Posh switch - another cause of Audiophilia nervosa?

Adrian_P posted:
ChrisSU posted:

 Having said that, do you actually need GB speeds?

Yes.

I very much doubt there are many domestic users who need GB speeds, and if you're one of them you must be using a lot of data hungry devices. In which case maybe there's all the more reason to consider isolating your audio gear with a separate switch.

I must admit i don't get this 'isolating' my separate switch concept. Switch by definition is data isolated on all ports - unless broadcast traffic is being sent - and that will go to all active switch pots in the home network subnet.

So by all means create an audio specific subnet if you wish - but I guess that will be beyond most home users expertise and home user equipment - but even then you can still provide a common switch as long as it support VLANs

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I must admit i don't get this 'isolating' my separate switch concept. Switch by definition is data isolated on all ports - unless broadcast traffic is being sent - and that will go to all active switch pots in the home network subnet.

So by all means create an audio specific subnet if you wish - but I guess that will be beyond most home users expertise and home user equipment - but even then you can still provide a common switch as long as it support VLANs

I was thinking of any interference that might be picked up from other devices as much as data itself. Would you happily connect PCs, TVs etc to the same switch as a streamer and/or NAS? If so, doesn't that make a mockery of the idea that fibre optic links have a use in isolating streamers from other noisy devices on your network?

Hungryhalibut posted:

I was told that a separate switch was best practice so that's what I did. I think it was that Mike B fellow. 

Wot ?? it wern't me, it wuz 'im sir, 'e did it.  

I have separate switches for audio & study 'cause its tidier,  its just more practical in my house.    But even so I would probably try to do it this way as to me it just seems the right thing to do.      

I will double check with my Linn mate on SQ,  he has a small business with 3 or 4 people in the office that runs off a multiple port HP & he used to have the audio running off that.  It was an easy set up for that as his listening/living room & office have a shared dividing wall but a while back he split it off & now has a separate Linn>Netgear>QNAP branch  

Mike-B posted:

I will double check with my Linn mate on SQ,  he has a small business with 3 or 4 people in the office that runs off a multiple port HP & he used to have the audio running off that.  It was an easy set up for that as his listening/living room & office have a shared dividing wall but a while back he split it off & now has a separate Linn>Netgear>QNAP branch  

He changed because of office re-org plus his business NAS that also stored music was making noises & that needed replacing. So with only one cable from the office wireless router into the new audio switch,  plus a new audio only QNAP & now with only a few metres between QNAD & Linn it encouraged him to go with AQ ethernet cables.

Did the dedicated audio switch sound better ??  yes,  but impossible to say it was the switch as the AQ ethernets were fitted at the same time.      Why Netgear switch?  'cause its a Linn &  Lejonklou forum recommendation.   

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I must admit i don't get this 'isolating' my separate switch concept.

I don't get it either, Simon, and I think it's become something of an urban myth.

Isolating audio traffic on my network simply isn't possible due to the plethora of connected devices, all of which at some point must share the same Cat5E backbone. So, even with a "dedicated" switch, the audio traffic is not truly isolated.

It's much easier to do this if the only thing you have at the end of the spur from your main router/switch is your streamer, but for me that is not the case. Perhaps that is how the majority here have their networks set up, which makes this notion of isolation more tangible.

From a configuration perspective, using subnets for audio is complete overkill and even setting up a VLAN for audio isn't really worth the effort in a domestic environment.

The idea that I should daisychain a second 8-port switch to the existing gig Ethernet switch just to "isolate" the NDS doesn't make sense to me, and I don't want the unnecessary clutter and the need to accommodate yet another power socket.

Perhaps I'll just play an LP on the RP8...

There does seem to be much muddled thinking herabouts on how switches work. And I still ask the question -- which hardware build and which firmware are you running on these switches? If a micro change to firmware can make a huge difference to a Naim product, then surely at the very least knowing that you are comparing things on equal grounds is important here. Otherwise its just noise generation.

In my case 2960 HW2013, 12.2(55) & really would like hear that it should be older... HP 2015, Sw ? But it just sounds better with linear power supply. Come on... This starts to be on really wrong track, take it into consideration  that the cabling affects, really as well. To be be honest, Naim should be more rodust in this case. Still saying that this cisco case sucks.

ChrisSU posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I must admit i don't get this 'isolating' my separate switch concept. Switch by definition is data isolated on all ports - unless broadcast traffic is being sent - and that will go to all active switch pots in the home network subnet.

So by all means create an audio specific subnet if you wish - but I guess that will be beyond most home users expertise and home user equipment - but even then you can still provide a common switch as long as it support VLANs

I was thinking of any interference that might be picked up from other devices as much as data itself. Would you happily connect PCs, TVs etc to the same switch as a streamer and/or NAS? If so, doesn't that make a mockery of the idea that fibre optic links have a use in isolating streamers from other noisy devices on your network?

i think using fibre optic for EM isolation where you are not using native fibre SFP on a host is a bit silly - because you will need to use a converter - and unless that is tightly controlled could cause more harm than good.

