Ethernet switches for audio - Part B: why a regular switch will suffice.

[MLXXX]

On 26/06/2021 at 10:13 AM, MLXXX said:

As I have already suggested, setting up two [identical model] stream receivers and recording their audio output with two identical ADCs  would enable capture and analysis to be done. One stream receiver would be fed through a standard ethernet switch, and the other through a reputedly "enhanced" ethernet switch.

 

Then if a passage of received streamed audio was identified as different as between the two recordings, it could be played back to a panel of individuals to evaluate. As an initial threshold question it would need to be established whether the difference in the recordings was audible. If that were established, people could be asked to go on and evaluate the seriousness of the difference (e.g. "hardly noticeable", "noticeable but not annoying", "mildly annoying", "irritating", etc).

 

 

Let me ask this question:  for those people who have heard differences, is it a continuous effect noticeable almost all the time, or is it sporadic?

 

As no one has answered the question,  I raised in June last year in the last paragraph above, I'll specifically ask an individual!

 

 

Hi @dbastin, regarding the improvements you can notice by replacing one ethernet switch with another, are such improvements noticeable almost all of the time while you listen to streamed music, or only sporadically?  

 

Following up on that with a second question, if I may: have you ever attempted to make comparative recordings of the analogue output signal from streaming using an ethernet switch  A and an ethernet switch B?

 

(If the answer to my first question is that the noticeable improvements in sound are sporadic, then an attempt to record device output might need to occur over a long period to have confidence of capturing the infrequent audible glitches associated with use of one of the switches. On the other hand, if the audible improvements are continual, only short recordings should be sufficient to capture audible differences.)

 

 

And finally a third  question that, given your long involvement in this subject area, I hope you might be able to help other forum members with: if you yourself have not made recordings successfully demonstrating audible differences in analogue output from swapping ethernet switches, can you direct us to anywhere on the net where such recordings can be accessed?  I myself would be interested in hearing how pronounced the differences were, and what they sounded like.

[dbastin]

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

regarding the improvements you can notice by replacing one ethernet switch with another, are such improvements noticeable almost all of the time while you listen to streamed music, or only sporadically?  

Constantly and in most cases immediately.

 

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

Following up on that with a second question, if I may: have you ever attempted to make comparative recordings of the analogue output signal from streaming using an ethernet switch  A and an ethernet switch B?

No, I don't know how and probably don't have the equipement.

 

The EtherRegen, Gigafoil and CRS 305 all have an obvious audible impact on thecsound quality.  Note, the 1st is an audio grade switch, the 2nd is an isolator usually deployed in industrial settings, the 3rd is a SFP+ router and/or switch.  I would be very surprised if these have not already been scientifically measured, and there are oodles of people who can hear the impact these have on audio playback.

 

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

And finally a third  question that, given your long involvement in this subject area, I hope you might be able to help other forum members with: if you yourself have not made recordings successfully demonstrating audible differences in analogue output from swapping ethernet switches, can you direct us to anywhere on the net where such recordings can be accessed?  I myself would be interested in hearing how pronounced the differences were, and what they sounded like.

No, I don't.

It is not about what they sound like, more correctly it is about how they don't sound, because noise, jitter etc has been reduced or removed.  Network gear ought to be 100% transparent and impose no sound per se.

 

The easiest way to observe if there is a change would be to borrow one and experience for yourself.

[Ittaku]

9 hours ago, MLXXX said:

And finally a third  question that, given your long involvement in this subject area, I hope you might be able to help other forum members with: if you yourself have not made recordings successfully demonstrating audible differences in analogue output from swapping ethernet switches, can you direct us to anywhere on the net where such recordings can be accessed?  I myself would be interested in hearing how pronounced the differences were, and what they sounded like.

I expect you're well aware that no such comparison has ever been done, nor will it ever be done (at least in a scientifically objective way), much the same as any other system alteration that has no scientifically known means for altering the sound waves coming from the system.

[MLXXX]

2 hours ago, Ittaku said:

I expect you're well aware that no such comparison has ever been done, nor will it ever be done (at least in a scientifically objective way),

 

I think I mentioned earlier in this thread something to the effect that if such evidence were available demonstrating an audible difference, then threads like this would be unnecessary.  I've made no attempt to search for comparative recordings but the fact that someone in the companion thread, Part A, recently expressed a preparedness to spend thousands of dollars, renewed my interest in whether any such recordings had been attempted.  Of course if they had been attempted and failed then that result might not have been widely disseminated, if disseminated at all. If disseminated such results could have met with a hostile reception. There could have been the typical response that the difference though audible to human ears was too subtle to be captured by an ADC.  [To my mind, such criticism begs the question as to how the music was successfully captured in the recording studio with an ADC in the first place!]

