Ethernet switch box

Are you guys that are using switches doing it because you need more Ethernet ports?

nope, only for sound quality. For Audio, you need at most 4 ports to work with - server, streamer/endpoint, NAS and upstream. I only need two - server and upstream. So Ethernet ports are not an issue as all them has atleast that many ports to start with.
 
Hmmmm... Never tried that... I guess I simply assumed that if audio files were not travelling through the network then the occasional Roon traffic would not be an issue.

On my machine this might be different as well since the motherboard has a wifi chip built in and utilizes an external wifi antenna for Roon's network connection. There is no hard wire connection to the system what so ever. Even the Oppo has it's own external wifi adapter for the once in a blue moon that I do a SACD rip.

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.
 
nope, only for sound quality. For Audio, you need at most 4 ports to work with - server, streamer/endpoint, NAS and upstream. I only need two - server and upstream. So Ethernet ports are not an issue as all them has atleast that many ports to start with.

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.
 
I am assuming you have a router that has all the ports you need and you are adding a switch to the network because some people think that adding an unnecessary piece of gear in the network will improve the sound.
 
I am assuming you have a router that has all the ports you need and you are adding a switch to the network because some people think that adding an unnecessary piece of gear in the network will improve the sound.

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.
 
I am assuming you have a router that has all the ports you need and you are adding a switch to the network because some people think that adding an unnecessary piece of gear in the network will improve the sound.

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).
 
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).

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! :D
 
can you elaborate on this?

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.
 
The router is just a generic appliance provided by your internet service provider.

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.

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).

Exactly
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Exactly. Thank you Jack, you took the words right out of my mouth :). It is always better using your own after market router.
 
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.

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!
 
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.
 
T
You are mistaken - the eR just sounds better with a better power supply. Same with Melco. All the high-speed isolator chip used in eR to separate out the data/power/ground between A and B is really good on theory but is different when in practice.

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.
 
Guys, my question is still: how can can you better performance using your ISP provider modem/router and your own router and/or switch?
I am looking for technical data not subjective (“I can hear it”) stuff.
Thanks.
 
Pumacat, I hope you understand what you are saying....You can't have the cake and eat it too :) There is NO measurements that shows eR "ability to block high-source impedance leakage current and its impact on threshold jitter." whatever that means.

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

You are mistaken again - JS has been building the test equipment for almost 3yrs now. Forget the measurements, there is no ETA when it will be complete or if ever it will. The eR design is based on conjecture and mere theory. I don't mean that the theory is incorrect but it lacks evidence so far. All we know today is injecting the eR into the network chain really uplifts sound quality and I can vouch for that. I use one in my chain as well but I use other switches in the chain as well.

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.
 
Back
Top