Better sound with ethernet cable?

After taking another look at this thread, I thought I’d elaborate on the reasons why I believe high end equipment which provides an Ethernet interface usually does not also provide a wifi interface. (And for that matter the DEQX HDP-5 I have in my own system is an example of that, although I don’t presently make use of its Ethernet port). Following are the reasons that occur to me:

1) Users of such equipment who want to connect it via wifi can easily do so by using an external wireless adapter. The suggestion @david_ten made to the OP early in this thread is one way of doing that. Also, many wireless access points and other wifi devices can easily be configured to act as “bridges,” which would make that possible.

2) Implementing wifi externally to a component can greatly increase one’s ability to optimize antenna placement. And of course it would also make it possible for the user to choose among the wide range of wireless adapters that are available, and their varying output power and reception capabilities.

3) As has been said, designers presumably want to minimize the likelihood that users will experience dropouts when using their equipment.

4) It can be expected that most users would prefer an Ethernet connection if it is practicable for them, either to eliminate the possibility of dropouts or because they believe it to be sonically superior to wifi (witness many of the comments in this thread), or both.

5) Incorporating a wifi capability in a high end design would add complexity that most users presumably wouldn’t use, while creating opportunity for subtle design issues (perhaps involving interactions between ostensibly unrelated circuits, given especially that very high frequencies are involved) that might compromise sonics. And at the very least doing so would lengthen the amount of time that would be required for design and development of the component.

6) Wifi technology does not seem likely to be a specialty of most high end audio designers, so lack of experience choosing the necessary parts and designing the necessary surrounding circuits, printed circuit board traces, etc., in many cases might also be a factor in the decision not to include it.

Given all of that, it seems to me that the fact that very few high end components have integrated wifi should not be taken to signify that a wifi link that functions reliably (i.e., with dropouts occurring rarely or never) is intrinsically inferior to Ethernet when it comes to sonics.

Best regards,

--Al

@david_ten

Hi David,

I of course always highly value and respect your opinions and experiences. And I recognize your point to the effect that wifi is shunned by designers of high end equipment, in favor of ethernet.

One of the reasons for that, of course, figures to be the potential for erratic operation and dropouts that can occur with wifi under many circumstances. And perhaps considerations related to internal circuitry are also involved. But in any event I would not extrapolate from that any expectation as to whether the wifi interface or the ethernet interface would provide better sonics in the OP’s Yamaha receiver, which as I mentioned provides essentially an entire system’s worth of electronics in one $700 package. And I wouldn’t be surprised if no difference was perceivable at all, assuming his wifi link is working reliably.

And as I suggested I feel that he would have a much greater chance of making a meaningful upgrade to his system by replacing some or perhaps even all of the functions of that component with something else.

On another note, re @erik_squires mention of erratic wifi performance with his Squeezebox Touch, fwiw I have had a Sqeezebox Touch in my main system for about seven years. I use it mainly for non-critical listening to Internet radio, and occasionally to play files that I have stored on a computer elsewhere in the house. All of this is done wirelessly, with the Squeezebox communicating with a wireless access point on a different level (2nd floor vs. 1st floor) and at opposite ends of the house. Yet in those seven years I have never had one single dropout. I don’t use "mesh" equipment, and I don’t use a wireless router. Instead I have a wireless access point, which I believe is significantly higher powered than the wifi provisions that are incorporated in most wireless routers. (The access point is in turn connected via ethernet to a SonicWall hardware firewall which serves as my router). I should add though, that my area is zoned two-acre residential, and the nearest neighboring house is more than 200 feet away. So my wireless connection has essentially no competition.

So under some circumstances, at least, it is certainly possible for wifi to work reliably, even when the signal must traverse multiple rooms and floors.

Finally, in regard to my earlier mention of not wanting to have wallwart power supplies anywhere near my system, the Squeezebox of course uses one. But I have it plugged into a good quality Hammond power strip which includes a power switch, that allows me to conveniently disconnect power to the wallwart when I am listening to my critical sources (LP and CD).

Best regards,

-- Al

Kijanki 4-20-2019
In either case, wireless or Ethernet, you’re sending just data (no real D/A timing involved). Both can produce electrical noise, radiated or coupled, that might affect the sound but it’s hard to tell which one will sound better ....

+1. Well said.

Both wired and wireless are potentially capable of providing excellent results, and both are potentially susceptible to problems. Personally, my preference is to keep computers, computer-like devices such as routers, and especially "wallwart" switching power supplies, as far away as possible from my audio system, and not have them powered from the same AC line(s) that power my audio system, and not have any physical connection between them and the audio system. Ethernet connected devices can couple digital noise into an audio system via the wired connection itself, via the power wiring, and via the air. And the noise produced by digital circuits, being much lower in frequency than the 2.4 gHz or 5 gHz frequencies that are used by wifi, as well as potentially coupling at much greater amplitudes, stands a greater chance of affecting the sonics of the audio system than wifi signals.

That said, ***if*** your present wireless connection functions reliably, meaning that it rarely if ever has any dropouts, I’m going to make a radical suggestion. I suggest that you do nothing :-) Just continue to use the same wireless path to the Yamaha receiver that you have been using, and focus your efforts to improve the system elsewhere.

And in that regard, I see in another thread that your Yamaha receiver is a model R-N803, which provides the functionality of a preamp, a power amp, a phono stage, a DAC, an ethernet interface, a wifi interface, an AM and FM over-the-air receiver, and an "acoustic optimizer"/equalizer, all in one $700 component. While I am certainly one who believes that in audio the correlation between price and performance is far from perfect, that suggests to me that the most meaningful upgrade path you could take would be to upgrade some or all of that functionality by purchasing other components, whenever you prefer to do so.

And finally, keep in mind that when and if you do that the results of a wired vs. wireless comparison could very well be completely different than they would be now.

Good luck. Regards,

-- Al