$2,500 Ethernet Switch Isolates Audiophiles From their Cash

[El Tel]

17 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

Found myself nodding in agreement.    It starts with buying as new record.  You select your purchase carefully, to maximise return for your hard earned $. You carry it home, or await it being delivered, then there's the grand opening of the package, discovering the liner notes and other promotional material in there, removing the recording, maybe cleaning, and place it on the turntable, or it the CD player for the first time.  Sit back and relax with cover notes in hand, and enjoy the first listening.    Because you have been careful with your purchase, this usually results in great pleasure and enjoyment.  After playing, you proudly place it on the shelf with the rest of your collection 

 

I found myself being irrationally annoyed by @Tweaky's original post on not valuing streaming. I presumed (I know ) that it was going to be a pot-shot at streaming services, questioning bit-perfect delivery and a multitude of other imagined sleights on the medium. Once I understood it to be the disconnection, I actually agreed, same as you AV. Tweaky has a point more than worthy of consideration and discussion.

 

I often ramble on about the tactile nature of vinyl etc. Sound quality (to the nth degree) is not the be all and end all. Many vinyl rigs do a fabulous job of reproduction despite the medium being unable to do as good a job of channel separation than digital. (I'm parking CD as a physical medium for the purpose of this discussion, but note that it too does channel separation better than vinyl).

 

I often think album curation was better before CD due to the capacity constraints of vinyl. I know I am not alone when looking back on some 90's CD releases that ran for 56 mins plus with 15 tracks on them and the fact is they probably could have been better pieces of work with some harsh culling of poorer tracks. I remain convinced that works like Rumours, Revolver, Wish You Were Here and many others pre-digital would have been poorer for not being hamstrung by capacity. Artists worked on telling a succinct story and had to leave a fair bit of material out.

 

Lastly, there is an old adage that folk will attach proportional importance to the cost of goods or services they purchase. When streaming is so cheap, and a fairly flat cost too, why would this engender an emotional connection to a streamed album that is equal to the connection one might have with a physical copy that one paid multiples of the monthly streaming subscription cost?

Edited October 26, 2022 by El Tel

[TerryO]

2 hours ago, El Tel said:

 

I am happy not being part of the cool group and do not seek recognition or adulation; I certainly would not trade credibility for popularity. I probably would have be burned at the stake 400 years ago as a consequence.

 

Actually since you brought it up, you are correct I wouldn’t have imagined you as one of the cool guys 400 years ago, in fact it was the cool guys, as you put it, that were burnt at the stake. It was those who were fixed in their beliefs and quoted without question from the ‘Good book’ who did the burning.

 

 

2 hours ago, El Tel said:

 

Have a fab day listening.

 

Tel

 

 

Thank you and it is good to see that you do accept what owning Hifi is actually all about. …

 

cheers,

Terry

Edited October 27, 2022 by TerryO

[RoHo]

On 26/10/2022 at 5:48 AM, Tweaky said:

 

It wasn't just the poor quality of bog standard Spotify that put me off streaming, I could easily throw money at the problem and get the gear you mention, or even higher level gear for that matter, change streaming services and get pretty good sound from it.

 

The quality of sound wasn't the deciding factor that has put me off streaming, it was a strange disconnection from the music I was listening to that I have never felt before, it's like everything has become elevator music, and consequently little enjoyment in hearing it.

 

I've tried to work out why I feel like this, and the only conclusion is that maybe I'm too wedded to the ritual of music playback via other means, and need that ritual to be emotionally receptive to music.

I suppose the best way I can describe how I feel about streaming is, it's sort of like if things come too easily to you , you can tend to not value them as much.

 

As for the often made statement of getting to hear a lot of music that you wouldn't have otherwise because of streaming, yes that is true, but a lot has been stuff that I could of happily have live without hearing as well, and have dismissed it quickly and gone to listen to something else.

 

And there, in a nutshell, sort of explains my problem with streaming.

I've become dismissive of so much music because it can be just thrown at you.

 

A wonderful example of how so many factors effect the listening experience.   

I don't stream audio or video for these exact reasons.   

[El Tel]

2 minutes ago, TerryO said:

Actually since you brought it up you are correct I wouldn’t have imagined you as one of the cool guys 400 years ago, in fact it was the cool guys, as you put it, that were burnt at the stake. It was those who were fixed in their beliefs and quoted without unquestion from the ‘Good book’ who did the burning.

 

Playing the man once again rather than the ball - this is why threads get locked and people get suspended. It is wholly unnecessary and not productive to the discourse. Don't we all want answers?

