linear ps for switch and routers

Sedgey Rirrf posted:

Ifi does work well on my Tp-link switch

Bought x2 Audioquest Vodka Ethernet to replace the Cinnamon cables and my world has blossomed. Sounds from what I can remember like  my old  Linn Sondek. Truly I can settle and relax with these. Very Analogue ish. 

good news. I am waiting ifi power for my switch and a second one for my last switch on the optical bridge. It will be cool...

sbilotta posted:
sbilotta posted:

I put an ifi on a Paul Pang switch and there was a clear (even if not dramatic) improvement.

Should be getting an LPS-1 soon and will swap it out and let you know the outcome.

Got the LPS-1 and after some running in I put it on the Paul Pang switch last night (being fed by the ifi) and the improvement was very clear.

so lps 1 is an improvement over ifi power on your switch?    do you have an optical bridge or ethernet isolator?  

Sedgey Rirrf posted:

Great question, I have had them a week so I am listening closely as they burn in incrementally. Audio T orders them in specially plus you need two cables so it's a lot of money, but who knows one day      You have got me wondering now...

i have an optical bridge. After i bought an audioquest diamond to replace the meicord on my last switch before the nds and could detect no improvement, or perhaps very little....audioquest vodka is enough i think .

Sedgey Rirrf posted:

Not sure if I am a little off topic but after reading Andrew Everards article about going fibre optic network from router to switch I gave it a try and what a remarkable improvement, Galvanised isolation it's called. All the internet traffic noise is removed. No capacitance or resistance that copper has. For a little over a £ 100 you can not go wrong.

Hi, for your info all wired Ethernet should be galvanically isolated by design. It's often achieved by little transformers in the NICs. Using a BaseT to BaseX concertvers will/should have Galvanic isolators in their BaseT NICs just like any compliant Ethernet device. There will be no difference to 'internet traffic noise'. That is the same whether you use fibre or twisted pair for the physical link.

What fibre can offer is, in some circumstances, a removal of high frequency or radio frequency common mode noise conducting along the Ethernet cables. This may occur because there is a electrically noisy or poor quality network component / host physically attached to your network. This is the same sort of effect of a noisey device plugged into your mains. It might be worth trying to hunt out out the device that is adding the common mode electrical noise on your Ethernet, you never know it could if sufficiently be bad cause issues elsewhere. You might find  it's removal or replacement gives a better performance boost rather than relying on sticking plasters.

One point to consider  however is that the main role of BaseT to BaseX converters is to extend range not reducing common mode noise. You need to ensure the noise generated from the converter itself is not undermining to some extent what you are trying to achieve, a potential risk with cheap consumer devices. Again I would try if you can at using devices with fibre SFPs and run the fibres between them and if you ensure the SFP host is a quality low noise device like a quality switch and then you should be confident of being in a good place.

Simon

Keler Pierre posted:
sbilotta posted:
sbilotta posted:

I put an ifi on a Paul Pang switch and there was a clear (even if not dramatic) improvement.

Should be getting an LPS-1 soon and will swap it out and let you know the outcome.

Got the LPS-1 and after some running in I put it on the Paul Pang switch last night (being fed by the ifi) and the improvement was very clear.

so lps 1 is an improvement over ifi power on your switch?    do you have an optical bridge or ethernet isolator?  

Yes, LPS-1 is definitely better than the IFI.

I had an optical bridge but I didn't feel it bettered anything so I took it off, but it is also true that I have Acoustic Reveive Lan Isolator (which does work !) so probably that is already doing a good job and made the optical bridge less (or not) worthwhile.

sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
sbilotta posted:
sbilotta posted:

I put an ifi on a Paul Pang switch and there was a clear (even if not dramatic) improvement.

Should be getting an LPS-1 soon and will swap it out and let you know the outcome.

