We Need To Talk About Ones And Zeroes

Ahhh, the power of buffers and asynchronous output.

What I think many are missing is the idea that streamers are not like the phone of old, with effectively one solid circuit between the caller and listener.    There are two separate processes going on at once.  The part that feeds the buffer and the part that doles out the end result.

For pre-recorded media the buffer/bucket can be 30s big or bigger.  The part that gets the stream feeds it into the bucket ahead of time.  The idea is to have enough time that when the TCP/IP stream says "I’m missing packets" or "I have a broken connection" it has time to communicate back to the source and re-request the missing data or start the stream again.  It’s a subtle science here in making the guess as to what the best strategy is to get things going again and when to declare surrender.    If you stream music in your car you have no idea how much your phone is relying on these buffers to get you through the bridge without interruption. 

Here I monitor my Internet access very closely and have failover Internet so when my cable Internet goes away my cellular Internet takes over.  The process takes about 10-20 seconds.  I can tell you that this has happened repeatedly and this has not affected my music.  Of course there are severe Internet events which eventually stop everything but the power of my streamers to driver right over those bumps is a testament to how resilient this whole process is.

While the feeder is busy fixing up the missing data your DAC or TV still has those 30s of data to offer you, so hopefully the stream gets fixed before the bucket is empty. 

We keep talking about noise.  Ethernet is naturally galvanically isolated to a few hundred volts.  It has to be.  Fiber of course is as well.  The bigger issue in my mind are either surges which are high enough to break through that isolation or your Ethernet cables leaking into your AC or interconnects.

Noise in network transmission is not additive.  My router doesn't add noise to the signal from the cable provider.  Any noise is between my router and the next device down.  Reliability is additive, but not noise.  If you have an Ethernet cable capable of 1GigE with no packet loss and no jitter then congratulations, you've done all you can.

The issue that then remains is jitter on the output.  The input and output streams share a buffer and making sure that they do not interfere with each other is another subtle science, which I’m sure is now tackled by a variety of low level libraries available for the particular microprocessor your streamer uses.  I’m not saying they are all equivalent, but that how well your streamer handles this matters. 

My backed-up assertions are

1. Streaming does not guarantee packet delivery nor bit-perfect accuracy
2. Ethernet on its own does not guarantee packet delivery nor packet accuracy nor packet timing
3. USB when used for streaming does not guarantee error-free delivery

At this level, absolutely nothing guarantees error free delivery. This is a straw-man argument where one picks and chooses what they feel is error free or not.

The question is, is it audible?  I'd say no.  What you hear is the quality of the streamer's performance and the original stream.  There are legitimate arguments to be made about any given device's jitter performance or DAC reproduction and that's about all.

So enjoy your cheapie cables. 

Having said this, having heard horror stories of lightning traveling down the cable modem and taking out multiple PCs, TVs and other devices at once without leaving any visible damage I use medical grade Ethernet isolators at the end of long (30') runs. 

@richardbrand 

A person relies extensively on cut-and-pasting at the risk of appearing lazy and unintelligent.

Some highly knowledgeable folks contributed their expertise to this thread, but rather than learning from their expertise you chose to go ask google AI.

Incidentally, as you know, we all have access to google AI and we would know how to query it if we felt like it. Doing it on our behalf adds no value and merely pollutes the thread.

No one can be expected to read 2,000 words of google-generated drivel and I admit I did not - so if I missed something I apologize, but the gist of it seems to be that 100% error-free transmission of a music stream cannot be 100% guaranteed 100% of the time. To which I’m happy to concur: A listener may get caught up in traffic in an underpass and their buffer times out, a submarine may sabotage an underwater backbone cable, etc.

What should be abundantly clear at this point, however, is that music streaming via Tidal and Qobuz, the only kind that matters to audiophiles in this day and age, is error-free absent a rare unrecoverable error; if an unrecoverable error happens, it will manifest in gross failure and playback will stop; and therefore, in no case is a TCP/IP stream or file transfer ever susceptible to the kind of subtle sound quality degradation that strikes fear at the heart of audiophiles. It will either work perfectly - meaning, your streamer will get exactly what Qobuz sent - or not at all.

