Ethernet systems are different. They collect bits that tell the receiver all the data has arrived. Devices, like the Bridge II, cache the data and reclock it for identical pulse widths and amplitudes, reducing the JITTER, or the random pulse width genetated using the incoming Ethernet steam.
So a recaching device listens to the awkward story told by one voice, but the electronics relistens to the story by the second voice, who in my example would be a professional story teller! It never hear the first voice. ALL the first voice needs go do is get the whole story to the second voice who is really the voice in charge. Ethernet resends data until it is accepted at the destination, so even poor cables work.True, the network through put is slower as data can be re-sent, wasting bandwidth.
For the best performance, you want a cable with the best Shannon law bandwidth. This means either type system, reclocked or not, will get data more consistently. Re clocked systems won’t really see a benefit unless the original cable was pretty bad (loss of data) this is rare as most links are SHORTER, and thus much improves the signal over the noise. This improves the BW significantly.
You can go whole hog, and use CAT7 ISTP. The 22 AWG wire, and shields that pretty much remove NEXT to -100 dB can’t be beat. The signal has no real noise to compete with. But, connectors are expensive, as is the cable, and it is larger on size and more fragile as it is a FOAM dielectric.
For UTP, look at cables like DT600E or 4800. These are the highest shannons law bandwith UTP ethernet cables Belden makes. Both are over twice the spec requirements for Ethernet.
The SOUND of Ethernet depends on the JITTER figures reconstructed in the D to A process. In my case, I use ethernet over a wall wart to the Bridge II. It reconstructs then re clocks all the data so the external network isn’t “heard”. I detect zero skips or issues at all using cat6 to and from the wall warts.
Oh, don’t use 6A UNLESS you really have 10G. 6A is designed as cat6 internal, not as good as 3600, 4800 or DT600E. The reason is the special and unique designs to reduce EXTERANAL ALIEN NEXT impact the ability to reach optimum internal NEXT figures. Only 6A needs a balance of internal to external crosstalk properties.
6A will NOT be as economical or even as good on 10/100/1000 Ethernet. It isn’t made for that. CAT7, by using ISTP design can manage both tecnologies as external and internal are reduced with the shield over each pair. Overall shields called FTP around the group of 4 pairs are for external noise, but not internal noise shielding. And, outer FTP shield reduce internal NEXT performance as the EM wave are coupled into the pairs more aggressively. But, the external FTP shield reduces EXTERNAL or alien NEXT, called ANEXT. There is a balance of internal to external noise mitigation.
Shannon law depends on, as we read, noise reduction and signal level. Using shields ALSO INCREASES attenuation. This mitigates the shannons theoretical limits since the signal is weaker due to using the shield. However, if you lose 1 dB of signal, but gain 3 dB better noise levels, it is still a 2dB improvement in signal to noise. CAT7 uses 22 AWG with shields to offset the loss where cat 5, 5e, 6 and 6A use 24 or 23 AWG in UTP or FTP. CAT 7 is a brute force design on attenuation and shielding, both. The closer a shield is to the pair, the higher the signal loss. Overall shields aren’t as bad as individual shields. Use bigger wire to compensate and less lossy foam dielectrics in CAT7.
Most so called audio grade data cables won’t, again, give you any data to determine their capability. A value called ACR, or attenuation to cross talk ratio, should go as high in frequency as possible and stay above 0 dB, where the noise and signal are the same, if a better Shannon law bandwidth is to be achieved.
This is all real data on how it is tested. I have no magic theories with no supporting data to determine if it is in any way an advantage. The signal needs to be larger than the noise. Anything that loses signal impacts the BW, such as poor impedance match to the load called return loss. And, anything that allows internal cross talk noise. The ACR value combines all this into one trace, nice!
So that’s how this is really working. You can certainly go with unproven theory that magic materials and designs are supposed to improve, but with no adherence to maxing out the fundamentals, how can the cable be better? If a theory is valid, the design should also adhere to good practice to improve ACR, does it?
Best,
Galen Gareis