A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming

austinpop · January 2, 2017

While I am now the OP of this thread, I did not start it. That would be @romaz. I have just been given authorization by him to take on the OP role.

A brief history of this thread - by @austinpop

Last update: Dec 13, 2018

This thread is almost 2 years old, with over 12,000 posts, and over 860k views.

While it was started by Roy @romaz about the positive SQ impact of ethernet bridging between a music server and an endpoint, it has since grown to span the gamut of the entire digital chain. Loosely speaking, this thread is an exploration of mechanisms that are observed to improve SQ in the streaming chain. This covers the path from the music file at rest on a storage device all the way to the input of a DAC. Conventional wisdom would suggest this path should have no, or very little, impact on SQ. Yet, as the 2 years of experience on this thread has shown, this path has a profound impact on SQ.

Undoubtedly, the topics covered have meandered. This is, after all, a forum thread! Over its lifetime, the topics and areas covered have included:

Network bridging
quality of power supplies
quality of clocks - both data (related to the data sample rate) and system (USB, ethernet, and motherboard) clocks
reference clocks
mods - mobos, NICs, USB cards
DDCs
cables
DACs
NUCs
Audiolinux
and many other topics.

The focus of this thread is on direct listening impressions. We were lucky that, from the outset, the early participants set a tone of experimentation with the proposed ideas, and reporting their results. Over time, this guiding principle has been enthusiastically adopted, and many participants have extended the body of knowledge with their experiments and reports. This has resulted in a thread with a reasonably high S/N ratio. Most of what is discussed here does not have a readily available analytical explanation. We would not have gotten this far if we had gotten mired in the "how could this possibly matter" debate.

To preserve this S/N ratio, and to keep the thread from disintegrating, we ask contributors to focus discussion on direct listening experiences.

I have created an index of useful posts to help the new reader navigate this massive thread. Please scroll further down to see the index.

Moderation

We welcome your participation in this thread. Please note that discussion needs to stay focused on direct listening experiences with audio experiments discussed here. This is not an opinion thread. Most of what is discussed here does not have a readily available analytical explanation. Once we get into arguing about the why's, this thread is going to disintegrate. If anyone comes in here, makes no contribution, and attacks people, I reserve the right as OP to delete their posts.

Further - this thread is about listening impressions. We do not:

Demand proof
Require a specific methodology
Require measurements.

Original post by @romaz

======================================================================================

Ok, MASSIVE is a bit of an overstatement at this level of high-end audio but now that I have your attention, I would say that this improvement is quite significant, nonetheless, and once you hear it, I suspect you will not wish to go back to your previous setup. More importantly, this is neither difficult nor expensive to implement.

Much has been said about how ethernet renderers like the microRendu and the sMS-200 are immune to upstream components. Because ethernet is transformer coupled, it is inherently galvanically isolated and because of the error correcting packet protocol it employs, data is always bit-perfect and so it would seem that ethernet is an ideal data delivery vehicle for a digital audio stream. Indeed, when I first purchased my microRendu back in May, I tested it with a variety of standard sources including a Windows NUC, Windows laptop, Mac Pro, Macbook Pro and sonicTransporter and even when a certain source was powered by my HDPlex, I noticed no significant difference among these sources, at least not enough to care which one was feeding my microRendu. I have also explored and compared a variety of ethernet optimization techniques including optical isolation with FMCs (powered by LPS-1), an audiophile switch with TCXO clock by Paul Pang (powered by LPS-1) and various audiophile ethernet cables (BJC CAT 6A, SOtM dCBL-CAT6 with iSO-CAT6, AQ Vodka + Diamond, Supra CAT8, WireWorld Silver Starlight CAT8) and while they can and do make a difference, even collectively, the difference has never been that great, certainly not enough to want to spend lots of effort or money on these things. At least that has been my experience and so this is a compliment to both the microRendu and the sMS-200, that they are that immune to what is upstream...or are they?

