dedicated hifi switch

In simple english there is no such thing as a hifi switch.

People will sell them and people will buy them. But they don't exist.

Hi. I think Darke Bear on the other thread meant a switch solely dedicated to the HiFi apparatus, not a switch with improved sound quality from a hifi manufacturer. Some people say that such a dedicated switch sounds better if it is provided with a linear power supply rather than a SMPS (switched mode power supply). I haven't tried that yet.

French Rooster posted:

I discovered today that there is a possibility to stream files or rips without using the solution of dedicated switch connected to a commercial router. Some use a dedicated hifi switch to avoid the commercial router.

How many use a dedicated hifi switch?   is it always better, for sound quality, vs a switch connected to a commercial router?

I use cisco 2960 with is connected to a commercial router ( for tv/ phone/ ethernet). But before my nds i use an optical bridge with high quality linear ps. My lan cables are audioquest vodka.  My tv box is switched off when i listen to music.  Nothing more is connected to this router. I use also the acoustic revive lan isolator between the router and cisco switch.   For me the sound is very good, but perhaps this dedicated hifi switch would give an improvement again?

I would like to have your experience.  In simple english if possible....  thanks 

From reading the thread I think you're referring to I believe you are using a "dedicated hifi switch" with your 2960.  If you have your NAS + streaming device on the switch plus one connection back to your router then it is a hifi switch.

There's no such thing as a piece of hardware which is a "hifi switch" - they are all ethernet switches which may be used by hifi equipment.

well, AQ-SWITCH-AQVOX-Audiophile-Network-SWITCH-8-Ports reckons to be a network switch which improves various aspects of the sound.  But as said above, there is no such thing, really.  

Why does HiFi attract so much snake oil?

Rooster,  as others have said, there is no such thing as a hifi switch.    OK maybe you have in mind a switch that is used on a dedicated audio network.   Or are you being confused with the thread about disconnecting the internet (phone line) from the router,  this I believe removed a level of noise for some users   .....   but not for me:   I have a bog standard Cisco SG110 switch ethernet wired between NAS & NDX (only)  & to a bog standard ISP wireless hub (modem/router).   I disconnected the internet (phone line) & it made no difference to SQ - it buggered up some of the Naim services & the app functions.    If thats what you are considering,  I suggest you just pull your internet (phone line) & try it.  YMMV

garyi posted:

In simple english there is no such thing as a hifi switch.

People will sell them and people will buy them. But they don't exist.

i discovered that on the topic » nds suppressed by the cds2/555dr »,  when finally the op uses his nds without lan connection between the router and the switch....

garyi posted:

In simple english there is no such thing as a hifi switch.

People will sell them and people will buy them. But they don't exist.

i wrote wrongly : i mean wifi router, the good term i think.  There is no lan connection between the commercial router and the wifi router. The dedicated switch is connected to the wifi router by lan but the commercial router is not connected to the wifi router by lan.   I think it is like that.

You should only have one router. 

Mike-B posted:

Rooster,  as others have said, there is no such thing as a hifi switch.    OK maybe you have in mind a switch that is used on a dedicated audio network.   Or are you being confused with the thread about disconnecting the internet (phone line) from the router,  this I believe removed a level of noise for some users   .....   but not for me:   I have a bog standard Cisco SG110 switch ethernet wired between NAS & NDX (only)  & to a bog standard ISP wireless hub (modem/router).   I disconnected the internet (phone line) & it made no difference to SQ - it buggered up some of the Naim services & the app functions.    If thats what you are considering,  I suggest you just pull your internet (phone line) & try it.  YMMV

i was tired when i wrote that. Sorry.  I was talking about wifi router.  With this solution the commercial router ( with tv / phone) is not connected by lan cable to the wifi router, just lan cable to the wifi router from nds/ ndx and nas.   It is the solution the op uses at the end of the topic « nds suppressed by cds2/ 555dr ». For him this solution gave the best sound quality for his nds.  But with this wifi router, you can’t use tidal or radio, just stream files....

