SOtM sNH-10G Network Switch Review

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

Besides, the North Pole is not nearly as cold as it used to be. 

I can attest to that....

1 minute ago, EdmontonCanuck said:

 

I can attest to that....

 

 

I remember....

Flew into Edmonton one evening when it was 40 F below (actually 40 below is the same temperature, F or C), and 50 mph winds.  When I (thankfully) made it to the hotel from the airport, I turned on the news to see a pie chart saying "Exposed flesh freezes in...."  The part of the pie chart that was highlighted said "30 seconds or less."

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

I remember....

 

Flew into Edmonton one evening when it was 40 F below (actually 40 below is the same temperature, F or C), and 50 mph winds.  When I (thankfully) made it to the hotel from the airport, I turned on the news to see a pie chart saying "Exposed flesh freezes in...."  The part of the pie chart that was highlighted said "30 seconds or less."

Yup....there always seems to be a week or two in late January/early February where the temps plummet like this. 

On 2/7/2019 at 9:07 PM, incus said:

You are an external master-clocker, I see. So you know what this can bring. Obviously lower jitter, lower phase noise, shunting of high frequency incursions, etc. all have their impact. But I personally believe in unicorns. That there are effects inherent to certain designs that create more pleasure and the experience of musical "rightness" that aren't entirely attributable to the quantifiable data of that design. Along the lines of synergy within a given audio system. I believe, also, that one day measurements will catch up with our subjective experiences of streaming audio the way measurements can now explain our different experiences of early USB DACs. Think how far USB receiver chips and FPGAs have come in the last 5 years alone - Gordon Rankin started asking questions a while ago about the hows and whys of better sound through USB. That lead to us measuring things we never thought to measure and building things we never thought to build before. I truly believe streaming audio is at that frontier poised before an explosive exponential growth curve. Anyway...

To me, this is 100% correct. For example, I know I hear a (positive) difference between the SoTM lan cables and others I tried. My perception was confirmed by others in a blind test. I am sure many here think that’s impossible, but it’s true in my system. 

I’m not sure I will go for the switch (I am running bridged Ethernet from a Small Green Computer i7 to my streamer), but I would not be surprised at all if different switches sound different and that the difference results from things not yet completely understood. 

3 hours ago, Jud said:

Edit: Actually, I just thought of a way the switch could still have an electrical effect after the Ethernet cable was unplugged: through the power cord to the wall, and from there to the rest of the system.  So perhaps unplugging the switch from the wall would be a better test?

Um, my signature over at Phasure tells since the beginning of Windows 10 (2015 IIRC) "Switching power supplies removed everywhere", which is true for the sub net of my mains of concern. So hehe, sure. But what is even more easily to overlook is the fact that with that you would also switch of WiFi. And if anything is measurable at the outputs of a DAC it is that.

So ... WiFi not allowed.

Did I introduce an other topic again ? I don't think so. You just don't want all this sh*t, which coincidentally is router/switch related. And over at Phasure this is not even a topic (at any times) because "we" simply avoid them. But we also created the infrastructure for it ...

6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

As @PeterSt has already said (though at some length and introducing other topics, which may have confused things), you're not picturing the experiment correctly because you're not understanding what goes on when a DAC has an asynchronous USB input, as most do these days.  The bits are collected in a buffer at the DAC input, then are clocked out by the DAC's internal clocking.  So nothing in the *timing* of the bits before they go into the buffer affects the timing of the bits out of the buffer by the DAC's clock.  That's the meaning of "asynchronous:" the timing of the bits in the DAC is not synchronized with the upstream timing, so no "jitter" (i.e., timing effects) upstream means anything to what occurs in the DAC.

 

Picture an airplane loading: No matter what happened in terms of timing through the boarding of the plane (bits moving into the buffer), everyone takes off at the same time (bits being clocked out of the buffer).  The two aren't interdependent.

 

So what might conceivably affect the timing accuracy of the clock in the DAC?  Electrical noise, in two ways: (1) Because the switch from a 0 to a 1 or vice versa depends on comparing signal to ground, noise on ground might affect timing of that change; or (2) Electrical noise might disrupt the accuracy of the clock itself.

