linear ps for switch and routers

Hi @Manu68 - I think posting the link might breach forum rules, but the model I bought on 'that' auction site was:

Cisco Catalyst WS-C2960-8TC-L Managed 8-Port Switch

 

As you may have seen, there are several different varieties of the 2960, but this happens to be the same spec as one of the models which @Simon-in-Suffolk posted about on another thread a while ago. (I think it's the same model which @hungryhalibut bought, again based on what Simon posted.) It came with an IEC UK mains cable/plug. It cost me £90. I hope that helps.

nickpeacock posted:

Hi @Manu68 - I think posting the link might breach forum rules, but the model I bought on 'that' auction site was:

Cisco Catalyst WS-C2960-8TC-L Managed 8-Port Switch

 

As you may have seen, there are several different varieties of the 2960, but this happens to be the same spec as one of the models which @Simon-in-Suffolk posted about on another thread a while ago. (I think it's the same model which @hungryhalibut bought, again based on what Simon posted.) It came with an IEC UK mains cable/plug. It cost me £90. I hope that helps.

thanks a lot @nickpeacock what does this switch bring that another cisco switch may not bring? my switch is fanless as well. Just trying to understand what makes this switch particularly fit for purpose...

Ha - at this point, others on the forum are better techinically qualified to answer - I am, as they say, "standing on the shoulders of giants"!

It is too early to say whether the sound is better - I haven't had anyreal  listening time since I plugged it in.

However, I can unequivocally say that I prefer the somewhat industrial appearance of the Cisco switch to my previous Netgear model.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hi Nick, I use two 2960s currently... the one I use connected to my streamer is an 8 port with powersupply built in.  Good luck 

hello simon,

i have a neatgear gs105 , because i need only 3 ports. Do you know if there is good 4 ports switch with built in ps? thanks

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Manu68, these Catalyst switches can bring a better performance of connected streamers... not dissimilar to the effects of fancy Ethernet leads. My theory of why is that these switches use better quality physical layer synchronisation clocks as they support PTP (Ethernet precision time protocol) which works in part at the physical layer. A better more precise clock will produce less intermodulation interference frequencies (think FM) in the  connected device thereby reducing digital noise.

Simon

See, shoulders of giants...

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Manu68, these Catalyst switches can bring a better performance of connected streamers... not dissimilar to the effects of fancy Ethernet leads. My theory of why is that these switches use better quality physical layer synchronisation clocks as they support PTP (Ethernet precision time protocol) which works in part at the physical layer. A better more precise clock will produce less intermodulation interference frequencies (think FM) in the  connected device thereby reducing digital noise.

Simon

Thanks you Simon, crystal clear!

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Manu68, these Catalyst switches can bring a better performance of connected streamers... not dissimilar to the effects of fancy Ethernet leads. My theory of why is that these switches use better quality physical layer synchronisation clocks as they support PTP (Ethernet precision time protocol) which works in part at the physical layer. A better more precise clock will produce less intermodulation interference frequencies (think FM) in the  connected device thereby reducing digital noise.

Simon

from all the posts on this topic, i choose finally to go for ifi power for my switch, i have a neatgear gs105. Do you think, simon, that it is worth for me to take a cisco catalyst 2960 8 port?  will it improve a neatgear gs105 with ifi power?  I need only 3 ports, so i wonder if it worth....  have you personally tested different switches and compared sound quality?

Pierre, it may do... it will be your own subjective assessment. However using a switch with better clocks and using a less noisy powersupply for the most part address different things. 

I have compared some Netgear switches and combined router switchports with my Cisco Catalyst switches and I have heard a positive benefit with the latter. So my comparison is not comprehensive, so I put it out there for people to try. Many but certainly not all forum members who have tried them have experienced varying degrees of  improvement in using these devices.