 

I find it remarkable how small the expressed interest is on audiophile forums in the ADCs used in recording studios in comparison with how great the expressed interest is in DACs used in an audiophile's home.  And I find it remarkable how readily the power of an ADC to detect a subtle audible difference is doubted on audiophile forums.  

 

Given that the topic of this Part B thread is "why a regular switch will suffice" I think it is indeed relevant to point to the apparent absence of objective evidence that use of a regular switch does lead to an audible difference in the streamed music.  I cannot prove a negative that use of a different switch will never result in an audible difference, but it would be nice to have some evidence that a costly switch does make an audible difference [an improvement] in a particular system.  And having established that, seek to pinpoint where the mischief lay that caused an audible deleterious effect when an ordinary switch was used.

Edited March 29, 2022 by MLXXX

[BugPowderDust]

28 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

I find it remarkable how small the expressed interest is on audiophile forums in the ADCs used in recording studios in comparison to how great the expressed interest is in DACs used in an audiophile's home.  And I find it remarkable how readily the power of an ADC to detect a subtle audible difference is doubted on audiophile forums.  

It's because most people never get to use an ADC in anger and instead play with DACs on the receiving end of audio transmission (be it CD, streaming or otherwise) every day.

 

I'm more amused by the fact that the guts in any recording studio is so generic and common, yet we are consistently told we need the most sensitive, noise immune and otherwise perfect playback equipment in our homes.  

[aussievintage]

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

I think it is indeed relevant to point to the apparent absence of objective evidence that use of a regular switch does lead to an audible difference in the streamed music. 

 

Absolutely.  Wish I was rich and could offer a huge bounty for someone who can prove it does.

 

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

I find it remarkable how small the expressed interest is on audiophile forums in the ADCs used in recording studios in comparison with how great the expressed interest is in DACs used in an audiophile's home.  And I find it remarkable how readily the power of an ADC to detect a subtle audible difference is doubted on audiophile forums.  

 

Not just the ADCs, but all the rest of the digital and networking equipment on the recording side of the equation and how that might conceivably effect the "sound".

 

47 minutes ago, BugPowderDust said:

I'm more amused by the fact that the guts in any recording studio is so generic and common, yet we are consistently told we need the most sensitive, noise immune and otherwise perfect playback equipment in our homes.  

 

The mistake being made here is assuming these guys are thinking logically about it.  It's more a belief system, logic need not apply.  Another item I believe is ignored is all the signal processing, both real time and during mastering, that is applied.  Different algorithms, different programming techniques, some quite inferior to others, all could make a huge difference to the "sound".  I know first hand just how weird some filters, and reverbs etc,  can be, and how you end up auditioning different plugins to find the one that isn't downright buggy, or just one that you like

[rocky500]

5 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

The mistake being made here is assuming these guys are thinking logically about it.  It's more a belief system, logic need not apply.  

I think this a mis conception that keeps getting repeated.

I think it just what people observe when they try it out themselves.

[aussievintage]

3 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

I think this a mis conception that keeps getting repeated.

I think it just what people observe when they try it out themselves.

Firstly, an observation is not irrefutable evidence of what actually is going on.  Hence, you only "believe"  what you think you observe, is fact.  That's why I called it a belief.   Also, it is not logical to ignore that which doesn't fit your observation.  But that happens all the time in these discussions.

Edited March 29, 2022 by aussievintage

[rocky500]

23 hours ago, aussievintage said:

Firstly, an observation is not irrefutable evidence of what actually is going on.  Hence, you only "believe"  what you think you observe, is fact.  That's why I called it a belief.   Also, it is not logical to ignore that which doesn't fit your observation.  But that happens all the time in these discussions.

You are not making sense. Who needs irrefutable evidence at home listening to their system? Not important to me just how I think my music sounds to me.

 

I can observe lots and lots of things. It will be just what I observe at the time with the conditions at the time. No beliefs involved at all.

eg. I might try some speakers at ones persons place and while listening (observation) I do not like them at all and then hear them at another place and love them.

Where is the belief in that? Just 2 observations. My takeaway from this might be that they can sound great in the right system.

 

Same with any component/cable/tweak etc I try. Say if I do not like what I observe with it, I never think it is no good, just that it might not suit my system at the time.

