Network Switches

Here's some more tinder for less cash to debate about:
http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/introducing-etherstream-audiophile-network-switch-from-fidelizer-audio/

All the best,
Nonoise

Of course he would not approve of the switch!!!   :-)

But, after reading this thread and seeing that almost no one is denying there will be no degradation of the digital data, he would not argue that point. He would accept that analog noise injected via Ethernet could happen, then scream there is no way it is audible.

You are saying @atdavid that Pinkerton would approve of the switch? That would be shocking. It will wake all the zombies that follow him and Ethan Winer as disciples, and practically copy/paste all what they say in all audio forums.

Warning!!!! to people who are against switches --- do not read this:

Facts from October launch at UpTone:

1) EtherRegen first batch of 250 units for delivery in November 15 was sold out in three minutes

2) Second batch of 250 unites with deliver date of December 15, was sold out within one hour from launch

3) Orders for the third batch with unspecified 2020 delivery are through the roof

Now please haters... don't slit your wrists :-) For help:

https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

Leave Stewart Pinkerton out of this :-) :-)   While I don't agree with his methods and he is way too quick to jump (at times to conclusions) at everything he perceives as snake oil, he actually is a fairly experienced engineer and would have understood the arguments being made, and would have disagreed with those arguments, not gone off on a tangent that everyone agreed wasn't the issue 100 posts ago.

thyname342 posts11-06-2019 1:35pmFor some reason, David in UK sounds exactly like Stewart Pinkerton, self-proclaimed "slayer of snake oil" in all internet audio groups and Facebook. And the only "contribution" to audiogon forums since he joined yesterday, is this thread.

For some reason, David in UK sounds exactly like Stewart Pinkerton, self-proclaimed "slayer of snake oil" in all internet audio groups and Facebook. And the only "contribution" to audiogon forums since he joined yesterday, is this thread.

Ignore him David_UK_22

he joined a few weeks ago and has since spent his time trolling as many threads as he can
Some of us believe that he is a bored teenager, (his grammar is appalling) quoting random stuff from other idiots and insulting as many people as he can. Or he might be a cable or switch seller or 'reviewer' trying to protect their income from the gullible.

Hey atdavid !

Guglielmo Marconi called.

He wants his 'modern techniques in communications' handbook back

@david_uk_22   

Ah I think I get it now.
You are saying that adding an extra piece of equipment, a switch or anything , is adding further potential to add noise to your audio system. Nothing to do with the digital audio it is switching.

Yes, that is the perspective I'm engaging on here.  Therefore, as it applies to network switches I'm mainly interested in the noise reduction they are applying to the power supplies for example as a potential source of noise and unrelated to the digital signal.  I see many of the models that the OP provided at the beginning of thread did include measures to reduce EM/RF noise but for now I don't think those incremental gains justify the costs - at least not in my realm of budgets and a value proposition.

No, I would just say you are a bit slower in the UK .....

Would you rather I said encoding of the baseband signal into digital and decoding of the baseband signal into audio instead of ADC and DAC? The baseband signal will be encoded once with an ADC in a studio these days.

After that it is all digital. It should have been pretty obvious from what I wrote that that is what I meant." In the distribution of a single radio programme, for instance, it will go through a number of ADCs and DACs for technical reasons before it is even sent back from the cloud for final distribution" ... I can assume you mean encoded digital data, not baseband encoding and decoding, which in the context of this whole discussion is, well, rather meaningless and pedantic without being useful as the parameters for noise rejection, data recovery, etc. are 1) completely different from baseband audio, and 2) not really even the point of most of this discussion.

Last, if you are going to be pedantic, you may want to figure out who your audience is.


Studios crept into the discussion because someone tried to use, erroneously, that "professionals", i.e. in radio and TV studios don’t care about this.

