Cisco switch

Peder posted:

Frank Yang posted:

rjfk posted:

Mercky posted:

Is there any difference between the normal grey 2960's and the compact white versions? They're both called 2960TCL

Sonically, no difference at all. I've posted previously on the testing i did with differant models. The white are just newer and in some models support Gigabit Ethernet.

I have a feeling that some of you will feel regret later if you do not go for the gigabit version.

???? WHY...❓❓ 

/Peder ???? 

WS-C2960-8TC-L is EOL support (but to be fair some other 2960s  are also EOL), but my main point is that it will be come a bottleneck if you later plugin some other high speed devices. Maybe it does, maybe it does not if low speed devices are all you need since all current Naim streamers do not go beyond 100 mbps, one of my sources is a MacMini, and it is a 1,000 mbps device, it does more things just playing Audirvana.

Frank Yang posted:

Peder posted:

Frank Yang posted:

rjfk posted:

Mercky posted:

Is there any difference between the normal grey 2960's and the compact white versions? They're both called 2960TCL

Sonically, no difference at all. I've posted previously on the testing i did with differant models. The white are just newer and in some models support Gigabit Ethernet.

I have a feeling that some of you will feel regret later if you do not go for the gigabit version.

???? WHY...❓❓ 

/Peder ???? 

WS-C2960-8TC-L is EOL support (but to be fair some other 2960s  are also EOL), but my main point is that it will be come a bottleneck if you later plugin some other high speed devices. Maybe it does, maybe it does not if low speed devices are all you need.

I don't think EOL is a big deal, they are very robust switches, and there is a steady supply of cheap used ones if you need a replacement. Most of them have 1 or 2 gigabit uplink ports, with the others being 100mb, which is still going to be plenty for most purposes. Certainly enough for hi-res audio. 

I've seen a few posts focusing on very specific models of switch. This is not necessary.

There are a number of Cisco switches which offer the compact fan-less form factor and give the high-quality network transport which results in the sonic benefits.

Cisco will not be the only brand that do this I suspect. Similar enterprise grade switches from Extreme, Juniper, HP, Cabletron (blast from the past! that wil instantly date me) will do similar. I don't know their ranges well enough though to know which models this applies to though. For Cisco I've pulled a list together below.

There are other switches in the Cisco range, such as the Connected Grid and Industrial Ethernet ranges, that will have the sonic benefits but I would expect these will be very pricey if available and may not be suitable for  a domestic environment. The Connected Grid range, a.k.a CGS, for example requires a PSU in addition to the switch. This fits inside the switch and the switch is then hard-wired to the power source.

Some of the below switches can do some useful stuff. Like act as a DHCP server. There are differant software levels to enable this. You do not need this functionality to get the sonic benefits. So which ever level of software it has is fine, common words you will see for this are "Lan Base" and "Enterprise". None of the below support NAT. This is only suport in Cisco routers.

The older discontinued models will still be good. This kit it built to last. I wouldn't worry about their age too much. The newer models will obvisouly have a longer life and whilst Gigabit Ehternet isn't needed for audio streaming it may be useful for other kit you have connnected. I have used both and they have the same sonic benefit, refer to my previous post on the testing done.

Hope this helps, apols for the long post below, thought it best to be unabiguous on each model range.

Russ

Cisco Catalyst 2960

End of sale 29Jul13, end of support 31Jul18. Still does it what’s it’s meant to though! ????

10/100 Ethernet switch.

Older blue/green case work.

Compact, fan-less form factor.

Internal PSU, takes a CEE22 lead.

Requires a Cisco console cable if you wish to get techie and configure it. This is light blue with an RJ45 at one end and a 9-pn D-type serial connector at the other.

Models other than the two below are designed for a 19 inch rack and are not fan-less.

2960-8TC-L

2960-8TC-S

Cisco Catalyst 3560

End of sale 29Jul13, end of support 31Jul18. Still does it what’s it’s meant to though! ????

10/100 Ethernet switch.

Older blue/green case work.

Compact, fan-less form factor.

Internal PSU, takes a CEE22 lead.

Requires a Cisco console cable if you wish to get techie and configure it. This is light blue with an RJ45 at one end and a 9-pn D-type serial connector at the other.

Models other than the two below are designed for a 19 inch rack and are not fan-less.

3560-8PC

3560-12PC-S

Cisco Catalyst 2960-L

Current as of date of post.