So it stands to reason that that TCP/IP stream will remain unaffected by components it encounters in the home just like it was unaffected by the components it encountered in the depths of AWS - until it arrives at a component capable of modifying / altering sound quality, aka the streamer.

Router, switches, Ethernet cabling and the like should have zero effect on sound quality (again, all power supplies being equal), and devices claiming to "fix problems" with your home Internet are necessarily making false claims, since there are no problems there to fix.

Happy listening! 

For the application of producing sound, the networks job is to have enough bandwidth to deliver the data needed fast enough so the streamer can stream in real time.   So the network needs to have sufficient bandwidth for the job.  That’s pretty much a given with modern home network technology.  
 

For wireless connections, you have to make sure the wireless connection is strong enough.  Bandwidth will decrease with distance and can become a bottleneck if not done well. 
 

Thrn it’s the streamer and DAC working together to take the data off the network and convert it to sound.  This is where there are lots of possibilities and results can vary widely depending on specific implementations component to component.  
 

The good news is that the technology here is now fairly advanced as well and in practice realized well by many newer products at all price points.   

I am not at all horrified by any of this. I am thankful streaming works well enough to meet the quality standards I demand without a whole lot of fussing about. I appreciate that physical media may in fact be better but in the final analysis I am not sure the difference is audible. If I cannot hear the difference then its a non-problem.

“Router, switches, Ethernet cabling and the like should have zero effect on sound quality“
@devinplombier 

You’re absolutely right from a purely technical and engineering standpoint. However, many experienced listeners here reported audible differences when they tinkered with Ethernet cables, Routers/switches, Network isolators and filters ahead of a well designed streamer’s. 

The proof is in the pudding and in audio, your ears are the spoon.

Theories, specs, and measurements are critical, but what you actually hear is the final word. If swapping a switch or cable makes music more alive, relaxed, or emotionally gripping in your system, then it’s real for you regardless of what measurements suggests. 

The best systems aren’t built by following rules, they’re shaped by listening, experimenting and trusting your own instincts. 

@lalitk 

Thank you for your post. In principle, I 100% agree with you.

That’s why I was careful to write that pre-streamer digital components should make no difference in sound quality. I was also careful to insert a qualifier about "all power supplies being equal". Finally, it is conceivable that, amongst the millions of possible component combinations, a new switch might correct some kind of incompatibility or condition caused by the old switch.

In short... I don’t know. I’m aware of opinions out there holding that passive digital components may have a positive impact on sound quality, and I respect some of them.

Claims of "stunning" or "transformational" differences, however, are 99.99% certain to be hogwash (the remaining .01% being due to correcting some equipment incompatibility as mentioned above). Barring the latter, folks making such ridiculous claims likely haven’t heard any difference at all, let alone a "stunning" one, and probably couldn’t tell the difference between the cannonade in the 1812 Overture and their wife slamming the lid on the trash can.

Which brings us to, if passive digital components do make a difference in sound quality, how big can that difference possibly be expected to be? How big of a positive impact can these components make, considering that the packets they transmit at that stage represent anything and everything besides music? I believe, very very little; and whether it’s worth pursuing it is a personal choice. Personally, I am not willing to spend time auditioning network switches, because the reward is more likely than not to not justify the investment. But that’s just me.

You mention measurements. I’m aware it’s something of a dirty word for some around here, but the good news is that the bit-perfectness (?) of audio streaming is demonstrable without any measurements involved, simply by checksumming the sent and received data.

For the record, I am biased toward science and rationality (in case you didn’t notice :); however, I think measurements are only as good as what they measure, and that they do not necessarily correlate to sound quality. I do believe John Atkinson’s work adds value to Stereophile reviews, creating a balanced approach.

I think I read somewhere that John Atkinson himself said he does not review digital components because "there is nothing to measure" (correct me if I made that up!).

