Ethernet Cables and Sound

Cables
161

There´s nothing haywire i can tell in your setup.

All you need to try is to swap that last 6´cable to DSJr bridge 2 to any other cat cable brand / model and listen. Same thing basically as with power cords. The last meter ( also ) matters. I think that is approved by now,yet many people say that it is the stupidest thing they ever heard is to swap power cords. They come miles and miles through crappy cable ,and those last meters can´t effect anyhow SQ,right ? No. They matter a lot.

Point is that ethernet cables matter,as any other cable in setup and differences are easily heard. All it takes is to try.

We have tested many ,many times different cat cables,among many other things in friends systems and laughed our eyes out thinking someone thinks / believes there are no differences. LOL

To put some fuel in the fire there is some “good” reading on Audio Bacon´s: SOtM sNH-10G Audiophile Ethernet Switch Review …Quess he is crazy too :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Personally i like that Measurement Moron chapter…But it goes to listening audio only,otherwise measurements are needed and important in many areas :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
162

The digital system IGNORES ground noise, it is DIGITAL. The system looks for a legal HIGH or legal LOW and encodes that as a zero or a one…thus the noise is immaterial UNTIL it is louder than the signal. Modern Ethernet cable and systems are DESIGNED to prevent the situation such that the BER, Bit Error Rate, is essentailly perfect.

And, the simple diagram is in NO WAY what a PAM 5, Pulse Amplitude Modulated digital stream looks like Encoded. It is far, far worse looking than that yet modern Ethernet systems work flawlessly a up to 100 meters of signal attenuation of approx. 20 dB or more for 5e at 100 MHz BW spectral energy.

The illustation is well wishing as to how digital works. Once a LEVEL is reached, it snaps to a one or zero, no noise is there at all, it is left behind since the BER is relative to the noise floor!

A digital TV is so great because of this. The picture is perfect…or you get BLOCKING blanks where the signal is “gone” but never noise. Analog you get noise AND the picture, both at the same time. Digital avoids this problem. I can get 720P off air with a perfect picture until the noise floor is violated for a proper BER. Never with analog can I see a picture like digital as the noise IS PART OF THE SIGNAL and there is no way to separate them out. I see “snow” with the picture. Digital can, and does remove the noise.

The graphic is simply not how it works. If analog NOISE is superimposed “on” the signal AFTER the DA, it is happenng locally and after the Ethernet I/O has transferred the data to the DA circuit. Can noise be filtered through the circuit, and at such a frequency to alter the analog signal? Possibly. But there are low pass filters galore in DA circuits to kill RF nosie and it is RF, not something that a 20 Khz and below analog signal would ever pick up. Why? Because the ENERGY needed to move low frequency noise goes UP with lower modulation rates. Too much energy would be needed to overcome the losses at such low frequencies. Low RF frequencies can go THROUGH things, but can’t go FAR. Where higher RF can go far, but not THROUGH things (buildings).

We need to evaluate HOW the analog signal is being superimposed with noise, and at a such a frequency that it is audible. RF is all around you, do you hear it? The same RF modulated through your speaker as a “signal” (it can’t be done, by the way as speakers aren’t good enough) can’t be heard, either. Can the beat frequencies reach down to the audible range, this is the requirement to be heard? Again, that can be measured.

The argument, I say argument as there is no date that I’ve seen, is that NOISE comes THROUGH the Eternet cable and “jumps” to the analog side of the DA converter and the beat frequencies (it is far, far too high a frequency to directly impact what we hear) of several harmonics and each harmonic attenuated considerably by the way eventually reaches the audio band. Thus, we “need” galvantic isolators on the the Ethernet side.

Show me the hobboes jumping the train and ruining the party. Let’s put some data onto this good or bad. I don’t see a shread of evidence to measurement wise evalate the signal quality we have now, let alone the FUD. What do we MEASURE, and where, that we can? What do we see? Made-up graphs need not apply that misrepresent how digital circuit encoding works.

We should be working harder at establishing a REAL basis for the signals that we are getting through the system, and not hiding behind ignorance and made-up charts. The answers needed to be better won’t come out of that line of thinking.

My ears say that the analog SOURCE is most important that is digitized, and not any errors in a 24/196 digital format or the ethernet used to move it around. analog can’t be anything but the superimposed signal + noise. Show me the added noise outside of the source and then we can find the source of that noise now that we have the signature of the unwelcome guest.