Like with many of you, things changed when I received my LPS-1 as this power supply was eye opening in how it transformed my microRendu. This should have come as no surprise as John Swenson had been telling us all along that the microRendu, as a low noise and low impedance device, benefits from a low noise and low impedance power supply. What I wasn't prepared to experience, however, was how a good low noise, low impedance power supply would also transform my upstream components including a simple NUC or Mac Mini even with the microRendu or sMS-200 in place (I own both of these units). It was surprising to find out that even my internet modem/router similarly benefited. It turns out that while ethernet is good for isolating noise, it cannot fix a signal already molested at the modem/router or music server level. In the same way that the LPS-1 improved both the macro and microdynamic capabilities of my microRendu, my Paul Hynes SR7 has also magically transformed my modified Mac Mini and internet modem/router and both the microRendu and sMS-200 fully reveal these benefits but truth be told, these benefits are much more fully realized if these endpoints themselves are powered by a low impedance PSU. This is not some mild transformation that you need to blind test to convince yourself is real, this is something a semi-deaf person can distinguish because the dynamic contrasts with the Paul Hynes SR7 driving both my Mac Mini and internet modem/router is that much more thunderous, enough so that I have had to literally turn my subwoofer down a notch. If you think about it, there's no good reason why this shouldn't be happening. The whole purpose of the microRendu or sMS-200 and devices like the USB Regen is to present a DAC with a signal of the highest integrity. Why wouldn't the microRendu or sMS-200 similarly benefit from being presented with high signal integrity by the components before it?

I have come to the conclusion that this impact has more to do with low impedance than the low noise characteristics of the power supply fronting these upstream devices because as you recall, ethernet is transformer coupled and so is inherently galvanically isolated and with the FMCs that I employ in my network (which are powered by my LPS-1), no RF noise or leakage current should be reaching my microRendu or sMS-200. What is the measured output impedance of the Paul Hynes SR7? According to Paul, his SR5 and SR7 measure ❤️ millohms from DC to 100kHz and so consider this number as a reference point for comparison. Having asked around, it seems no one else can provide these impedance measurements over what John Swenson describes to be his ideal frequency range either because they don't own the measuring equipment to do so or because they don't believe this spec is important. What I can tell you is that neither my HDPlex or Teradak are low impedance LPSUs because neither of these units are good enough to allow me to distinguish one source from another when fronted by either the microRendu or sMS-200 and both are soundly trounced by my LPS-1 and my SR7 when it comes to soundstage dimensionality. While I have not had the opportunity to compare the Sonore Signature Power Supply to either of these two units, based on what I am hearing from respected sources and conversations I have had with Barrows, I have no doubt this is an excellent and very low impedance PSU. Based on how good the LPS-1 is, logic would suggest Vinnie Rossi's ultracap-based supply is likely of similar caliber. The problem with these other supplies is that neither of them have enough juice to power a Mac Mini, Nuc or my TP-Link internet modem/router as each of these devices require at least 12V/3.5A.

Of course, this discovery led to quite a bit of curiosity about other areas. What would happen if I directly connected my Mac Mini to either my microRendu or sMS-200? Intuitively, I had a hard time believing this should make a difference. If so, why weren't the microRendu or sMS-200 designed by their wise creators to connect this way? I further had a difficult time believing my internet modem/router or my Paul Pang switch with TCXO clock should have any real detrimental impact on either of these endpoints since the modem/router was currently being powered by my Paul Hynes SR7 and my Paul Pang switch was being powered by my LPS-1 and moreover, I had optical isolation in place and yet Mark Jenkins, owner and developer of the Antipodes line of music servers, had this to say about his latest generation Roon Ready DX music server. This excerpt is taken from John Darko's review of this latest generation DX server:

"A third way to plumb Roon inside the DX is to have Roon Core talk to Roon Ready directly. Think of this scenario as Roon playing out the server-client model not on a LAN but inside a single computer.

