IPV6 is best for audio

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

Same could be said about other networking products. But when I ask questions I generally get shouted down.

Yes I know, as said I am not here to make trouble tho. So, I am asking you sincerely whether you think these IP6 advantages and more broadly Ethernet is a superior interface for audio audibilty.

[Miska]

At very least better functional reliability and flexibility.

 

[Miska]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Roon doesn't accept an IPV6 address to connect to HQPlayer ... if this matters ...

 

I think it doesn't support IPv6 for many other things either. If you use HQPlayer Client, it defaults to IPv6. Similar way as with NAA, discovery is performed in both IPv6 and IPv4. But whenever IPv6 is available, that is used.

 

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Yes I know, as said I am not here to make trouble tho. So, I am asking you sincerely whether you think these IP6 advantages and more broadly Ethernet is a superior interface for audio audibilty.

 

I think we should endevour to use IPV6 whenever reasonable, and if a DAC offers both an Ethernet and USB interface, I would use the Ethernet interface assuming it runs NAA, or I could install NAA onto it.

[Account Closed]

11 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I think we should endevour to use IPV6 whenever reasonable, and if a DAC offers both an Ethernet and USB interface, I would use the Ethernet interface assuming it runs NAA, or I could install NAA onto it.

It has been mentioned elsewhere that some DACs that have an Ethernet input use an internal computer board that uses an internal hardwired USB connection from that board to a USB input board. So just having an Ethernet input may not mean that one is getting away from USB. If you are going to have an Ethernet input then you are going to need a computer to make it work. USB just puts that computer outside of the DAC which can have advantages. Electrical noise and isolation come to mind. There are others.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I think we should endevour to use IPV6 whenever reasonable, and if a DAC offers both an Ethernet and USB interface, I would use the Ethernet interface assuming it runs NAA, or I could install NAA onto it.

 

Edit,Jonathon just saw your reply on other thread, thanks

 

Jonathan, the obvious question is why should we should endeavour to use IP6 (with NAA) over USB but I don't want to take this thread off topic as I get it is important to many to stay on track (IP6 vs IP4). If you feel inclined to get involved, please answer at the other thread.

I will lurk here out of interest and maybe repost some comments which relate to audio differences between USB vs IP6 on the other thread.

 

@plissken Mark I get you likely don't want to get drawn into a subjective debate so no drama

.

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, bobflood said:

It has been mentioned elsewhere that some DACs that have an Ethernet input use an internal computer board that uses an internal hardwired USB connection from that board to a USB input board. So just having an Ethernet input may not mean that one is getting away from USB. If you are going to have an Ethernet input then you are going to need a computer to make it work. USB just puts that computer outside of the DAC which can have advantages. Electrical noise and isolation come to mind. There are others.

 

Yes implementation always is the deciding factor. Many little boards use IS2/DSD internally which is intended for interboard communication. I would even do this fiber optically

[jabbr]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Jonathan, the obvious question is why should we should endeavour to use IP6 (with NAA) over USB

 

Its not one or the other. Ethernet is a networking protocol. IP runs on that, and TCP runs on IP. USB is meant to connect peripheral devices to computers. The NAA is a device that accepts a network stream, buffers and writes to an audio device. That device could be a USB audio device, a PCIe audio device, an IS2/DSD audio device or even, presumably another Ethernet device.

 

 

[plissken]

15 minutes ago, bobflood said:

It has been mentioned elsewhere that some DACs that have an Ethernet input use an internal computer board that uses an internal hardwired USB connection from that board to a USB input board.

 

I would steer clear of vendors that implement USB bridges in their network streamers vs i2s. While USB can sound great it's just not my preference. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I would steer clear of vendors that implement USB bridges in their network streamers vs i2s. While USB can sound great it's just not my preference. 

Some years ago MSB DACS introduced an ethernet renderer (as well as their USB input) offshooting their data  to a "PROI2S board", connected via a short ethernet cable (and the USB via direct 16 pin plug). This may be a proprietry thing (?) but presumably a good implementation.

--

BTW NAA only applies to Miska's HQPlayer, is that correct?

