Article: SOtM sNH-10G Network Switch Review

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, incus said:

By definition this signal would sound the same as the signal coming over the switch and its attendant ethernet cables - because it's already passed through these things and has therefore already been affected by them prior to reaching the device (computer) where it is buffered.

 

You do understand digital, do you ?

 

How would that signal be affected ?

[PeterSt]

On 2/8/2019 at 9:37 PM, incus said:

The wifi router and the optical transmitter impart their own noise as do the wifi receiving module and the optical receiver, which they then pass along. These may be perceptibly less noisy than a crappy RJ45 switch and generic CAT cable, but still...

 

There you have it still right, if you only think of it in a way that e.g. a receiver may add noise that makes it through through its analogue means of influence which could be jitter in the D/A process somewhere down the line. It seems that you are saying that here, with said "impart their own noise". But here you change that context and go wrong with it (same post):

 

On 2/8/2019 at 9:37 PM, incus said:

By definition this signal would sound the same as the signal coming over the switch and its attendant ethernet cables - because it's already passed through these things and has therefore already been affected by them prior to reaching the device (computer) where it is buffered.

 

with this as the context (same post and actually same sentence):

 

On 2/8/2019 at 9:37 PM, incus said:

Pulling a cable just means

 

which implies a kind of recorded state (in the buffer) and where the analogue noise (mind you, in the digital signal) would have been mysteriously recorded and thus will have changed the digital data. Says you by implication (not me).

 

...

 

Thus the part where the receiver (any) implies additional noise (it just does, it will, it will be there) is correct. That this influences the D/A converter is close to 100% likely (I know of no immune product). That without a re-generated signal the noise of an upstream receiver (like switch) is also in there, will be a fact although galvanic isolation will help (though never 100%). Pulling the upstream noise generator, e.g. a switch, will remove the additional noise (from that "generator"), just because it is not there any more. This means that the D/A conversion is now subject to less noise and thus less impeded jitter.

 

Point is, we produce any and each of the hardware and software devices in that chain although it would be tough to say that we also produce the literal server(s) that put up the (music-)data stream at Tidal's and all the hoopla between there and the home. Anyway, this includes regeneration, the software which pulls the stream, the computer which passes it on to the DAC, the DAC and even the cables in between it. Really everything. Ironically the software ever back emerged to create similar noise, then "downgraded" to eliminate it which appeared to be impossible, then a DAC saw light which would be immune and which more than 10 years later still can not be made immune, no matter what I try from all angles all under my own control (the iron steaming hot). Isolators don't help, cables con't help.

 

And from there a stream from Tidal is not played as a stream but is 100% buffered first because it is logic to me that there will be less noise influencing parts plus that it is totally clear that it sounds vastly better because of such a set up (which can be tuned for each aspect in the chain).

 

The major source of noise which is avoided will be the processing of the PC which receives the stream from the internet (downstream from modem and switch) which is thus noise in the PC itself. I think that the noise from switch and modem further upstream don't even influence but this is hard to prove. Not hard to prove is the noise from the processing, which again, is all under the influence of the playback software (and all of its settings for that). Don't have these settings and the influence of the switch (say that this is the last device in the stream) may become profound (although still hard for me to see). But for example, supposed it generates errors, then the PC has more work to do to let it retransmit and the data is simply more and thus more (processing !) noise. Eliminate the switch and this noise can't be there. Eliminate the ethernet connection to the Audio PC at all, and a huge source of noise has been eliminated by guarantee. More practically: Buffer that stream into something which is static data in the PC and there is no Ethernet connection and thus also no noise of it. Disconnect the Ethernet connection software wise as fas as possible during playback and there is also no noise from the connection itself (which connection still implies huge processing when there).

Remove all the devices in the PC as far as possible (HDD, SSD, SD, USB) and there is a. less electrical noise from them and b. less processing noise (which is far more crucial because far more). It goes on and on.

 

Summarized

Nothing much to summarize. It is only that people tend to feed their SSD etc. with linear power supplies while they better remove the SSD etc. at all, and that switches with less noise or better regeneration etc. better be eliminated from the chain at all. Easy to prove that removed devices now can't incur for noise.

This got a bit long, but this is what happens for real when you "pull a switch" (etc.). And I (or customers) can really choose. From there, nobody connects his audio playing PC to the internet. Tidal is buffered in an upstream PC (which in itself connects to the audio playing PC which is under our 100% control (electrically)). Still don't like the "Tidal PC" to be connected to the internet because voodoo packets may come through ? go ahead and pull the plugs everywhere. Up to the connection between audio PC and "Tidal PC". Music keeps on playing anyway and the audio PC does not even contain a HDD/SSD/SD or any other means of storage.