Maybe MAGICO and like metal speakers sound good because RF can’t get “onto” the signal inside? Aluminum foil boys, aluminum foil on everything!

Best,
Galen Gareis

4 Likes
163

I forgot I also have a GigaFOIL isolator between the last switch and the DSjr FWIW.

164

@rower30 After reading this technical paper available on Penn State’s website (A Ham’s Guide to RFI, Ferrites, Baluns, and Audio Interfacing), which discuss RFI on various cable types - including ethernet - I get the impression that ethernet cables could make an audible difference in a music playback system. The discussion is not about digital data integrity, which I feel we can all agree is not the issue based on your discussions, but the cable itself acting as an antenna for RF trash and how that is dealt with (or not dealt with) in the cable or transmitting and receiving devices. It seems that the cable construction and its length are factors on how well the ethernet cable acts as an antenna and how that could be passed on to our sensitive equipment, such as our DAC’s. Here is a picture of a “high end” ethernet cable I purchased that has two “devices” on the cable line between the Telegartner connectors that makes me wonder if these are devices similar to what is described in the section of the article I included below. Or maybe they are just branding/decorative. Regardless, I would like to hear your thoughts on this article which seems to highlight a potential environmental problem (even with Ethernet cabling) and has nothing to do with the bitperfect argument.

IMG_0992
IMG_09923024×4032 2.25 MB

Here is a snippet from Page 12 specifically discussing Ethernet cabling, but the entire article needs to be read to get the gist:

A simple design problem Now let’s do some engineering work using what we’ve learned so far. Suppose that we have an Ethernet router that is radiating trash as a common mode signal on the Ethernet cable that we’re hearing on 30-10 meters (as it turns out, this is a very common problem). Figs 18 and 19 tells us that 9 turns of the Ethernet cable around a 2.4" o.d. toroid made of Fair-Rite #31 or #43 material will give us at least 2k ohms choking impedance between 10 MHz and 30 MHz. How much that choke reduces the radiated noise will depend on a lot of factors, including the common mode output impedance of the router, how long the Ethernet cable is (and thus its impedance), and the common mode input impedance of the Ethernet device on the other end.

48%20AM

Fig 20 is a simplified equivalent circuit for our Ethernet problem. Note that it’s drawn as if one de- vice is a transmitter and the other is a receiver, but any box that includes digital or RF circuitry is a potential generator of RF trash. The common mode input and output impedances of the Ethernet boxes are unknown, and they have at least some connection, maybe DC, maybe capacitive, to the green wire at the AC outlet. Without the choke, the impedance of the antenna circuit (the Ethernet cable and its return path) determines the current. So to achieve good suppression, we simply need the impedance of the choke to be much higher than the series combination of the antenna and the paths to “ground.” But – hold on a minute – what’s hiding behind that ground symbol?

00%20AM
00%20AM705×302 21.8 KB

Fig 21, which includes the impedance of the path to “ground,” makes it clear that there can be a lot of variables in this simple problem. Each of the X terms may be capacitive or inductive, and they will have different values at every frequency. Every wire in that series circuit will function as an an- tenna, radiating any noise current that it carries. Does that mean we must throw up our hands? Of course not. But it clearly shows why coming up with a number for how much suppression a given choke will yield is not a simple matter. Indeed, the best way to learn that for any given circuit is to wind a choke that provides the greatest impedance in a practical package and try it!

Do we need chokes on both ends of that cable? The answer is, it depends. The Ethernet devices on each end of the line are both potential generators of RF trash (because they both include digital electronics). We also need to look at the length of the series circuit that includes the Ethernet ca- ble. If the cable is shorter than about λ/10 at the highest interfering frequency, a choke roughly near the center of the cable may be entirely sufficient. A cable that is electrically longer than λ/10 (or is radiating VHF trash) is far more likely to need chokes at both ends. And the chokes that work at VHF are very different from the toroidal chokes that work at HF.

In the simple circuit above, the Ethernet transmitter can be seen to feed an unbalanced dipole, where the Ethernet cable is half of the dipole and a connection to “ground” via the power supply is the other! Fig 21 makes it clear that the current path is also a loop. We must never forget that our invisible “ground” circuit can be part of the antenna circuit, contributing both its length and radia- tion to the problem. And if the Ethernet device is a switch or hub that has multiple outputs, the Ethernet cables connected to each port become part of the equivalent circuit, and because each output includes a line driver, the cables connected to each output need suppression.