Got the LPS-1 and after some running in I put it on the Paul Pang switch last night (being fed by the ifi) and the improvement was very clear.

so lps 1 is an improvement over ifi power on your switch?    do you have an optical bridge or ethernet isolator?  

Yes, LPS-1 is definitely better than the IFI.

I had an optical bridge but I didn't feel it bettered anything so I took it off, but it is also true that I have Acoustic Reveive Lan Isolator (which does work !) so probably that is already doing a good job and made the optical bridge less (or not) worthwhile.

ok, interesting... and your lan cable with nds, what is it?

Keler Pierre posted:
sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
sbilotta posted:
sbilotta posted:

I put an ifi on a Paul Pang switch and there was a clear (even if not dramatic) improvement.

Should be getting an LPS-1 soon and will swap it out and let you know the outcome.

Got the LPS-1 and after some running in I put it on the Paul Pang switch last night (being fed by the ifi) and the improvement was very clear.

so lps 1 is an improvement over ifi power on your switch?    do you have an optical bridge or ethernet isolator?  

Yes, LPS-1 is definitely better than the IFI.

I had an optical bridge but I didn't feel it bettered anything so I took it off, but it is also true that I have Acoustic Reveive Lan Isolator (which does work !) so probably that is already doing a good job and made the optical bridge less (or not) worthwhile.

ok, interesting... and your lan cable with nds, what is it?

Currently using a good but stock cat6 STP, before I was using a Tera Grand cat7 i.e. not real "audiophile" lan cables

sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
sbilotta posted:
sbilotta posted:

I put an ifi on a Paul Pang switch and there was a clear (even if not dramatic) improvement.

Should be getting an LPS-1 soon and will swap it out and let you know the outcome.

Got the LPS-1 and after some running in I put it on the Paul Pang switch last night (being fed by the ifi) and the improvement was very clear.

so lps 1 is an improvement over ifi power on your switch?    do you have an optical bridge or ethernet isolator?  

Yes, LPS-1 is definitely better than the IFI.

I had an optical bridge but I didn't feel it bettered anything so I took it off, but it is also true that I have Acoustic Reveive Lan Isolator (which does work !) so probably that is already doing a good job and made the optical bridge less (or not) worthwhile.

ok, interesting... and your lan cable with nds, what is it?

Currently using a good but stock cat6 STP, before I was using a Tera Grand cat7 i.e. not real "audiophile" lan cables

ok, because some said than lan isolator like yours, with audioquest diamond lan cable( as mine) is too much and dynamic is affected.   You have not diamond, so it is ok.        For my switches i will certainly take in the future better ps than ifi power , perhaps an uptone js2 to power my unitserve ( and replace my tp ps) and also power in the same time my first switch.  So my 2 ifi power ps i just received will power my optical bridge... or just uptone lps1 on my first switch....  i don't know yet ...?

 

Just thought I'd give an update after my second LPS-1 arrived.

First thing I did was replace the IFI on my Paul pang Switch --> noticeable improvement as expected. I stayed like this for a week and then today I did a few interesting changes.

1. I re-inserted the FMC loop between my NAS and switch, powered both my second LPS-1 and used the IFI to power the switch --> improvement still

2. I then put the FMC loop after my switch and before the mR --> slight improvement

3. I then took off the Acoustic Revive RLI-1 from just before the mR --> no improvement. It seems that the  RLI-1 does a good of a job as the FMC loop but with it (or vice versa) is redundant

4. so I then put the RLI-1 before the switch and after the NAS (that leg of the network had isolation) --> again an improvement

 

sbilotta posted:

Just thought I'd give an update after my second LPS-1 arrived.

First thing I did was replace the IFI on my Paul pang Switch --> noticeable improvement as expected. I stayed like this for a week and then today I did a few interesting changes.