@lalitk 

You know I love your system, and I’ve always enjoyed your contributions, but I am gonna have to disagree on this one.  Am reminded of Ptolemy.  For gosh sakes, everybody watched the sun go around the earth, and that fit nicely with some of our religious beliefs.  So when Ptolemy made the math to back up a geocentric model of the solar system work, it took 1400 years before we were finally able to get the science right - thank you Copernicus!  (Kyrie Irving has reasserted a flat earth view, but that’s probably for a different convo, lol!).  

So I think it’s pretty important to start with a sound theory and understanding of the science before we start trying to convince ourselves that we’re hearing stuff that, while it fits our religion, threatens to take us back to a pre-Copernicun world.  And I think that’s why the OP started this thread.

The primary goal of streaming/rental music services should be for discovering new artists/music.

If you like the album, buy it and pay the artist...not to mention permanent ownership.

If it’s only available in redbook CD, so be it...

If there is a 24bit studio master available, burn it on blu-ray and achieve the highest fidelity possible.

Getting into all the nitty gritty of error propagation, containment whatever and arguing it with all the supposed digital geniuses could drive someone nuts soon enough. No one here with the requisite engineering background hacked into or looked under the hood of everything to be sure of everything...

Yes but is it “high end” TCP/IP? 😬

Like any well engineered solution, the best systems are in fact built based on facts or rules first, then trusting your ears from there.  
 

Arguments for trusting your ears alone are flawed.   Your ears can only hear what is there, not what may be missing.  Facts and rules come first to help have best chance of covering all the bases first thereby giving your ears the best chance of being the most happy. 
 

@lalitk 

After perusing your virtual system following @mdalton ’s compliment of same, I would say that if my own system were anywhere near the state of evolution yours is in, I would likely be more open to evaluating components I currently consider secondary.

My own system would likely look very different than yours, and I suspect we enjoy different musical and listening styles. One thing they would probably have in common though is the NADAC stack. Why AES67 isn't better known / more prevalent in the audiophile world is beyond me.

It’s a beautiful system. Congratulations!

@devinplombier 

A person relies extensively on cut-and-pasting at the risk of appearing lazy and unintelligent.

... we all have access to google AI and we would know how to query it if we felt like it. Doing it on our behalf adds no value and merely pollutes the thread.

No one can be expected to read 2,000 words of google-generated drivel and I admit I did not - so if I missed something I apologize

I like Google AI because anyone can re-run a query - you are not reliant on what a single contributor 'knows', and can 'remember', and can 'articulate'.  It is not as if I  am so unintelligent and ignorant and lazy that I never contribute original content!

Unfortunately, it is obvious that many contributors here do not have much technical understanding or do even basic research.  Witness your own assertion that most network components do not have processors, though they clearly perform logic!

You now seem to agree that streaming is not guaranteed to be 100% perfect.  I have no idea whether this is audible (except for obvious drop-outs) but many people report hearing differences.  Data loss and un-corrected errors are one possible explanation.

@devinplombier 

I appreciate your kind words on my system. NADAC stack is indeed a very ‘special’ product. It’s a shame that they didn’t gain much traction in US market.  

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Agreed, our ears are limited to perceiving what is presented, not what might be absent or subtly compromised. We all are capable of listening but do we all perceive the information in same manner? Are we listening for bass or treble, detail or dynamics or do we strive for coherence, timing, tone, presence and emotions. I believe, we are also listening for what our audio system is not communicating or producing, right? 

I also agree that most claims of “transformational” improvements from passive digital components are almost certainly exaggerated, given bit-perfect nature of digital streaming. 

I’m all for exploration, but I’m also deeply skeptical of hyperbolic claims, especially when they come without context or proper a/b comparison. To me, It’s all about striking a delicate balance. 

As far as measurements, while they remain critical for getting the basics right, they don’t always reflect emotional or perceptual experiences. At the end of the day, everyone is free to chase what brings them joy. But I do firmly believe that our pursuit for a good sounding system benefits most when curiosity is anchored in reason and when we leave enough room for both exploration and skepticism to coexist.

@mapman 

So the network needs to have sufficient bandwidth for the job.  That’s pretty much a given with modern home network technology

If you are streaming over the internet, you should also include the myriad of servers, routers and connections that make up the paths from music server to your home network and are shared by millions of other users.  All of which is often conveniently hidden by drawing the internet as a cloud, which is the last thing it actually is.

