Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2012 21:23:58 GMT
Hi Alex, No intention of being mischievous, just thought you might like to read this as Martin Collom is said to recommend them: - theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20795I don't think I'll be ripping out all my Cat 5e and 6 anytime soon though at those prices . Dave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2012 21:41:03 GMT
Oh blimey, it's one of those threads again ...... We're doing well tonight .... me with a quote from Sennheiser and now this!!! Dave, get behind the sofa immediately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2012 21:47:42 GMT
Hi Alex, No intention of being mischievous, just thought you might like to read this as Martin Collom is said to recommend them: - theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20795I don't think I'll be ripping out all my Cat 5e and 6 anytime soon though at those prices . Dave. Dave I am aware of reports by Martin Colloms about Cat.6 sounding better than Cat. 5e for networked audio, but I have Zilch interest in networked audio.I will say it again, the moment that you copy .wav files to another location there is a small degradation in SQ. Copying .flac files to anoiher location does not result in a permanent degradation in SQ though. It may sound worse if copied to and played from an external HDD with a mediocre PSU, but if the storage device is something like a USB memory stick, or perhaps an SSD powered by a good linear PSU, then .flac files sound very close to the SQ of the original .wav file. The problems with .flac SQ come down to conversion to and from.wav, and playing them on "the fly" The better the quality of the PSU area in the device playing the .flac files, the closer to the original .wav file they sound. A general purpose PC is electrically very noisy with lots of EMI. If you want to distribute music right through the house, there will inevitably be minor SQ degradation. Wired will always be better than wireless at this stage of the game. For many people, convenience will always be more desirable than the ultimate in sound quality. Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2012 22:19:47 GMT
Ian, I have no probs considering either or both sides of the debate and am quite happy to post neutrally about either. To be even handed I have also drawn Frans' attention to the post. My only interest is to notify both parties of something that they might find interesting. Sorry to 'sound' so serious but, whilst I think we should all be free to post our opinions I think it is preferable not to do so provocatively. I have no time for fanatics of any persuasion. Here endeth today's monologue . Dave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2012 22:50:28 GMT
Dave Why is it , that you feel free to post this here in open forum addressed to me, but are highly unlikely to post it in Hoved, instead of in a private communication? If you did actually post it in Hoved, then my apologies. Alex
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 6, 2012 23:56:26 GMT
Cat5 & Cat6 are all to do with data transmission speeds (10/100/1000 etc) and have nothing to do with sound quality - See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable amongst others; network traffic is packet filtered - end of. To suggest otherwise questions logic and motive. I would though like to read the article before I give up entirely on Mr Collum's opinion; some companies do use RJ45 connectors and thus ethernet cables for I2s transmission.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 0:17:11 GMT
Cat5 & Cat6 are all to do with data transmission speeds (10/100/1000 etc) and have nothing to do with sound quality - See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable amongst others; network traffic is packet filtered - end of. To suggest otherwise questions logic and motive. I would though like to read the article before I give up entirely on Mr Collum's opinion; some companies do use RJ45 connectors and thus ethernet cables for I2s transmission. Freddy There aren't supposed to be SQ differences between USB cables either, but there are whole large threads devoted to that topic in C.A. with many people preferring similar makes of cables. The first discussion by M.C. re differences between Cat.5e and Cat.6 appeared in HiFi Critic Vol.6 no.1 There are also later discussions in HFC Forum. I can email you a copy of that article if you haven't already seen it. Alex
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 7, 2012 16:03:38 GMT
Alex.
Happy to look at the article.
Network cables operate by packets. If there is any effect on SQ it can only be a by-product of the networks operation (lower PSU demands possibly because some duplicate packets are unnecessary) and would be de minimus - if it exists at all. Network speeds at Cat5 or 6 are well in excess of audio traffic. Has anybody checked to see if the quality network audio changes in sound quality when another computer access or uses the same network (incidentally all the computers on a network send packets all the time just to say hello). Presumably Martin Collums will be soon reviewing a very expensive audio grade router !!.
USB cables operate by different protocols and particularly with synchronous systems the cable can be factor as (as far as I understand it) the data can be timing critical. I accept that. I also accept it maybe the case with a asynchronous system but again it seems to me it is a by-product or a consequence of the (synergy of the) system and USB input/clock. I accept John Kenny's knowledge and experience here as I don't really understand the in & outs of USB protocol.
I appreciate a lot of your points of view but fancy network cables is a step to far for me, particularly given the cost of the cables involved. I remain however open to persuasion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 16:34:18 GMT
Dave Why is it , that you feel free to post this here in open forum addressed to me, but are highly unlikely to post it in Hoved, instead of in a private communication? If you did actually post it in Hoved, then my apologies. Alex Alex, Oh dear, please don't think that any post I make that is not wholly in support of the subjectivist viewpoint must automatically be in support of the objective viewpoint. If Frans was still a regular member here there would be no need to post anything for him but he is not. So, knowing he has an interest in such things, I thought he would find the article of interest, entertaining even, but, not knowing the extent of English spoken on Claus' forum, not knowing whether it might be already a contentious issue there and not wanting to start another war on that forum for my 3rd or 4th post, I thought it best to just bring the article to Frans' attention - nothing more, nothing less and nothing sinister. As mentioned before, I admire Frans and respect his knowledge and the generous way in which he makes it available, in much the same way that I do you. So I shall continue to communicate with Frans, one way or another, until he gets fed up of hearing from me . Cheers, Dave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 21:08:17 GMT
Dave To be fair, you should also have posted a thread in Hoved called "One for Frans" Has anybody told you recently that you are chicken ? ;D Alex Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 21:22:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 21:33:18 GMT
Dave To be fair, you should also have posted a thread in Hoved called "One for Frans" Has anybody told you recently that you are chicken ? ;D Alex Alex, WTF are you on, or on about? I can understand medication addling an old brain, I have the same problem from time to time , but how does the subject of 'chicken' come into this? Is it that you insist on having the last word, irrespective of how relevant that word is? Rest assured, if I feel the need to tell you (or Frans) something. it will be said. If you've nothing better to say to me I suggest we both move on to something more constructive. Good Night!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 21:53:20 GMT
Dave Hook, line, and sinker ! Sleep tight. Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 22:31:59 GMT
Alex, Maybe you'll make more sense when the medication has subsided or when I get up tomorrow, 'cos you've completely lost me . G'night cobber!! Dave.
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 7, 2012 23:16:52 GMT
I had a quick look through the thread but it doesn't address the use of different types of CAT6 cables or how there could be a variance in network transmitted data. Cat5 & Cat6 cable are made to a network standard (roughly 1000mbs and 10000mbs respectively) and are not designed to transmit sound (either in analog or digital form); the posts seem to suggest they are being used for digital transmission (such as I2s ?) and reference is made to SPDIF. There is no discussion just a fight.
In fact Mr Collums provides no background beyond making a debatable statement and then advertising his article in a forthcoming magazine which he is the editor of.
I don't know the Linn kit well enough but Post #72 makes a point about sound quality. If the statement over sound quality is accepted I suspect the Linn is now operating at 1000mbs (due to the Cat6 cable over Cat5 cable) and is happier, internally, networked at that speed. God knows why given the wireless kit before it but that would be a question for Linn. Any cable to the Cat6 standard would make this difference; even the crude stuff Mr Collums refers to. If the conclusion of the article is that Cat6 cable is faster than Cat5 then its hardly cutting edge !!.