I might go online and see what others have thought of it and if I see others liking it(might look how they used it, what system used), then I just put it down to not working as well in my system at the time.

Sometimes I may revisit that item down the track too.

I have so called tweaks that no longer work well as I changed components, (observation again) and will remove them.

 

I came late into this thread, so maybe I missed what it is about and have taken it out of context.

 

23 hours ago, rocky500 said:

I think this a mis conception that keeps getting repeated.

I think it just what people observe when they try it out themselves.

While I say this above it reminds me of the other mis conception I keep reading all over the net.

Goes something like this

"People into purely measurements over listening and continually crusading are all just a bunch of nutjobs!"

 

This is so untrue too as I know a couple that are not like this. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by rocky500

[aussievintage]

47 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

You are not making sense. Who needs irrefutable evidence at home listening to their system?

 

You do.  It is far too easy to fool yourself.  I have made "observations", e.g. thought the sound was much better, that in the end simply weren't true when tested under more controlled conditions.  If you decide to be honest with yourself, you will acknowledge the same can happen to you or anyone. 

51 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

eg. I might try some speakers at ones persons place and while listening (observation) I do not like them at all and then hear them at another place and love them.

Where is the belief in that? Just 2 observations. My takeaway from this might be that they can sound great in the right system.

A straw man, and  totally different to claiming a particular network switch definitely improved the sound in your system and then believing network switches can  make a difference, which is what the thread is about.

 

54 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Same with any component/cable/tweak etc I try. Say if I do not like what I observe with it, I never think it is no good, just that it might not suit my system at the time.

 

Then you are ignoring the possibility that it is actually not a valid/good tweak.  You seem to explicitly believe that it will work in some situations, but there are things that simply do nothing, or even are detrimental to the sound.

 

57 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

I might go online and see what others have thought of it and if I see others liking it(might look how they used it, what system used), then I just put it down to not working as well in my system at the time.

 

Which  ignores the possibility that they are fooling themselves, and that you have observed more correctly, and would have observed the same in their system, had you the opportunity.  Or maybe not, but it remains a possibility.

 

59 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

I came late into this thread, so maybe I missed what it is about and have taken it out of context.

 

I don't know about others, but I mainly  want people to open their minds and be REALLY fair in the deductions they make about these things, and not ignore  inconvenient but important possibilities and points raised.

[Ittaku]

36 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

I don't know about others, but I mainly  want people to open their minds and be REALLY fair in the deductions they make about these things, and not ignore  inconvenient but important possibilities and points raised.

This is so true, people insisting we open our minds to the possibility that there is an audible change when there is no science to support such a change, but are unwilling to open their minds to the possibility that they may be prone to the power of suggestion.

[NonPlayableCharacter]

“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant encumbrance…  How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” - Samuel Clemens.

[Ittaku]

12 minutes ago, El Tel said:

“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant encumbrance…  How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” - Samuel Clemens.

[meotomvn]

I know my records can not prove anything but I still want to post them up here. In my system, there are the differences in improving ethernet signals.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by meotomvn

[Stereophilus]

On 29/3/2022 at 12:45 PM, aussievintage said:

The mistake being made here is assuming these guys are thinking logically about it.  It's more a belief system, logic need not apply.

On 29/3/2022 at 12:56 PM, aussievintage said:

Firstly, an observation is not irrefutable evidence of what actually is going on.  Hence, you only "believe"  what you think you observe, is fact.  That's why I called it a belief.   Also, it is not logical to ignore that which doesn't fit your observation.  But that happens all the time in these discussions.

It’s not a “belief system”.  It’s not without logic.  Frankly, you are again just throwing these terms around trying to insult intelligent people who are interested to find answers to their audio related questions.

 

The logical, sensible people on the other side of this argument hear differences in Ethernet devices/cables when streaming music.  What they are reporting are observations for the most part, not beliefs.  But we are also dealing with a highly diverse group, who are in some cases not trained or interested in science.  Their observations and remarks will sometimes carry assertions.  Perhaps their methodology carries significant uncertainty.  Perhaps they neglect the possibility of suggestibility and bias in their experience.  You would be right to question these points individually to assess their naivety.  
 

However, the people here who conduct themselves with due scientific care, report their observations carefully and respect their own potential biases do often hear clear and repeatable differences in Ethernet devices/cables.  There are a great many of us, and we come to this forum to respectfully seek meaning from our observations, for the betterment of our own and others’ listening experiences.  Castigation at the hands of someone unwilling to entertain a difference of perspective is unhelpful.