I bought the Cisco switch recommended above and it is one of my best purchases. As well as sounding better it has cured a problem I have had with my Superuniti losing my network and needing as many as 3 tries to reconnect. My old switch was a very cheap thing but my TV and NAS never lost connection so I thought it was functionally OK.  "Old generation" Naim networked products do seem rather  finicky - let's hope the new ones are better.

Bottom line is that in my experience a switch has more influence on performance than you would think and the Cisco 8 port is a bargain S/H.

Keler Pierre posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Manu68, these Catalyst switches can bring a better performance of connected streamers... not dissimilar to the effects of fancy Ethernet leads. My theory of why is that these switches use better quality physical layer synchronisation clocks as they support PTP (Ethernet precision time protocol) which works in part at the physical layer. A better more precise clock will produce less intermodulation interference frequencies (think FM) in the  connected device thereby reducing digital noise.

Simon

from all the posts on this topic, i choose finally to go for ifi power for my switch, i have a neatgear gs105. Do you think, simon, that it is worth for me to take a cisco catalyst 2960 8 port?  will it improve a neatgear gs105 with ifi power?  I need only 3 ports, so i wonder if it worth....  have you personally tested different switches and compared sound quality?

I switched (sorry) from a Netgear GS105 with a iFi iPower to the same model of Cisco Catalyst 2960 8-port switch with the internal linear PS that S-I-S and others on here use and managed to convince myself there was a welcome improvement. As I bought the Cisco pre-loved on that auction site for £55 there was no real financial risk.

BTW I only use 3 of it's 8 ports. No problem with that.

nigelb posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Manu68, these Catalyst switches can bring a better performance of connected streamers... not dissimilar to the effects of fancy Ethernet leads. My theory of why is that these switches use better quality physical layer synchronisation clocks as they support PTP (Ethernet precision time protocol) which works in part at the physical layer. A better more precise clock will produce less intermodulation interference frequencies (think FM) in the  connected device thereby reducing digital noise.

Simon

from all the posts on this topic, i choose finally to go for ifi power for my switch, i have a neatgear gs105. Do you think, simon, that it is worth for me to take a cisco catalyst 2960 8 port?  will it improve a neatgear gs105 with ifi power?  I need only 3 ports, so i wonder if it worth....  have you personally tested different switches and compared sound quality?

I switched (sorry) from a Netgear GS105 with a iFi iPower to the same model of Cisco Catalyst 2960 8-port switch with the internal linear PS that S-I-S and others on here use and managed to convince myself there was a welcome improvement. As I bought the Cisco pre-loved on that auction site for £55 there was no real financial risk.

BTW I only use 3 of it's 8 ports. No problem with that.

you say" i managed myself to convince me" it was an improvement vs neatgear gs105/ifi power. So it was a minor improvement or you are not 100% sure it was an inprovement? thanks

Keler Pierre posted:
nigelb posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Manu68, these Catalyst switches can bring a better performance of connected streamers... not dissimilar to the effects of fancy Ethernet leads. My theory of why is that these switches use better quality physical layer synchronisation clocks as they support PTP (Ethernet precision time protocol) which works in part at the physical layer. A better more precise clock will produce less intermodulation interference frequencies (think FM) in the  connected device thereby reducing digital noise.

Simon

from all the posts on this topic, i choose finally to go for ifi power for my switch, i have a neatgear gs105. Do you think, simon, that it is worth for me to take a cisco catalyst 2960 8 port?  will it improve a neatgear gs105 with ifi power?  I need only 3 ports, so i wonder if it worth....  have you personally tested different switches and compared sound quality?

I switched (sorry) from a Netgear GS105 with a iFi iPower to the same model of Cisco Catalyst 2960 8-port switch with the internal linear PS that S-I-S and others on here use and managed to convince myself there was a welcome improvement. As I bought the Cisco pre-loved on that auction site for £55 there was no real financial risk.

