Well, I can certainly tell the difference between those two, but that is not the point. The point is that it's not an audio cable, but a network cable. It carries a digital signal, not an analog one, so there is no quality involved. Even if you stream audio from the internet, what passes through the ethernet cable is not an audio signal, it's a digital stream of some sort, which is decoded by your computer. In short, it's ones and zeros, and you flat-out cannot have a "better quality" of ones and zeros. It's data, nothing more. No amount of fancy ethernet cables will somehow magically raise the bitrate of the stream you're listening to.

I have some very old AKG headphones and they are fine :) I see no point in spending a fortune on that stuff...
Yepp, I know that, but I was complaining about "audiophiles" in general.

apparantly its because the cables are shieled better so there is less "interference"

>> The first objection to that claim—and the one most folks immediately made—is that digital data is digital data, and if the Ethernet cable is good enough to carry the bits at all, it’ll do so with perfect fidelity. However, audiophiles focused on these kinds of Ethernet cables contend that the cables’ greater insulation prevents electromagnetic noise from creeping up the cables, through your listening computer’s Ethernet port, and making itself heard as distortions in your sound card’s digital-to-analog converter (or DAC). Better cables, the contention goes, means less EMI and therefore better sound.<<

dont look at me i didnt think that shit up alright ?
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ars-prepares-to-put-audiophile-ethernet-cables-to-the-test-in-las-vegas/

man someone forgot there is a difference between digital and analogue signal

Ah, sorry then ;-)

Yeah, I've never really understood it either. I mean certainly, when you're talking about actual speaker cables, there can naturally be a difference in quality between different cables. However, the difference in quality does not correspond to the difference in price. That is generally the same for all kinds of very high-end hardware though. In short, a $1000 cable is not 10 times better than a $100 cable. But I have a sneaking suspicion that for many audiophiles, it's more about knowing that you have the best equipment money can buy than actually hearing any real difference.

Yes, its a constant struggle against the creeping fizzle monsters which crawl about under the desk, creeping up cables and inserting a bing when there should be a bong in your favourite song.

I agree, that with analog cables, there can be some quality difference. But I don't think it's perceivable by the human ear. As you say, they just like having the most expensive stuff..

and be smug about it

The top 3 comments for that article do a pretty good job of explaining why that is a load of bollocks.

hell just the "explanation"of the shielding does

Very much depends on the source material, if it's 44.2 kHz converted to 46 kHz and then to 192 kHz it comes at no surprise someone can't tell the difference, also keep in mind that most consumergrade soundchips don't go beyond 46 kHz and will downsample everything above it.
True 192 kHz samples are quite rare though, probably older digital studio masterrecordings as most stuff you find is in the 44.2 - 46 kHz range if it's not compressed.

What you say is true but I tried to explain is that studios record in high samplerates to account for the loss in fidelity in later downsampling and therefore true samples higher than 46 kHz are rare to find, most of the stuff is upsampled from lower quality which makes it impossible to percieve any difference if there even was one.

I have to say, after changing the ethernet cable from my modem to my router, my notebook sounded much better while throwing it out of the window. Would by again.

Well, that's a given without even opening the URL. Anyone who buys some special ethernet cable and pays extra for it thinking it is going to do anything more than a regular ethernet cable is um... let me reword what I was going to say as it'd be super rude. They're um.. ultra-naive. There, that's putting it polite. :)

Without looking at the article, just a guess... is it some "Monster" brand cable? They're famous for making gold plated bullshit cables under the premise that "gold is a better conductor", putting $1 of gold in the cable's plating and selling it for like $200 extra to morons.