Jump to content
miguelito

Networked DACs and network speed?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I had read that network speed should be fast enough but not faster. The idea is the higher the speed, the more electrical noise generated. In this vein, I see both the Melco audiophile router as well as the EtherRegen have connections to audio endpoints at 100Mbps rather than 1000Mbps.

 

So first question: Has it been established that connections at 100Mbps are better for audio?

 

My setup: mac mini i7 quad (2012, 16GB RAM, 250GB SSD, 3TB FW800 hard drive), on linear power supply (Uptone JS-2, both mini and HD on it, mini also has the MMK board to remove fan electrical noise). Connection to main switch is wired via a Thunderbolt-Ethernet adapter, and connection to the dCS Rossini is via the mini’s internal Ethernet port (there’s a SoTM IsoCat6 between the mini and the Rossini). The two Ethernet ports are bridged (not internet sharing but bridged) so there’s full bi-directional access to the mac and Rossini from the network.

 

Normally ifconfig (run in Terminal) would show both ports are 1000Mbps, full duplex, etc... However, the Rossini has two Ethernet ports - one labelled “10/100/1000” and one labeled “10/100 Loop”. Moving the Ethernet connection to the mini from the first to the second port makes the connection a 100Mbps full duplex connection (as reported by ifconfig). I have been running it this way for a day or so without any issues.

 

Result? I think I find it a little more “relaxed” sounding. It is very easy to go back and forth. It will take some time to see if there’s any difference in this case or if it is really a wash.

 

The slower speed could easily be achieved by using a 10/100 5-port switch between the DAC and the network, or if you have a managed switch you might be able to change the specific port speed.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Thx.


mini+Roon > dCS Rossini DAC + Rossini Master Clock >

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo G2

system pics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, miguelito said:

I had read that network speed should be fast enough but not faster. The idea is the higher the speed, the more electrical noise generated

 

Ethernet speed should not affect sound quality. Can you post a link to where you read this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

Ethernet speed should not affect sound quality. Can you post a link to where you read this?

 

Could you support this opinion, with a link or anything else?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

Could you support this opinion, with a link or anything else?

 

As you can read, I clearly stated "should" which is not an absolute assertion. Also, proving a negative is impossible and was not the purpose of the original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ran said:

Ethernet speed should not affect sound quality. Can you post a link to where you read this?

I can't recall exactly, I think it was an AudioStream podcast with one of the makers of high end DACs, but not sure.

 

But regardless, very simple questions:

1- Why is the audio endpoint section of the EtherRegen a 100Mbps connection? There are also four 1000Mbps ports and an SFP port.

2- Why does the Melco S100 audiophile switch have four 100Mbps ports (and four 1000Mbps ports and two SFP ports)?

 

@Superdad care to elaborate?

 


mini+Roon > dCS Rossini DAC + Rossini Master Clock >

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo G2

system pics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ran said:

As you can read, I clearly stated "should" which is not an absolute assertion. Also, proving a negative is impossible and was not the purpose of the original post.

 

Yes, but if there is not an assertion, there wouldn't be a demand for a link which should prove the opposite, no? BTW, some players, such as Euphony provide an option in setting to limit ethernet speed. Why? What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, miguelito said:

I can't recall exactly, I think it was an AudioStream podcast with one of the makers of high end DACs, but not sure.

Darko's article "Gordon Rankin on why USB audio quality varies" - something like 'the faster the interface the more chance that there will be an error'.

 

52 minutes ago, miguelito said:

1- Why is the audio endpoint section of the EtherRegen a 100Mbps connection? There are also four 1000Mbps ports and an SFP port.

The B side 100Mbps port which allows the ADIM (galvanic moat) is the only 'affordable' piece available. The 1000Mbps either doesn't exist yet or too cost-prohibitive at this time. I wish I could find the matching post, but it's buried in that long sponsored thread.

 

4 hours ago, miguelito said:

However, the Rossini has two Ethernet ports - one labelled “10/100/1000” and one labeled “10/100 Loop”. Moving the Ethernet connection to the mini from the first to the second port makes the connection a 100Mbps full duplex connection (as reported by ifconfig). I have been running it this way for a day or so without any issues.

In the dCS manual, The Network Loop connection on a second RJ45 socket (S) is intended for future expansion and its use is at this time unsupported.

 

4 hours ago, miguelito said:

So first question: Has it been established that connections at 100Mbps are better for audio?

If it has, there ought to be a lot of owners of 100Mbps ethernet switches. I've only come across posts recommending Cisco Catalyst 2960.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

BTW, some players, such as Euphony provides an option in setting to limit ethernet speed. Why? What do you think?

 

I do not know but unless Euphony can provide technical explanation this will fall under "cool selling feature".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ran said:

 

I do not know but unless Euphony can provide technical explanation this will fall under "cool selling feature".

 

I do believe by some reason any link presented or explanation provided will not satisfy you in sufficient manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Could you support this opinion, with a link or anything else?

