Cat 5, 6, 7, switches and ferrites (new member questions)

Hungryhalibut posted:

... some of his explanations sound more like random words strung together.... 

Shhh. Nigel don't give the game away please ...

Ah! but to the get the randomisation and (usually) correct grammar gives the game away...

...he's an Android!

After all, just look at that forehead!

Sorry Simon I couldn't resist that, I'm just in one of those moods!

E

Hungryhalibut posted:

Have you thought of leaving the router where it is and simply running a wire? That way you keep the flashing lights out of your main room. 

I certainly have but there is an internal door between router and lounge and already both the phone line cable and Ethernet cable to the TV running under it and the carpet. So a third cable under the door not a great practical idea. The router should also be out of site though when we have it moved (fingers crossed in a week from now) to just the other side of the internal door and so flashing lights not an issue. (Hard to explain without pictures I know)

Huge posted:

Ah! but to the get the randomisation and (usually) correct grammar gives the game away...

...he's an Android!

Surely you mean Si-borg.

Both wrong... puppet of course

Adam Zielinski posted:

Welcome to the wonderful world of streaming.

I see Mike has already frunished the netwok diagram for you (if not - please send me an email and I will forward it - my email is in my profile).

Few words on expensive ethernet cables - during the tests / experiments I noticed they make biggest improvements on a final 'leg' - i.e. from a wall socket to the streamer. Good quality streaming / network cables tend to be beneficial for streaming connections closer to the router e.g. NAS to a switch.

I'd also recommend keeping the network equipment as far away from your NAIM boxes as possible and on a separte mains circuit (if at all possible). 

Happy streaming Oh... and enjoy the music

Adam

Belated thanks for this Adam. I saw something on Mike's profile in the "biography"  section which, although wasn't the original diagram that I had seen in the old post, it nevertheless laid out in words what is in his set up. That original diagram was great though!  In his "likes" section it also had a very basic diagram. 

Are you suggesting (in the ideal world)  that I get two separate radial circuits added to our electrical system? One for the hi-fi rack and one for the NAS/switch /router? That sounds like a big job and I have no idea how costly. 

Odd Time Jon posted:

Are you suggesting (in the ideal world)  that I get two separate radial circuits added to our electrical system? One for the hi-fi rack and one for the NAS/switch /router? That sounds like a big job and I have no idea how costly. 

 

I just put my network stuff on a regular house ring main; using a separate circuit just for that seems a little OTT, especially if it's to have its own consumer unit. My audio consumer unit has two circuits, each with its own MCB, for use in two different rooms, but for maximum separation, you wouldn't want potentially noisy network equipment on this CU.

Thanks very much 

Odd Time Jon posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

 

Are you suggesting (in the ideal world)  that I get two separate radial circuits added to our electrical system? One for the hi-fi rack and one for the NAS/switch /router? That sounds like a big job and I have no idea how costly. 

In the ideal world - yes. 
However, unless you're having your property completely re-wired the above would be hugely impractical and costly.

Just to explain a bit - power supplies that typically come with NAS, routers and other network gizmos tend to be a bit on a noisy side. So if you can, plug them into a different household circuit than your NAIM gear. The easiest way to check this is to test the breakers - just switch them off and see which sockets they 'kill'. Try to find sockets for your NAIM and network gear that are on two different circuit breakers.

Adam

Adam, power supplies for things like broadband xDSL routers and modems need to be LOW noise or they will negatively effect the performance of the DSL. XDSL use precisely the frequencies that radiate from poor consumer electronic device power supplies. I believe this is a cause of much less than optimal broadband performance for home users.. and I am also talking about noisy power supplies near phone lines etc. I have seen this issue in commercial xDSL deployments as well. A performant xDSL modem will almost certainly have a quality with respect to noise power supply attached to it... and ultimately is more sensitive to noise for successful operation than much of our audio equipment. Try and keep your broadband router and telephone wiring well away from devices like NAS, noisy computers, fluorescent / certain LED lights and electronic devices with in appropriate power supplies on them, such as not correctly decoupled 'linear' power supplies.

Also remember RF noise couples across wires through the air (i.e. This is the basis on how radio works!!!) , so simply separating wires won't necessarily remove the noise but should however attenuate in most circumstances ... the best cure for RF electrical noise on the mains is prevention...

Simon

Adam Zielinski posted:

Odd Time Jon posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

 

Are you suggesting (in the ideal world)  that I get two separate radial circuits added to our electrical system? One for the hi-fi rack and one for the NAS/switch /router? That sounds like a big job and I have no idea how costly. 

In the ideal world - yes. 
However, unless you're having your property completely re-wired the above would be hugely impractical and costly.

Just to explain a bit - power supplies that typically come with NAS, routers and other network gizmos tend to be a bit on a noisy side. So if you can, plug them into a different household circuit than your NAIM gear. The easiest way to check this is to test the breakers - just switch them off and see which sockets they 'kill'. Try to find sockets for your NAIM and network gear that are on two different circuit breakers.