Jenkins clarifies: "They [Roon Core and Roon Ready] talk using RAAT but when they are in the same device they do not need to use the not-so-good comms layers that sit underneath RAAT when the two apps talk across a network."

I'm not sure I know what Mark meant by this exactly but he details a greater clarity and immediacy to the sound of Roon using this method and so I felt compelled to try and create this direct connection between my Mac Mini and my microRendu/sMS-200. This wouldn't be so difficult if either device had the ability to assign itself a static IP. Unfortunately, this was never possible with the microRendu and this feature was taken away from the sMS-200 after firmware 1.9 and because each device must be assigned an IP address by a router for control purposes, it didn't appear as if there would be an easy way to accomplish this.

It turns out OSX can function as its own DHCP server and so I used El Capitan to assign an IP address to one of the two ethernet ports I have on my Mac Mini (the Mac Mini comes natively with only one ethernet port but my Thunderbolt hub comes with its own ethernet port thereby giving me two such ports). I connected my sMS-200 to one port and my router to the other port and it worked but there were problems. Because OSX insisted on connecting this second port on a separate subnet, my sMS-200 had no outlet to the internet (for Tidal streaming) nor could it be controlled remotely by my iPad and so this was a "no go." When I manually forced both ports to be on the same subnet, my Mac Mini would get confused as to which ethernet port had control and it would lock up. It then dawned on me that I could bridge the two ethernet ports and BINGO! This accomplished exactly what I wanted to accomplish. Both ethernet ports were now on the same subnet and with one port connected directly to my sMS-200 and the other port connected directly to my router, everything was running smoothly. I could now easily access the sMS-200 remotely from my iPad and other machines that were on the network and the sMS-200 could access the internet. While I have not yet tried my microRendu this way (it is presently on loan), I don't see why it wouldn't work the same way. What is interesting is with this bridged configuration, my internet modem/router is now responsible for assigning the sMS-200 an IP address and yet the sMS-200 is physically directly connected to my Mac Mini without the intermediary "not so good comm layers" that Mark Jenkins describes.

So how does this direct connection sound? Simply glorious! While a low impedance power supply brings depth and dynamics to my upstream components, this direct connection brings amazing clarity and immediacy. It's as if one very thick veil has been removed and that my seat has been upgraded from the balcony to the stalls. I would rate the impact of this as equivalent in magnitude to employing a low impedance PSU. Many of you are aware of the claims many are making on several threads here on CA but also on HeadFi of how RedNet and Dante provides this "you are there" clarity. I had a ReNet 3 in my home for evaluation for nearly a month and I agree, it provides this beguiling sense of clarity that has to be heard to be appreciated although the problem with RedNet, I believe, is its inferior switching PSU. These units sound flat and dimensionless compared to my described setup above and so this clarity that RedNet brings almost sounds sterile and lifeless in comparison. Regardless, proponents of RedNet have suggested the problem with USB endpoints like the microRendu and sMS-200 is with USB. What I am hearing suggests USB is not the problem but perhaps the Dante technology by Audinate that RedNet utilizes has figured out how to eliminate the impact of these "not so good comms" in the network signal path. I have now been listening to this arrangement for much of the past week and so the initial emotions that can cloud one's judgement have settled down and my opinion remains the same as the first moment I heard it. To borrow from Chris Connaker, after all of this, I can unequivocally say that my audio system has never sounded better than it has now. For me, there is no going back.

For those interested in reproducing what I have done, first of all, you will need a music server with 2 ethernet ports. Current Mac Pros already have 2 ethernet ports. Mac Minis do not but I can verify that you can add a Thunderbolt ethernet port and it works very well. Many Windows PCs have 2 ethernet ports and if not, if you have a spare PCI or PCIE slot, you could inexpensively add one. Will a USB ethernet connection work? I don't see why not but I haven't tried it and I don't know how it will sound. I do know that you can't bridge a wi-fi connection and an ethernet connection.

