advertisement


Audiophile Network Switches for Streaming ... really ?

Experts? Well apart from the several guys who are network engineers, write comms drivers for a living or are signed up audio/electrical engineers no, no experts.
Theyr'e not experts in the topic under discussion though, are they. In fact, as has been pointed out on a few occasions, such "expertise" in the digital domain can be a hinderance; no-one has claimed here that a switch does anything in the digital domain.

Point me to your analogue experts on this thread and there might be an adult conversation.
 
Experts? Well apart from the several guys who are network engineers, write comms drivers for a living or are signed up audio/electrical engineers no, no experts.

So the answer is no to any relevant experts on here then?

Perhaps we could hope for a designer working on digital audio devices who understands the implications of noise in a digital circuit and would be able to discuss the issues from practical experience? A start might be someone who knows why streamers sound so different even when they are merely passing the bit perfect signal through with no upsampling or dsp? On another forum there was a thread about the Grimm MU1 alleging it was a ‘rip off’ and there was all sorts of faux science being bandied around. It was therefore useful when Guido Tent, Technical Director at Grimm, joined the discussion. Non of the so called forum experts really were experts after all when push came to shove. (He stuck around for 2 days then thought better of it and went away perhaps reflecting on the enormity of the task.)
 
Experts in digital audio. Any hands up?

Well, the question is what has digital audio got todo with networking technology and why do you need to rely on an expert in audio to advise on networking technology. Are you winning the contest yet.

Let's be honest, no-one's winning anything here; we're all losing the will to live.

Your post @NRG misses the point as much as many posts by others do. Digital audio is utterly dependent on networking technology (well, streaming is; I think we can set CD and DAB radio to one side in the context of this thread) but it does not and cannot explain everything about it: we don't hear in digital, we hear in analogue, so we rely on digital to analogue conversion. The only explanation for a network switch doing anything to sound quality is in the analogue domain as in the digital domain bits remain bits.

I did think I saw a glimmer of hope when @sq225917 suggested recently that other components like DC blockers or whatever might be another way of addressing the noise challenge. At least this acknowledges there may be a thing (problem, opportunity) to be addressed rather than asserting it's all down to overactive imaginations and cynical exploitation of the gullible. Bravo that man.
 
I’m genuinely surprised that a scientist would be asking laypeople to conduct repeatable and verifiable measurements on audio equipment at home but what is worse is showing dismay at the lack of enthusiasm for doing so.
It’s a well trodden path, demand verifiable and repeatable evidence from those not in any position to do so=discussion shutdown.
If anyone was silly enough to bite and tried to provide evidence you’d simply claim flawed or fixed except if the result was in your favour in which case it would be accepted as just-so, no further evidence required=discussion shutdown.

After reading your CV it occurs to me you really are a sheep, you seem happy to leave your training and experience at work, lower your standards of proof by asking the untrained to do verifiable and repeatable experiments with your background in science is appalling imo and doesn’t do your profession any credit whatsoever.

I’m sick to death of this continuous childish behaviour and no, I don’t have to read it but it’s just like watching a belligerent child disrupt a class when there’s a exchange of ideas going on and it’s not quite going in the direction the child wants so the many lose out to the few who are determined to change the narrative.

Posting your CV with your postings in this thread was a mistake imo. It’s not a very good look.

Goodbye.
Oh dear...bye then.
 
@TheFlash
Well it certainly came across as a pissing contest. Anyhow, I’m not missing the point. We seem to agree that networking is just the delivery mechanism for the the payload IE: Audio related payload is no different from any other data delivered on a network.

Going back to your original assumption that noise is being injected somehow into the analogue stage of the DAC; this has yet to be proven and is the fundamental stumbling block. All we have are anecdote’s that using a switch stops noise and thus improves the sound coming out of the DAC….I have one as well, I can’t hear a difference. Ive tried numerous switches and some old junk like BT home hubs but can’t hear any difference. I’ve tried setting Squeezelite to buffer the whole track and not to buffer the whole track, cable in, cable out ….nada. Also, using wi-fi sounds the same as does playing from a USB stick in the back of the RPi, no networking involved…so who is right…

I’ll bow out of this thread and just mention I met Guido years ago when he was working at Philips in Eindhoven, a really nice and intelligent guy.
 
Oh I see, you want what you consider as an expert, someone who thinks that additional counter measures are required with a streamer and who probably already sells the same, but coincidentally isn't looking to back up their and your claims with measurements.

It's this simple, buffer some music into the streamer, disconnect streamer from network and any other proposed sources of noise and continue listening.

Then once you've done this, record the output or measure it, prove there's an issue to be fixed , sell fix, retire a millionaire.

If putting a switch before a streamer genuinely changes the sound why wouldn't you just buy a streamer that isnt broken by design.
 
Going back to your original assumption that noise is being injected somehow into the analogue stage of the DAC; this has yet to be proven and is the fundamental stumbling block.

I think that we can at least agree that some DACs (inputs) are more susceptible to noise than others. If I’m not mistaken this has been shown true by Amir, Archimago and GoldenSound in their measurements.

As mentioned earlier the noise being discussed is UHF and “typical” measurements don’t usually stretch that high.

Similar scepticism was shown towards (the effects of) DACs outputting UHF but fortunately PKane has gone to the trouble of testing it, and this is later corroborated by RME’s designer Matthias Carstens in the ASR thread
 
One of the problems with this sort of discussion (for those actually discussing) is that when designing and making anything the last 5% towards the moving target of "perfection" involves 95% of the effort and costs. Little wonder that the very finest equipment can cost so much and still have potential for improvement, however limited.

For many that last 5% is inaudible or or too far beyond "good enough" to be worthwhile, for others that last 5% is audible and very worthwhile and they are prepared to pay the price. It's rather sad that some in the former camp (and nothing wrong with being in that camp) try and crap on those in the second camp. Why are they not satisfied with their good enough and take so much interest in those who are interested in efforts to raise the state of the art? Of course, in attempting to improve audio reproduction there are likely to be many blind alleys but some real and worthwhile advancements. and the fullness of time will reveal the charlatans and those who are honest in their endeavours.

For myself I'm glad that some folk are always trying to improve audio reproduction. The equipment I use to enjoy music now is very much better than I used to use (good as that was at the time) and the improvements are likely the result of obsessive designers intent on the best possible.
 
Okay, to close out my involvement/vague passing interest in this thread. As some of you may remember way back on page 23 I carried out an experiment involving a my 2 Port sky router feeding a 5 port Cisco small office switch I bought used for £8, which in turn fed an EE 8Switch via generic cat6. My findings back then were that the EE8 appeared to make a very minor change to the perceived SQ, a very fine polishing if you will and definitely NOT a VFM upgrade.

Today I completed my experimental period by:
1. Running my ZenITH 3 direct from port 1 of the Sky router
2. Inserting a Zyxel ES-108A v2 (£5 eBay) 8 port switch followed by the 5 port Cisco (0.75m from streamer) between port 2 of the router and ZenITH.

RESULTS
1. Sound was a tad rougher
2. Sounded the same as when the EE8 was in, that slight polishing of the edges was back.

CONCLUSION: From my perspective the EE 8Switch is a complete waste of ££s. I can achieve the same Perceived SQ to my ears with a £5 Zyxel & £8 Cisco switch (add £16 for a 12v transformer wallwart for the Cisco) bought used on eBay, so £29 Vs £450. I will be sticking the EE8 in various classifieds somewhen soon, and on eBay when I get a reduced fees offer.
 


advertisement


Back
Top