If one was worried about common mode EM noise from an ethernet lead then one would put a ferrite clamp around the ethernet lead  ... that should mitigate most of it - and if not you would add another ferrite clamp until it does..

jon honeyball posted:

There does seem to be much muddled thinking herabouts on how switches work. And I still ask the question -- which hardware build and which firmware are you running on these switches? If a micro change to firmware can make a huge difference to a Naim product, then surely at the very least knowing that you are comparing things on equal grounds is important here. Otherwise its just noise generation.

Jon - other than I did provide the hardware details of motherboard builds etc and firmware details of my switch - but true i have not seen anybody else's details - although Gandalf has provided his firmware version but no idea of hardware build - and I think the magic sauce could be  in the hardware builds (and additionally the switch config - but I am steering clear of that on this particular forum) - but then unless you know what you are doing its not really possible to extract the info.. yes there is some muddled thinking on how switches work - and in the early days of me being on this forum I would have tried to correct - but I don't bother now as I guess most are not really that interested...

Adrian_P posted:

Yes, I appreciate that, but I already said I don't want to introduce a separate kit just to serve the hifi. This wouldn't work for me anyway as my router is in my study and connected to the sitting room downstairs via a single run of Cat5E running outside the house and I currently have switches at each end of that cable. There is other kit upstairs and downstairs apart from the NDS that can use gig Ethernet. Not ideal having the shared traffic running over the same cable, perhaps, but that rarely happens in parallel.

The way it worked out in my home I have only one long run of Cat 5; one end at my switch and the other end at my NDS.  Everything else is on a rack - router, switch, Qute 2, both nas boxes, Time Capsule, Apple TV, Samsung TV . . . 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:
jon honeyball posted:

There does seem to be much muddled thinking herabouts on how switches work. And I still ask the question -- which hardware build and which firmware are you running on these switches? If a micro change to firmware can make a huge difference to a Naim product, then surely at the very least knowing that you are comparing things on equal grounds is important here. Otherwise its just noise generation.

Jon - other than I did provide the hardware details of motherboard builds etc and firmware details of my switch - but true i have not seen anybody else's details - although Gandalf has provided his firmware version but no idea of hardware build - and I think the magic sauce could be  in the hardware builds (and additionally the switch config - but I am steering clear of that on this particular forum) - but then unless you know what you are doing its not really possible to extract the info.. yes there is some muddled thinking on how switches work - and in the early days of me being on this forum I would have tried to correct - but I don't bother now as I guess most are not really that interested...

I will provode during weekend hw build as well but like I already said manufactured 2013, hope you will test properly against referense like you have done with ndac vs. nds vs. hugo before.

There is no muddled thing in switch or protocol but just technology & usage...

 

i think using fibre optic for EM isolation where you are not using native fibre SFP on a host is a bit silly - because you will need to use a converter - and unless that is tightly controlled could cause more harm than good.

If one was worried about common mode EM noise from an ethernet lead then one would put a ferrite clamp around the ethernet lead  ... that should mitigate most of it - and if not you would add another ferrite clamp until it does..

I would strongly say you are wrong on this (and you are so right on most things). Don't knock it until you try it. I would say I've had the biggest sq leap vs any other tweaks. Works on both the main rig with the FMC's powered by an lps (the upstream one) and an ifi (downstream on a different circuit), and on the office UQ with both FMC's powers by ifi's but plugged into the same power strip as the UQ on a really populated office circuit. So I wouldn't worry too much about adverse affects with these. Try it - if you can afford a Naim streamer set up then sub $100 for a pair of FMC's and a 1m length of fiber cable isn't going to break you. 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Cheers Gandalf - just copy and paste the Show version output

S

Tried, easier said than done  issues connecting via browser to switch = user name does not work (needs resetting), CLI: no proper adapter & no serial port in my new PC  or laptop, any easier way to do this?

HW says: Manufactured 20130217, IOS ver: 12.2(55)SE5, Product & Version ID WS-C2960-8TC-S V03, SN: FOC1707V0NN -> enough?

Back to continuing comparisons, there is a clear difference, more later on...

Hi Gandalf - I guess to be more definitive as per Jon's post  there are the hardware and power supply details from show version command:

 

cisco WS-C2960-8TC-L (PowerPC405) processor (revision C0) with 61440K/4088K bytes of memory.
Processor board ID FOC1348V073
Last reset from power-on
2 Virtual Ethernet interfaces
8 FastEthernet interfaces
1 Gigabit Ethernet interface
The password-recovery mechanism is enabled.

64K bytes of flash-simulated non-volatile configuration memory.
Base ethernet MAC Address : 9C:AF:CA:40:XX:XX
Motherboard assembly number : 73-10611-07
Power supply part number : 341-0208-01
Motherboard serial number : FOC134803XX
Power supply serial number : LIT134012XX
Model revision number : C0
Motherboard revision number : D0
Model number : WS-C2960-8TC-L
System serial number : FOC1348V0XX
Top Assembly Part Number : 800-28132-02
Top Assembly Revision Number : A0
Version ID : V02
CLEI Code Number : COM8A00ARB
Hardware Board Revision Number : 0x01


Switch Ports Model SW Version SW Image
------ ----- ----- ---------- ----------
* 1 9 WS-C2960-8TC-L 12.2(44)SE6 C2960-LANBASEK9-M

 

 

 

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×