So how do you bridge 2 ethernet ports? If you are on Linux, I can't help you but I'm sure it's possible. If you are on a Mac, here are the fairly simple instructions that I followed. Feel free to use DHCP but you are also free to assign a static IP:

https://support.apple.com/kb/PH18510?locale=en_US

For Windows, @jelt2359 has confirmed for me that the following directions below worked on his Windows 10 Nuc although he had to manually configure the bridge's DNS and IP addresses.

How to create a Network Bridge in Windows 10/8/7

Obviously, if you decide to try this, please report back your findings here. If there is consensus that this improvement is universal, perhaps Sonore and SOtM can be convinced to allow their units to be configured to be directly accessed more easily.

=====================================================================================

Index of useful posts

Note:

Some sections are lacking. If anyone can volunteer to supply me with posts for these sections, I will gladly add.
If you would like to nominate a post to this index, just PM me.

Bridging/Direct Connection

Power Supplies

Clock Mods, reclocker chains, and sCLK-EX

ISO-Regen in the Mix

Master Reference Clocks

@romaz stunned by Mutec Ref 10 at Munich
@JohnSwenson's insights into clock oscillators
@romaz returns with more insights on master reference clocks
What exactly are reference clocks?
@hols Cybershaft 10MHz reference clock driving tX-USBultra
@hols Cybershaft update
@Bamber First impression of Mutec Ref 10
@austinpop Listening Impression with the Cybershaft OP-14 Reference Clock - Part 1 & Part 2
@limniscate Listening impressions with Cybershaft OP-14
@romaz explains phase noise comparisons

Comparisons with other endpoints

@austinpop Listening impressions of dCS Network Bridge vs. SOtM trifecta with Cybershaft reference clock - Part 1
@austinpop, @limniscate, and @Bruce Orr Initial listening impressions of UltraRendu vs SOtM Ultra and trifecta, LPS-1 vs. sPS-500

Comparisons with music servers

DACs

Ethernet cables, isolators

@romaz's experience with iSO-Cat6 and dCBL-Cat7

Ethernet Switches/SFPs

USB Cables

Computer mods - mobos, NICs, drives, etc

Booting Win on Mac Mini and benefit of AO:

Adnaco fiber mods

@romaz initial impressions with Adnaco

SATA mods

General

Excellent summary of John Swenson thoughts on USB and leakage loops
@Superdad talks about Uptone thoughts on future Ethernet upgrades
From another thread: JS explanation of how asynchrony in USB actually works, and why the source clock still matters
SSG 360 cable shielding scheme
@austinpop Dummy DIY guide to JSSG 360. If I can do it, anyone can!

NUCs, in-memory OS, and AudioLinux

austinpop · January 2, 2017

Ok, MASSIVE is a bit of an overstatement at this level of high-end audio but now that I have your attention, I would say that this improvement is quite significant, nonetheless, and once you hear it, I suspect you will not wish to go back to your previous setup. More importantly, this is neither difficult nor expensive to implement.

Hi @romaz

I'm trying to understand your experiment in the context of the rest of your setup. Can you clarify a few things for us?

What are physical distances involved here?
- Between your Mac Mini and the switch?
- Between the Mac Mini and the mR/SMS-200? Did you change this for your experiment, i.e. move the Mini closer to your mR/SMS-200?
[*]What is on which AC circuit?
- Of the following: Mini, NAS, and switch, which of these, if any, is in the same room, or on the same AC circuit as your audio gear - i.e. mR/SMS-200 and downstream devices?
[*]Did cabling stay the same? So before, you had the Mini, the NAS, and the mR/SMS-200 connected to your switch. It sounds like the big epiphany (and audible improvement) for you was moving the cable from the mR/SMS from the router to the Mini (with bridging enabled, of course)
- So other than that port change, were the cables unchanged in type, or length?
[*]And final question
- Can you enumerate your "massively improved chain" from end to end? What PSUs are in place? What isolation do you still have in place for: AC, DC, Ethernet, and USB?

