Separate Network for Audio

Did they offer to fit said network?

LOL......what rubbish

quote:

Originally posted by Wazza69:
Hi,

I noticed in the Signals Presentation that they recommend a separate data network for audio (i.e. separate router, cabling and net connection to avoid the interference from Facebook, printers etc!)

Anyone tried it?

Thanks

IMO they're not suggesting an audio network with a separate net connection (that would be difficult to realise) but a separate audio network with a net connection.

I'm not sure even if they suggest a separate router because the internet traffic is not that large a part of the network traffic.

I think a dedicated switch which has all audio related devices connected will keep network traffic separate from regular computer devices if these computer devices are connected to another separate switch.

Both switches can be connected to the same router for internet traffic.

My guess is this setup will offer sufficient separation of audio and computer network traffic.

A step further would be a setup where the audio devices are part of one subnet (with their own range of IP-addresses) and the computer devices are part of another subnet (with another range of IP-addresses than those of the audio subnet).
Both subnets would have to connect to the internet using a shared/own? router.
This is not an easy setup.

-
aleg

This might be a good idea to avoid bandwidth contention, but preventing "interference" is nonsense.

I've not seen the Signals presentation but it makes sense to keep the music server / NAS etc on a seperate wired network - particularly if you have a lot of traffic on your normal house network (kids !). For the cost of an extra switch and a few ethernet cables its not a big deal to do.

Nothing to do with interference - just reliabilty given the amount of networked devices that can be in a house these days hogging bandwidth.

quote:

Originally posted by Wazza69:
Hi,

I noticed in the Signals Presentation that they recommend a separate data network for audio (i.e. separate router, cabling and net connection to avoid the interference from Facebook, printers etc!)

Anyone tried it?

Thanks

With a proper switched network running 100Mbit/s full duplex that it should not be necessary to create a separate routed subnet for audio media (I can think of only a very few industrial scenarios where this might be worthwhile, ie when there is a very high level of broadcast packets on the subnet thereby loading all the attached network adapters). TCP/IP networks are more than happy with video and audio streaming, in fact UDP is a network protocol directly suited for that and indeed it is in industry for realtime content such as video, audio and IP telephony.
However if you want to try a dedicated link then use a crossover Ethernet cable from your NAS to your disk player / streamer. I never have heard a difference. However different TCP/IP software stacks in devices can sound subtly different, but I would would have thought with Naim they would be consistent here across their devices.
Finally hard disk playing is even more removed from network loading than streaming, as hard disk uses TCP and not UDP. TCP uses a method of dynamic windowing, retries and acknowledgements, and therefore is largely immune from the network environment. With UDP if the packet gets lost then it's gone for ever.

However RFI can be coupled into the Cat twisted copper pairs causing common mode interference and can be caused by cheap switch mode power supplies feeding routers and switches. I have a nagging doubt that it is this that sometimes might be heard in certain setups. RFI is a real curse for hifi.


Simon

I very often have 720 video streaming to tv, copying files and playing music all from one nas to separate computers also with time machine backing up to it, and nothing hickups or goes wrong.

What you want is a gigabit switch and don't use wireless.

Pissing around with two seperate networks in your house is just a PITA.

Agreed. Interference from Facebook... that's just silly.

I could see a QoS policy setup, or even a separate VLAN, as well... But even that would be pushing it.

Of course, all of these suggestions may vary in advantage depending on your network expertise as well as your requirements.

If you must stream wirelessly due to physical constraints, a separate wireless network dedicated only to streaming clients can be set up using a dual-band wireless router (keeping wireless control points on the other band, same network). Available bandwidth per client decreases with the number of attached clients, which is why I suggest that you keep wireless control points on a separate band.

In some cases, it is possible to use an open wireless network with access control by MAC address rather than WEP or WPA authentication (freeing up additional processing power), but this can be a security risk unless appropriate steps have been taken to restrict access through the router to the rest of the network–consult your retailer or IT consultant for details.

Good quality non-blocking switches are advisable. Managed switches, for the experienced configurator, can be used to good effect.

If your listening habits rely upon audio files located on network PCs, you'll need to keep these on the same network as the wireless router (LAN side), or, alternately, set up the router as a network bridge (WAN address range = LAN address range). Dual-band wireless access points are, by their very nature, bridged devices and can be configured in the desired manner.

Items which are permanently installed should, IMHO, always use static IP addresses, if you have the expertise to configure these properly. Always segment DHCP services, so that there exists a range of addresses for use with these devices.

As for the suggestion that internet access for streaming media be kept separate from data (and eventually utility monitoring)–well, this seems to be the future as contained within the Home Router specification that is being developed. (The idea behind this is that tiered content could then be billed separately, based on QoS requirements.) One connection, within this configuration, would provide multiple points of presence for, say, streamed media (including telephony), data, and homeowner device control (including energy monitoring).

I'm sure that there will be some that disagree with these suggestions, but, hey–my networks work!

I might want to start selling Cisco Nexus 7000 to some serious network-based audiophile in future. LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by p3esr:
I might want to start selling Cisco Nexus 7000 to some serious network-based audiophile in future. LOL!

Don't laugh, I know a more than a few custom A/V integrators here who specify Cisco 500 Series Unified Communications gateways for new construction projects.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:

quote:

Originally posted by p3esr:
I might want to start selling Cisco Nexus 7000 to some serious network-based audiophile in future. LOL!

