You are describing a pathological failure, is that what you mean? This thread is not about that. We had a system to massively parallel on demand all the computers on our site to run huge IC simulations orders of magnitude more data, it just worked.
Last edited:
The topic generally was about if a switch can make a difference in an audio application, right? I gave an example where it does, admittedly and blatantly with a bit of a wink.
Look up "multicast" as it relates to AoIP before you try to shoot the concept down though. I doubt you tested a similar situation.
Or perhaps just getting that shot off was the goal.
The topic generally was about if a switch can make a difference in an audio application, right? I gave an example where it does, admittedly and blatantly with a bit of a wink.
Look up "multicast" as it relates to AoIP before you try to shoot the concept down though. I doubt you tested a similar situation.
Or perhaps just getting that shot off was the goal.
What am I supposed to think, "you don't get much audio through anything" actually means? Many places run 3 orders of magnitude more data through their Ethernet routers every day with no problem.
Last edited:
"You don't get much audio through anything" means "silence". The source stream doesn't make it to the destination in a timely manner, packets are delayed or dropped, the destination can't assemble enough good packets in time to produce a valid bit stream to send to a DAC, and the output mutes. If you don't have a managed switch set up specifically to route multicast streams correctly, the more destinations you have, the less likely the system is to work well, or at all.
Sorry for the colloquialisms. Good now?
Sorry for the colloquialisms. Good now?
Yeah, and that's not at all how audio is transmitted on almost any home network.
Further, when the packets arrive it sounds perfect, and when they don't it is incredibly obvious. Deliberately introducing confusion does not help anyone. That is not what the original posters were talking about as a "difference".
Any implementation of any standard that only works on one manufacturers' switch is broken anyway.
chris, I think you have read all of jaddie's posts before giving him/her a serve.
Well, if it's sarcasm, it's poorly written. There is enough BS in this thread to wade through.
I was quite clear about this being a pro AoIP application.
...but in that way, the Pro and home applications are identical. Point?
Really? Did pointing out the (possibly) single case where the switch matters to the result confuse everyone? Really? I doubt that. I would think it rather further underscores how in every typical home AoIP application the switch doesn't matter.
I'm sorry, did I actually say the "standard" works only on one manufacturer's switch? Hmmm....
lemme check...
....nope, I did not say that. In fact, there are a number of managed switches that work in the pro AoIP world just fine. We happen to use Cisco because they're good, MTBF is like 15 years, and the re-certified ones are reasonable.
Now returning to your regularly scheduled thread....
While that could be, usually these are not the crucial points.
It is most likely just a matter of familiarization (I assume the neighbor hadn't done any controlled ("blinded") listening test before) with an unusal task under new conditions.
Is the demand for controlled listening tests (even "blinded") in your opinion just a "objectiphool" fall-back argument or is it a valid concern?
Although, as said above, IME the resolution abilities of a used reproduction system is not the limiting factor, any experimenter worth his money shall (and will) check if an additional element (like a switch) does not introduce new variables due to the physical realization.
The interesting point .... each one of us thinks that it is just a problem of others.......
Btw, unfortunately my dutch is a bit rusty; is a google translation of the switch test description usable or way off wrt to test methodology details?
@scottjoplin,
And if you would look at the beginning of this thread (comparable in this regard to numerous others) how often - if one says he hears a difference - it is stated that it is just delusion, that he is to dumb to understand, that "fill in whatever already was stated" .
After all these years it could be (just a crazy idea) lead to more fruitfull discussion if we change the old mechanisms of only accusing always the (often just imagined) "other side who behaves wrongly" .
Last edited:
One can go round and round in circles with all this, as I alluded to earlier, who/what do you chose to trust? So, ultimately it makes most sense to trust the measurements. There have been a few calls for a technical discussion, even a mod put his hat on to make the point, no one really took much notice, wasn't that to be expected given the title of this thread and the opening (and following) post(s)? My first post was to ask the OP if he had taken any measurements, look at the response, says it all really......
I can't quite tell what your conclusion is. If we all agreed to and abided by your first sentence, we'd all be Scientologists - and that would definitely be a waste of money.
A subjective choice. Since my ear/brain perception of the output of my hifi is the interface thru which my hifi brings me enjoyment, i will pay attention to the measures, but i have to trust my ears, even as flawed as they may be.
dave
It depends, I asked the OP because he specifically mentioned noise
He actually felt compelled to "shout" "NO" in his reply, should I trust what he said? I don't think so, this is what I mean, trusting your own ears is fine because no one else should care
I dunno why I am feeding this dilution of the thread to nothing of any use (yet again) but enjoyment !=Sound quality. If you are only interesting in enjoyment then there is no common language and nothing to discuss with you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.