network streaming tweaks

charlesphoto posted:
vtpcnk posted:

>with tp link mc110cs X2 and 2 optical fibers. eventually ifi power 5 v for each tp link.

2 optical fibers? i thought there was only one optical fiber cable between the two mc110cs?

regarding the 5v ps , can i know which one pls so i can have an idea. tks.

2X TPLINK MC110CS

1X SC (single mode) optical cable

iFi 5v iPower - I think they only make one model in 5v. Best to separate upstream and downstream FMC’s on different circuits for the ultimate in sound quality but with a simple UQ setup wouldn’t bother. You could even power both from the same iFi with a simple DC Y splitter though will probably sound better with two. Most important is the FMC nearest the UQ. 

Ok that’s it. Now just go do it. 

Ifi comes in 4 different voltages but as mentioned here and elsewhere 5v is best.

charlesphoto posted:
Obsydian posted:

Chrissu - sorry someone did, no matter.

Was too excited and came back to work from home at 11AM. Been going through many old but very familiar tracks i used as reference, and so much better, more dynamic, more detailed, sound stage is sublime - again a number of tracks are reinvented in the sense the layers peeled back and veil uncovered. I just started to crank up the volume though 

So glad it worked out for you. Next step is Roon which I think the new Uniti line is ready for. Upsampling via Roon to 128DSD to the DAC V1 and it’s fabulous. Even bypassing the ethernet altogether in the office and going toslink out from the Mac Pro where the Roon core resides and upsampling to 24/96 on my ancient UQ is revelatory. It is more $ for hardware (if you don't have already) and software but imo a much better investment than some four figure cable. 

Charles I am all Tidal and a few 10s of Gig on USB. I did try Roon as part of the freebie but never got the Tidal link to work and thought Leave it.

DSD128, I have a few 128 mainly classical but very good, i have mote DSD64 and they are very good.

I'm going to enjoy the upgrades should keep me happy for a while, until the new NDS, or does this prove you don't need to always be box sheep first ...

Huh that’s strange. Tidal/Roon work like a charm - maybe it was an older iteration? Best thing is to be able to add virtual copies of the Tidal albums to your existing library and have it all work seamlessly in one app. Maybe you can request another free trial (or do as I did and use a different email)? Seriously, before I was meh, not worth the $500. Now I’m like, seriously worth the $500! 

On the whole, I found Roon easy to set up, although I did have to read and re-read some of the instructions along the way. Once set up, I find that it works very well - my only gripe is that it messed up Tidal My Music section by adding hundreds of random albums to it, which is apparently a known issue. 

My impressions of Roon so far have been that it does what it does very well. And it does a lot of things. The trouble is, most of those things, either I can already do elsewhere, or I don't want to do. So for now, it's not something I will bother with, but I'm sure some will like it, and I don't want to upset any of you Roon evangelists by suggesting that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's.

vtpcnk posted:

"simon in suffolk" - in another thread you have said : "a  little Wifi access point glued onto the Broadband router in one point in the house just ain’t going to cut it reliably enough.. possibly it has been this low performance that has led some to think Wifi is not suitable for streaming.. "

can i know your views on optimal network configuration for a unitiqute in the bedroom? i already have a hardwired unitiqute in the living room and would like to know how i can optimally configure the network for another unitiqute in the bedroom.

appreciate the insights.

Can you run an ethernet cable from your switch to the bedroom?  That's all you need and is optimal.

ChrisSU posted:

My impressions of Roon so far have been that it does what it does very well. And it does a lot of things. The trouble is, most of those things, either I can already do elsewhere, or I don't want to do. So for now, it's not something I will bother with, but I'm sure some will like it, and I don't want to upset any of you Roon evangelists by suggesting that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's.

