Audiophile Ethernet Switch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#301
Hi cdsgames, whilst what you have shown is interesting, it is for something other than what is being discussed in the thread 🙂

Now if you did similar measurements where the device under test was connected to an ethernet switch (possibly via some other piece of networking equipment) and it was demonstrable that the noise profile in those measurements changed when different switches were substituted, then we would have something useful 🙂

Tony.
 
#302
You are right Tony .

My contribution to this thread is this new found correlation betwen USB noise , i2s lines and SQ. Its not a big jump , intellectually , to understand that Ethernet to USB hardware will likely show the same correlation on noise..

Once you arrive at USB noise...read my posts.

Please understand that I am not trying to change anyone's opinion or to explain with clever words whats going on. I have no beef (switch)

Just my honest contribution for the handful of DAC designers on this thread and for those of you willing to keep an open mind .
 
#303
Jakob2 said:
It could be just also kind of "over-security" , if one is deeply convinced that no difference can exist, a comparison doesn't make sense; it is comparable to the "over-security" in the so-called subjectivist camp like "the difference is huge, no controlled listening test needed" .
Click to expand...
Very good point. Excellent example:
Faboz said:
The effect is just spectacular! Awesome!:spin: This is not a small improvement, it is real and well perceived.
Click to expand...
Jakob2 said:
The exchange between jan.didden and planet10 illustrates why it is so important to check if the premises are true; mutual understanding of the meaning of words in the case of sound evaluation is just not a given.
Click to expand...
Yes meanings are important. Unfortunately planet10 often doesn't respond when asked to clarify/explain what he means or posts something else equally confusing or irrelevant. Try asking him about cryo treated cat5 wire used for speaker cable and see what happens.

@TNT,



It depends. As we use sound reproduction in this context as an attempt to catch and reproduce a real sound event, it is IMO indeed a mystic thing that something so much diverging from reality can lead to an internal representation similar to that of the real event.

Technology enables us to get the properties of sound events, and if one looks back to the beginning of sound recording and reproduction it is a miracle that this kind of failure (from a physical point of view) was such an exciting experience worth being further developed over the next ~130 years. That is kind of mystic.

Technology is the realization of sound reproduction systems (and measuring the still huge difference to reality), the mystic lies in the listeners who is still the final arbiter.

Crude analogy would be the detection of the Higgs boson; its technology that enables us to detect the particle, but it doesn't make the existence of our universe less "mystic" .
Click to expand...

Oh dear, what's the meaning of "mystic"? You were doing quite well up until this post 🙄🙂
 
Last edited:
#304
This kind of testing if a difference was observed, could then lead to further testing to determine whether the noise changes were being transferred over the ethernet cables themselves or via the power circuit (or possibly even airborne). This is the sort of thing that I think is useful and sensible.

Theorizing that the data delivery is somehow changed is not useful 🙂

I've had problems with noise when doing measurements. One time it was at an odd frequency I think 110Hz I realized that was the refresh rate of my CRT monitor, turning it off the noise spike disappeared in the measurement. Another hard to track down one was a PC in another room, that had a particularly bad powersupply that was polluting the mains.

Tony.
 
#305
Faboz said:
Zeven switches voor streaming audio getest - Blind! - Afrondend - Alpha-Audio

BTW, very happy with my Uptone switch, transports 0 and 1 as every switch, but filters what comes with ten (leakage current disturbing DA conversion.
Click to expand...

From their conclusion "Today's conclusion: yes ... a switch makes an audible difference. However, the differences are small. The basis of the set and the acoustics must be correct. Otherwise it is a shame to invest so much money. But the fact is: it is audible. The data in this test also show that."

Demonstrates that if they were capable of testing IP networks and ethernet switches then they would have known that regardless of which ethernet switch they used the audio data packets would be identical. They have no data only an opinion poll from a group of audiophiles who want to believe there's a difference therefore they already had pre-conceived notions.

So how could they claim there's a difference.
 
#307
cdsgames said:
My contribution to this thread is this new found correlation betwen USB noise , i2s lines and SQ. Its not a big jump , intellectually , to understand that Ethernet to USB hardware will likely show the same correlation on noise..
.
Click to expand...


I am assuming you are talking the USB chip that pumps out the real time data stream to the DAC. I'm interested in how you get from Ethernet to this point.
 
#310
wintermute said:
What I find really interesting about this is that there is a feeling that anyone who does not believe that an ethernet switch can be making a difference (for the reasons being stated) ie the digital transfer of the data is somehow different from one switch to the other, must be a rabid objectionist.

What I also find extermely interesting is the view point that every person who claims they hear a difference must actually hear a difference that we just don't know how to measure yet.

I accept that there are things in audio that people subjectively prefer, and that some of those are most likely things that we have not worked out a valid way of determining why (and I'm not going to go down the path of Blind / double blind tests with that). I also accept that there are certain things that can fool our brains into thinking we hear a difference when we dont, especially when there is suggestions that we should be able to hear a difference.

What I don't accept is anything that is so far out there in the extreme that there is no logical explanation. Things that are often claimed to have night and day differences.

Talking about how the digital signal can somehow be corrupted by a non-audiophile switch falls into this extreme category.

If you want to talk about how a switch with a badly designed power supply that does not have adequate protections against spewing noise back on to the mains might upset some other audio equipment on the same circuit that has a poor PSSR then I have no problem with that.

If you want to theorize that data that has been transferred over one ethernet switch and buffered at the end somehow sounds different to the exact same data transmitted over another switch and buffered at the end, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you do not understand the underlying mechanism.

This has nothing to do with objectivist vs subjectivist. It has everything to do with basic understanding of digital transfer of data and of human fallibility.

Tony.
Click to expand...

Well said Tony. I would add that it also has to do with total lack of looking critically at your own reasoning and logic.

Jan
 
#311
wintermute said:
The interesting thing is the complete unwillingness to accept that in SOME circumstances there may actually be a psycho acoustic affect happening (and that there really isn't any difference other than in the subjects mind).<snip>
Click to expand...

IME people are usually willing to accept that a perceived effect might not be based on a real difference in the reproduced soundfield, but they don't accept that the perceived difference _must_ to be an imagination (due to whatever reasoning about ethernet, OSI layers etc.).

Btw, it is not a "psychoacoustical" effect as such effects are not in the realm of the psychoacoustic department, but in the cognitive psychology.
Everyone doing psychoacoustic experiments is interested in such effect though, but just as one wants to know about possible confounders. See for example my description of the surprisingly high proportion of wrong answers when listening to the same stimulus twice and being asked for "same/different" or "preference/no preference/no difference" .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom