Ethernet System for Audio: putting it all together

[NPC]

1 hour ago, Assisi said:

Based on my experience, the logic of this comment makes no sense at all to me .  If you change upstream components and there is difference, why look at the Streamer/DAC?  I can and do change upstream components, grounding, cables  and filters and there can be a definite change in listening outcome.

 

A significant proportion of comments, responses and inputs on this subject are often only read with an intention to respond and argue rather than the intention to comprehend; I try to maintain my eternal optimism that there is a desire to learn collectively, so here goes. We're covering off cause and effect; another way is that correlation does not equal causation in all cases.

 

If this is not approached with a basic understanding of electrical theory, including EMI, and digital transmission principles of Ethernet, then it doesn't necessarily seem logical at first glance.

 

In tests, I induced electrical noise in the audible spectrum and deliberately propagated it through cascaded switches and into some source equipment using shielded Ethernet patches. The video above shows generated white noise being introduced, and then shows a detection of part of this white noise not on a source, but in another switch only. The white noise detected was at inaudible frequencies only (and at below minus 50dB), showing that transformer coupling of Ethernet is working to block analogue noise in the audible range and beyond to frequencies 200 times greater. Analogue noise (in the audible spectrum and way above it) is gate-keepered by the transformer-coupling across Ethernet interfaces. This is an expected outcome - I guess we should ask who would care or notice noise at -50dB at 200 times beyond the range of human hearing? Higher frequencies can pass through smaller gaps, we can't block them all, but there comes a point where blocking is moot when it is this far beyond the range of our senses.

 

I have experimented with numerous pieces of equipment and cables (I'm losing count and track of what I have tested). In summary, I observed that some components have the ability to reject deliberately introduced and propagated analogue noise. Some do not. Cost is no arbiter. This is not exhaustive by any means, but, some that do a great job: Lumin (T2) - a piece of kit that I own and is a personal benchmark for good noise rejection performance, Auralic (Vega 2.1 for sure, plus likely others, they seem to have the design side of noise rejection sorted), Naim Uniti Atom and some others I can't recall from testing and playing. Some legacy kit that didn't seem to reject the deliberately introduced noise: Sonos Connect, NAD M10 (early version - I haven't tried the V2), Bluesound Vault 2i and Node (I haven't tried the N130), and others not at the budget end of town that I forget (or won’t name as they are current offerings and I am not interested in wasting time fighting cease and desist orders).

 

Those lower performing sources that allowed the noise to be heard through headphone listening (of a silent FLAC being played), no longer exhibited the symptom if any upstream cable was replaced with an unshielded cable for one of the links. When repeating the experiment with the Lumin T2, for example, the noise was never evident whether using either unshielded or shielded cable in the same upstream link as before. To clarify: some deliberately contrived upstream issues showed symptoms that were only evident with certain sources this shows why the streamer/DAC should never be assumed to be beyond suspicion without some other form of baseline testing outcome being known.

 

Outside (including upstream) components can act as a catalyst for observed outcomes downstream, even with buffered playback and transformer coupling ensuring data payloads are uncorrupted, because the noise is not part of the digital data, it is analogue in nature. In the playback chain, analogue noise cannot be written to a data buffer as it is not digitised by any component - it no longer coexists with the data flow once the checksummed data is written to the buffer. This is the single biggest hurdle to overcome in understanding where, when and how noise can (and can't) affect playback.

 

Downstream streamer/DACs that show good noise rejection characteristics are less likely (not impossible if noise sources are significant, but unlikely based upon the testing I have been party to) to show such obvious outcomes. The inference should be that if you still hear noise, even if you are using unshielded (or even unterminated shielded) cable, that the streamer/DAC may not be as good at rejecting analogue noise as might be hoped.

 

It’s good to use unshielded patches to prevent propagation of noise even with streamer/DACs that are shown to reject noise well. Case in point: even if you're a black belt in a martial art, you still avoid conflict where you can; same principle.

[Guest]

Its clear from this thread that those who believe that ethernet and ethernet-related components make a difference are not going to be changing their opinions anytime soon.

Its also clear from this thread that those who believe its all a load of hogwash because "science says so", are not going to change their belief system either.

 

However, let me re-iterate the PURPOSE of this thread and what was written in the first post:-

 

"This thread is for ...

people to share how they have put their ethernet systems together, and why.  Let’s help each other understand how to assemble ethernet hardware to improve sound quality.