Mike-B posted:

Rooster,  as others have said, there is no such thing as a hifi switch.    OK maybe you have in mind a switch that is used on a dedicated audio network.   Or are you being confused with the thread about disconnecting the internet (phone line) from the router,  this I believe removed a level of noise for some users   .....   but not for me:   I have a bog standard Cisco SG110 switch ethernet wired between NAS & NDX (only)  & to a bog standard ISP wireless hub (modem/router).   I disconnected the internet (phone line) & it made no difference to SQ - it buggered up some of the Naim services & the app functions.    If thats what you are considering,  I suggest you just pull your internet (phone line) & try it.  YMMV

I too use the Cisco SG100 from Router into NAS & NDX as Mike B - works really well

can Richard change the title : no dedicated hifi switch but «  wifi router « ..... i was talking about wifi router as tp link 2600, google wifi.....to avoid lan connection between the streamer and the commercial router( with tv/ phone)

French Rooster posted:

I discovered today that there is a possibility to stream files or rips without using the solution of dedicated switch connected to a commercial router. Some use a dedicated hifi switch to avoid the commercial router.

How many use a dedicated hifi switch?   is it always better, for sound quality, vs a switch connected to a commercial router?

I use cisco 2960 with is connected to a commercial router ( for tv/ phone/ ethernet). But before my nds i use an optical bridge with high quality linear ps. My lan cables are audioquest vodka.  My tv box is switched off when i listen to music.  Nothing more is connected to this router. I use also the acoustic revive lan isolator between the router and cisco switch.   For me the sound is very good, but perhaps this dedicated hifi switch would give an improvement again?

I would like to have your experience.  In simple english if possible....  thanks 

Hi there, you don't need a dedicated switch for Hifi - infact - that is the whole point of a network switch it allows connected items to be shared and no impact with throughput - unlike the older network hubs.

Ensure your switch is a quality one with industrial/commercial grade emission compliance - and the Cisco 2960 will do. Also ensure the Switch is earthed via the mains, and again most Cisco 2960 switches are earthed this way.

I wouldn't use optical converters - as they are inherently a source for network physical layer clock jitter which could contaminate connected equipment with low level intermodulation electrical noise. If you are going to use fibre I recommend best using GBIC transceiver modules which you can plug into  many  commercial switches. (and some routers) - and really the advantage here is routing ethernet via a very electrically noisy environment or via distances greater than 100metres.

As far as routers - you should normally only have one router for home networks, multiple routers will be involved and require bespoke configuration - i.e. you will need to use managed routers... 

With respect to the wifi access points - well in my opinion many bundled access points on small home/office routers are quite limited - and I would recommend - especially if you have many users on the wifi and the wifi is extensive across the house - to use multiple wifi access points that are cooperating to provide an ESSID. This will allow handoffs and some load balancing. The Ubiquiti Unifi products are a good example. If you used this you would set up the access points so they overlap around the densest usage errors - such as your living room. You would connect the access points each to your switch.

Simon

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

French Rooster posted:

I discovered today that there is a possibility to stream files or rips without using the solution of dedicated switch connected to a commercial router. Some use a dedicated hifi switch to avoid the commercial router.

How many use a dedicated hifi switch?   is it always better, for sound quality, vs a switch connected to a commercial router?

I use cisco 2960 with is connected to a commercial router ( for tv/ phone/ ethernet). But before my nds i use an optical bridge with high quality linear ps. My lan cables are audioquest vodka.  My tv box is switched off when i listen to music.  Nothing more is connected to this router. I use also the acoustic revive lan isolator between the router and cisco switch.   For me the sound is very good, but perhaps this dedicated hifi switch would give an improvement again?

I would like to have your experience.  In simple english if possible....  thanks 

Hi there, you don't need a dedicated switch for Hifi - infact - that is the whole point of a network switch it allows connected items to be shared and no impact with throughput - unlike the older network hubs.

Ensure your switch is a quality one with industrial/commercial grade emission compliance - and the Cisco 2960 will do. Also ensure the Switch is earthed via the mains, and again most Cisco 2960 switches are earthed this way.

