People who tell you that a special ethernet cable will produce better sound quality are either lying, or they've been deceived. They may well *believe* that they're hearing a difference - but belief is not reality.

There's lots of stuff that audiophiles fall for that's silly, but ethernet cables is one of the easiest to disprove. Ethernet is transmitting a digital signal. It takes all data, breaks it into packets, and sends them one at a time. For each packet, either it's received or it isn't. There is no "received with degraded quality": it's either perfect reception or no reception at all.

The only way that sound quality carried over a digital cable can be degraded is if entire packets are lost. That's really easy to check: just put a computer on the same network, and watch for packet errors. You'll see exactly how many occur.

On a typical ethernet cable, with 2 endpoints (the signal source, and the speaker), you should see an error rate that's barely more than 0.

It doesn't matter if you buy a basic $10 cable at Radio Shack, or a $1000 magic super-quality gold cable. As far as the digital signal goes, the error rate should be damned near 0.

Same goes for HDMI, or whatever other digital system you chose. Unless you've got a highly defective cable which is dropping packets left and right, there is no difference to be heard.

Back in the day, I used to eat lunch with a guy named John Vlissides. If you're in software development, you've probably read one of John's books. He used to go off on rants about audiophiles, because he used to be one. But he was also an electrical engineer, and at one point, he wanted to prove to someone that the sound differences he was talking about really existed. So he sat down and did the math. In particular, he did the math on the "suspend your cables instead of letting them sit on a surface" which was all the rage at the time. As it turned out, the maximum amount of signal degradation on copper wires do to deformation, even dramatically over-estimating the amount of deformation, was so small that a mosquito in the room - not a mosquito's wings buzzing, but just a mosquito *in the air* between you and the speaker would produce more of an effect on the sound that the cable.

]]>MarkCC missed the point as usual. He thinks he knows the sqrt2 but I bet he does not because he does not know its digits! It's not that he can't write them; he simply knows ONLY a few of them and the number he can write using them does not equal sqrt2. Well, there are many people in this world who think or claim or pretend they know something but they don't. They just create a lot of noise behind their usernames to hide the fact they are only pretending to know mathematics. .

]]>1) There is confusion in the understanding of a number and its representation. Is sqrt2 a number? How about 1.4142...? If they are representations of some numbers, what numbers do they represent?

2) MarkCC is still unaware that a nonterminating decimal is ill-defined, nonsense, in the real number system. He can easily confirm his ignorance by WRITING the sum sqrt2 + sqrt3.

3. I told the duo of inverse19 that as long as they do not define their concepts the whole thing is nonsense. They never did.

4) MarkCC never understood my arguments in the disproof of FLT. The key arguments are: the real number system is ill-defined, nonsense, because one of its axioms - the trichotomy axiom - is false; therefore, FLT being formulated in it in it is nonsense; therefore, I fixed the real number system and reconstructed it as the consistent new real number system, reformulated FLT in it and proved it false BY COUNTEREXAMPLE. The counterexamples to FLT are now published in several peer reviewed articles among which are:

a) E. E. Escultura, The mathematics of the grand unified theory, A-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications, Vol. 71, 2009, pp. e420 – e431; doi:10.1016/j.na.2009.11.003.

b) E. E. Escultura, The new real number system and discrete computation, calculus, Neural, Parallel and Scientific Computations, Vol. 17, 2009, pp. 59 – 84.

c) E. E. Escultura, “Critique-Rectification of Mathematics”, In E. E. Escultura, ed., Qualitative Mathematics and Modeling: Theoretical and Practical Applications, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co., KG, p. 77 – 129.

If MarkCC thinks he can compose a sensible critique of my work he can break off the shell of anonymity and write a review of my articles. Of course that would expose his ignorance.

]]>