 

We agree to disagree. Actual experimentation with objective outcomes form a valid and testable foundation. Anybody can offer subjective experience. We’re going to disagree. That’s OK. I will continue to challenge that which should be challenged (if I did not, it would be tantamount to science denial), but I'm not seeking to attack any one individual for their subjective preferences.

 

As a friend said to me "you don't need affirmation to justify your choices". But if you're coming from a subjective perspective only, don't whizz in someone's pocket and tell them it is raining.

 

 

[RoHo]

My theory is that the more we focus and obsess about a signal item in the audio chain the greater we perceive its effect on sound quality to be.

Combine this with the desire to tinker and upgrade to improve things and you end up with the bemusing string of devices that now seem to be seen as necessary for good sound from a software source.

[Assisi]

@El Tel,

Terry

I quote from a recent post from you above.

 

“I am fully aware that my posts and my dispassionate views are unpopular with many on here, so I have not mentioned my follow-up experimentation, detailed later…”

 

“The upshot of the experiment was that when we pushed further, an "audiophile grade" switch performed worse in terms of EMI shielding of its own chassis than a consumer Netgear switch costing a few bucks more than a round of drinks. I've deliberately cut to the conclusion and not detailed method…”

 

 

You mention that you were party to an experiment that I assume may substantiate your assertions. 

I have asked for the link to the details of the experiment.  Interestingly you have not provided the link.  I wonder why? 

 

There is one thread on the ROON site about Ethernet etc that you have contributed to.  It comprises 3244 posts.  Maybe the details of the experiment are in that thread.  Interesting to know which post?  The thread was closed in May this year. 

 

You close your post that I am quoting from with the following

“Have a fab day listening”.

I definitely do and  I am aware many others do with the digital front end to our systems.  You are definitely missing out on the experience.

 

John

[MLXXX]

On 26/10/2022 at 4:48 AM, Tweaky said:

The quality of sound wasn't the deciding factor that has put me off streaming, it was a strange disconnection from the music I was listening to that I have never felt before, it's like everything has become elevator music, and consequently little enjoyment in hearing it.

 

I've tried to work out why I feel like this, and the only conclusion is that maybe I'm too wedded to the ritual of music playback via other means, and need that ritual to be emotionally receptive to music.

I suppose the best way I can describe how I feel about streaming is, it's sort of like if things come too easily to you , you can tend to not value them as much.

 

I think this is an important part of audiophile tradition. It may go towards explaining the love of vinyl, which requires care in the setting up of the cartridge and tonearm, and care in the storage and handling of the vinyl discs.

 

5 hours ago, RoHo said:

My theory is that the more we focus and obsess about a signal [single] item in the audio chain the greater we perceive its effect on sound quality to be.

Combine this with the desire to tinker and upgrade to improve things and you end up with the bemusing string of devices that now seem to be seen as necessary for good sound from a software source.

 

This type of attitude among some consumers may go towards explaining why the item referred to in the opening post was designed and manufactured.  On the assumption it makes no audible difference, a fairly safe assumption in my opinion, its raison d'être would be to satisfy a demand for an expensive, specialist product. This demand exists among consumers who refuse to accept that a standard, cheap, mass-produced product could ever perform well enough to be part of their hi-fi system. 

[rantan]

16 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

This demand exists among consumers who refuse to accept that a standard, cheap, mass-produced product could ever perform well enough to be part of their hi-fi system.

 

Damn straight and a huge Bravo!  to those with good taste and an ability to discern quality that is not a throw away item

[El Tel]

49 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

This demand exists among consumers who refuse to accept that a standard, cheap, mass-produced product could ever perform well enough to be part of their hi-fi system. 

 

This is so accurate that it hurts. Well articulated.

[Niktech]

6 hours ago, El Tel said:

 

Playing the man once again rather than the ball - this is why threads get locked and people get suspended. It is wholly unnecessary and not productive to the discourse. Don't we all want answers?

 

We agree to disagree. Actual experimentation with objective outcomes form a valid and testable foundation. Anybody can offer subjective experience. We’re going to disagree. That’s OK. I will continue to challenge that which should be challenged (if I did not, it would be tantamount to science denial), but I'm not seeking to attack any one individual for their subjective preferences.

 

As a friend said to me "you don't need affirmation to justify your choices". But if you're coming from a subjective perspective only, don't whizz in someone's pocket and tell them it is raining.

 

 

 I really think you need to take a chill pill. There’s passion for audio, but your responses in your time on SNA is the something else. Your tone has increasingly become acidic to views contrary to your own. TBH perhaps there’s a time to consider restraint in responding to these posts.  
 

Albeit, it’s not my place to balance the interests of forum sponsors - and the leeway, not free speech - allowed  to pose views that could affect SNA as a whole.