The dc power supply for that Ethernet router may also be a source of noise, and there are two an- tennas connected to it – the AC power line and the dc power cable going to the router. Are either or both of these cables likely to need treatment? To answer this question, let’s look at their likely behavior as antennas. In a typical home, the AC power line is probably 30-50 ft long by the time it reaches the breaker panel that feeds it, which is long enough to be a pretty good antenna on 10-30 MHz, so my next choke would go on the power line side of that power supply. On the other hand, the cable between the power supply and the router is only 3 ft long, which means that it is unlikely to be a good antenna below 30 MHz. So if I hear any noise on 10 meters after I’ve put chokes on the Ethernet cable and the power line, I’ll try a fairly small choke (7 turns around #31 or #43) on the dc power cable.

Ethernet trash comes in (at least) two common forms – multiple carriers of relatively constant am- plitude, but with some modulation (birdies), and broadband hash. The clocks are generated within the Ethernet hardware, so frequencies vary slightly from one Ethernet box to another. In almost any residential neighborhood, you’ll hear clusters of Ethernet birdies around 10,107 kHz, 10,122 kHz, 14,030 kHz, 18,106 kHz, 18,120 kHz, 18,167 kHz, 21,052 kHz, 21,113 kHz, 21,174 kHz, 21,221 kHz, 21,282 kHz, 21,343 kHz, 24,878 kHz, 24,945 kHz, 28,016 kHz, 28,060 kHz, 28,120 kHz, 28,182 kHz, 28,244 kHz, 28,304 kHz, 28,366 kHz, 28,427 kHz, 50,044 kHz, 50,058 kHz, 50,105 kHz, 50,120 kHz, 50,148 kHz, 50,166 kHz. There are certainly more, but these are some I’ve found (nearly all of my operation is CW).

In any cluster, some birdies will be louder than others, depending on the behavior of the Ethernet cables as antennas, the nastiness of the Ethernet boxes, and the proximity to your antennas.

165

Note they’re only covering specific frequencies within that amateur radio bands, there will be similar frequencies all the way up.
…but if this is the problem (or picked up RF from other sources) then we have an easy fix - just go optical.
For audio we are stuck with crappy TOSLINK but for ethernet optical cables / transceivers are relatively cheap.
All the streamer makers need to do is build in an optical LAN connect and that should be the problem solved?
.

166

That is why I run a GigaFOILv4 and a 16" ethernet cable from the GigaFOIL to my music server - to eliminate (GigaFOIL) then reduce (ultra short cable length) any RFI before hitting the music server.

2 Likes
167

Well I’m with Galen Gareis in terms of noise, noise can cause dither, but that would be dither in the reception of ethernet frames, which is not a thing since ethernet frames are not time-critical (within certain bounds), it still shouldn’t impinge on the decoded audio signal.
Nevertheless a lot of folks on here are hearing differences, so I’m tending to discount individual hallucination!
I would be very interested to hear if anyone on here has a music streamer with a direct optical LAN input, meaning the only electrical noise that can be present in the streamer must come from inside, or via any other cables or inputs to it.
If anyone has such a thing, then changing ethernet cables upstream of the “last” leg (which is optical) ought not to make any difference at all.
step by step experiments to locate the source or sources of the problem :slight_smile:.
.

168

I can tell you in a few weeks. The Pink Faun streamers are in the testphase with internal optical ethernet. The card is powered directly from the internal powersupply and the standard clock on the card is replaced by an ultra ocxo clock.

My own PinkFaun streamer is behind an external optical ethernet converter, plus galvanic isolators on the copper ethernet cables. Still everything inside the steamer is important. For example when I stream music from the internal SSD which is connected with a pinkfaun sata cable and a separated powerboard inside the streamer. Or I stream the same file from another SSD same type same powerboard but a standard sata cable you can hear a clear difference. When I change the powercord of the streamer you can hear a clear difference.

As you can read I mentioned the ocxo clock and I know ethernet is not time critical, but they still have a jaw dropping effect.

When you combine al the upgrades in a dedicated network. I promise you can’t stop smilling for a week :smiley:

169

First, RF cables have the SAME impedance at ANY length. It is the value of the CHOKE to RF that varies.

