JCAT - TCXO 10/100/1000 Audio Grade Ethernet Switch vs AQVOX - AQ-SWITCH

[mikicasellas]

Hello and hope i am in the right discussion, my apologies if not:

 

Has anyone compared the "JCAT - TCXO 10/100/1000 Audio Grade Ethernet Switch" vs "AQVOX - AQ-SWITCH Audiophile High-End Network Switch audio LAN isolator"?,

There is a difference of 200 euros being the AQVOX the costlier.

This is to use for best performance with the UltraRendu setup

 

In the other hand:

What do you consider a best setup?:

The Ultrarendu path vs JCAT (femto NET & USB card) with a dedicated PC?

 

I am almost pulling the trigger with the UR, but would like to hear some experiences in these different setups

 

Thank you all for reading!

[Albrecht]

On 7/25/2017 at 10:31 AM, mikicasellas said:

Hello and hope i am in the right discussion, my apologies if not:

What do you consider a best setup?:

The Ultrarendu path vs JCAT (femto NET & USB card) with a dedicated PC?

 

I am almost pulling the trigger with the UR, but would like to hear some experiences in these different setups

 

Thank you all for reading!

Hi,

Thanks for posting about this. I am curious myself about your exact question. I have a LMS iMAC in the basement, connected Via recently re-wired CAT6, into a switch with a QNAP NAS, - and from that switch, FMCs & Fiber to my Ultra-Rendu & F-1 DDC, 20 feet away in another room. I have the NAS load balanced into the switch, and am curious about which switch people think performs better.

Cheers,

 

[mikicasellas]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Hi,

Thanks for posting about this. I am curious myself about your exact question. I have a LMS iMAC in the basement, connected Via recently re-wired CAT6, into a switch with a QNAP NAS, - and from that switch, FMCs & Fiber to my Ultra-Rendu & F-1 DDC, 20 feet away in another room. I have the NAS load balanced into the switch, and am curious about which switch people think performs better.

Cheers,

 

 

I hope anyone can have some experiences to share with us about these two switches, i still using a MacMini and am about to pull the Trigger on the UltraRendu, i had the Micro and still having the LPS-1, so now aim considering either the Aqvox or JCAT, i guess later i will deal with FMCs & Fiber, how do those are working for you?

 

Cheers!

[Albrecht]

36 minutes ago, mikicasellas said:

 

I hope anyone can have some experiences to share with us about these two switches, i still using a MacMini and am about to pull the Trigger on the UltraRendu, i had the Micro and still having the LPS-1, so now aim considering either the Aqvox or JCAT, i guess later i will deal with FMCs & Fiber, how do those are working for you?

 

Cheers!

Fiber with the TP-Link MC200cm FMCs works beautifully, I have $12 JameCo wall wart LPSs on the FMCs and i noticed an improvement from the $50 iFi. But, - I never even bothered plugging in the SMPS wall warts that came with the FMCs.

The ultraRendu sounds amazing: in my system,- a BIG step up from the microRendu.

Cheers,

 

[Jiffi32]

Agree with Albrecht the ultraRendu is a bigger step up than what DAR review suggests.

 

Is this a new JCAT product? can't find mention of it on the jplay forums but available for order now according to Jcat website?

I'm interested in this anyone know who modifies it for them, (its not Ppang is it?)

[Confused]

Obviously not a direct response to the JCAT - TCXO 10/100/1000 Audio Grade Ethernet Switch vs AQVOX - AQ-SWITCH question, but I have some observations.  I tried the AQVOX switch, and found that in my system it really did appear to do nothing at all.  Some helpful posters on CA advised tips such as connecting the earth tab to earth, using port 1 in, port 8 out, and so on.  I tried all of this but in much A/B testing vs a standard switch I really could not detect any difference.  I know others have reported fine results with the AQVOX, which is fair enough, I just could not detect it.  This was with Windows 10, Roon, microRendu, Mutec MC3+USB to Devialet amp.  I also tried using the AQVOX with Devialet's 'AIR' Ethernet streaming, so taking the microRendu and Devialet out of the mix.  A/B testing against the standard switch using Devialet AIR, there were a couple of times I was not sure the if the sound quality with the standard switch was better, with the AQVOX taking something away.  To be honest, the margins were so very small this is well within the range of what could be imagined, expectation bias or whatever, which I think is the point, so ultimately sent it back.  One positive here, I had zero hassle with AQVOX's returns policy, I returned the item and obtained a refund.  So if you really want to try one, it is relatively risk free, AQVOX's customer service was excellent.  So not the comparative report you might have hoped for, but I guess I could say that in my system I expect the JCAT offering would be at least as good, if not better!

