The true experimental tweak thread

[austinpop]

46 minutes ago, mozes said:

It seems you are unlucky with grounding or your system is near perfection

 

The latter - of course!

 

[lmitche]

5 hours ago, Cornan said:

With that said it is important to understand where the music bits are coming from and how noisy that connection might be. If you are living in an appartment in the center of a big town and listening to cloud content like me anything from the source to the player will probably matter. If you are living in a house outside the center and listening to local content anything from the local storage to the player will matter, including what is used to control the music and the paths are carrying the music bits. Anything else might not be as important.  

Cornan, I spent the afternoon listening to the local drive and Tidal music sources.  I can't tell the difference.  I'm in a pretty rural location with fiber on the street and copper to the house. Inside the house there is a wireless connection between floors and the audio system is on the wireless connection.  Anyway it sounds fantastic, so it can be done.

[mozes]

19 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Cornan, I spent the afternoon listening to the local drive and Tidal music sources.  I can't tell the difference.  I'm in a pretty rural location with fiber on the street and copper to the house. Inside the house there is a wireless connection between floors and the audio system is on the wireless connection.  Anyway it sounds fantastic, so it can be done.

Funny I was just doing this comparison now. No contest in my system the local drive is significantly better than Tidal. More of everything, Tidal still sounds metallic in comparison

[mozes]

This is with two isolators in series before the Nimitra, I live in a big city, Toronto, in a stand alone home and I have fiber coming to my house. Something can be improved I am sure

[Cornan]

5 hours ago, lmitche said:

Cornan, I spent the afternoon listening to the local drive and Tidal music sources.  I can't tell the difference.  I'm in a pretty rural location with fiber on the street and copper to the house. Inside the house there is a wireless connection between floors and the audio system is on the wireless connection.  Anyway it sounds fantastic, so it can be done.

 

Great to hear Imitche! ? I have all my internal connections wireless as well. My main setup is connected via wireless adapters to a grounded Gbit network switch with shortest possible Cat6a UTP to end device. All AC connections including router are floating. Sounds the best in my case with Tidal as source. Lately I have stopped comparing it with local files (no point for me personally since 100% comes from Tidal nowdays), but Tidal sounds awesome, especially with MQA files through LightningDS 4,2 (5.0 beta 1). 

If you have a possibility to draw a system typology and post it here I would be very grateful, and I am sure everyone else here will agree! ?

[Cornan]

I have an Aqvox switch-8 coming from @mozes. He did´nt find it neccessary anomore since he only listen to cloud music like Tidal for finding music to buy as I understood it.

It will hopefully arrive latest next week, so I can start evaluate it. I am pretty sure it will do an amazing job in my Tidal only setup. Exciting!

 

Anyway, I have started to think about if it is possible or a good idea to share the improved network SI from the Aqvox wirelessly from my main setup to my low budget setup? My intitial thought is something like this:

 

This will mean that I will buy another second router to share the connection wirelessly to the DAP-1620 in my low budget setup. However, I am still not 100% sure this will be a better solution than a direct connection.

Anyone else here that are more certain of the outcome of this network setup or perhaps have a better idea how to share the Aqvox connection wirelessly? 

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, Cornan said:

I have an Aqvox switch-8 coming from @mozes. He did´nt find it neccessary anomore since he only listen to cloud music like Tidal for finding music to buy as I understood it.

It will hopefully arrive latest next week, so I can start evaluate it. I am pretty sure it will do an amazing job in my Tidal only setup. Exciting!

 

Anyway, I have started to think about if it is possible or a good idea to share the improved network SI from the Aqvox wirelessly from my main setup to my low budget setup? My intitial thought is something like this:

 

This will mean that I will buy another second router to share the connection wirelessly to the DAP-1620 in my low budget setup. However, I am still not 100% sure this will be a better solution than a direct connection.

Anyone else here that are more certain of the outcome of this network setup or perhaps have a better idea how to share the Aqvox connection wirelessly? 

Cornan, wow that is one complex network.  Are you running two or more subnets?  Why don't you use the wireless connectivity of the Chromecast?  Are these devices in three different physical locations?  What type of routers?  Are they wireless?