Second, the ferrite chokes and such are BUILT-IN to most all circuit blocks that might need them to pass FCC emissions test which are VERY strict for consumer electronics, and no, they are for RF devices that are most effected by strong EMI/RFI, not our hi-fi.

Third, it is cute that it is assumed we have all this “trash” flying around so we can pretend we have a problem. SHOW ME THE DATA THAT OUR ANALOG sources are impaced in ANY way at all…something other than the supposition we have isses that aren’t already solved by the FCC compliance regulations. Please, ANYTHING that this REAL and or FUD.

This article looks legit, but it is empty from a factual standpoint that we have a problem, and anything in it moved the problem from A to B in severity. Let’s see how it impacts ANALOG signals. The FCC already makes sure it is moot at RF.

Sure, a CHOKE is an open to RF. Stick them on there…it won’t hurt. Sure, an optical connection is a galvantic open so stick one in there, won’t hurt either.

Ethernet cables a TERRIBLE antenna’s in order to reduce pair to pair inductive coupling. The design that mitigates pair-to-pair NEXT also reduces electromagnetic EMI/RI ingress and egress, both. So no, your Ethernet is NOT a very good transmit or receive antenna. It is made to be the opposite.

CAT 6a is different. It needs to mitigate external noise more than slower system as it cannot be cancelled as it is “unknown” to the auto correction circuits. RL, or internal Reflected signals Loss, can be corrected with the NIC cards. 6A uses added noise mitigation between cables at crazy low levels as it uses PAM16 encoding so voltage levels get really TIGHT. Less noise is required BETWEEN cables.

UL can do antenna test site emissions tests, and we did those with Ethernet cables. They pass fine. Electronics are tested all the time to insure compliance, this is not the wild west by any means.

Best,
Galen Gareis

2 Likes
170

I’m not discusing if we HEAR it, I’m discussing the MEASUREMENTS that can be correlated to the audio band. What CHANGES in the analog signal are presented as “solved”. If it measures better it can indeed sound better. I can’t get past no measurements that say better is better, but we all pretend it is better. OK, WHERE is it better? We site all kinds of places RF is the big evil and like magic, not a one can show measured improvements. The FCC measures them every day.

Best,
Galen Gareis

1 Like
171

I would say the article IS “legit,” not merely “looks legit.” It is hosted on the Penn State website and the individual who authored it has quite an impressive background. In case you hadn’t noticed it, here it is:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jim Brown got interested in music and radio as a teenager, falling in love with jazz and Bach, and qualifying for his Novice license (WN8FNI) before his 14th birthday. Three years later he obtained Amateur Extra Class and First Class Radiotelephone licenses, and entered the Electrical Engineering program at the University of Cincinnati. He received the BSEE in 1964 and has worked in broad- casting and professional audio since 1960. Since 1985, his consulting practice has specialized in the design of sound systems for worship, performance, and sports facilities. More recently, his fo- cus has expanded to include research and consulting on EMC.

Jim is a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society (AES), and a member of the Acoustical Society of America, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, and the Society of Motion Picture and Television En- gineers. He has presented invited papers and workshops to all of those societies, and to the IEEE EMC Symposium. He is a member of the AES Technical Committee on Acoustics and Sound Rein- forcement, and the AES Standards Committee’s Working Groups on Microphones, Intelligibility, Acoustic and Sound Source Modeling, Digital Audio Transmission, and Audio Interconnection. He is Vice-Chair of the AES Standards Committee Working Group on EMC and Chair of the AES Tech- nical Committee on EMC. After 42 years in Chicago, he relocated in 2006 to Santa Cruz, where he is active on the ham bands as K9YC, and recently served a term as Vice-President of the Northern California Contest Club.

RFI does exist despite FCC regulations. This “trash” has been reported by audiophiles in various forms. Haven’t we all heard our cell phones affect a car stereo at some point in our lives in the form of “actual” audible noise in the car speakers when an incoming phone call comes in? Have we not all heard a story where an audiophile has heard an FM radio station in their home stereo system despite them not owning a radio. Do wireless routers not emit any RFI?

Regulations are regulations but that is no guarantee every device is compliant. What it means is the FFC can issue fines to manufacturers of non-compliant equipment, but that is NO guarantee that all devices in the consumer market are ACTUALLY compliant. In other words, there is codified law present in every state to prevent criminal activity. Does that mean there are no crimes occurring in our society?

