Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #21
I'll definitely read. Thanks for sharing!
Ethernet switch test
- Thread starter Michaels HiFi
- Start date
I'll definitely read. Thanks for sharing!
Rnrmf
Member
I had come across another recommended Finisar on Audiophile Style - the FTLF8519P3BNL
Do you know if whoever it was compared that with the FTLF1324P2BTV you mention?
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #23
Good question. I have the FTLF8519P3BNL. Would like to know the answer.
Rnrmf
Member
When I've looked up some of the Finisar transceivers I have come across "discontinued" with some of the recommended ones I've searched for. That makes me wonder if sellers that claim to stock them have printed up labels and stuck them on a generic transceivers to take advantage.
It's almost a bridge too far for me to believe that these transceivers can sound markedly different as it stands.
Have you compared the Finisar you have with others?
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #25
I spent most of today testing switches with RJ45. Tomorrow will be optical day. I bought the Finsar and these to compare:
StarTech.com MSA Uncoded Compatible SFP Module - 1000BASE-ZX - 1GbE Single Mode Fiber (SMF) Optic Transceiver - 1GE Gigabit Ethernet SFP - LC 70km - 1550nm - DDM (SFP1000ZXST)
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Depends how "markedly different" is defined. They can sound different. Just as two 6922s can sound different. My suggestion is to find one you like and call it day.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #27
OK guys - I may have to postpone step 2 in the testing. I was enjoying (no critical listening) the new improved sound with my ethernet audio tonight to become familiar with the new baseline for tomorrow and decided to download and try Qobuz to compare to my Tidal subscription.
HOLY CRAP!!!!!
Qobuz so kicked the butt of Tidal up and down the street I need a couple of days of listening to get used to how good it sounds before moving on to step 2 otherwise my findings will be all skewed.
HOLY CRAP!!!!!
Qobuz so kicked the butt of Tidal up and down the street I need a couple of days of listening to get used to how good it sounds before moving on to step 2 otherwise my findings will be all skewed.
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Oh, yeah, I figured this out years ago. Dropped my Tidal sub immediately.
Also, not to add "complexity" here, but discs that are ripped and resident on a "file server" drive sound better than the same exact recording streamed from Qobuz. Even if, for example, the recording is 24/96 on Qobuz and is 16/44 ripped from a CD. When I find content I like on Qobuz, I'll then order the CD, rip it, and put it on the file server.
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Just another note that I use the app, XLD, for ripping CDs, with the AccurateRIP function invoked.
W9TR
Active member
Ground induced parasitic power supply leakage currents, clock phase noise, threshold ambiguity in DAC’s are all known and real phenomena. What hasn’t yet been done is a rigorous scientific proof of how these mechanisms impact reproduced sound. So far all I’ve seen is hand waving, anecdotal listening experiences, or just crickets. While plausible hypotheses have been raised as to the sonic impact of these mechanisms, I have not as yet seen a set of experiments of sufficient quality to show that any suggested solutions make an impact outside of the listeners cerebral cortex.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,092
The cure is worse than the disease. Mr. 6th degree BB in breaking wind is still recommending a complex streaming hookup that entails multiple conversions of ethernet to fiber and back to ethernet that he personally removed from his system because it's inherently unreliable. You don't even need industry titles that proves you are a quality guru to know this is still a bad idea.
At the end of the day, all conclusions are based on what the experimenters ears tell him which may not mesh with what others hear in their system. It's all subjective.
Common sense tells you to keep your digital chain as simple as possible for it to work optimally. Adding needless complexity adds unreliability to your network.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #32
Update: So I spent a couple of hours last night on this getting a new baseline on sound before I try the next round of tests which include much more expensive ethernet cables.
I've run all my baseline tests with BJC cat 6a cables. Why? Because they are one of the few cables I know of that come with a test spec sheet for each individual cable proving it is actually a true 6a or better rated cable. Many of the mass market cables being sold are from china and do not actually meet their rated speed claims.
In the ethernet audio forums there is a lot of talk about the Supra Cat 8 cable being a 'budget killer' and outperforming more expensive cables yet only costs $50. So I bought one along with the other cables I will be trying as a super cheap option on cable.
