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

[austinpop]

20 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

 

Guys we need to be careful how we interchangeably use terms. While switches can act like bridges, bridges are not switches. There are also layer 2 and 3 switches which provide different functionality. We should call a bridge a bridge and a switch a switch or we're going to confuse a lot of people. A PC or server can act as a bridge but not a switch. 

 

John, let's not go down a rabbit hole here. We're talking about a facility (EDIT - a multiport facility) either in software (OS bridge) or hardware (switch) that intelligently allows Layer 2 frames to traverse through them.

 

And a layer 3 "switch" is a router. No confusion there.

[rickca]

I always thought the reason we were using an ethernet bridge on the server was to directly attach an endpoint instead of attaching the endpoint to the router.

 

Now that we have both server and endpoint connected to the same switch, why is using an ethernet bridge still a good idea?

 

Sorry if I'm being really obtuse.

[austinpop]

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

I always thought the reason we were using an ethernet bridge on the server was to directly attach an endpoint instead of attaching the endpoint to the router.

 

Now that we have both server and endpoint connected to the same switch, why is using an ethernet bridge still a good idea?

 

Sorry if I'm being really obtuse.

 

The software bridge on the server is decoupling the upstream network from the downstream chain. AGAIN - we don't know why this sounds better.

 

Think of the switch between the server and the endpoint just like an ISO-Regen or tX-USBultra - as an "Ethernet regenerator."

[rickca]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

The software bridge on the server is decoupling the upstream network from the downstream chain.

OK thanks for confirming ... this is what I suspected.  I guess the internet traffic to the server doesn't go through the switch shared by the server and endpoint.

[austinpop]

4 minutes ago, rickca said:

OK thanks for confirming ... this is what I suspected.  I guess the internet traffic to the server doesn't go through the switch shared by the server and endpoint.

 

No it does not.

 

This link might help with the concepts.  https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/ethernet-switches/9781449367299/ch01.html

 

Modern switches are actually rather smart. They don't just pass through incoming frames to all other ports. See the sections on "Address Learning" and "Traffic Filtering."

[elpampeano]

Ready to try to install my bridge ethernet connection. Router>server to switch (fs108)>endpoint. well...it's very difficult -i'm not skilled on command lines-,so,  i will follow some of the graphics and instructions posted here. 

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

Over here bridges usually have two endpoints...

 

And yet there exist some lovely bridges to nowhere:

[austinpop]

2 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

And yet there exist some lovely bridges to nowhere:

 

And I often find myself on a bridge too far!

[mikicasellas]

55 minutes ago, rickca said:

I always thought the reason we were using an ethernet bridge on the server was to directly attach an endpoint instead of attaching the endpoint to the router.

 

Now that we have both server and endpoint connected to the same switch, why is using an ethernet bridge still a good idea?

 

Sorry if I'm being really obtuse.

 

+1

[Johnseye]

This is my bridge tonight. Brahms 4th and Strauss at Symphony Center with an amazing guest orchestra. 

 

 

[austinpop]

2 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

This is my bridge tonight. Brahms 4th and Strauss at Symphony Center with an amazing guest orchestra. 

 

 

 

Lucky dog!

 

For humans, bridging means what goes in one ear comes out the other!  

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

 

John, let's not go down a rabbit hole here. We're talking about a facility (EDIT - a multiport facility) either in software (OS bridge) or hardware (switch) that intelligently allows Layer 2 frames to traverse through them.

 

And a layer 3 "switch" is a router. No confusion there.

 

I just think we should call a bridge a bridge, a switch a switch and a router a router. I deal with buying, configuring and supporting this stuff every day. If I called a layer 3 switch a router I'd confuse a lot of people. Granted this isn't work but I've been confused what people have been talking about here because there is a difference between this stuff. 

 

Your thread though and I'll just go sit in my orchestra seat now and keep quiet. 🤫

 

https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/thread/10642

 

https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/thread/41392

 

[austinpop]

3 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

I just think we should call a bridge a bridge, a switch a switch and a router a router. I deal with buying, configuring and supporting this stuff every day. If I called a layer 3 switch a router I'd confuse a lot of people. Granted this isn't work but I've been confused what people have been talking about here because there is a difference between this stuff. 

 

Your thread though and I'll just go sit in my orchestra seat now and keep quiet. 🤫

 

https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/thread/10642

 

https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/thread/41392

 

 

John,

 

You're right, there is a subtle distinction between L3 switches and routers in the data center, but for audiophiles, in a home environment, the only L3 device of relevance is their home router.

 

As for bridges vs. switches: bridging is a function. A switch is a device that implements the bridging function. The bridging utilities in Windows and Linux implement bridging in software.

 

I'm not sure where the confusion is? I'm not aware that you can go out and buy a device called a "bridge." In the old days (before switches), you had devices called hubs, that also provided a bridging function. In modern times, hubs have been replaced by switches.

 

Sorry to get excited about this - I only have a PhD in computer networks! But yes, I think let's drop it for now.

 

 

 

 

[sgr]

Hi All.

I]ve read with interest about all the improvements to be had from these great ideas. I’ve tried several and find they can really make a difference. 

