Audiophile Router?

[PabloX]

Both could happen. The noise could impact how the DAC internals decode the data, and more likely the noise could be conducted through the DAC into your analog electronics. The latter is my biggest concern actually, since packet switched Ethernet alrady has robust error correction schemes built in.

A device with onboard storage and no active Ethernet or WiFi connection would eliminate these EMI concerns.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the first one at all. Or if that's really a problem, whomever wrote the file standard and implemented the DAC needs to go back to school. They have error checking. There's also at least some amount of buffering going on between the DAC and whatever network interface is feeding it.

As for the latter, my dad used to design sonar systems for the US Navy. I'm pretty sure he'd say if that kind of noise is getting through the circuit like that, they need to go back to school for circuit design.

And of course, this can be tested. Just put the two devices right next to each other. If you can't hear the difference between a 12" ethernet cable and it going over much longer distances and maybe through a switch, it doesn't matter.

FWIW, my job involves replicating massive amounts (of data worldwide. I only ever saw bad bits get into a database and cause corruption once. It was due to a fiber switch in front of a SAN going bad (so as local as you can get).

But maybe all this is possible and my ears suck.

 

[cpt_paranoia]

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the first one at all. Or if that's really a problem, whomever wrote the file standard and implemented the DAC needs to go back to school. They have error checking. There's also at least some amount of buffering going on between the DAC and whatever network interface is feeding it.

I only ever saw bad bits get into a database and cause corruption once. It was due to a fiber switch in front of a SAN going bad (so as local as you can get).

The comments about noise coupling from Ethernet input to DAC output aren't about data corruption, or incorrect codec rendering; if you're getting either of those, there is something very wrong with your system. They are about analogue noise coupling. A poorly-designed ethernet (or other interface) DAC offers the possibility for analogue noise to couple from the electrical data port to the electrical audio port. It shouldn't, but it can.

I'm not an advocate of magic cables (hence my earlier comments), but, having worked on the design of various digital/RF systems over the years, I can tell you that noise coupling can be really rather persistent, and take considerable care to trace, and to reduce to acceptable levels.

 

[PabloX]

The comments about noise coupling from Ethernet input to DAC output aren't about data corruption, or incorrect codec rendering; if you're getting either of those, there is something very wrong with your system. They are about analogue noise coupling. A poorly-designed ethernet (or other interface) DAC offers the possibility for analogue noise to couple from the electrical data port to the electrical audio port. It shouldn't, but it can.

I'm not an advocate of magic cables (hence my earlier comments), but, having worked on the design of various digital/RF systems over the years, I can tell you that noise coupling can be really rather persistent, and take considerable care to trace, and to reduce to acceptable levels.

I was responding to this statement.

"The noise could impact how the DAC internals decode the data".

Another way to say this is that the noise is preventing the DAC from accurately reading the data (a form of corruption). I don't buy that as a practical matter.

On the other hand, I could believe a poorly design NIC (or board) could cause noise to get through to the analog output as you're saying.

 

[cpt_paranoia]

I was responding to this statement.

"The noise could impact how the DAC internals decode the data".

In which case, I would agree with you. I must have only seen the second, 'more likely' scenario...

 

[E-Stat]

So, you're suggesting my comments are not valid and relevant to the discussion?

I wasn't aware the topic had anything to do with speaker cable.

 

[techguy0192]

I wasn't aware the topic had anything to do with speaker cable.

Ha...okay wise guy....you know good and well that was the direction it was going to take....these topics always do. Have you already forgot that my 5th post had tear down photos of an audiophile marketed network cable. There was never a prior point made about speaker cables. You might as well stop trying to twist my facts/posts.....I'll call you on it every time.

My point, with the speaker cables example, was that people need to do some due diligence before blindly believing the marketing spin that cable companies put on their products, regardless of the type of cable they are shopping for.

So with your logic on Ethernet cables...are you assuming that these "audiophile" network cables will allow a 1Gb port to magically operate at 2Gb just because the cables are so fantastic. If so, I hate to break it to you, but that's not how it works, end of discussion.

 

[E-Stat]

So with your logic on Ethernet cables...are you assuming that these "audiophile" network cables will allow a 1Gb port to magically operate at 2Gb just because the cables are so fantastic.

I don't comment on the imagination of others.

 

[techguy0192]

I don't comment the imagination of others.

So with that response, you open the possibility of allowing people to conclude that you therefore feel that some of the potential claims made by owners of expensive "audio" network cables are of their imagination.

Sometimes no comment communicates more than an actual comment.

 

[W9TR]

In which case, I would agree with you. I must have only seen the second, 'more likely' scenario...

Good points - I need to be more careful. I was really referring to how digital noise in a DAC may impress itself on the analog outputs and the grounds, not how the bits are internally decoded in the D/A itself.

 

[E-Stat]

So with that response, you open the possibility of allowing people to conclude that you therefore feel that some of the potential claims made by owners of expensive "audio" network cables are of their imagination.

I refer to your imagination regarding my POV stated in post #66.

 

[E-Stat]

Good points - I need to be more careful. I was really referring to how digital noise in a DAC may impress itself on the analog outputs and the grounds, not how the bits are internally decoded in the D/A itself.

Or for that matter, a transport. It is for that reason I avoid switch mode power supplies.