If you deem it necessary to have that switch, then you could contemplate it better be an "audio grade" one. Don't forget to use expensive cables for it and of course run it from batteries. 

[PeterSt]

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 ...

[PeterSt]

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.

[PeterSt]

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. 

[PeterSt]

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).

[PeterSt]

 

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 !

 

 

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, incus said:

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.

 

You do understand digital, do you ?

Oh, wait ...

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, plissken said:

In what way is my challenging his POV about the operations that involve keeping a network connection up/up and the the 'noise' it generates

 

VS

 

all the other caching operations that go on even on a newly installed OS and optimized is incorrect.

 

In all ways. Just because you are so keen to leave out the proper context.

 

7 hours ago, plissken said:

Here you go and you are most welcome to debunk if you can...

 

Maybe @Superdadcan't (you were asking him) but I can do that on behalf of him;

If you are so good with Process Monitor you might just as well look at a somewhat rougher level and count the task switches. For an optimized system (like with AO) this comes to 46 million switches per second during audio playback (over USB). Allow me to be 50% off for your system. Now ignorant me comes along; In that same system with 46M task switches as by miracle it becomes 680,000. *)

Now you are of course going to show me that figure because you can do that too. But that is only step one. Step two would be that you now in *that* context again present your whatever caching and again would say that "these few more" surely won't make any difference.

 

Moral: Everything makes a difference but one has to apply first everything in order to detect its relative effect. Be that a technical matter like a PMI Counter or be that audible effect. Of course, if I'd like to present that an electrical difference of 10mV of noise really won't matter on 500mV of noise (think power supply) then everybody will think that is correct. But if that 10mV is superimposed on 10uV the story becomes a bit different. That, in order to get there, I first had to eliminate a 100 other sources of noise is something else, but crucial context.

 

Someone was talking about that this is not about winning or losing. But you lose.

 

*) IIRC this was for a W8 system and by now 6-7 years ago. Today's W10 will be very different, and varying per Build. Also my own software regarding this evolved quite a bit (focusing W10).

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, rickca said:

14 hours ago, PeterSt said:

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

Peter it sounds like you don't believe the stuff that Alex and John Swenson describe ... upstream phase noise fingerprint affecting downstream components and getting past many kinds of isolation techniques?  Am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

 

Hey Rick. I guess, like with @incus, many of you guys know a lot more about this than may seem from my responses (and btw, who am I). So no, it is about the difficulty in describing what happens where. Now since referring once again to that larger post from by now two days ago apparently does not help, here a smaller retry in different wording:

 

Quote

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.

 

So that text again (from incus). I'll try it as short as possible:

 

-----

If you would record that, like in a non-volatile buffer, would the added phase noise (error) be recorded ?

Of course not, because this is digital. So transfer errors left alone, this would just be a copy like a copy of a Word document.

-----

 

That is actually all there is to say. And oh, whether that copy resides in non-volatile or volatile memory, doesn't make a difference. It is only that the "buffer" we seem to talk about would merely be volatile.

 

The problem with making things clear, emerges here:

Once this copy is in-memory (still pushing out towards the DAC and makes sound), you can pull the Ethernet cable to eliminate the Switch, but really nothing - NO-THING - will change to that copy of the data. How could it. It already was 100% fine (after possible error-correction because computers tend to do that ).

Done.

 

No wait, ... but it was the stance that pulling that cable/Switch would change sound ?

YES. Because in real-time the noise influence (Phase Noise if you want) signature is changing. The digital data stays the same (0's and 1's don't interpret differently). So envision that nice analogue very low level test signal, think 30uV), and when the cable is pulled that noise becomes 25uV. This really isn't hard to imagine, I'd say. This is because this is analogue noise and it may come along with the connection to the Switch and be gone when that connection is pulled.

Now, did that change anything to the digital data ?

 

PS: It is not allowed to claim that 5uV is not audible because it is about the principle. The analogue signal has changed and thus that could be audible. And now I didn't even talk about jitter, which actually is ahead of that analogue output signal, and where the noise in the digital signal (which in the end is electrical analogue) influences jitter. Peaks and valleys (1's and 0's) don't trigger at the same time when noise is added (a peak of noise triggers early). So pulling the Switch will lower jitter.

And the recorded data (or data in the buffer) will still be 100% equal in both pulled and not-pulled situations.

 

More clear now ?