The jury is still out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 23:44:28 GMT
I had a quick look through the thread but it doesn't address the use of different types of CAT6 cables or how there could be a variance in network transmitted data. Cat5 & Cat6 cable are made to a network standard (roughly 1000mbs and 10000mbs respectively) and are not designed to transmit sound (either in analog or digital form); the posts seem to suggest they are being used for digital transmission (such as I2s ?) and reference is made to SPDIF. There is no discussion just a fight. In fact Mr Collums provides no background beyond making a debatable statement and then advertising his article in a forthcoming magazine which he is the editor of. I don't know the Linn kit well enough but Post #72 makes a point about sound quality. If the statement over sound quality is accepted I suspect the Linn is now operating at 1000mbs (due to the Cat6 cable over Cat5 cable) and is happier, internally, networked at that speed. God knows why given the wireless kit before it but that would be a question for Linn. Any cable to the Cat6 standard would make this difference; even the crude stuff Mr Collums refers to. If the conclusion of the article is that Cat6 cable is faster than Cat5 then its hardly cutting edge !!. The jury is still out. Hi Adrian As I stated earlier, I have Zilch interest in networked audio as I find that copying .wav files to another location, no matter whether cabled or wireless causes minor degradation in SQ, as does creating a "bit perfect" copy of a CD and burning another copy, unless the PC is optimised for audio, and something like a high quality Archival grade "gold" CD-R is used as well.I do burn my best CD compilations that way, but I have no stance on whether the higher quality CD-R is capable of sounding better than the original as at least one member has reported. That would depend very much on the quality of the optical device used to play the CDs. I have heard networked Audio at another member's place but it didn't do much for me. I have only replied to this thread as it was addressed to me, but as to whether M.C. is correct on this issue, I really can't say. However he has years of experience and the appropiate engineering background, and access to gear way above what I can use. Regards Alex
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 8, 2012 12:01:54 GMT
Alex.
I have read the article. It does compare Cat5e to Cat6 and thus it maybe possible (as above) that network data speed is affected by the higher specification of the cable. It does not follow that different Cat6 cables would sound different and that appears to be the premise behind the Meicord Opal.
The article does spur me onto fitting a better PSU to my PC optical drive and trying it in a CPlay 'type' clean environment; I have a spare PC case which I can strip to a minimum. Part of me wants to confirm that the rips have the same checksum and part to see if there is a noticeable difference on playback.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2012 12:14:46 GMT
Adrian I use a JLH PSU with protective relay contacts at start up, to filter the noisy SMPS to the Optical Drive, as well as preventing electrical noise getting back into the system. A cheap way to experiment is to try a C-L-C filter knocked up on a piece of PCB and a cannibalised molex to SATA lead for connections. This was the one that I used for the initial comparisons for M.C. A JLH is of course better again. A commercial product is the SOtM SATA Filter. Alex P.S. The differences are likely to be quite subtle unless you use a good quality H,A,. and preferably via a decent DAC, in which case CD can sometimes even sound like high res material if the original recording was better than average. "Yello-Bostich (Reflected)" is a good example. Even Dale heard the marked difference between 320 MP3 and 16/44.1 with that track, much to his surprise. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2012 13:10:26 GMT
Well not quite give or take a few spats between the "Old Boys" ;D I'm finding both Alex and Adrian's postings very interesting and hope Adrian gets around to testing out his spare PC optical drive power supply and letting us all know the results. Nice one Dave Regards, Alan
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 8, 2012 14:30:54 GMT
Right – Had a little time this afternoon.
Ripped the same track (Joni Mitchell - The Three Great Stimulants – off Dog Eat Dog) on 2 computers as follows,
IBM T60 laptop setup for Cplay (via CMP) and with EAC installed and running off the mains (and battery). I am using Windows XP and the installation has been thinned down – no network, audio, video drivers etc. 1.5Gb, 60GB SSD, and a mouse and USB DAC only attached to it.
AMD 3700 with loads of crap both attached and installed. This is my ‘work’ machine. It runs Windows XP in 2GB. It has 5 HDDs/SSDs and 2 optical drives and loads of add on cards. Loads running on startup and it’s a bit flakey on bootup suggesting to me the Zalman PSU is on the way out.