I was excited looking forward to a lift in SQ when using the Supra. Yet In my tests last night there was no difference in sound between the Supra and the $12 BJC. I think this speaks to the BJC being a very solid entry level ethernet cable to use until someone is ready to step up to higher end cables.
We'll see how the other tests pan out.
I've run all my baseline tests with BJC cat 6a cables. Why? Because they are one of the few cables I know of that come with a test spec sheet for each individual cable proving it is actually a true 6a or better rated cable. Many of the mass market cables being sold are from china and do not actually meet their rated speed claims.
In the ethernet audio forums there is a lot of talk about the Supra Cat 8 cable being a 'budget killer' and outperforming more expensive cables yet only costs $50. So I bought one along with the other cables I will be trying as a super cheap option on cable.
I was excited looking forward to a lift in SQ when using the Supra. Yet In my tests last night there was no difference in sound between the Supra and the $12 BJC. I think this speaks to the BJC being a very solid entry level ethernet cable to use until someone is ready to step up to higher end cables.
We'll see how the other tests pan out.
I was quite skeptical about the value of "audiophile" Ethernet switches until I compared the EtherRegen to stock Cisco and TP-link switches and to no switch. I was also skeptical about the "need" for a LPS for the EtherRegen. Note that the EtherRegen and my HDPlex LPS are at the low end (pricewise) to what is out there. Nevertheless the difference in sound quality switching back and forth (using qobuz) was apparent even to my non-audiophile wife who was blinded to the source. One caveat; I use an ASUS non-audiophile grade router and a long run of fairly generic CAT6 (the BJC mentioned above) into the EtherRegen. It is possible that a better Ethernet cable from router to switch would equal or better the sound of the improved switch, but it would cost more than the switch.
I do have the potential to move the switch and server close to the router and upgrade that Ethernet cable (although there are some physical home logistical problems with this approach for me). The Uptone Audio folks claim that shouldn't matter, but others' experiences suggest that may not be true.
I do have the potential to move the switch and server close to the router and upgrade that Ethernet cable (although there are some physical home logistical problems with this approach for me). The Uptone Audio folks claim that shouldn't matter, but others' experiences suggest that may not be true.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #34
In my testing which I will be posting a video on - moving the switch closer to my streamer with a very short cable then to the streamer after the switch did yield subtle improvements.
I also think ethernet audio is VERY dependent on so many individual factors on a user basis regarding the quality of cable to the house, in the house, interference in the walls, etc. etc. that a switch that may make an improvement for one person may or may not for another person.
Rnrmf
Member
Is the BJC cable shielded or unshielded? I don't think the BJC site specifies. I've been experimenting with 2 types of unshielded CAT6 with one claiming much "higher bandwidth" than the other. I've been comparing those to a CAT8 cable I like a lot but that's obviously strongly shielded. There is an inexpensive unshielded 6a that I considered trying but it has POE and I'm not sure if that's something I want in my streaming chain. I don't need the POE feature but I don't know if it could be a source of noise transmission in an otherwise unshielded 6a cable.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #37
Hi - I believe it is unshielded. the BJC is so inexpensive on Amazon you should give it a try. I burn in my ethernet cables before trying any listening on them and my OCD makes me keep them all directional.
Rnrmf
Member
I forgot that Amazon sold them - pictures on Amazon and questions answered by BJC confirm it's unshielded at the connector ends though it has foil to prevent what they call "alien crosstalk (AXT) from neighboring cables." Thanks for the suggestion. I might give them a try as the build is a little different than the unshielded CAT6 I'm currently trying.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #39
Let me know if you try them what you think of them.
For sure there are better ethernet cables at much more expensive prices. But So far I consider them a solid entry level ethernet cable that are better than the basic mass market crap before getting into more expensive premium cables.
Puma Cat
Well-known member
What it's dependent primarily for audio on is the amount of leakage current from el-cheapo upstream devices. This causes threshold jitter, which impacts timing. Which we can easily hear. They're also sensitive to common-mode noise. And the terminations used.