Uh oh..

[manicm]

One to get the feathers flying and test tubes thrown again.

http://andreweverard.com/2015/06/08/high-resolution-audio-now-with-added-fibre/

 

[Covenanter]

One to get the feathers flying and test tubes thrown again.

http://andreweverard.com/2015/06/08/high-resolution-audio-now-with-added...

I'm not sure it will! All Andrew is saying is that you need good cables to make a network operate well enough to carry high resolution music. If I had such a network I would do the same.

Chris

 

[manicm]

One to get the feathers flying and test tubes thrown again.

http://andreweverard.com/2015/06/08/high-resolution-audio-now-with-added...

I'm not sure it will! All Andrew is saying is that you need good cables to make a network operate well enough to carry high resolution music. If I had such a network I would do the same.

Chris

Yes but the bit perfect brigade will cut you down.

 

[andyjm]

Read the article. No axe to grind with Andrew, who by all accounts a decent chap, but he really should stay away from commenting on digital systems - or at least check with someone who knows about them first.

Ethernet / Cat5e is spec'd at 125Mb/s on a 100M cable run. Stereo 24/192 is 9.2Mb/s.

There is some overhead with flow control and error correction, but a properly connected ethernet system has 10 times the capacity of the highest of the high resolution. That is not to say in Andrew's specific case that something is adrift. Perhaps he doesn't know what he is doing, has put the plugs on squiff, or has dodgy equipment - the point is ethernet has more than enough capacity to connect up a streamer.

As for using fibre for isolation, the ethernet standard is isolated/differential. Remarkably, in that little ethernet socket are tiny transformers that isolate the ethernet connection from the network circuitry. So changing the equipment may have made a difference, but whatever Andrew was doing, it had nothing to do with isolation.

 

[The_Lhc]

One to get the feathers flying and test tubes thrown again.

http://andreweverard.com/2015/06/08/high-resolution-audio-now-with-added...

I'm not sure it will!  All Andrew is saying is that you need good cables to make a network operate well enough to carry high resolution music.  If I had such a network I would do the same.

Chris

Yes but the bit perfect brigade will cut you down.

Yes they will and they'll be absolutely right to. Ethernet is Ethernet, changing the cables cannot have any effect, anybody saying otherwise is a fool or a conman.

 

[tinkywinkydipsylalapo]

Read the article. No axe to grind with Andrew, who by all accounts a decent chap, but he really should stay away from commenting on digital systems - or at least check with someone who knows about them first.

Ethernet / Cat5e is spec'd at 125Mb/s on a 100M cable run. Stereo 24/192 is 9.2Mb/s.

There is some overhead with flow control and error correction, but a properly connected ethernet system has 10 times the capacity of the highest of the high resolution. That is not to say in Andrew's specific case that something is adrift. Perhaps he doesn't know what he is doing, has put the plugs on squiff, or has dodgy equipment - the point is ethernet has more than enough capacity to connect up a streamer.

'Read the article'? Perhaps you should do just that, since as far I can see nowhere in that article does he suggest copper cable Ethernet isn't fast enough, or that adding the fibre optic cables speeds things up.

Maybe you should stay away from commenting until you can read what's said, or at least check with someone who can do the reading for you first.

As for using fibre for isolation, the ethernet standard is isolated/differential. Remarkably, in that little ethernet socket are tiny transformers that isolate the ethernet connection from the network circuitry. So changing the equipment may have made a difference, but whatever Andrew was doing, it had nothing to do with isolation.

What he appears to be suggesting, again if you do that reading thing that seems to elude you, is that the optical connection breaks any electrical connection between the components, which can surely have the effect of breaking ground planes, avoiding any route by which electrical noise may travel from one component to another.

But good on you for assuming he's a nice chap but an incompetent buffoon, because of course whatever he did couldn't make any difference, even though

changing the equipment may have made a difference

Why don't you try explaining why there may have been a difference, then, rather than adopting the usual 'digits is digits' stance that 'anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot'?

As you said, 'Read the article'.

 

[tinkywinkydipsylalapo]

All Andrew is saying is that you need good cables to make a network operate well enough to carry high resolution music.

No, he's not saying that at all. If he was, he'd no doubt be suggesting we use some exotically-priced 'audiophool' Ethernet cable, rather some bits of computer kit made by companies with no interest whatsover in objectivist/subjectivist audio spats.

 

[andyjm]

'Read the article'? Perhaps you should do just that, since as far I can see nowhere in that article does he suggest copper cable Ethernet isn't fast enough, or that adding the fibre optic cables speeds things up.