10/100/1000 Ethernet switch.

White, square case work.

Internal PSU, takes a CEE22 lead.

Requires either a Cisco console cable or USB cable to configure.

The 8 and 16 port models are in a compact form factor.

The 24 port model are designed for a 19 inch rack-mount but will still sit on a shelf.

The 48 port models in this range are not fan-less.

 WS-C2960L-8TS-LL

WS-C2960L-8PS-LL

WS-C2960L-16TS-LL

WS-C2960L-16PS-LL

WS-C2960L-24TS-LL

WS-C2960L-24PS-LL

WS-C2960L-24PQ-LL

 Cisco Catalyst 2960CX

Current as of date of post, but possibly going end of sale to be replaced by the 2960-L range.

10/100/1000 Ethernet switch.

White, compact form factor with rounded sides.

Same case work as the 3650CX range, but basic Ethernet switch services only. This all you need.

Internal PSU, takes a CEE22 lead.

Requires either a Cisco console cable or USB cable to configure.

 2960CX-8TC-L

2960CX-8PC-L

 Cisco Catalyst 3560CX Range

White, compact form factor with rounded sides.

Same case work as the 2960CX range but with an additional software licence can run more advanced ethernet switching and services. You don't need this unless you want to get techie.

Internal PSU, takes a CEE22 lead.

Requires either a Cisco console cable or USB cable to configure.

 Do not get the C3560CX-8PT-S which is itself powered from a PoE source.

 3560CX-8TC-S

3560CX-12TC-S

3560CX-8PC-S

3560CX-12PC-S

3560CX-12PD-S

3560CX-8XPD-S

 Cisco Meraki

The MS120-8 and MS220-8 may have similar sonic benefits.

They are compact fan-less switches with eight ports. It is manged from a cloud application and I;d suggest is not ideal for a domestic setup.

More importantly, Meraki were an acquisition of Cisco's a few years back. It is highly likely that the Ethernet circuitry remains different to that found in the Catalyst range of switches and therefore may not have the same benefits to network traffic and therefore sonic benefits. Best avoided I’d suggest, unless someone wishes to test.

 Cisco Small Business Switches

These probably don’t have the same sonic benefits as they are low-end almost consumer type units.

End of sales models 90, 95, 100, 200, 300, 350, 500, ESW500.

Current models are the 110, 250 350X and 550X.

RJFK,

Nice write up.  And in principle I agree (and have previously stated that as far as I can see, it's the quality of these switches, including their stable clocks good PSUs and precise circuitry; and their being designed to not exacerbate interference additively when used together in large numbers) that makes the difference.

I think most people have been precise when discussing the exact switch they use simply because they don't want to mislead people, just in case some variants don't work as well as some others (this is certainly why I specified the precise model of 2960 that I use, rather than believing that other models may be less good).

Hi Huge, Thanks and agree. I was concerned the confusion as to models was focusing people on specific models when in fact there is a large number that will bring sonic benefits. Russ

Got my 2960 today. $29 shipped free coast to coast - figured it couldn’t hurt. And hurt it doesn’t. More detail I think, better bass control. One does need to pay attention to ethernet and power cables - both can “tune” the switch. I only have the option of switching out the server to switch cable, and decided on my AQ Cinnamon. Power cable is a cheapo “audiophile” cable - bit more laid back than a Naim Tibia. I can see how some could find the sound a bit harsh - it’s really more detail I think. Difference between merely feeling the bass and hearing the strings and amp. A balance between the two is nice. I can always tell when the noise floor has been lowered because I can turn it up a few more notches. Unfortunately the quality of the source is outpacing the size of the amp. 

Switch is a V 03, manufactured July 2010. Case fairly warped so put it on 3 acoustic blocks and some Herbie’s grungebuster and a rock on top. Audiophile Nervosa temporarily satiated. 

Thank you indeed RJFK. This brief review helped me a lot to understand the series primary specs and variants. As HUGE and yourself have eluded to, most of these models share the same standards of design and construction for greater SQ in the end.

I just came across the 10/100 WS-C2960C series. C as compact. I want to assume that there wouldn’t be any reason to disregard this particular series on the back of a more congested lay-out and placement of components and circuits. Would you agree?????

Chag -

Chag... posted:

Thank you indeed RJFK. This brief review helped me a lot to understand the series primary specs and variants. As HUGE and yourself have eluded to, most of these models share the same standards of design and construction for greater SQ in the end.

