I think as an objectivist, you are looking for proof in some form of measurement but I cannot provide that. I can only say that I hear subjective differences between different ethernet cables. My hope is that others try different cables and judge for themselves.
Sometimes scientific explanation lags what audiophiles hear. One example is when audiophile transports first appeared at the emergence of the CD era. Audiophiles heard the differences in transports which was then later discovered to be the result of jitter. For a long time, great researchers like Julian Dunn suggested mathematically that we would only be able to hear to hundreds of nanoseconds. Over time, we discovered that humans can hear to single digit picosecond range.
The difference is that Ethernet is not some newly invented technology, and has a billion times more R&D spend; Data transmission technology and noise behavioural characteristics of Ethernet are extremely well understood. The modern world runs on Ethernet, and has for quite some time now.
Audiophiles and Audio Journalists are just now catching up and like to imagine they’ve found something new about how it works.
Lee, folks of course should explore options they find intriguing. But just for clarity, I am not just an objectivist, and I am not seeking measurements, though if someone were to tell me they were available, I would be all ears. I am simply pointing out that your subjective assessment itself is easily subject to proof or falsification. Doesn’t require measurements, just listening with procedures that address/reduce/remove cognitive bias. Subjective listening and assessment are enjoyable parts of our hobby, but when they are offered as proof of something, why resist testing them? I am all for combining subjective and objective methods, but when subjectivists such as yourself resist any effort at testing/replicating their hypotheses, it’s revealing.
Hi Greg, I agree with most of this. I don’t resist testing them but I can tell you that I take care in my critical listening and do my best to be thorough.
I would like you to please listen to DH Labs ethernet cable and compare it. I heard the difference in ethernet cables, however, it was more from the conductor material that is in contact more than digits being manipulated between these cables. Material and Shielding bought the difference in my experiments. All my tests are only just listening and going by ears.
You had me for the first two and then make it about the data yet again.
It’s not Lee’s job to explain why an improvement occurs nor is he duty bound to try and measure those differences; feel free to hang out at ASR if that’s what’s important to you.
It’s become clear (at least to me) it’s not that there is a difference in the data but rather there is some other factor that induces changes that affects the ultimate sound quality of the presentation.
As I explained many times before, even the noise characteristics of Ethernet cables are very VERY well understood. It’s not just about the data integrity and the OSI stack.
Everyone is completely free to post about their subjective opinions, no one can challenge that. But if you start claiming that the manufacturer is “wrong” or somehow suggest that your subjective opinion is objective fact, then expect to be challenged (and has absolutely nothing do with ASR or any other forum).
I can’t speak for Lee but I do all my listening completely sighted, it’s never been an issue.
If bias were such a strong factor, then surely I should have purchased any number of very highly rated products I wanted to like but just weren’t an improvement in my system.
Agreed, that’s not a requirement [though I always find that lack of scientific curiosity interesting]. Like everyone, he is free to share his subjective impressions. But this isn’t about ASR. It’s about being honest with ourselves. I haven’t seen anyone ask him for measurements, but I have asked what he has done to check his human biases. You can pretend all day long you’ve removed human cognitive bias from your assessment, but a sighted evaluation by definition has not. And when one asserts that a manufacturer is “wrong” in their recommendation, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to inquire and challenge. There is room here for both subjectivism and objectivism; they are not mutually exclusive. But—and this purely my POV—the more someone rejects any effort at rigor in the listening process, the less credible that assessment becomes.
If sound quality is improved, I may audition a reviewed piece to check for myself, or I may just try it if it wasn’t reviewed.
The thing is, I am curious as to why, but if there is an improvement, that’s all that matters, not whether it can be measured or the mechanics thereof.
Even as an engineer, I can speculate about what could be causing different clock cables to sound different, but ultimately have no idea.
All I know is the change from Cardas Clear to AQ WEL Signature was significant enough to be worth the price tag. (I believe that is also an area where my experience and dCS’ pronouncements on the issue differ significantly,)
The same is true for power cables. I didn’t audition one for a long time as it bothers me intellectually that they make a difference, but they clearly do and now we have more information showing how/why.
A great example of following your ears and experimentation is how Clear Image Scientific got its start, when a electrophysiologist decided to try the Shunyata cable and power filter he used on his stereo on his hospital’s gear.
As for Ethernet, I haven’t tried it personally and don’t care as much as I don’t stream and my digital data largely enters my Rossini Player via a different interface, so even if it made a night and day difference it wouldn’t be worth it to me unless the upgrade was perhaps just $50 or so.
No argument there. Indeed, there are many examples of things that can surprise and befuddle us. Power cords, yep; didn’t want to, but eventually gave in many years ago. Power itself, home networks, transmission lines, circuit breakers, analog ICs, etc.; there are many things that fit this category.
But even without knowing the why, there are ways to put our hearing to the test. Whether each of us wants to, well, that’s an individual choice.
Bill, I’m pretty sure you know that’s not what I meant. “Sighted listening” is not a test that removes human cognitive or motivational bias from the listening evaluation, no matter how much one trains one’s self, or how skilled one is at critical listening. It may be a useful input to an evaluation process, but it is not in and of itself, a test of the validity of the assessment. The test for that is a blind A/B/X process. Elsewhere, you’ve referred to this issue as “this garbage,” but these are well-established scientific principles that are foundational to testing methodology across just about every discipline imaginable.
A sighted or known comparison cannot remove human bias from its outcome. What you’ve described with the Boulder piece is not a refutation or removal of expectation bias. If anything, your recount is a demonstration of the effects of expectations on human perception. The fact that the “experiment” didn’t turn out as you expected does not mean there were no human biases in play.
“I expected to like this thing more than/less than/on its own, but did not” is not an absence of bias, let alone any other of the various human cognitive and motivational biases known to science. If anything, it just proves you’re a human sharing a subjective assessment of a known thing. That may be useful, but it’s neither objective nor unbiased (in the experimental meaning of that word).
I have used fully sighted listening where I know exactly which cable/component I am listening to, am aware of all the reviews and the price of the component for every piece in my system.
I really don’t care about A/B/X and further, believe the process is in itself flawed.
By the way, I also eschew measurements for the most part; before my Rossini APEX my CD player/DACs were all Wadia which universally measured strangely but always sounded the best and most musical.
I’m not sure why my Boulder example is that of biases at play. I read the reviews, I wanted to like it, I almost just purchased it as a blind buy and hated it within minutes of connecting it, even after letting it warm up overnight and trying it a second time.
As I said, I have a long list of such components.
For example, I never would have bought the Rossini had they not had my dealer not had the Rossini Clock available; with the Clock shut off the Rossini could not match the sound quality of my Wadia S7i (not surprising given the amount of work Wadia put into clocking and eliminating jitter using additional processing between the transport and DAC in their own player and the fact that the dCS system does what Wadia ClockLink did - ignore the clock recovered from the data stream and substitute its own for the data read from the transport.)
I have no disregard for science in this matter, but as I stated, every decision regarding my system has been as the result of a 100% sighted comparison. I knew at every point in the process exactly which piece from which manufacturer was being heard, the content of all the reviews and the price point.
(I also don’t volume match with a dB meter.)
Throw me in the snake oil camp if you like; given all my best signal cables are Synergistic Research, you may want to anyway.