Please be constructive rather than critical.

If you wish to argue that network quality makes no difference to sound quality, please do so in other threads such as some I have started for that purpose."

 

So I say to the nay-sayers, by all means have your opinion and by all means post in other threads, but not this one, thank you.

[dbastin]

1 hour ago, El Tel said:

I try to maintain my eternal optimism that there is a desire to learn collectively.

Me too, however I don't have time or energy to learn all the details, I am more interested to learn about how to use that collective knowledge to improve SQ for those who care enough to implement and enjoy it.

 

I have learned, implemented and enjoy the benefits of knowledge from both the believers and so called nay-sayers.  To demonstrate, my network has the following:

 

Generic hardware

nbn, Cat 6a UTP, fibre, Mikrotik CRS 305 (as router) and mAP lite (WAP).

 

Audiophile 

SFP modules, EtherRegen, 2 x ethernet cables, Caps, Akiko tuning, power supplies and power cables

 

I am sure If I replaced generic hardware with audiophile gear there would be greater improvements, but in my situation they could be quite small and not likely good value ... for me.

 

So I have appreciated your previous lessons, and your scientific approach as you outlined. 

 

Just to clarify (rather than rebut or induce argument), the noise I am referring to is not audible (frequency or volume level) but does impact what we can hear.  It seems this noise is similar to what is dealt with by power conditioners and grounding.

 

I suppose a way to measure the impact of that would be to compare something like an impulse response and perhaps harmonic distortion before and after doing something that supposedly reduces noise.  I am no expert in this type of science, but in my experience these seem to improve when I have done things to reduce the noise I am referring to.

 

Let's try to focus on adding new knowledge rather than tire ourselves repeating circular arguments.

[davewantsmoore]

The computer (or whatever audio device accepts the ethernet connection) is the most important part in this puzzle.

 

If it is susceptible to any sort of ethernet performance (in a way which is allowed to impact the audio) .... then it is doing something wrong... and that should be fixed.

 

1 hour ago, Hydrology said:

If you wish to argue that network quality makes no difference to sound quality, please do so in other threads such as some I have started for that purpose."

 

Not exactly.

 

I would like to argue, that if your ethernet does impact the sound quality..... then that is the problem you should solve.   Not by improving the ethernet, but by improving the device you are connecting to said ethernet.

 

1 hour ago, Hydrology said:

Let’s help each other understand how to assemble ethernet hardware to improve sound quality.

Yes, that;'s what I"m trying to do.

[NPC]

Nice post, Dale. Thanks for your considered response.

 

As for induced impact of such inaudible noise (in the MHz range and at lower than minus 50dB level), if audible range analogue noise at over 0dB can be rejected by a well performing source, then I'd love to know the explanation/rationale of the former and be keen to investigate accordingly.

 

12 minutes ago, dbastin said:

Let's try to focus on adding new knowledge rather than tire ourselves repeating circular arguments.

 

I don't disagree. It would be easier said than done if there weren't people either coming into the discussion late with no context or understanding of what had been said before; or if the same misunderstandings were not dusted-off and re-worded then asserted once more.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

The computer (or whatever audio device accepts the ethernet connection) is the most important part in this puzzle.

 

If it is susceptible to any sort of ethernet performance (in a way which is allowed to impact the audio) .... then it is doing something wrong... and that should be fixed.

 

 

Not exactly.

 

I would like to argue, that if your ethernet does impact the sound quality..... then that is the problem you should solve.   Not by improving the ethernet, but by improving the device you are connecting to said ethernet.

 

Yes, that;'s what I"m trying to do.

Please quote the original poster who made the comments (in his first post), not my post. But then, it seems nobody follows the wishes of members anyway.

[davewantsmoore]

19 minutes ago, Hydrology said:

Please quote the original poster

Oh, sorry I didn't realise it wasn't you.

I'm sure they'll read it.

[dbastin]

34 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

The computer (or whatever audio device accepts the ethernet connection) is the most important part in this puzzle.

 

If it is susceptible to any sort of ethernet performance (in a way which is allowed to impact the audio) .... then it is doing something wrong... and that should be fixed.

 

Not exactly.