 

Yeah, we all get Posts censured and removed by the Mods. Or put in the sin bin for 24 hours. But hey, what we write is for fun, it’s not gospel, no grudges held.

 

I think I may have had enough Vodkas now.

 

cheers

Nik

[El Tel]

59 minutes ago, Niktech said:

 I really think you need to take a chill pill. There’s passion for audio, but your responses in your time on SNA is the something else. Your tone has increasingly become acidic to views contrary to your own. TBH perhaps there’s a time to consider restraint in responding to these posts.  
 

Albeit, it’s not my place to balance the interests of forum sponsors - and the leeway, not free speech - allowed  to pose views that could affect SNA as a whole.

 

Yeah, we all get Posts censured and removed by the Mods. Or put in the sin bin for 24 hours. But hey, what we write is for fun, it’s not gospel, no grudges held.

 

I think I may have had enough Vodkas now.

 

cheers

Nik

 

Seems I must have taken you off mute... I've not ever been put in the sin bin. Perhaps the acidic nature you allude to is not as you claim. Maybe it is rational on the basis of being based in evidence and testing.

 

You do you. I'll do me.

 

Sorry to hear about your dog btw, that sucks.

[Niktech]

5 minutes ago, El Tel said:

 

 

Sorry to hear about your dog btw, that sucks.

Thank you!

[Assisi]

3 hours ago, MLXXX said:

This demand exists among consumers who refuse to accept that a standard, cheap, mass-produced product could ever perform well enough to be part of their hi-fi system. 

Obviously, you and some of the other posters in this thread are willing to accept something in your and or their systems that is standard, cheap, mass-produced product and performs well enough.  Everything matters and if you aspire to a quality outcome your perspective and experience will always be be at best just ordinary.  Is evrything else in you system just standard, cheap, mass-produced product?

 

 

There is no question that switches such as a Netgear do what they are supposed to do.  The digital file gets through to where it is intended and you hear the music.  The switch does not change the file information.  Potentially though the file includes interference that spoils the listening experience with noise.  A switch developed for audio purposes is intended to mitigate the interference and other matters and just transmit the digital file and nothing more and reduce the noise floor .

 

 

After a Tplink my second switch was a Netgear.  I have graduated to much better switches over time.  What experience do you have with a network and Switches to base your assertions on? 

 

 

I aspire to quality and get a quality outcome.  If you and others are willing to accept something in your or their system that “performs well enough” and not better then you and they are definitely missing out.

 

John

[Addicted to music]

1 hour ago, Assisi said:

Obviously, you and some of the other posters in this thread are willing to accept something in your and or their systems that is standard, cheap, mass-produced product and performs well enough.  Everything matters and if you aspire to a quality outcome your perspective and experience will always be be at best just ordinary.  Is evrything else in you system just standard, cheap, mass-produced product?

 

 

There is no question that switches such as a Netgear do what they are supposed to do.  The digital file gets through to where it is intended and you hear the music.  The switch does not change the file information.  Potentially though the file includes interference that spoils the listening experience with noise.  A switch developed for audio purposes is intended to mitigate the interference and other matters and just transmit the digital file and nothing more and reduce the noise floor .

 

 

After a Tplink my second switch was a Netgear.  I have graduated to much better switches over time.  What experience do you have with a network and Switches to base your assertions on? 

 

 

I aspire to quality and get a quality outcome.  If you and others are willing to accept something in your or their system that “performs well enough” and not better then you and they are definitely missing out.

 

John

 

prove to me on a TIE scope and audio analyser how  an “audiophile grade “ mega dollar switch is better than a standard switch.  Give me the tested analysis of what this switch does is “better” than a standard $30 Netgear or Cisco product and how it impacts audio.   I’m not going to trial a product that cost 1000X more because it gives sound quality that agrees with you,  because just because you like the improvement doesn’t mean that I’ll like it.   Typical switches such as Netgear will show on the product what they have to comply: 

[Tony M]

1 hour ago, Assisi said:

 

I aspire to quality and get a quality outcome.  If you and others are willing to accept something in your or their system that “performs well enough” and not better then you and they are definitely missing out.

 

I'm not taking sides here, but making a general comment.

 

The crux of the argument here is whether or not the changes associated with so-called "audiophile products" actually make any difference to performance, not whether "good enough" is an acceptable objective - the very fact that most people here are genuine audio enthusiasts means most would not agree with the latter premise.