He makes a number of references to speed increases at the end of the article when referring to fibre installation. To be fair, having re-read the article, it isn't clear whether he is comparing fibre with his WiFi installation or the original copper ethernet installation. I would call that a nill all draw.

What he appears to be suggesting, again if you do that reading thing that seems to elude you, is that the optical connection breaks any electrical connection between the components, which can surely have the effect of breaking ground planes, avoiding any route by which electrical noise may travel from one component to another.

The ethernet standard includes the use of isolating transformers, 'magnetics', to break the galvanic link between the ends of the ethernet cable - often included in the RJ45 socket. There is no ground plane linkage, and therefore using an optical link would make no difference from an electrical isolation perspective. That feels like one nill to the smart engineer guy.

But good on you for assuming he's a nice chap but an incompetent buffoon, because of course whatever he did couldn't make any difference, even though

Why don't you try explaining why there may have been a difference, then, rather than adopting the usual 'digits is digits' stance that 'anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot'?

As you said, 'Read the article'.

A lot of HiFi journalist hyperbole was just about acceptable in the days of analogue systems, but is frankly laughable when applied to digital data transfer. Given a complete lack of objectivity in the review and no reason for the changes to have made any effect, the most likely explanation is that there was no change to the audio output and expectation bias came into play.

 

[cheeseboy]

One to get the feathers flying and test tubes thrown again.

http://andreweverard.com/2015/06/08/high-resolution-audio-now-with-added...

Not really. Reading the article he's replaced his wifi connection with a wired connection and it helped stop issues, dropouts, bandwith and other associated problems. This is absolutely nothing new, but as Andy has already said, using fibre would have made absolutely no difference, especially on a 3m run.

I really wish hifi peeps would stop trying to shoehorn thier ideas into the computer realm, because quite frankly it's getting more and more emabarassing.

 

[steve_1979]

...I really wish hifi peeps would stop trying to shoehorn thier ideas into the computer realm, because quite frankly it's getting more and more emabarassing.

+1

The hifi press didn't have much credibility to start with thanks to 'reviews' of magic cables and whotnot. Now they've started doing the same with computers and other digital stuff like HDMI cables by claiming the impossible in their 'reviews' they have even less credibility than before as this is a topic that more people understand. The HiFi press is starting to look a bit desperate with this sort of thing now.

 

[tinkywinkydipsylalapo]

the most likely explanation is that there was no change to the audio output and expectation bias came into play.

As you were clearly there, what's it like in his house? Please answer on one side of the paper only, avoiding all the usual pseudoscientific objectivist clichés.

 

[tinkywinkydipsylalapo]

Andy has already said, using fibre would have made absolutely no difference, especially on a 3m run.

And that's exactly that the article said, too.

I really wish hifi peeps would stop trying to shoehorn thier ideas into the computer realm, because quite frankly it's getting more and more emabarassing.

I really wish those upon whom the red mist of objectivist fury has descended would stop trying to shoehorn their ideas into a criticism of something they have clearly not bothered reading, because quite frankly their imposition of what they think it says onto what it actually says is getting more and more embarassing.

Or is it a case of 'reading won't make any difference so I'm not even going to try it'?

 

[cheeseboy]

the most likely explanation is that there was no change to the audio output and expectation bias came into play.

As you were clearly there, what's it like in his house? Please answer on one side of the paper only, avoiding all the usual pseudoscientific objectivist clichés.

he doesn't need to. The article is pretty self explanatory as to what steps were carried out, and there was no kind of testing carried out to even try elimate any kind of bias, so it's literally just one person swapping wifi for cables then declaring how much better it is. Unless Andrew specifically carried out any kind of testing to rule out as much as possible things such as bias and placebo, then they cannot be ruled out.

(note that I wouldn't really expect him to, just that you can't categorically rule something out unless you've actually made steps to try do such a thing so it's trivial trying say it isn't placebo or bias - This applies to pretty much everything, not just hifi though)

 

[cheeseboy]

I really wish those upon whom the red mist of objectivist fury has descended would stop trying to shoehorn their ideas into a criticism of something they have clearly not bothered reading, because quite frankly their imposition of what they think it says onto what it actually says is getting more and more embarassing.

I could say the very same about that post sir tinky...

there's no fury involved, it's all observation from what I've read from a lot of hifi peeps who try to convince themselves, and others, that the digital realm falls under the same rules that the analogue one does.