[plissken]

Here's all anyone need do on their computer:

 

Que up a track over the network. Start playback. Have someone pull the plug and if you still hear audio playing out of buffer but you can't tell when the cable was pulled then don't spend the $$ on this type of product. 

[Marcin_gps]

Just to clarify: the switch is not our design. It's a D-Link switch with a modified clock and capacitors. It comes from Paul Pang. 

 

We may have our proprietary design next year. 

 

Best regards,

Marcin

[plissken]

6 hours ago, Marcin_gps said:

Just to clarify: the switch is not our design. It's a D-Link switch with a modified clock and capacitors. It comes from Paul Pang. 

 

We may have our proprietary design next year. 

 

Best regards,

Marcin

 

What does a modified clock do to the data in buffered systems when I can pull the Ethernet cable and still have audio for 7-20 seconds on a lot of properly designed pieces of gear?

 

Same question goes for your $400 Intel 520 NIC.

[davide256]

On switches I do find that LRC Ethernet cable interaction and power supply noise interactions exist. And there are some older switches (FE only ports) that don't run fast enough for audio. Using fiber optic connection was sufficient, no fancy switch required

[plissken]

30 minutes ago, davide256 said:

On switches I do find that LRC Ethernet cable interaction and power supply noise interactions exist. And there are some older switches (FE only ports) that don't run fast enough for audio. Using fiber optic connection was sufficient, no fancy switch required

 

I'm dubious to any system that would exhibit perceptible noise from an Ethernet cable. This should be doable without any said noise.

 

I've managed this dozens of times.

 

 

[davide256]

10 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I'm dubious to any system that would exhibit perceptible noise from an Ethernet cable. This should be doable without any said noise.

 

I've managed this dozens of times.

 

 

I've had hum from a wallwart powering a switch cause downstream renderer interference in a  wired Ethernet solution, very noticeable when playing music... switched to  LPS power and the problem went away. Wired Ethernet sounds strained compared to using fiber optics between switch and network streamer, an effect similar to using a marginal power amp with speakers.. 99% of the time its okay but that repeatable 1% makes you want the next step up. And my experience with buffers has always been turn them  to lowest setting compatible with your hardware as they degrade the sound. I'll try pulling the Ethernet connection on my microRendu some time, I'm curious how much it buffers.

[plissken]

4 hours ago, davide256 said:

I've had hum from a wallwart powering a switch cause downstream renderer interference in a  wired Ethernet solution, very noticeable when playing music... switched to  LPS power and the problem went away. Wired Ethernet sounds strained compared to using fiber optics between switch and network streamer, an effect similar to using a marginal power amp with speakers.. 99% of the time its okay but that repeatable 1% makes you want the next step up. And my experience with buffers has always been turn them  to lowest setting compatible with your hardware as they degrade the sound. I'll try pulling the Ethernet connection on my microRendu some time, I'm curious how much it buffers.

 

It may be that I use switches with 3 prong power. Who knows. If I have a repeatable 1%... Well that is easily solved: I don't repeat it.

 

On the buffer thing about minimal buffers = better sound I ain't buying it.  There is no difference on 3 seconds vs buffering the entire track. Arguably buffering the entire track should be the most optimal.

[Marcin_gps]

18 hours ago, plissken said:

 

What does a modified clock do to the data in buffered systems when I can pull the Ethernet cable and still have audio for 7-20 seconds on a lot of properly designed pieces of gear?

 

Same question goes for your $400 Intel 520 NIC.

 

Same thing it does for USB Audio. It improves sound quality. 

[plissken]

5 hours ago, Marcin_gps said:

 

Same thing it does for USB Audio. It improves sound quality. 

 

If I setup J River and setup a 1GB RAM buffer take a track make copy A and copy B, plug in your Switch, queue up A track and let it start playing, then swap out the switch with a normal D-Link, queue up the B track you are telling me that there is going to be an audible improvement with A track vs B track while there is no switch connected?

 

 

[Marcin_gps]

If you don't hear the difference, good for you! 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, Marcin_gps said:

If you don't hear the difference, good for you! 

 

I'm wanting some insight into your thought process for how tighter tolerance 25Mhz clock that PHY's used to sync up each other so they can transmit makes through the input and output buffers on the Intel PHY, then the buffer on the PCIe bus, then the DMA set aside on the RAM bus, then the buffer set aside by the CPU then the buffer set aside by the playback application, then the buffer set aside by the USB PHY, then the buffer on the DAC where the data finally has an audio clock placed on it.

 

So my question is:

 

Buffers can be RAM or Disk. Volatile vs Non-volatile. So are you maintaining that your tighter tolerance clock some how makes MD5 hash identical data that has been copied 5 or 6 times, crossing several clock domain boundaries via FIFO buffering, sound different? 