There is a fully engineered network design which uses a seven layer model - the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) international standard but by and large we have chosen to use something quite different - the Internet.

The Internet has grown like topsy, and contains almost no standards.  About the best you can hope for are RFCs - Requests For Comment.  It only contains four layers!  Its address range prior to IPv6 is a pathetic 64,000 times smaller than Ethernet addresses - no wonder it has run out!  IPv6 fixes this but is really struggling to take off.

But I do firmly believe that our pursuit for a good sounding system benefits most when curiosity is anchored in reason and when we leave enough room for both exploration and skepticism to coexist.

@lalitk 

I could not agree more, and in fact this applies to most things in life.

I try to keep an open mind and adopt the position that very few things are 100% black or white.

@devinplombier

 this blog post by Benjamin Zwickel - the founder and designer of respected DAC manufacturer Mojo Audio - who is considerably more qualified than I to dissert on the subject

I ploughed through the article and quickly guessed that Mojo Audio does not natively support DSD!  Talk about bias.

The author mistakes DAC for ADC, which is forgivable.  However, the statement that "Even Sony no longer supports DSD and SACD" is laughable. 

“I am gonna have to disagree on this one”
@mdalton 

I get where you’re coming from and comparison to Ptolemy’s geocentric model is a good analogy.

I’m all for theory-based approaches, and I think skepticism is healthy, especially when people start making hyperbolic claims. But I don’t think it’s a matter of “going backward” as you so eloquently stated, it’s about finding a balance between the science we know, the theories we develop and the subjective experience we can’t fully define yet. 

You do know, I admire your system and respect your opinion but we been through this before….we may not agree on how much certain upstream changes matter, but I think we both care deeply about getting the most out of our audio systems and staying grounded in what actually delivers musical joy.

So here’s to agreeing to disagree, respectfully and with ears wide open :-) 

@lalitk 

Cheers my friend.  Btw, I’ve recently discovered MJ Acoustics, a UK company that specializes in subwoofers.  Long story, but they’re custom finishing a sub to match my restored Altecs in my vintage system.  If that project is as successful as I’m hoping, I am contemplating adding the new Fyne super tweeter.  Which gets me to this question:  How do you feel about your Tannoy super tweeter? (Apologies to @devinplombier for this temporary high jack)

(Apologies to @devinplombier for this temporary high jack)

@mdalton 

Not at all, in fact I'm curious about the super tweeters after reading @lalitk 's eloquent description in his virtual system page.

Something I would have assumed was not for me due to my hearing threshold no longer having a 2 in front of it (at least it still has 5 figures!), but cymbals can produce harmonics into the 70 KHz range. Wonder if other instruments benefit similarly from super tweeters.

white paper

@devinplombier 

Here’s a Fyne white paper on their super tweeter.  Notice that it has measurements and actual citations, including to peer reviewed papers published in the Audio Engineering Society Journal.  So while there is some controversy among some audiophiles regarding the efficacy of super tweeters, Fyne has actually done what I’ve criticized switch, server and streamer manufacturers for not doing.

If some tweeter (super or not so super)  played a 29khz tone and a 30khz tone simultaneously, you will hear it as a 1khz tone (doppler whatever), well within your audible range...no matter if your ear doctor told you that your ears don’t work after 14khz and above.

Same goes for more misinformation being spread on @cooper52 ’s thread where some dudes are telling him that there is no musical information below 30hz (facepalm) and a sub getting down to 10hz is meaningless...

With this very complex amalgamation of frequencies overtones, undertones, whatever... referred to as music, one could never never be too sure of anything these days...

I wish I could create a graphic or an animation about this but...that would be too much unnecessary work for a forum thread.

Not at all, in fact I’m curious about the super tweeters after reading @lalitk ’s eloquent description in his virtual system page.

 

Something I would have assumed was not for me due to my hearing threshold no longer having a 2 in front of it (at least it still has 5 figures!), but cymbals can produce harmonics into the 70 KHz range. Wonder if other instruments benefit similarly from super tweeters.