BTW I only use 3 of it's 8 ports. No problem with that.

you say" i managed myself to convince me" it was an improvement vs neatgear gs105/ifi power. So it was a minor improvement or you are not 100% sure it was an inprovement? thanks

I heard a definite improvement with the Cisco. Don't want to exaggerate but I liked the Cisco over the Netgear. Going to the Cisco was a bigger improvement than adding the iFi iPower onto the Netgear.

If you buy secondhand Cisco 2960 switch from that auction site make sure it is has a reset to factory settings unless you are able to do this yourself.

nigelb posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
nigelb posted:
Keler Pierre posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Manu68, these Catalyst switches can bring a better performance of connected streamers... not dissimilar to the effects of fancy Ethernet leads. My theory of why is that these switches use better quality physical layer synchronisation clocks as they support PTP (Ethernet precision time protocol) which works in part at the physical layer. A better more precise clock will produce less intermodulation interference frequencies (think FM) in the  connected device thereby reducing digital noise.

Simon

from all the posts on this topic, i choose finally to go for ifi power for my switch, i have a neatgear gs105. Do you think, simon, that it is worth for me to take a cisco catalyst 2960 8 port?  will it improve a neatgear gs105 with ifi power?  I need only 3 ports, so i wonder if it worth....  have you personally tested different switches and compared sound quality?

I switched (sorry) from a Netgear GS105 with a iFi iPower to the same model of Cisco Catalyst 2960 8-port switch with the internal linear PS that S-I-S and others on here use and managed to convince myself there was a welcome improvement. As I bought the Cisco pre-loved on that auction site for £55 there was no real financial risk.

BTW I only use 3 of it's 8 ports. No problem with that.

you say" i managed myself to convince me" it was an improvement vs neatgear gs105/ifi power. So it was a minor improvement or you are not 100% sure it was an inprovement? thanks

I heard a definite improvement with the Cisco. Don't want to exaggerate but I liked the Cisco over the Netgear. Going to the Cisco was a bigger improvement than adding the iFi iPower onto the Netgear.

If you buy secondhand Cisco 2960 switch from that auction site make sure it is has a reset to factory settings unless you are able to do this yourself.

i found aqvox aq 8 audiophile switch. In devialet chat forum they are very impressed by it, finding it superior by a good margin to a paul pang switch. I think i will go for that in next future.

Yes I would be wary of anything that calls itself an 'audiophile' switch. Of course there is no such thing really with our TCP transfers. It is simply how some aspects of switch design interact with certain connected devices. The Cisco Catalysts are beneficial for many with the current crop of Naim streamers. That might be different with new Naim architectures in the forthcoming Uniti series and or different vendor architectures and physical interface designs.

Certainly if anyone purports to benefits of a particular device, ask want in the design contributes to this and what connected hosts has it been assessed with. Again I would be wary on something that simply focuses on the 'powersupply' as that, unless the switch is very low quality, should largely be a side show.

Simon

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Yes I would be wary of anything that calls itself an 'audiophile' switch. Of course there is no such thing really with our TCP transfers. It is simply how some aspects of switch design interact with certain connected devices. The Cisco Catalysts are beneficial for many with the current crop of Naim streamers. That might be different with new Naim architectures in the forthcoming Uniti series and or different vendor architectures and physical interface designs.

Certainly if anyone purports to benefits of a particular device, ask want in the design contributes to this and what connected hosts has it been assessed with. Again I would be wary on something that simply focuses on the 'powersupply' as that, unless the switch is very low quality, should largely be a side show.

Simon

take a look on this switch, you have a lot of technical descriptions on the site:  aqvox aq switch-8 audiophile high end network switch. But maybe the cisco 2960 catalyst is better for naim...

the problem with my system is that i have 2 switches after, tplink-optical fiber-tplink to nds. So i don't know if this switch like cisco or aqvox will really improve. My first switch is neatgear gs105, with an ifi power to arrive soon...

>> Jitter Reduction, ReClocker, Signal Shaper, De-Noiser.