 

I, too, aspire to quality - but generally only where it makes a positive difference.  This could be with regard to audio quality but things like aesthetics, tactility, convenience and reliability come into it too   I don't think anyone here is advocating "second best" as an ideal.  But an audiophile label, fancy casework and assertions re construction quality may or may not be worth it to each individual.  Similarly, any associated performance gains are subjective and arguable.  If you experience these and it makes the cost worthwhile to you, then it's your discretionary spend and IMO not subject to critical judgement.  If I thought you might be wasting money, I'd also conclude that's none of my business. 

 

Mainly, I'm pointing out the fallacy of suggesting that others who do not share your enthusiasm for these products are just not discerning enough to aspire to the best audio quality they can achieve (within the usual constraints). 

 

To illustrate, I have added an Innuos Phoenix USB reclocker thingy to my system.  I'm reasonably convinced it has resulted in a significant SQ improvement and that's good enough for me.  If someone wanted to do a direct comparison of my system with and without it and concluded they heard no difference, I might be a bit surprised/disappointed but not too fussed.  In particular, I think it would be a non-sequitur to accuse them of being willing to settle for second best should they decide they didn't need one themselves.  

 

 

[Godot]

On 25/10/2022 at 3:26 PM, georgehifi said:

Wow, didn't know it got to this state for some streamers trying to get streamed music to sound good. (Typical though, it comes from the same place that charges $250 for a 30c "directional" mains fuse)  

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ethernet-switch-for-audiophiles

 

And then I found this it's going to cost you around $6k!!!!!! usd for a network switch for your streamer (wonder what they charge for a mains fuse)

https://www.stereophile.com/content/nordost-qnet-network-switch-qsource-linear-power-supply

 

Cheers George

 

Well, thanks George, now I’ve actually read the linked review from stereophile and now I bloody want one! The stereophile comments thread was almost as predictable as this one, but at least I did come across a like minded post from another fan of organic cashews. 

I’ll just use some bit coin, an asset as productive as this thread continuing. 

[Addicted to music]

Just out of curiosity,   These $20 Netgear switches etc you’ll find in ever office and industrial setting.   Most won’t even go above cat5 connection,  usually running up to the physical limit in wire connection,  moves trillions of data a hour  to the end product from a control office that’s 50-100mtrs away and yet it gets there with no issues.  Way more noisier electrical than any home environment and works without a hitch.  Just saying! 

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, Assisi said:

If you and others are willing to accept something in your or their system that “performs well enough” and not better then you and they are definitely missing out.

 

I do not consider that swapping to an audiophile ethernet switch would make any difference to the sound I get from streaming.

 

Your system, Assisi, from what you have written, presented you with a  "noise-floor" issue that you have been able  to  alleviate with a specialist switch.

 

My system works fine with a basic switch. There is no "noise floor" phenomenon that I experience.

 

[acg]

@El Telare you able to summarise your streaming "journey" (I hate that word) for someone like me that has no time to go looking?

 

I'm in a conundrum in that I was loaned a fancy ethernet cable for my simple streaming setup:  Netgear pro 10GBe copper switch (I shift terrabytes daily for my work) >> ethernet >> Oladra  >> AES >> dac.  Surprisingly, I've noticed a nice difference in sound that is different in nature to the subtle changes generally offered by analogue interconnects and I can understand why @Assisicalls it a noise reduction because I find it particularly noticeable in the decay of stringed instruments, the quieter parts of the music, although I am not sure that it atually is a noise reduction.  Of course, I'll test this all more rigorously given time, but I am now looking to read other peoples experience with this sort of stuff wherever they sit on the subject, and from what you've written in this thread I am confused as to what you are trying to say (sorry).

[El Tel]

8 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

My system works fine with a basic switch. There is no "noise floor" phenomenon that I experience.

 

 

On the few occasions I have experimented with introduced EMI and gauging its transmission between devices using shielded cables, it was noteworthy that some combined streamer and DAC devices obviously had a bleed of the introduced EMI into their analogue circuits and some did not. Whilst not 100% correlating, I found the more compact devices seemed to be the most susceptible (older Bluesound and Sonos Connect). Hypothetically it could be due to component proximity/congestion on the circuit board within the device. Noteworthy was that even with shielded end-to-end connectivity (and electronic continuity of ground as proven by multimeter probe on the chassis of the devices at either ends of the chain), some equipment did not allow propagation of noise out to headphones (Lumin T2, Auralic Vega G2.1, Naim Uniti).

 

Perhaps your streamer/DAC falls into the second camp or perhaps you're not using shielded patches in the first place. 

[El Tel]

1 minute ago, acg said:

@El Telare you able to summarise your streaming "journey" (I hate that word) for someone like me that has no time to go looking?

