Transport vs long balanced cables

Hi Everyone,

Any thoughts on using a transport vs long balanced cables? To make things more complicated, any thoughts on using an ethernet cable's twisted pairs to carry analogue balanced signals in place of dedicated XLR/TRS cables?

The three setups in mind are:

(A) PC - router via CAT8 - transport via CAT8 - DAC - short balanced cables - preamp

(B) PC - USB cleanser - DAC - 100ft balanced XLR/TRS cables - preamp

(C) PC - USB cleanser - DAC - 100ft CAT8 cable carrying two balanced analogue channels - preamp

I currently have setup (C) in my house. I use an LHY UIP as USB cleanser, LyxPro box to carry analogue balanced signals over CAT8 (https://a.co/d/81QHTcs), and occasionally switch the output to other rooms with a manual RJ45 switch box (https://a.co/d/5q2RTEE).

Setup (C) sounds good to me, with relatively low noise only detectable close to the speakers. However, I wonder if SQ can be boosted further by using dedicated balanced cables in setup (B), or a transport in setup (A). Your feedback would be most welcome.

On 9/15/2024 at 10:28 AM, NotABot said:

Hi Everyone,

 

Any thoughts on using a transport vs long balanced cables? To make things more complicated, any thoughts on using an ethernet cable's twisted pairs to carry analogue balanced signals in place of dedicated XLR/TRS cables?

 

The three setups in mind are:

 

(A) PC - router via CAT8 - transport via CAT8 - DAC - short balanced cables - preamp

 

(B) PC - USB cleanser - DAC - 100ft balanced XLR/TRS cables - preamp

 

(C) PC - USB cleanser - DAC - 100ft CAT8 cable carrying two balanced analogue channels - preamp

 

I currently have setup (C) in my house. I use an LHY UIP as USB cleanser, LyxPro box to carry analogue balanced signals over CAT8 (https://a.co/d/81QHTcs), and occasionally switch the output to other rooms with a manual RJ45 switch box (https://a.co/d/5q2RTEE).

 

Setup (C) sounds good to me, with relatively low noise only detectable close to the speakers. However, I wonder if SQ can be boosted further by using dedicated balanced cables in setup (B), or a transport in setup (A). Your feedback would be most welcome.

Your ears will tell you what you think is best.  In my opinion, I would think that option (A) should easily sound the best. You're using the cables most appropriate for the job in that scenario.

1 hour ago, jcn3 said:

 

Your ears will tell you what you think is best.  In my opinion, I would think that option (A) should easily sound the best. You're using the cables most appropriate for the job in that scenario.

I don't have a transporter to try setup (A). I'm trying to determine whether the spend is worth it, based on feedback from others who've already compared the setups. Hence my original post above.

CAT8 cables have the shield grounded at both ends, which is a risk for ground loops. I like CAT8 a lot, but I only use it with a LAN filter, or if both components it joins are connected to the same ground point.

Long runs are the main reason that balanced cables were invented. They would work for the 100-ft run, but I would suggest instead that you connect your router and PC to a network switch with SFP ports. Use single-mode optical fiber cable and SFP modules with the switch. 100 feet is considered a very short run for fiber optic cable, which can broadcast for miles with no degradation. 

@audiobomber, thanks for your comments. I have indeed noticed ground loops with CAT7 and CAT8. I use an ifi LAN iSilencer for the PC's CAT7 data connection to the router. I also use Radial Twin Iso boxes at the start and end of CAT8 cable runs for analogue balanced audio. The Jensen transformers in the Twin Iso do have a subtle warm sound, but I quite enjoy the flavour they impart.

Based on the necessity for iso transformers in setups (B) and (C), setup (A) with SFP optical ports/cables is probably the best option for absolute purity. That said, are there any audiophiles out there who enjoy (or prefer) the simplicity and cost of using long balanced audio cables? I can't be the only one...