Best Ethernet Cards for Streaming

[TomJ]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I’ve been considering this card - https://daleproaudio.com/products/merging-technologies-net-msc-gbex1-gigabit-aes67-ravenna-pcie-card-for-horus-system#description

This card seems to me to be an Intel EXPI9301CTBLK 50$ card with the 82574L PHY : https://www.bechtle.com/de-en/shop/intel-gigabit-ct-desktop-adapter-pcie--538196--p

At the start of this thread I posted measurements (However, not with the measuring equipment I now have) of the Intel Pro 1000PT with the 82571EB PHY, which is similar to the  82574L.

 

Maybe they have some special souce driver, or driver settings. But if it only comes to settings, the i350 should have at least the same setting parameters.

[TomJ]

On 10/22/2022 at 9:48 AM, Markus8 said:

 

Hope @Superdad you have had a good vacation time and Gen2 is also progressing nicely. 
And did you also provide @TomJ some feedback so he is able to continue his very passionate work?

I online forums worldwide flooded with the „data is data / everything is perfect, there cannot be any audible difference on Ethernet cables and switches“ and findings or measurements would be a real game changer here. 

Hi Markus,

after I had a really open and friendly exchange with @Superdad , it has unfortunately currently become somewhat quiet. I have no idea whether this is due to her current workload or whether they have changed their mind and does not want to give any assistance. If that were the case, I would find it a great pity, because the conversation was very promising not only for me, but also for many silent readers of the threads.
The intension of my investigations is not audiophile snake oil bashing and I would be really happy if manufacturers also engage here to get some light in the dark regarding their products. But if this is not the case, I will continue based on my own findings. However, it would not be pleasant if this then degenerates into a justification discussion as it progresses. Currently would be really a good time to enter the discussion.

 

Regards,

 

Eric

 

[TomJ]

3 hours ago, itomonje said:

i think you men the intel i350 t2 card. did you compared with rhe jcat also? is As i can read the best choice up till now is the i350 t2 so no other choice to get that so low values in jitter and CM noise departments. any other reccomendation?

You can read my comparison with the JCAT Card here: https://www.open-end-music.com/forum/privatforen/thomas-michael-rudolph-tmr/651284-messungen-von-ethernet-infrastruktur-switches-nur-lesen?p=680071#post680071.

 

I have once compared different cards here at the beginning of this thread: 

 

The Intel i350 cards do so much right that I don't currently look around for alternatives. You can get a used card for round about 50$.

But be careful on ebay as there are counterfeits offered by mainly Chinese sellers.

 

[TomJ]

Hi Jgwtriode,

 

Glad to hear you're happy with it and can relate to my recommendation!

The Intel i350 is really best bang for the buck. Very good CM noise performance and best jitter value.

 

Best regards,

 

Tom/eric

[TomJ]

Hi all,

 

Nice to see that my work is not in vain and is also appreciated by you - not like in the German Open End Music Forum, where someone misused my work misunderstood only to improve his own position.

 

Best regards,
Eric

[TomJ]

On 5/6/2023 at 1:27 PM, Rovo said:

Eric, 

no your work is definitely appreciated. Hardware wise this was a clear improvement. I do not know if you are familiar with the work of Taiko on their new network interface card? There they also use the software to optimize the performance (for audio) of the NIC. Are you familiar with the software/settings for the NIC and how to optimize?

 

Any progress made in your information exchange with Uptone? I also use an EtherRegen and can appreciate this product and the way they work. 

Hello Rovo,

 

sorry for the delay - but I've been quite busy.

 

No, I haven't really looked into the settings of this Taiko devices yet. I've been experimenting with the Auto MDI/X settings as they can mitigate the RJ45 connector pin3/6 problem - but these settings are only available on Linux.

 

I am still in contact with Uptone, but nothing concrete has come up yet regarding the measurement of phase noise.

