Isolating a network for music only

can you explain why?

Guiri, to expand on Gary's post, why do you feel you need separate networks?

Cheers

Simon

The idea is to ensure quality as much as possible. I figured that if I share with the traffic from macs, internet etc, it will increase the risk of drop outs and reduce quality.

I imagined the US communicating directly with the UQ via the Time capsule and internet and any other household wireless traffic all going through the Airport Express.

I seem to recall reading in here that a dedicated network was the way to go - am I on the wrong track entirely?

a good quality unmanaged switch is all u need to keep away from other traffic,  that has been said many times.   secure ..keep away from wireless/opto

Guiri, you are not necessarily on the wrong track.. But in the home LAN environment there are bery few instances I can think off where this would benefit.

• Now if you using wireless to connect your UQ and this is on the same subnet (ie same subnet mask) as the rest of your quite busy wired LAN.
• You are fully wired or wifi but your network (that is everything with the same submet mask) has a lot of broadcast frames leading to higher than ideal TCP/IP processing on the UQ and clogging wifi bandwidth.
• You have several high density multicast groups (video broadcasting etc) and you are only using consumer / un managed switches without IGMP snooping. Again increasing UQ processing and clogging wifi / wired bandwidth.

Thanks for the replies guys.

Wired is not an option unfortunately, unless I move the US & NAS close to the UQ. I dont know about the subnet (same or not) but its something I can check on.....

At the end of the day, it seems to be working fine, including with hi-res so perhaps I should just leave it alone. I just thought I could do something more to ensure it stays that way (i.e. working fine).

One final question if I may. Assuming wireless is working and there are no drop outs, would you expect an improvement in sound quality if moving to wired? I understand the use of wired to reduce the likelihood of problems with wireless but if wireless functions as intended (which mine seems to), should there still be audible benefits if wired?

Cheers..... 

Guiri, given what you say from a networking point of view there would be no advantage. However the UQ might sound different between wireless and wired Ethernet simply because different components are being used and will load /effect the UQ differently.

Simon

HI Guiri

you would need to investigate setting up a 'vlan' (or virtual LAN) then tweeking the settings to give the devices on the audio side a high quality of service or (QOS) - this is like setting priorities.  Its not straight forward and depends on your hardware.  You'll also have to give consideration to what traffic you would like both vlans to see assuming that you have one broadband connection as they can behave like totally separate networks.

You have to remember that data doesn't behave like an analogue signal carrying the music along -  the quality of the delivery shouldn't affect audio quality (tin hat on) - if you have any drop out issues then it would be time to look at 'buffer sizes' first - this is where the audio data is stacked up waiting to go to the DAC.  If you do experience drop out its also worth checking what else is on the line too as any electrical noise can mean slower delivery times.  All sorts of things including can affect wired ethernet, fluorescent lights are a killer, as are damaged cables, or very tight angles on cable runs, also avoid CCA cable - thats copper coated aluminium - not copper.  Oh well bit of a ramble but it used to be my job - there's a few things in there to google though.  

Mick

mNait as an aside there would be more relevance of observing DSCP markings at layer 2 as opposed to VLAN QoS which really is unlikely to be that useful in a limited LAN environment with say a single router. However DSCP at layer 2 is very useful for queued UDP... But in our domestic uPNP settings UDP is only used for multicast discovery as far as I have measured, and all the RTP media is sent with good old TCP where  queuing and inter packet jitter is typically irrelevant.

In my expierience the the only advantage of separating subnets in a mixed data environment is to split broadcast domains to reduce network adapter and processing overhead.. But again in the domestic environment I'd be surprised if it has much bearing unlike in the commercial/industrial environments I deal in.

Simon

Thanks for all the feedback guys. It seems I was looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and if it did, there are simpler solutions to try first.

Fingers crossed it remains as is. No dropouts so far, including with hi-res (maybe the WA5 is the key) and perfect 320 internet radio (I guess the fast fibre optic helps here).

What a simple, great sounding, fun system......

Jason, I was talking with folks at my local hi fi shop -- the guys who do the installations and network setup (now a days mostly for very high end video + audio networks in rich folks' homes).  They say that wi fi is "hit or miss;"  for some installs they cannot get it to be reliable at all (due usually to too many people living too close together and thus too much congestion), for a few it is always reliable for video and hi res audio, and for others it sometimes works and sometimes does not (probably again depending on what the neighbors are doing, and/or what else is interfering with the wi fi signal intermittently). 

Bart, exactly. The other variable is the number of devices sharing the same SSID and subnet.

Simon

Hi Jason,

The UQ is in another room but on the same floor, probably also about 10m as the crow flies. 

I too was concerned by the reports on the forum; with that in mind I bought the UQ directly with the WA5 antenna - might be worth a try?

Other than that, it is set up as illustrated above. I guess it may just be that I am lucky where I live (a small village rather than a large town or city). I really have no idea, it just works....

Good luck......

Thanks Bart. Generally, it seems to be environmental variables then.

Now I am curious as to the 'higher spec, WiFi antenna on Guiri's UQ (Wan 5). Think I will just check out the spec sheet for this. I guess as above, it may help a little but also may not...one can only try. I will see if the Wan 5 can be added to the Nd5.

Jason

If your wifi is handling things then stay with it!  I wouldn't worry about subnetting either as even modest routers can deal with overhead.  Jason - I'd you are getting dropouts check that your wifi is not on 'automatic'. Some routers will hunt about for the clearest channel and change for you.  You wouldn't notice anything surfing the web but it would affect audio.  Also as you are using cat 6 the radius of any turns is important To get gb throughput.

its worth reading up about how Ethernet works - it's a wonderful system of 'packages' and addresses and it even checks that the data in each package arrives intact.

Hi Simon, 

you are of course right - operating at Layer 2 is far more effective - I was looking at this through the lens of throttling back student networks (iPlayer and spottily in halls of residence!), mixing the demands of video conferencing etc and providing isolation and security for internal networks.  Your solution would make more sense to increase throughput with a lower overhead - but like you say - best for a big commercial network!

Sounds like this chap is alright anyhow and enjoying the music!

btw I'm originally a sufflok lad...

best

Mick

I'm originally from Ipswich, would pushbike out to Woodbridge on a weekend, done a bit of sailing on the Deben...