Any advice/recommendations on this setup please?


#1

Hi everyone

Wondering if I can call on the forum’s expertise as to whether my network/cabling is as optimum as can be. Been reading that ideally the switches should be kept away from the hi-fi kit but if I was to do that, that would mean a bunch of long ethernet cables trailing round the room which wouldn’t look great.

I was planning on getting another switch maybe, and having that run off the Cisco 2960 (with another AQ Cinnamon) and then the NDX off that using existing AQ Cinnamon but wondering that’s really necessary. And yes, the AQ cables made a positive difference to these ears (let’s not go there).

Any advice or pointers would be gratefully received. I’m a total novice on this front and it’s a miracle that I’ve been able to produce any sound at all.


#3

Hi Catcat, your network looks to me to be pretty well OK & I’m not sure any changes will do anything better.
I don’t believe another switch will do anything positive.
I’ve not read/heard that having a switch close to the audio is detrimental, I don’t buy it personally, can you show where I can read up on that please.


#4

Why do you need two switches?
Cisco 2960 should have more ports than one could ever need at home…

I would run all the network components off one switch to make life easier and reduce on a number of connections.


#5

Because I don’t know what I’m doing :slight_smile:

I think I started off following the schematic here http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/audioquest-ethernet-cables-pt2-ethernet-cable


#6

Looks good to me.


#7

Hmm I may have misread something in the archive, but will post if I can find it. What I 100% did read though was a Hifi Critic article where they put isolation feet under a Cisco 2960 :slight_smile: Personally there’s only so far I’m prepared to go.

Thanks for advising the set-up looks ok - good to know.


#8

No please don’t over complicate anything with a network, it’s not needed & does absolutely diddly squat for SQ


#9

Isolation feet for a switch huh? I thought I had heard it all…


#10

:smiley:


#11

Fair enough. But it’s absolutely an overkill.
The simpler, the better should be your guide.

@Mike-B prepared a great simple diagram, that illustrates the connections.
The sequence, essentially becomes:

  1. Router from your Internet Service Supplier (this is often quite poor, so a lot of us disable it’s wi-fi, and use it merely as a signal decoder)

2, Your own router, including Wi-Fi - this starts and defines your network and acts as your WiFi access point.

  1. Your own switch (here you have a great Cisco product)

  2. All networked gear connected to the same switch with ethernet cables (Cat5e and higher).


#12

I would agree that keeping things simple is the best way forwards, and I wouldn’t daisy chain switch unless you have to.
The argument in favour of the Cisco Catalyst switch applies to the streamer connected directly to it, so it would be wasted if you stick a different one in between.


#13

The current second switch is just daisy-chained for the non-audio stuff (TV, DVD, Apple TV) to hang off it but thanks, I get your point about keeping the streamer directly connected to the Cisco switch and not put another in the chain.


#14

To the op, there seems to be a million variants of the cisco switch, If yours is a t100 speed then its going to be a major bottle neck for your NAS.

I am sure the cisco ‘sounds’ better but hobbling your network for such an incremental sound upgrade is madness to me.


#15

In what way would FastEthernet be a bottleneck for streaming Music from a NAS?


#16

For streaming music it will be fine, for copying files, backups and everything else, its a bottleneck.


#17

There may be a bottleneck in some cases, but certainly not for music. Naim streamers only run 100MB as that is plenty. Most Catalyst switches (other than the newer GB models) have at least one dual purpose RJ45/SFP port which runs at GB speed, and I use these as ‘uplinks’ with client devices on the regular ports. This is plenty for my needs, and if it ever becomes a bottleneck, swapping out the switch for a fast one is simple.


#18

Mine is this, no idea what that means in terms of bottleneck


#19

:small_blue_diamond: Catcat,…That in the picture looks good,… Besides…
:black_small_square: Move your ehternet-cable for TV,etc (Netgear GS205).,from your Cisco to your BT-homehub.
If everything in your music-system is optimally installed,…then you should also experience a little soundquality improvement.

And for those of you who wonder,…Yes,we have tested this.!

:small_orange_diamond: Mike_S wrote,…“Isolation feet for a switch huh? I thought I had heard it all…”

:black_small_square:Here you have apparently not tested,and lacking experience :wink:.
Everything is important,…Think “Attention To Detail”.

We in our group have tested this,…AND YES,… different underlay/feet is important for better soundquality.
But again,…if your music-system is not optimally installed,you will probably hear no difference.

I’ll post a picture later on a couple of cheap rubber feet,that work very well on a particular shelf.

:small_blue_diamond: Cisco WS-C2960-8TC-L
:black_small_square:Catcat,…This above is the one written about for over two years,…thousands of posts and advices.
The one you have with a G,I think is a bit weaker,…maybe Simon can confirm the difference.

/Peder🙂


#20

rundade-apparatfotter-20-st IMG_0287

:small_blue_diamond:This above is the Swedish Harmony-rack with aluminium shelves,…Costs £3500:-.
Here on this Harmony-rack,these small rubber feet above work best under the Cisco,…they cost £3:-for 20 PCs.

So expensive is not always best :wink::grin:.

/Peder :slightly_smiling_face:


#21

Hi CatCat thats a gigabit one so you are golden.