Article: SOtM sNH-10G Network Switch Review

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

but the Korean are egregious with thier marketing fluff (all in broken English) and milk-the-stupid-cow prices. 

I don't believe this has anything to do with the product and anything to do with anything.

 

Their native language and country of origin don't matter in the least.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, LowMidHigh said:

 

It shows a lot a about the company's ethos when it charges top dollars for its products and then chooses to save on a professional translator.

 

I disagree. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, LowMidHigh said:

 

Well, I take comfort that at least those myrad of companies that spent a fortune on localization agree with me. 

If that makes sense to you, then OK. My friend works for Microsoft and hires translators for many files that go into the OS. It costs $7 per word. Based on the high cost, I'd say it isn't a good use of funds for an audio company. If people can't understand a manual that's a different story. If people read incorrect grammar like your "charges top dollars" phrase but can still understand the manual they will read once and throw away, then I'd say mission accomplished. Resources better spent on other things. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

 

Kind of you to scan my phone-typed text for grammar errors. There's an opening in the Grammer & Typo police if you're so inclined. 

 

"My friend works for Microsoft and..."  Is that a serious argument or a tongue-in-cheek joke? 

 

 

 

Not an argument just stating facts that also back up your belief that translation is spendy. Except I don’t believe it is a good or necessary use of funds in most cases for HiFi companies. 

 

If one’s customers are quick to judge foreigners on their English skills and decision to put resources in areas other than translation, then I guess it may be worth it. For 99% of the world, it doesn’t matter. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

Auralic, Lumin, Aurunder

I’m looking at 6 products sitting in front of me from these companies. None of them have polished their text with respect to the products. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

What many HiFi companies do is send a manual to the US or local country distributor or a dealer in country. This person helps polish the text. 

 

If this doesn’t happen I honestly don’t care. I believe the value placed on some of this stuff is too high by those who read into these things way too much. If the product is good and I can read the manual for what I need, then I’m good. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Good, back to audio. Sorry for derailing this one and sorry to @LowMidHigh if I offended him. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, gordec said:

You know it's controversial when it stirs the pot up in CA. 

 

I actually recently tried to power my $30 network switch with Uptone J2 just to see if I hear a major difference. I run my Pro iDSD through the switch and use it as a network streamer. I don't hear significant difference. I don't mind investing in something as long as I can hear a significant difference. 

I’d say your approach is very reasonable and one that most people I know use. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Hey Chris, what does matter then?

 

My personal opinion is this review lacks any integrity knowing what I know about non-realtime audio reproduction, i.e. you can pull the plug and the music still plays.

 

I would love to see the article writer or SoTM sit blind and using Tidal on Windows 10 tell me during playback when the cable is in the computer or not. Do you think we could arrange this some time?

As you know I respect your opinion and technical knowledge. 

 

I’ve yet to hear a switch effect audio quality and I don’t understand how it technically could. That said, once in a while we publish articles that are controversial. 

 

One of the huge benefits of an uncensored comment section is reading the opinions of everyone who is respectful while providing opinions and / or factual information. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Let's talk about an article that talks about why it can't affect audio playback.

 

I think a larger benefit would be a piece that presents the flip side with some actual data.

If you’re willing to write it or know someone who can, I’ll publish it without a doubt. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, incus said:

Never said it was parallel. I just stated what I have in my system.

I believe he was referring the this statement in the review:

 

"May Park just sent me a note.  Having done some internal testing they found that under this parallel  configuration there was a dramatic sonic improvement."

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, incus said:

Ah, yes, I see now. Sorry.

No worries. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, firedog said:

Let's just say that after his ignorant posts about MQA (and I'm not referring to his sonic opinion of MQA), I wouldn't trust anything he says. 

We all make mistakes. I hope you don’t throw this baby(me) out with the bath water after I “F” up 😁

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, firedog said:

There's a difference between making mistakes and posting a long "in depth" video where you arrogantly  explain the technical aspects of MQA and why it is superior - where it's clear you don't  know what you are talking about. And then defending his ignorance. That's not a "mistake", it's incompetence at best, something else at worst. 
I don't ever remember you doing something like that. And you seem to be willing to admit factual technical mistakes, and don't pretend to be an expert about stuff you aren't expert on. 

Understood. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

The 'review' mentioned Tidal explicitly.  Tidal will cache the entire track locally.

 

So AGAIN, when using this SoTM switch, using Tidal (which was what was used, try and keep up here, reading skills are important), you pull the plug and the music still plays what do you think happens to the sound quality?