 

I'm in a conundrum in that I was loaned a fancy ethernet cable for my simple streaming setup:  Netgear pro 10GBe copper switch (I shift terrabytes daily for my work) >> ethernet >> Oladra  >> AES >> dac.  Surprisingly, I've noticed a nice difference in sound that is different in nature to the subtle changes generally offered by analogue interconnects and I can understand why @Assisicalls it a noise reduction because I find it particularly noticeable in the decay of stringed instruments, the quieter parts of the music, although I am not sure that it atually is a noise reduction.  Of course, I'll test this all more rigorously given time, but I am now looking to read other peoples experience with this sort of stuff wherever they sit on the subject, and from what you've written in this thread I am confused as to what you are trying to say (sorry).

 

My streaming journey is not particularly relevant as I'm not talking about subjectivity in this instance. Today, however, my core streaming kit is Roon and Lumin T2.

 

The testing and experimentation I have done is more relevant to the subject at hand and with 30 years in tech (mostly data centre, trading floor environments with a focus on networking and network security). As per previous posts, I can summarise my findings into a very simplistic observation: I have seen cables change the nature of noise propagation with susceptible kit, but not be the cause of it. As an objectivist, I stay out of the "what sounds better" debate - as stated previously, I love the sound of valves but I know objectively they are an inferior and less accurate medium and are less authentic to the original sound. Subjective "better or worse" is a point of individual preference and with sighted listening only clouding the matter, I tend to defer to the individual and what they like (different strokes and all that).

[acg]

17 minutes ago, El Tel said:

Noteworthy was that even with shielded end-to-end connectivity (and electronic continuity of ground as proven by multimeter probe on the chassis of the devices at either ends of the chain),

 

These device chassis' will all be connected by PE and several (or all) devices with also have signal ground tied to the chassis (and hence PE) regardless of whether the interconnecting cables are shielded or not......or am I missing something?  My understanding is that ethernet is to some degree transformer coupled, or should be, which prima facie should remove such box-to-box interactions via cabling, unless perhaps we use metal plugs and shielded ethernet cables...perhaps.

 

 

8 minutes ago, El Tel said:

I have seen cables change the nature of noise propagation with susceptible kit, but not be the cause of it.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

11 minutes ago, El Tel said:

I'm not talking about subjectivity in this instance

 

Very good.  Understood.  Personally, I do prefer to find logical explanations for the things I experience in audio, and to understand them so that I can make better decisions.

[El Tel]

2 minutes ago, acg said:

These device chassis' will all be connected by PE and several (or all) devices with also have signal ground tied to the chassis (and hence PE) regardless of whether the interconnecting cables are shielded or not......or am I missing something?  My understanding is that ethernet is to some degree transformer coupled, or should be, which prima facie should remove such box-to-box interactions via cabling, unless perhaps we use metal plugs and shielded ethernet cables...perhaps.

 

Ethernet is transformer coupled, it is the very essence of how it works. My desire to know the "why" leads me to setting up testing using shielded and unshielded patches for the purposes of demonstrating to me whether or not EMI induced noise can traverse and/or be picked-up. You're bang on with the observation on box-to-box interactions and I have observed that shielded patches, including those claiming audiophile credentials, extend the noise domain.

 

The testing all started around claims that cables improved the sound. With transformer coupling I knew that this could not be the case with unshielded patches. So I started to work on the why. The noise propagation was where my testing lead me.

 

I stopped posting any new tests and details of what I did, how I did it and what outcomes were observed as it just resulted in some posters trying to shut me down telling me their carlos fandango switch/cable combo was best. I care not for personal listening impressions when I am investigating the why.

 

There was interest on the Roon forum in what I was doing so I have shared stuff on there. It's searchable as my username on there is the same as here.

 

 

[acg]

@El Tel, interesting. 

 

The shielded cable with the metal connectors did sound better to me than the shielded cable with plastic connectors or the unshielded cable with plastic connectors (normal 50cent patch lead).  I wonder if it is something to do with the path of the noise rather than the magnitude of the noise itself?  Perhaps the more direct box to box ground connection via the patch lead shield and metal connectors causes a more benign reaction to that noise in the streamer/dac than having to go in the back door via the mains cabling?  Just thinking aloud really...not really sure how I could test that.

 

EDIT:  The two shielded patch cables also accommodate direct connection of the shield to chassis (PE) ground of one or both of the streamer/switch.  That is where I shall start my experiments.

Edited October 27, 2022 by acg

[Godot]

I did purchase some unshielded patch cables as recommended by Señor El Tel in another interminable thread eons ago in SNA universe time. 
They were well made, sensibly priced and sound the same to me in my system as other cables I have tried from a range of manufacturers and price points, except for one shielded cable with metal connectors both ends that is truly awful.