Hello atdavid

Thanks for your input

Some of what you say is correct but much is way out of date, or maybe we are just further ahead in the UK. (I believe the USA doesn’t even have DAB yet)

When you say that "Recording studios, TV stations, radio stations .... are ADCs, not DACs" I'm not sure you have grasped the terminology. ADC is Analogue to Digital Converter(or conversion), it can't be a studio or TV station, it is just one of the processes that take place in that studio or station

In the distribution of a single radio programme, for instance, it will go through a number of ADCs and DACs for technical reasons before it is even sent back from the cloud for final distribution

It will encounter more ADC/DAC before arriving on my network.

I'm not sure even how TV studios and radio stations crept into the discussion

I'm simply saying whether it's a nearby TV, florescent light, network switch, router, or amplifier...everything near your audio system that is powered by electricity has the potential to cause noise. Reducing these effects can be beneficial

.
Ah I think I get it now.
You are saying that adding an extra piece of equipment, a switch or anything , is adding further potential to add noise to your audio system. Nothing  to do with the digital audio it is switching. yes, of course I can see how that could happen

Surely I can be forgiven for that confusion. After all, this thread is supposed to be about switches specifically for digital audio not just about which switch will interfere less with your audio system when installed in your system regardless of whether you are streaming digital audio or not

we may be on the same page

I guess pointing out some of the obvious would be useful (for some):

• TV and Radio stations are high noise floor environments. You are not exploring the limits of human hearing, so you can almost take those out of the discussion.
• They do care about EMI ... hence why they use balanced cables.
• Recording studios, TV stations, radio stations .... are ADCs, not DACs. A recording studio is for the most part, a single point ADC, and ADCs used in recording studios are well designed, expensive units, and aspects of those designs is to eliminate susceptibility to EMI. All those digital cables ... are transmitting digital data and that data is not being converted back to analog except for monitoring and mixing ... again, rarely plumbing the depths of hearing and if so ... to hear if any EMI or similar entered recording that may be picked up on playback.
  

Geez.... some toxic comments here from "everything-sounds-the-same" crowd. Relax, it's just a hobby. Nobody is pointing a gun in your head forcing to buy a switch. Don't buy it. Why do you even read this thread?

Who are the "everything-sounds-the-same" crowd
three_easy_payments seems to be saying the opposite
and I have certainly not said itWho is your comment aimed at? and what do you perceive as 'toxic' Have I missed some posts??

@david_uk_22   

I am talking post digitizing and " the negative affects of ALL potential sources of electrical-based noise, including routers, switches, transformers, and power supplies " before it gets to my house.

In my view (I know others disagree) there is nothing that can be going on in that BBC studio as a result of electrical-based noise that's going to pose a negative impact on the digital signal coming into your house.  The digital signal is just fine leaving BBC and just fine when it arrives to your home and even your DAC.  I'm simply saying whether it's a nearby TV, florescent light, network switch, router, or amplifier...everything near your audio system that is powered by electricity has the potential to cause noise.  Reducing these effects can be beneficial.

Again, I am not in the camp that any of this is related to the digital signal.  I had to move my router 10 feet away from my rack because initially it's close proximity to the rest of my gear was causing very loud "motorboating".  In this case the digital signal was of course not degraded bu there was incredible noise coming through my speakers due to the RF/EM noise.  This really shouldn't be confusing.

Thanks again but no

They could care less what the effects of RF/EM noise are having in their own studio

(and I assume you meant couldn’t)
I am not talking about noise picked up in the studio. That is pre digitizing which clearly would contribute to the quality audio. I have no disagreement there

I am talking post digitizing and  " the negative affects of ALL potential sources of electrical-based noise, including routers, switches, transformers, and power supplies " before it gets to my house.

How can that leave, as you say a 'perfect signa'l' derived from the final noisy audio circuit to my router but then a switch can introduce problems in the very short run to my DAC?
Perhaps anybody experiencing poor sound really ought to be questioning the ability of their DAC to reproduce the audio properly and to isolate the audio output from any 'noise' on the inputs?
In any event, I just read an ad for one of the 'audio' switches and it claims to improve, not clean, any audio or video passing through it       HUH?

Geez.... some toxic comments here from "everything-sounds-the-same" crowd. Relax, it's just a hobby. Nobody is pointing a gun in your head forcing to buy a switch. Don't buy it. Why do you even read this thread?