The FCC in its own published statement declares that NOT ALL devices are tested:

Almost all electronic-electrical products (devices) are capable of emitting radio frequency energy. Most, but not all, of these products must be tested to demonstrate compliance to the FCC rules for each type of electrical function that is contained in the product.

You and Jim Brown seem to differ in your opinions on RFI and its affect on audio. And yes, he does make reference to “audio equipment” and “Hi-Fi” in his article. Two differing opinions by two experienced experts, neither of which have provided “MEASUREMENTS” to substantiate their claim. Until measurements, PROVING or DISPROVING either side of the argument, we are still dealing with theory (how can anyone verify the absence of RFI in every audiophile household?). In all fairness, Jim Brown was not given an opportunity to provide measurements as we are just referencing a single article he authored. Until DATA/MEASUREMENTS/EVIDENCE is presented on either side of the argument, how can we as non-EE listeners assume RFI is or isn’t a problem? The demand for measurements to be produced by the opposing argument is a two-way street. If RFI is not a problem, specific, relevant measurement data should be presented to support such a claim. Having read Jim’s article, it appears measuring the effects of RFI on equipment is no simple task and requires extremely specialized (and most likely VERY expensive) equipment. Until such indisputable evidence is presented, “theory” is still in play.

We can trust audiophile’s ears to detect differences in speaker and IC cables (i.e. Iconoclast) but all of the sudden aural sensorial observation has no credibility when it comes to Ethernet cables (and other ethernet-based devices) and the perceived sound differences they are reported to bring?

2 Likes
172

Sorry, No data or factual repeateable conclusion means they article is NOT useful. Please, look at thing objectively. What is the OBJECTIVEof the paper"? How RF effects our beloved AUDIO? No, it doesn’t show measurements to do this. Where is the factual proof that this is the case, how as he solved it and what measurements are used to show it?

Find THAT in this so called “paper” and I’m all in. Until then, it is of no use to anyone to clinically repeat other than FUD. So no, I see no actual process to show how “noise” is changing audio. You can’t even sell equipment in the USA that does not pass FCC emissions to class A standards, that are very stiff.

The FCC limits are MEASURED and not just hypotesized in paper with virtually no actual cause and effect to audio. it HAS TO CHANGE the audio in a negative fasion to be a problem.

The paper does NOT show that RF is a probem for audio. It sure does a good job GUESSING that it “might” be. I have no use for guessing with no true data to support the theory.

I don’t care about credentials, just what people do. He didn’t do it…yet, prove EMI/RFI impcts audio with repeatable results. I don’t care if it is “audible” as some will and won’t her repeatable results. But no one will hear NO RESULTS.

So far, I hear ZERO digital issues in my system that isn’t just firmware driven.

Best,
Galen Gareis

173

Hi Galen,

I was once in the beta testgroup for the PWD2. We have tested maybe 20 different versions of firmwares that were to find out which sounded good and not so good. That time PS audio had no clue what caused the differences. So it was brute force to find out.

Noise, interference, switching noise etc is not always audible in a form of hiss. I think it’s mostly blurring the picture which we do not know it is blurred until we unblur the picture. It’s more like a picture taken with a high grade 20 megapixel camera and it’s only showing the quality of a 3.2 megapixels camera. You can’t see noise but still the picture is not optimal.

The source of switching noise is probably not 1 source, but 100 sources. Think about al the electronics in a computer, routers and switches and even our audiosystems. Almost every component generates noise on different frequencies. Al this noise together forms a blurred layer that disturbs the soundstage, the clearance between instruments, etc.

I’m for 99% sure that the differences between firmwares are related to noise. If for example a firmware needs more computing power or a programm cycle takes more time, we get different levels of noise.

Still I realy like to find out if it is measurable.

Best regards,
Wijnand

174

Forget the paper. Let’s just focus on what has been presented thus far, by you, in your assertion that RFI/EMI doesn’t/can’t affect what we hear in our audio playback systems. As I mentioned in the prior post Galen, you yourself do not have data - or at least you have not presented it - to substantiate your claim that EMI/RFI isn’t a problem in home audio as you proclaim.

And no, the FCC does not test every device. Yes, they have strict guidelines but as I stated before, that is a deterrent and not necessarily a prevention mechanism. And even if they did, I’m sure there are factors such as aging devices, variances in manufacturing, unreported changes in design and a slew of other “off the record” situations the FCC could never manage, especially when we are consider “boutique” or “handmade” gear many of these smaller “mom” and pop" companies are building and selling. The FCC is not the RFI police. They establish guidelines and standards and have the ability to fine IF they happen to come across a non-compliant product line. Having spent 20.5 years of my life working for the government, I am certain the FCC has much bigger fish to fry than stray RFI emitted from devices in ones home.

You vehemently subscribe to the MEASURABLE data camp as well as the idea that “if it can’t be ‘measured’ then it can’t be heard.” Yet, as others before me have pointed out, your various metallurgical speaker and IC cable options measure the SAME - your words, not mine. So, how is it that YOU, and most everyone else on this forum can hear a difference? It seams this “measurable therefore audible” notion is being selectively applied.

1 Like
175

The FCC does indeed have circuit design standards that need to be adhered and yes, they indirectly test all RF devices to standards. And yes, you have a monitor that uses a cord with a RF choke to mitigate RF that cord needs to be captive, not IEC socket. Saying you work for the government has zero influence on knowledge of how the FCC works. My wife worked for the government for 35 years, and I asked her about the FCC. I supose you know the answer. A man has to know his limitations - Clint Eastwood. Over stepping your knowledge base is one of those things.

All systems are indeed DIFFERENT, but I’ve seen absolutely ZERO evidence of ANY sort on the analog side that shows external digital EMI/RFI impacting audio. Yes, INTERNAL jitter can change the audio based on how the data is converted, but this is well understood and the measurements show that jitter reduction improves data interpolation. Fact is, we have a significant circuit that is analog, and that EMI/RFI is relavent to that side too, not just the digital side. If digital puts more “noise” on the analog side, we can measure the superposition of this “injection” of noise at the DA output side. I agree noise is cumulative in the ANALOG domain, not the digital where BER is the same until the noise gets to known, nd calculated, limits. Heaven hhelp us if that’s not true or Ethernet would not work in real time, and has for decades. All ths is in the specifications for the cable, it is not a guess.

As far as me saying SPECIFIC ICONOCLAST data measures the same, ABSOLUTELY! The Rs , R, L and C are identical between coppers in ICONOCLAST. Please tell everyone exactly that, it will help me save some time doing it myself. The electromagnetic DESIGN is what is responsible for the improveents, and I measuured each differing design for those improvements. The improvements stay put, hear them or not as they are REAL. EVERYONE can measure the changes, not just “me”.

I have ZERO data to MEASURABLY show that different coppers are more “correct” than another. I do know wider BW cable, and zero R, L and C are better, you bet I do. I have the data to show the changes, too. The fact I can’t measure copper, is WHY I suggest prudence in your evaluations. The electromagnetic DESIGN is doing the heavy lifting and is shared across the line, the copper is a patina kind of change.

Copper is a transparent CHOICE and the cost associated passed on. I in no way support one copper over another on an ideal measurement basis, like I can support the overall electromagnetic design. What is happening that is better or worse? We have little evidence how the EM wave is superimposed “better” or “worse” bed on the copper draw science. We do know factual changes (most all are physical), not really what they do electromagnetically.

Pretending that our EMI/RFI “problem” is so diverse as to be incompatible with true engineering is almost a sure bet that you will be taken advantage of. I refuse to be part of that kind of markting.

Each change, yes even little ones I agree, that is REAL is a move in the right direction…maybe not from a COST standpoint but a measurements standpoint. Basic system changes (bi and tri amp speakers with no passive x-overs is way better than passive speaker designs if they were to be more available and understood, for example) can jump in performance more than the cost would lead you to expect. That’s nice. The order of what we know is important.

This is indeed ALL ABOUT the measurements. If not, then WHAT are we doing! I can’t charge you for (well, I could but won’t) baseless theories with zero evidence of any sort of improvements.

So no, I do not use an uneven hand on evidence based changes. Not mine, not anyone else’s. I can assure you this, nothing will get better with baseless claims and theories. I judge people by what they DO, and not what they SAY. Do it, and then show the community a real benefit to audio and I’m all in for better and better design standards, just like the FCC, that drives more and more compliant and better devices based on proven noise mitigation techniques.

