Melco S100 Ethernet Switch Measurements

[plissken]

5 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Still you or @jabbrhas not been able to produce a link to a working 10/1 auto SPF+ or SFP28 module. 
Preferable working together with that nice 4 port switch.

 

I most certainly have:

 

Cisco 2390 for 4 SFP+

I listed a 1GBe FS.COM SX fiber module. If your switch is only 1GBe why bother with anything else?

 

Here's the dual rate 1/10 https://www.fs.com/products/29899.html

[plissken]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

read the datasheets, the one you quote clearly states that its multimode (SX), LX is singlemode

 

Short hand:

 

If it's S it is multimode cable

If it's L it is single mode cable

 

S is for Short Reach

L is for Long Reach

E is for Extended Reach

[plissken]

5 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Can you explain the technical requirements for this test. (Before I start a new tread about it)

 

Is it all about the etherRegen, or about a switch won’t matter in general?

 

The setup is pretty much what I layed out in the video I posted. This is predicated on the fact that these audiophile switches (Bonn, Melco, UpTone, etc) are supposed to improve everything from streamer to computer + DAC combo.

 

So what is required in my proposal:

 

1. I'll supply a Celeron 3150 based system with a dual port NIC capable of LACP LAG into a switch. I have several sub $100 switches capable: TP-Link, Cisco SG-200-8, Cisco 2390, Cisco 2960, Aruba 2530.

 

The switch will be configured for LACP and one port in the bundle will feed  port A of the NIC directly, the other will feed the audiophile switch ingress. The audiophile switch egress will go direct to port B of the NIC.

 

Playback application will be JRiver. This will feed participant supplied USB cable and what ever is down stream.

 

Cabling will be long enough to host the managed switch out of site of participant where A or B cable can be swapped.

 

I'll even do one better to stack the deck in participants favor: The generic switch side cable will be 3X the length of the audiophile switch cable.

 

As far as the evaluation: I have the idea of participant picks 3 tracks. I'll generate 7 potential swaps and randomly selected time.

 

Participant has two requirements: They need to be able to pick the time of the swap and they need to state if it's A or B.

 

I'm also open to other suggestions.  I think a few hours of the participant actively being able to manage the entire testing rig and evaluate is perfectly acceptable.

 

If they bow out or can't reliably pick then I get $1000, if they can evaluate 3 of their favorite tracks on a setup of their choosing they get $8000. Travel expenses paid by incorrect party.

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

Now @plissken or @jabbr

Will this product automatically communicate with 1GB SFP if that SPT is dual (LX) and 850nm ?

(Intended to be in opticalRendu/etherRegen/Cisco 2960). 

 

Is jitter Per IEEE 802.3-2005 Table 38-10 equal to almost none as stated earlier by you @jabbr ?

(Jitter ref. as pr. data sheet).

By using this CRS305-1G-4S+IN and the suggested SFP+ module, should I then expect a jitter free / phase noise free equal or even better than etherRegen ? 

 

Time for you to do an experiment and report results.

 

Get 3 finisar LX/LR modules (single mode)

 

2x 1000base-LX (SFP)

1x 10g/1g dual LX/LR SFP(+) (per the sheet I linked to)

 

put one LX sfp module in your opticalRendu

put the other in the Mikrotik

 

listen

 

put the 10g/1g SFP+ module in the Mikrotik

 

listen

 

can you hear a difference?

 

further discussion on the "Optical Network Configurations" thread which exists for exactly these issues

 

To close this discussion in this thread: I have never seen any objective data to demonstrate that *any* 1Gbe Ethernet switch has either lower phase noise/error/jitter not lower common mode noise transmission/leakage current, than the Mikrotik 10Gbe switch using fiber, nor any other 10Gbe switch using fiber. The 10Gbe switches have gone through extraordinary testing over the last 20 years which has been extensively documented in the literature.  There is no equivalent actual data known to me for the 1Gbe series of switches.

[MarkusBarkus]

2 hours ago, plissken said:participant picks 3 tracks. I'll generate 7 potential swaps and randomly selected time.

Participant has two requirements: They need to be able to pick the time of the swap and they need to state if it's A or B.