Also, I wanted to comment on the following quote:

This excerpt is taken from John Darko's review of this latest generation DX server:

"A third way to plumb Roon inside the DX is to have Roon Core talk to Roon Ready directly. Think of this scenario as Roon playing out the server-client model not on a LAN but inside a single computer.

Jenkins clarifies: "They [Roon Core and Roon Ready] talk using RAAT but when they are in the same device they do not need to use the not-so-good comms layers that sit underneath RAAT when the two apps talk across a network."

If you read that from the perspective of someone who's familiar with OS kernel internals, he could be talking about some kind of local optimization, where if Core and Ready processes are running on the same OS instance, with the same IP address, they could detect that and bypass TCP/IP "comms" (for example, AF_INET sockets) and use a different form of IPC (inter-process communication), like UNIX domain sockets, pipes, or even shared memory.

I apologize if the above sounds very mumbo-jumbo, but the key point for the lay person is that when using Ethernet bridging, your endpoint (i.e. mR/SMS) still has a distinct IP address from your Mini, so I'm afraid the "not so good comms layer" is still in effect, as the Core and Ready processes are not "local" to each other.

austinpop · January 2, 2017

For those of us running the music server (like MinimServer) directly on the NAS, this may be a "bridge too far!"

So far, I haven't found any easy way to set up bridging on a Synology NAS with 2 Ethernet ports.

austinpop · January 3, 2017

Start here:

https://forum.synology.com/enu/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=56929&p=293971&hilit=brctl#p293971

Thanks! Not exactly "easy," but hey, what is!

I'll have to study that, as it looks like it it uses static IP's for the two ethernet ports, which is OK, but I need to figure out if the streamer attached to that bridged port (in my case, Aries Mini) can still get a DHCP address.

austinpop · January 3, 2017

My cabling has not changed. Instead of connecting the sMS-200 directly to my Paul Pang switch, I now connect it directly to the native ethernet port on my Mac Mini. This is the only variable I have altered.

@romaz

I am sure what you are hearing is real and applicable to your system.

However, I still have a hard time coming up with any rational explanation for what you are hearing.

So, as is always the case with hard-to-explain effects, we wait and see if enough people can replicate this. I will be very curious.

austinpop · January 3, 2017

I agree, you should be skeptical by this phenomenon that I have no explanation for. I'm sure Sonore and SOtM are skeptical also but SOtM is interested enough that they are now doing their own internal testing. But what I am suggesting is easy enough and inexpensive enough for many to implement and so I am hoping people will try it and give feedback. I suspect a community effort can only lead to better things. As for me being the only one, actually Jelt2359 has independently tried it in his system (Windows PC > sMS-200) and is hearing the same thing I am hearing.

That's great news. My Aries Mini attaches to my router via a long run to the other side of the house. This is about an 80' run. The NAS/music server is next to the router.

Assuming the Synology bridging works, I'll certainly try it. But I don't have any fancy PSes on the NAS or router, just FMC isolation between router and streamer.

austinpop · January 3, 2017

Thanks for sharing this. What about your listening experience?

Yeah @scan80269

How does it sound? [emoji442] [emoji848]

austinpop · January 3, 2017

Start here:

https://forum.synology.com/enu/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=56929&p=293971&hilit=brctl#p293971

Well, I tried this, and was able to get the commands to complete successfully, but after completion, my NAS is unreachable at the eth0 address (also the br0 address). Luckily a reboot fixed everything back to before.

I was hoping to just try this out, but given my experience, I may have to wait and see.

I agree, you should be skeptical by this phenomenon that I have no explanation for. I'm sure Sonore and SOtM are skeptical also but SOtM is interested enough that they are now doing their own internal testing. But what I am suggesting is easy enough and inexpensive enough for many to implement and so I am hoping people will try it and give feedback. I suspect a community effort can only lead to better things. As for me being the only one, actually Jelt2359 has independently tried it in his system (Windows PC > sMS-200) and is hearing the same thing I am hearing.