 

4 hours ago, Ittaku said:

This is so true, people insisting we open our minds to the possibility that there is an audible change when there is no science to support such a change, but are unwilling to open their minds to the possibility that they may be prone to the power of suggestion.

Firstly, observation is science.  With due care, it is actually good science.  Secondly, as you have seen from threads on double blind trials, most of us in this forum are aware of and open-minded to the observational issues of suggestion and sighted biases.  We have tried to crack that issue in vain, but to say it is dismissed is wrong.

[aussievintage]

1 hour ago, Stereophilus said:

It’s not a “belief system”.  It’s not without logic.  Frankly, you are again just throwing these terms around trying to insult intelligent people who are interested to find answers to their audio related questions.

 

No, unfortunately there are many many who appear to have abandoned any attempt at logic, and just "believe" anything they hear is unassailable truth.

 

1 hour ago, Stereophilus said:

Perhaps they neglect the possibility of suggestibility and bias in their experience.  You would be right to question these points individually to assess their naivety.  
 

 

Many do, hence I address it collectively.

 

1 hour ago, Stereophilus said:

Castigation at the hands of someone unwilling to entertain a difference of perspective is unhelpful.

 

I am far from unwilling.   Why do you think I still bother to post at this late stage?   

 

1 hour ago, Stereophilus said:

Firstly, observation is science. With due care, it is actually good science.

 

Yes, and that due care part is VERY important, and ignored in many instances here.

 

1 hour ago, Stereophilus said:

Secondly, as you have seen from threads on double blind trials, most of us in this forum are aware of and open-minded to the observational issues of suggestion and sighted biases.  We have tried to crack that issue in vain, but to say it is dismissed is wrong.

 

It is indeed dismissed by many.  From what I read, I think you are optimistic in your use of "most of us".  Either that, or else the vocal minority having their way as usual I suppose.

Edited March 30, 2022 by aussievintage

[Stereophilus]

1 hour ago, aussievintage said:

 

No, unfortunately there are many many who appear to have abandoned any attempt at logic, and just "believe" anything they hear is unassailable truth.

 

 

Many do, hence I address it collectively.

 

 

I am far from unwilling.   Why do you think I still bother to post at this late stage?   

 

 

Yes, and that due care part is VERY important, and ignored in many instances here.

 

 

It is indeed dismissed by many.  From what I read, I think you are optimistic in your use of "most of us".  Either that, or else the vocal minority having their way as usual I suppose.

So it seems the issue is perspective then?  I think it’s pretty lazy to just deny the basis of an opposing argument on a generalisation about some of its proponents.

 

If you must take exception to observation, do so with the individual (politely and without patronisation is that is within your capability).  As for the others here whom you so casually dismiss with your generalisation, you cast yourself as ignorant of their collective wealth of knowledge, experience, and backgrounds in science or engineering or psychology, which cumulatively and perhaps even individually far exceed your own.

[Assisi]

17 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

If you must take exception to observation, do so with the individual (politely and without patronisation is that is within your capability).  As for the others here whom you so casually dismiss with your generalisation, you cast yourself as ignorant of their collective wealth of knowledge, experience, and backgrounds in science or engineering or psychology, which cumulatively and perhaps even individually far exceed your own.

Correct.  The poster is ignorant on this topic. 

John

Edited March 30, 2022 by Assisi
Words

[aussievintage]

22 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

So it seems the issue is perspective then?

 

nope, much as you seem to want it to be.    

 

22 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

politely and without patronisation is that is within your capability)

 

and now you are showing your true colours.

 

Bye...

[Stereophilus]

37 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

nope, much as you seem to want it to be.    

I don’t want it to be anything except a fair and even discussion.  My perspective is that most people posting observations are doing so with a good degree of knowledge about the limitations of their observations.  Your perspective, as you clearly stated, is that most people posting observations do so naively.  My statement “so it seems the issue is perspective then” was intended to pick up on this disparity.

 

37 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

and now you are showing your true colours.

How so?  I made it a point to call out your patronising because I’m not sure you realised how disrespectful your words are.  If I patronised you in the process I did so with a degree of irony.

 

To be clear, I enjoy debating what I see as the unknowns in the recreation of music.  I do not enjoy being told I am (by generalised association) some sort of unthinking, illogical, zealot.  So, yeah, I called that out, because you tarred a great many people unfairly with that same brush.  Other than that, I have full respect for your position and thoughts.