@mdalton 

Congratulations on your fine purchase. I did look into MJ Acoustics before buying REL’s. I do like their high quality build and bespoke veneer finishes. 

My experience with Tannoy’s super tweeters is nothing but positive. They have added a refined sense of air and spaciousness to my Canterbury’s. Are you likely to hear more decay, space around instruments and top-end shimmer on things like cymbals or strings….I guess, it would come down to your listening position and room acoustics. My listening position is 9.5 feet away, and the super tweeters are positioned roughly at ear level when I’m seated. 

With careful positioning of super tweeters, the benefits are obvious especially with acoustic, ambient and jazz recordings. 

I did watch Kevin’s YT video, I must admit, FYNE Audio super tweeters adjustability and omnidirectional design is quite impressive. I’d expect it to deliver a similar or better enhancement due to its omnidirectional design. If your speakers sounds bit rolled off or closed-in up top, they might be the right fit. Are they absolutely essential, only you can decide after careful integration with your speakers. I do know, my super tweeters are inseparable from my Canterbury’s. 

Let us know if you end up trying it—I’d love to hear what you think!

@deep_333 

where some dudes are telling him that there is no musical information below 30hz (facepalm) and a sub getting down to 10hz is meaningless...

The organ in the Sydney Town Hall has a 64-foot pipe which can be felt if not heard at about 10-Hz.  Stuart pianos from Australia can go down to 16-Hz.

Some organs that don't have the space or money for long pipes make use of your 'doppler' effect to produce low notes from two high-frequency (above audble) pipes.  It is really an interference effect, not true doppler which is caused by a speed difference between a source and a listener ...

Richard, i wasn’t just referring to individual instruments like a huge organ that went infrasonic on its own.

I was referring to the same ’interference’ (if we need to use a word) effect that happens on the supertweeting end also occurs on the infrasonic end.

i.e. the case of a 10 hz tone perhaps from 90 hz and a 100 hz tone played together, a 15 hz tone from other pairings and so on....i.e infrasonic ranges that could be affected from frequencies that are typically attributed to the audible range.

Strangely enough, this type of phenomenon was first described to me sometime in the 90s by a Hindustani musician when he was attempting to explain some attributes of a raag he played....I am sure the guy had never seen a measurement tool in his life...stuff that gets passed down to them by word of mouth from his teacher and the one before him and the one before him...I am a violin player and i was always baffled by the sound of their instruments (don’t have another lifetime to spare for learning their things unfortunately).

I visualize it to be an audible "spread" of sorts stemming from tones in supposedly both audible & inaudible ranges

One could ’never be too sure’ like those measurement guys on a certain other forum...y’know. They are so certain about everything and what they do not know yet may not exist apparently (scientists n all!).

The organ in the Sydney Town Hall has a 64-foot pipe which can be felt if not heard at about 10-Hz.  Stuart pianos from Australia can go down to 16-Hz.

Some organs that don’t have the space or money for long pipes make use of your ’doppler’ effect to produce low notes from two high-frequency (above audble) pipes.  It is really an interference effect, not true doppler which is caused by a speed difference between a source and a listener ...

@jeffbij re "Even a CD player has safeguards to guard against read errors, it’s called oversampling."

CD error correction is based in Cross Interleave Reed Solomon coding.

Oversampling is primarily used to allow shallower slope anti-aliasing filters.

Wonder if other instruments benefit similarly from super tweeters.

I’ve read that similar to adding sub bass units, super tweeters add and support upper ranges.  Maybe someday I’ll try a Enigma Acoustics Sopranino or a Fyne Audio’s new SuperTrax supertweeter.

@yoyoyaya 

Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the launch of CD.  An astonishing 10 bits (roughly) are used for every 1 bit of the signal.  The claim is that errors can be detected and corrected for up to 4,000 consecutive bit errors, and there is no obvious discontinuity if 7,000 bits are wrong. As a demonstration, a 1/8 inch hole was drilled right through a CD and it played with no apparent adverse effects.