[davide256]

It was my part of my last job to push IPV6 deployment for my carriers business customers.. it really only benefited customers needing more fixed address space. No one could find a killer use for it that made it more compelling for Internet use than IPv4. The only selling point for consumers was if you wanted an IP address that could be yours on the Internet... IPv4 was too short on address space for carriers to support fixed address allocation for consumers 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, davide256 said:

It was my part of my last job to push IPV6 deployment for my carriers business customers.. it really only benefited customers needing more fixed address space. No one could find a killer use for it that made it more compelling for Internet use than IPv4. The only selling point for consumers was if you wanted an IP address that could be yours on the Internet... IPv4 was too short on address space for carriers to support fixed address allocation for consumers 

 

That's certainly one of the benefits of 128^2 and the primary driver.  I find compelling internal uses for it all the time and they fixed a ton of stuff that were problems with IPv4.

 

One of the issue's outside of just a larger address space is that Subnetwork summation is inbuilt. IPv4 you had to plan this if you had a discontinuous space because of routing loops.

 

For WiFi IPv6 really shines due to the fact that a WiFi  AP acts as a CDMA (HUB) device. You can literally get more clients on a WAP with IPv6 than IPv4.

[AudioDoctor]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

I think we should endevour to use IPV6 whenever reasonable, and if a DAC offers both an Ethernet and USB interface, I would use the Ethernet interface assuming it runs NAA, or I could install NAA onto it.

 

My DAC has a Roon Bridge and a USB input installed...

 

guess which one I prefer...

[AudioDoctor]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

If a '?' was appended to the title of this thread, would your psyche become settled?

 

Your title merely made me reply with a tongue in cheek reply... it was plissken that really got under my skin.

 

edit: perhaps I did not make my tongue in cheek-ness clear enough in my initial reply, but I surely did later in the thread.

[jabbr]

18 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

My DAC has a Roon Bridge and a USB input installed...

 

guess which one I prefer...

I honestly can’t — implementation trumps everything 

[AudioDoctor]

14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I honestly can’t — implementation trumps everything 

 

You're right, the USB input is preferred over the Roon Bridge. That may be due to HQPlayer however, and the fact that I have an Optical Rendu SE feeding the USB input.

[Bob Stern]

15 hours ago, jabbr said:

IPV6 does not depend on broadcasts and as we add little IoT widgets to our homes, the IPV4 broadcasts and might theoretically interfere with our music. VLANS can mitigate that (a switch can block the broadcasts from unwanted devices)

 

Someone should do an experiment and compare the sonic benefits of: (1) a firewall that isolates the IoT network (and hence its broadcasts) from the music network; (2) IPv6.

 

Certainly a firewall has security benefits aside from any sonic benefits, so that would seem to be a good place to start.

[Miska]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

BTW NAA only applies to Miska's HQPlayer, is that correct?

 

Yes, it is a HQPlayer specific endpoint control and streaming protocol and implementation.

 

[Miska]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Yes I know, as said I am not here to make trouble tho. So, I am asking you sincerely whether you think these IP6 advantages and more broadly Ethernet is a superior interface for audio audibilty.

 

Ethernet is superior audio interface at least because:

1) It allows many-to-many use cases, any server (player) can play to any DAC

2) Copper ethernet provides built-in galvanic isolation (unless spoiled with a shielded cable)

3) Ethernet provides standard means for optical connections without limitations and problems S/PDIF over Toslink

4) Ethernet provides much more bandwidth than USB Audio Class, allowing things like 8 or more channels of high rate PCM or DSD

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Ethernet is superior audio interface at least because:

1) It allows many-to-many use cases, any server (player) can play to any DAC

2) Copper ethernet provides built-in galvanic isolation (unless spoiled with a shielded cable)

3) Ethernet provides standard means for optical connections without limitations and problems S/PDIF over Toslink

4) Ethernet provides much more bandwidth than USB Audio Class, allowing things like 8 or more channels of high rate PCM or DSD

 

 

Thanks Miska for your reply.

 

Of that feature list the most potentially important benefit to my needs would be the galvanic isolation and that relates in turn to possible impact on SQ.

