Jump to content
IGNORED

So I've had an EtherRegen in rack for 2 weeks...


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mansr said:

There are two rules:

  1. If you express scepticism about something, it is dismissed with "you can't know unless you try it."
  2. If you do try it and find it wanting, you'll be told the test wasn't valid because the rest of your stuff isn't expensive enough.

The only winning move is not to play.

 

The interesting part is I'm willing to play ball when I'm told I didn't try something. When I suggest that sauce that's good on goose is also good on gander all the sudden it's excuse making.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I like the Magnepan 1.7's that David has.

 

But with my classical music collection being as large as it is they weren't the right speaker for me. I had to have something that could give a bit more SPL, be a truly full range speaker with dual 8" woofers, 3.5" mids, Ribbon tweeter and enough amp to handle large dynamic range. My Statements have a dipole design for the mids and putting the time into placement from the back wall and toe in they image quite well. With them being 55 X 11.5 X 16.5 inches (external) and 128 lbs each they have the ability to prodigiously bring it when it comes to full range orchestral works, or about anything else 

 

Orchestrations by Sir Henry Wood, track 5, La cathedrale engloutie is one of the tracks I use for evaluation.

 

 

I love to hear you talk about music and your system. Sometimes we get stuck on much less interesting topics. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 


What logic did you use to arrive at this number?

 

My personal user experience. I’ve violated this rule before only to be underwhelmed with difference. And then come back later after system upgrades to realize that component bottlenecks covered up the finer points. Any accessories investment in a world of limited resources is money taken away from component upgrades which done wisely are far more certain improvements

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

what are "component bottlenecks"? 

 

which components in his system are  bottlenecks??

Component bottleneck= performance limits or colorations

 

I've been through probably about 10 headphone amplifiers as well as attending headfi meets, haven't heard a headphone amplifier I like for less than $1k.

Head Amp and Micro iDSD were 2 that I owned and quickly discarded at the $500 price point. Just doesn't pay to skimp on your headphone amplifier.

Head-Fi meets highly recommended as  a way to compare and learn whats possible for headphone playback, identify your preference with least money wasted

on non successes.

 

 

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Link to comment
14 hours ago, davide256 said:

Component bottleneck= performance limits or colorations

 

I've been through probably about 10 headphone amplifiers as well as attending headfi meets, haven't heard a headphone amplifier I like for less than $1k.

Head Amp and Micro iDSD were 2 that I owned and quickly discarded at the $500 price point. Just doesn't pay to skimp on your headphone amplifier.

Head-Fi meets highly recommended as  a way to compare and learn whats possible for headphone playback, identify your preference with least money wasted

on non successes.

 

 

I have 3 friends from the USA that participate in Head-Fi Headphone meets, and several years ago I was invited to attend a lHeadFi meet in Richmond NSW Au. and bring along my DIY Headphone amplifier which was well received. One of the HeadFi members had already constructed my DIY version as presented in a U.K. based Audio Forum .

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Teresa said:

I'm curious why you are willing to do so? You couldn't pay me to try something I have zero confidence in.

 

 

There's no downside to me being open minded enough to simply try something. I also tried the eR yesterday on my Marantz Streamer. While it's no the most sophisticated kit, I was thinking maybe a difference would show up on the cut rate NIC they most likely installed. 

 

No difference for me. Trying a Rasberry Pi ROON end point with Ropieee next. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Arpiben said:

The only bottleneck is the EtherReg B side (100Mb) vs A side (1Gb) when data is flooding from B to A.😉

@plissken were you able to read the switch labels if not blanked or erased? 

In case of proper instrumentation,did you estimate EtherReg's default buffer size? 

 

 

 

Buffer sizes on a switch are usually fixed, so there is no default. I wouldn't be surprised if the FIFO buffers on the 10/100 side were measured in KB. But that would be a question for @superdad to answer. The 2530 I have has 1.5MB allocated across all ports. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Buffer sizes on a switch are usually fixed, so there is no default. I wouldn't be surprised if the FIFO buffers on the 10/100 side were measured in KB. But that would be a question for @superdad to answer. The 2530 I have has 1.5MB allocated across all ports. 

Thanks. The ones I am using have buffer sizes (60MB) adjustable (1/2.5/10 Gbps ports).

 

Link to comment

Here is iPerf results with an Intel CT GBe PCI-E adapter in my ASRock 3150 with mechanical spinner. WIndows 10 Pro 64bit and 4gb of RAM.

 

Server is Dell R620 with 64GB of RAM, two Xeon 6 core, SSD drives also running Windows 10 Pro 64bit.

 

Only using A side.

