My Fraim is directly next to the Cisco and I currently use Blue Jeans 6a in a 4’ length (6a recommendation actually coming from the old Linn forum) going to my KDS.
For the minimal cost involved I would consider changing to cat 6 for flexibility. At that point 2’ would probably work as well. Any difference between 2’ vs 4’ - or as we say here in the States - am I simply spinning my wheels?
Best
Gregg
Thanks Simon, would you recommend plastic or metal trunking? Cat6a is also difficult to bend for exiting and entering wall at right angle.
Between 2 and 4 metres… not much unless you have true golden ears. Between 5 metres and 1 metre may be more discernible… between 10m and 1 m even more so. I coil my Ethernet lead so I have 5 metres (from memory) between switch and streamer.
For outside? Corrugated UV protected trunking.
I haven’t seen it for 6a, but as I wrote above, cat 6 can be found without the plastic core/separator down the middle, making it a lot less stiff.[quote=“StuW, post:103, topic:7926, full:true”]
Cat6a is also difficult to bend for exiting and entering wall at right angle.
[/quote]
Any cable that is Cat5a or above is fit and forget, and will work well. If it doesn’t it’s broken in some way. The rest is just tweaking for possible small (in my experience) subjective improvements.
Yep
I think this reply was for me. If so then as Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live used to say - never mind then 
I’m in the States so the length I listed in my above post was Feet. I am currently using 4 feet - a shade more than a meter. I guess leave well enough alone 
Must confess I didn’t use any special trunking when I routed my ethernet round the outside of my house. Did ensure that’s the outer sheath was weatherproof. Works a treat for me and did not cost as much as some of the ethernet cables I’ve seen mentioned on some threads.
Edit - meant as a reply to StuW
Yes - I run Connectix Cat 6a externally around the outside of the cottage. It is in UV and squirrel proof trunking, which looks quite neat: I had professional network installer put it in. I went for Cat 6a because my NAS has a 10 Gb/s NIC and if I replace my Mac mini with a new one then they also come with a 10 Gb/s NIC. Problem would be upgrading my core switch to 10 Gb/s which is currently expensive. However, it works well with my current HP switches at 1 Gb/s and 100 Mb/s for streaming.
That is a superb looking squirrel - unfortunately they are grey around here. My fear was they would think it was EtherNut.
Ha ha you stole my line
This has all been over complicated…
The empirical evidence is that which is measured/ observed. In this case we might be thinking ‘which is the better of these two cables?’. What then follows might be scientific or pseudoscientific discussions aimed at explaining the evidence…none of which will change the evidence. Just use your ears, listen to music, this is what is important.
Well, some people like to understand, others aren’t interested. It’s a free world, as they say, however understanding is the key to progress and improvement…
Most certainly listening is the best way of deciding, assuming someone is in a position to do so or doesn’t mind loss if there is no ‘sale or return’ available (or if trivial cost, as non-boutique types are). However the listening has to be in one’s own setup, as results may vary with different networks and different streamers or DACs. In the event of there being possible psychological influences, like a fancy cable with amazing claims and/or good reviews, blind testing is easy and can readily remove risk of bias.
IB…you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of my post. I agree that understanding a phenomenon is both important and interesting…but understanding a phenomenon does not change it’s existence. If a phenomenon exists, there is absolutely no point in attempting to demonstrate that it does not. If, for example, a person prefers one cable over another, it does not matter if this observation was made blinded. There is no point in conducting double blinded RCTs … the individual will still have their preference, never mind the results of such testing.
Apologies, I read your comment differently from your intended meaning - about which I am mostly in agreement.
I’m not quite clear what you mean in your response re blind testing: did you perhaps mean it does not matter if this observation was not made blinded? Indeed it doesn’t matter per se for the individual buying if they have made their choice, but my point for the benefit of the Someone considering the basic question, such as the OP was that they blind test they can actually be sure whether or not there is a difference in sound and which they prefer purely from the sound, knowing they haven’t been persuaded by something else - though as I intimated, probably only worthwhile when expensive cables. But in general, indeed if the individual is happy with what they buy that is all that matters to them.
Incidentally, I’ve never suggested double blind as it is unrealistic to attempt for this sort of thing, and in my view for the purpose is unjustified.
…I agree that double blinding would be difficult…but would be the only way to ensure the maximum scientific validity. My post was really meant to address the concept that an observation could be deemed irrational or incorrect on the basis that it does not fit a particular school of thought. Almost like ‘that cannot be correct because I have rationalized that it is incorrect’…this is not a comment on what you have said incidentally. We could talk forever about inductive logic and whether there is really such thing as pure deductive logic!
I think indeed we’re in agreement. My suggestion of only blind, not double, was because in the context maximum scientific validity is rarely of interest.