Used version 1, beta 3 of EAC on both. Ended up with exactly the same file size but different checksums.
File: AMD - Track03.wav CRC-32: 66f2058b MD4: c191843280dabe4bcc23df1da488f2a8 MD5: 0c07c6782e8d000799cc38cdb54113b4 SHA-1: 17110a3f9cdea92f46b93c9016b9b605fbde540d
File: T60 - Track03.wav CRC-32: c7513c97 MD4: 1f6d2d51a2d1759545e4dc3080674a6e MD5: 6a874d20672cf92396f73a00e3183bfa SHA-1: b6089c3c5ee15bba84a14764df4c13d9762c8e63
The T60 created the same checksum whether ripping off the PSU or the battery. On the T60 Cplay playback is better off the battery. Renaming the files doesn’t appear to change the checksum. I then used a free program Winmerge to view the files in hex. I have not found a good piece of free comparison software but spending 5 mins using Winmerge I couldn’t find any differences in the data lines.
I then converted the wavs to flacs and back again. The Checksums remained the same. I made a Cue for Cplay for all 4 files (2 wav and 2 flac/wavs) and played them on the T60. The T60 feeds into a modified Arcam Black Box 2 (Chevron audio input and dedicated clock and PSU) and then white noise audio 3 amp. Kimber and Wireworld cables and olimex isolator. I am sure there is better kit but I can’t afford it.
The files from T60 were copied twice (to a USB stick) and those from AMD only once; unavoidable as the T60 only has the minimum of software and I needed to move then to convert them to flacs etc.
I am tempted to suggest I could hear a difference between the T60 and AMD wav files. I am tempted to suggest the T60 files were better. I cannot say for sure however. I could not tell any difference between the originals and those converted flac and back again. I have no reason to doubt the checksums in this respect.
I do not know enough about checksums to explain why they would have been different between the T60 and AMD. A crude comparison of the files suggests the files were the same. I am moving towards the view that I will need to use one machine and fit a power filter (or external PSU) to the optical drive to see if the checksums change and if there is an improvement in the accuracy of the reading/rips. I will also ‘mess’ about with the files a bit more (zip, unzip, convert etc) until I have a well ‘worked’ copy for comparison.
As for CD writing I have number of Yamaha drives with AMQR. I have done comparisons and always found the AMQR setting to result in better reads. It increases the landing point on the pits at the expense of reduced CD run time. This makes it easier for the disk to be read. I would suggest everyone who burns their own CD compilations gets one of those drives or the Plextor equivalent.
I await constructive comments !!!.
|
|
|
Post by gommer on Oct 8, 2012 15:11:23 GMT
Only one knowledgeable comment from me about the checksum differences. They are there because every optical drive has a different offset. You can calibrate this in EAC, sacrificing a writable CD-ROM. Every EAC-calibrated optical drive should give the same checksums on the same tracks. You should also see the same checksums after PSU upgrades.
No further comments as i didn't hear Alex's differences yet (I did try though).
Cheers, Marc
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 8, 2012 15:42:14 GMT
Are we saying therefore that the only way of telling the difference between one rip and another is by doing an (objective) bit by bit comparison or by (subjective) sound quality. I am happy to try the former but the only person I would be persuading with the latter is myself.
|
|
|
Post by gommer on Oct 8, 2012 15:48:08 GMT
Ah, no, i'm not stating either way. I still believe it could be possible that identical checksummed files could sound different (based on the statements on RG). I was just explaining why you could have different checksums on the same tracks, ripped on different PC's. If you did the offset calibration, then they should still sound the same as before, but you would have 2 identical files, sounding different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2012 19:25:54 GMT
If anyone finds finds two different files... that sound the same... will you let me know?
Derek ;-)
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 8, 2012 19:41:34 GMT
If it happens I expect they will be off a Status Quo album.
|
|