 

......sent you a PM

[AudioDoctor]

I owe the community an apology and @jabbr and @plissken specifically. There are good reasons I am pissed off about the lack of facts backing statements these days but none of them have to do with either of you and I should not have responded in the manner I did or taken it out on either of you.

[Foggie]

In the @Audiophile Neuroscience interface thread, it's nearly impossible to state interface "X" is better as it always comes down to implementation.  If the design (implementation) on a said interface was done with a no holds bar approach, chances are that will be the best performing interface from that DAC.  Which is why it's difficult to gauge a product based on its interface alone until you listen for your self / or there's a unanimous consensus.

 

There are many threads/comments on why users prefer a specific interface on their chosen DAC.  People stating that "USB sucks" for example, is a sweeping generalization that has no merit.  I would agree that an Ethernet interface would be the preference, but again, implementing that interface properly is not easy, is expensive etc..if its half assed it will be no better or maybe worse.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

There are good reasons I am pissed off about the lack of facts backing statements these days but none of them have to do with either of you and I should not have responded in the manner I did or taken it out on either of you.

There are good reasons we all should be pissed off about either lack of facts or incorrect “facts” backing many things we are told today. 
 

I would be happy if generally around here folks were to tone down pronouncements about a whole hole of audio “facts” based on perhaps some singular impression they have had ... think about it. 
 

On the web you can’t see my eyes slightly rolling back into my head as I type the thread title with a smile. No one has asked what “best” means? Do we assume it’s SQ? Does every setting in every config file have a SQ impact? Perhaps the assumption here! I *did* say that IPV6 has less random broadcasts — that’s the basis for my statement — when @plissken explained that in the other thread, a teeny weenie 💡 went off in my head — yes I should have known that! Though it would be great to elevate this info into our collective consciousness  

[plissken]

This is the direction I wanted the thread to go in. Thanks.

 

Some optimizations are free and just laying there for the taking. IPv6 with that long address seems to freak people out. I get it. As I started implementing and being a fan in 2008. It just took me sitting down and plowing through it to realize how much a better protocol it is. 

 

Some optimizations are inexpensive. @Jabbr is the one that convinced me just to go optical at home. While I deal with optical all the time for work I just could never be bothered with it at home since I was doing WiFi. But he does have a point about it being low cost, high yield, in this hobby compared to what some typical gear costs. 10GBe fiber for me was a $210 investment. That's pocket change.

 

The other thing is when you do go 10GBe, typically, the entire class of networking hardware and features goes, up. Including items like VLAN, QoS, CoS, SNMP Monitoring, Syslog, etc...

 

I just want to summarize again that the best implementation for audio is as much wire speed (1G,10G,25/40/100) as you can get, as much isolation as you can get (fiber), as low wattage as you can get (fiber), as low traffic as you can get (IPv6).

 

10GBe fully realized with IPv6 will get you there at 1250MB/s.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, Foggie said:

In the @Audiophile Neuroscience interface thread, it's nearly impossible to state interface "X" is better as it always comes down to implementation.  If the design (implementation) on a said interface was done with a no holds bar approach, chances are that will be the best performing interface from that DAC.  Which is why it's difficult to gauge a product based on its interface alone until you listen for your self / or there's a unanimous consensus.

 

There are many threads/comments on why users prefer a specific interface on their chosen DAC.  People stating that "USB sucks" for example, is a sweeping generalization that has no merit.  I would agree that an Ethernet interface would be the preference, but again, implementing that interface properly is not easy, is expensive etc..if its half assed it will be no better or maybe worse.

 

I have always believed that choice between digital interface, USB vs Ethernet, will come down to preference or need for certain features, whether you tend to stream vs play from local storage etc, and SQ would depend on implementation and subjective preference if any.

 

SQ being inherently subjective one must try for themselves. Some would maintain all digital interfaces maybe should sound the same, all other things being equal such as noise, jitter etc

 

Depending on the scenario Ethernet and USB may well need to be combined anyway.

 

My renewed interest in Ethernet is simply an impression that is gaining popularity over USB and I suspect this is because it comes with greater flexibility and feature set and in conjunction with the increasing popularity of streaming