Audiophile Network Switches for Streaming ... really ?

[sq225917]

Yeh I'm not down with shouting people down, opinions are just that, opinions.

It's when they are claimed as fact that the burden of proof needs to be squarely aimed at them.

It's the difference between I think audiophile network switches make my hifi sound better, and audiophile switches improve measured audio performance.

 

[davidsrsb]

What I don't get is why an extra switch is supposed to reduce network noise. Yes it does attenuate signal coming from the source, but it then regenerates all the packets and sends them to the renderer, stronger if anything due to the short cable

 

[eevo1969]

Or are you falling for the very error of which you accuse Anh? A forum discusson may serve different purposes for different people. The rules for different forms of discourse vary. In the real world it is more likely (though not invarably the case) that the participants in a discussion will have some sort of consensus about the discussion they are having and at least in outline of the rules.

Anh's interpretation of the way to conduct this sort of discussion is at least as valid as yours. It may be worth going back and considerign whether it really is true that this is just about how you enjoy your hobby. It isn't that simple because on some level the hobby seems to involve some sort of science/engineering/perception claims. Some people seems to be happy bandying this around without really caring how deep to look into the claims; other people take it very seriously. Unless you are going to go to the extent of saying "I think this thing is fun and I don't really care how or whether it really works", then you can;t really be surprised if some people say "hold on that really doesn't make sense". Try to remember that no one is asking you to justify your hobby; only your claims.

Or dont, maybe the moaning and complaint is actually part of the fun.It's difficult to tell.

He neither owns this thread or any other, same goes for everyone. You conveniently bypass the rudeness of his post and go extrapolating on his possible motive for being rude rather than concentrating on the issue of how a civil exchange should be conducted. “hold on that really doesn’t make sense” is NOT what he typed, that would have been engagement in a conversation, he tried to shut it down. That I have to explain this is utterly bewildering to me.

Your post is telling though insofar you seem to lean towards a “prove it or shut up” rather than a “live and let live” attitude on a audio forum & record shop, not the UK branch of ASR. AFAIK proof is not and has never been a requirement to post here and courtesy costs nothing (atm)

I’ll happily take moaning and complaint if you take ignorant and selfish?

 

[John Phillips]

What I don't get is why an extra switch is supposed to reduce network noise. Yes it does attenuate signal coming from the source, but it then regenerates all the packets and sends them to the renderer, stronger if anything due to the short cable

Yes. And the direct path for signal and any suspected noise for a channel goes through a single point - the output of the DAC. Noise that accumulates along the direct path will be seen by a test made there - which is where most DAC measurements are made. Yet significant noise is absent in almost all tests I have seen. IMHO, the evidence is not strong for the "direct path noise" theory of network switches as has been asserted in earlier posts.

Yes, there may be indirect paths. However, EMC emission/immunity regulations are strong and if it really is that, then trying something in the direct path will probably be hit or miss.

Since getting into this hobby in the 1970s I have tested various conventional narratives that come regularly from the audio industry. I have found many of them wanting. I have an audio system that contradicts quite a few of them, but despite that its audible imperfections compared to my concert-hall experience are now too low to cause me to want to do anything more. YMMV, of course.

I am reminded of the saying that if the evidence contradicts the theory, in science you question the theory, but in belief you question the evidence. However, it's a hobby in which you can validly choose whatever approach pleases you as long as you don't insist everyone else will agree.

 

[gustav_errata]

if the evidence contradicts the theory, in science you question the theory, but in belief you question the evidence.

Whoever penned that never had a manuscript go through peer review!

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I am reminded of the saying that if the evidence contradicts the theory, in science you question the theory, but in belief you question the evidence. However, it's a hobby in which you can validly choose whatever approach pleases you as long as you don't insist everyone else will agree.

This saying cuts both ways in the present context, it seems to me. You could, without resorting to semantics, argue that the sheer mass of anecdotal, subjective evidence constitutes evidence sufficient to at least question the theory which it confounds. And that in the present case, it is those who hold the theory as absolute who are questioning the evidence.

 

[adamdea]

This saying cuts both ways in the present context, it seems to me. You could, without resorting to semantics, argue that the sheer mass of anecdotal, subjective evidence constitutes evidence sufficient to at least question the theory which it confounds. And that in the present case, it is those who hold the theory as absolute who are questioning the evidence.

You'd be wrong though. @John Phillips pithy dictum shouldn't be taken to imply that claiming something as evidence makes it evidence. If it were so, the sun would rotate round the (flat) earth and intercessionary prayer would be prescribed for all ailments.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I don't think it's a claim that it is evidence. It is evidence. It may not be evidence of a flaw in the theory, but it's evidence of something. But without investigation, you can't say whether it is evidence of a lacuna in the theory, or of mass delusion.

 

[Octavian]

I don't think it's a claim that it is evidence. It is evidence. It may not be evidence of a flaw in the theory, but it's evidence of something. But without investigation, you can't say whether it is evidence of a lacuna in the theory, or of mass delusion.