Am I measurement based? You bet I am, and for that you have ICONOCLAST that was driven by measurements. The changes I isolated had to be PROVEN, to me first of all, to be connected to what I heard. The far better extended and fast sound of ICONOCAST is because of three things that are MEASURED;

  • far better Rs impedance above 5 KHz extending the linear BW to 20 KHz.
  • better speaker cable impedance matching at the low end…but far from “ideal” that is not going to happen at audio.
  • low inductance to improve PHASE that external sources have also verified but yes, speaker phase is far worse…but I’m responsible for the cables. The balance of capacitance and inductance determine which end of the systm is worse, the amp or the speaker.

To get those above changes, serious desig changes needed to be used. No amount of “theory” would fix it. I had to DO it.

And yes, it is excellent cable and at WAY better prices than adding “theory” and hiding it all behind what I KNOW is working, and increasing the price to silly valuations. And, I tell YOU exactly what is working with MEASUREMENTS. How exctly is this someone not pulling for the consumer as a fudiciary to your experiene and prudent use of hard earned dollars?

If you want another romantic that pretends nothing is measurable and everything from the paint on your walls is responsible (trust me, it might be?) than no, I am not your man. But, this industry has plenty of those but something is real funny, most true component excellence products are DESIGN and measurement based. Where the component(s) are influencers (what capacitors you use and all that) the designers admit defeat but do say there is more to MEASURE about that component to describe it, just not today. The underlying desing as to be excellent for those tertiary variables to gain importance. And yes, they are REAL if we hear them and as such, measurable…somehow.

So my answer is we have to START a consistent basis of measured design to move forward as random guesses aren’t answers, and can’t be universally applied to all designs, and where it may ONLY be a benefit under specific cases so why buy it if it is useless to you?

I’m sorry if buying $$$ products with zero design evidence makes you uncomfortable. If it doesn’t make you uncomfortable and you can afford it then ignore me and those like me that are pulling to provide REAL improvements regardless of what you think of us evil evidence based designers are doing. The part that you did buy is provided by those that want REAL improvement, so you have to deal with us anyway.

My credenial aren’t academic they are what I do. Go to USTPO office and search for Galen Gareis. I do things that work. Many things I do don’t work…and you learn from those things. Theory is only a temporary condition of insanity. Eventually you at least have to define it in a repeatable, evidence based experiment. One that upholds the outcome of an experiment…maybe not the WHY but at least the RESULT.

When I see that on EMI/RFI noise. I’m in. Untl then we need to do the experiments to concusively show the outcome, and look for the mechanism that drove that outcome. Audio is far from overcoming the scientific process.

Best,
Galen Gareis

1 Like
176

We can trust audiophile’s ears to detect differences in speaker and IC cables (i.e. Iconoclast) but all of the sudden aural sensorial observation has no credibility when it comes to Ethernet cables (and other ethernet-based devices) and the perceived sound differences they are reported to bring?

No, I do not trust people to hear a difference at all. I trust the DESIGN MEASUREMENTS to show improvenets that can, and do, show wider and better cable measurements. It can’t sound better if it isn’t measuraby better THAT is what I trust. ICONOCLAST was NOT a “theory”.

I know this bugs people in high-end audio but that’s not my issue. I made them for myself, so false theory and random causation won’t pass corporate inspection, not the USTPO.

Do the measurenent of the design work in use? For that you need to use them but…there are significant changes that say they are indeed better cables.

The FCC does indirectly test all EMI/RFI devices as you have to PASS random inspections!! Same as Ethernet cable labeled “UL verified”. Of course every cable is not tested. But every cablehas to pass. Symantics need not apply.

Let’s not get into this silly argument that if we can’t measure it can be can be true stuff based on a thought often called a “theory”. I’m 100% not sensitive to that. I’m sensitive to proving a consistent outcome, and defining the mechanisms for that outcome. I did this for 35 years, the scientific method moves us forward. Wishful theories don’t. They need to be the start of a PROCESS or let’s move on to one we can turn into a process.

I don’t make digital equipment, and rest assured if I did you would be buying ZERO theories. I don’t sell theory. I sell results of a DESIGN, you deserve exactly that.

How are we to proceed using your methods? I’m curious.

Best,
Galen Gareis

1 Like
177

Well, then she can clearly confirm the point of my statement, which if you read it correctly and applied appropriate content, had nothing do with me professing to be an FCC interworking expert and everything to do with my knowledge of governmental agencies along with their existing constraint of being under-funded and over-tasked. That is what I said, nothing more… .nothing less.