1. I re-inserted the FMC loop between my NAS and switch, powered both my second LPS-1 and used the IFI to power the switch --> improvement still

2. I then put the FMC loop after my switch and before the mR --> slight improvement

3. I then took off the Acoustic Revive RLI-1 from just before the mR --> no improvement. It seems that the  RLI-1 does a good of a job as the FMC loop but with it (or vice versa) is redundant

4. so I then put the RLI-1 before the switch and after the NAS (that leg of the network had isolation) --> again an improvement

 

4. before the switch and after the nas? i don't understand: if it is after the nas, it isolates what?

so you use fmc and acoustic revive isolator, fmc  isolates the micro rendu but acoustic revive?

thanks for clarifying me.

 

For myself, i received the uptone js2 which power now my unitserve and my tp link switch before nds. The first tp link is powered by ifi power and the first switch after router ( to unitserve) is powered by tp ps ( which was before on my unitserve): the improvement is dramatic!  i have now the soundstage and softness and separation of instruments improved and also the power/ prat and urgency of the cdx2/xps2. I think i have more than 20% improvement of the nds, more than the step between xps2 and 555 dr on my nds!  

Keler Pierre posted:

4. before the switch and after the nas? i don't understand: if it is after the nas, it isolates what?

so you use fmc and acoustic revive isolator, fmc  isolates the micro rendu but acoustic revive?

thanks for clarifying me.

 

Hi Pierre, I meant that between my NAS (without LPS) and the switch there was no galvanic isolation and hence all those nasty electric gremlins could get with the signal to my switch; by putting the acoustic revive before the switch I clean the signal before getting to the switch and this has an impact on sound quality.

Putting the same acoustic revive in the same leg of the network where the FMC was already isolating (and hence cleaning) the signal, there was no apparent sonic benefit. 

sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:

4. before the switch and after the nas? i don't understand: if it is after the nas, it isolates what?

so you use fmc and acoustic revive isolator, fmc  isolates the micro rendu but acoustic revive?

thanks for clarifying me.

 

Hi Pierre, I meant that between my NAS (without LPS) and the switch there was no galvanic isolation and hence all those nasty electric gremlins could get with the signal to my switch; by putting the acoustic revive before the switch I clean the signal before getting to the switch and this has an impact on sound quality.

Putting the same acoustic revive in the same leg of the network where the FMC was already isolating (and hence cleaning) the signal, there was no apparent sonic benefit. 

all seems to be well working for you now, as for me.  When i put the js2 on my unitserve, which had tp ps before, the sound improved by an important margin.  My unitserve is like a nas in my system.  So, may i suggest you to try in the future a different nas with big linear ps as uptone audio, or a melco?   I am not sure, but i feel that your nas ( with its own ps) may be a little limiting.  But perhaps not...   I say that because of my recent experience with js2 on unitserve.

 

 

sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:

4. before the switch and after the nas? i don't understand: if it is after the nas, it isolates what?

so you use fmc and acoustic revive isolator, fmc  isolates the micro rendu but acoustic revive?

thanks for clarifying me.

 

Hi Pierre, I meant that between my NAS (without LPS) and the switch there was no galvanic isolation and hence all those nasty electric gremlins could get with the signal to my switch; by putting the acoustic revive before the switch I clean the signal before getting to the switch and this has an impact on sound quality.

Putting the same acoustic revive in the same leg of the network where the FMC was already isolating (and hence cleaning) the signal, there was no apparent sonic benefit. 

do you think i have to try acoustic revive between the switch and unitserve?   the fmc is before my nds...   thanks

nigelb posted:

I put an iFi iPower (£45) on my Netgear switch, then replaced them with a managed Cisco switch with an integral linear power supply (£50 pre-loved) and have a cuddly toy linear power supply on my UnitiServe. All these changes produced some subtle improvement to these cloth ears. I would however recommend taking a placebo pill with each change to appreciate the full improvement in sound quality. 

CISCO makes switches with linear power supplies? Is that true of all their various models?