I just came across the 10/100 WS-C2960C series. C as compact. I want to assume that there wouldn’t be any reason to disregard this particular series on the back of a more congested lay-out and placement of components and circuits. Would you agree?????

Chag -

Are you sure C stands for compact?! For an explanation of the rather confusing model numbers, see this:

http://www.fiber-optic-tutoria...-cisco-switches.html

Hi Chag,

Thanks for the spot. The links I worked through on Cisco's site shows that I checked the 2960C but clealry missed it in the post. Apols. Added below in the same format.

Since my orginal post one thing has crossed my mind. If you want Gigabit Ethernet to support an Uplink to another room or your internet connection then most of these switches, especially the white ones come with two uplinks that support Gigabit Ethernet. Some models will require additional interface modules to support this. If this is a need double check what you are buying carefuly or go for one of the 10/100/1000 switches.

Russ

Cisco Catalyst 2960-C Series
Current as of date of post, no end of sale announced.
10/100 Ethernet switch, one model supports 10/100/1000.
White, compact form factor with rounded sides, fan-less.
Same case work as the 3560-C range, but basic Ethernet switch services only. This all you need.
Internal PSU, takes a CEE22 lead.
Requires either a Cisco console cable or USB cable to configure.

Do not get the WS-C2960CPD-8PT-L. This takes it's power from a PoE+ uplink or external power supply.  And no.. an external power supply is highly unlikely to add sonic benefits to this, but feel free to test!

2960C-8TC-L
2960C-8TC-S
2960CPD-8TT-L
2960C-8PC-L
2960CPD-8PT-L
2960C-12PC-L
2960CG-8TC-L *This model is a 10/100/1000 switch.

Cisco Catalyst 3560-C Series
Current as of date of post, no end of sale announced.
10/100 Ethernet switch, some models support 10/100/1000.
White, compact form factor with rounded sides, fan-less.
Same case work as the 2960-C range, capable of more advanced Layer 3 Ethernet services. You do not need this to get the sonic benefits.

Internal PSU, takes a CEE22 lead.
Requires either a Cisco console cable or USB cable to configure.

Do not get the WS-C3560CPD-8PT-S. This takes it's power from a PoE+ uplink or external power supply.  And no.. an external power supply is highly unlikely to add sonic benefits to this, but feel free to test!

3560C-8PC-S
3560C-12PC-S
3560CG-8TC-S *This model is a 10/100/1000 switch.
3560CG-8PC-S *This model is a 10/100/1000 switch.

Yes I am sure Chris as it is indicated on the 2960-C and 3560-C datasheet. It is however besides the point. The 8 port 2960-C and 3560-C compact series present a 4.44x26.9x17.2cm and 4.44x26.9x21.3cm casing respectively whereas the other 2960 and 3560 series may show 21.3 to 26.8cm case lengths. Hence the question whether shortening the case of a 10/100MB switch by 20% from 21 to 17cm if of all about the same function in principle, may have a detrimental effect for EMIs of all sorts on final SQ. ????

Nevertheless thank you very much indeed for the link to this explanation of Cisco models’ nomenclature. It may be an opportunity for those who know to help us neophytes, understand ground up what are minimum, and maximum, function and specs we should consider for a 8 port cost effective fit-for-purpose Cisco switch to ensure greater SQ.  In other terms let’s align the right letters together and make the perfect Scrabble before the true, but maybe overstated and certainly overpriced, “audiophile” switches like the UpTone are launched this summer. ????

Chag -

Thank you Russ. No apologies at all. Your checklist and Chris’ link are most informative and clear many questions.  Cheers. ????

Chag -

It is the Catalyst switches I have found to be beneficial as opposed to any default Cisco switch or other vendor switch.

The 2960 series and 3560 series devices are Cisco Catalyst devices.

In response to an earlier post, one of the 2960 8 port devices can be powered by PoE and indeed I do this (WS-C2960CPD-8PT-L)  - works very well... one way of getting rid of the power supply/linear power supply issues and reducing complexity and 'sounds' fantastic.

S

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

It is the Catalyst switches I have found to be beneficial as opposed to any default Cisco switch or other vendor switch.

The 2960 series and 3560 series devices are Cisco Catalyst devices.

In response to an earlier post, one of the 2960 8 port devices can be powered by PoE and indeed I do this (WS-C2960CPD-8PT-L)  - works very well... one way of getting rid of the power supply/linear power supply issues and reducing complexity and 'sounds' fantastic.

Simon,

I have a CISCO SG200-10FP to which I connect all my networked devices (Cisco WiFi access point, Synology NAS, PoE Camera, Roon NUC , 2 desktop computers).

I’m planning to replace my nDAC with one of the new Naim network players.

As it seems that the Catalyst series work well with Naim streamers, I will replace my actual switch with the WS-C3560CX-12PC-S. It’s fully managed and has 12 ports.

Would it be preferable to connect to the SG200 a cheaper switch like an old Catalyst 2960 and use it only for the Naim streamer and the Roon Rock?

Or will WS-C3560CX-12PC-S do the trick while managing my network?

better to separate the hifi( streamer, nas) from tv, phone, computers.   So cisco 2960 or 3560 8 port will be enough, the rest of non hifi / audio components on another switch.

French Rooster posted:

better to separate the hifi( streamer, nas) from tv, phone, computers.   So cisco 2960 or 3560 8 port will be enough, the rest of non hifi / audio components on another switch.

None of the scenarios mentioned above propose to physically separate networks. Btw, doing so doesn’t really make sense. The streamer needs to access the Internet and I need to access the NAS and NUC from my main computer.

I have then 2 options :

- Option 1 : a brand new WS-C3560CX-12PC-S doing every thing
- Option 2 : an old Catalyst connected and powered (PoE) by the actual switch (SG200-10FP)

In both cases all devices are interconnected.

The only way to obtain a galvanic separation is for the streamer to access the network through WiFi.

So my initial question to Simon was : is “option 1” as efficient as “option 2”?

TomSer posted:

French Rooster posted:

better to separate the hifi( streamer, nas) from tv, phone, computers.   So cisco 2960 or 3560 8 port will be enough, the rest of non hifi / audio components on another switch.

None of the scenarios mentioned above propose to physically separate networks. Btw, doing so doesn’t really make sense. The streamer needs to access the Internet and I need to access the NAS and NUC from my main computer.

I have then 2 options :

- Option 1 : a brand new WS-C3560CX-12PC-S doing every thing
- Option 2 : an old Catalyst connected and powered (PoE) by the actual switch (SG200-10FP)

In both cases all devices are interconnected.

The only way to obtain a galvanic separation is for the streamer to access the network through WiFi.

So my initial question to Simon was : is “option 1” as efficient as “option 2”?

perhaps i don’t understand well what you want to do.   For my set up for instance, my phone and tv are connected to my router. From this router, i run a dedicated switch ( cisco 2960), where is connected my nds and my serve.  My computer is connected to the router. So the nds and unitserve are separated from the tv, phone, computer. They are not on the same switch, but on the same network.

so i would choose option 2.....nas, roon, streamer on the 2960 and the rest on the sg200.  It was what i wanted to say by separation.     But of course Simon on the Suffolk will give you the best advice.....

TomSer posted:

Simon,

I have a CISCO SG200-10FP to which I connect all my networked devices (Cisco WiFi access point, Synology NAS, PoE Camera, Roon NUC , 2 desktop computers).

I’m planning to replace my nDAC with one of the new Naim network players.

As it seems that the Catalyst series work well with Naim streamers, I will replace my actual switch with the WS-C3560CX-12PC-S. It’s fully managed and has 12 ports.

Would it be preferable to connect to the SG200 a cheaper switch like an old Catalyst 2960 and use it only for the Naim streamer and the Roon Rock?

Or will WS-C3560CX-12PC-S do the trick while managing my network?

Hi, shouldn’t need to separate switches for different hosts, in fact one of the main reasons of a switch (as opposed to a hub) is exactly because it is not necessary to do this. I don’t do this and understandably I heard no sound ‘difference’ with adding different hosts in as well as my streamer into the switch. Best structure the switches to suit your home network layout. Certainly see no benefit of using a general switch between the Catalyst and streamer... effectively it will be undoing the benefit ... which is I suggest better regulated physical layer synchronisation clock. This is only meaningful between physical links.

The 3560 is fine, in fact I use one to feed my streamer right now, just ensure it’s fanless if it’s going to reside in your living space and not cupboard out of the way.

Simon

Edit. Your above post, option 1 is the best approach assuming it matches your layout and minimimizes the runs of Ethernet patch leads.

Tomser, that’s an expensive piece of kit. Is there a reason why you can’t use a £50 used 2960?