Do you have a link to Jelt2359 results?

Has anyone else validated romaz's specific results - i.e.

configure network bridging on music server with 2+ ethernet ports
remove endpoint (NAA/Roon endpoint/UPnP renderer) connection to router/switch
connect endpoint to second port on bridged music server
change NOTHING else

What SQ difference did you get?

austinpop · January 3, 2017

What address did you set the default gateway to?

Removing your switch yields a significant SQ improvement as is very much worth pursuing.

OK, so my network's gateway address is 192.18.0.2. My NAS (unbridged) has a static IP of 192.168.0.240. I allocated another static address 192.168.0.241 for my 2nd port.

Here are the commands I tried - exactly like the link you posted, with edits for my situation:

Synology# insmod /lib/modules/stp.ko

Synology# insmod /lib/modules/bridge.ko

Synology# brctl addbr br0

Synology# brctl stp br0 off

Synology# ifconfig br0 192.168.0.240 netmask 255.255.255.0 up

Synology# brctl addif br0 eth0

Synology# brctl addif br0 eth1

Synology# ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.240 promisc up

Synology# ifconfig eth1 192.168.0.241 promisc up

Synology# route add default gw 192.168.0.2 dev br0

Looking at this, I do have some questions:

is the IP address of the bridge interface (br0) supposed to the be the same as the eth0?
What is the correct default gateway address?
I didn't try bouncing br0 after this sequence - maybe I should have

Thanks for any suggestions.

austinpop · January 4, 2017

Removing your switch yields a significant SQ improvement and is very much worth pursuing.

Well, what exactly does that mean?

Previous experience - I've gone from this:

NAS <-> Router <-> Switch <-> renderer

to

NAS <-> Router <-> renderer

and heard absolutely no SQ difference. Granted, I have no LPSes on my NAS and router.

Now in this case, I think the claim on this thread is that if I went to this:

Router <-> NAS with bridging (my music server) <-> renderer

I would hear a massive difference. Given my previous experience, you'll have to pardon my skepticism. Not saying I won't try it - if I can get bridging to work on my Synology - just saying I'm not convinced I'll hear a difference.

YMMV.

austinpop · January 4, 2017

Here is what I run:

ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0

ifconfig eth1 0.0.0.0

brctl addbr br0

brctl addif br0 eth0 eth1

ifconfig br0 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx netmask 255.255.255.0

route add default gw yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy br0

#where xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is the static IP for the bridged machine and yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy is the address of the gateway (router)

Makes sense. But I may have an issue testing this interactively if I'm ssh'ed in remotely, which is necessary on the NAS.

Won't I lose connectivity when I run this?

ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0

austinpop · January 4, 2017

Yes, you will lose connectivity. I have this script run at boot and used a locally attached monitor and keyboard to debug the script.

Sadly, no locally attached monitor and keyboard with a Synology. [emoji849]

austinpop · January 4, 2017

You can also concatenate lines to a single line with a semi colon and hit return to execute once.

If you lose control just reboot.

OK I might try that. BTW do I need an "ifconfig br0 up" at the end? or "up" on that last line?

EDIT: Never mind. Should have RTFM.

up: This flag causes the interface to be activated. It is implicitly specified if an address is assigned to the interface.

austinpop · January 4, 2017

You can also concatenate lines to a single line with a semi colon and hit return to execute once.

If you lose control just reboot.

Tried the concatenated command sequence on one line, but didn't work. No connectivity, had to reboot. Trying to test over a remote ssh is severely limiting.

Oh well. This goes on the shelf for now. Many more tweaks to try!

austinpop · January 4, 2017

Too bad, but there is hope. Qnap recently listened to its customers and enabled network bridging and configuration from their web based user interface. Perhaps Synology will do the same. You may want to ask them.

Or buy an Intel based Qnap fanless NAS and power it with an LPS. An El cheapo powered mine perfectly.

Not going to happen - I just bought the Synology 916+, and am really happy with it.