 

I would like to argue, that if your ethernet does impact the sound quality..... then that is the problem you should solve.   Not by improving the ethernet, but by improving the device you are connecting to said ethernet.

 

Yes, that;'s what I"m trying to do.

I am the OP. 

 

It is easy to point blame towards the endpoint, but the performance of those (in terms of minimising noise) is not well known, so I also created a thread about endpoints in an attempt to capture experience of those which are least susceptible to network noise.  However, the cost of the best performing endpoints may be beyond someone's financial means.

 

So once someone has settled on an endpoint, to improve SQ further it may be more cost effective for them to improve their network than searching for a better endpoint.

[NPC]

14 minutes ago, dbastin said:

So once someone has settled on an endpoint, to improve SQ further it may be more cost effective for them to improve their network than searching for a better endpoint.

 

Price isn't always the factor that denotes best noise rejection performance. If the endpoint doesn't perform well, trying to patch it up by making changes elsewhere could likely be a futile pursuit (but go ahead and experiment if you're already up-to-your-neck in over investment with a piece of kit). It's a bit like trying to improve a car's paint job when anti-corrosion treatment was not done prior to painting in the first place.

 

Not intending to, but this will doubtless fire-up anyone who doesn't want to resign themselves to having not bought the best possible source with their dollars - nobody wants to feel duped. It is all subtly nuanced, after all.

 

[Grizaudio]

So at the risk of simplifying this issue, is a quality network isolation device potentially an easy and cost effective solution to mitigate ‘possible’ noise transferring into a streamer/pc etc?

Rather than messing around with expensive and potentially unproven ‘audio’ optimised network switches?  

 

Like: 

https://www.dxengineering.com/parts/dxe-iso-plus-2

 

Looking through the reviews on the website, one gentlemen Travis provided some measurements with the unit in and out.

The measurement indicates a 10-15db reduction of noise, I just can't make out the spectrum. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Grizaudio

[Assisi]

5 hours ago, El Tel said:

 

A significant proportion of comments, responses and inputs on this subject are often only read with an intention to respond and argue rather than the intention to comprehend; I try to maintain my eternal optimism that there is a desire to learn collectively, so here goes. We're covering off cause and effect; another way is that correlation does not equal causation in all cases.

 

If this is not approached with a basic understanding of electrical theory, including EMI, and digital transmission principles of Ethernet, then it doesn't necessarily seem logical at first glance.

 

In tests, I induced electrical noise in the audible spectrum and deliberately propagated it through cascaded switches and into some source equipment using shielded Ethernet patches. The video above shows generated white noise being introduced, and then shows a detection of part of this white noise not on a source, but in another switch only. The white noise detected was at inaudible frequencies only (and at below minus 50dB), showing that transformer coupling of Ethernet is working to block analogue noise in the audible range and beyond to frequencies 200 times greater. Analogue noise (in the audible spectrum and way above it) is gate-keepered by the transformer-coupling across Ethernet interfaces. This is an expected outcome - I guess we should ask who would care or notice noise at -50dB at 200 times beyond the range of human hearing? Higher frequencies can pass through smaller gaps, we can't block them all, but there comes a point where blocking is moot when it is this far beyond the range of our senses.

 

I have experimented with numerous pieces of equipment and cables (I'm losing count and track of what I have tested). In summary, I observed that some components have the ability to reject deliberately introduced and propagated analogue noise. Some do not. Cost is no arbiter. This is not exhaustive by any means, but, some that do a great job: Lumin (T2) - a piece of kit that I own and is a personal benchmark for good noise rejection performance, Auralic (Vega 2.1 for sure, plus likely others, they seem to have the design side of noise rejection sorted), Naim Uniti Atom and some others I can't recall from testing and playing. Some legacy kit that didn't seem to reject the deliberately introduced noise: Sonos Connect, NAD M10 (early version - I haven't tried the V2), Bluesound Vault 2i and Node (I haven't tried the N130), and others not at the budget end of town that I forget (or won’t name as they are current offerings and I am not interested in wasting time fighting cease and desist orders).

 

Those lower performing sources that allowed the noise to be heard through headphone listening (of a silent FLAC being played), no longer exhibited the symptom if any upstream cable was replaced with an unshielded cable for one of the links. When repeating the experiment with the Lumin T2, for example, the noise was never evident whether using either unshielded or shielded cable in the same upstream link as before. To clarify: some deliberately contrived upstream issues showed symptoms that were only evident with certain sources this shows why the streamer/DAC should never be assumed to be beyond suspicion without some other form of baseline testing outcome being known.