 

Do you have an instrumented measurements that you have done along the way while you were developing modifications for the Intel 520 card?

 

Would you sit for a blind session where I supplied a stock i520 and placed both into a network team using Intel's utility allowing for your modified card and a stock card to have the cables swapped out at will with no interruption in playback? We would run your modifed i520 on your modified D-Link. I'll bring a Cisco Switch. 

 

What airport is closest to you assuming you are in the U.S. (Sorry don't know where you hail from). 

[Marcin_gps]

15 hours ago, plissken said:

 

I'm wanting some insight into your thought process for how tighter tolerance 25Mhz clock that PHY's used to sync up each other so they can transmit makes through the input and output buffers on the Intel PHY, then the buffer on the PCIe bus, then the DMA set aside on the RAM bus, then the buffer set aside by the CPU then the buffer set aside by the playback application, then the buffer set aside by the USB PHY, then the buffer on the DAC where the data finally has an audio clock placed on it.

 

So my question is:

 

Buffers can be RAM or Disk. Volatile vs Non-volatile. So are you maintaining that your tighter tolerance clock some how makes MD5 hash identical data that has been copied 5 or 6 times, crossing several clock domain boundaries via FIFO buffering, sound different? 

 

Do you have an instrumented measurements that you have done along the way while you were developing modifications for the Intel 520 card?

 

Would you sit for a blind session where I supplied a stock i520 and placed both into a network team using Intel's utility allowing for your modified card and a stock card to have the cables swapped out at will with no interruption in playback? We would run your modifed i520 on your modified D-Link. I'll bring a Cisco Switch. 

 

What airport is closest to you assuming you are in the U.S. (Sorry don't know where you hail from). 

 

It's intel350. And we're not modifying - it's a proprietary low-noise design. 

Years of listening experience and intuition is where I find ideas for improvements. 

I'm in Wroclaw, Poland. I'm happy to participate in a blind A/B session to prove what I already know. 

 

Best regards, 

Marcin

[Speed Racer]

Hold on a second. You folks do realize the clock is in the Ethernet packets themselves, right? If you use UTP, you are getting galvanic isolation due to the transformers used on each end.

[plissken]

7 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

Hold on a second. You folks do realize the clock is in the Ethernet packets themselves, right? If you use UTP, you are getting galvanic isolation due to the transformers used on each end.

 

The clock is a 25Mhz oscillator on the PCB that allows the PHY's to sync up and start transmitting packets. 

[plissken]

7 hours ago, Marcin_gps said:

 

It's intel350. And we're not modifying - it's a proprietary low-noise design. 

Years of listening experience and intuition is where I find ideas for improvements. 

I'm in Wroclaw, Poland. I'm happy to participate in a blind A/B session to prove what I already know. 

 

Best regards, 

Marcin

 

You understand that Ethernet isn't real-time and that with today's systems a serious audiophile can setup a system (like I have) to cache entire tracks to play back out of RAM leaving the NIC in an extremely minimal use state.

 

I shot a video of this on a $200 laptop playing back 24/192 over 54MBit wireless showing the transfer going down to 0Kbps.

 

With a 1Gbps NIC and hitting a wire speed of 107MB / second I could queue up an entire 16/44.1 ALBUM in 7 seconds.  24/192 in about 30 seconds.

 

What good is this going to do me again?

[Marcin_gps]

I think further discussion is futile. EOT for me

 

Regards, 

Marcin

[plissken]

27 minutes ago, Marcin_gps said:

I think further discussion is futile. EOT for me

 

Regards, 

Marcin

 

What discussion besides your disheveling and evasion? I asked a straight forward question and you couldn't answer it.

 

So how does a switch port or Ethernet card, when not in use, improve SQ?

 

Just trying to understand what mechanisms the switch or NIC applies to data that was buffered 5/6 times and anywhere from 6 seconds to ~50 minutes ago.

[Summit]

Marcin, I got my LAN card yesterday and initial impression with just a few hour of playing is better sound than with the mobo LAN card. I will listen and let it burn in for a week and see how big the change is before giving a bit more detailed impressions.  

[Marcin_gps]

8 minutes ago, Summit said:

Marcin, I got my LAN card yesterday and initial impression with just a few hour of playing is better sound than with the mobo LAN card. I will listen and let it burn in for a week and see how big the change is before giving a bit more detailed impressions.  

 

Good to hear! Please post feedback in this thread once the burn-in is completed: 

 

All JCAT NET Card owners will receive a free guide how to optimize the card for best sound. 

 

BR, 
Marcin