There may be hope from another angle - I found these instructions 8128blog: Ethernet Bridge For Synology DS412+ : Craig Becker's new blog

I'll try them out when I get a chance.

austinpop · January 4, 2017

Not going to happen - I just bought the Synology 916+, and am really happy with it.

There may be hope from another angle - I found these instructions 8128blog: Ethernet Bridge For Synology DS412+ : Craig Becker's new blog

I'll try them out when I get a chance.

Well... still no luck, unfortunately, getting bridging to work on a Synology DS916+ NAS running DSM 6.

This time I created a make-bridge.sh file like so:

ash-4.3# cat make-bridge.sh

#!/bin/sh

insmod /lib/modules/stp.ko

insmod /lib/modules/bridge.ko

brctl addbr br0

brctl stp br0 off

brctl addif br0 eth0

brctl addif br0 eth1

brctl show

ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 promisc up

ifconfig eth1 0.0.0.0 promisc up

ifconfig br0 192.168.0.240 netmask 255.255.255.0 up

route add default gw 192.168.0.2 dev br0

echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward

Then I ran it:

ash-4.3# ./make-bridge.sh

bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces

br0 8000.00113262e5d1 no eth0

eth1

And then... I lost connectivity, and the NAS does not respond to it's bridge IP address.

Now - it's possible this will work if I put this script in the rc.local directory so it's executed at boot, but that scares me, because if it doesn't work, I can't just reboot to recover - I may have to restore my settings from backup.

Nah - that is a "bridge too far!" Sorry - I gave it a try.

If anyone succeeds with bridging - especially on the current version of DSM on Synology - please educate.

austinpop · January 4, 2017

Rajiv, i have a hunch, please comment out the line "brctl STP br0 off" and give it another go. I also don't think you need the promiscuous port settings, but try that later.

I think you are creating a bridge named STP not br0.

I see why you think that, but I did get the output of "brctl show" on my screen and it was:

"bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces"

"br0 8000.00113262e5d1 no eth0"

" eth1"

EDIT: Gah, I can't get CA to respect the blanks. Anyway you see it created a bridge names br0.

I wonder a couple of other things:

Try running this in the background
Since I lose connectivity at the eth0 line, can I move that last.

I'll try both. Worst case, 2 more reboots.

austinpop · January 4, 2017

Be careful! Do you have a backup of the disk in the NAS?

Wouldn't dream of trying this if I didn't have a backup!!!!

austinpop · January 4, 2017

I wonder a couple of other things:

Try running this in the background

Since I lose connectivity at the eth0 line, can I move that last.

I'll try both. Worst case, 2 more reboots.

@lmiche

Larry,

Still no luck, but I put some ifconfig's at the end of the script, ran it in the background, and captured output to a file. Everything looks good, but the NAS still does not respond to the bridge IP address.

I'm sure there's something subtle going on, but I ran out of time for now. I'm also thinking - a bit late, I know, and apologies to OP! - that we should probably move this debug stuff off thread and report back only if anything changes.

I'll keep plugging at it as and when I have some free time.

austinpop · January 9, 2017

That does look good. Now post the output of "netstat -anr"

Sorry haven't got back to this. Too many other projects!

Hopefully in the next few days.

Any other Linux or Synology success stories?

austinpop · January 10, 2017

Ok, another new revelation. The improvement I am hearing with this direct connection has nothing to do with bypassing the switch. At least, it has nothing to do with bypassing my Paul Pang 100Mbit switch with TCXO clock powered by my LPS-1. This switch has no noisy switching regulators. It is a 5V device as is the TXCO clock. Previously, as I had stated, it resulted in a small but meaningful difference in my system. I have now connected it in my "direct" path. It is flanked on both ends by a short SOtM black LAN cable. One cable connects directly to my Mac Mini and the other connects to my sMS-200. The improvement is now even larger with a bigger soundstage and even crisper details, especially with guitar plucks. While the improvement is not anywhere as huge as the direct connection, it is now MUCH more pronounced than when I had it connected before my Mac Mini! This switch is staying exactly where it's at.