[Cornan]

1 hour ago, lmitche said:

Cornan, wow that is one complex network.  Are you running two or more subnets?  Why don't you use the wireless connectivity of the Chromecast?  Are these devices in three different physical locations?  What type of routers?  Are they wireless?

 

So far this is just something that I am considering to make the best possible use of the coming AQVOX switch-8. I want both of my systems to gain from the improved reclocking and SI. My thinking is to buy another router and connect it via WDS, so the new router is the passive WDS and the old router is the active WDS. AFAIK this will create two different subnets. My two wireless adapters are connected to different channels (channel 48 & channel 60) with separate control points/devices which actually improved the sq a bit on both places.

 

The main router is a Netgear router supplied by the service provider (ie. Not chosen by me. I am not at home and cannot remember the name of it right now) and I want to use the same brand (Netgear) if possible for the passive WDS. Most likely a Nighthawk or a C7. However, I am still looking for other brands like ASUS and TP-Link and will do so for a while before I pull the plug. 

 

Yes, the devices are in three different locations: 1. main router/2. main setup/3. low budget setup.

 

It might look over-complicated, but it is really the friuts of what I have dicouvered to be beneficial to SQ for me with Tidal as the only source. Both setups have similar thinking. I have actually also another D-Link network switch that I will throw in after the OTG power devider+TP-Link TL-UE300 to make it more or less identical to my main setup. Always fun to find out if a second switch can improve it! 

 

 

 

[Cornan]

1 hour ago, lmitche said:

Why don't you use the wireless connectivity of the Chromecast?

 

I forgot to answer this question. I am using it right now. I am just waiting for my OTG host power splitter cable to be released from the costums to put to the test if the Chromecast audio will improve with  the following setup: Chromecast Audio>OTG host power splitter>Cat6a U/UTP patch cable>network switch (with and without)>D-Link DAP-1620 in wireless adapter mode.

My guess is that it will, but all bets are off!

[austinpop]

20 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

So far this is just something that I am considering to make the best possible use of the coming AQVOX switch-8. I want both of my systems to gain from the improved reclocking and SI. My thinking is to buy another router and connect it via WDS, so the new router is the passive WDS and the old router is the active WDS. AFAIK this will create two different subnets. My two wireless adapters are connected to different channels (channel 48 & channel 60) with separate control points/devices which actually improved the sq a bit on both places.

 

The main router is a Netgear router supplied by the service provider (ie. Not chosen by me. I am not at home and cannot remember the name of it right now) and I want to use the same brand (Netgear) if possible for the passive WDS. Most likely a Nighthawk or a C7. However, I am still looking for other brands like ASUS and TP-Link and will do so for a while before I pull the plug. 

 

Yes, the devices are in three different locations: 1. main router/2. main setup/3. low budget setup.

 

It might look over-complicated, but it is really the friuts of what I have dicouvered to be beneficial to SQ for me with Tidal as the only source. Both setups have similar thinking. I have actually also another D-Link network switch that I will throw in after the OTG power devider+TP-Link TL-UE300 to make it more or less identical to my main setup. Always fun to find out if a second switch can improve it! 

 

 

 

 

Hi Micael,

 

One way to achieve this without getting into multiple subnets, is to partition your wireless space. 

1. Let your "FIRST ROUTER" be the primary in the system. It does DHCP, NAT, and Wireless, BUT - configure it to only use one of the wireless bands - either 2.4 or 5 GHz.
2. Configure your 2nd Router (post Aqvox) as a Wireless Access Point (WAP) only. AND - configure it to use the other wireless band from the primary.

One other thing I would suggest is to revisit the need for the wireless bridge on the primary path to the Aries Mini. I understand the rationale at the time - to provide isolation. But since then, you have done a lot of isolation tweaks with floating power supplies etc. You may find that the wireless bridge does not help isolation further, but removing it may improve signal integrity overall.

 

If the above does work, then you can still do what you want with the 2nd router connected to the Aqvox, but now you would disable wireless completely on the 1st router, and enable both bands on the WAP (2nd router).

 

Something to think about! Good luck with the Aqvox. Great to see you guys sharing gear. 

[austinpop]

Oh I forgot to add a best practice that I find very useful:

• Assign easily-remembered static IPs to all your network gear that have web UIs to control them.
• Bookmark these in your browser of choice
• Then - it's easy to control them from one location without running discovery utilities to find their dynamic IPs when you need them.