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

It is the Catalyst switches I have found to be beneficial as opposed to any default Cisco switch or other vendor switch.

Hi Simon, and all. Be aware that the the Cataylst brand isn't a distinct enough differentiator. Specificlaly there are a routers which include network modules that say they have Catalyst switch ports in them but they are a long long way from the Catalyst switches we are discussing here. I wouldn't want someone being tripped up by a dodgy auction listing on this. Russ

TomSer posted:

- Option 1 : a brand new WS-C3560CX-12PC-S doing every thing
- Option 2 : an old Catalyst connected and powered (PoE) by the actual switch (SG200-10FP)

Tomser, a further vote for option 1, I'm running the same setup here with no issues.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

TomSer posted:

Simon,

I have a CISCO SG200-10FP to which I connect all my networked devices (Cisco WiFi access point, Synology NAS, PoE Camera, Roon NUC , 2 desktop computers).

I’m planning to replace my nDAC with one of the new Naim network players.

As it seems that the Catalyst series work well with Naim streamers, I will replace my actual switch with the WS-C3560CX-12PC-S. It’s fully managed and has 12 ports.

Would it be preferable to connect to the SG200 a cheaper switch like an old Catalyst 2960 and use it only for the Naim streamer and the Roon Rock?

Or will WS-C3560CX-12PC-S do the trick while managing my network?

Hi, shouldn’t need to separate switches for different hosts, in fact one of the main reasons of a switch (as opposed to a hub) is exactly because it is not necessary to do this. I don’t do this and understandably I heard no sound ‘difference’ with adding different hosts in as well as my streamer into the switch. Best structure the switches to suit your home network layout. Certainly see no benefit of using a general switch between the Catalyst and streamer... effectively it will be undoing the benefit ... which is I suggest better regulated physical layer synchronisation clock. This is only meaningful between physical links.

The 3560 is fine, in fact I use one to feed my streamer right now, just ensure it’s fanless if it’s going to reside in your living space and not cupboard out of the way.

Simon

Edit. Your above post, option 1 is the best approach assuming it matches your layout and minimimizes the runs of Ethernet patch leads.

simon, i probably miss something in the understanding.  I have often heard of the benefit of a dedicated switch for the streamer and nas, serve, core: separate tv, phone, and noisy components as computers from the audio chain.  I have my tv, phone, computer connected to my router and the cisco 2960 is connected to the router. On the cisco i have only the nds and serve.    So i am wrong ?    A lot of members use a dedicated switch only for the streamer and nas.    I am in the doubt now.

Hi French Rooster, no need to seperate out the differant devices onto differant switches. Check my post here about the testing I did last year. IF having seperate switches works within you home environment, such as minimising cabling, then great. But there is no sonic disadvantage from having multiple devices on you switch. As SImon has suggested, the improvement appears to come from the timely network packet delivery offered by these enterprise grade switches. Russ

rjfk posted:

Hi Simon, and all. Be aware that the the Cataylst brand isn't a distinct enough differentiator. Specificlaly there are a routers which include network modules that say they have Catalyst switch ports in them but they are a long long way from the Catalyst switches we are discussing here. I wouldn't want someone being tripped up by a dodgy auction listing on this. Russ

Yes its only the Catalyst switches mentioned we are talking about.. I wouldn't want someone to think just because it says 'Cisco' on the switch that it will necessarily bring the benefits that have been described on this forum.

French Rooster posted:

simon, i probably miss something in the understanding.  I have often heard of the benefit of a dedicated switch for the streamer and nas, serve, core: separate tv, phone, and noisy components as computers from the audio chain.  I have my tv, phone, computer connected to my router and the cisco 2960 is connected to the router. On the cisco i have only the nds and serve.    So i am wrong ?    A lot of members use a dedicated switch only for the streamer and nas.    I am in the doubt now.

Yes no benefit at all for a dedicated switch - its what switches are designed to do. I can only assume some people have been misled or perhaps don't really understand what a switch does and how.

Yes if a device is very (read extremely) electrically noisy then that noise will conduct through wires including the mains and the air,  (and possibly be unlawful in the EU), so best keep a good physical distance between a known very electrically noisy device and your audio components. Remember ethernet uses differential pairs and so common mode noise, by design, has effectively no effect on operation, but also remember ethernet and more generally TCP/IP, depending on your terms of reference, can be inherently 'noisy' in operation whatever the host.

Simon