Thanks Chris -- I was wondering about this myself.  I have a feeling that I'd be in the same boat.

vtpcnk posted:

"simon in suffolk" - in another thread you have said : "a  little Wifi access point glued onto the Broadband router in one point in the house just ain’t going to cut it reliably enough.. possibly it has been this low performance that has led some to think Wifi is not suitable for streaming.. "

can i know your views on optimal network configuration for a unitiqute in the bedroom? i already have a hardwired unitiqute in the living room and would like to know how i can optimally configure the network for another unitiqute in the bedroom.

appreciate the insights.

Hi, are talking Wifi? If so you might want to consider Wifi access points like Ubiquiti hardwired back to a switch, or switchports on your router. You might want to consider one AP in the landing, and assuming wooden bedroom floors and joists, an AP downstairs in a room below the bedroom. That way you should have overlapping load balancing coverage setup as an ESSID... this should work well with streaming and other Wifi users, and give optimum Wifi coverage for streaming etc. These days you really don’t need to run Ethernet to all devices, it’s what we have Wifi for.. you just need to do Wifi properly....leave the Ethernet for connecting the access points and connecting servers, NASs etc. or where it is more convienient to run Ethernet to a client... and of course Wifi gives you true electrical isolation unlike fibre/Ethernet media converters...

Bart posted:
ChrisSU posted:

My impressions of Roon so far have been that it does what it does very well. And it does a lot of things. The trouble is, most of those things, either I can already do elsewhere, or I don't want to do. So for now, it's not something I will bother with, but I'm sure some will like it, and I don't want to upset any of you Roon evangelists by suggesting that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's.

Thanks Chris -- I was wondering about this myself.  I have a feeling that I'd be in the same boat.

No harming doing the free trial, though. I believe you can run it on some NAS drives, although I haven't figured out how you would get it to play to an ND streamer.

I'm OK over here thanks! I hope you will indulge me when I laugh at the extent some of you people are going to, to 'improve' your audio. 

Simple and stable is the order of the day for network, if you want to fiddle (and I accept men do) then point your eyes at the mains, thats always good for a larf as well.*

 

 

 

 

 

*If nothing else we are all entertained from the sidelines.

No I hear you. After I tried it the first time I thought - well I can do that. Until I couldn't. Been using Peng the last couple of years and the Naim app and the Sonos and all good but still getting bored of music, esp my own. I spend most of my day in the basement office so having a good shuffle function is key and Naim that is not. Used Jriver for awhile but tired of the Windows XP on Mac design. And since CA gave this latest update of Roon the product of the year award thought I had to try it again and maybe it's just the time writ's the product is that much better but blown away with the functionality of it. Still a few things I pointed out for the next version as they asked over on the Community Boards. They seem like people that listen and really know how to write software. Actually having the hardware to run it on is key as well - before I didn't have a new enough iPad as a a remote and didn't enjoy the experience with my older Macbook. The Macbook went kaput and got a used iPad 12.9 Pro so all good and will ad a NUC or SonicTransporter in the closet at a later date. 

We all have different needs and uses, but I have certainly seen the light of ROON. Hallelujah!

garyi posted:

I'm OK over here thanks! I hope you will indulge me when I laugh at the extent some of you people are going to, to 'improve' your audio. 

Simple and stable is the order of the day for network, if you want to fiddle (and I accept men do) then point your eyes at the mains, thats always good for a larf as well.*

 

 

 

 

 

*If nothing else we are all entertained from the sidelines.

Well somebody's gotta sit on the sidelines while others explore...

garyi posted:

I'm OK over here thanks! I hope you will indulge me when I laugh at the extent some of you people are going to, to 'improve' your audio. 

Simple and stable is the order of the day for network, if you want to fiddle (and I accept men do) then point your eyes at the mains, thats always good for a larf as well.*

 

 

 

 

 

*If nothing else we are all entertained from the sidelines.

i don’t think that adding 2 little fmc converters with an optical fiber cable between is something excessive or crazy. The network is just noisy and the commercial router is a crap.

For less than 100GBP you have more improvement than going from xps to 555 ps .....i had before an xps on my nds and now 555ps ( 6000GBP more expensive!). The improvement was clear, but this little network bridge is fantastic for the price..  Laugh if you want, we prefer to enjoy....