[mozes]

My plan for the network isolation is as follows:

I managed to get used Baaske isolator from ebay for $45 and I also got 2 Pro-Tek 5 for $22 each. I also have three extra BJC Cat6a cables in my box.

I will put one Pro-Tekk 5 before the modem followed by a BJC Cat6a (2 feet). Second, I will place the Baaske just before the main router followed by BJC Cat6a (1foot).

 

I was also thinking of removing the outer metallic case on the Cat7 connectors, would this effectively cancel the shielding effect? not sure, but will try and see.

 

I still have one spare Pro-Tek 5 isolator and one BJC Cat6a (3 feet), any ideas where to it?

[Cornan]

39 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Hi Micael,

 

One way to achieve this without getting into multiple subnets, is to partition your wireless space. 

1. Let your "FIRST ROUTER" be the primary in the system. It does DHCP, NAT, and Wireless, BUT - configure it to only use one of the wireless bands - either 2.4 or 5 GHz.
2. Configure your 2nd Router (post Aqvox) as a Wireless Access Point (WAP) only. AND - configure it to use the other wireless band from the primary.

One other thing I would suggest is to revisit the need for the wireless bridge on the primary path to the Aries Mini. I understand the rationale at the time - to provide isolation. But since then, you have done a lot of isolation tweaks with floating power supplies etc. You may find that the wireless bridge does not help isolation further, but removing it may improve signal integrity overall.

 

If the above does work, then you can still do what you want with the 2nd router connected to the Aqvox, but now you would disable wireless completely on the 1st router, and enable both bands on the WAP (2nd router).

 

Something to think about! Good luck with the Aqvox. Great to see you guys sharing gear. 

 

Thanks Rajiv!

This is pretty much what I am already doing with my wireless adapter since they are both set to 5Ghz only and all most other devices are blocked from using the main routers 5Ghz network (ie. more or less forced to use 2,4Ghz). The way I see it adding another wireless adapter post AQVOX with a separate SSID + channel and connect the DAP-1620 exclusively to that will do the same thing right, or am I missing something?

What I wanted to achieve with a router was not to reduce bandwidth and perhaps have the activities from the two routers fairly "isolated" from each other. Still wondering if my idea will do just that though! ??

[lmitche]

2 hours ago, Cornan said:

 

So far this is just something that I am considering to make the best possible use of the coming AQVOX switch-8. I want both of my systems to gain from the improved reclocking and SI. My thinking is to buy another router and connect it via WDS, so the new router is the passive WDS and the old router is the active WDS. AFAIK this will create two different subnets. My two wireless adapters are connected to different channels (channel 48 & channel 60) with separate control points/devices which actually improved the sq a bit on both places.

 

The main router is a Netgear router supplied by the service provider (ie. Not chosen by me. I am not at home and cannot remember the name of it right now) and I want to use the same brand (Netgear) if possible for the passive WDS. Most likely a Nighthawk or a C7. However, I am still looking for other brands like ASUS and TP-Link and will do so for a while before I pull the plug. 

 

Yes, the devices are in three different locations: 1. main router/2. main setup/3. low budget setup.

 

It might look over-complicated, but it is really the friuts of what I have dicouvered to be beneficial to SQ for me with Tidal as the only source. Both setups have similar thinking. I have actually also another D-Link network switch that I will throw in after the OTG power devider+TP-Link TL-UE300 to make it more or less identical to my main setup. Always fun to find out if a second switch can improve it! 

 

 

 

Cornan, what I have learned is that the power supplies for the network gear are a huge source of noise and need to be shielded.

 

Here is a simple network diagram of my place:

 

Ground floor:

Cable modem >EN70HD>Netgear Black Knight dual band wifi router(subnet 1)

 

Third floor:

Netgear EX7000 bridge(5ghz lane)>BJC cat6a>AsusN66U router(subnet 2)>Wi-Fi>AsusEAN66, powered by 12 volts DC El cheapo plugged into AC isolation transformer>BJC cat6a>EN70HD>BJC cat6a>EN70HD>Intel pt100/1000 nic>Windows 10 upsampling PC

 

So when I say Tidal sounds as good as the local HDD, Tidal is being delivered through the gear above.