Sure, that some people believe in homeopathy is certainly evidence at least of the fact that some people believe in homeopathy.

 

[hc25036]

I don't think it's a claim that it is evidence. It is evidence. It may not be evidence of a flaw in the theory, but it's evidence of something. But without investigation, you can't say whether it is evidence of a lacuna in the theory, or of mass delusion.

I see where you are coming from Steve and I quite like the argument, but in my mind’s eye I can see my statistician friend’s eyebrow twitching at about 50Hz. In his world, anecdote is anecdote even if there are thousands of them.

We are not in the realms of serious science here, but the semantics around the word ‘evidence’ is that it means different things to different people. To me, a million individual reports of something in a potentially biased environment cries out for proper investigation (if someone will design and pay for it), but is is not evidence (in my meaning) that it might be something other than the effects of many and various biases.

Edit: hope that doesn’t sound patronising- not intended, just shooting the breeze…

 

[BJP]

[QUOTE="adamdea, post: 4847723, member: 4878"intercessionary prayer would be prescribed for all ailments.[/QUOTE]

Just about been hanging in there with this thread but that one I had to Google

 

[adamdea]

I don't think it's a claim that it is evidence. It is evidence. It may not be evidence of a flaw in the theory, but it's evidence of something. But without investigation, you can't say whether it is evidence of a lacuna in the theory, or of mass delusion.

No. You know why this is nonsense. Let's not go round the house pointlessly. In the context of the basic facts of human perception these reports are epistemically nugatory for numerous reasons. So many that it would take ages to go through them (yet again); and this would be pointless because you don't really care.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I see where you are coming from Steve and I quite like the argument, but in my mind’s eye I can see my statistician friend’s eyebrow twitching at about 50Hz. In his world, anecdote is anecdote even if there are thousands of them.

We are not in the realms of serious science here, but the semantics around the word ‘evidence’ is that it means different things to different people. To me, a million individual reports of something in a potentially biased environment cries out for proper investigation (if someone will design and pay for it), but is is not evidence (in my meaning) that it might be something other than the effects of many and various biases.

Edit: hope that doesn’t sound patronising- not intended, just shooting the breeze…

Not patronising at all, and thank you . I do take the point about semantics, and I'd hoped not to be straying into that territory. It may indeed be evidence of mass delusion; my point (and this goes to Adamdea's rather more argumentative challenge) is that it's evidence of 'something'. And without due investigation (as you note) we can't say what that 'something' might be with any degree of certainty. And most assuredly, not the degree of certainty with which the naysayers on here continually claim it is. Their argument, as I have pointed out before is basically: "we can't see how it can be <this technical thing> so it must be something else. Expectation bias is <something else> therefore that must be it". Which is no more logically coherent than the technical hypotheses.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

No. You know why this is nonsense. Let's not go round the house pointlessly. In the context of the basic facts of human perception these reports are epistemically nugatory for numerous reasons. So many that it would take ages to go through them (yet again); and this would be pointless because you don't really care.

I do care, but perhaps not in the way which you, and others, require me to care. I care because I choose to live in a universe of wonder and possibilities. I don't want to live in a universe of banal certainty. In my universe, the fact that music exists, and that it has the power over us that it does, is a wonderful thing. As is the fact that we can change the way we perceive music. Whether that is because the equipment does something technical to the music, or because our perception is altered by other means, is to some extent a side issue. I'd genuinely love to know what's going on in my head, and what triggers it, but I'm otherwise content just to let it be what it will be. What I'm not content to do is allow somebody else who has no certainty over the cause, to assert that they do.

 

[mansr]

intercessionary prayer would be prescribed for all ailments.

You may find this study interesting: https://www.bmj.com/content/323/7327/1450
The responses are worth reading: https://www.bmj.com/content/324/7344/1037

 

[Octavian]

It may indeed be evidence of mass delusion; my point (and this goes to Adamdea's rather more argumentative challenge) is that it's evidence of 'something'. And without due investigation (as you note) we can't say what that 'something' might be with any degree of certainty.

I do not think this is correct. We do have accumulated knowledge about information technology, electronics and psychology - to name a few endeavors. Based on this accumulated knowledge we can indeed say something with a certain degree of probability.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I do not think this is correct. We do have accumulated knowledge about information technology, electronics and psychology - to name a few endeavors. Based on this accumulated knowledge we can say something with a certain degree of probability.

Well, perhaps. And perhaps now I am straying into semantics, but my strong feeling is that there are few people with sufficient knowledge in all those disciplines to be able to opine with any real degree of authority. Yet on here, we see expressions of certainty, not degrees of probability.

 

[Warszawa]

38 pages and counting. Go and listen to some music you lot.

 

[tuga]

What I don't get is why an extra switch is supposed to reduce network noise. Yes it does attenuate signal coming from the source, but it then regenerates all the packets and sends them to the renderer, stronger if anything due to the short cable

This is about the noise travelling along the copper and reaching the D/A chip and clock, not about the data or interference.

 

[garyi]

Can I ask, does the noise look like an evil snake in your mind?