To Switch or Not to Switch?

2FarGone said:
Also interesting. May I inquire as to the reason for the two switches? There’s got to be a reason…
Click to expand...
First off I have my system isolated from all other network devices that are either hardwired or on the dreaded wifi. I have 3 networks in the our home two wifi networks for printers, laptops, phones, handhelds. Also run my pool/patio entertainment system on a seperate wifi network. My listening space is hardwired and isolated through a series of switches (Ediscreation) https://ediscreation.com/product/silent-switch-ocxo/ that is fed D-Link DGS 1016D in my network closet off the master bedroom. The Edisocreation S-S OCXO II feeds a Sonore Optical Module Deluxe that coverts to optical and feeds my Uptone EtherREGEN 1. The chain feeds my modified Innous Zenith MKIII that feeds my LessLoss Echo's End Reference DAC. My digital chain sounds wonderful and was built up over a few years of trial and error. There is no WIFI or Cellular in my listening space in an effort to reduce EMI/RFI and other airborne interference. Maybe overkill and complicated but it works for me.
 
RepublicOfTexas69 said:
Maybe overkill and complicated but it works for me.
Click to expand...

I have spent years experimenting with no switch, one switch, two switches, three switches and four switches.

I have tried over 30 brands of switches and spent month mixing and matching to find the perfect combo.

I have spent 2 years trying vibration control with every digital device you can imagine and currently have a triple level vibration device under my main switch.

In high end digital there is no such thing as overkill. Every little tweak makes a difference.
 
Michaels HiFi said:
I have spent years experimenting with no switch, one switch, two switches, three switches and four switches.

I have tried over 30 brands of switches and spent month mixing and matching to find the perfect combo.

I have spent 2 years trying vibration control with every digital device you can imagine and currently have a triple level vibration device under my main switch.

In high end digital there is no such thing as overkill. Every little tweak makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Yes I know and I enjoyed following your experiments on WBF and FB. Great stuff and inspired some of my experiments. Thank you Michael.
 
I also use two switches after my router. Router to switch 1 is Ethernet. Switch 1 to switch 2 is fiber, switch 2 to my server is a short Ethernet.

Why two switches? To break the path of any galvanic noise riding on the Ethernet cable. Then work hard to minimize the chance of picking up any other galvanic noise to the server.

Having said that, with my MSB Premier Digital Director after my server cleaning things up prior to the DAC, I can honestly say I cannot hear any benefit of the two servers - anymore.

I keep them because I have them. They do no harm.
 
Last edited:
crwilli said:
Having said that, with my MSB Premier Digital Director after my server cleaning things up prior to the DAC, I can honestly say I cannot hear any benefit of the two servers - anymore.

I keep them because I have them. They do no harm.
Click to expand...

I completely agree - as gear changes we need to constantly challenge our digital set up to see if pieces are still needed.
 
Michaels HiFi said:
I completely agree - as gear changes we need to constantly challenge our digital set up to see if pieces are still needed.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, those high end streamers cost a serious amount of money. If the input is already cleaned from noise and the ones and zero’s are reclocked then the only source that could mess it up again is the final streamer..

Combine a good switch combination together with a much cheaper streamer, the sound quality could be almost as good as a tens of thousands dollars costing streamer.
 
crwilli said:
I also use two switches after my router. Router to switch 1 is Ethernet. Switch 1 to switch 2 is fiber, switch 2 to my server is a short Ethernet.

Why two switches? To break the path of any galvanic noise riding on the Ethernet cable. Then work hard to minimize the chance of picking up any other galvanic noise to the server.

Having said that, with my MSB Premier Digital Director after my server cleaning things up prior to the DAC, I can honestly say I cannot hear any benefit of the two servers - anymore.

I keep them because I have them. They do no harm.
Click to expand...
At one point I had 2 additional switches in my IT Closet, pulled 2 out with the addition on the Afterdark Clock into the EtherREGEN mad no difference in sound just wanted 2 less boxes. Do no harm as we say..
 
NewAlkyogre said:
On the other hand, those high end streamers cost a serious amount of money. If the input is already cleaned from noise and the ones and zero’s are reclocked then the only source that could mess it up again is the final streamer..

Combine a good switch combination together with a much cheaper streamer, the sound quality could be almost as good as a tens of thousands dollars costing streamer.
Click to expand...

Where's the fun if an audiophile can't spend more money on pricey, but ineffectual, (but visually appealing). equipment?

A properly designed DAC (or streamer) should obviate any need for a pricey switch to suppress network noise or induced jitter. If you have any doubts about your DAC, get a better DAC before you worry about an audiophile switch.

Personally I have an old Schiit Wyrd that sits between my Win 11 PC and my Topping D90 DAC. The Wyrd replaces PC power with its own so would eliminate computer and network noise. I can't hear any difference to the sound whether the Wyrd is in-circuit or not. In practical terms the Wyrd lets me run my USB connection a litter farther thon a 15 foot USB cable.

