why does streaming from local storage sound better than the same album, at same resolution streamed from Qobuz?

[plissken]

2 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

When listening to remote files from Qobuz for example, the data bit stream is synthesised several times along the network, with each power supply adding its own noise and ripple to the stream.

 

The data, as it passes through routers is completely reconstructed and forwarded. Switches and routers routinely perform store and forward. Literally STORE data and then FORWARD.

 

When we are talking streaming content, ripple isn't a concern because you aren't going over copper but optical on these transits. There is no AC ripple on optical connections.

 

Quote

 

Power supplies in commercial networking products are usually $5-$7 affairs made in China from the cheapest components possible and are not optimised for audio applications. 

 

I'm curious where your information comes from. For my Aruba builds my power supplies have a cost starting at $350 for the lower wattage models. I'm pretty sure the BoM is way beyond $5-7. You also get a life time warranty *Lifetime for the product cycle*

 

Or did you mean consumer?

 

Quote

Then there are several cables along the way to pick up stray EMI. Noise from the multiple plover supplies interacts and create harmonics, so the final noise spectrum CAN be immensely complex.

 

Huh. The data doesn't support you in this though. All these devices convert AC to DC and by virtue of conversion everything besides 50/60hz fundamentals are all sorted on properly designed gear like the Meanwell Supply with the ground strap.

 

Quote

So what ends up entering the DAC is either noise from a single, audio optimised PS plus a single cable’s worth of EMI in the case of a server stored file vs noise from a variety of super-cheap power supplies, plus harmonics, plus EMI from several cables, often long in length for remotely streamed files.

 

I hope you aren't out there giving advice.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Here’s a picture of your average power supply in consumer grade network electronics. The size is roughly 100%  ie. correct size. 

 

Sorry, just some confusion on my part:

 

'Power supplies in commercial networking products are usually $5-$7 affairs made'

 

 

You are saying consumer then commercial...

 

[plissken]

3 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

The reason locally stored files sound better than their remotely streamed counterparts is entirely down to network quality. We can restore the balance with carefully selected network components, but we still can’t explain in scientific and engineering terms exactly what doing so accomplished, beyond the improved perception. 

 

This is easily tested. I'm game for testing this if others are. I'll help put in the effort if others will sign on to participate. But @Archimago already did something like this...

 

Doesn't mean it can't be done again.

[plissken]

7 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

As you say, its extremely easy to test. Just throw an ethernet cable over my bannister rail and connect between router and server, thereby bypassing all my optimisation measures. And the result is a massive downgrade,

 

No, this can be done over your existing. It's called tunneling or VPN. It's a logical overlay over your physical infrastructure as it sits.

[plissken]

4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Too many potential unknown variables.  With a cable swap the only variable is the current streaming network vs a direct cable. Easy and simple 

 

ZERO variables. Nothing would change with your setup.

[plissken]

9 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Errrr…I’m having some difficulty with the scientific logic here. If there are no variables, there is no comparison. There has to be at least one variable. The whole point is to make a comparison between two things, so what’s the other thing I’m comparing my network with. Surely its an alternate network…..at least that’s how I understand VPN tunnelling?

 

I responded to the context of what you considered changing variables in your setup as far as hardware change up (that you would run a cable?) and that is what I meant by ZERO change to your variables in you physical layout.

 

I'm only saying we can introduce a VPN tunnel to the mix with the same copy of a song stored locally and one hosted.

 

Does that clear it up?

[plissken]

2 hours ago, davide256 said:

If audio playback uses a normal file xfer for whole tracks before play with error checking, network performance is  largely removed from the equation

other than delay for start of track. The programs that try to start play before current track is fully downloaded are more challenged by network performance issues during

playback

 

Yep. This all goes back to statements I made about what constitutes best practice. Even in networking we have RDMA (Remote Direct Memory Access) where two NIC's can setup a channel and go from RAM block to RAM block.

 

iPerf does something like this where it sets up RAM buffer on Server and Client side so the disk subsystem isn't involved in seeing how much network throughput can be achieved.

 

With JRiver and their killer buffering options, their ability to abstract themselves from the lower layers literally means it is a play back system that is feasibly capable of taking advantage of full wire rate and even exceeding disk I/O limitations if you were somehow crazy enough to put together a battery backed up system with a few TB of RAM to store all your music (probably want the ECC buffered type for that 😉)

[plissken]

3 hours ago, davide256 said:

 

I got annoyed with the yearly Jriver updates charges, couldn't hurt to trial it again, will be interesting to see how it behaves with 768/24 files. Network  attached DAC setup

was a bit of a kludge at version 22.

 

 

I'm still on 24. Does everything I need it to do. You aren't forced to upgrade.