Do I really need an " Audio Grade Network Switch "?

W9TR said:
I am audiophile switch ‘curious’ and have found some significant improvements using an optical break powered on the receiving end by a low noise power supply. With the help of Kelly, I did a 50 trial blind test and picked the optical break as being preferred in 48 of 50 trials. So there may be a pony in this audiophile switch business.

Next month, I’m planning to test an audiophile network switch using the same methodology. Should be fun.
Click to expand...

48/50 in blind test is certainly an impressive result and strongly suggests real improvement.

Does an "optical break" involve a digital => optical => digital conversion? What would be the nature of the improvement it would produce: lower noise? Lower jitter? Either way, it would almost certainly result in a measurable difference. Does the provider of the optical break device provide any documented measurements?
 
Feanor said:
Probably this is your best bet in a network switch ... Amazon's 'Choice'

Watch Amir's commentary with a typical set of measurements of an "audiophile" switch ...

[video]https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-5-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07S98YLHM/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1FG315C3U7YH5&keywords=network+switch&qid=1643028775&s=electronics&sprefix=network%2Celectronics-intl-ship%2C78&sr=1-5[/video]

... So much snake oil and audiophile sucker bait.
Click to expand...

I don't put any credence into any Youtube videos.
 
Feanor said:
ASR isn't above criticism, granted. However I believe that equipment measurements, including theirs, do have some correlation with subjective impressions. That is, unlike many audiophiles I don't dismiss measurements out of hand.
Click to expand...

So it is still (essentially) a matter of faith. It doesn't help that ASR is misnamed (there is no "science" at the site, only some engineering and technical measurements).

I suspect few of us dismiss measurements out of hand, anymore than we dismiss subjective impressions out of hand. Context and application are important in either case.
 
rbbert said:
So it is still (essentially) a matter of faith. It doesn't help that ASR is misnamed (there is no "science" at the site, only some engineering and technical measurements).

I suspect few of us dismiss measurements out of hand, anymore than we dismiss subjective impressions out of hand. Context and application are important in either case.
Click to expand...

FWIW, there are many highly knowledgeable and experienced audio electronics engineers who frequent the site. Granted, few are psychoacoustical scientists.
 
Feanor said:
48/50 in blind test is certainly an impressive result and strongly suggests real improvement.

Does an "optical break" involve a digital => optical => digital conversion? What would be the nature of the improvement it would produce: lower noise? Lower jitter? Either way, it would almost certainly result in a measurable difference. Does the provider of the optical break device provide any documented measurements?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a digital/optical/digital device that converts wired Ethernet to optical Ethernet and back to wired.

The purpose is to prevent noise from upstream Ethernet switches, cables, and other networking components from entering my audio system via grounds, power supplies, and capacitive coupling across networking isolation transformers.

The provider does not include measurements - this is not an audio/audiophile product, it is a networking product. I have not done any end to end measurements. I’m satisfied the blind testing I did is sufficiently robust for me to keep the device(s) in my system.
 
W9TR said:
Yes, it is a digital/optical/digital device that converts wired Ethernet to optical Ethernet and back to wired.

The purpose is to prevent noise from upstream Ethernet switches, cables, and other networking components from entering my audio system via grounds, power supplies, and capacitive coupling across networking isolation transformers.

The provider does not include measurements - this is not an audio/audiophile product, it is a networking product. I have not done any end to end measurements. I’m satisfied the blind testing I did is sufficiently robust for me to keep the device(s) in my system.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Can you mention the make & model and a seller?
 
I had similar results (perceptive improvement) using the Blackbox Flexpoint fiber media converters on both ends, OM3 LC-LC multimode fiber (nobody better say it makes more sense to use single mode - unless you’re going like between houses or something), with a short “high quality” ethernet cable at the audio end. Fwiw when I bought that ethernet cable it was advertised as “Cat 8” which was complete bullshit since no such standard had even been proposed at that point. Nonetheless I fell - I mean, went - for it and was happy with the results.

I haven’t been full ethernet in years, and now I am fiber from the switch to the X1, but haven’t a/b’d it with a long ethernet run.

Could I hear the difference? Who knows. But in my case at least, fiber was easier to run, and since it’s impervious to environmentals along the way, I figured I’d just keep it how it is.