ChatGPT suggests this experiment, (if your setup allows), copy a music file to your local device and compare the sound from the local file versus the same file over the network. If you can genuinely hear a difference you have a problem.
 
Last edited:
Feanor said:
Where's the fun if an audiophile can't spend more money on pricey, but ineffectual, (but visually appealing). equipment?

A properly designed DAC (or streamer) should obviate any need for a pricey switch to suppress network noise or induced jitter. If you have any doubts about your DAC, get a better DAC before you worry about an audiophile switch.

Personally I have an old Schiit Wyrd that sits between my Win 11 PC and my Topping D90 DAC. The Wyrd replaces PC power with its own so would eliminate computer and network noise. I can't hear any difference to the sound whether the Wyrd is in-circuit or not. In practical terms the Wyrd lets me run my USB connection a litter farther thon a 15 foot USB cable.

ChatGPT suggests this experiment, (if your setup allows), copy a music file to your local device and compare the sound from the local file versus the same file over the network. If you can genuinely hear a difference you have a problem.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with this. As a computer/software engineer I have always felt that any network switch can only make very minimal differences, if any at all. If you get your music through streaming services realize that the signal that final gets to your DAC has already passed through hundreds if not thousands of routers and switches. One final "audiophile" switch at the end of the line should make almost no differences. Also, your point about that a properly designed DAC will already take care of any issues is on point.

I have tested both streaming, files stored on a network drives, or local stored files on internal drives within the sever. The internal stored files sound better in every case so long as we are comparing the same files. We even performed this test on my buddy's system where he recently had his entire house rewired with "audiophile" wiring; ethernet cabling and network devices. The internal stored files were superior.

This was even more the case when the files were stored on solid state drives (no moving parts, no spinning drives), and especially true when the files are stored on M.2 drives. The music comes straight from internal SSD drives to the DAC. Nothing in between. The music server/meta data/control software is on the sever computer/streaming device and sends the music straight to the DAC which in turn outputs the analog signal via high grade balances cables to the pre-amp. As straight and minimal path as can be achieved in a digital system.
 
I agree that one would think that buying a high end dac (arbitrarily over $50,000) that the streamer and switch and cables feeding it shouldn’t matter because the DAC would have figured out how to clean it up. And if that’s out of their expertise then partner with a specialist that can provide the circuitry to accomplish it.

But then again - start rant - why the heck don’t amplifier companies do the same thing to clean up the power coming into their pre/power amps.

Let’s face it - the circuitry in AC power distribution boxes is not what makes them cost what they do - it’s the pretty box the plugs the extra power cord etc. why can’t a $50,000 amp include a couple thousand dollars of power cleanup stuff in the amp box? Charge $55,000. Why wouldn’t you want your amp to sound the best? I don’t get it. Or maybe I do - profits or laziness. — end rant.
 
the professor said:
I agree that one would think that buying a high end dac (arbitrarily over $50,000) that the streamer and switch and cables feeding it shouldn’t matter because the DAC would have figured out how to clean it up. And if that’s out of their expertise then partner with a specialist that can provide the circuitry to accomplish it.

But then again - start rant - why the heck don’t amplifier companies do the same thing to clean up the power coming into their pre/power amps.

Let’s face it - the circuitry in AC power distribution boxes is not what makes them cost what they do - it’s the pretty box the plugs the extra power cord etc. why can’t a $50,000 amp include a couple thousand dollars of power cleanup stuff in the amp box? Charge $55,000. Why wouldn’t you want your amp to sound the best? I don’t get it. Or maybe I do - profits or laziness. — end rant.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and some are more egregious violator's and double dippers... example PS Audio.
 
Randy Myers said:
I kind of agree with this. As a computer/software engineer I have always felt that any network switch can only make very minimal differences, if any at all. If you get your music through streaming services realize that the signal that final gets to your DAC has already passed through hundreds if not thousands of routers and switches. One final "audiophile" switch at the end of the line should make almost no differences. Also, your point about that a properly designed DAC will already take care of any issues is on point.

I have tested both streaming, files stored on a network drives, or local stored files on internal drives within the sever. The internal stored files sound better in every case so long as we are comparing the same files. We even performed this test on my buddy's system where he recently had his entire house rewired with "audiophile" wiring; ethernet cabling and network devices. The internal stored files were superior.

This was even more the case when the files were stored on solid state drives (no moving parts, no spinning drives), and especially true when the files are stored on M.2 drives. The music comes straight from internal SSD drives to the DAC. Nothing in between. The music server/meta data/control software is on the sever computer/streaming device and sends the music straight to the DAC which in turn outputs the analog signal via high grade balances cables to the pre-amp. As straight and minimal path as can be achieved in a digital system.
Click to expand...
This is one of the reasons why a switch matters. Somewhere in the setup these timing errors must be fixed by means of a good clock.

jitter.jpg
 
NewAlkyogre said:
This is one of the reasons why a switch matters. Somewhere in the setup these timing errors must be fixed by means of a good clock.