Lets take a prime example so I can demonstrate what I mean - Andrew says "It’s hardly surprising given the length of cable run involved" - "So how far did I need to cover with this latest upgrade? Ummm, two metres would have done it, but I went for a 3m"

No, what is surprising that anybody would think that optical is needed for such a small run. Optical cables for networking are used for when the distances for cat 5/(e)/6 are too great. Given cat 5e (which is enough for gigabit) has a length of up to 100m, it goes to show just how misinformed those quotes I have given above are. Back in the day optical was used instead of ethernet as it also allowed greater tranmission speed, but nowadays, it's not necessarily the case.

Also, given that he then converts optical from and back to ethernet, thus not actually changing anything is also a telltale sign of somebody just playing around and not really fully understanding what and why they are doing something.

Or is it a case of 'reading won't make any difference so I'm not even going to try it'?

Not at all. If you can point to where I have said that andrew would not hear any difference I would be most obliged?

 

[cheeseboy]

Bias and placebo, placebo and bias – sorry, but you failed on the 'Please answer on one side of the paper only, avoiding all the usual pseudoscientific objectivist clichés'

I didn't use any pseudoscientific cliches, I used scientific wording. There's a big difference Both Bias and placebo are well know *scientific* not pseudoscientific references.

Remember when people had and were allowed to express opinions, rather than parroting the same old objectivist 'everyone is corrupt (oh, and stupid) except me' cant?

Again, I hope you see the irony, neigh hypocrisy of that post. If you're allowed to have and express an opinion, then so am I no?

I read the article, and I've pointed out what I think, and also inconsistances and why's. So far, all you appear to have done is attack that without actually presenting any side for yourself or perhaps providing any counter evidence or debates.

 

[tinkywinkydipsylalapo]

Bias and placebo, placebo and bias – sorry, but you failed on the 'Please answer on one side of the paper only, avoiding all the usual pseudoscientific objectivist clichés'

And as for

it's literally just one person swapping wifi for cables then declaring how much better it is

well done for actually reading it closely enough to notice that.

For a moment when I started reading it I thought it was going to be a government-funded statistically-proven test, with control groups drawn from every ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation, followed by five years of field trials (but only after the smoking dogs and rats with head-transplants stuff), but then I realised it was actually an opinion piece.

Remember when people had and were allowed to express opinions, rather than parroting the same old objectivist 'everyone is corrupt (oh, and stupid) except me' cant?

Lets take a prime example so I can demonstrate what I mean - Andrew says "It’s hardly surprising given the length of cable run involved" - "So how far did I need to cover with this latest upgrade? Ummm, two metres would have done it, but I went for a 3m"

No, what is surprising that anybody would think that optical is needed for such a small run. Optical cables for networking are used for when the distances for cat 5/(e)/6 are too great. Given cat 5e (which is enough for gigabit) has a length of up to 100m, it goes to show just how misinformed those quotes I have given above are. Back in the day optical was used instead of ethernet as it also allowed greater tranmission speed, but nowadays, it's not necessarily the case.

Not misinformed at all, but knowingly playing on just the kind of comments you have just made.

It's called irony, and since you seem to have missed it, it's not just how iron tastes, you know!

 

[tinkywinkydipsylalapo]

Again, I hope you see the irony, neigh hypocrisy of that post. If you're allowed to have and express an opinion, then so am I no?

Ah, but the difference is I express an opinion as an opinion, while you present yours as fact, backed up with the Sword of Justice and Misunderstanding.

 

[cheeseboy]

Again, I hope you see the irony, neigh hypocrisy of that post. If you're allowed to have and express an opinion, then so am I no?

Ah, but the difference is I express an opinion as an opinion, while you present yours as fact, backed up with the Sword of Justice and Misunderstanding.

Please point out which opinion I have stated as fact? Where ever possible I will back up with evidence.

 

[tinkywinkydipsylalapo]

Please point out which opinion I have stated as fact? Where ever possible I will back up with evidence.

OK let's try

No, what is surprising that anybody would think that optical is needed for such a small run. Optical cables for networking are used for when the distances for cat 5/(e)/6 are too great. Given cat 5e (which is enough for gigabit) has a length of up to 100m, it goes to show just how misinformed those quotes I have given above are.

or

given that he then converts optical from and back to ethernet, thus not actually changing anything

or

a telltale sign of somebody just playing around and not really fully understanding what and why they are doing something.