Philips knew the benefits of four-times oversampling from the get go which is why its early CD players sounded better than the competition.  Oversampling allows much gentler filters to be used.

Philips also recognised the difficulty of trimming resistors in their resistance ladder DACs, and only bothered to decode the most significant 14 bits.

PCM advocates should understand that none of this matters with Direct Stream Digital, where the low pass filter is in the mega-Hertz region and every bit is equally important.

An astonishing 10 bits (roughly) are used for every 1 bit of the signal.

As I read it's 3:1.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio

Philips also recognised the difficulty of trimming resistors in their resistance ladder DACs, and only bothered to decode the most significant 14 bits.

I fear this is misreading the eight to fourteen modulation (EFM).  In any event, this was 43 years ago and hardly worth discussing to consider the value of Redbook PCM vs. DSD.

@richardbrand - being old enough to remember the launch of CD doesn't make you that old...

On that general subject, here is an interview of Uncle Paul in which he reminisces about the early days of digital audio. Interesting

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/paul-mcgowan-and-the-history-of-digital-audio/

@richardbrand - being old enough to remember the launch of CD doesn't make you that old...

Yeah, I was gonna say

@yoyoyaya 

@jeffbij re "Even a CD player has safeguards to guard against read errors, it’s called oversampling."

CD error correction is based in Cross Interleave Reed Solomon coding.

Oversampling is primarily used to allow shallower slope anti-aliasing filters.

I stand corrected. 

Much Thanks 

Jeff

Thanks Jeff  - BTW, I was impressed by your home networking system. I recently purchased a pre-owned Cisco switch but unfortunately, it died after two weeks so its back to the drawing board there for me.

@yoyoyaya - Thanks, I got lucky.  A local business went under and I managed to pick up a bunch of their equipment super cheap prior to the public auction.  Thing is, if you know what you are looking for, you can pick up a lot of refurbed Cisco and HP Enterprise level gear pretty cheap.  The key is knowing how to do the programming and setup the switches and routers.  And you also need an out of the way place to put them, cause they can be LOUD.

Just a warning, before everyone goes out and purchases enterprise networking gear. DON'T! Not unless you fully understand networking, layering, NAT, porting, etc.. Most of all know CLI commands. These switches are super hard to setup and maintain. They also make a TON of noise, and use a lot of power. 

Some like Cisco will not work unless you purchase a license. That can cost thousands. You will also not be able to get any support on these without a contract. 

Yes, you can get them dirt cheap! Used to have a fiber switch that was almost $30k in my house. Now I just have some Cisco mid-range stuff that is far cheaper/eaiser to live with.

@mswale +1  Still, one can benefit from a 'clean' home network.

May not matter as much for streamers since ethernet is galvanically isolated from grounds noise.

Technically only if you use unshielded cables.  Though the signal pairs are balanced, transformer coupled there is usually a little cap that goes around them for the shield, if used. 

But the point is still the same, your noise levels are not additive.  You don't get the additive noise of every server, switch and router not to mention Internet provider's equipment.  All you have to worry about is the noise from your router to your devices and how you isolate them.

The digital data rides on an analog signal that can pick up noise.

High-end computing ≠ High-end audio where we care how it “sounds”

Doesn't matter.  The question is whether that noise makes it past the Ethernet interface. 

@mswale +1  Still, one can benefit from a ’clean’ home network.

@sns 

By "clean network" I assume you mean an audio-only subnetwork walled off by VPN and various and sundry firewall tools.

If one has unusual network security concerns or wishes to shield their beloved streamer from the prying eyes of North Korean hackers, sure. But to expect any sound quality improvement from it will most likely result in disappointment. Clean or "dirty", TCP ensures bit-perfect delivery either way.

That said, big iron is fun! But if the yardstick is sound quality, enterprise-grade hardware will neither help nor harm, though as noted you’ll have to exile it to the basement and acquire serious network skills to operate it.

@devinplombier By 'clean' network I'm speaking specifically to EMI/RFI contamination by wifi. A router running active wifi is likely the noisiest component in anyone's streaming chain. Disabling wifi on the router serving my audio only network has improved streaming quality. There are further steps possible via the Dejitter It Switch X if you believe eliminating  needless network traffic improves streaming sound quality.