 

£100 would get you a dell optiplex or similar, with an i3 processor and nearly a years worth of Untangle routing. Giving the user a massively more powerful router than anything supplied by an ISP or indeed sold as 'routers'. The net result, a superbly stable network infrastructure backed up at the top end by a powerful processor (in this application) and plenty of ram and industry leading routing software inclusive of firewall, web filters and phish blockers.

For all the complicated talk, the outcome is a stable network, something Simon is advocating but most are ignoring in preference to overly complicated set ups for reasons, (I'll be honest), I cannot fathom, but the user decides 'sounds better'. It never ceases to amaze me how complicated things have to get for that better (but never perfect) sound.

One thing Untangle does not advocate of its software however is 'audio quality', perhaps they are missing a trick eh?

I'll admit I have tinkered, but one area I am not going to piss around with is networking, many many people have delivered way before me in situations far more complicated than one of us geeks, with too much money listening to Joni Mitchell far more than is healthy for them. YouTube is a wonderful resource, I suggest you watch some stuff on there from network guys (I like fibre ninja) who demonstrate the right way to do things. In *all* cases the simplest way to achieve something is best, but then networking never was about audio was it, why have simple when complicated and expensive will do?

But hey fill your boots, its only a bit of fun. As you rightly point out your are doing the experimenting.

garyi posted:

£100 would get you a dell optiplex or similar, with an i3 processor and nearly a years worth of Untangle routing. Giving the user a massively more powerful router than anything supplied by an ISP or indeed sold as 'routers'. The net result, a superbly stable network infrastructure backed up at the top end by a powerful processor (in this application) and plenty of ram and industry leading routing software inclusive of firewall, web filters and phish blockers.

For all the complicated talk, the outcome is a stable network, something Simon is advocating but most are ignoring in preference to overly complicated set ups for reasons, (I'll be honest), I cannot fathom, but the user decides 'sounds better'. It never ceases to amaze me how complicated things have to get for that better (but never perfect) sound.

One thing Untangle does not advocate of its software however is 'audio quality', perhaps they are missing a trick eh?

I'll admit I have tinkered, but one area I am not going to piss around with is networking, many many people have delivered way before me in situations far more complicated than one of us geeks, with too much money listening to Joni Mitchell far more than is healthy for them. YouTube is a wonderful resource, I suggest you watch some stuff on there from network guys (I like fibre ninja) who demonstrate the right way to do things. In *all* cases the simplest way to achieve something is best, but then networking never was about audio was it, why have simple when complicated and expensive will do?

But hey fill your boots, its only a bit of fun. As you rightly point out your are doing the experimenting.

the network isolation is employed by Melco audio , acoustic revive....i will hardly say that they don’t know their stuff.  The network guys are also experimenting a lot of things in computer audiophile site and audio stream. Take a look.   I discovered this network bridge in computer audiophile.

You can achieve perhaps the same results with other solutions, but i don’t know them.   I tried acoustic revive lan isolator but found that this network bridge gives a better sound.

I followed Simon advise for Cisco 2960 switch, which gave more stable network.  But it doesn’t isolate the network from noise.   This fmc solution is simple and effective, i trust my ears. We are a lot pleased by it, on devialet chat, computer audiophile, linn forum, naim forum, home cinema.fr, audio stream, .....but perhaps all our ears are wrong?

 

 

 

 

French Rooster posted:
garyi posted:

£100 would get you a dell optiplex or similar, with an i3 processor and nearly a years worth of Untangle routing. Giving the user a massively more powerful router than anything supplied by an ISP or indeed sold as 'routers'. The net result, a superbly stable network infrastructure backed up at the top end by a powerful processor (in this application) and plenty of ram and industry leading routing software inclusive of firewall, web filters and phish blockers.

For all the complicated talk, the outcome is a stable network, something Simon is advocating but most are ignoring in preference to overly complicated set ups for reasons, (I'll be honest), I cannot fathom, but the user decides 'sounds better'. It never ceases to amaze me how complicated things have to get for that better (but never perfect) sound.