@david_uk_22   

So If all of my gear is susceptible to RF/EM noise then why is, and this is my only and original question , the gear in a professional network not susceptible to the same type of noise?

Because the BBC or any other professional network is only concerned with broadcasting an accurate digital signal.  They could care less what the effects of RF/EM noise are having in their own studio - which would be the only positive result that using quieter electrical gear would have at their point of broadcast.  Anything they do to minimize this type of noise in their own space would have ZERO impact to end user.  It's up to the end user to decide whether he/she wants to reduce the negative affects of ALL potential sources of electrical-based noise, including routers, switches, transformers, and power supplies.  Again, I agree that their digital signal that arrives in your home is perfect - yet your overall listening experience could be improved with quieter gear - none of which alters that perfect digital signal.  Make sense now?

OK accepted
But It doesn't have to be clear because you are still not addressing my original question

So If all of my gear is susceptible to RF/EM noise then why is, and this is my only and original question , the gear in a professional network not susceptible to the same type of noise?
You have only given me your theory on what happens on a home network.

I ahould be getting my call back from the  BBC within a couple of hours so I guess I will know by then

@david_uk_22

"It" meaning all of your audio gear, and NOT the digital signal! All of your gear is susceptible to to the RF/EM noise created by digital equipment and their power supplies, etc.  Sorry for the ambiguous "it".  Is this more clear now?

Again I am NOT saying that the digital signal is susceptible to noise. I have gone to great lengths to say quite the contrary. This is NOT about the signal so please stop. What I am saying is that noise can get introduced to your system equipment (not the friggin signal!)

OK three_easy_payments   now you have to stop this

You said in your previous stab at an answer;

and I quote

My point is that regardless if whether the digital signal is perfect, it is susceptible to RF/EM noise riding along or being created by power supplies and any gear (including switches) that pass electric current

Oh dear, you seem very confused on the subject.
And once more, please, please read my posts more carefully.I did not question the correctness of what you said. I am simply asking why this is not deemed to be a problem by professionals.

Please, this must make some sense to you.
So I will try again.

Is there anybody who can explain why the professionals need only normal cables and switches?. What are they doing differently and why can't I do that on my system?

And I would appreciate replies from people who are not confused and who do not keep contradicting themselves.
Hey, you know what? I am going to telephone the BBC's technical support department for a definitive answer. It is what I should have done in the first place, I will let you know their answer

@david_uk_22    

Sorry but I still don't follow how the digital signal can be susceptible to your "RF/EM noise"

Ok David you have to stop this.  Again I am NOT saying that the digital signal is susceptible to noise.  I have gone to great lengths to say quite the contrary.  This is NOT about the signal so please stop.  What I am saying is that noise can get introduced to your system equipment (not the friggin signal!) via electrical gear including routers and switches etc just like power supplies in any other piece of gear can create RF/EM noise that get transmitted through the air or hitches along the foil/shielding on an ethernet cable (or any other cable) causing an affect on other equipment - and consequently sound quality.  Please, this must make some sense to you.

My point is that regardless if whether the digital signal is perfect, it is susceptible to RF/EM noise riding along or being created by power supplies and any gear (including switches) that pass electric current.

Sorry but I still don't follow how the digital signal can be susceptible to your "RF/EM noise" , and were it to be possible why is that not considered to be a problem by the professionals. You do realise that in the UK we have DAB radio ?. It is digital all the way from the microphone to the receiver.

What @david 22 in UK?? Are you asking whether the sole purpose of an audio system is get sound coming out of it? An Alexa speaker does that job very well.... so...

No, I am saying that in this case the sole purpose is to safely deliver the audio data. The only difference between an Alexa speaker and the most expensive hi-fi system is the quality of the DAC, the amplifier and the speaker(s). The data it receives is identical. You are thinking of analogue audio.

Back to my original question.

Is there anybody who can explain why the professionals need only normal cables and switches?.

What are they doing differently and why can't I do that on my system?