I bought this switch used from another CA member for $99 and figured it was worth the risk. It's turning out to be a truly excellent buy. For those interested, you can buy one new from Paul Pang himself. It appears he no longer sells the slower 100Mbit switch that I have although it's unclear to me if one speed sounds any better than the other.

SHOPPING AREA: AUDIO GRADE SWITCH

Tomorrow, I will see if my FMCs in this "direct" path results in any benefit.

Ooh this sounds really intriguing!

So are you saying this configuration is even better than the direct connection without the switch? And you attribute it to the SotM cables? Or is the Mac Mini still doing the bridging to the router?

Trying to understand. Given my difficulties getting bridging to work, this may be a more viable option.

austinpop · January 10, 2017

No, with this switch in the "direct" path, you will still need to bridge. I am seeing no way around this.

Ah I see. Well, I haven't given up, so will see if I can make this work in my setup.

Before, it was internet modem/router > ethernet cable > FMC > optical cable > FMC > ethernet cable > Paul Pang switch > Thunderbolt ethernet port on Mac Mini > Mac Mini > native ethernet port on Mac Mini > 50 cm SOtM LAN cable > iSO-CAT6 isolator > 30 cm SOtM LAN cable > sMS-200.

What I have done is I have replaced the iSO-CAT6 isolator with the Paul Pang switch and connected the receiving FMC directly to my Mac Mini. Nothing else has changed. I had previously verified that the iSO-CAT6 was causing no harm although it didn't result in any major improvement either. As I have swapped out the iSO-CAT6 isolator and swapped in the Paul Pang switch, the improvement is quite notable.

OK, understood.

But in this scenario, why use the switch at all? Is anything else connected to it besides the Mini and the SMS-200? Even with the clean LPS on the Pang switch, it's still one more active device in the chain?

Did you see if this had a similar gain? I.e. just remove the switch:

internet modem/router > ethernet cable > FMC > optical cable > FMC > ethernet cable > Thunderbolt ethernet port on Mac Mini > Mac Mini > native ethernet port on Mac Mini > 50 cm SOtM LAN cable > iSO-CAT6 isolator > 30 cm SOtM LAN cable > sMS-200

I would also be very interested to see you try:

internet modem/router > ethernet cable > Thunderbolt ethernet port on Mac Mini > Mac Mini > native ethernet port on Mac Mini > 50 cm SOtM LAN cable > FMC > optical cable > FMC > 30 cm SOtM LAN cable > sMS-200.

This is all very interesting!

austinpop · January 14, 2017

This is not a Roon only thing. Bridging would work for any audio setup that transmits music via Ethernet. As mentioned Jplay has been advocating this kind of direct connection for years.

I suspect you are right. Roon and HQPlayer may be wonderful, but for many of us, it's a lot of steps to get to a full Roon/HQP setup, and there are definite tradeoffs.

I was hoping to try this (bridging) out in the context of UPnP/DLNA using MinimServer, but have had no luck getting bridging to work on my Synology NAS. At this point, I'm not willing to spend more time and effort on that.

I do, at some point, want to try out the whole Roon and HQPlayer paradigm, and have a W10 desktop I can use for that purpose. I think I will piggyback this bridging experiment when I do that.

austinpop · January 14, 2017

Why not try running MinimServer on the W10 desktop and configure it in bridged mode? You could either have MinimServer configured to just read from either a folder on your NAS or a folder locally on the W10 desktop containing some music files. Could be a quick and dirty way just to see if there would be value in pursuing this further.

Indeed!

This was on my mind, but I forgot to mention it with all the Roon/HQP talk. It may be a while before I get to it, though. My desktop doesn't have a second Eth adapter.

austinpop · January 14, 2017

There are many reasonably priced USB to Ethernet adapters listed on Amazon.

Like this one?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00M77HMU0

A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in