Don't laugh, I know a more than a few custom A/V integrators here who specify Cisco 500 Series Unified Communications gateways for new construction projects.

Well the Cisco 500 series routers are an entry level router for a small LAN - so if you have mutiple subnets - which as discussed not really neccessary for the typical home AV setup unlss one is using multiple wirelss SSIDs, it would be a good device to use.

An alternate way of getting an offordable entry level router for the home LAN is using an edge router device such as a Cisco 877 - that will route over VLANs, switch, provide wireless with multiple SSIDs and is a very good ADSL modem - and often can be purchased from eBay. But you need to to know what you are doing to configure them
Simon

quote:

Originally posted by nkrgovic:
Agreed. Interference from Facebook... that's just silly.

I could see a QoS policy setup, or even a separate VLAN, as well... But even that would be pushing it.

I was joking when I referred to Facebook! (although with the regularity that my Wife checks it - maybe not!)

quote:

Don't laugh, I know a more than a few custom A/V integrators here who specify Cisco 500 Series Unified Communications gateways for new construction projects.

I use a Juniper SRX because it looks nicer and I find JunOS much easier than IOS, but I can't see much wrong with using a Cisco router if you know how to set it up though I think a Nexus 7000 is overkill even if you could put your music streaming in its own vDC.

Does anybody agree that music routed through a Juniper SRX provided you don't use the UTM features sounds better than music routed through a Cisco 877 - just wondered

Sometimes I think a gramophone was much more relaxing

quote:

in some cases, it is possible to use an open wireless network with access control by MAC address rather than WEP or WPA authentication (freeing up additional processing power), but this can be a security risk

No 'can' about it - it is a security risk - do you do your on-line banking over such a network, just wondered ...

Bring back AppleTalk ....

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
Bring back AppleTalk ....

Pah AppleTalk, bring back DECnet

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:

quote:

in some cases, it is possible to use an open wireless network with access control by MAC address rather than WEP or WPA authentication (freeing up additional processing power), but this can be a security risk

No 'can' about it - it is a security risk - do you do your on-line banking over such a network, just wondered ...

Bring back AppleTalk ....

Can I suggest if you are using wireless, you use WPA2 security. This is almost the defacto wireless security standard these days and uses at least pre shared keys as well as encryption of data. Yes there is more processing overhead, but WEP and other methods are just too easy to crack/ and offer no encryption.

One of my favourite pioneering pre TCP/IP LAN providers was Ungermann-Bass in the late 80s early 90s. They were one of the first to focus on allowing different vendors to talk to each other on an enterprise network unlike DECnet or IBM's SNA which often had interoperability issues.. And I think it was UB who were one of the pioneers of twisted copper pairs called StarLAN that later became 10BaseT that we can use for Ethernet today - possibly i am going off topic..

quote:

Originally posted by PJT:

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
Bring back AppleTalk ....

Pah AppleTalk, bring back DECnet

Phase IV - wonderful stuff

quote:

Ungermann-Bass

Ungermann-Bass
Clapton-Guitar
Baker- Drums

The cream of networking - Ralph Ungermann and Charlie Bass were two of the pioneers, who can forget StarLAN (thanx Simon that brings back memories) - didn't UB end-up in Newbridge and eventually Alcatel along with Lucent

Agree 100% about WPA2 - please don't use a wireless network without it - unless you want the world joining your network or you are in to honeynet.

While I do think Nexus 7000 is a bit of an exaggeration (tough I'd love one in home - if just to play with ), I'd still choose wired over wireless for streaming.

If you know what you're doing, as Simon-in-Suffolk say, a decent L3 switch, with VLAN's and QoS is as fas as I'd go for streaming, matched, of course, with a NAS with the ability to reserve bandwidth for streaming... But that is the absolute maximum to where I'd go, and that's because I already know how to do these things.

The WLAN encryption has nothing to do with this. It's quite simply a must - don't leave your network unprotected, or with a bad encryption. ALWAYS use WPA2. Weather you use it for banking, audio streaming or facebook has nothing to do with it - it's an open vector of attack, and if you value your time, your money and your privacy - you'll keep it protected.

I do love the size of Cisco 877 and Juniper SSG20 can be quite a good choice as well. Oh no! This forum is going to be a networking forum soon!

quote:

This forum is going to be a networking forum soon!

It already is–think of it as the Asynchronous Interconnects room.

A man goes into a Asynchronous Interconnects room ... and the barman says ....?

Tog

quote:

Originally posted by Tog:
A man goes into a Asynchronous Interconnects room ... and the barman says ....?

Tog

Get out, you give me the jitters!

Ungermann-Bass - wow that brings back memories! I used to work with this stuff many moons ago, quite advanced at the time.

WPA2/PSK - make sure your pre shared key is of sufficient length (personally I use 26) and made up of random characters. There are a number of tools available for cracking weak WPA2 keys.

DEC had some fine protocols IMO - I really liked LAT

quote:

Originally posted by Tog:
A man goes into a Asynchronous Interconnects room ... and the barman says ....?

Tog

So a cat6 cable, a N-Link, and a Hiline walk into a bar....

quote:

Originally posted by Tog:
A man goes into a Asynchronous Interconnects room ... and the barman says ....?
Tog

What time did you come in here?