Unfortunately that sounds like quite a lot of poppycock for a network data switch..... Jitter reduction possibly - but of what ? It implies it takes the jitter out of data frames, and what signal is being 'shaped'???  - what a load of rubbish. I suspect if it was more mainstream Advertising Standards Authority might take an interest...

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Manu68, these Catalyst switches can bring a better performance of connected streamers... not dissimilar to the effects of fancy Ethernet leads. My theory of why is that these switches use better quality physical layer synchronisation clocks as they support PTP (Ethernet precision time protocol) which works in part at the physical layer. A better more precise clock will produce less intermodulation interference frequencies (think FM) in the  connected device thereby reducing digital noise.

Simon

ordered mine. I'll post whether I find any difference to it. Thanks for the recommendation Simon

What I'm most interested to find out about is whether one of these 2960 switches make any difference in sound quality BEFORE a pair of FMC convertors. Not taking a punt on it myself (yet) but I would want to replace my current switch with at least a 12 port model (currently an 8 port Netgear GS108) and the Cisco's can get pricey, even used. 

charlesphoto posted:

What I'm most interested to find out about is whether one of these 2960 switches make any difference in sound quality BEFORE a pair of FMC convertors. Not taking a punt on it myself (yet) but I would want to replace my current switch with at least a 12 port model (currently an 8 port Netgear GS108) and the Cisco's can get pricey, even used. 

i have the same interrogation. Without the optical bridge (fmc convertors) people find improvement with these pricey switches but with fmc or isolators i didn't found reviews on forum members.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

>> Jitter Reduction, ReClocker, Signal Shaper, De-Noiser.

Unfortunately that sounds like quite a lot of poppycock for a network data switch..... Jitter reduction possibly - but of what ? It implies it takes the jitter out of data frames, and what signal is being 'shaped'???  - what a load of rubbish. I suspect if it was more mainstream Advertising Standards Authority might take an interest...

i read just reviews of some people using this switch on the devialet chat. In a lot of forums( devialet chat- whatsbest forum- computer audiophile) the paul pang switch has a good reputation. But some had preferred this aqvox 8 switch. I can just say that.  You have not listen to it, so why say rubbish.  I have also observed that in a majority of topics you are advertising this cisco catalyst 2960 switch. Have you personal financial interest with it?  

For you optical bridge is not a good idea, ethernet isolators not also, high end ethernet cables not so....but this switch is always on the table.  Curious?

I think S-I-S was suggesting that the marketing speak was rubbish based on the technical claims, not the kit itself.

The Cisco 2960 was mentioned on here some time ago and there were claims of SQ improvements. So for £55 I took a punt on a pre-loved one and have been pleasantly surprised. Yes it improves SQ subtly IMO, and no, it is not expensive.

charlesphoto posted:

What I'm most interested to find out about is whether one of these 2960 switches make any difference in sound quality BEFORE a pair of FMC convertors. Not taking a punt on it myself (yet) but I would want to replace my current switch with at least a 12 port model (currently an 8 port Netgear GS108) and the Cisco's can get pricey, even used. 

Charles, I have an Etalon Isolator post switch. Once I get the Cisco switch, I'll be able to test the configuration you are asking about and I'll report here.

nigelb posted:

I think S-I-S was suggesting that the marketing speak was rubbish based on the technical claims, not the kit itself.

The Cisco 2960 was mentioned on here some time ago and there were claims of SQ improvements. So for £55 I took a punt on a pre-loved one and have been pleasantly surprised. Yes it improves SQ subtly IMO, and no, it is not expensive.

i will perhaps take it. Have not said it is not an improvement, i don't know yet just.

Hi Keler,

Simon is a long standing member of the community and comes at these matters from a technical standpoint. His recommendation of this Cisco switch from a very large corporation, and available for a very reasonable 2nd hand price should, I would suggest, answer your own suspicions.

My experience is that everything makes a difference, but not necessarily an improvement. On another thread I reported on removing my EMO network isolator. On well recorded track it had a definite positive effect, on less well recorded material it was deleterious, to such an extent that I put it back in.