 

In the meantime I started my own blog: ethernet-sound.com

 

As already reported, I was grossly disappointed in the www.open-end-music.com, since the admin of the TMR sub-forum claims my results and now the whole topic of Ethernet sound for himself, so that there is no longer any perspective for me there. I've been making his forum with my work interesting for over a year and posted all my work there for free and now those  admin guys on this forum don't even acknowledge copyright. Unbelievable. I can only recommend everyone to be careful what you share on this forum.

 

I also wrote an article on my blog about this "Poor Man's Etherregen" OLD6000, which is currently getting a lot of hype in the open-end-music forum after I introduced it there. https://ethernet-sound.com/old6000-gamechanger/

 

All older articles in the blog are still in German - so please use Google translate.

 

Best regards,

 

Eric

 

[TomJ]

Hi Robert,

 

please excuse my delay - but you have since found my blog ethernet-sound.com where I have already answered you. - I repeat this again for the fellow readers!

I have a current article regarding the Bob Smith termination published, which may be of interest: 

https://ethernet-sound.com/bob-smith-terminierung-hintergrund-und-modifikation-am-beispiel-tp-tl-sg105e-und-tp-wr902ac/

 

I bought the i350 I tested used, so I assume that I could not have measured any burn in effects.
But nice to hear that the i350 is doing so well for you in the meantime!

I do not have a supply address for the i350. You really have to be careful that you do not buy China Fakes, which happens quite often at eBay.

 

But I am now convinced of the connection of the streamer via a WLAn client and have been operating this now for some time with great success- the TP Link WR902AC.

This has so far the best measurements regarding common mode noise but also very good jitter. I can warmly recommend it with battery PS to everyone.

 

Here are some articles about it from me:

https://ethernet-sound.com/tp-link-tl-wr902ac-im-akku-modus-100ige-isolierung/

https://ethernet-sound.com/modifikationen-am-tp-link-tl-wr902ac-part-i-software/

https://ethernet-sound.com/tp-link-tl-wr902ac-modifikationen-part-ii-hardware/

 

Best Regards,

 

Eric

 

 

[TomJ]

 

———————————

[TomJ]

Hi all,

 

To make it a little clearer, here are a few more explanations:
In the course of my investigations it has become clear that the main cause of sound differences over Ethernet is common mode noise. Reducing this should be the goal if you don't want to manipulate your sound with HF noise.

The least chance of noise coming from the home network into the audio chain is WLAN. Of course, you can also use fibre optics, but this is even more complex.
The task now was to find a WLAN client that itself only produces a small amount of Cm noise - unlike the OLD6000 isolator, for example, which turned out to produce immense common mode interference - which is actually clear if you have a bit of knowledge and look at the fly-back converter on the circuit board.
And this is where the TP Link WR902AC came into play. This has the lowest common mode interference to date - also better than all fibre optic FMCs measured to date.

The device performs incredibly well, especially if you power it isolated from the mains using a PowerBank or, as I explain in my blog, a LiFePo4 battery.

I can only recommend this to everyone. This eliminates all the fiddling around on the Ethernet line and you can finally concentrate on listening to the music.

The last cable to the streamer should then be fully equipped with ferrite cores to reduce the rest of the CM noise - done.

 

Kind regards,

Eric
 

 

 

[TomJ]

Hello Alex,

 

my WR902AC is now running the OpenWRT operating system and 5GHz is disabled (I will explain this modification in my blog soon). I have not tested the WR802N yet - but the WR902AC is so good that I am not currently looking for an alternative. I had made comparisons with 3 alternative 2.4GHz only WLAN clients (TP Link, D-Link and GL.iNet), which were all worse in measurements, but also in the listening tests.

 

Kind regards,

Eric

[TomJ]

Hi all,

 

Just published an article about the GigFOIL - but sorry Alex - unfortunately I had to return the Etherregen to the owner and couldn't make a direct comparison. However, I believe that the EtherRegen would perform better because it has consistent ground separation from side A to side B.

