Ethernet connection for best sound quality

@erik_squires 

Re: cables: 

 “,,,Shielded is preferred IMHO to minimize chance of radiating to your interconnects.….

+1 ,,,big time. The philosophy is clear : Unshielded referent cables are a spdistinct and unambiguous step down in audio performance. Here is a sample review to support 

Previously posted :

REVIEW:What causes audible differences in network cables

https://alpha-audio.net/review/wat-zorg ... erkkabels/

Intro

We round off our little investigation into network cables with a listening test and a clear conclusion. As promised we subjected the network plugs to a listening test and listened to three different configurations: shielding fixed on one side, shielding fixed on two sides and double shielded (and both sides connected). Do we hear differences? Well…. yes…!

Let’s clear up one myth: there is NO audible difference in network plugs. There is a difference in build quality, price and ease of installation. In short: it does make sense to invest in a good plug.

But let’s continue with the sound reproduction: as you know, we have installed everything from standard plugs to expensive Telegärtners. We tried all cables on the same switch (with an IFI power supply) and listened to the same system:

We did not notice any difference between the connectors. Sometimes we thought we heard something (think of a louder or sharper S-sound), but when we went back to the other connector, there was no difference. It is sometimes very complex to listen to this properly and to judge it honestly. But after hours of switching back and forth, we dare say that there is no difference in reproduction. In any case, we do not dare to take a bet in a blind test…

But where we do hear immediate differences – and continue to hear differences even when going back and forth – is the method of shielding.

We made three cables for this purpose: one cable with DeLock plugs and shielding fixed at one end. One cable with Delock plugs with the shielding fixed at both ends and finally the double shielded version with the nice sleeve. Also with the shielding on both sides (and Delock plugs).

What we observe almost immediately is that the version with the shielding fixed on both sides focuses better. The version with shielding on one side seems to play a bit larger, but that is not true: the effects in the song Perfect Life by Steven wilson are placed at the same spot in the room, but are more tightly framed with the cable where the shielding is fixed on both sides.

With voices, the same is true: it’s tighter in focus and also more stable between the speakers (if we move our heads back and forth, the voice stays in place better very odd).

Going to the double shielding we make another step. Again a bit more tightly focused, again a bit better framed. And with that a bit more calmness in the reproduction allowing details to surface a bit easier.

Clearly, fo us it is clear where the differences come from: shielding, shielding, shielding.

And that is quite logical if you consider that a network cable is included in a digital chain. A chain that relies on clean energy to keep everything clocked tight. A chain that works with noise-levels of -140dB. A chain where small deviations are immediately audible in staging, focus and smoothness.

This also explains why fiber networks work so well as a first upgrade: you immediately shut out a lot of misery by creating a barrier through which electrical energy cannot pass. And thus no electrical noise (common mode in particular).

To conclude…

Can you hear differences between network cables? Yes… definitely. Our samples have shown that. And about the real cables you can buy at the store… pay particular attention to what the manufacturer has done in terms of shielding. We would still leave the unshielded versions. Especially after this experience. But anyway: try it yourself at home!
 

Second, I’ll put an Innuos Statement (or any Innuos streamer for that matter) up against the Raspberry Pi you use in your system 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

I would too because I bet in a blind listening test you’d be surprised at the results.

The reason why companies sell overpriced streamers is because people don’t know any better. I don’t think the average audiophile realizes that these multi-thousand dollar products are based on low-cost, low-powered hardware and freely available open source projects.

The flip side of the coin is that these products are advertised as having ’less noise’ yet there are no measurements to confirm that this is in fact the case. At least if you buy a Ferrari you know that you’re getting better performance (in certain respects) than a Camry because it’s been measured and tested.

The fact of the matter is that a great sounding streamer can be made from something as simple as a Raspberry Pi 4 which more than likely has more processing power and basically the same audio software stack as the $12k+ Innuos Statement.

toro3    I  have an OPPO UDP-205. Let me start from the beginning,,,,

2018 bought the 205 streamed through desktop (fans and all.)  Tidal I believe it was called premium at that time Via Cardas clear network cat 7 cable. from wall to computer then from computer soundcard Soundblaster X-fi Xtreme to 205 via Cardas Parsec coax Great selection of tracks from my favorite bands that weren't available from lp's cd's youtube. live selections so forth. I thought it sounded fine, I still do. But if I can get a higher quality sound I'll go for it.,I was just hoping for a direct connection from modem to the 205.via Ethernet cable. I plan on using a 1TB SSD via Cardas clear high speed internet usb cable once I have a collection.

I went from a streaming setup using a Mac Mini 2 with a wireless network connection to a Lumin U2 Mini using a wired network connection. I noticed a dramatic improvement in sound quality. It was absolutely worth the money. 

Lots of paths to streaming music.  Fewer paths to high end audio streaming.  I studied the options for a couple of years and tried various ways to stream- including using my laptop.  I have a CD Transport and DAC that sounds quite good and as satisfying as vinyl.  I can stream 44.1/16 now and it sounds the same as the CD to me.  Hi res streaming sounds even better and on par with hi res files stored on my streamer.  I qualify this by saying this is based on my hearing and the level of the rest of my audio gear.

Modem- bought my own- stopped using the ISP’s modem.  Added an iFi low noise power supply but didn’t noticed a difference directly.

Router- WiFi 6E router also with an iFi low noise power supply.  Can’t say that did much for the sound either but I feel better knowing the low noise power supplies are there.

[I am no longer using FMC’s in my chain from router to streamer]. Best bang for the buck, I found is to put a fiber optic link between the router and the streamer.  I had two FMC’s with 5V LPS’s and Finisar SFP’s (they insert into the FMC’s).

Bought an audio grade ethernet switch.  This replaced the fiber optic link.  This is the next level up in sound but dilutes the cost/performance ratio.  Also, thinking that the fiber optic link combined with the audio grade network switch would be even better- turns out it is not.

Silver plated ethernet cables.  These make a difference in the sound.  Don’t have to spend a lot- just need to be shielded and silver plated copper wire.  Silver wire might work too but I doubt it makes much of a difference.

Streamer- if you want high end audio get a streamer.  Sure, it is likely based on a NUC. My streamer has an expensive linear power supply.  Absolutely necessary for high end audio.  That is something you don’t get using a PC.  I use a streamer for Roon running ROCK.  The processor has one job to do in a design for music streamer.  I also like the sound better just sending PCM to the DAC.  The less processing the streamer does the better in my system.  Let the DAC do most of the work.