At which point I'm out of here. You're clearly showing about as much ability to read my posts as you have to read the article under discussion, and as always in these arguments the old rule of 'I don't need to try it as I know it won't make any difference' is to the fore, rendering all discussion pointless.

That, along with some ludicrous, pompous and high-falutin' idea that we're having a 'debate', when it's really just a bunch of old gits throwing cobblers back and forth on something that really matters for nothing in the great scheme of things, is what's taking all the fun out of this hobby these days.

 

[cheeseboy]

Please point out which opinion I have stated as fact? Where ever possible I will back up with evidence.

OK let's try

No, what is surprising that anybody would think that optical is needed for such a small run. Optical cables for networking are used for when the distances for cat 5/(e)/6 are too great. Given cat 5e (which is enough for gigabit) has a length of up to 100m, it goes to show just how misinformed those quotes I have given above are.

or

given that he then converts optical from and back to ethernet, thus not actually changing anything

or

a telltale sign of somebody just playing around and not really fully understanding what and why they are doing something.

ok, tried doing it inline, but couldn't get the formatting right.

point 1 - ethernet cables and standards - covered under ISO/IEC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_11801

http://www.ieee802.org/3/ - the organisation responsible for the standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable - easy reference for cat5e lengths - citations contained in the references at the bottom. I'd link to them but it's a mess if I do.

point 2 - self explanitory. If the issue is the ethernet cables, then having them at either end isn't going to change that. I could bore you by setting it up for myself and copying a load of files across to prove they are exactly the same, but I don't have the time, and I'm sure you really don't care

Point 3 - is an opinion based on the above. The evidence that I used to come to that conclusion are based in the two points above.

Do you have any opinion on the article out of interest, or is just opinions on people's opinions?

 

[cheeseboy]

At which point I'm out of here.

shame as I was looking forward to your reply.

You're clearly showing about as much ability to read my posts as you have to read the article under discussion,

how so? I've backed up what I've said with evidence and why I think what I think. The reason why I posted is because I had read the article and wanted to comment on it. I don't think you have actually commented on the article itself have you?

and as always in these arguments the old rule of 'I don't need to try it as I know it won't make any difference' is to the fore, rendering all discussion pointless.

the funny thing is I've not actually said if I've tried it or not, and you know what they say about assuming things.

That, along with some ludicrous, pompous and high-falutin' idea that we're having a 'debate', when it's really just a bunch of old gits throwing cobblers back and forth on something that really matters for nothing in the great scheme of things, is what's taking all the fun out of this hobby these days.

So now you've resulted to obiligtory ad hominum attacks. Oh well.

 

[chebby]

Some pretty strenuous defence of Andrew going on back there Tinky.

 

[chebby]

That, along with some ludicrous, pompous and high-falutin' idea that we're having a 'debate', when it's really just a bunch of old gits throwing cobblers back and forth on something that really matters for nothing in the great scheme of things, is what's taking all the fun out of this hobby these days.

So now you've resulted to obiligtory ad hominum attacks. Oh well.

I rest my case.

Where did you make your case?

 

[spiny norman]

Some pretty strenuous defence of Andrew going on back there Tinky.

I get where Tinky's coming from: he's not actually defending the guy at all, but rather berating those who don't actually bother reading something properly before launching an attack based on what they think it's going to say because all these things say the same things.

From my point of view I neither know nor care whether what Everard does to his system makes it project holographic images across the room or bring the stars down from the sky, and in fact I find myself disagreeing with his views on most equipment he's reviewed and I've heard, and if someone hadn't started this thread I probably wouldn't even have noticed the article the thread purports to 'discuss'.

But we should defend the right of anyone to give an opinion without being slated by those seemingly too lazy to make the effort to understand what's being said before launching their predictable attacks.

 

[chebby]

Some pretty strenuous defence of Andrew going on back there Tinky.

Again, if you read my comments I'm not actually defending the guy at all, but rather berating those who don't actually bother reading something properly before launching an attack based on what they think it's going to say because all these things say the same things.

I know nor care whether what Everard does to his system makes it project holographic images across the room or bring the stars down from the sky, and in fact I find myself disagreeing with his views on most equipment he's reviewed and I've heard, and if someone hadn't started this thread I probably wouldn't even have noticed the article the thread purports to 'discuss'.

But I will defend the right of anyone to give an opinion without being slated by those too lazy to make the effort to understand what's being said before launching their predictable attacks.

This time I really am out: got a very interesting wall to stare at. ;-)

Wrong user ID mate. Tinky made all those comments not you.