listening tests - and not of the cables you reviewed".
When I first reviewed these Ethernet cables, I did not see how they could possibly make a difference so I do not see how confirmation bias comes into the picture. I also spent months listening to these various cables, and combinations thereof, and I have since had a number of opportunities to hear comparisons between the AQ cables and CAT5 cables and have in every instance heard a difference. Others have as well and they have written about it since this review first appeared nearly 3 years ago.

Since I admit here to not understanding the cause of the differences I perceived, my recommendation is to try them for yourself. Since I wrote this review, I've looked into possible explanations for the differences I heard which I've written about. Based on this information, I recommend buying good quality CAT6 or CAT7 Ethernet cables for any network-attached hi-fi as well as taking care in where they are run. I recommend the AQ Ethernet cables, specifically the Cinnamon, for short runs since they are well made and come with a 30-day return policy.

For my personal use, I purchased 2 lengths of the AQ Vodka cables and 2 lengths of the Cinnamon which I've been using for years. You can of course make of this whatever you'd like.

The fact that some people cannot think of an explanation while others can who are much more knowledgeable than I am, is certainly of interest since an adult conversation can possibly lead to better understanding. Since I wrote this review, I've learned enough to know that focusing on data transmission alone will get us nowhere. I have also learned that this entire subject treads on deep seated beliefs for some people so my guess is they view me as some sort of threat.

I've also had very informative email exchanges with people over the years since these reviews were published who are EEs and work in a number of related fields. None of these exchanges have had the condensing tone of Khablam's comments here and in fact explanations were offered as to why different Ethernet cables can make a difference in a network-attached hi-fi. My point being, people with extensive knowledge in dealing with exactly this issue, noise in mixed signal systems etc, are willing to share knowledge and explore explanations. I find this of great value. Being told I don't know what I'm talking about, when I admit that I don't understand the reasons for the differences I've perceived, I find of no value.

[close]

Rufus · « **Reply #39211 on:** September 16, 2019, 02:48:06 PM »

Quote

Books aren't necessary, if you believe your ears. That should be all that matters.

CTRL+F "double blind"
Find this instead.
Audiophools never fail to impress.

Quote

The fact that some people cannot think of an explanation while others can who are much more knowledgeable than I am, is certainly of interest since an adult conversation can possibly lead to better understanding. Since I wrote this review, I've learned enough to know that focusing on data transmission alone will get us nowhere. I have also learned that this entire subject treads on deep seated beliefs for some people so my guess is they view me as some sort of threat.

!?
Is it him?