Article: SOtM sNH-10G Network Switch Review

[plissken]

29 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, exactly.  What happens if/when the noise gets into the DAC chip and clock?  (I recall at least one ESS white paper with info on this.)  It can cause jitter.  And/or it can get into the analog side of the system through ground.  Now I'm just speaking conceptually, and not about whether the levels of this stuff would be audible.

 

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.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

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

 

How noisy is the WiFi receiver circuitry?  🙂

[thyname]

Just now, plissken said:

 

.... This is why I'm a proponent of WiFi over either copper or optical Ethernet.

 

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

 

Hmmm.... great idea in theory, but in practice, the receiving end (streamer, etc) does it not have a Wi-Fi receptor or antenna to convert the internet signal, with its own issues & problems?

[plissken]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

 

That's all I'm proposing here. If you start Tidal and playback your favorite track and have someone randomly disconnect/connect the cable and you can't tell any difference there is literally no amount of money you can spend on the portion of your playback chain to improve things.

 

$1500 for a 'audiophile' switch is just insanity.

[plissken]

35 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

 

That is certainly possible. You could even take a switch, desolder the the isolation transformer, zip up the traces together and hear all manner of shit. But the bottom line is that the isolation devices available already do a killer job:

 

Their job is to block noise and they do a good job of it already in equipment measured in the $10's of dollars. Not the $1000's when it comes to networking equipment.

[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. 

 

 

[plissken]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Noise is always going to be present, the only question is how much (how effectively the design protects against that noise).  Lots of methods of isolation from transmitted noise are noisy themselves, so complete isolation isn't the complete answer either.

 

More is better than less Jud. WiFi certainly eliminates AC hum/ground loop.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

Optical is a lovely idea.  But just like any other isolation method, the question is what level of noise the isolation method itself creates (in the case of optical, the receiver circuitry to convert the optical signal back to an electrical one).

[plissken]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

 

 

Takes the same effort to run an optical cable as it does Ethernet 🙂

 

Also the $30 2960 8t has an SFP port on it.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

More is better than less Jud. WiFi certainly eliminates AC hum/ground loop.

 

It does, which is great.  The point is that you're not done then.  And it could conceivably be the case that a well designed wired connection might result in less noise getting into the DAC parts than at least some optical or WiFi connections.  It's always implementation (i.e., "the devil is in the details").

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Optical is a lovely idea.  But just like any other isolation method, the question is what level of noise the isolation method itself creates (in the case of optical, the receiver circuitry to convert the optical signal back to an electrical one).

I had a white paper at one point comparing the power supply rail characteristics and optical was something like 10^3 better in consumption than WiFi. So that's a win.

[Jud]

Just now, plissken said:

I had a white paper at one point comparing the power supply rail characteristics and optical was something like 10^3 better in consumption. So that's a win.

 

I know I've read that at least some opto-isolators are electrically noisy.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

[incus]

1) I still don't understand the experiment you are asking us to do. Where in the chain am I meant to pull the ethernet cable? I have ethernet cables connecting a lot of different components right now. In other words, which device are you imagining is going the buffering? The server? The DAC? That matters a lot as there are many steps in my digital playback chain. You would need to tell me where this is meant to be happening before I consider the logic of what you are saying.

 

2) Any device that receives, transmits and/or buffers a digital signal is re-clocking that signal before it sends it along. So the phase noise, leakage current, and ground plane issues of that device all get introduced at that juncture.  There is also a growing body of inquiry on these forums that believe that phase noise, leakage currents, and ground plane issues still make it through from  previous reclocking devices. It is my understanding that no current device can eliminate everything from upstream.

 

So you want each juncture from modem to DAC to have the most accurate and quietly powered clock possible as well as the best possible noise isolation and/or filtering. So if you pull an ethernet cable from some random place in the chain -- assuming there is some random component buffering the signal -- and there is no change - doesn't that simply mean that the component doing the buffering is no worse than anything that came before it? Which is good, right? If you pulled the cable and the sound got worse, you would want to look at the device doing the buffering with an eye to upgrade. If the sound gets better, then you may want to look at your upstream re-clocking components.