Adam

 

When taking this approach, there is a possibility of getting equipment connected to two slightly different earth connections (not enough to be dangerous).  This can however become a problem if shielded network cables are used as the earths can be connected through the network shields causing anything from mild to very severe earth loop hum type problems.

A simple answer to this is to use UTP cables from the switch to anything that has metal shielded Ethernet ports (e.g. the NAS, your broadband router, your computer if connected to the switch).  Another answer if you chose to use shielded Ethernet cables is to use unshielded Ethernet couplers to put a break in the earth connection and allow each end to be separately shielded and earthed.

Simon, that's one of my "bête noir" - the incorrect use of the word 'perfomant' to mean of high performance.

In English (as opposed to French) the word 'performant' is derived in the same way as 'informant'; i.e. it means 'one who performs' - it's actually a derogatory term for a circus performer or street entertainer.

You can thus expect a "A performant xDSL modem" to start playing tricks on you!

Huge.. struggling with this one.. in domestic settings there is usually electrical safety earth earth across the house which is a reference for that earth zone. The impedance at mains frequencies of this is going to almost certainly be less than that of a cable shield.... so there shouldn't be an issue...  any low level induced loop current has been shown to be almost always inconsequential for Ethernet and other apps ( like induced earth current in the ring main safety earth). It is usually considered best practice with Ethernet wiring NOT to use physical back to back  couplers other than for temporary mash ups.

Now where one needs to be careful is where one is connecting builds each with their own ground zones... such as campus setups and outhouses, and here for Ethernet one normally uses, and I have done so professionally, a fibre Ethernet cable. Distance is also another determining factor here as Ethernet cable is only good upto 100 metres in length.

Huge, i am using the word 'performant' as per its definition here.. ie a superlative adjective.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/performant

Hey guys,  is this a touch of thread hijacking ???    The OP 'Odd Time Jon' first line in his opening post was " Hi all (I am new to the forum and this is my first post ) "   He must be totally confoozled by all this.    

However, continuing the hijack:  Huge I'm not sure many/any broadband hubs have metal shrouded ports. Centering an STP cable network on a broadband hub or (better) a switch with unshrouded ports is (maybe) a simpler way to get the STP earth break.    

Mike might be, but threads evolve for the use of the forum.. there is some confusing and I believe professionally incorrect or in appropriate advice being given. I feel it would be inappropriate and potentially cause more confusion not questioning it and leaving it unchallenged and some of the emails I receive from other forum members would tend to support that......

The areas of RFI, linear power supplies,SMPS,  earthing, shielding, home networks and DAC transport jitter seem to have a lot of questionable folk lore attached to them on this forum.. all in my opinion of course...

Mike, I try to give a simple approach that will work in all circumstances, to get the OP going without earth loops.  Yes there are more delicately balanced solutions - several of them, but these are more prone to error than using standard UTP between the switch and everything else other than the streamer.   These alternative arrangements can be sorted out later in the optimisation phase.

I'm a great believer in the adage: "First get it working, then get it working well."; and also what's become know as Knuth's aphorism: "Premature optimisation is the root of all evil.".

Agreed Huge,  but you introduced the shielded cable multiple earth subject.  

& ... BTW ....  my Meicord UTP's via the UTP ported Cisco SG110D is here (hear) to stay.  

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Huge, i am using the word 'performant' as per its definition here.. ie a superlative adjective.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/performant

Even that Wiktionary entry is significantly flawed:

The article defines the comparative adjective form of performant as 'more performant'; and thus defining that as the comparative.

However, by definition 'Adjective (1)' Performant is itself being defined as a comparative adjective "Capable of or characterized by an adequate or excellent level of performance or efficiency".  This is also comparative since adequate or excellent are themselves comparative rather than absolute.  This definition is therefore tautological.  Furthermore this definition is also inadequate as it is vague, giving two contradictory meanings - adequate and excellent - they are not the same and have incompatible meanings that can lead to critical confusion in the meaning of the use of the word.

Clearly this wasn't written by a linguist or was subsequently substantially modified by someone who wasn't a linguist.

Finally Wiktionarry is, by it's nature, a mongrel of English group languages accepting alteration form people of all nationalities and linguistic backgrounds.  Personally I prefer to stick to English rather than any American / English / Indian English / anything else hybrid, so I prefer to keep to the OED (but then I'm old fashioned in this and I also don't use txt spk!  ).

In my view, having been introduced so recently from the French to override the English use of the word, and it's vague definition by usage, it counts as Frenglish! 

However this is completely off subject.

Mike-B posted:

Agreed Huge,  but you introduced the shielded cable multiple earth subject.  

& ... BTW ....  my Meicord UTP's via the UTP ported Cisco SG110D is here (hear) to stay.  

Yes I've been thinking of trying that combination myself in place of the Chord C-Stream (with Würt Elektronik ferrites) & Netgear GS105.

I was also going to add the Oxford English Dictionary setting... as on reflection I'm sure being a wiki it's def would be questioned.. but the post edit window had timed out

https://en.oxforddictionaries....efinition/performant

This use of adopted French in English is not a bête noire of mine 

but indeed  we digress 

Ah good you spotted it! 