@plissken I don't design testing procedures professionally, so evaluate my comments and "file" accordingly, but I wonder if you use seven swaps, do you encourage a guess, because the seven "structure" strongly sets up a win/lose dichotomy.  
 

Of course, I recognize that is your point; however a tie is also a very instructional finding to the community. 

 

Additionally, the requirement to choose "when" the change occurs, seems like a "second-pass" leg of the test. A two part test.

 

My thinking is, some tracks might confuse the issue because of the composition of the music played. e.g. maybe some effects are more obvious at certain frequencies, types of music/time signatures, etc.

 

A "when" the change occurs requirement would make me want (if I had to take this test, which I would not do even with house money because I can't always hear such things anyway) to provide a track that was just a tone, for example. 
 

This brings up a corollary point: any three tracks? Even a continuous tone, or frequency sweep of some kind? Cheers, fella...

[plissken]

 

51 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

@plissken I don't design testing procedures professionally, so evaluate my comments and "file" accordingly, but I wonder if you use seven swaps, do you encourage a guess, because the seven "structure" strongly sets up a win/lose dichotomy.  
 

Of course, I recognize that is your point; however a tie is also a very instructional finding to the community. 

 

Additionally, the requirement to choose "when" the change occurs, seems like a "second-pass" leg of the test. A two part test.

 

My thinking is, some tracks might confuse the issue because of the composition of the music played. e.g. maybe some effects are more obvious at certain frequencies, types of music/time signatures, etc.

 

A "when" the change occurs requirement would make me want (if I had to take this test, which I would not do even with house money because I can't always hear such things anyway) to provide a track that was just a tone, for example. 
 

This brings up a corollary point: any three tracks? Even a continuous tone, or frequency sweep of some kind? Cheers, fella...

 

My attempt at structuring this is taking the input of the claims made. The claims are typically of a nature of 'immediacy' and 'apparent'.

 

This would be done in the persons own, intimately aware of it, setup. From their USB cable on back. *I don't have an issue doing this on a streamer if it supports LACP thus ensuring the network interface on said streamer will reconnect on the fly and start receiving data automatically.

 

This would be done with tracks of their own choosing. I also don't have an issue if we take three tracks, or a snippet of, and make a change between the playback. So you could even take a 30 second portion of a track and have a potential change before playback. So that is you could pick three 30 second snips, and for 7 iterations you would listen and mark down what sounded better. And did it match with a $60 switch or a $640 or $2000 switch? That's 21 samples. In this scenario I'm willing to take out the guesswork of when it happened. I think that's more than fair given the claims of stark improvement. That type of claim should be detected on the fly w/o the participant knowing if a change was made. Maybe a mix. two rounds of a known change interval and one round of random change.

 

You'd have to hit 17 of 21 correct.

 

If you want to pick frequency sweeps, multi-tone, single tone, pink noise, as your ears only track that's fine by me.

Again it will be ears only and single blind.

 

[R1200CL]

20 hours ago, jabbr said:

Time for you to do an experiment and report results.

Yes😀

I agere that with the use of the opticalRendu in conjunction with a 10GB fiber optical, it is highly likely that I will struggle to hear much (if any) difference between that setup and using the etherRegen instead. Maybe even only using the optical out of my Cisco 2960G. 
I may even say this use of the Cisco can replace the opticalModule. A more reasonable way to obtain a high quality FMC. 

One could even question why not the opticalRendu and etherRegen wasn’t designed with SFP+ interfaces. But who knows what the next step will be. 
Will the audio market be ready for SFP+, when they haven’t even got to SFP. Hardly even integrate Ethernet correctly. 

Not sure if we will se an opticalRendu with extended buffer and SFP+ interface. Adding that Mikrotik upfront with real 10GB modules seems like a nice package. 

 

Now, we must not forget that the etherRegen was not designed with FMC as the main objective. I think this was thrown in during development. In addition I think @Superdad never was marketing the etherRegen as a sound enhancement in conjunction with the opticalRendu. 
 

The main trick and most important feature with the etherRegen is the bidirectional moat. And the best clock ever to be implemented in a 1GB switch. 
There shouldn’t be any doubt it does this well, and the etherRegen is a very valuable device for anyone that doesn’t have an opticalRendu (in conjunction with a 10GB optical switch). 
 