 

GigaFOIL V3 vs OLD6000: https://ethernet-sound.com/gigafoil-v3-der-bessere-old6000/

 

Best regards,

 

Eric

[TomJ]

Ok, just posted the article about the OpenWRT upgrade  of the WR902AC.

Its not „one klick do the trick“, but for more advanced users an option.

https://ethernet-sound.com/open-wrt-betriebssystem-auf-dem-tp-link-tl-wr902ac-v3/

 

Best regards,

Eric

[TomJ]

10 hours ago, skipspence said:

Can you please tell the difference between Intel I350-T2BLK and V2 you have tested if there's any? 

Hi,

the BLK stands for "Bulkware". So as long as the BLK Version is also V2 there should be no difference, however, you get a simpler packaging and no documents such as manual etc.

 

Best regards,

Eric

 

[TomJ]

47 minutes ago, skipspence said:

So and what's the difference between v2 and simple blk ie no v2 and what is better to buy? They are different in price.. 

Thank you! 

Hi, I would definitely go with V2 - BLK or not, doesn’t matter.

As I only measured V2 I don’t know the difference between V1 or V2.

Best regards,

 Eric 

[TomJ]

Hi all,

 

just published my measurements of 27 lan cables on my blog: https://ethernet-sound.com/draft-messung-von-lan-kabel-part-i/

Please use the language button to enable google translate if necessary.

You are also invited to participate in the small forum area: https://ethernet-sound.com/forums/forum/main/

 

Regards,

 

Eric

[TomJ]

New article with measurements about the Innuos PheonixNet Switch: 

https://ethernet-sound.com/innuos-phoenixnet/

 

[TomJ]

11 minutes ago, Markus8 said:

Great! I have the new Network Acoustics Tempus switch and could send you for measurements. https://www.networkacoustics.com/shop/tempus-ethernet-switch/

Hi Markus,

 

This would be really great, as I think Network Acoustics are on the right track regarding noise reduction.

Will send you a PM.

 

Best regards,

Eric

[TomJ]

Hi fgribas?,

 

Quote

Oh, I know you prefer the WR902AC option, but maybe another Layer-3 hop would degrade the audio in my setup (using Diretta, very sensible to small variations of latency)

 

 

Before investing in all other options, I would test the Wi-Fi option (WR902AC + PowerBank or battery pack) as this is the best way to isolate your endpoint from previous network noise.
I'm not familiar with Diretta. Does it also use TCP/IP or does the communication run via UDP?

 

Kind regards,

Eric

 

 

[TomJ]

Unfortunately, there is no clear answer to this question.

It actually depends somewhat on how much noise is produced by your server.

I tested the i350 in the last measurements with the RockPro64 board, which is maybe not comparable with your setup.

Since I am now a fan of complete isolation, if WiFi is not an option, I would insert 2 fiber optic converters with a fiber optic route. I would operate the second fiber optic converter with a power bank or with a LHY battery power supply.

 

If this isn't an option either, then I would start with a direct connection first.
The i350 itself has very low common mode noise, so I would give the setup a chance.
I would then continue with the following setup: The Netgear 108 and an isolator in front of the incoming port. You can also use the cheap Delock isolator here. The ifi is definitely not bad either. If you use this, make sure to use a shielded cable, as it sends the interference “back to sender” via the shield.

 

 

Completely equip the cable between last device and endpoint with ferrites, as shown here, in every scenario. And isolate the shielding oft the plug on one side of with scotch tape.

 

Kind regards,

 

Eric

 

[TomJ]

Hi,

 

6 hours ago, fgribas said:

So this cable on the streamer ethernet port with iFi would be better to be shielded STP. Does the recommendation of scotch tape on one side of the plug + ferrites apply to this cable attached at the streamer device?

 

I would use a shielded CAT cable. Scotch tape is not helpful here. As far as I can read the layout, the ifi LAN iSilencer has a Bob Smith termination, which is routed to the shielding of the connector on the incoming port. If you now use a cable with shielding (without insulating the plug with scotch tape), then the interference can return to the transmitter - i.e. the streamer. In my opinion, this is the better option, as otherwise they can work via radiation and coupling. Ferrites never do any harm - even with this cable.