 

[techguy0192]

I refer to your imagination regarding my POV stated in post #66.

Maybe YOU should have refereed directly to ME. That way there is zero confusion. However, you appear to prefer a non direct approach with a degree of ambiguity. Again, trying to use that in an attempt to twist the conversation in your favor.

 

[Lossless]

Does the quality of an 50 foot ethernet cable (Cat 5, 6, 7, 8, shielded or non-shielded) make a difference in the streaming of 9216kbps Hi-Res audio?

 

[E-Stat]

Maybe YOU should have refereed directly to ME. That way there is zero confusion.

All anyone has to do is read the text of yours which I quoted in post #67 - followed by my response to that text. Should be crystal clear.

You created an imaginary straw man then proceeded to burn it. Congratulations!

This is tiresome.

 

[OnTheBlitz]

Does the quality of an 50 foot ethernet cable (Cat 5, 6, 7, 8, shielded or non-shielded) make a difference in the streaming of 9216kbps Hi-Res audio?

In my experience, any quality CAT5 or 6 should be fine. I'm using an L-COM CAT6 (premium) cable that is 150FT and can push 4K video (to the TV) and Hi-Res Audio (from Computer to my Yamaha NP-S2000), simultaneously without any issues.

 

[Lossless]

In my experience, any quality CAT5 or 6 should be fine. I'm using an L-COM CAT6 (premium) cable that is 150FT and can push 4K video (to the TV) and Hi-Res Audio (from Computer to my Yamaha NP-S2000), simultaneously without any issues.

You know how we audio enthusiasts try everything to squeeze every little bit we can out of our systems; I’m wondering if upgrading from CAT6 to shielded CAT8 would make any sonic difference in Hi-Res audio internet streaming?

Guess I’ll just have to do it and report on my blind test findings.

 

[OnTheBlitz]

You know how we audio enthusiasts try everything to squeeze every little bit we can out of our systems; I’m wondering if upgrading from CAT6 to shielded CAT8 would make any difference in Hi-Res audio streaming quality?

Guess I’ll just have to do it and report on my findings.

I guess it dosen't hurt to try.

What sound quality characteristics are you wanting to improve on?

Are you having any detectable reliability problems or SQ problems with your current configuration?

My other experience is that the source recordings can vary so much, which for me, has the biggest impact on my overall enjoyment. 16/44.1 and beyound, for me, seems 90% of the quality is how well the recording was captured by the engineers and mastered by the mastering engineer.

I have more then one (specifically many MFSL ripped to FLAC) that sound better then the Hi-Res of the same recording (say HDTRACKS). Rush 2112 and Moving Pictures are good examples.

I think the videos I posted (not those ones, but same guy) has a good recommendation. When changing something, change one thing only and listen to many different recordings (same set for each test) for a week (before change and after change) to see if there are any perceivable differences/improvements...

 

[Lossless]

I guess it dosen't hurt to try.

What sound quality characteristics are you wanting to improve on?

Are you having any detectable reliability problems or SQ problems with your current configuration?

My other experience is that the source recordings can vary so much, which for me, has the biggest impact on my overall enjoyment. 16/44.1 and beyound, for me, seems 90% of the quality is how well the recording was captured by the engineers and mastered by the mastering engineer.
.

I’m not experiencing any problems per se, but just looking to see if I can improve on the already good quality Hi-Res 24/192 audio quality with CAT8 ethernet.

I am running ADSL 25Mbps until my service provider finishes upgrading to fiber. I happy with the internet service now and am looking to tweak it by any means possible.

My router is located about 50 feet away from my audio internet streaming PC and is connected via CAT6 ethernet. I have made other small changes (battery powered DAC) with very good results.

I’m just wondering if upgrading my internet data transmission line to shielded CAT8 will yield any sonic improvements?

 

[E-Stat]

My router is located about 50 feet away from my audio streaming PC and is connected via CAT6 ethernet.

Same for me. I would spend my money elsewhere.

Like upgrading the DAC to a standalone unit using discrete output devices.

 

[techguy0192]

All anyone has to do is read the text of yours which I quoted in post #67 - followed by my response to that text. Should be crystal clear.

You created an imaginary straw man then proceeded to burn it. Congratulations!

This is tiresome.

Ah ha..... So the person, you, calling me out as building and burning a straw man is actually the person that continues to reference post numbers rather than quote my response in totality. That is intentional omission, an extra effort on your part, and a strategy to win an argument.

Failure to quote my full response can be see as a lack of integrity. You do realize that part of the definition of straw man is as follows - "a person regarded as having no substance or integrity".

Here is what has actually happened during this exchange. My initial responses to this thread were lighthearted. You decide that it was necessary to start something with me after I posted a documented dissection of a $340 AudioQuest Ethernet cable. The images and text was lifted from the site, that I also provided a link to. Maybe seeing the truth of what the actual construction of these proclaimed "audiophile" cables looks like was too much for you? I'm sure the shattering of the placebo effect of Ethernet cables that tout minimal phase corruption or battery packs attached to cables is difficult.

Lastly, your final sentence - "this is tiresome". Early on in life I learned don't start something you cannot finish. It appears that now you are getting to learn that lesson. Feel free to keep it up. You started this and I do not back down.