One thing Untangle does not advocate of its software however is 'audio quality', perhaps they are missing a trick eh?

I'll admit I have tinkered, but one area I am not going to piss around with is networking, many many people have delivered way before me in situations far more complicated than one of us geeks, with too much money listening to Joni Mitchell far more than is healthy for them. YouTube is a wonderful resource, I suggest you watch some stuff on there from network guys (I like fibre ninja) who demonstrate the right way to do things. In *all* cases the simplest way to achieve something is best, but then networking never was about audio was it, why have simple when complicated and expensive will do?

But hey fill your boots, its only a bit of fun. As you rightly point out your are doing the experimenting.

the network isolation is employed by Melco audio , acoustic revive....i will hardly say that they don’t know their stuff.  The network guys are also experimenting a lot of things in computer audiophile site and audio stream. Take a look.   I discovered this network bridge in computer audiophile.

You can achieve perhaps the same results with other solutions, but i don’t know them.   I tried acoustic revive lan isolator but found that this network bridge gives a better sound.

I followed Simon advise for Cisco 2960 switch, which gave more stable network.  But it doesn’t isolate the network from noise.   This fmc solution is simple and effective, i trust my ears. We are a lot pleased by it, on devialet chat, computer audiophile, linn forum, naim forum, home cinema.fr, audio stream, .....but perhaps all our ears are wrong?

 

Hi I suspect a Catalyst switch will isolate your segment from clock noise better compared to a cheap fibre media converter, in fact I maintain that is the whole point of using the Catalyst switches... it’s why I recommended them... those converters however  I suspect will be adding noise of their own just like as cheap consumer switch. To decouple completely for what ever reason, perhaps safety or what ever and still maintain SQ performance then use Wifi. When and if Naim use SFPs on their devices, then you can go from a catalyst switch with SFPs to Naim device SFP, and that way you won’t be adding any potentially noisy off board fibre conversion links into the chain but still using fibre. Don’t forget, you may prefer the sound of added digital noise from your media converters, it will tended to soften the sound and on some audio equipment may sound prefereable...but I’d be inclined to look elsewhere. 

As far as network isolation, then that means something else, and effectively you can’t isolate entirely, but it is about reducing broadcast and unnecessary multicast traffic on your segment and subnet used for audio. Here having a separate subnet for audio can help if your main network is large and on a single subnet, also ensuring IGMP snooping is enabled and functioning correctly on your attached switch (with segment to streamer), certainly important if you have other multicast services other then SSDP and mDNS running on your home network

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:
French Rooster posted:
garyi posted:

£100 would get you a dell optiplex or similar, with an i3 processor and nearly a years worth of Untangle routing. Giving the user a massively more powerful router than anything supplied by an ISP or indeed sold as 'routers'. The net result, a superbly stable network infrastructure backed up at the top end by a powerful processor (in this application) and plenty of ram and industry leading routing software inclusive of firewall, web filters and phish blockers.

For all the complicated talk, the outcome is a stable network, something Simon is advocating but most are ignoring in preference to overly complicated set ups for reasons, (I'll be honest), I cannot fathom, but the user decides 'sounds better'. It never ceases to amaze me how complicated things have to get for that better (but never perfect) sound.

One thing Untangle does not advocate of its software however is 'audio quality', perhaps they are missing a trick eh?

I'll admit I have tinkered, but one area I am not going to piss around with is networking, many many people have delivered way before me in situations far more complicated than one of us geeks, with too much money listening to Joni Mitchell far more than is healthy for them. YouTube is a wonderful resource, I suggest you watch some stuff on there from network guys (I like fibre ninja) who demonstrate the right way to do things. In *all* cases the simplest way to achieve something is best, but then networking never was about audio was it, why have simple when complicated and expensive will do?

But hey fill your boots, its only a bit of fun. As you rightly point out your are doing the experimenting.

the network isolation is employed by Melco audio , acoustic revive....i will hardly say that they don’t know their stuff.  The network guys are also experimenting a lot of things in computer audiophile site and audio stream. Take a look.   I discovered this network bridge in computer audiophile.