 

What @plissken's experiment would do is remove any electrical effect of the switch by pulling the Ethernet cable connecting it, thus taking it out of the circuit.  When that happens, there are still bits in the buffer, so as the rest of that buffer plays you can compare the sound when the switch was in the circuit to the sound when the switch is out of the circuit and can't be causing any noise.

 

At least that's the general idea.  There has been some discussion on the forums about upstream clocking effects passing through into the DAC, but I don't have a sophisticated enough understanding to evaluate that, and it remains to be demonstrated that this can actually occur.

 

Edit: Actually, I just thought of a way the switch could still have an electrical effect after the Ethernet cable was unplugged: through the power cord to the wall, and from there to the rest of the system.  So perhaps unplugging the switch from the wall would be a better test?

That’s incorrect! The buffering and re-clocking doesn’t make the DAC immune to the gear you use upstream. If it would be true the phase noise in gear upstream, like the ultraRendu for example, wouldn’t matter.

@PeterSt how do you account for the fact that lots of people are reporting that different switches sound better than others?  Surely it can't be due to errors/retransmissions causing more processing on the audio PC.

Also I think you're saying that with well designed playback software nothing upstream of the audio PC really matters, right?

12 minutes ago, rickca said:

@PeterSt how do you account for the fact that lots of people are reporting that different switches sound better than others?  

‘They are surely hallucinating 😂😉. You know, things like placebo, trying to justify the purchase of an expensive, unnecessary item, absence of a scientific blind test with a panel of 100 people from street, things like that

1 minute ago, thyname said:

They are surely hallucinating

It was a serious question for Peter.  I respect his opinion.  I'm not sure his response is going to be that people are just imagining things.

5 minutes ago, rickca said:

Also I think you're saying that with well designed playback software nothing upstream of the audio PC really matters, right?

Hi Rick - No, that is not what I am saying at all. Unless you mean that the software can play streams without streaming them, or disconnect the network which just previously was needed to get the music in the audio playing PC. But I estimate that is not what you meant.

8 minutes ago, rickca said:

how do you account for the fact that lots of people are reporting that different switches sound better than others?

Eh, see my larger post from yesterday ? easy enough. If you only see that that post contains it all.

To be clear, those people should be correct. But it is nothing much different than an SSD probably sounding worse than an HDD in-audio-PC - and never mind Jud thinks that much of this is besides the subject - it is not because it is the exact same subject - noise impeding stuff.

Also try to grasp what reclocking does (assumed that would be part of the subject):

1. Improve the signal (assumed the signal itself is regenerated with it, which not always needs to be the case but I would do that);

2. Create noise because of that process (not in-PC, but just in-device).

What would be UNrelated, although I see it mention fairly often, is that fiber would be the all good for all. No. Because again it requires processing to go to copper (/electrical) again. No real difference with SPDIF/Toslink, although the hardware may be more robust (though never taking into account audio of course).

There simply is no justification of isolation to help for real, at the moment extra noise is created to "transfer" the signal. Although the both noise domains would not be the same (one is the upstream noise we try to get rid of, the other is the noise we create direction downstream). This is how an Intona in the end is audible, how a Regen-Green or -Amber are audible and how the ISO-Regen is more complex because it also contains isolation (the better and the (by me) perceived worse in a mixed bag).

No difference with a switch/router that I can see and so will be audibility. BUT one large difference in most situations: the switch/router is not directly connected to the DAC (hey, for those situations it is not), while the USB (Regen) we talk about, is. So only when the DAC would be directly connected to Ethernet hence Internet (the latter is not important in my view) the result of a better switch/router would be similar (for possible improvement) to USB stuff.

8 minutes ago, rickca said:

I'm not sure his response is going to be that people are just imagining things.

So you were right. 

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

But I estimate that is not what you meant.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant.  Are you saying that if you disconnect the network that nothing upstream of the audio PC matters?

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

13 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

But I estimate that is not what you meant.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant.  Are you saying that if you disconnect the network that nothing upstream of the audio PC matters?

Hmm ... Is "not that I know of" anything for an answer ?