@thyname...

This is the level of blatant ignorance and misinformation that I have come to expect from some of the people on this thread...

"It is all about some form of noise (usually either voltage noise or phase noise) hitching a ride along with the digital data (the bits) and getting into the DAC. This causes distortions in the analog signal which somehow affects the human perceptual system. THAT is what an "audiophile switch" attempting to accomplish: getting rid of those noise components before they reach your DAC."

...and this is the level of arrogance that is driving me away...

"I am pretty sure you are one of those people from audio "science" forums claiming that all DACs sound the same, and a $50 DAC from China would provide the same SQ as any SOTA DAC. Heck... someone told me there that a DAC is not even part of the audio signal / chain !!"

Is not the sole purpose of the equipment in question, in both the professional and amateur setups, to get the radio/TV show from a to b ?

What @david 22 in UK?? Are you asking whether the sole purpose of an audio system is get sound coming out of it? An Alexa speaker does that job very well.... so...

@david_uk_22

But I don't think that your Ferrari/Kia comparison works.

If the sole purpose is to get from a to b and the Kia will do that, then the Ferrari is not needed

Of course the Kia/Ferrari analogy works. If you care about audio you don’t just want to hear music come out (i.e. getting you from point A to B), whether it’s from phono or 192 stream, you want it to present with the least amount of noise layered on top of it. My point is that regardless if whether the digital signal is perfect, it is susceptible to RF/EM noise riding along or being created by power supplies and any gear (including switches) that pass electric current. If another switch can keep this noise out then you can potentially recognize better sound. This isnt about 1s and 0s getting through or not.

Can a digital switch, as the manufacturers and 'reviewers' say it can, improve audio and video streams passing through it. ?

Yes it can. Don't know about video, but audio, yes. The rationale is simple:  It is all about some form of noise (usually either voltage noise or phase noise) hitching a ride along with the digital data (the bits) and getting into the DAC. This causes distortions in the analog signal which somehow affects the human perceptual system. THAT is what an "audiophile switch" attempting to accomplish: getting rid of those noise components before they reach your DAC.

So no switch for me

That was obvious with your first post. So really, not sure why you were posting here. It's not like someone could change your mind and convince you to buy a switch, is it? Besides, why don't you try a switch for yourself? Is it so hard to do?

I am pretty sure you are one of those people from audio "science" forums claiming that all DACs sound the same, and a $50 DAC from China would provide the same SQ as any SOTA DAC. Heck... someone told me there that a DAC is not even part of the audio signal / chain !!

Thanks for your reply three_easy_payments

But I don't think that your Ferrari/Kia comparison works.

If the sole purpose is to get from a to b and the Kia will do that, then the Ferrari is not needed

Is not the sole purpose of the equipment in question, in both the professional and amateur setups, to get the radio/TV show from a to b ?

@david_uk_22   

I have an open mind on the subject, but I am wondering why commercial and professional applications such as television and radio networks don’t need the same level of equipment as is being promoted for home cinema/music room applications.

That's like asking why drive a Ferrari when a Kia serves the same basic purpose of delivering you from point A to point B. It's about eeking out extra performance...and not just making a successful transmission of data.  I feel that any piece of gear powered by electricity, including digital gear, can benefit from reducing the effects of RF/EM noise.

Greetings

I have followed this thread with interest

I will state up front that although I do realise the function and capabilities of each network element, I am no expert so I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with any previous post.

I am in the UK and I listen to the excellent BBC Radio 3 (mostly classical music) on their 'Sounds' application or one of my DAB receivers (that is Digital Audio Broadcasting for our friend in America who do not have it !) 192 kbps on DAB and terrestrial with 320 kbps HLS AAC online

I have been lucky enough to be shown round a digital television and radio transmission station. You have never seen such a jumbled mass of cables. Power, Ethernet, the odd USB etc. with feeds from around 200 stations.

Around twelve million people depend on it to provide them with perfectly reproduced music and television. As most using this forum are undoubtedly aware, with DAB radio and digital TV it is either exact, garbage or non-existent, picture and sound quality degradation not being possible.