I was always of the mind of the ASR guy and coming from a network engineering background it makes sense to me. Between the fact that the original and end states are just 0s and 1s, and in between you have TCP/IP which handles errors (visibly), re-transmissions etc, I just thought, “it either gets there or it doesn’t”. But you guys got me all turned around so now I tend to think there’s probably a gap in my knowledge/theory and things like EtherREGEN prevent or fix problems I just don’t understand well.

Meh, end of the day I’m probably willing to drop 600 to experiment with it, once everything else is dialed in where I want it, but certainly not 3500…. There simply isn’t 3500 worth of engineering spend or parts represented imo. But again, wtf do I know.
 
jmusica said:
I had similar results (perceptive improvement) using the Blackbox Flexpoint fiber media converters on both ends, OM3 LC-LC multimode fiber (nobody better say it makes more sense to use single mode - unless you’re going like between houses or something), with a short “high quality” ethernet cable at the audio end. Fwiw when I bought that ethernet cable it was advertised as “Cat 8” which was complete bullshit since no such standard had even been proposed at that point. Nonetheless I fell - I mean, went - for it and was happy with the results.

I haven’t been full ethernet in years, and now I am fiber from the switch to the X1, but haven’t a/b’d it with a long ethernet run.

Could I hear the difference? Who knows. But in my case at least, fiber was easier to run, and since it’s impervious to environmentals along the way, I figured I’d just keep it how it is.

I was always of the mind of the ASR guy and coming from a network engineering background it makes sense to me. Between the fact that the original and end states are just 0s and 1s, and in between you have TCP/IP which handles errors (visibly), re-transmissions etc, I just thought, “it either gets there or it doesn’t”. But you guys got me all turned around so now I tend to think there’s probably a gap in my knowledge/theory and things like EtherREGEN prevent or fix problems I just don’t understand well.

Meh, end of the day I’m probably willing to drop 600 to experiment with it, once everything else is dialed in where I want it, but certainly not 3500…. There simply isn’t 3500 worth of engineering spend or parts represented imo. But again, wtf do I know.
Click to expand...

This stuff is super easy to blind test with an assistant. I'd buy only with a money back return option.
 
Feanor said:
FWIW, there are many highly knowledgeable and experienced audio electronics engineers who frequent the site. Granted, few are psychoacoustical scientists.
Click to expand...

It is a common misconception that engineering is a science; it's not, in its simplest terms it's the practical application of science. However, engineering and engineers also make frequent use of empirical information which is emphatically not science.

Unsurprisingly there is very little true scientific evidence (even "low-grade") about much of anything relevant to what audiophiles care about. There is a growing body of data (not evidence, merely observations) about what parts of the brain increase activity when listening to music, and how the degree of activity might correlate with subjective listening pleasure, but again that is not likely to be very relevant to telling us which audio components are "best" except to the specific listener. At this time we are frequently left with nothing better than empirical observations about sound quality, not too dissimilar to what engineers often use in designing audio components (hmmm).

Too many people make the mistake of assuming that if there is a lot of data gathered through technological means that it must somehow be meaningful.
 
rbbert said:
It is a common misconception that engineering is a science; it's not, in its simplest terms it's the practical application of science. However, engineering and engineers also make frequent use of empirical information which is emphatically not science.

Unsurprisingly there is very little true scientific evidence (even "low-grade") about much of anything relevant to what audiophiles care about. There is a growing body of data (not evidence, merely observations) about what parts of the brain increase activity when listening to music, and how the degree of activity might correlate with subjective listening pleasure, but again that is not likely to be very relevant to telling us which audio components are "best" except to the specific listener. At this time we are frequently left with nothing better than empirical observations about sound quality, not too dissimilar to what engineers often use in designing audio components (hmmm).

Too many people make the mistake of assuming that if there is a lot of data gathered through technological means that it must somehow be meaningful.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that engineers, (and medical doctors), are rarely scientists. ;)

In fact too many ASR denizens are hard-core dogmatic sound difference deniers. Their constant, annoying refrain whenever someone, (say like me), dares to post an impression :S is "But can you prove that? Have you performed a systematic blind test?"

First, I believe that the standard ABX test simply does not give the listener to opportunity to appreciate differences that actually exist. Although note: large scale AB testing has demonstrated that some people CAN tell the difference between some specific amplifiers at well above random chance -- a fact glossed over by the deniers.

