Ethernet switch box
- Thread starter johnthomas
- Start date
try wired Ethernet but it takes some attention to get it right. wifi controllers are generally noisy, unless specific attention is given to isolate it like Auralic does.
Randy Myers
Active member
I think he might be referring to coming off the router. The main reason for a switch is additional ports. Most any router will have more than two Ethernet ports. A network requires a router but only needs a switch to add ports.
Randy Myers
Active member
That is my exact point. Thank you MEP.
Any perceived advantages will be lost by adding additional unnecessary equipment. The only advantage I can see is if you are already needing/using a switch and you want to replace that component with a sonically better one.
Now if you are considering an audiophile level router... that is a different discussion.
Funny you mention ASR. I think you should send them the Melco for measurements
PS. I like to read their measurements. Too bad they cannot admit the limitations of their testing. It was evident when they tried to measure a cable and declared that all cables sound the same.
u-sound
Active member
can you elaborate on this?
even if you have sufficient ports on the router, many have found
router -> audio server < router --> audiograde switch --> audio server
these are not objective but subjective opinions, off-coarse. In both the cases, your server gets all the packets/bits intact in the same way but the two setups sounds different (and there are lot of reasons and hypothesis behind it). This is why there are proliferation of audiophile switches in the marker today
Let’s say that you get your music from a music service like Qobuz, Tidal, etc.
The signal (audio) gets to the router after traveling thousands of miles from wherever. The router is just a generic appliance provided by your internet service provider.
Then you connect your router to this switch device which connects to your audio equipment. Is this switch device supposed to “fix” whatever you got from the internet? Is there any technical proof that this is the case? (I am talking objective proof not some “I hear” stuff).
The signal (audio) gets to the router after traveling thousands of miles from wherever. The router is just a generic appliance provided by your internet service provider.
Then you connect your router to this switch device which connects to your audio equipment. Is this switch device supposed to “fix” whatever you got from the internet? Is there any technical proof that this is the case? (I am talking objective proof not some “I hear” stuff).
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
Those bits and electrons are very picky. The bits arriving through the internet will either be very happy when they arrive and welcomed by an audiophile grade router or very turned off and make your music sour.... Same with electrons. Electrons travel for miles and miles and when they arrive, you better have a fat and expensive power cord ready for them or they will tell the other "arriving electrons" as they are leaving back to the power station and then your music will be in real trouble!
Randy Myers
Active member
No I cannot because I am not familiar with any. The point I was making is if they make audiophile grade switches I assume they must make audiophile grade routers also.
Also, this is not an area that interests me because I do not have my music going through my network, but instead stored locally on my server. I also do not do any online streaming.
Randy Myers
Active member
Actually many routers are after market and not provided by the ISP. The only thing that my ISP provides is the modem. I personally use an Asus higher end model router.
Exactly
Maybe it is semantics. I believe that the “modem” provided by the ISP is also a routers. Your switch(es) connect directly to the “modem” provided by your ISP.
So my question still remains unanswered.
Jack
Active member
The ISP's call the combination unit's "gateways" and they are routers and modem's in one box sharing one SMPS. With both my ISP's you can go either way but you will get better performance with separates with their modem and your own router.
Randy Myers
Active member
Exactly. Thank you Jack, you took the words right out of my mouth
. It is always better using your own after market router.Thank you! That is what I thought: that the devices provided by the ISP are a modem and a switch.
So my question is still: how can can you better performance using “their modem” and your “own router” (or switch) ?
Again looking for technical (i.e., non subjective) proof. Thanks!
Jack
Active member
No, the device provided by the ISP is a modem and a router and most routers have only two ethernet ports. Think of a switch as a type of "power strip" in that it gives you additional ethernet ports in case you have more than two devices that need to be hard wired. Splitting out the modem and router from one case gives you at the least a separate dedicated power supply for each device that you can with some of them choose to upgrade to a LPS if the SMPS is external to the case. In every case I have ever tried the outboard router will give you better coverage due to better and more antennas and faster speeds than the one provided by the ISP as theirs is a one size fits all for standardization for their techs and lower cost due to bulk ordering. If your looking for "technical" proof you are probably looking in the wrong place. You might find people with that type of technical background on AS but likely they will also be selling their own products so their explanations will fit their product.
Puma Cat
Well-known member
You're inaccurately mis-characterizing what I said. I DID NOT say that the ER did not sound better when using a good LPS, I said that you don't need one to use it. The two are completely different statements with different meanings.
I agree the ER sounds better with a good LPS; I use an LPS-1.2, but that does not mean using an external LPS is necessary to obtain nominal performance from an ER.
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Pumacat, I hope you understand what you are saying....You can't have the cake and eat it too
There are no PUBLISHED measurements but that does not mean that John Swenson does not have them. These are completely different things.
As for threshold jitter, you can read what that is here: https://tinyurl.com/yylwak9b
No, I'm not mistaken again, you are inaccurately mis-characterizing what I said again. I didn't say John wasn't building the test equipment for 3 years now; he started building the bespoke test equipment in or around October 2017, when he discovered the existence of high-source impedance leakage current. The entire devleopment story is published at Audiophile Style in detail; you can read it there.
As for pictures of the measurements, he may publish them...or not. He's very busy with new projects and product under development, and he's virtually under no obligation to publish photos or graphics of the measurements depicting high-source impedance leakage current and its impact on edges for a product that has been in the market for over year. The advantage of the ER's design and functionality is not based on conjecture and theory, its a real design embodiment that is fully realized as functionality, but John is in no way obligated to publish his metrology, his measurement system, "evidence" or his core competencies that underpin the design embodiment. He could treat them as a trade secret if he wanted to. And he would be fully within his rights to do so.
Do you think that dCS publishes all their engineering developments and the underpinning of their core competencies?
Guess what? They don't.