I feel you now must indirectly refer to the switch etc. being in the wall socket hence will sill be switched on. But there's more trickery needed to take distance of that. Like it being irrelevant in the first place. For example (it is only one example), your switch should be on an other mains ring than *all* of the audio. This includes the audio playing PC. One thing: the PC holding the music data (could be a NAS just the same) should be just on that other mains ring (say the normal house ring). I have a third for that, but it should be irrelevant. This is about two IMO important factors:

1. Ethernet is isolated in the first place (but take care that the cables are, read a bit into Ethernet^2 if you like);

2. The continuous processing involved when connected to the Internet (or normally live Ethernet) is not present in the audio playing PC (it is in the PC which holds the music data).

What you're actually asking is to cut the cable between the music holding PC and the switch. But why ? I don't see a reason. Thus, the music holding PC is galvanically isolated from the audio playing PC (Ethernet isolates), and the backdoor-noise possibility seems impossible to me, because of separate mains rings (I mean with separate earthing, like with separate earth pins).

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Um, my signature over at Phasure tells since the beginning of Windows 10 (2015 IIRC) "Switching power supplies removed everywhere", which is true for the sub net of my mains of concern. So hehe, sure. But what is even more easily to overlook is the fact that with that you would also switch of WiFi. And if anything is measurable at the outputs of a DAC it is that.

So ... WiFi not allowed.

Did I introduce an other topic again ? I don't think so. You just don't want all this sh*t, which coincidentally is router/switch related. And over at Phasure this is not even a topic (at any times) because "we" simply avoid them. But we also created the infrastructure for it ...

Yes, I remember well.   

4 hours ago, Summit said:

 

That’s incorrect! The buffering and re-clocking doesn’t make the DAC immune to the gear you use upstream. If it would be true the phase noise in gear upstream, like the ultraRendu for example, wouldn’t matter.

Yes, though there we are talking about something with a different factor to consider, at least in theory.  (There are people who don’t think such devices ought to work, and it must be said no one has done an end to end measurement of an analog effect. Nevertheless, I own a microRendu and IsoRegen, and subjectively prefer to have them in the chain. One very practical reason is the computer I own that is capable of easily running the software I like is a desktop that lives in the office away from the audio system.)  The theory of operation of these devices is that the receiver electronics in the DAC should be less noisy with them in the chain.  So it isn’t a matter of timing upstream directly relating to timing downstream.

On 2/7/2019 at 6:44 PM, gordec said:

 

He's Dutch. Everything is different after hash and brownies. The auditory neural stimulation is likely permanently altered. 

I,ll strongly protest against this! Hans Beekhuyzen is a well respected hifi-journalist in the Netherlands. I,ts okay to disagree. But he,s independant not paid by the industrie or magazines..as well as the remarks about the S. koreans it,s nothing that belongs to this discussion. Hans Beekhuyzen always seeks to a better way to get the best SQ possible for the bucks..

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, though there we are talking about something with a different factor to consider, at least in theory.  (There are people who don’t think such devices ought to work, and it must be said no one has done an end to end measurement of an analog effect. Nevertheless, I own a microRendu and IsoRegen, and subjectively prefer to have them in the chain. One very practical reason is the computer I own that is capable of easily running the software I like is a desktop that lives in the office away from the audio system.)  The theory of operation of these devices is that the receiver electronics in the DAC should be less noisy with them in the chain.  So it isn’t a matter of timing upstream directly relating to timing downstream.

Why is it that every damn time someone report that they hear a difference between gears upstream of the DAC, the same old explanation is used (buffering and re-clocking in the DAC)?

If people really believed in that old dogma, they wouldn’t use any so called “audio grade” devices at all upstream of their DACs, it would be irrational.

It is well known that jitter, noise etc upstream affect the final sound and its why “all” manufacturer of upstream gear try to keep them low.       

On 2/7/2019 at 5:58 PM, lasker98 said:

This is a new review from Hans Beekhuyzen:

Oh no.

25 minutes ago, Tommd64 said:

I,ll strongly protest against this! Hans Beekhuyzen is a well respected hifi-journalist in the Netherlands.

40 years ago, maybe (HVT). But if I watch his videos I feel ashamed.

27 minutes ago, Tommd64 said:

Hans Beekhuyzen always seeks to a better way to get the best SQ possible for the bucks..