However secondly, I don't depreciate equipment testing because I DO believe that there is a correlation between measurements and subjective impressions. E.g. That 2nd/3rd order harmonic distortion is not only benign but agreeable, and that most audiophile prefer a little of it over the lowest possible THD. This is why I visit ASR at all.
 
Here's an interesting tidbit for your reading pleasure. Not completely aligned with the subject of Ethernet switch audibility, but does address some of the more objectivist claims of cable inaudibility by testing a balanced cable with an unbalanced one driving the balanced and unbalanced inputs of an amplifier. It does highlight how challenging this type of listener-centered testing is to pull off.

http://boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/papers/Audibility-of-cable-pathways--Kunchur.pdf

The ASR 'scientists' crapped all over this one because it doesn't fit their objectivist world view.

Rob, if you are interested there is an active AES subgroup "Perception and Subjective Evaluation of Audio Signals". There are hundreds of papers of potential interest to audiophiles, many on the subjective evaluation of localization and spatialization in stereo and multi-channel systems.
 
Yes, but do I have to join AES again? The 2 years I tried that 15+ years ago (using my brother's engineering credentials) were clearly not worth the money.
 
Some of the papers are in the public domain, though most are not. So if you want to go down the psychoacoustic rabbit hole you’ve got to pay. I’m a member because I’m still doing audio work for some clients. Not sure it’s worth it otherwise. Most of the psychoacoustic papers are related to audio codec performance and testing, but there are quite a few related to things that are of interest to audiophiles, like spatialization, audible effects of jitter, etc.
 
Some of the papers are in the public domain, though most are not. So if you want to go down the psychoacoustic rabbit hole you’ve got to pay. I’m a member because I’m still doing audio work for some clients. Not sure it’s worth it otherwise. Most of the psychoacoustic papers are related to audio codec performance and testing, but there are quite a few related to things that are of interest to audiophiles, like spatialization, audible effects of jitter, etc.
 
rbbert said:
But note that "belief" is an element of faith, unless supported by evidence ;)

Although it has been true that the majority of M.D.'s (even though typically educated in science) ignore scientific principles after their didactic training, there is a growing movement to change that

Emergency Medicine CME | Evidence-Based Excellence | EB Medicine

Home - 2020 - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

And the vast majority of medical researchers are scientists by almost any definition.
Click to expand...

With the exception of medical researchers (many of whom are MD, PhD's) may be accurately categorized as scientists, as someone who spent over 40 years as a molecular biologist with peer-reviewed publications e.g. Science, PNAS, Blood, ASHG Journal, etc., in my professional view, "regular MD's" are highly-trained technicians, but not what I would classify as scientists.
 
Feanor said:
I agree with you that engineers, (and medical doctors), are rarely scientists. ;)

In fact too many ASR denizens are hard-core dogmatic sound difference deniers. Their constant, annoying refrain whenever someone, (say like me), dares to post an impression :S is "But can you prove that? Have you performed a systematic blind test?"

First, I believe that the standard ABX test simply does not give the listener to opportunity to appreciate differences that actually exist. Although note: large scale AB testing has demonstrated that some people CAN tell the difference between some specific amplifiers at well above random chance -- a fact glossed over by the deniers.

However secondly, I don't depreciate equipment testing because I DO believe that there is a correlation between measurements and subjective impressions. E.g. That 2nd/3rd order harmonic distortion is not only benign but agreeable, and that most audiophile prefer a little of it over the lowest possible THD. This is why I visit ASR at all.
Click to expand...

The ASR guys have got their head up their collective *ss. One of the foundational misconceptions that they fundamentally operate by is that the 1) the ear is a microphone and 2) the brain is a tape recorder. As we know, nothing could be further the from the truth. Nelson Pass understands this, though, which is why he is working with a neuroscientist on how the brain* "constructs music".

The "experience" of music is a construct of the brain. All that speakers or a musical instrument do is pressurize the air. They do not do anything else. So does a 2-stroke chain saw. Yet the latter is perceived by the brain as "noise" and Yeol Eum Son playing Mozart's Piano Concerto in C Major, K. 467, as the former, is constructed by our brains as "music".

This important distinction is what ASR does not acknowledge nor understand.

*- Another example of the brain is responsible for constructing the experience of "music" is there are folks that have suffered brain damage or injury that have become tone deaf, i.e., they cannot distinguish differences in pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top