When I had my NDS I experienced a huge improvement when switching from a generic ethernet cable to the 1500 euro Chord Indigo (1,5 meters). I did not have a Cisco 2960 at the time. A couple of weeks ago I compared the Indigo to the 50 euro Chord C-stream 0,75 meters and could not hear any difference. I bought the Indigo preloved and moved it on without a financial loss. I now have the ND555 and the Cisco 2960. In any case I also find it fascinating that ethernet cables can sound different and I was flabbergasted when I heard what the Indigo did with my NDS.
but you found no difference with the c stream on your nd555 ?
The C-stream and the Indigo sounded the same. I am not too interested in āfine listeningā but I put on some songs I know very well and could not hear any difference. For me that was enough. I have done a lot of upgrades within Naim, also with cables and the powerigel, so I am familiar with how an upgrade āshouldā sound:-) So yes, in this case no difference.
Thanks for the clarification, the mania got a hold of me. lol
Whatās a āgenericā one? Itās either a Cat x or its not.
cat 5, cat 6, cat 7 not expensive cables. But i am sure you have understood perfectly what i wanted to say.
Because Generally the āfreeā and cheap Ethernet cables are made of hydrocarbon plasticated sheaths wrapped around cheap copper mass produced wires with mass produced plasticated plugs on the end.
This stuff is designed and manufactured and bought and sold to be given away by telcos with free routers. So they are generally very similar products and are a commodity. The economics of that type of product narrows the range of possible designs and narrows the range of materials used.
I spent a decade at BT working intensively with BTs consumer products division and on hundreds of product development projects, so I know how that industry operates.
These cables are entirely adequate for transmitting data.
They have variable qualities as regards their tendency to transmit Electromagentic noise, and this varies depending on the system they are installed in.
The more expensive cables have a far higher range of materials. One obvious example is that lots of them have wires that contain varying amounts of other metals, inc silver.
Some of them have difficult to produce expensive dialectrics.
They have a much wider range of plugs on the end in terms of materials and designs.
Also they are mostly or all designed and tested by audio specialist companies with the express purpose of minimising noise and having a positive effect on the SQ of hifi systems.
But James surely you know that?
ps the vast majority of pfm members are really positive, funny people who love their hifi
Itās a brilliant forum and is home to an enormous body of expertise
I raise a glass of Aussie Shiraz to pfm as I listen to the album Places In Betweenā¦
Yes, true.
But I bet it manages to transfer audio or computing data just fine.
The people who designed were probably not in least bit bothered about the cat standard definition because they knew that it would work fine as a data transmission cable - so their attention was probably entirely devoted to making it positively change or shape the sound of a hifi system.
Groanā¦ the record is skipping againā¦
Irrespective of your opinion of the Vodka etc, there remain four pointsā¦
Firstly I was looking at a cost ratio of >20:1, the Vodka would extend that by another factor of 6, so not such a big difference in ratiometric terms.
Secondly I did test both UTP and SFTP cables, with the latter consistently performing worse in my system - why would I assume that this would suddenly change for yet another SFTP cable thatās not specifically designed to complement the noise handling characteristics of my system.
Third, if a digital cable were to have broadband HF noise suppression capabilities, then it would round off the edges from the digital signal thus reducing the read integrity - this is why digital cables have very wide analogue bandwidth (hence they also transmit noise very well!).
Fourth, ātuningā Ethernet cables doesnāt eliminate the noise, it alters the resonant frequencies where the noise peaks are and at which those noise peaks are presented to the streamer. Unless the cable is specifically tuned to work with a particular streamer (and even a specific release of the streamer firmware), thereās no reason to believe it will be better or worse for any particular streamer.
This analysis isnāt simply an unfounded opinion, or even just a theory: itās based on my actual experience of amplifier design.
Iām assuming English might be your second language (and I apologize if it isnāt), but thereās a word you should look up: āpedantic.ā I think thatās all we (the cable subjectivists) are getting at in regards to your constant drumbeat of āspecifications.ā
@TiberioMagadino,ā¦But please,.not againā¦Who cares.!!
Sounds something better,.that I connect in my music-system,itās the only thing that matters to me.
If it is then called ethernet or streaming-cableā¦
Who Cares.??
ā¢1. Wrong,.itās Mania.!
Itās TiberioMagadino who has bombarded the thread about these Blue Jeans Cable.
In far over half of his 79 posts,.he mentions Blue Jeans Cable.
ā¢2. It depends on how many cables these members have had the opportunity to test,.I have tested all the cables they have mentioned on those forums.
And most of that cables I would not have in my music-system.
As well as Fredrik Lejonklou,.I talk to him every now and then,.he tends to be up here in northern Sweden and visit us music.maniacs.
So I know Fredrikās opinion,.we share the idea of system-content,.cabling and installation.
However,.he has not had time to test Cisco 2960,so he still recommends Netgear GS108Tā¦how strange it may sound.
But strange that you refer to Fredrik Lejonklou Mike-B,.you who do not believe in the installation-method Tune-Dem.
/Pederš
Shazbat!
.sjb
It appears you have a different definition of out than the Oxford English Dictionary has.
.sjb
I also have an Uptone EtherRegen on order. I will be comparing it to my Netgear GS105.
Oh dear, and so it begins.
What begins?
Do we actually know that these expensive cables donāt measure as well as a cheap, certified cable, or is it just that they donāt have the certification? (Clever marketing by BJC to provide a paper test cert with each cable, but even they are relatively expensive compared to a commercial network cable supplier). It seems to me that the certification issue is missing the point slightly, as the demands on an audio cable are trivial in terms of the ability to transfer large volumes of data over long distances. While I remain deeply sceptical of these very expensive streaming cables, I donāt hear hear reports of them failing to fulfil their intended purpose of carrying music data.
Almost certainly only in limited/benign domestic environments, and probably over very short distances. The cable standards are there for a reason, ie reliability for given bandwidths in none benign environments.
Certainly if a cable was confirmed by its manufacturer to comply with a Cat or ISO/IEEE standard I would check the corruption counters on the switch to check the cable wasnāt pushing the host or switch out of operating correctly. And yes because of the way network transport protocol used works for home audio you would not necessarily know it was affecting the reliability of your physical network, as it would still āsoundā fine. Thatās the nature of the protocols.
We see lots of people using 2960s and such like, but seemingly very few actually using the switch to confirm optimum physical conditionsā¦ that is after all one of the advantages in using a managed switch like 2960s. As I have posted before the switch can also confirm the attached cable is fit for purpose on a specific port by undertaking automated physical property testing.
My view is if the physical corruption counters are zero and the test for a specific link to your streamer is positive then whatever cable is attached, whether Ethernet lead, Consumer streaming cable or home brewed twisted pair cable is fine for the given use and installation.