Basic switch....should I upgrade?

I only wish it was as easy as @fredrik222  says it was. Per usual we have so many configurations, @fsonicsmith  and @dbastin  both provided some good generalizations. Regardless of what the objectivists say, obvious we hear differences with streaming setups, not our imaginations, confirmation bias or some other nebulous psychological explanation for it.

As to switches, I've probably not seen a more argued about streaming component, results all over the place. IME, it was the single most awful thing I ever added to my many streaming setups over the years. In many cases, I simply don't see the value of them. The vast majority of us already have routers in our setups, so the switch is only being added to the router, certainly the switch has potential to drop noise floor relative to router, but you still have the noisy router prior to the switch, can't get back what you've already lost, and you're adding complexity and cables, more chances for RFI and EMI, so there goes noise floor. The other use for switch as I see it, is for those going to separate streamer/server route. Most servers don't have two ethernet ports, ie., switch is needed to connect to streamer. Again, more complexity and added chance for EMI/RFI. And I do see the advantage of why one would want to separate streamer from server as vast majority of servers do poor job of rendering, what with non-optimized port implementation.

And so my contention, in either of above cases, why not stick to router only setup, minimizes complexity and possible added noise. The router can be powered by lps, go into quality power conditioner with quality power cord, shield the router with EMI/RFI blocker, good to go. The switch only makes sense to me if one is no longer using router, at least in an audio setup. Now, I will grant many need switches because router may not provide enough ports, still aren't there routers with more ports? And how about audiophile router for us who need wifi in house?

@dbastin I do hear colorations with optical. I've had a variety of generic FMC powered by various lps, power cords and power condtioners. With every single add on there are slightly different sound qualities. The generic FMC's have poor quality voltage regulation and clocks, result is internally induced noise and jitter, both have affect on sound quality. The quality of lps, power cords and power conditioning can help minimize these negatives. Best optical I've heard is Sonore OpticalRendu powered by Uptone JS2, quality power cord and into my balanced transformer power conditioner, no color I can discern, easily best streaming component ever tried.

As to my switch experiment, this vs. two generic FMC, both lps, quality power cords and going into power conditioner. Both between router and server. FMC easily preferable to audiophile switch, both have lower noise floor, but FMC far more spacious, natural sound stage and imaging. On downside, FMC vs nothing between router and server, FMC sounds slightly less spacious, more constricting, not as free flowing as router direct to server. FMC more resolving but at price of sounding less analog, slight thinning out of sound. Acoustic Network Muon filter is next in line for audiophile switch vs FMC vs optimized ethernet battle in feed from router to server.

Many different takes on switches continues. I agree, lps on present switch is good way to go.

In my case, not convinced of using any switch, Netgear router with lps better than audiophile switch, or any switch for me. I recently went FMC route between router and server, nice, better than the switch in same position. Acoustic Network Muon filter will be compared to FMC in this position soon.

In any case, can't hurt trying everything and reporting back, adds to knowledge base.

People should also concentrate more on feeds directly out of modems. This is most common weak link I see in many otherwise complex and optimized streaming chains. If one is using long cheaper ethernet cable out of modem, opening oneself up for picking up tons of RFI, not to say relatively poorer sound quality of that cheaper cable. Many years ago I experimented with various quality long ethernet cables out of modem, sq differences even with lower resolution streaming setup I had at time. Then went to longer coax cable in order to move modem closer to audio rig, this allowed much shorter AQ Vodka to replace the cheaper long ethernet cable, very nice upgrade in sound quality. I have also experimented with upgraded power cable to modem and connection to my power conditioner, no great payoff here. Just off top of head, wonder if anyone makes audiophile modem?

This all points to same old dilemma, does the source matter more than loudspeaker argument. I don't enter the argument, as everything matters relatively equally in my book. Which means both the modem and what's feeding switch or router matters greatly, you can't gain back what you've lost. People want to believe all these streaming devices will somehow improve on what comes before, they absolutely DON'T! They only block the nasties of what they're fed, you've already lost some level of resolution by the filth that's infiltrated via EMI/RFI.

@vinylvalet  I don't have Cisco switch, can understand the mix up, one can really go into weeds with streaming and optimizing networks, as we have in this thread.

The problem as I see it, is segregated expertise between dac and streaming component designers. I don't have a problem with dac designers as long as they provide a first class port, be it usb, spdif or network for streaming dacs. I DO have issue with server designers who mostly give us lame, second class outputs. Low processing power, ports connected directly to relatively noisy motherboards with poor clock implementation, no isolated power supply, just what are we paying for! Optimized OS and a fancy case is about it. Sure some of them provide outboard lps, but I'm talking about lps for individual ports.

So, because of these limitations we're forced to get various rendering decrapifiers and conversion schemes, or go to streamers to avoid the decrapifiers. Streamers come in many flavors, one needs to to their due diligence to avoid mismatched components and/or reach full potential of dac/streamer interface.

And then we have the network itself, we still await that magical bullet, the least complex, best universal setup. I suspect, over time, as more attention is paid to audiophile network solutions these innovations will be forthcoming.

Ultimately, it would be nice to see more integration between dac, streaming/server and network designers. More simplified and universal solutions would be good.