I have an open mind on the subject, but I am wondering why commercial and professional applications such as television and radio networks don’t need the same level of equipment as is being promoted for home cinema/music room applications.

All I know is that I enjoy the consistent high quality of digital and do not miss the hit and miss (and s*it and hiss!) of analogue.

Thanks

No, not new at all. 3 blade or 3x speed shutters were used with 16fps film early 20’s (or earlier). When the switch was made to 24fps, they dropped to 2 blades or 2x shutters, which was late 1920s.


I can’t remember when 3x shutters with 24fps became common, I want to say late 70’s, early 80’s, but even today, you would find 2x shutter regularly if the theater has not gone digital.

 This is fun. I, a Canadian got a 98.9 on your silly SAT in the 60s. How? I cheated. ;)

 'Down Not Across'

The elephant in this room seems to be a simple question:  If we are focusing on Internet sourced streaming fidelity, how do these “audiophile switches” compare to directly connecting to your modem and unplugging/disabling all other devices on your network?

24 frame per second motion picture film when projected in a theater, as film, is flashed 3 times for each frame, by the projector. Each image is "flashed" 3 times during projection. Then move to the next image, flash it 3 times ...

steakster860 posts11-04-2019 8:39pm

atdavid103 posts
You know that "film" was flashed 3 times per second, which again was not ideal but an acceptable compromise.

Huh? @24fps, film would have 24 exposures per second. If you’re referring to pre-flashing or post-flashing the negative, those are totally different processes that are executed in the lab, not in the camera. Flashing is intended to fog the film and reduce the gamma. The Director of Photography, Vilmos Zsigmond, employed flashing on the movie, "McCabe and Mrs. Miller".

My IQ is 165 and I demand that everyone consider my viewpoints to therefore be the most credible on this forum! At least until a 166 guy comes along.

You said it very clearly, and concisely almarg, but unfortunately, someone was choosing not to listen.

almarg9,134 posts11-04-2019 5:54pm
I had said as follows in one of my posts dated 10-29-2019:

Jason, jason, jason:

You got the answer you asked, repeatedly, from many sources. What you did not get is the answer you wanted, and the one that agreed with what you had already decided before you asked.

For all your claims of intelligence, as opposed to calling others morons, you illustrated not one iota of knowledge about the topic of the discussion. You kept repeating "digital is digital" which no one in this thread was disagreeing with. Why did you keep asking it?

What is really strange, now, is that you said **YOU** were the expert, 164 IQ and all. And yet, you said something like this twice, "To be honest when my EXPERTS replied to me regarding these nonsense products they did also warn me that I would find idiots like him on any ‘audiophile’ forum."

If you have "EXPERTS", then why are you here, on a consumer audiophile forum, looking for answers and calling other people idiots? I don’t come on here looking for experts in digital communications and analog reconstruction in potentially noisy digital systems. That is what engineering forums are for. This obviously is not one.


I have no illusions I am always right and if I did, my wife would be sure to remind me that i am not. However, I will go out on a limb with a hypothesis that you did come here expecting to tell everyone they are wrong, but you ran into people who know enough and are confident enough in the topic (at a technical level) not be bullied on it.


The floor is always open if you would like to share with us your deep knowledge of analog electronics and noise control in mixed analog / digital systems as this topic has almost nothing to do with digital communications no matter how often you tried to bring the topic back to it. If you read this thread there are many hints on aspects of the topic that could be discussed, even some hints on how the packaging of digital data can have an impact on analog noise.

jason_k201715 posts11-04-2019 5:44pmI am truly sorry to all those in here who were trying to give me a sensible answer. All I wanted was a straight knowledgeable answer

But I really can not put up any longer with this ignorant, jealous moron atdavid

To be honest when my experts replied to me regarding these nonsense products they did also warn me that I would find idiots like him on any ‘audiophile’ forum.