If everybody listens to him, it is no wonder that the "audio grade" is so low over here, these days. We must be on the cheap.

On 2/7/2019 at 6:44 PM, gordec said:

 

He's Dutch. Everything is different after hash and brownies. The auditory neural stimulation is likely permanently altered. 

Maybe you mix up brownies with space cakes, but the message is clear (has to be when people from Jamaica are jealous at us). And regarding that, watching that video makes me think that something happened to him. Talks a different English (better) but also has difficulty with talking. But I suppose that's old age something ?

Groeten !

4 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Why is it that every damn time someone report that they hear a difference between gears upstream of the DAC, the same old explanation is used (buffering and re-clocking in the DAC)?

 

If people really believed in that old dogma, they wouldn’t use any so called “audio grade” devices at all upstream of their DACs, it would be irrational.

 

It is well known that jitter, noise etc upstream affect the final sound and its why “all” manufacturer of upstream gear try to keep them low.       

I was actually agreeing, but attempting to give a more precise explanation.  Please do look at what I wrote rather than assuming I’m trying to argue.

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

2. The continuous processing involved when connected to the Internet (or normally live Ethernet) is not present in the audio playing PC (it is in the PC which holds the music data). 

Like that matters. I posted years ago a screenshot all the process caching that goes one with even optimized PC has going on. A few more aren't going to matter.

If you couldn't hear the 'noise' the 120+ processes are generating you aren't going to hear a few more.

This ignorance is beyond the pale.

At least that's the general idea.  There has been some discussion on the forums about upstream clocking effects passing through into the DAC, but I don't have a sophisticated enough understanding to evaluate that, and it remains to be demonstrated that this can actually occur.

Here we can agree except that it has been demonstrated on a listening level. This is, after all, another form of demonstration. I think you are asking for mechanical demonstration, which I believe we will be able to do soon.

I am well aware of the functioning of async USB, thank you. And I think you are actually getting to the heart of my logic bump here. The moment the cable/switch/upstream-signal-source-whatever-it-may-be is disconnected, then there is no more signal coming into the DAC, right? So everything that is "stored" momentarily in the DAC as it's about to be reclocked has already come through the network to the DAC. Otherwise, where  did it come from? We are talking exclusively about streaming audio, not local playback, right?

So... if all the packets inside the DAC's receiver chip have already passed through the network to get there - no matter when or where it was buffered before - and IF there is any kind of phase noise influence (positive of negative) and/or electrical noise that carries over from the upstream network - then that would ALREADY be there in the signal now being taken in by the DAC. Then, yes, those can be mitigated by the DAC's re-clocking process, its own power supply and electrical noise isolation capabilities, etc. (But as a user of a regen product it seems your ears do agree there is something an upstream product can do that the async USB process alone is unable to do.) 

Still, my point is simple: how do the packets arrive at the DAC unless through the network upstream of it? That's what I mean when I say it has already passed through all those devices and been influenced by them. And, as I think is being discussed above, this includes whatever Tidal does to get the signal out, whatever the ISP does to get the signal to you, your modem, and all the attendant power supplies for these things, etc. The only logical way to test the effect of a switch or a cable or a power supply or a circuit in your home or the day of the week as it pertains to the noise on yours mains line,  is A vs. B: with vs. without the switch, the cable, a psu, same components plugged on one circuit in your home vs. on anther, same components on a Sunday vs. on a Friday, etc. THEN if we hear a difference we know the actual perceptible effect this element is having . THEN we can all work together to come up with a way to measure what we are hearing. In other words, that A/B result is empirical data that warrants explanation not dismissal.

24 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

 

Like that matters. I posted years ago a screenshot all the process caching that goes one with even optimized PC has going on. A few more aren't going to matter.

 

If you couldn't hear the 'noise' the 120+ processes are generating you aren't going to hear a few more.

 

This ignorance is beyond the pale.

But what experiments have you done to say you can't hear that noise? There is a growing body of listening impressions on that big topic listing that shows different sounds to different processors throttled in different ways, lower latency software, RAM booted software, etc. Isn't this presumably reducing the audible effects of those processes? There is ignorance from inexperience that is forgiven with enlightenment and then there is willful ignorance despite enlightenment which is unforgivable.