 

 

What I could do is use a managed switch and ssh into it. While you critically listen I can change the port speeds on the fly.

 

You indicate when the port speed has changed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Yes, but if there is not an assertion, there wouldn't be a demand for a link which should prove the opposite, no? BTW, some players, such as Euphony provide an option in setting to limit ethernet speed. Why? What do you think?

 

Why does the $32,000 pair of Nexus 9300's that I recently installed with 48 10GB ports and 6 QFSP+ ports allow for other speeds than 10GB? Generally to ensure compatibility.

 

I would say the Ethernet chipset Euphony implemented supports various speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another way to think about this:

 

More and more playback devices are capable of caching minutes and even entire tracks. In some cases like JRiver, entire albums.

 

For power saving reasons modern PHY's will throttle down and even turn portions of the chipset off while the computer (I use this term loosely because an item like the Cambridge Audio 851N meet the qualifications of a computer) goes about it's business.

 

So here goes:

 

a 100Mbit connection can transfer 700MB 16/44.1 of information at 11MB a second. So 63 seconds full tilt.

 

a 1000Mbit connection can transfer that same 700MB of information in 6.3 seconds.

 

a 10000Mbit connection in .63 seconds.

 

So if you have a playback device that can cue up 700MB of information, basically an hours worth, and the NIC go to sleep for the duration and even lending any credibility to lower speed = better, wouldn't the highest possible speed interface actually be the best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Miska said:

What is "B side" port for Ethernet?

He is referring to the Uptone Audio EtherREGEN.


NUC7PJYH/AL --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10 Version 1903/HDPLEX 200W/HDPLEX 400W DC-ATX --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Networked DACs don't hold an hour worth of music. And let's say you have a Merging Hapi with 8 channels of input at DSD256 and 8 channels of output at DSD256, or 16 channels of output at DSD256. You have have 172 Mbps worth of constant traffic.

 

Likewise, if you play to exaSound 8-channel DAC at 384/32 you have 93 Mbps worth of constant traffic.

 

Neither one is going to work at 100 Mbps.

 

Higher the network speed, longer the sleep periods are between the data transmissions.

 

 

There is a reason that I explicitly used 16/44.1 in the example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ran said:

 

Ethernet speed should not affect sound quality. Can you post a link to where you read this?

 

For what it's worth when considering the purchase of the original Sonore Rendu (ethernet > SPDIF) I asked Jesus Rodriguez whether I should use GB ethernet or 100Mb ethernet output from optical isolation to the Rendu. He said the latter as this would reduce the potential for RF interference.


ALAC iTunes library on Synology DS412+ running MinimServer with Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 tablet running BubbleUPnP for control >

Hi-Fi 1: Airport Extreme bridge > Netgear switch > TP-Link optical isolation > dCS Network Bridge AND PS Audio PerfectWave Transport > PS Audio DirectStream DAC with Bridge Mk.II > Primare A60 > Harbeth SHL5plus Anniversary Edition .

Hi-Fi 2: Sonore Rendu > Chord Hugo DAC/preamp > LFD integrated > Harbeth P3ESRs and > Sennheiser HD800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but I think the point Jesus was making was that he did not want any additional wire-borne interference reaching the electronics in the Rendu.


ALAC iTunes library on Synology DS412+ running MinimServer with Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 tablet running BubbleUPnP for control >

Hi-Fi 1: Airport Extreme bridge > Netgear switch > TP-Link optical isolation > dCS Network Bridge AND PS Audio PerfectWave Transport > PS Audio DirectStream DAC with Bridge Mk.II > Primare A60 > Harbeth SHL5plus Anniversary Edition .

Hi-Fi 2: Sonore Rendu > Chord Hugo DAC/preamp > LFD integrated > Harbeth P3ESRs and > Sennheiser HD800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DavidL said:

For what it's worth when considering the purchase of the original Sonore Rendu (ethernet > SPDIF) I asked Jesus Rodriguez whether I should use GB ethernet or 100Mb ethernet output from optical isolation to the Rendu. He said the latter as this would reduce the potential for RF interference.

 

I would like to hear what is technical basis for such. Transmission times are longer with 100M, signal levels are the same...

 


Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibilities I can quickly think of:

 

higher bandwidth (spectrum wise) in use for gigabit
4 pairs vs 2 in use in the network cable

Different mode of operation of the PHY

Higher load on all circuits following the PHY including but not limited to CPU and memory could cause more processing noise

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DavidL said:

 

For what it's worth when considering the purchase of the original Sonore Rendu (ethernet > SPDIF) I asked Jesus Rodriguez whether I should use GB ethernet or 100Mb ethernet output from optical isolation to the Rendu. He said the latter as this would reduce the potential for RF interference.

 

What mechanism in GB is 'noisier' than 100MB? If he's unable to articulate that I would say that's a problem.

 

I've, and other, have already stated why higher speeds are better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...