My guess is the data has already traversed the noisy switch and unplugging just to listen to one track isn’t practical. Thus, keeping a source of noise connected all the time is a requirement. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

59 minutes ago, plissken said:

Ethernet cables transfer data. They don't transfer jitter. They can carry noise.

This is something we should look at more. 

 

Ethernet cables transfer whatever is in the packets. For IP telephony jitter is a huge issue because the tolerances are so much worse than audio. It seems like there is plenty of jitter involved with Ethernet.

 

I'm not following you about Ethernet not transferring jitter. Can you provide more details?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

You should be able to tell WHEN the cable is removed because the sound should improve

That's a very good point. If one cause of sonic change is noise and that noise is coming from upstream of the DAC Ethernet interface, one should be able to notice when the cable is unplugged. 

 

The funny thing is, I have a friend who has always unplugged his Ethernet for playback because he hates the sound when it's plugged in. This person has no idea how any of this works, he just uses his ears. 

 

I've also heard about measurements with and without Ethernet cables plugged into a DAC and being able to see differences on the analog output. I need to dig further into this to see if these differences matter and what they actually show.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Timing of the bits through an Ethernet or USB cable (to an async input) shouldn't matter because they go into a buffer.  Conceptually, you could be typing ones and zeroes with totally inconsistent timing, and as long as they went into a buffer somewhere and were clocked out accurately, no worries.  There are two aspects of noise that I believe could conceptually make a difference regarding jitter: (1) The DAC chip compares signal to ground in order to determine the timing of changes from 1 to 0 or vice versa.  If there's noise on ground, the timing changes - jitter.  (2) Noise getting to sensitive clock circuitry could make the clock less accurate.

I struggling to understand how these buffers actually help rather than conceptually should help. Doesn't the receiving end just buffer exactly what has been delivered? Ive used many IP phones that have huge jitter issues. A buffer should've solved the issue? A reclocker sounds more appropriate. 

 

I honestly don't know, so I'm just asking.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

You will see 60hz mains noise creep it's way over Ethernet cables, even making it past the magnetic isolation transformers. This is why I'm a proponent of WiFi over either copper or optical Ethernet.

 

If you must go wired and you are wanting quality components: Get a used Cisco Catalyst 2960 8T for $30 and an Intel Server NIC for $20 if using a computer.

 

WiFi is the defacto, highest fidelity, connection available to the audiophile.

I like optical because one gets the reliability of wired and the isolation of wireless. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

perhaps this is why Sonore will create its own sfp module?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, incus said:

2) Any device that receives, transmits and/or buffers a digital signal is re-clocking that signal before it sends it along.

I believe this is false.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

Actually it's true.

 

In order to read off of a buffer some form of clocking needs to be present to read it out in an ordered fashion.

 

Keep in mind that one thing buffers do is enable linkage between two clock domain boundaries.

Not true with all digital signals. Ethernet sure, but a USB to AES converter doesn't reclock the data.

[The Computer Audiophile]

45 minutes ago, plissken said:

But AES isn't mentioned in the article and we are talking about a specific implementation.

If there is no buffering involved in your example I could see the point.

 

A quick glance at the Wiki for AES-EBU does show a clock and it's not the same clock on the USB bus (8Khz?).

 

So something is going on unless you mean something else.

His statement said all digital signals, so I wanted to make sure to correct that.

 

I've talked to the device designers about reclocking and they say their devices don't reclock. Perhaps a discussion for another topic.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, LowMidHigh said:

Now, this IS false. How can you creat an AES stream without timing information? 

Perhaps this is why you don’t design and manufacture components. I spoke about reclocking. When manufacturers tell me there product don’t reclock and aren’t reclockers, I believe them. Especially when they are people who’ve created cutting edge digital products for decades. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

42 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

 

Resorting to ad hominen attacks is usually a sign of intellectual inferiority. And starting countless examples with "I have a friend who..." belongs to elementary school debates. 

 

You know nothing about me and my sets of skills. For that matter, focusing on the issues in hand is far more productive and civil than hurtling insults. 

 

As I sensibly wrote above it seems plissken refered to clocking the data (although he mistkakingly uses the term re-clocking). He was absolutely right. But instead of trying to dichper his true meaning, you jumped on his re-clocking phrase with a triumphant crow. Well done. 

Let me know if you need a ladder to get down off that high horse.