Kevin Richardson posted:
nigelb posted:

I put an iFi iPower (£45) on my Netgear switch, then replaced them with a managed Cisco switch with an integral linear power supply (£50 pre-loved) and have a cuddly toy linear power supply on my UnitiServe. All these changes produced some subtle improvement to these cloth ears. I would however recommend taking a placebo pill with each change to appreciate the full improvement in sound quality. 

CISCO makes switches with linear power supplies? Is that true of all their various models?

I very much doubt it's true or any of their switches!!

Keler Pierre posted:
sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:

4. before the switch and after the nas? i don't understand: if it is after the nas, it isolates what?

so you use fmc and acoustic revive isolator, fmc  isolates the micro rendu but acoustic revive?

thanks for clarifying me.

 

Hi Pierre, I meant that between my NAS (without LPS) and the switch there was no galvanic isolation and hence all those nasty electric gremlins could get with the signal to my switch; by putting the acoustic revive before the switch I clean the signal before getting to the switch and this has an impact on sound quality.

Putting the same acoustic revive in the same leg of the network where the FMC was already isolating (and hence cleaning) the signal, there was no apparent sonic benefit. 

do you think i have to try acoustic revive between the switch and unitserve?   the fmc is before my nds...   thanks

From my experience, a form of galvanic isolation in that leg of the network should improve things, be it Acoustic Revive or other.

 

Kevin Richardson posted:
nigelb posted:

I put an iFi iPower (£45) on my Netgear switch, then replaced them with a managed Cisco switch with an integral linear power supply (£50 pre-loved) and have a cuddly toy linear power supply on my UnitiServe. All these changes produced some subtle improvement to these cloth ears. I would however recommend taking a placebo pill with each change to appreciate the full improvement in sound quality. 

CISCO makes switches with linear power supplies? Is that true of all their various models?

Not aware of any - and would not really be very sensible if they did. All the Cisco equipment I know with power supplies use quality switched mode power supplies

sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
sbilotta posted:
Keler Pierre posted:

4. before the switch and after the nas? i don't understand: if it is after the nas, it isolates what?

so you use fmc and acoustic revive isolator, fmc  isolates the micro rendu but acoustic revive?

thanks for clarifying me.

 

Hi Pierre, I meant that between my NAS (without LPS) and the switch there was no galvanic isolation and hence all those nasty electric gremlins could get with the signal to my switch; by putting the acoustic revive before the switch I clean the signal before getting to the switch and this has an impact on sound quality.

Putting the same acoustic revive in the same leg of the network where the FMC was already isolating (and hence cleaning) the signal, there was no apparent sonic benefit. 

do you think i have to try acoustic revive between the switch and unitserve?   the fmc is before my nds...   thanks

From my experience, a form of galvanic isolation in that leg of the network should improve things, be it Acoustic Revive or other.

 

Remember all Ethernet links are galvanically isolated - otherwise they would be unreliable and most likely unworkable and non compliant.

Simon

 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:
Kevin Richardson posted:
nigelb posted:

I put an iFi iPower (£45) on my Netgear switch, then replaced them with a managed Cisco switch with an integral linear power supply (£50 pre-loved) and have a cuddly toy linear power supply on my UnitiServe. All these changes produced some subtle improvement to these cloth ears. I would however recommend taking a placebo pill with each change to appreciate the full improvement in sound quality. 

CISCO makes switches with linear power supplies? Is that true of all their various models?

Not aware of any - and would not really be very sensible if they did. All the Cisco equipment I know with power supplies use quality switched mode power supplies

Yes, I am not correct. The Cisco switch has a SMPS, not a linear one.

Sorry for the misinfo.

MangoMonkey posted:

It feels like we could simply work around these problems and issue by moving to the UnitiCore. Saves you the need to have two linear psus (1 one for NAS and 1 for US)...

for what i am hearing about the core, almost every day on different topics, i would not go for the core yet. ( too many problems with metadata). As for the linear ps in the core, i don't know how good it is.  Personally i don't have a nas...

But in absolute terms you are right, the core can make the economy of a linear ps. 