 

C:\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3.exe -c fs-ll-1
Connecting to host fs-ll-1, port 5201
[  4] local fe80::99d7:170:8858:67a port 49870 connected to fe80::5d1d:1114:2e76:c0de port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  93.0 MBytes   780 Mbits/sec
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   110 MBytes   926 Mbits/sec
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   110 MBytes   922 Mbits/sec
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   110 MBytes   920 Mbits/sec
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   110 MBytes   927 Mbits/sec
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   109 MBytes   918 Mbits/sec
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   108 MBytes   901 Mbits/sec
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   109 MBytes   917 Mbits/sec
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   108 MBytes   908 Mbits/sec
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   110 MBytes   925 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.05 GBytes   904 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.05 GBytes   904 Mbits/sec                  receiver

 

 

 

 

Here is it is with the built in NIC (folks spend $20 on an Intel NIC 🙂 )

 

C:\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3.exe -c fs-ll-1
Connecting to host fs-ll-1, port 5201
[ 4] local fe80::c46:9498:ba:e01b port 49846 connected to fe80::5d1d:1114:2e76:c0de port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 78.4 MBytes 657 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 78.0 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 78.4 MBytes 657 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 78.0 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 78.1 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 78.1 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 78.0 MBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 78.2 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 78.1 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 78.5 MBytes 658 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 782 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 782 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec receiver

Link to comment

And no switch (just NIC to NIC cabled)

 

C:\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3.exe -c fs-ll-1
Connecting to host fs-ll-1, port 5201
[  4] local 169.254.6.122 port 50149 connected to 169.254.192.222 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   106 MBytes   891 Mbits/sec
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   112 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   110 MBytes   928 Mbits/sec
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   112 MBytes   936 Mbits/sec
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   111 MBytes   933 Mbits/sec
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   111 MBytes   933 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.08 GBytes   931 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.08 GBytes   931 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Link to comment

And A/B side

 

C:\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3.exe -c fs-ll-1
Connecting to host fs-ll-1, port 5201
[  4] local fe80::99d7:170:8858:67a port 50252 connected to fe80::5d1d:1114:2e76:c0de port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.01   sec  11.0 MBytes  91.3 Mbits/sec
[  4]   1.01-2.01   sec  11.1 MBytes  93.5 Mbits/sec
[  4]   2.01-3.01   sec  11.1 MBytes  93.6 Mbits/sec
[  4]   3.01-4.00   sec  11.1 MBytes  93.5 Mbits/sec
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  11.1 MBytes  93.6 Mbits/sec
[  4]   5.00-6.01   sec  11.2 MBytes  93.6 Mbits/sec
[  4]   6.01-7.01   sec  11.1 MBytes  93.5 Mbits/sec
[  4]   7.01-8.00   sec  11.1 MBytes  93.6 Mbits/sec
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  11.1 MBytes  93.6 Mbits/sec
[  4]   9.00-10.01  sec  11.2 MBytes  93.5 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.01  sec   111 MBytes  93.3 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.01  sec   111 MBytes  93.2 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Link to comment

Back to a point I made earlier:

 

You are better off with quicker connections. Your best use case is an adapter that isn't in use. The quicker you can get off the wire the better.

 

For our GBe connection we can transfer your average Red Book CD in ~7 seconds. That's less than a 1 second per track for the majority of albums. That's 70 seconds for 100Mbit.

 

Remember OS's are going to green up the connection by idling it power wise.

 

Also 802.3az will reduce power on 100 and 1000 links when not in use. So GBe links will spend much more time in our ideal state.

 

Sorry but I'm simply not buying this argument without some unbiased evidence that lower speed Ethernet sounds better. Let me know if anyone want to have a get together and see what happens when we don't know the speed of the connection.

 

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, plissken said:

Generally on better switch gear you will have dynamic buffer the can be allocated as rate increase and the switch may need to go from store and forward to cut through to keep latency in check. What switch are you using?

 

Broadcom ICs used in transmission equipment.

For such applications, burst absorption is around 100 ms (@port rate) same for typical/default latency constraints at throughput.

 

My point was to have an idea of burst sizes (or duty cycle rate) in typical audio data.

To be clear I am sharing same concerns as yours dealing with the utility of such Ethernet regenerators.

 

 

Burst_2.thumb.jpg.d448807e6568582336aaada18bd07a92.jpg

(latency values @800 Mbps bandwidth)

 

Burst_1.jpg.e17d51bb5e55352ed9c36b2bf2e4fed7.jpg

(Ex:10 kB buffer size switch setting measured with ETH tester)

Link to comment
On 2/1/2020 at 12:14 PM, plissken said:

 

There's no downside to me being open minded enough to simply try something. I also tried the eR yesterday on my Marantz Streamer. While it's no the most sophisticated kit, I was thinking maybe a difference would show up on the cut rate NIC they most likely installed. 

 

No difference for me. Trying a Rasberry Pi ROON end point with Ropieee next. 

I'm going to give one a try since if it doesn't help, it does have a return period. After 20 years of supporting a tier 1 ISP and fortune 500 customers, I'm skeptical that anything at layer 2 internal to the switch can matter but am willing to consider that electrically connected switch ports might  degrade USB audio on susceptible endpoints with adequate performance potential. I've tried a Cisco switch before, made a marginal difference but not enough to justify adding "spaghetti" to the simple NUC with powerline Ethernet setup I have now.

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Link to comment

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...