View attachment 36106
Click to expand...
I agree that using a good clock does have an impact. I just don't find switches useful in my setup since all digital is played from internal storage. I also doubt the effectiveness on additional network equipment when a streaming signal has already gone through thousands of routers and switches long before entering your homes signal path.

I have found the Wyred 4 Sound ISO Recovery in conjunction with their DC Recovery do a fine job. Since EJ is a friend of mine and a technical wiz with very few rivals, I trust his opinions, viewpoint and design abilities above most others out there.
 
Last edited:
2FarGone said:
Also interesting. May I inquire as to the reason for the two switches? There’s got to be a reason…
Click to expand...
I have 3 switches in series in my chain, but for logistical convenience rather than any intentional audiophile reason.

Fiber internet enters the house thru the ONT and passes in and out of a wifi-enabled router (which technically counts as a switch). From there it goes to the main switch located in the big distribution rack in the basement. Upstairs in the 2-channel setup I have a second much smaller switch connected to the primary that feeds the dedicated stereo gear. Why? I simply don't have enough ethernet cable running through the walls for each device to have its own home run to the main switch. This approach lets me send one cable to the AV cabinet and re-distribute from there. Bandwidth requirements are ultimately small, and almost never require more than one device to be actively pulling data. If I'm streaming audio via the Aurender, the DAC and nearby video devices aren't, and vice versa. Given that Aurender supposedly caches an entire streaming track before starting playback, I'm not too concerned about dropped packets or jitter introduced during transmission (and my network pings at under 1ms of jitter, so it's pretty clean to start with).

I've been happy with the end result of the mess described above. Perhaps there's more optimization possible, but I feel like it already checks most of the boxes the dedicated audiophile gear achieves - particularly being on fiber internet to deal with any galvanic issues at the source. No wifi to the audio gear - yeah, it's in the air, but the audio gear's radios are all off. I admit I've never tried the dedicated audio switches described here, but potentially the small one located by the 2-channel rig could be a candidate for that kind of experimentation. I guess I won't know until I try it...
 
Last edited:
2FlyingYorkies said:
I have 3 switches in series in my chain, but for logistical convenience than any intentional audiophile reason.

Fiber internet enters the house thru the ONT and passes in and out of a wifi-enabled router (which technically counts as a switch). From there it goes to the main switch located in the big distribution rack in the basement. Upstairs in the 2-channel setup I have a second much smaller switch connected to the primary that feeds the dedicated stereo gear. Why? I simply don't have enough ethernet cable running through the walls for each device to have its own home run to the main switch. This approach lets me send one cable to the AV cabinet and re-distribute from there. Bandwidth requirements are ultimately small, and almost never require more than one device to be actively pulling data. If I'm streaming audio via the Aurender, the DAC and nearby video devices aren't, and vice versa. Given that Aurender supposedly caches an entire streaming track before starting playback, I'm not too concerned about dropped packets or jitter introduced during transmission (and my network pings at under 1ms of jitter, so it's pretty clean to start with).

I've been happy with the end result of the mess described above. Perhaps there's more optimization possible, but I feel like it already checks most of the boxes the dedicated audiophile gear achieves - particularly being on fiber internet to deal with any galvanic issues at the source. No wifi to the audio gear - yeah, it's in the air, but the audio gear's radios are all off. I admit I've never tried the dedicated audio switches described here, but potentially the small one located by the 2-channel rig could be a candidate for that kind of experimentation. I guess I won't know until I try it...
Click to expand...
I like that you are using switches and routers for actual networking reasons. Your setup makes a lot of sense. I have a much smaller ethernet requirements. From the service providers' router one cable to a switch in a utility closet which then feeds three different rooms for computers and my audio system.
 
Randy Myers said:
...
I have tested both streaming, files stored on a network drives, or local stored files on internal drives within the sever. The internal stored files sound better in every case so long as we are comparing the same files. We even performed this test on my buddy's system where he recently had his entire house rewired with "audiophile" wiring; ethernet cabling and network devices. The internal stored files were superior.

This was even more the case when the files were stored on solid state drives (no moving parts, no spinning drives), and especially true when the files are stored on M.2 drives. The music comes straight from internal SSD drives to the DAC. Nothing in between. The music server/meta data/control software is on the sever computer/streaming device and sends the music straight to the DAC which in turn outputs the analog signal via high grade balances cables to the pre-amp. As straight and minimal path as can be achieved in a digital system.
Click to expand...
Done blind testing? Audiophile's subjective results are valid only for themselves.

Rewiring his house? Good grief!! We are having some electrical work done at our place. (1) 200 amp panel, (2) 100 amp subpanel in our garage supporting additional 115V outlets, and (3) 30 amp "mini-split" supplementary AC, and (4) 48 volt EV charger. This is becoming a big enough pain-in-the-butt, never mind the whole house
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top