 

To me, the modem itself is the tricky part - the actual place of entry of the signal from outside the home. Someone needs to make a purpose built modem along the lines of what SOtM and Uptone are doing with switches so the first reclocking into the home is the best it can possibly be. Then you can add and remove anything down stream of that to see their effects. Anyway...

 

[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.

[plissken]

11 minutes ago, incus said:

1) I still don't understand the experiment you are asking us to do. Where in the chain am I meant to pull the ethernet cable?

 

In the context of this review using a Windows 10 Computer and Tidal with the switch upstream of the computer, where would you think?

11 minutes ago, incus said:

 

 It is my understanding that no current device can eliminate everything from upstream.

 

WiFi and Optical most certainly can.

11 minutes ago, incus said:

 

So you want each juncture from modem to DAC to have the most accurate and quietly powered clock possible as well as the best possible noise isolation and/or filtering. So if you pull an ethernet cable from some random place in the chain -- assuming there is some random component buffering the signal -- and there is no change - doesn't that simply mean that the component doing the buffering is no worse than anything that came before it?

 

You'll do well to ponder some more on what I said: If you start playback of music, in this case Win10 and Tidal, and you pull the Ethernet cable and SQ doesn't change....

[plissken]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I believe this is false.

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.

[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.

[plissken]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

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.

[Advieira]

Best configuration ever.

 

 

[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.

[incus]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

Sorry - I meant within the context of ethernet streaming

[incus]

3 hours ago, plissken said:

 

In the context of this review using a Windows 10 Computer and Tidal with the switch upstream of the computer, where would you think?

 

WiFi and Optical most certainly can.

 

You'll do well to ponder some more on what I said: If you start playback of music, in this case Win10 and Tidal, and you pull the Ethernet cable and SQ doesn't change....

1) Still don't know where you mean, sorry. There would be the following ethernet cables in that assumed configuration - one connecting  modem to switch, one connecting computer to switch, possibly one leading to DAC depending on DAC input, also this assumes no end point, correct? Or else there could be another connecting switch to endpoint, etc.

 

2) It is simply not accepted fact that Wifi and optical most certainly eliminate all upstream *noise* defined broadly. 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...

 

3) I would do well to ponder some more? Well, this is me pondering. Pondering publicly, in fact. Shamelessly pondering. But I re-read my post to which this is your response and still find that my logic holds. The only thought experiment that makes any sense is to listen to this imaginary Windows 10 computer playing directly from a modem and then to simply add the switch into the chain between the modem and the computer and see if there is any discernible difference in sound. Pulling a cable just means you're listening to the buffered signal from whatever is doing the buffering - which is the whole reason you are able to hear music play without the cable attached in the first place. 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. So no change in sound tells me nothing. Nada. A ponderable nothingness.

[incus]

2 hours ago, Advieira said:

Best configuration ever.

 

 

This is what SOtM now suggests in response to this thread.

 

[Account Closed]

There is another factor to consider with switches in general and that is that most switches blast the signal out a power level needed for 100 meters of wire per the spec. Jussi of HQP advocates using switches with a power saver mode that adjust output for the actual wire length on a given port.

 

To test this for myself, I picked up a Netgear Nighthawk switch (which has a power saver mode) on a Black Friday special for $60. I tested it against my old $20 Netgear 1 gig switch. Both were powered by  the same linear power supply. When using the Nighthawk as a straight switch, I could not tell any repeatable difference. But, when I engaged the power saver mode, there was a noticeable improvement over the old Netgear switch.

 

I don't know why for sure but I suspect that some gear is susceptible to being overloaded at the input and/or that reducing the power output from the switch also reduces electrical noise on the line.

 

It is clear that electrical noise is always a detriment to audio and reducing it is the proper thing to do.

 

My point is that there are ways to do this that don't have to be overly expensive.