 

Outside (including upstream) components can act as a catalyst for observed outcomes downstream, even with buffered playback and transformer coupling ensuring data payloads are uncorrupted, because the noise is not part of the digital data, it is analogue in nature. In the playback chain, analogue noise cannot be written to a data buffer as it is not digitised by any component - it no longer coexists with the data flow once the checksummed data is written to the buffer. This is the single biggest hurdle to overcome in understanding where, when and how noise can (and can't) affect playback.

 

Downstream streamer/DACs that show good noise rejection characteristics are less likely (not impossible if noise sources are significant, but unlikely based upon the testing I have been party to) to show such obvious outcomes. The inference should be that if you still hear noise, even if you are using unshielded (or even unterminated shielded) cable, that the streamer/DAC may not be as good at rejecting analogue noise as might be hoped.

 

It’s good to use unshielded patches to prevent propagation of noise even with streamer/DACs that are shown to reject noise well. Case in point: even if you're a black belt in a martial art, you still avoid conflict where you can; same principle.

To me you are avoiding the intent of the thread.  Your post is focussed almost entirely on the downstream after the network configuration in the context of how those components such as streamers or DACs can potentially treat or deal with noise from upstream.  You seem to want to suggest that there are no problems if the downstream can deal with any potential upstream noise.  It is no different to those who wish to deny the benefit of power treatment before it reaches a quality amplifier.  The suggestion often is that the rectification in the amplifier solves any power issues.  To me both total assertions are just nonsense.

 

 

You slightly allude to an upstream benefit with a comment about the benefits of unshielded cables and analogy about black belt martial art and maybe avoiding conflict.  I have found that shielded cables with the receiving end shield actually disconnected to provide a definite benefit.  As an aside I am trying a just one Vertere cable as the last link in the network chain at the moment.  Seriously incredible.  The best I have tried/heard.  Unfortunately, relatively quite expensive.  Just half the price of your Lumin

 

 

You mention the various downstream streamer components that you have and the respective benefits.  Fine.  Nowhere though do you comment (except about unshielded cables) about any specific actual upstream network components such as audio switches etc.  What are the “cascaded switches”?  In the context of this thread about putting an Ethernet system together it would be of more interest to the readers than talking about what happens after the network setup.  What is your experience and what have you tried switch wise?

 

John

[davewantsmoore]

22 minutes ago, Assisi said:

To me you are avoiding the intent of the thread.

Isn't the intent of the thread  "how did you setup your network to get the best audio performance".

 

What if my device is actually not dependant on the network performance or "noise" ? .... and I did nothing to set up my network (just plugged it in, or used wifi).

 

Am I not allowed to say that? ... or?

 

[NPC]

34 minutes ago, Assisi said:

To me you are avoiding the intent of the thread.  Your post is focussed almost entirely on the downstream after the network configuration in the context of how those components such as streamers or DACs can potentially treat or deal with noise from upstream.  You seem to want to suggest that there are no problems if the downstream can deal with any potential upstream noise.  It is no different to those who wish to deny the benefit of power treatment before it reaches a quality amplifier.  The suggestion often is that the rectification in the amplifier solves any power issues.  To me both total assertions are just nonsense.

 

 

You slightly allude to an upstream benefit with a comment about the benefits of unshielded cables and analogy about black belt martial art and maybe avoiding conflict.  I have found that shielded cables with the receiving end shield actually disconnected to provide a definite benefit.  As an aside I am trying a just one Vertere cable as the last link in the network chain at the moment.  Seriously incredible.  The best I have tried/heard.  Unfortunately, relatively quite expensive.  Just half the price of your Lumin

 

 

You mention the various downstream streamer components that you have and the respective benefits.  Fine.  Nowhere though do you comment (except about unshielded cables) about any specific actual upstream network components such as audio switches etc.  What are the “cascaded switches”?  In the context of this thread about putting an Ethernet system together it would be of more interest to the readers than talking about what happens after the network setup.  What is your experience and what have you tried switch wise?

 

John

I'm not going to do this again. I have detailed numerous times the switches I have tried.