WRT AC Isolators, John Swenson is pushing another approach, that he links to leakage loops - edited:

Contrary to all "it makes sense to me" thoughts on the subject the way cut down on leakage loop noise with the DAC and pre/power amps is to have the tightest coupling you can get in the AC domain. Since a leakage loop goes through the AC main the higher the impedance in the mains side the higher the noise voltage generated between the boxes. I know the power conditioner is trying to suppress noise on the mains, but the methods frequently used actually increase the impedance between outlets thus increasing the noise from leakage loops.

So to test this hypothesis, try taking the power conditioner out of the system and just use a very simple power strip, no filters, nothing fancy, just outlets connected by wires. This will give a very low impedance between the AC to each power supply, which should cut down on the noise generated by leakage loops. Everything you now have connected to the power conditioner should go into the simple power strip, including all the digital stuff.

 I did this in my system (replaced a $1k power conditioner with a $35 power strip and Topaz isolation transformer) and it made a significant improvement is SQ.

 

JS recommends the Topaz:

The isolation transformer I'm using is a Topaz model, it is a very special transformer. It has extremely low inter-winding capacitance (.005pf according to the manufacturer). Most transformers have two mechanisms that transfer AC from one side to the other: magnetic and capacitive. The magnetic part is low frequency (it is what the 50/60Hz mains signal uses) and the capacitive is high frequency. The combination means that a "normal" transformer lets a lot of high frequency crud through.

With its extremely low capacitiance the Topaz doesn't pass the high frequency crud on the AV main, just the base line frequency and a couple harmonics. Thus it is a very effective noise filter.

In addition it is a very good surge suppressor as well. Most of the energy in high power surges is contained in high frequency components, which get suppressed by the low capacitance, thus it is quite an effective surge suppressor without needing any other special circuits to achieve this.

This isolation transformer keeps noise and surges from the rest of your house and neighborhood out of your audio system and fully preserves your safety ground.

Yes you are correct about the application, the Topaz plugs into the wall, the power strip plugs into it.

My recommendation is to use a simple power strip with NO filtering or surge suppression, the Topaz does it much better than what will come in almost any power strip. I plug EVERYTHING into thepower strip. This dramatically cuts down on the impedance between boxes, significantly lowering noise generated by leakage loops.

Some people will say "but then the noise injected back into the AC mains can go right into other boxes". Yes it can. BUT recent experiments have been pointing to the leakage loops being a significantly greater detriment to ultimate good sound than the injected noise. Of course different systems are different and this may not be true in all systems, but it is looking like this is a good place to start for many systems.

John S.

Mr Underhill posted:

Hi Keler,

Simon is a long standing member of the community and comes at these matters from a technical standpoint. His recommendation of this Cisco switch from a very large corporation, and available for a very reasonable 2nd hand price should, I would suggest, answer your own suspicions.

My experience is that everything makes a difference, but not necessarily an improvement. On another thread I reported on removing my EMO network isolator. On well recorded track it had a definite positive effect, on less well recorded material it was deleterious, to such an extent that I put it back in.

WRT AC Isolators, John Swenson is pushing another approach, that he links to leakage loops - edited:

Contrary to all "it makes sense to me" thoughts on the subject the way cut down on leakage loop noise with the DAC and pre/power amps is to have the tightest coupling you can get in the AC domain. Since a leakage loop goes through the AC main the higher the impedance in the mains side the higher the noise voltage generated between the boxes. I know the power conditioner is trying to suppress noise on the mains, but the methods frequently used actually increase the impedance between outlets thus increasing the noise from leakage loops.

So to test this hypothesis, try taking the power conditioner out of the system and just use a very simple power strip, no filters, nothing fancy, just outlets connected by wires. This will give a very low impedance between the AC to each power supply, which should cut down on the noise generated by leakage loops. Everything you now have connected to the power conditioner should go into the simple power strip, including all the digital stuff.