As far as the points I made prior, you demand MEASURABLE DATA from those opposing your opinion on this matter. I would ask the same of you. Where is your measured, empirical data to support your position in the same way you demand the same from everyone else.

This is my point, Galen. You come off hypocritical when you take such a rigid stance with regard to measurable data, only to dodge the issue when it comes to marketing your different metallurgical Iconoclast cables. How can you not agree that there are situations in which a sound differences are observed despite what the measurements, or lack thereof, show?

I mean listen to yourself…

Yet you admit your various cable offering sound different due to the type of copper. I ask again, where are your measurements that correlate this difference in sound?

I appreciate your diatribe, but at the end of the day, it still does not address the two main points of my last posting and that has to do with the fact that you market products that measure the same, but sound different, but you seem to be OK with that despite your otherwise hardline stance.

You demand that anyone challenging your opinions produce measurements, yet when I ask you to do the same to support your opinion that RFI/EMI is not a problem, you tap dance around the issue - only making generalized, unsupported statements such as this:

Sticking to sound scientific processes here, I have to ask… Are you saying that because YOU have not seen any evidence, therefore the problem CANNOT exist? Could it be that research into this particular topic has not yet been conducted? Or, could it be we do not have the level of sophistication in process or equipment to take such measurements at this time, therefore no data exists?

I must write off your proclamations due to circular reasoning. You have not provided the foundation to move it from opinion to fact. Just because you haven’t “seen” anything to counter your opinion, does not provide an appropriate burden of proof. It merely provides you comfort in your opinion.

3 Likes
178

There is simply too much subjectivism in this statement to even begin, but there are a couple questions I must ask… How do you define “Better Sound?” And how do you “measure” how and why your idea of “Better Sound” can never align with 100% of the audiophile community?

The same dilemma is present in the culinary industry. We don’t all eat the same genre of food, nor do we all enjoy our ribeye cooked to the same temperature. If one prefers rare over medium-rare, who is right? These steaks surely “measure” different but how does that translate to “Better Taste.”

Regardless of how much you want to measure everything and sell your products based on measurements, therefore saving the audio community from products that don’t come shipped with included measurement data, there is a great deal of subjectivism in this hobby and there is simply no math or measurements that can define what each of us as individuals enjoy in the music we listen to.

I bet the vast majority of the members in this community adore the systems they’ve poured their hearts and souls into, yet most don’t have - and don’t need - any sheet of measurements in order to make a determination if it sounds great or not. And their idea of “great” has no relevance to your opinion of “great,” or anyone else’s opinion of “great.”

It is obvious we will never see eye-to-eye on this subject matter Galen, and that is ok. I am not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but the method in which you market your products on this vendor-specific forum, preaching numbers/data/measurements as the only way, is off putting. You have to be comfortable with the fact that there are those who quite frankly don’t care about any of that. Are they wrong? I surely hope your answer to that question is, “no,” otherwise I respectfully suggest you seek a career outside of customer service.

Trust me, most of us don’t need you to save us from ourselves when it comes to audio equipment purchases. We do appreciate your input and expertise. You have several very happy customers here in the forum who are elated with their Iconoclast cables. At the end of the day, we are big boys and girls and make buying decisions based on what makes us happy. That said, you show little tolerance to those that don’t agree with your “measurements first” approach to audio. Showing a little constraint and tolerance toward those that express a subjective opinion other than yours would be my strong suggestion. You are an absolute expert in your field, which I respect greatly. However, sometimes, showing some restraint and keeping the ego in check goes a long way to get people to listen. After all, you come off more as a vendor than you do a personal audiophile on this is a forum of folks whose main goal is to have “fun” with this hobby, not be brow beat with science.

Never forget, music enjoyment and appreciation is subjective and personal and while science can help some find their happy place, measurements is no guarantee the sound will be appreciated by any and all. I’ve had plenty of expensive amps in my system that measured exceptionally, yet they didn’t sound good. How can that be?

3 Likes
179

Here, surely, is the clash in our hobby between those who want it to sound accurate, whereby quality means no impact or change to the signal apart from magnitude, vs. those who are less concerned about accuracy and more interested in an impressive, immersive, enjoyable sound.
Both valid and worthy goals, but not necessarily the same goals.
.

180

“…and don’t call me Shirley”
.

3 Likes