What is more interesting to understand and learn more about is my question about using a RJ45 SFP+ port into that Mikrotik switch. Will the clock jitter still be gone ?

On paper this is as an example a fair comparison against the opticalModule. They match in price as well. 
Powered with a LPS 1.2, (and fiber in) the Mikrotik shouldn’t cause any ground loops either. 

But the main question is, will jitter still be equal to pure fiber.

I expect a yes, but not sure. In any case a yes or no, a short technical explanation would be nice. 
I hope you or @plissken has the knowledge to explain. 
 

When it comes to Plissken test, I think he is planning to use 10GB Ethernet and fiber against the etherRegen or ?

 

If the test is to prove etherRegen against another switch, let there at lest be equal condition.

No fiber, and no special PS. And preferably an endpoint and a server to be included. Also no buffers 😀
Test the etherRegen against what it’s main purpose is.

 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

Also no buffers

 

Not possible. They are just a critical as every other component. Won't work otherwise.

[R1200CL]

27 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Not possible. They are just a critical as every other component. Won't work otherwise.

Is this you (almost) admitting the etherRegen highly likely will benefit Roon users or users with player SW that can’t have buffers ? 
 

Wonder if RAAT would evolve to RAAT2 with buffer requirements to HW manufacturers 😀

 

But hold on, what about Miska NAA ?

Maybe simpler to implement buffers there for user building own endpoints ?

[charlesphoto]

I tried a 10gb Mikrotik. Went back. I didn't find it anything special compared to my cisco switch or opticalModules. I probably didn't have it set up optimally or with the right SFP's, but I also didn't need that many fiber outlets. YMMV. 

[plissken]

7 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Is this you (almost) admitting the etherRegen highly likely will benefit Roon users or users with player SW that can’t have buffers ? 

 

You may not know it, but you are making a very large assumption.

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, R1200CL said:

What is more interesting to understand and learn more about is my question about using a RJ45 SFP+ port into that Mikrotik switch. Will the clock jitter still be gone ?

 

Yes, as specified.

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

I tried a 10gb Mikrotik. Went back. I didn't find it anything special compared to my cisco switch or opticalModules. I probably didn't have it set up optimally or with the right SFP's, but I also didn't need that many fiber outlets. YMMV. 

 

That's fine. I have *never* claimed that 10Gbe fiber "sounds  better" than 1Gbe fiber. What I am saying is that *all* the compliant 10Gbe switches and NICs have been designed such that end to end jitter *is not* transmitted across links. Nor do any of the fiber devices transmit common mode noise (e.g leakage current) which is an electrical phenomenon.

 

The user whether professional or home, can be assured that the compliance sticker for 10Gbe indicates that the device has been tested for and does not pass along upstream jitter. Its a non issue. It may not be an issue for your 1Gbe devices but I haven't seen any testing.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

That's fine. I have *never* claimed that 10Gbe fiber "sounds  better" than 1Gbe fiber. What I am saying is that *all* the compliant 10Gbe switches and NICs have been designed such that end to end jitter *is not* transmitted across links. Nor do any of the fiber devices transmit common mode noise (e.g leakage current) which is an electrical phenomenon.

 

The user whether professional or home, can be assured that the compliance sticker for 10Gbe indicates that the device has been tested for and does not pass along upstream jitter. Its a non issue. It may not be an issue for your 1Gbe devices but I haven't seen any testing.

 

For the the longest time I always glossed over your fiber thread because 1GBe copper is the standard in the home. But I have to give you credit: All that the end point manufacturers have to do is start implementing SFP+ and any mythical issues are just solved.

 

Thanks for beating the drum as long as you have on this.

[Miska]

19 hours ago, plissken said:

All that the end point manufacturers have to do is start implementing SFP+ and any mythical issues are just solved.

 

I've been waiting for this to happen...

 

You are still left with the higher level protocol things though.

 

[plissken]

On 9/29/2020 at 1:40 PM, Miska said:

You are still left with the higher level protocol things though

 

Left with those even if doing dial up SLIPP

[Miska]

30 minutes ago, plissken said:

Left with those even if doing dial up SLIPP

 

Yes, certainly. I sort of always wonder why people pay attention to network interface jitter things with something like NAA. Since as protocol it would work even over internet between continents...