You can achieve perhaps the same results with other solutions, but i don’t know them.   I tried acoustic revive lan isolator but found that this network bridge gives a better sound.

I followed Simon advise for Cisco 2960 switch, which gave more stable network.  But it doesn’t isolate the network from noise.   This fmc solution is simple and effective, i trust my ears. We are a lot pleased by it, on devialet chat, computer audiophile, linn forum, naim forum, home cinema.fr, audio stream, .....but perhaps all our ears are wrong?

 

Hi I suspect a Catalyst switch will isolate your segment from clock noise better compared to a cheap fibre media converter, in fact I maintain that is the whole point of using the Catalyst switches... it’s why I recommended them... those converters however  I suspect will be adding noise of their own just like as cheap consumer switch. To decouple completely for what ever reason, perhaps safety or what ever and still maintain SQ performance then use Wifi. When and if Naim use SFPs on their devices, then you can go from a catalyst switch with SFPs to Naim device SFP, and that way you won’t be adding any potentially noisy off board fibre conversion links into the chain but still using fibre. Don’t forget, you may prefer the sound of added digital noise from your media converters, it will tended to soften the sound and on some audio equipment may sound prefereable...but I’d be inclined to look elsewhere. 

As far as network isolation, then that means something else, and effectively you can’t isolate entirely, but it is about reducing broadcast and unnecessary multicast traffic on your segment and subnet used for audio. Here having a separate subnet for audio can help if your main network is large and on a single subnet, also ensuring IGMP snooping is enabled and functioning correctly on your attached switch (with segment to streamer), certainly important if you have other multicast services other then SSDP and mDNS running on your home network

i use already the cisco catalyst switch but adding the fmc gives to my ears better sound, without no hesitation....

Spent most the day listening to familiar new tracks and playlists - everything just sounds so much better. 

Again a few hours in I cranked up the volume as needed to do some cooking, even from the other room system sounds so dynamic and detailed. It is not tiring if anything relaxing. Prior I found cranking up the volume sounded good but in comparison harsh and tiring.

This upgrade to a switch, then fibre bridge and the IFI PS - has blown away current and past box upgrade experiences.

To me the recent upgrades are far more than going Atom to Nova, even moreso per £.

Obsydian posted:

Spent most the day listening to familiar new tracks and playlists - everything just sounds so much better. 

Again a few hours in I cranked up the volume as needed to do some cooking, even from the other room system sounds so dynamic and detailed. It is not tiring if anything relaxing. Prior I found cranking up the volume sounded good but in comparison harsh and tiring.

This upgrade to a switch, then fibre bridge and the IFI PS - has blown away current and past box upgrade experiences.

To me the recent upgrades are far more than going Atom to Nova, even moreso per £.

i had the same experience, it gave more improvement to the sound than going from xps2 to 555dr on my nds!   But there are some who stay skeptical and hide behind theory....

I had the most bizarre audition ever.

In a nutshell, HDX playing through cisco switch and NAS (with Chord Indigo ethernet cable) sounded better than the HDX internal drive, everything thing else being the same.

I don't understand this, but it's there.

These Chord Tuned Aray cables do something with the earth/ground lines on these cables, so maybe that is it.

There's no logical explanation for this strange discrepancy, which anyone could easily hear.

Obsydian posted:

Spent most the day listening to familiar new tracks and playlists - everything just sounds so much better. 

Again a few hours in I cranked up the volume as needed to do some cooking, even from the other room system sounds so dynamic and detailed. It is not tiring if anything relaxing. Prior I found cranking up the volume sounded good but in comparison harsh and tiring.

This upgrade to a switch, then fibre bridge and the IFI PS - has blown away current and past box upgrade experiences.

To me the recent upgrades are far more than going Atom to Nova, even moreso per £.

Well, so glad you could introduce “more noise” to your system so it sounds better.  

analogmusic posted:

I had the most bizarre audition ever.