 

I recommend a Goobay CAT6a or Patch C7 cable (dont know if this is outside Europe available). These have performed best in my measurements in terms of noise. https://www.reichelt.de/1-0m-patchkabel-cat-7-rohkabel-grau-patch-c7-1-gr-p144528.html or https://www.amazon.de/dp/B00O9RMXM8

Here are the measurements without ferrite: https://ethernet-sound.com/draft-messung-von-lan-kabel-part-i/#PATCH-C7_1_GE

And here with ferrite: https://ethernet-sound.com/draft-messung-von-lan-kabel-part-i/#PATCH-C7_1_GE_Ferritiert

 

6 hours ago, fgribas said:

And for the other cable (i350 on server directly to i350 on endpoint), I believe that everything applies (STP + scotch tape + ferrites)

I would also go with the Goobay CAT6a or Patch C7 cable. Here you should insulate the plug on the server side with tape and, as always, use as much ferrite as possible.

 

Kind regards,

Eric

 

 

[TomJ]

Hi all,

 

If you look at the circuit board of the ifi LAN iSilencer, you can see that the centre taps of the transformer on the input side are routed via capacitors and to the "housing ground" of the RJ45 socket (sorry, its not a Bob Smith termination) . A connected shield can then lead the noise back to the source. In addition, a galvanic isolation is realised here so that the cable does not have to be insolated. 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Eric

[TomJ]

Hi all,

 

all these isolators and filters are using standard transformers.

The minimum isolation for these transformers is 1500V (voltage pulse).

 

The DX Filter is just a PCB with two RJ45 jacks with integrated Transformers and CMCs.

At the beginning of my journey I built something similar:

 

You can by just 2 of these jacks at mouser and connect the pins - then you have the DX Filter : https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/würth-elektronik/74990101212/6598155

 

 

And as you can read in my article, you shouldn't think that this will result in fewer noise They can also increase - in my opinion due to mode conversion caused by poor design.

https://ethernet-sound.com/lan-isolatoren-sotm-iso-cat7-u-delock-isolator/

To believe that such a filter / isolator does the same job as an EtherRegen or a fibre optic cable is not a good idea.

 

Kind regards,

Eric

 

[TomJ]

On 11/20/2023 at 7:03 PM, Markus8 said:

Great! I have the new Network Acoustics Tempus switch and could send you for measurements. https://www.networkacoustics.com/shop/tempus-ethernet-switch/

Hi Markus8,

 

Is your offer regarding the Tempus switch still valid? I would be really interested in measuring it.

 

Best regards,

Eric

[TomJ]

8 hours ago, One and a half said:

If the noise travels back to the source, won't that stop the noise travelling to the destination? This is how standard EMC/RFI filters work.

That should theoretically be the case. However, this is not the case. In my measurements, I could see that certain frequencies decrease in the receiver, but only a bit. You can still see a lot of it. But it's better than no reduction - so the way back via the cable shielding is helpful.

 

Thanks for the paper - I have to find some time to review it.

[TomJ]

21 hours ago, paradis said:

Hi @TomJ, thanks for the extensive testing and it's enlighten to read thru the measured result.

 

I'm looking to replace my music server NIC from the onboard to the Intel i350-T2v2 or T4v2...I looked at the measured result they are comparable, and if what I am going to use its the Music Server (e.g. Roon Core with HQPlayer) and not the Roon/NAA endpoint that connect to the DAC would it makes any material difference?

 

Many thanks

Hi Paradis,

 

According to my research, it is crucial that the end point receives a clean signal with as less common mode noise as possible, so this makes a difference. How big this difference is, of course, depends on the rest of your chain. If you supply the DAC with fiber Toslink, the difference may be less than if you feed it via USB, as the interference can be passed on here.

 

Best regards,

 

Eric