Don't throw out the ferrets  .........  

Unlike the Catalyst Cisco's,  I'm not saying the baby Cisco does anything to SQ.  The only thing I've noticed is it makes my NAS LED's flash differently to the previous Netgear GS105,   & why, I don't know.  The only obvious difference between them is the buffer size(s) Netgear is 128KB,  Cisco show 128MB for both RAM & Flash memory (not sure if this is each or shared 128MB)     All the rest such as bandwidth & forwarding rate are same/similar.         see......  https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...-audiophilia-nervosa

Well I must admit that the way this thread has developed brought a to my face and Mike, I appreciate your observation.  It's a fine balance and a fair amount of this has gone a bit over my head (some of the technical terms at least) but having read many many threads on this forum before registering, I have learned a "Huge" (sorry ) amount.  For me, as Huge says, it's important to "First get it working, then get it working well".   Having said that, I am in awe of and respect Simon's vast knowledge (albeit I don't necessarily understand it word for word!) and he is right that incorrect misleading advice is dangerous.  You have all given lots of advice and as I am just starting out, I need to try and take from it what I can and get some basics right initially.  And then tweak things as I get more familiar, if of course practical.

Mike, sorry but what does your second diagram above achieve please compared with the first?  Please can you explain these a bit more for me?  I can see in the second that you achieve an earth break which I presume is a good thing as it is a single point?  You mention unshrouded ports but I thought the Netgear GS105E had shrouded ports which allowed cross connection of shielded cables?  I obviously want to avoid multiple earth points/earth loops and I thought using UTP throughout the network was the safest way to achieve this?

Having read Mike's old post that I mentioned at the start of this thread, the basic principle that I took from it (particularly from Simon-in-Suffolk who said "To do shielded Ethernet cable properly unless you leave floating is non trivial in my opinion and probably not that convenient for the average home environment" was that it was best to use UTP ethernet cable, and I (sort of) understood the ground loop issue arising from certain STP cables connected between certain ports.  But as Huge says "using standard UTP between the switch and everything else other than the streamer" and Mike said that "The Netgear GS & similar switches have metal shrouded ports & do cross connect shields resulting in a single cross connected shield network" and I think his original diagram in that old post showed at least one Cat 7 shielded cable connection.  So is the suggestion that I could use a shielded cable only from switch (I have the Netgear GS105E) to streamer?  (BTW our electrician/BT Open hub chap confirmed (as you might expect) that the cable coming into our house is unshielded).

Finally, until we have a separate radial circuit installed dedicated to my hi-fi rack, I have confirmed today that the router, hi-fi rack and NAS/Switch will be all on the same socket circuit initially in our (long) lounge. (Can't avoid it).  But once the dedicated hi-fi circuit is installed, at least the network equipment will all be on a different socket circuit and the router and broadband wiring will be at the very front of the lounge as you walk through the porch door, and so physically a long distance from the NAS and switch.  These devices will be at the other end of the lounge towards the back of the house, and also some distance beyond the rack (wish I could draw fancy pictures! must try some time).   I think this should help to avoid the issue that Simon was talking about above?  i.e. even if router and modem etc are on the same radial circuit as NAS/switch etc. as long as they are not physically close and their wiring is not close then that will be beneficial?

Odd Time Jon posted:

Mike, sorry but what does your second diagram above achieve please compared with the first?  Please can you explain these a bit more for me?  I can see in the second that you achieve an earth break which I presume is a good thing as it is a single point?  You mention unshrouded ports but I thought the Netgear GS105E had shrouded ports which allowed cross connection of shielded cables?  I obviously want to avoid multiple earth points/earth loops and I thought using UTP throughout the network was the safest way to achieve this?

Hi Old Time Jon,  a lot of observations & questions,  but to cut to the one addressed to me.  "what does your second diagram above achieve please compared with the first?"   Its not doing anything different,  it's just another way to avoid multiple earth points on an STP cabled network.   In the first diagram has an unshrouded port switch & it isolates the cable shields & prevents coupling two or more cable shields that are earthed.  The second diagram is with a shrouded port switch & requires the customer to add a cable shield breakpoint such as a Male-Female UTP coupler or similar;  thats assuming the NAS has a shrouded & earthed port & I'm not aware of any of the leading/popular brands that don't have a shrouded port.  

Yes the Netgear GS105 has shrouded ports & the STP cable shield is carried through (cross connected).   Small form switches have a mix of both shrouded & unshrouded,   but I believe there is a growing trend towards unshrouded ports

Yes I agree using UTP cables & unshrouded switch is a good way go in your first install (it's what I have now,   having moved from all STP & shrouded switch).  IMO a shielded cable is not required in a domestic environment,  but it will do no harm if thats what you choose.    However this forum has a lot of peeps who believe some Cat-7  cables do bring enhancements over ordinary cable;  but thats a post for another day,  or maybe better a forum search will produce enough material to write a book.