[MLXXX]

17 hours ago, meotomvn said:

I know my records can not prove anything but I still want to post them up here. In my system, there are the differences in improving ethernet signals.

 

This is how the audio from the two videos looks when displayed using Audacity. I have added text in red indicating the difference in peak amplitude between the two versions (8.46dB):-

 

 

After I time-aligned the recordings and expanded the timescale I could see vast differences in the waveforms all the way along the timeline. Also, I did a spectrum analysis and could see substantial differences. [Some difference in waveforms could have been due to the compression codec used by Youube (I chose the AAC 145kbps version) and whatever codec may have been used in the original recordings.]

 

I suggest that the technique you appear to have used, @meotomvn, of moving a hand held camera (a mobile phone?) in front of speakers while playing a track is not going to allow repeatability of results. In fact you could get this huge amount of variation by playing the same track with exactly the same streaming configuration!!!

 

Using a microphone is not really the way to go, even one in a fixed position. A much more direct approach allowing precise repeatability of recordings would be to record the analogue output such as the output of a preamplifier, or at the headphone socket of a power amp.    Once you achieved consistent recordings with one  and the same ethernet configuration you could then change the ethernet configuration and record again and obtain a new set of (hopefully) consistent results.  You could then compare the first set of consistent recordings with the second set.

Inevitably there would be minor variations within each set of essentially consistent results. However if changing the ethernet configuration led to an ongoing audible difference, a systematic difference between the two sets of recordings should be identifiable when examining the waveforms.  Also the two sets of audibly different recordings could be made available to other audiences for them to hear the differences themselves.

[meotomvn]

3 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

This is how the audio from the two videos looks when displayed using Audacity. I have added text in red indicating the difference in peak amplitude between the two versions (8.46dB):-

 

 

After I time-aligned the recordings and expanded the timescale I could see vast differences in the waveforms all the way along the timeline. Also, I did a spectrum analysis and could see substantial differences. [Some difference in waveforms could have been due to the compression codec used by Youube (I chose the AAC 145kbps version) and whatever codec may have been used in the original recordings.]

 

I suggest that the technique you appear to have used, @meotomvn, of moving a hand held camera (a mobile phone?) in front of speakers while playing a track is not going to allow repeatability of results. In fact you could get this huge amount of variation by playing the same track with exactly the same streaming configuration!!!

 

Using a microphone is not really the way to go, even one in a fixed position. A much more direct approach allowing precise repeatability of recordings would be to record the analogue output such as the output of a preamplifier, or at the headphone socket of a power amp.    Once you achieved consistent recordings with one  and the same ethernet configuration you could then change the ethernet configuration and record again and obtain a new set of (hopefully) consistent results.  You could then compare the first set of consistent recordings with the second set.

Inevitably there would be minor variations within each set of essentially consistent results. However if changing the ethernet configuration led to an ongoing audible difference, a systematic difference between the two sets of recordings should be identifiable when examining the waveforms.  Also the two sets of audibly different recordings could be made available to other audiences for them to hear the differences themselves.

I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone. I never listen to music based on the measurements. 

[MLXXX]

21 minutes ago, meotomvn said:

I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone. I never listen to music based on the measurements. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by listening to music "based on the measurements".  Perhaps you mean for example a situation where people listening to a device that they know measures well may imagine it sounds better than a device they know doesn't measures as well, without actually using their ears.  That result is of course is also a possibility if using a specialised ethernet streaming configuration.  If the listener knows the configuration is "special" they may imagine it sounds better.

 

The beauty of careful recordings is that they allow us to listen to versions X and Y without knowing which is which. We can isolate ourselves from the potential bias of knowing how something measures or how expensive it is.

[meotomvn]

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

 

I'm not sure what you mean by listening to music "based on the measurements".  Perhaps you mean for example a situation where people listening to a device that they know measures well may imagine it sounds better than a device they know doesn't measures as well, without actually using their ears.  That result is of course is also a possibility if using a specialised ethernet streaming configuration.  If the listener knows the configuration is "special" they may imagine it sounds better.

 

The beauty of careful recordings is that they allow us to listen to versions X and Y without knowing which is which. We can isolate ourselves from the potential bias of knowing how something measures or how expensive it is.

OK. It's up to you. It's time to forget.

[TerryO]

On 30/03/2022 at 5:00 PM, meotomvn said:

I know my records can not prove anything but I still want to post them up here. In my system, there are the differences in improving ethernet signals.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to share the two recordings, I to have noticed sizeable improvements in sq from upgrading Ethernet switches and cables. 
 

cheers,

Terry