 

If you want to learn, go experiment and consider some research or education in electronics, communications etc.

 

Take up Alan March on his offer from last week before you went strangely quiet. I'll be present, will participate in the blind test of your melco versus another switch and I'll explain on paper so it is easier to comprehend. Until then, I'm done with your goading.

Edited November 29, 2022 by El Tel

[Assisi]

25 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

Isn't the intent of the thread  "how did you setup your network to get the best audio performance".

 

What if my device is actually not dependant on the network performance or "noise" ? .... and I did nothing to set up my network (just plugged it in, or used wifi).

 

Am I not allowed to say that? ... or?

 

In response to comment from @Hydrology that said

“Let’s help each other understand how to assemble ethernet hardware to improve sound quality.”

You said

“Yes, that;'s what I"m trying to do.”

Really.  You have not said what your setup is except that you

“(just plugged it in, or used wifi)"

If that is best for you that is fine.  For others it is not.  Doesn’t provide much about how to assemble a network to improve SQ.  How do you know that you could not have a setup that could improve the quality above what you have now?  I am certain that you could do better than you presently do.

 

How is anything you have said helps anyone?

"..to setup your network to get the best audio performance"

 

John

[Assisi]

37 minutes ago, El Tel said:

I'm not going to do this again. I have detailed numerous times the switches I have tried.

 

If you want to learn, go experiment and consider some research or education in electronics, communications etc.

 

Take up Alan March on his offer from last week before you went strangely quiet. I'll be present, will participate in the blind test of your melco versus another switch and I'll explain on paper so it is easier to comprehend. Until then, I'm done with your goading.

Remind me of the switches?

 

I have considerable learning experience with my network components and I know what works. 

 

In the context of the thread re Alan March it was closed down if you are not aware.  I wonder why?

 

Obviously you do not appreciate your supposed expertise being challenged.  I consider elements of your post are an unnecessary put down. 

John

[NPC]

22 minutes ago, Assisi said:

Remind me of the switches?

 

I have considerable learning experience with my network components and I know what works. 

 

In the context of the thread re Alan March it was closed down if you are not aware.  I wonder why?

 

Obviously you do not appreciate your supposed expertise being challenged.  I consider elements of your post are an unnecessary put down. 

John

The thread was closed down, but the offer was not withdrawn. So let's do it.

 

I'll park responding to the unnecessarily inflammatory comments and leave it there.

 

Enjoy your evening.

[dbastin]

I consider the endpoint to be part of the network, given it recieves  ethernet transmission.  If someone has discovered an endpoint that rejects noise so well that changes to the network do not affect the SQ of the endpoint, please share here ...

When I started this thread about putting it all together, I was hoping discussion about individual devices would be in the other more relevant threads, whereas this one is intended for experiences about putting all the parts together to make a network system.

 

While some people will claim using generic network gear and smps gives tgem the best tgey have experienced, it would be most helpful for them to outline what other gear they tried, why it was not kept, what gear was kept, and what the best arrangement of cables, switches/devices etc gave them best outcomes.

 

15 hours ago, Grizaudio said:

So at the risk of simplifying this issue, is a quality network isolation device potentially an easy and cost effective solution to mitigate ‘possible’ noise transferring into a streamer/pc etc?

Rather than messing around with expensive and potentially unproven ‘audio’ optimised network switches?  

 

Like: 

https://www.dxengineering.com/parts/dxe-iso-plus-2

 

Looking through the reviews on the website, one gentlemen Travis provided some measurements with the unit in and out.

The measurement indicates a 10-15db reduction of noise, I just can't make out the spectrum. 

That approach wouid be a good start.  It might not be the best available though.  I have been there, done that and concluded there is more to be gained.

Edited November 30, 2022 by dbastin

[acg]

9 hours ago, Assisi said:

As an aside I am trying a just one Vertere cable as the last link in the network chain at the moment.  Seriously incredible.  The best I have tried/heard. 

 

Crazy good cable... incredible what they do.   The first Vertere ethernet cable trialled in my system was a real "you've got to be kidding" moment. 

[Nada]

On 28/11/2022 at 10:12 AM, Grizaudio said:

Rather than testing the network switches, would it not be more logical to test the analog outputs of a select number of streamer/DAC's connected to the network switches being tested?