 

Here is something new I’ve discovered.  Usually one would run 1 ethernet cable from a switch into a PC to connect the PC to the  network. I recently purchased  two four port Ethernet PCIE cards for both my Audio PC which runs HQPlayer and my Server PC with contains my music files and RoonServer. I had to add the Ethernet cards as I’m using AudiophileOptimizer and WSY2K16 and the Ethernet ports on the Mobos were not recognized. 

 

I’m not sure why this occurred to me, but I decided to add an extra three ethernet cables between the PCs and the switches so I use 4 Ethernet cables between each device. I added them one at a time and could hear increases in dynamics, musicality, depth, pinpoint imaging, and overall a more “Rich” sound to the system each time I added a cable. I’m not sure why but I’m sure some network gurus might have some explanation. I’ve found this to be true with all the types and brands of Ethernet cables I’ve tried. The better the Ethernet cables the better the sound quality. 

I thought I might be fooling myself but have had a couple of  friends over and did blind testing. In that they knew I was doing something but I didn’t tell them what, and sometimes I never did anything.  They were not hesitant to immediately discern the differences and were amazed when I finally told them what I was doing. 

 

All were 1 meter Ethernet cables. I’ve thought of trying this between my server and audio pc but I’m using fiber and FMCS there powered at both ends by Uptone LPS-1s and added LT3045 boards after each LPS-1. 

It would be an interesting experiment to try longer lengths. 

 

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, sgr said:

Hi All.

I]ve read with interest about all the improvements to be had from these great ideas. I’ve tried several and find they can really make a difference. 

 

Here is something new I’ve discovered.  Usually one would run 1 ethernet cable from a switch into a PC to connect the PC to the  network. I recently purchased  two four port Ethernet PCIE cards for both my Audio PC which runs HQPlayer and my Server PC with contains my music files and RoonServer. I had to add the Ethernet cards as I’m using AudiophileOptimizer and WSY2K16 and the Ethernet ports on the Mobos were not recognized. 

 

I’m not sure why this occurred to me, but I decided to add an extra three ethernet cables between the PCs and the switches so I use 4 Ethernet cables between each device. I added them one at a time and could hear increases in dynamics, musicality, depth, pinpoint imaging, and overall a more “Rich” sound to the system each time I added a cable. I’m not sure why but I’m sure some network gurus might have some explanation. I’ve found this to be true with all the types and brands of Ethernet cables I’ve tried. The better the Ethernet cables the better the sound quality. 

I thought I might be fooling myself but have had a couple of  friends over and did blind testing. In that they knew I was doing something but I didn’t tell them what, and sometimes I never did anything.  They were not hesitant to immediately discern the differences and were amazed when I finally told them what I was doing. 

 

All were 1 meter Ethernet cables. I’ve thought of trying this between my server and audio pc but I’m using fiber and FMCS there powered at both ends by Uptone LPS-1s and added LT3045 boards after each LPS-1. 

It would be an interesting experiment to try longer lengths. 

 

 

Interesting. I'm not sure I quite understand what you're doing. Maybe a picture? 

 

So each machine (server, audio PC) has 4 Ethernet interfaces, and you connect all 4 from each (8 in total) to the same switch? Are you using features like "link aggregation" or "NIC teaming" in your OS?

[gordec]

Is there a simple guide on how to setup Audiolinux? Their website is kind of chaotic. I have Surface Pro 3 lying around not being used. Can I set up AL on it with a USB ethernet adapter?

[seeteeyou]

FYI - here's an example if you're interested in trying quad (4-port) Ethernet cards with PCIe x4 slots

 

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-EXPI9404PTLBLK-1PK-PRO-1000PT-4PORT/dp/B002B8CJVC

 

USB 3.0 flavor with external power

 

https://www.amazon.com/Ethernet-Controller-Gigabit-Network-Adapter/dp/B06Y4HZG3K

[mozes]

2 hours ago, gordec said:

Is there a simple guide on how to setup Audiolinux? Their website is kind of chaotic. I have Surface Pro 3 lying around not being used. Can I set up AL on it with a USB ethernet adapter?

Yes you can set it up on any PC and a USB ethernet adapter works just fine.

[sgr]

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Interesting. I'm not sure I quite understand what you're doing. Maybe a picture? 

 

So each machine (server, audio PC) has 4 Ethernet interfaces, and you connect all 4 from each (8 in total) to the same switch? Are you using features like "link aggregation" or "NIC teaming" in your OS?

 

[sgr]

I’ll try harder to describe. 

[CJH]

austinpop:

Good question as I have tried just adding additional ethernet cables in the past (what sgr is doing) and it simply seems to confuse the switches and I loose internet connection. There has to be more to it. Let us know Steve.

CJH

[sgr]

Hi,

I’ll try to clarify. I’ve a complex system inspired by all the clever and fiendish plots to confound those damn little eddies in the electricity that try their best to confuse our the sound of our systems. I’m trying to keep it simple.

 

First I have two pcs and two switches. One switch is connected to my Server PC. I have (4) 1 meter Ethernet cables running from the switch to the Ethernet card in my PC. 