I wouldn't use optical converters - as they are inherently a source for network physical layer clock jitter which could contaminate connected equipment with low level intermodulation electrical noise. If you are going to use fibre I recommend best using GBIC transceiver modules which you can plug into  many  commercial switches. (and some routers) - and really the advantage here is routing ethernet via a very electrically noisy environment or via distances greater than 100metres.

As far as routers - you should normally only have one router for home networks, multiple routers will be involved and require bespoke configuration - i.e. you will need to use managed routers... 

With respect to the wifi access points - well in my opinion many bundled access points on small home/office routers are quite limited - and I would recommend - especially if you have many users on the wifi and the wifi is extensive across the house - to use multiple wifi access points that are cooperating to provide an ESSID. This will allow handoffs and some load balancing. The Ubiquiti Unifi products are a good example. If you used this you would set up the access points so they overlap around the densest usage errors - such as your living room. You would connect the access points each to your switch.

Simon

 

 

thanks simon. I wrote hifi switch but i wanted to write » wifi switch « .  I was following the very interesting thread on «  nds suppressed by cds2 « :  the op was finding his nds a little boring vs his cds2/555fr.  He tried a lot of different solutions and at the end he disconnected internet connection from the commercial router and connected the nds and nas to a wifi router.

Doing that, the nds sounded to him a lot better.  Can you read this topic «  nds suppressed by cds2 », p6, and tell me what do you think of this special connection.  Other members are also satisfied by this solution.  Perhaps the ubiquiti unifi products you are talking of are the same solution i am referring ?

In the topic i mentioned, the op says that it is possible to stream files without using internet, to avoid the connection to the commercial router. But in this case it is not possible to use tidal or radio.   

Hi, I read that topic and it twists and turns, and for the most part is not that conclusive about much.

Going back to your point, there is no advantage in almost all domestic circumstances of isolating the internet from your audio network.. it simply doesn’t feature.

Now on a home network with other users and applications, you may find if the network is busy with certain types of activity that your streamer has to process more in terms of looking at data and then discarding... this might the SQ in certain implementations.. especially if the DAC is combined with the network streamer.

I have specifically found the SQ varies on the media server hardware/OS used... such as a NAS or RPi, dedicated server etc... and the more consistent the interframe timing is the better the SQ, and of course the more interruptions to this from other local apps firing out to your streamer for your streamer to then have to discard the more interrupted the frames will be on receipt.

The streamers we use use something called TCP rather than UDP for media transfer, which means the timing of the data is not critical for the data integrity at the expense of latency... however TCP network activity does seem to affect resultant SQ especially when DAC and streamers are combined... almost certainly this is caused by very low level intermodulation between the network circuitry and the digital audio circuitry.... akin to the differences between FLAC and WAV decoding.

So for a certain type busy domestic network, there may be advantages in having a separate subnet for audio away from other domestic activity... but this nothing to do with routing to the internet which will be irrelevant for the most part.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hi, I read that topic and it twists and turns, and for the most part is not that conclusive about much.

Going back to your point, there is no advantage in almost all domestic circumstances of isolating the internet from your audio network.. it simply doesn’t feature.

Now on a home network with other users and applications, you may find if the network is busy with certain types of activity that your streamer has to process more in terms of looking at data and then discarding... this might the SQ in certain implementations.. especially if the DAC is combined with the network streamer.

I have specifically found the SQ varies on the media server hardware/OS used... such as a NAS or RPi, dedicated server etc... and the more consistent the interframe timing is the better the SQ, and of course the more interruptions to this from other local apps firing out to your streamer for your streamer to then have to discard the more interrupted the frames will be on receipt.

The streamers we use use something called TCP rather than UDP for media transfer, which means the timing of the data is not critical for the data integrity at the expense of latency... however TCP network activity does seem to affect resultant SQ especially when DAC and streamers are combined... almost certainly this is caused by very low level intermodulation between the network circuitry and the digital audio circuitry.... akin to the differences between FLAC and WAV decoding.

So for a certain type busy domestic network, there may be advantages in having a separate subnet for audio away from other domestic activity... but this nothing to do with routing to the internet which will be irrelevant for the most part.

thanks simon, i think you are right. I will not follow the op solution in the topic mentioned.