 

It  looks obvious to test the audio out rather than the switch noise . Indeed, it looks like the Alpha plan is to test the analogue signal with the most sensitive audio measuring available.

 

The question is why has Alpha Audio decided to test the switches with noise?  They are testing a hypothesis. That the perceived listening differences between switches have nothing to do with data integrity, that is perfect. It's not about timing differences that are inconsequential. It's about noise riding on the data. By testing for noise suppression, they have a quantifiable data set to correlate with audibility.

 

These guys are smart and committed.  Doing research is hard and time expensive. Cudos to them.

[Grizaudio]

@Assisi I think it would be a great idea to take @El Tel up on this offer.  

 

This exercise will either solidify or challenge personal experience and/or opinion. 

 

I feel the results would be super interesting to present back to the thread, especially if a number of users take part with opposing positions. 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Grizaudio

[Grizaudio]

15 minutes ago, Nada said:

 

It  looks obvious to test the audio out rather than the switch noise . Indeed, it looks like the Alpha plan is to test the analogue signal with the most sensitive audio measuring available.

 

The question is why has Alpha Audio decided to test the switches with noise?  They are testing a hypothesis. That the perceived listening differences between switches have nothing to do with data integrity, that is perfect. It's not about timing differences that are inconsequential. It's about noise riding on the data. By testing for noise suppression, they have a quantifiable data set to correlate with audibility.

 

These guys are smart and committed.  Doing research is hard and time expensive. Cudos to them.

 

For sure, definitely a lot of time involved. 

Without having tried an "audio" switch, I wonder if quality galvanic isolation makes all this concern redundant. 

I.e. Using Opto, transformer, wireless or other. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Grizaudio

[Assisi]

9 hours ago, El Tel said:

The thread was closed down, but the offer was not withdrawn. So let's do it.

 

I'll park responding to the unnecessarily inflammatory comments and leave it there.

 

Enjoy your evening.

I responded to comments from Alan March that

“I think the point you are missing is that without any corroborating evidence your opinions have no more inherent value than anyone elses”

 

I consider that my opinions do have inherent value.  I responded with an invitation for him to listen to the evidence.  For me the evidence is about the contribution of the overall sum of the parts of my system including the network and not just one component.   It was about listening to my entire system.  It is not about one component, the Melco switch as he suggested.  I construed his suggestion as  superficial. 

 

What is your motive and Why focus on just one component? 

 

 

As we live very close to each other, it would be very easy for you to visit and have a listen.  You are very welcome to visit and have a listen to my system any time.  I have a good cellar.

John

 

I did enjoy my evening

[Assisi]

22 minutes ago, Grizaudio said:

 

For sure, definitely a lot of time involved. 

Without having tried an "audio" switch, I wonder if quality galvanic isolation makes all this concern redundant. 

I.e. Using Opto, transformer, wireless or other. 

All aspects of well chosen components, cables, filters, power supplies etc of a network can have synergy listening benefits through the development of a network.  For me the upstream is of paramount importance to the outcome that I achieve .  I wonder if anybody who focuses on the downstream streamer/DAC has experienced a quality up stream.

 

Maybe it is time you tried an "audio" switch

 

John

Edited November 29, 2022 by Assisi
Words

[davewantsmoore]

23 minutes ago, Grizaudio said:

For sure, definitely a lot of time involved. 

Without having tried an "audio" switch, I wonder if quality galvanic isolation makes all this concern redundant. 

I.e. Using Opto, transformer, wireless or other. 

 

 

It depends on the receiving device... and anything else downstream from it involved in handling the audio.

 

As you vary the noise.... these downstream devices may, or may not, change their performance.... but how and why they change depends on the device.

 

So, there is no universal solution (something that will work to improve, or affect, all audio equipment)  ..... and there is also no universal problem (some things may not be affected by the network).

[Grizaudio]

5 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

 

It depends on the receiving device... and anything else downstream from it involved in handling the audio.

 

As you vary the noise.... these downstream devices may, or may not, change their performance.... but how and why they change depends on the device.

 

So, there is no universal solution (something that will work to improve, or affect, all audio equipment)  ..... and there is also no universal problem (some things may not be affected by the network).

 

I understand this, but if you galvanic isolate (end point) from network, the problem either never existed, and/or doesn't once isolated. 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Grizaudio