Enterprise quality components within a streamer can and does result in lower latency.

+1 @mswale 

He is 100% correct.  Thanks for bringing that up.  I should have done so myself.  Enterprise networking equipment is not for the amateur or weekend warrior in computers.  I have 40 years in the business and have built, upgraded and managed corporate server and network equipment on a daily basis.  And even then I have needed help from the "real" experts on a regular basis.

-Jeff

@devinplombier 

That said, big iron is fun! But if the yardstick is sound quality, enterprise-grade hardware will neither help nor harm, though as noted you’ll have to exile it to the basement and acquire serious network skills to operate it.

Big iron is fun... all the way up to the point where something goes boom and everything goes sideways.  Then you are tearing out your hair, making up new swear words, and spending hours sitting in the corner making quiet noises when you realize you screwed up the configuration and have to start everything thing from scratch... (been there, done that...)

I do want to bring up that there is a benefit to higher end networking equipment.  While it will not add to the signal, it does keep other things from taking things away.  Such as increased bandwidth being used by other network traffic like streaming TV, computer internet traffic, video conferencing, WiFi calling, etc.  Also, because they are designed to be able to handle enterprise level network traffic, the power supply reserves are more than enough to handle the typical home network.

-Jeff

To comment on a "Clean Network"...

@sns - As you said, the WiFi signal is very noisy.  What everyone forgets is that WiFi is a radio signal.  So is the celluar signal your cell phone uses.  And if your equipment, and not just your streamer, is not shielded properly, it will affect the circuitry.  Will that affect sound quality, yep.  At my previous residence I had to change out my interconnects between the turntable and phono pre to shielded cables because I was able to pick up the local 1st responder radio dispatches in the background.  

Just think... hearing Led Zeppelin go "Hey-hey momma, said the way you move...STATION 9 RESCUE 1 POTENTIAL HEART ATTACK AT xxx street..." 

But there is more to the "clean network" in any building.  I have "helped" many friends work on their home networks.  And most of the time it is just correcting mistakes, not spending money on upgrades.  There are so many simple things to improve network performance that people can do without spending much money. 

Off the top of my head:

• Put your modem, network switches and routers on a UPS (APC, TrippLite, etc.) They typically have decent surge protection and better than average filtering, and will help fill in the momentary flickers in AC. 
• Most wallwart power supplies on modems, routers and combos are very under powered.  Upgrade it to something that has the available reserves to handle heavier current draw. While something like a sBooster linear supply will work, even a larger (i.e. higher current, regulated switching supply will be an improvement.
• Don't run ethernet cable along or parallel to electical cable.  If you have to cross an electrical cable, try to cross at a 90 degree angle.  This will reduce inductive noise from the electrical circuit.
• Don't run ethernet cable longer than 100 meters between two devices. That includes all the ups, downs, left/rights, etc.  This is the TIA/EIA standard.  Cat 5e, unshielded twisted pair, solid wire should be the minimum wire type.  Cat 6 is better.  Above that, starting Cat 7, will support 10 Gbs rates, is usually overkill, especially considering that everything else on a home network is usually topping out at 1Gbs.  
• If you have to go above 100 meters, then you need to switch to fiber optic cable.  Setting that up is a subject in it's own.
• When running ethernet cable, don't kink or bend the cable.  I've seen so many cables bent 90 degrees at the RJ-45 jack, which turned out to be the data problem.  My rule of thumb was to try and not have a bend radius of less than 4 or 5 inches.
• Don't use those little female to female jumper plugs to extend an ethernet cable.  They are junk and usually will eventually cause problems.
• Keep the contacts clean.  Most cables and switches use brass as the contacts in the jacks.  They will corrode over time.  A pencil eraser or 1500 grit sandpaper works well to clean them.  Some of the "audiophile" cables use gold plated contacts which is a plus.
• If you need an additional switch(s), get decent quality.  At a minimum, get a known brand, middle of their product lines, look for a full metal housing, and a decent sized power supply.  (Netgear, DLink, Linksys are some examples)  If it has POE ports, that can be a good indicator that the power supply is not a bare minimum size.  Avoid the cheap plastic no names like you find on Amazon or EBay.
• A lot of routers have a built in switch on them.  Even if you already have a switch in your network, try and run the ethernet cable from the streamer directly to the router.  The fewer hops to the modem, the better.