Personnaly, if i had not a recent serve with uptone js2, i would go rather for the innuos zenith, or wait until all is fixed in the core. 

Given that one can rip into uncompressed flac using dbpoweramp (and I don't believe naim rips are special), the uniticore seems good to me already. I don't really care about it's meta data editing facilities or lack thereof. I've never bothered changing the meta data even once when I had the UnitiServe...

MangoMonkey posted:

Given that one can rip into uncompressed flac using dbpoweramp (and I don't believe naim rips are special), the uniticore seems good to me already. I don't really care about it's meta data editing facilities or lack thereof. I've never bothered changing the meta data even once when I had the UnitiServe...

it is difficult to me to make a synthesis of all actual problems with the core, and metadata is not perhaps the good term, but my english is limited, sorry.

Some users are complaining about a lot of albums missing after the transfer from their nas, or albums split in different tracks and a lot of bugs... Phil Harris is receiving a lot of mails of members who have problems with the core.  A lot of users are saying it is a shame that naim had sold a not finished product and some want even to sell it...

I had the core at home one month ago: it was a catastrophe !  i had a lot of bugs and half albums missing,  the downloading with the app could never stop ( 15 hours for 200 albums...), and a lot of blank covers....

As for sound quality, vs my serve / tp ps, it was nearly indistinguishable.  With my new ps, the core is far behind...

MangoMonkey posted:

Did you compare upnp vs  coax when you had the UnitiCore?

no, because the nds is better as player. But the coax of the core must be better than the serve- the core has a linear ps inside, not the serve. I could have compared, by curiosity, coax with core and serve/tp ps but the upnp with nds/ serve is so much better than coax , so i found no interest personally to compare.

MangoMonkey posted:

Did you compare upnp vs  coax when you had the UnitiCore?

i must add that the big difference between coax and upnp is when network is upgraded with quality lans, isolation like optical bridge or isolators, and linear ps on switches. Without this, the coax can even sound better. It was my experience, but i am not alone. 

With upgrading network, it is night and day!   I was very sceptical at the beginning, but now i don't regret my near 2000 pounds investment on network. It is a real jump in sound quality.

 

Having dilly dallied for too long a I finally got round to buying Mrs NewNaim16 a pre-owned Cisco WS-C2960-8TC-L Ethernet switch and she's thrilled   As an ex IT person I couldn't help but be sceptical. However, the improvement in SQ is very real with some worthwhile improvements in musical nuances and in particular, even 'crisper' cymbals. 

@Simon-in-Suffolk: Thanks for drawing attention to this (for us) very worthwhile enhancement. A tad embarrassingly, it reminds me of when I didn't want to move from Wi-Fi to hard wired Ethernet cable but guess how that ended 

actually, I have a technical question on the topic - I used to only have a NAS and NAC 272 connected to my router, a Cisco WS-C2960-8TC-L. Now I also have a music server on the mix which hosts my music library.

In my living room, I only have one Ethernet socket.

To my question:

1- can I simply connect the music server to that same Cisco router?

or

2- should I have a 1st switch that connects both my music server and the second switch (Cisco)? that way only the NAC272 and NAS would remain connected to the Cisco WS-C2960-8TC-L

Not sure it matters but I thought I'd ask the resident experts...thanks!

milesT posted:

actually, I have a technical question on the topic - I used to only have a NAS and NAC 272 connected to my router, a Cisco WS-C2960-8TC-L. Now I also have a music server on the mix which hosts my music library.

In my living room, I only have one Ethernet socket.

To my question:

1- can I simply connect the music server to that same Cisco router?

or

2- should I have a 1st switch that connects both my music server and the second switch (Cisco)? that way only the NAC272 and NAS would remain connected to the Cisco WS-C2960-8TC-L

Not sure it matters but I thought I'd ask the resident experts...thanks!

The 2960 isn't a router, it's a switch. 

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×