 

> the Server PC is connected to another switch in my stereo room by a pair of FMC’s powered by Uptone Audio LPS-1s on each end. (I enhance the LPS-1s by feeding each them into a pair of LT3045 boxes. Yummy!)

 

This Stereo room Ethernet switch is connected by (4) 1 meter Ethernet cables to the Ethernet card in my Audio PC.  

 

You do have to be careful as the connections can interfere with one another. 

 

1. First I connect my Server PC to the Ethernet switch by one Cat 5-8 Ethernet cable only. 

2. Second I connect the Audio PC to the Ethernet switch in the stereo room with one Ethernet Cat 5-8 cable.  

3.  Once the system is up and running and I’ve made sure the two PC’s and RoonServer and HQ Player software are talking to each other through the network I then connect the other 3 Ethernet cables to each PC and their switches. 

***4. If you connect the extra cables between the Audio PC running HQ Player before activiating HQPlayer through Roon first, then its hard to find the correct ISP address. So if having to restart and configure ROON and HqPlayer unplug the extra Ethernet cables from the switch. Find the ISP address and enter it in ROON Setup. Once everything is working then you can connect the extra Ethernet cables.

*****5.  Apparently this technique will not work between the router and the switch or the or the PC connected directly to the router. This results in instant confusion and not connections can be made. At least I don’t know how to do it. 

 

I discovered this by trying to implement the Bridge connections outlined above. It sounded so good I really never got the Bridge connection implemented. Maybe it accomplishes the same objective. 

 

Here is my system Ethernet Connection outline: 

 

Cable Modem > FMC>FMC (for isolation) > FMC > Apple AirPort Extreme 4 that serves the whole house > Apple AirPort Extreme 3 for Audio only powered by Welbourne Labs linear power supply. > my first Ethernet Switch powered by LPS-1 and LT3045 > 4 Ethernet cables connect the Server PC to the Ethernet switch. > A second set of FMCs powered by LPS-1s on both ends with LT 3045s connect the Server to the  Second Ethernet switch (powered by JS-2) in the Stereo Room. > Switch connects to Audio PC via (4) 1 meter Ethernet cables as outlined above.> to Sonore UltraRendu powered by LPS -1 and LT 3045 > IsoRegen powered by LPS 1.2 via Acoustic BBQ or Curious USB cables > to Lampizator Pacific. 

 

It is complex but sounds awesome. I plan on adding EtherRegen and perhaps the new Rendu but am watching their evolution closely. 

[austinpop]

10 hours ago, gordec said:

Is there a simple guide on how to setup Audiolinux? Their website is kind of chaotic. I have Surface Pro 3 lying around not being used. Can I set up AL on it with a USB ethernet adapter?

 

This is always a good place to start: http://www.audio-linux.com/#GUIDE

 

Then this thread:

 

 

[sgr]

While I can’t comment on the virtues of AudioLinux. I’ve not tried it myself. I have tried other Linux “audio operating systems” in the past. So far not close to the combo of AudiophileOptimizer, WSY2K12v2 or WSY2K16, and Fidelizer. The Linux systems I’ve installed and tried don’t sound bad at all. But in comparison to the above they have not sounded as liquid or able to sort out complex audio passages that contain acoustical cues that appear in the recordings. I would say a lack in sophistication. 

 

The results seem strange to me. From everything I’ve learned the Linux systems being simpler code should sound better. But it doensn’t beat the above system. 

Stranger still each iteration of Windows whether Server or Windows XP, 8, 10, etc sounds better. I’m not sure why that should even be. I’m sure the guys at Microsoft don’t code with the goal of making each Windows iteration sound better than the past. Perhaps the code is tighter or better compiled. 

 

And yet, one can read threads across the audio industry’s history  that do confirm that the “new” Windows sounds better.  

 

Who knows, maybe there is a Massive Audiophile System installed at Microsoft HQ that is used to insure better sound quality. That would be a fun notion. 

[gordec]

1 hour ago, sgr said:

While I can’t comment on the virtues of AudioLinux. I’ve not tried it myself. I have tried other Linux “audio operating systems” in the past. So far not close to the combo of AudiophileOptimizer, WSY2K12v2 or WSY2K16, and Fidelizer. The Linux systems I’ve installed and tried don’t sound bad at all. But in comparison to the above they have not sounded as liquid or able to sort out complex audio passages that contain acoustical cues that appear in the recordings. I would say a lack in sophistication. 

 

The results seem strange to me. From everything I’ve learned the Linux systems being simpler code should sound better. But it doensn’t beat the above system. 

Stranger still each iteration of Windows whether Server or Windows XP, 8, 10, etc sounds better. I’m not sure why that should even be. I’m sure the guys at Microsoft don’t code with the goal of making each Windows iteration sound better than the past. Perhaps the code is tighter or better compiled. 

 

And yet, one can read threads across the audio industry’s history  that do confirm that the “new” Windows sounds better.  

 

Who knows, maybe there is a Massive Audiophile System installed at Microsoft HQ that is used to insure better sound quality. That would be a fun notion. 

 

You think you can get the same result if you run Hyper V (virtual machine) and put Windows Server 2016?