In a nutshell, HDX playing through cisco switch and NAS (with Chord Indigo ethernet cable) sounded better than the HDX internal drive, everything thing else being the same.

I don't understand this, but it's there.

These Chord Tuned Aray cables do something with the earth/ground lines on these cables, so maybe that is it.

There's no logical explanation for this strange discrepancy, which anyone could easily hear.

There are at least two logical explanations.

 One. You where listening to two different recordings, perhaps one std. def. the other high-res. (I suspect I’ve witnessed such a thing at a hifi show).

 

Two. The cable, switch/nas are changing/improving the sound in that system.

analogmusic posted:

I had the most bizarre audition ever.

In a nutshell, HDX playing through cisco switch and NAS (with Chord Indigo ethernet cable) sounded better than the HDX internal drive, everything thing else being the same.

I don't understand this, but it's there.

These Chord Tuned Aray cables do something with the earth/ground lines on these cables, so maybe that is it.

There's no logical explanation for this strange discrepancy, which anyone could easily hear.

I assume you moved the Music Store of the HDX to the NAS or used its backup as share. If the HDX hard disk is not in use then perhaps it goes to sleep so that the demand on the internal power is lower. It could be a lot less noisy inside the HDX. 

Have the Chord Indigo cables always been connecting the NAS to the switch? Do you use the same to connect the HDX to the switch? Not quite sure whether you made the cable change and playing from the NAS instead of HDX at the same time?

Does the HDX play through a DAC?

It is worth trying to understand what each change did.

Phil

 

garyi posted:

3. It is you intention to hear an improvement, so you hear an improvement.

4. Your mood was changed

5. The temperature was different 

6. You had some wine.

7. etc etc

when the soundstage is much wider, when i hear more details, when voices are more real, when bass is more extended, it is what psychiatrists call “ auditory hallucinations “.  Thanks Gary, i know now that i must call a doctor.

analogmusic posted:

I had the most bizarre audition ever.

In a nutshell, HDX playing through cisco switch and NAS (with Chord Indigo ethernet cable) sounded better than the HDX internal drive, everything thing else being the same.

I don't understand this, but it's there.

These Chord Tuned Aray cables do something with the earth/ground lines on these cables, so maybe that is it.

There's no logical explanation for this strange discrepancy, which anyone could easily hear.

I have heard a big difference with the Chord Tuned aray Ethernet Cables. So I believe you analogmusic. Did experiment with several friends and my wife and they all noticed the Chord Tuned aray Ethernet Cables Sound better !   I now own Chord Ethernet Cables. Crazy thing it sounds better. But it does ! 

French Rooster posted:
Mike-B posted:
French Rooster posted:

 

your schematic doesn’t show clearly that the nas and streamer should not be connected to the router directly but to the dedicated switch.  Or i am silly and can’t read a schematic....

Yes you are right,  you can't read a schematic

Does this help??

this schematic is better for my understanding and shows clearly that nas and streamer are not connected directly to the router.  But perhaps you are right, i didn’t know how to read correctly your first schematic.  I am not a scientific....

Between starting to read this thread and coming back to it, four pages got added, but I am interested in this schematic:  My NAS and network player are remote, i.e. the player is not in the same room.  The network player is co-located with the SkyHD+ box and a (potentially) networked blu-ray player.  There is currently a 25m network cable snaking round doors and skirting between them (I took the advice to remove the mains network plugs that was afffecting internet Radio streaming).  So am I right in thinking I could (should for quality reasons) have two switches in my network, one local to the hub to connect the NAS and “player branch” which goes to the other room.  Then, as at present, a remote switch on the other end of the player branch, next to the 3 players?  Right now I believe my hub is acting as the local switch.

The current remote switch is also unmanaged, but would that benefit from being a managed switch to prioritise the music stream, and would both switches need to be managed in that case?  Alternatively if the local switch is managed could the remote one be unmanaged, since the music stream would be prioritised to the remote devices?

 

 

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×