[Cornan]

21 minutes ago, mozes said:

My plan for the network isolation is as follows:

I managed to get used Baaske isolator from ebay for $45 and I also got 2 Pro-Tek 5 for $22 each. I also have three extra BJC Cat6a cables in my box.

I will put one Pro-Tekk 5 before the modem followed by a BJC Cat6a (2 feet). Second, I will place the Baaske just before the main router followed by BJC Cat6a (1foot).

 

Wow Moussa! Now you're prepared for serious network isolation. Great! ?

 

21 minutes ago, mozes said:

I was also thinking of removing the outer metallic case on the Cat7 connectors, would this effectively cancel the shielding effect? not sure, but will try and see.

 

 

Yes, this will do the trick and is exactlywhat for example @r_w have done with great results. ?

 

22 minutes ago, mozes said:

still have one spare Pro-Tek 5 isolator and one BJC Cat6a (3 feet), any ideas where to it?

 

With so many network isolators in the chain a little trial and error are the best way to find out what will sound the best.

 

 

 

[lmitche]

Just now, Cornan said:

 

Wow Moussa! Now you're prepared for serious network isolation. Great! ?

 

 

Yes, this will do the trick and is exactlywhat for example @r_w have done with great results. ?

 

 

With so many network isolators in the chain a little trial and error are the best way to find out what will sound the best.

 

 

 

Mozes, I would try to get the Ethernet isolation transformer as close to the nic as possible.

[Cornan]

5 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Cornan, what I have learned is that the power supplies for the network gear are a huge source of noise and need to be shielded.

 

Here is a simple network diagram of my place:

 

Ground floor:

Cable modem >EN70HD>Netgear Black Knight dual band wifi router(subnet 1)

 

Third floor:

Netgear EX7000 bridge(5ghz lane)>BJC cat6a>AsusN66U router(subnet 2)>Wi-Fi>AsusEAN66, powered by 12 volts DC El cheapo plugged into AC isolation transformer>BJC cat6a>EN70HD>BJC cat6a>EN70HD>Intel pt100/1000 nic>Windows 10 upsampling PC

 

Thanks for sharing Imitche! ? 

Your findings match mine for sure! Floating AC/DC connection for all network devices and externally grounded network switches is the key to success if you ask me! ?

[mozes]

5 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Mozes, I would try to get the Ethernet isolation transformer as close to the nic as possible.

@lmitche excuse my ignorance  but what is NIC?

[mozes]

7 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

Wow Moussa! Now you're prepared for serious network isolation. Great! ?

 

 

Yes, this will do the trick and is exactlywhat for example @r_w have done with great results. ?

 

 

With so many network isolators in the chain a little trial and error are the best way to find out what will sound the best.

 

 

 

Thanks @Cornan agree a lot of trial and error is the way to go I guess. But this way I don't have to deal massive effort to rewire everything. 

[mozes]

Just to add more clarity, my main Asus 3100 router is plugged to a LPS which is plugged to a isolation transformer. 

The modem is plugged using its switching adapter that came with it 

[lmitche]

11 minutes ago, mozes said:

@lmitche excuse my ignorance  but what is NIC?

Sorry,

 

NIC = Network Interface Card

 

[Cornan]

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

Oh I forgot to add a best practice that I find very useful:

• Assign easily-remembered static IPs to all your network gear that have web UIs to control them.
• Bookmark these in your browser of choice
• Then - it's easy to control them from one location without running discovery utilities to find their dynamic IPs when you need them.

 

Thanks, this is how I normally do it. I also use an app called Fing to keep track on the ip-adresses in my network and WiFi Analytics to ensure that the WiFi is healthy & strong! ?

[mozes]

Emmm reading how you manage your wireless network, I realize that my wireless is a big mess!

I have around 13 to 15 devices connected to my router wirelessly. Most are on 5G but that's it. I need a newbie course I guess in wifi management

Does this really matter to Tidal SQ if I have the TP-Link bridge? 

[mozes]

I just got this idea to try, why not remove the BK IT from LPS powering the main router and plug the modem to it. This way both my router (LPS)and modem (IT) will have some sort of clean power. 

 

Too many scenarios to test!

[mozes]

33 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Sorry,

 

NIC = Network Interface Card

 

Thank you, I should have known that