 I did this in my system (replaced a $1k power conditioner with a $35 power strip and Topaz isolation transformer) and it made a significant improvement is SQ.

 

JS recommends the Topaz:

The isolation transformer I'm using is a Topaz model, it is a very special transformer. It has extremely low inter-winding capacitance (.005pf according to the manufacturer). Most transformers have two mechanisms that transfer AC from one side to the other: magnetic and capacitive. The magnetic part is low frequency (it is what the 50/60Hz mains signal uses) and the capacitive is high frequency. The combination means that a "normal" transformer lets a lot of high frequency crud through.

With its extremely low capacitiance the Topaz doesn't pass the high frequency crud on the AV main, just the base line frequency and a couple harmonics. Thus it is a very effective noise filter.

In addition it is a very good surge suppressor as well. Most of the energy in high power surges is contained in high frequency components, which get suppressed by the low capacitance, thus it is quite an effective surge suppressor without needing any other special circuits to achieve this.

This isolation transformer keeps noise and surges from the rest of your house and neighborhood out of your audio system and fully preserves your safety ground.

Yes you are correct about the application, the Topaz plugs into the wall, the power strip plugs into it.

My recommendation is to use a simple power strip with NO filtering or surge suppression, the Topaz does it much better than what will come in almost any power strip. I plug EVERYTHING into thepower strip. This dramatically cuts down on the impedance between boxes, significantly lowering noise generated by leakage loops.

Some people will say "but then the noise injected back into the AC mains can go right into other boxes". Yes it can. BUT recent experiments have been pointing to the leakage loops being a significantly greater detriment to ultimate good sound than the injected noise. Of course different systems are different and this may not be true in all systems, but it is looking like this is a good place to start for many systems.

John S.

thanks you for your recommendation of the topaz transformer , i will look and take interest of it.  I appreciate this forum because people are sharing there experiences and helping people when they have technical problems with their system.

I am also trying sometimes to help when i can. The streaming/ ethernet topic is not simple, and relatively new for everyone.  There is no unique truth in the streaming world and this world is progressing very quickly.  

I am just a bit nervous when someone is thinking that he has the only good answer and other answers are not correct.  Ethernet isolators and optical bridges are acclaimed by a majority of users., but the switch question appears more delicate in opinion and user's experience.

To end, aqvox is a serious audio german enterprise and i doubt they will make a rubbish product.

I will follow the advises of a majority of naim members and take ifi powers on my switches.

For a bettter switch, aqvox or cisco catalyst or paul pang, i will take time and read users sharings( who have already optical bridges). 

And of course i will investigate the topaz transformer.  Thanks .

nigelb posted:

I think S-I-S was suggesting that the marketing speak was rubbish based on the technical claims, not the kit itself.

Correct - indeed Nigel. Always suspicious when it appears somebody/ some company has grabbed a string of technical sounding terms together to make a product sound good for those with no or little understanding/knowledge of the subject matter.

Not sure if I am a little off topic but after reading Andrew Everards article about going fibre optic network from router to switch I gave it a try and what a remarkable improvement, Galvanised isolation it's called. All the internet traffic noise is removed. No capacitance or resistance that copper has. For a little over a £ 100 you can not go wrong.

sbilotta posted:

I put an ifi on a Paul Pang switch and there was a clear (even if not dramatic) improvement.

Should be getting an LPS-1 soon and will swap it out and let you know the outcome.

Got the LPS-1 and after some running in I put it on the Paul Pang switch last night (being fed by the ifi) and the improvement was very clear.

Sedgey Rirrf posted:

Ifi does work well on my Tp-link switch

Bought x2 Audioquest Vodka Ethernet to replace the Cinnamon cables and my world has blossomed. Sounds from what I can remember like  my old  Linn Sondek. Truly I can settle and relax with these. Very Analogue ish. 

Have you compare them with diamonds?

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×