Ok atdavid, I give in. You are the big man, you are always right, everybody else has to listen to you and your ears are so much better than mine, and your equipment is the finest in the world and you know ten times more than me about digital communications and...and...and

You have achieved your objective of wearing me down with your insults and general assholishness (did I spell that correctly?

and yes it was measured 164 (around 130 more than you, it would seem)

As I have my experts’ replies I no longer need to listen to his drivel

Bye

if a clay pigeon were sentient, this is how it must feel before it hears the word, PULL!

Jason_k2017 11-4-2019
You must try to understand that almost everything can introduce EM/RF noise. Every single device from the audio server, through every device my audio passes through on the internet and then my exchange to my router to my DAC can. Dozens and possibly hundreds of devices. But none of those sites think it necessary to use a magic cable or a magic switch.

I had said as follows in one of my posts dated 10-29-2019:

... the risetimes, falltimes, noise characteristics, and distortion characteristics of the signal received by the audio component from the network switch or router that is immediately upstream of that component are almost exclusively a function of the network switch or router that is immediately upstream of that component.

Regards,
-- Al

I am truly sorry to all those in here who were trying to give me a sensible answer. All I wanted was a straight knowledgeable answer

But I really can not put up any longer with this ignorant, jealous moron atdavid

To be honest when my experts replied to me regarding these nonsense products they did also warn me that I would find idiots like him on any ‘audiophile’ forum.

Ok atdavid, I give in. You are the big man, you are always right, everybody else has to listen to you and your ears are so much better than mine, and your equipment is the finest in the world and you know ten times more than me about digital communications and...and...and

You have achieved your objective of wearing me down with your insults and general assholishness (did I spell that correctly?

and yes it was measured 164 (around 130 more than you, it would seem)

As I have my experts’ replies I no longer need to listen to his drivel

Bye

Can you tell me how many of those devices reconstruct a 100+ db dynamic range analog baseband signal?

jason_k201714 posts11-04-2019 4:25pmYou must try to understand that almost everything can introduce EM/RF noise. Every single device from the audio server, through every device my audio passes through on the internet and then my exchange to my router to my DAC can. Dozens and possibly hundreds of devices. But none of those sites think it necessary to use a magic cable or a magic switch. You really, really ought to attend a course on digital audio, or research it yourself.

I would respond, but unfortunately I have bullshit all over my shoes.

You know what people don't claim a 164 IQ in an internet discussion?  ... people who actually have a 164 IQ. They don't need to because it is evident in their communication.

I would save your lies for people who won't call you out on it. If you had an IQ of 164, that would place you approximately 1 / 100,000. Your reading comprehension issues are clear indicators that that is not the case.

p.s. that would be:

• 70s , not  '70s
• highest level, not higest
• Oh, but I forgot 
  

So let me get this right. You have an IQ of 164, but you were part of the test group?


It is interesting that you were "part of the test group in the early 80s. So exactly which group was this?

jason_k201714 posts11-04-2019 4:25pmActually no. I was lecturing on modulation techniques in digital communications in the '70s. I was part of the test group for Quadrature Amplitude Modulation utilizing Trellis Encoding in the early '80s And my IQ of 164 got me into the higest levels of military technology development

Oh but I forgot...........   I am ignorant

@jason_k2017

You must try to understand that almost everything can introduce EM/RF noise. Every single device from the audio server, through every device my audio passes through on the internet and then my exchange to my router to my DAC can. Dozens and possibly hundreds of devices. But none of those sites think it necessary to use a magic cable or a magic switch. You really, really ought to attend a course on digital audio, or research it yourself

You must be kidding me, right??? No one believes it’s necessary to use cables or other devices to negate the negative effects of EM/RF noise that you finally concede can contribute to an audio chain via every source with an electricity source?? Seriously? Nordost, AQ, Isotek, PS Audio, Furman, Synergistic etc all have entire product lines to deal with EXACTLY this issue. No one calls it "magic" like you do - it’s all just reasonable isolation, shielding, grounding, and energy dissipation techniques that measurably work.

Why should I take a course on digital?  This noise has NOTHING to do with the digital signal.  Go do your own research.