network streaming tweaks

Thats very simple, unless your house is 200 metres long, don't.

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....

garyi posted:

Thats very simple, unless your house is 200 metres long, don't.

 

yes indeed, it will not be adequate in that case.

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.

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

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?

Update two weeks On, sorry been too busy enjoying the UPGRADE.

Just wanted to report have swapped back and forth and without the fibre bridge, in comparison the sound is just so closed and shut in and dull.

Fibre bridge has been such a great upgrade I have  just been listening and less forum time as been discovering allot of new albums.

Very happy thanks guys.

Judge posted:

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 affecting 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? 

That's my schematic & it piqued my interest.     I'm not sure I correctly understand your network description,  so rather than get it wrong maybe some basic principles. 

You do not need to consider prioritising music streaming with a managed switch,  an unmanaged switch in a small home network is well able to do it all without any stream prioritising,  but no reason to not get a managed switch other than cost & your ability to manage it.    There is no reason to avoid having all the network plugged into one switch,  however some people believe a separate dedicated switch between NAS & Player is best & although thats what I have, I'm not sure it has any real benefits.    If you do go with two switches & it is frequently the best way because of ease of cable routing,  try to avoid daisy chaining & connect each switch via its own cable back to the hub.    & yes a hub is also a switch  .........  that said I am distrustful of their switch performance capabilities as I've never seen any switch spec's in any hub/router blurb.

Mike-B posted:

Judge posted:

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 affecting 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? 

That's my schematic & it piqued my interest.     I'm not sure I correctly understand your network description,  so rather than get it wrong maybe some basic principles. 

You do not need to consider prioritising music streaming with a managed switch,  an unmanaged switch in a small home network is well able to do it all without any stream prioritising,  but no reason to not get a managed switch other than cost & your ability to manage it.    There is no reason to avoid having all the network plugged into one switch,  however some people believe a separate dedicated switch between NAS & Player is best & although thats what I have, I'm not sure it has any real benefits.    If you do go with two switches & it is frequently the best way because of ease of cable routing,  try to avoid daisy chaining & connect each switch via its own cable back to the hub.    & yes a hub is also a switch  .........  that said I am distrustful of their switch performance capabilities as I've never seen any switch spec's in any hub/router blurb.

Thanks Mike-B,  your response tells me what I needed to know.

>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, an

sorry i think i missed this post - though i was eagerly looking for a reply from S-in-S.

i only want the wifi from my living room to my bedroom.

so how do i make ubiquiti work for me? btw is there any specific model of ubiquiti we are talking about here? and what is the topography involved here?

appreciate the insights.

Judge posted:

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?

So sourced an Audioquest Vodka for demo £500 for 3M and very underwhelmed given general positive hype.

Overall I would say a slight detail improvement but the bass has become quite weighty if not verging on bloated.

Chrissu, Charlesphoto and Mr Rooster wondering what you guys use as thinking the fibre Bridge has maybe removed majority of the the noise so the cable from fibre bridge to Nova is not as important (normally use a Chord C stream).

Obsydian posted:

So sourced an Audioquest Vodka for demo £500 for 3M and very underwhelmed given general positive hype.

Overall I would say a slight detail improvement but the bass has become quite weighty if not verging on bloated.

Chrissu, Charlesphoto and Mr Rooster wondering what you guys use as thinking the fibre Bridge has maybe removed majority of the the noise so the cable from fibre bridge to Nova is not as important (normally use a Chord C stream).

The Audioquest Vodka does take awhile to burn in and on my system it did eventually sound a lot better than Cat6 Ethernet cable ! I did eventually replace it with Chord Indigo Aray Ethernet cable which was noticeably better and more musical ! That is my experience with my system ! 

musicfan51 posted:

Obsydian posted:

So sourced an Audioquest Vodka for demo £500 for 3M and very underwhelmed given general positive hype.

Overall I would say a slight detail improvement but the bass has become quite weighty if not verging on bloated.

Chrissu, Charlesphoto and Mr Rooster wondering what you guys use as thinking the fibre Bridge has maybe removed majority of the the noise so the cable from fibre bridge to Nova is not as important (normally use a Chord C stream).

The Audioquest Vodka does take awhile to burn in and on my system it did eventually sound a lot better than Cat6 Ethernet cable ! I did eventually replace it with Chord Indigo Aray Ethernet cable which was noticeably better and more musical ! That is my experience with my system ! 

Thanks but this being a demo cable I assumed it has done the rounds and well maybe too well broken in.

Even the dealer was like HUGE, wow improvement. Plan to leave it a day or so and swap back to the C Stream and see.

I use the Ghent Audio JSSG with Metz connectors (45 degree on one end for the microRendu). Neutral and the grounding technique lifts yet another layer. Inexpensive at $80 at one meter. Downstairs I use a Melcord Opal which gives a heavier sound but is perfect for the UQ. I’ve had AQ Cinnamon which is detailed but thin on the bass. Amazon Teragrand works just fine too. 

Obsydian posted:

So sourced an Audioquest Vodka for demo £500 for 3M and very underwhelmed given general positive hype.

Overall I would say a slight detail improvement but the bass has become quite weighty if not verging on bloated.

Chrissu, Charlesphoto and Mr Rooster wondering what you guys use as thinking the fibre Bridge has maybe removed majority of the the noise so the cable from fibre bridge to Nova is not as important (normally use a Chord C stream).

it is difficult to say, but personally i find an improvement with better lan and fiber bridge. I use vodka but some don’t like the vodka on their system and prefer even c stream.  You can try chord signature tuned array ethernet, but 3 m it is costly ( 3k perhaps).   Or audioquest diamond, more refined than vodka.   On the last section of your fiber bridge, you can try 0,75 audioquest diamond ( second tp link to nova), i think you will enjoy.  But don’t know if you can try and return this product...

Obsydian posted:

musicfan51 posted:

Obsydian posted:

So sourced an Audioquest Vodka for demo £500 for 3M and very underwhelmed given general positive hype.

Overall I would say a slight detail improvement but the bass has become quite weighty if not verging on bloated.

Chrissu, Charlesphoto and Mr Rooster wondering what you guys use as thinking the fibre Bridge has maybe removed majority of the the noise so the cable from fibre bridge to Nova is not as important (normally use a Chord C stream).

The Audioquest Vodka does take awhile to burn in and on my system it did eventually sound a lot better than Cat6 Ethernet cable ! I did eventually replace it with Chord Indigo Aray Ethernet cable which was noticeably better and more musical ! That is my experience with my system ! 

Thanks but this being a demo cable I assumed it has done the rounds and well maybe too well broken in.

Even the dealer was like HUGE, wow improvement. Plan to leave it a day or so and swap back to the C Stream and see.

just to add to my comment : i said that i still heard improvement with better lans and fiber bridge, but it was between cheap lans ( not c stream) and vodka.  Anyway, you will not have this dramatic improvement as with fiber bridge, or you will have to pay much much more for the lan  as chord sarum ethernet, which  would be stupid with a nova. ( same price for 3 m as the nova i think).

The last lan is a bit more important, so perhaps try just this part.