One thing I have always wondered that when someone goes and buys a $1000 audiophile switch and replaces all their ethernet cabling with CAT 7 or CAT 8 cable and hears "ground breaking" improvements, is a large portion of the improvement coming not from the new equipment, but rather they fixed the bad implementation of the original setup.  Hard to say....

...my 10 cents (since the tariff on the EU went back to 50%)... lol

-Jeff

There are further steps possible via the Dejitter It Switch X if you believe eliminating  needless network traffic improves streaming sound quality.

@sns 

I do not believe it does, unless overall network capacity is being strained as @jeffbij indicated.

I've been reading a bit on Switch X, and that's definitely a good one. More on it later 😃

There's this new video from Paul McGowen of PS Audio that addresses the closing of the gap between streaming and CD playback. He says it all boils down to galvanic isolation. More food for thought. I have no dog in this fight. 

All the best,
Nonoise

Galvanic isolation is the bare minimum, vast majority of higher end dacs and streamers have taken care of it, grounds contamination is a well known issue.

 While attending to many of these network and other streaming issues often result in incremental improvements, some may only be audible in extremely high resolution/transparent systems and streaming chains. Whatever the case, a good reference for determining the quality of one's streaming chain is to compare it to your physical media, no reason it can't compete on a level playing field with cd's or ripped cd's on local storage. Get you clocking/timing optimized and it can compete with very nice vinyl setups.

As for the Dejitter switch, I suspect this won't be the last switch attending to this issue. We can debate the theoreticals, but in the end I also rely on empirical evidence in coming to conclusions, I fully expect I will try this or another similar switch at some point.

@sns 

Well said! I agree that galvanic isolation is essential and should be intrinsically baked into any serious DAC or streamer these days. Ground contamination and timing errors have a way of creeping in subtly, and you’re spot on; the higher the system’s resolution, the more these small tweaks and upstream changes can reveal themselves.

I also like your point about comparing streaming to physical media — it’s a great benchmark. If the chain is dialed in, high-quality streaming can absolutely go toe-to-toe with local files or even well-done vinyl. I’ve experienced and achieved that in my setup. 

As for Dejitter switch and any other audiophile dubbed switches, I share your curiosity. My personal experience says otherwise. After experimenting with a very high end switch (Telegartner M12 Gold switch) and few sub $1K switches, I am now of opinion, less is more.

I found audiophile switches redundant or have very minimal impact as long as we have addressed galvanic isolation between network devices, effectively breaking ground loops and blocking electrical noise from traveling through Ethernet cables. 

I found audiophile switches redundant or have very minimal impact as long as we have addressed galvanic isolation between network devices, effectively breaking ground loops and blocking electrical noise from traveling through Ethernet cables.

Too often, people only consider an item’s primary purpose and judge it by how well it accomplishes that purpose, but that’s a limited, it not somewhat blinkered approach.

Indeed, by that token no one should buy a Patek Philippe because a lowly iphone keeps perfect time and the Patek sure doesn’t, so Patek Philippe must be snake oil.

Of course, accurate timekeeping has long since ceased to be the raison d’être of fine watches. Therefore their secondary purposes of beauty and craftsmanship have superceded their primary one of timekeeping.

Similarly, if a person doesn’t like to look at items of low or average quality in their home, then a well-designed network switch milled from solid aluminum and fitted with the best components and ports available makes sense. 

If the goal for that network switch is to improve sound quality, however, disappointment is bound to ensue.

The Telegärtner M12 switch doesn't use RJ-45 connectors. Instead, it is equipped with proprietary connectors, requiring the use of proprietary patch cables.

An interesting approach for sure.

He says it all boils down to galvanic isolation. More food for thought. I have no dog in this fight. 

with an forum alias of @nonoise that goes without saying.