plissken Posted January 30, 2020 Author Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 hours ago, mansr said: There are two rules: If you express scepticism about something, it is dismissed with "you can't know unless you try it." 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. Ralf11 1 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 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. 4est 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
davide256 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 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 Teresa 1 Regards, Dave Audio system Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 what are "component bottlenecks"? which components in his system are bottlenecks?? Link to comment
plissken Posted January 31, 2020 Author Share Posted January 31, 2020 Here is the Audio Precision analyzer results for the DC-1. Link to comment
davide256 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 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. jaynyc 1 Regards, Dave Audio system Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 it sounds undefined or undefinable, and just a catch phrase tossed in to diss a system Link to comment
sandyk Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 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
Popular Post Teresa Posted February 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/26/2020 at 7:30 AM, plissken said: With so many subjectivists asking "Did you try it" and pointing out there is a 30 day MBG I wanted to give it a shot even though it flies in the face of logic and buffered systems. You are braver than I am! If I don’t have confidence that something would improve the enjoyment of my music I don’t try it. If I think well, maybe, it might offer improvement I might try it if it has a money back guarantee. Even though I’m a subjectivist I don’t try anything I don’t want to and would never let anyone talk me into trying something I find of zero possible value. Just saying. On 1/27/2020 at 10:27 PM, emcdade said: ...EDIT: actually who gives a crap, I'm not buying one of these either. I can't think of anything less fun in the audiophile hobby than networking gear. I agree. The only reason I read this thread was because @plissken was trying something he didn't believe in and thought it would be entertaining. And it was! 😊 On 1/30/2020 at 11:02 AM, mansr said: There are two rules: If you express scepticism about something, it is dismissed with "you can't know unless you try it." 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. Long ago I discovered it was better not to play. I never express skepticism about something someone else loves that I think is illogical or goofy. And yes, based on some of the super expensive audio equipment out there it would be easy to say my equipment isn't expensive enough. However, I love how realistic it makes my music sound. On 1/30/2020 at 2:52 PM, plissken said: 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. I'm curious why you are willing to do so? You couldn't pay me to try something I have zero confidence in. 17 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... Well then my entire audio / video / computer system must be a bottleneck as I try to pay as little as possible for quality equipment, it must be under $1k and preferable $500 or less. The only thing I have with a suggested retail of over $1k are my pair of Infinity Reference Standard 7 Kappa floor standing speakers which had a combined retail of $1,400 which I bought for $700 on clearance. So I guess that makes me thrifty bottleneck subjectivist. 😊 tapatrick, plissken, lucretius and 1 other 1 1 1 1 I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past. I still love music. Teresa Link to comment
Arpiben Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 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? Link to comment
lucretius Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 18 hours ago, davide256 said: 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. Excellent advice (where feasible). mQa is dead! Link to comment
plissken Posted February 1, 2020 Author Share Posted February 1, 2020 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. Teresa 1 Link to comment
plissken Posted February 1, 2020 Author Share Posted February 1, 2020 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
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted February 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 1, 2020 11 hours ago, Teresa said: Well then my entire audio / video / computer system must be a bottleneck as I try to pay as little as possible for quality equipment.... So I guess that makes me thrifty bottleneck subjectivist. 😊 yeh - me too. you are doing the right thing! mav52 and Teresa 1 1 Link to comment
Arpiben Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 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
plissken Posted February 1, 2020 Author Share Posted February 1, 2020 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? Link to comment
plissken Posted February 2, 2020 Author Share Posted February 2, 2020 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
plissken Posted February 2, 2020 Author Share Posted February 2, 2020 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
plissken Posted February 2, 2020 Author Share Posted February 2, 2020 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
plissken Posted February 2, 2020 Author Share Posted February 2, 2020 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
The Computer Audiophile Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Can’t wait till someone tries token ring at 10Mbps plissken 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
plissken Posted February 2, 2020 Author Share Posted February 2, 2020 8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Can’t wait till someone tries token ring at 10Mbps I have some 33.6kbps USR Sporters. $700. Link to comment
Arpiben Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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. (latency values @800 Mbps bandwidth) (Ex:10 kB buffer size switch setting measured with ETH tester) Link to comment
plissken Posted February 2, 2020 Author Share Posted February 2, 2020 At mtu 1518 nothing to worry about. Typically when I implement jumbo frame we have very specific scenarios like high throughput ISL where most traffic is North south. Link to comment
davide256 Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 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. plissken 1 Regards, Dave Audio system Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now