 

But it is not the case with all protocols. Although it is more about jitter at other places than with the lowest level transport link. Like how well PTPv2 works and how the clock derivation from it is implemented, etc.

 

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, certainly. I sort of always wonder why people pay attention to network interface jitter things with something like NAA. Since as protocol it would work even over internet between continents...

 

There are a considerable number of people who believe that server components generate different amounts of electrical noise and that this noise somehow makes it across the network, ultimately to the DAC.

 

No doubt NAA is a critical component because it runs on a low powered electrically quiet device.

 

The fiber ethernet ensures that no electrical noise can cross the network, so use a high powered server without concern and an electrically quiet NAA and voila the music comes out. 

 

[Miska]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

The fiber ethernet ensures that no electrical noise can cross the network, so use a high powered server without concern and an electrically quiet NAA and voila the music comes out. 

 

Yes, certainly, but this isolation doesn't have anything to do with ethernet clocking jitter... Network timings are not critical to NAA, since there is no clock being transferred and NAA doesn't run any clocks. Only critical clock is DAC's sample clock.

 

So technically it doesn't have to be Ethernet. The data transport could as well be a 4G or 5G mobile network. WiFi is also working fine for me, up to 8 channels of DSD256. It is also actually practical if you want to access something like RAVENNA over WiFi, it can act as a bridge from WiFi to Ethernet for RAVENNA case.

 

[plissken]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

Only critical clock is DAC's sample clock.

 

According to @superdad you aren't correct. That the network switch phase noise and both low and high impedance leakage currents affect a DAC's clock. Apparently even when nothing is being transmitted. So all the time.

[R1200CL]

5 hours ago, Miska said:

Network timings are not critical to NAA, since there is no clock being transferred and NAA doesn't run any clocks. Only critical clock is DAC's sample clock.

Would same apply for RAAT ?

 

(I’m using SonicTransporter with HQPlayer embedded). 

[plissken]

15 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Would same apply for RAAT ?

 

(I’m using SonicTransporter with HQPlayer embedded). 

 

I think they agree with Miska:

 

"Audio devices must own the audio clock. Many other protocols get this wrong, including AirPlay. It's not possible for two clocks to agree perfectly. Letting the DAC control the pace of streaming removes the need for a clock-drift-compensation mechanism that is bound to increase cost, decrease sound quality, or both."

[Miska]

That's why I said things depend on high level protocol too. On AirPlay the receiver (AirPlay device) reconstructs the sample clock from the inbound RTP packet timing. Which this totally horrible approach.

 

But there are reasons for difference approaches. The main thing here is whether you want to have synchronized multi-room playback (or otherwise multi-endpoint) where multiple network endpoints stay in sample-"accurate" sync. This means all DACs cannot own the clock or they will drift more or less eventually. For this reason NAA doesn't support this functionality.

 

[R1200CL]

Somehow I feel we’re drifting away for the intention (as described in John’s white paper) with better clocks for eliminating jitter in switches transferred down the chain 😀

Has RAAT or NAA anything to do with switches ? And then this higher levels protocols?

 

It seems there is an agreement (silenced members included) that a 10GB network with fiber SFP+ cage will be almost an equal solution to what the etherRegen does.

 

But so far it’s only possible to build computers with 10GB fiber interface. So until SPF+ is the preferred standard for streaming.....

However I think testers, like @charlesphoto did find John’s design to sound better.

 

Maybe there will be an upgraded etherRegen with SFP+ as well as an opticalRendu / module with SFP+
But ops, this is where the Mikrotik should do the trick instead. My understanding this is what @plisskenand @jabbr is trying to say with so many words.
So I don’t expect an upgrade soon.

 

I’m still not sure how to understand that Yes from @jabbr as he added “as specified”, was with the 10Mhz standard or the 10GB standard as that RJ45 SFP+ module supports a wide range of speeds.

 

If that Mikrotik is powered by an LPS 1.2, ground loops shouldn’t be an issue. 
 

 

 

[Miska]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

It seems there is an agreement (silenced members included) that a 10GB network with fiber SFP+ cage will be almost an equal solution to what the etherRegen does.

 

But so far it’s only possible to build computers with 10GB fiber interface. So until SPF+ is the preferred standard for streaming.....

 

Or maybe use WiFi? You certainly get full galvanic isolation! ;)