advertisement


MeiCord Audiophile Ethernet Cables

Whilst I would not advocate audiophile Ethernet cables, streaming music is different to file transfer as the later includes error checking, so it doesn’t matter how many packets get dropped (and they do), the data file will just be resent until it gets there 100% intact.
 
It is worrying that there's nothing on that web page that explains why it is 'special'. At least with CAT7, you know what you're getting, and it's not much more expensive than CAT5.

Audioquest have been selling ethernet cable for audio systems for some time. Don't knock it until you've tried it . . .
 
item said:
It is worrying that there's nothing on that web page that explains why it is 'special'. At least with CAT7, you know what you're getting, and it's not much more expensive than CAT5.

Audioquest have been selling ethernet cable for audio systems for some time. Don't knock it until you've tried it . . .
Click to expand...


it is absolute Rubbish. the reason it is special is because it is bullshit. :D
 
Mike42 said:
Whilst I would not advocate audiophile Ethernet cables, streaming music is different to file transfer as the later includes error checking, so it doesn’t matter how many packets get dropped (and they do), the data file will just be resent until it gets there 100% intact.
Click to expand...

Total BS. Packets are packets, there is no concept of what the bytes represent until they get passed to the application that is receiving them. Any missing packets therefore are resent and assembled in correct order waaaaaaaaaay before they are needed to be played - in computer time that is.....
 
You can argue about IT networks until you're blue in the face, but it's not relevant.

An audio system processes in a uniquely time-sensitive fashion. Also, the cable you plug into the motherboard of your transport or DAC is a significant change in the electrically-sensitive local playback environment.

I can tell you for a fact that 'Audiophile' ethernet cables are overpriced and will never be big sellers, but there's ample scope for them to result in different performance. Then again, I would say that, of course: being part of the conspiracy.

Here's the thing: load your expectation bias on the side of them being pointless, then try one.
 
item said:
You can argue about IT networks until you're blue in the face, but it's not relevant.

An audio system processes in a uniquely time-sensitive fashion. Also, the cable you plug into the motherboard of your transport or DAC is a significant change in the electrically-sensitive local playback environment.

I can tell you for a fact that 'Audiophile' ethernet cables are overpriced and will never be big sellers, but there's ample scope for them to result in different performance. Then again, I would say that, of course: being part of the conspiracy.

Here's the thing: load your expectation bias on the side of them being pointless, then try one.
Click to expand...

More BS :D (except for the bit about audiphool cables being overpriced - which can probably be extended to anything covered by audiophoolery).
 
graham-r said:
Forget the cable for outrageous audiophoolery - have a look here, this sort of thing makes me very annoyed......

http://www.mains-cables-r-us.co.uk/power-supplies/395-mains-cables-r-us-dc-power-supply.html

I mean, it is 2-3 times the cost of the SBT !!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps the cost is down the gold plated electrons it uses.....
Click to expand...

Stop telling people they are talking bull sh*t. Its very annoying.
Streaming music generally uses UDP which doesnt have error checking. Lost music data means drop-outs and you dont get it back.
Transferring files (such a Word Doc) uses TCP which does have error checking. The fact that a Word Doc doesnt get messed up when you email it someone is not relevant because they use different internet protocols.
 
UDP does have error checking, it uses a checksum algorithm. It is limited however as it lacks the ability to detect connectivity problems that is part of the TCP/IP method.

On a more practical level both protocols were developed to cope with long distance comms, not really a problem in the home. My system uses the mains to tx the data, hardly a nice environment for the bytes but it works very well.
 
item said:
I can tell you for a fact that 'Audiophile' ethernet cables are overpriced and will never be big sellers, but there's ample scope for them to result in different performance. Then again, I would say that, of course: being part of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

If there's ample scope then why don't they at least try to explain it on website instead of the standard filler text they have used. Is there different wire in there or is it just standard twisted pair?
 
I'm very sceptical about the need for 'audiophile' grade network cables or mains cables for that matter.
I don't think using wireless for streaming music is a good idea due to the problems that can be caused by interference, reflections and the like. I used to experience all sorts of dropouts on Wireless and these were cured with a wired connection.

Once you have a high quality network connection between your player and server, which can be easily checked by running a ping test to check for packets being dropped, then there is absolutely no advantage in using a 'better' cable.

Category 6 is designed for transmitting data at Gigabit speeds between switches and hosts that may be up to 100m away from a switch. In the home, a 100Mbps connection over a category 5 cable or Powerline (which I use) is plenty good enough.

Don't forget that if you're streaming music off the Internet then the packets will have traversed all sorts of links of varying speeds and quality. Moreover, the packets may well have taken different routes to get to you. So having a bit of super-duper turbocharged nutter buster cable in the last few meters of the link isn't going to help.

If you want to spend your hard-earned cash on this sort of thing and you feel it's worth it, then great. Personally, I'd rather put the money towards something more useful like a cartridge or more music.

All IMHO of course...:)
 
erm..

cmon man. SBT uses TCP...All the data is transmitted in packets and as long as all the packets reach their destination, the order or timing of the packets is irrelevant. ..that would be TOTALLY COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. as long as the network can fill the players buffer...nothing else matters.

the SBT SQ is completely and totally independent of the server.

the amount of BS on audiophile forums is staggering.
 
Teddy Ray said:
erm..

cmon man. SBT uses TCP...All the data is transmitted in packets and as long as all the packets reach their destination, the order or timing of the packets is irrelevant. ..that would be TOTALLY COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. as long as the network can fill the players buffer...nothing else matters.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly my point. Whether it uses TCP or UDP is irrelevant in this context, as the packets will be error checked etc. before being presented to the application.
 
FYI - If the application is UDP based higher layer error recovery processing is required to recover from dropped UDP packets. This is not the case for TCP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top