Hi Peder,
That’s amazing, do I understand you correctly, he could tell from the click of the stylus landing if he had improved the system?
Also can you help, I have trying to obtain a cd “all that blues from Sweden vol1” do you know a source in Sweden or where I could buy a flac copy please?
Search for posts on the old forum.
The effect they have is system & power supply dependant
A friend of mine has some on his Linn KDSM & active speakers he says they work well & I’ve heard that indeed they did make a subtle difference on his system
I borrowed one & tried it on SMPS power board & the amp/tuner/PSU power board. I could not detect any difference on my system; probably because I have & very good power supply & my SMPS board is powered from APS-UPS & its internal isolation & the amp/tuner/PSU board has an integral DC blocking filter
Does it say PoE on the front?
If so then it can send power as well as data to a pd switch.
But as SiS says you’d need a 2960 PD switch to receive it.
Yes, poe
In effect that is applying a short burst of white noise, with his ears are attuned to picking out variations within that, telling him if it is a smoother or more peaky response than the previous. I can certainly picture that being possible for someone with very good ears and a lot of training/experience. For ordinary people without such highly tuned ears and training, software like REW with a microphone at the listening position makes the process very simple, giving a visual image in just a couple of seconds,
That is adjusting a speaker for the best response, after having made certain basic assessments anyway to give the starting point for adjustments. Assessing other things, whether black boxes or wires, is often far more subtle because the differences are generally quite unlike the shifts in frequency peaks and troughs as you move a speaker. I understand that you are using ‘Tune-Dem’, but as I said in post 4419:
I have done the test once more today, so 1 week later.
Between the cascade Ciscos and only the PD blue model alone, the differences are minimal. The Cascade Ciscos sound a bit more dynamic and open, however the PD alone is perhaps a little bit nicer on voices. I will do this comparing later once more quickly to choose definitely the best set up for my taste.
For me, the differences between Ethernet cables are bigger , specially between BJ and Vodka, still bigger vs Diamond. Even bigger between vodka and Diamond than between cascade Ciscos and PD alone.
It gives me the reason to think that an ER with linear ps, alone, is probably all I need later.
1 Like
The jury is still out here on the ER, although things are starting to stabilise after 5 days burn-in
3 Likes
I’m assuming you have the latest ER firmware. I have too, which solves the EEE dropout problems of earlier versions, but I did get some dropout problems and then non-functioning of the B-side port on one my ER units, which was solved by powering down and then up again. I think it may have become upset by repeated connection changes.
At first I had a theoretical thought,.that in a dual-Cisco solution so it is best to have two similar models of Cisco.
In our case two Cisco Catalyst WS2960-8TC-L.
But then @Darkebear has a 2940,and a 2960,.then this thought falls.
It may still have a bearing on the synergy,.to have two of the same Cisco’s.
But I stopped thinking about it,.because I’m certainly not an expert on this.
However,.I am good at evaluating,test under controlled forms,.and based on this,draw conclusions how I should proceed.
In our dual-Cisco solution,.when we tested these two.
Both were in the same hifi rack,.had exactly the same rubber feet.
The polarity (phase) was connected in the right way.
The powercables were exactly the same,.in both of our Cisco (Jorma Duality w Oyaide M1/F1).
The plug in the same order in the socket in the powerstrip,.as the music-signal goes through the system.
We then changed the order of these,.to also test this.
Between Cisco1 and Cisco 2,.it was an Audioquest Diamond 1,5m.
A similar AQ Diamond 1,5m sat between Cisco 2 and the streamer.
As well as some other things,.so that both of these Cisco would have the same conditions,when we started testing.
So the conditions were exactly the same with one Cisco,.as with this dual-Cisco solution.
And the dual-Cisco solution was markedly better musically,.there was nothing to discuss,there was a very clear difference to the better musically.
Then,.as I wrote about previously in the thread,we have also tested an external Linear Power Supply at Cisco1,.in this dual-Cisco solution.
And that difference was greater musically,.than what the dual-Cisco solution was.
We will also test an external LPS on Cisco 2,.in this dual-Cisco solution.
But it will be in January.
Then it will be two Cisco,.and two external LPS.
Exciting times…
Peder🙂
2 Likes
Mine seems far more stable after 7 days.
They have a signature of being very quiet, detailed, clean and calm. The top-end into mid-band is improved over my ‘Reference’ 2960 switch.
By only problem is with the perceived - as of yet - handling of the frequency response lower-mid to bass; it is just not that relaxed yet - over-taught.
Now a lot of new HiFi can run-in this way and take a month before the bass opens-out and breathes a bit more, so perhaps the week it has had is not yet enough. The bass is very tight and very deep bass quite powerful and impressively controlled. Just the sense of air and relaxed space is not yet so much below mid-band, compared to upper-frequencies. This can accentuate drums for example.
But it is fairly stable now compared to a few days ago - fewer changes.
Given that how I’m hearing any of this at all is another thing, given that all ER this switch or any of them are doing in my system is placing the Melco-ND555 onto a network (it is not between them) with no data flowing through it.
I can also hear exactly the same sonic effects when the ND555 has already cached the song and it is just a pause - swap switch - resume A-B then B-A test.
I’m thinking this is about noise injection along the Ethernet via innate random noise on the Ethernet driver output and due to wibble on the Ethernet traffic edges being reduced so there are lower side-bands about the fundamental to cause modulation noise when it hits non-linearities inside the HiFi.
The dropping of noise - actually audible as reduced noise background and more detail, imply that the D to A process and Reference voltages are quieter. But no idea - just saying this is nothing to do with errors.
The run-in and assessment continues. I’ve decided I will take my time with these and see how they are after another week or two.
The Melco switch also needed run-in but had a different signature and sounded ‘flatter’ and more even-handed, but perhaps not yet as sweet and detailed in HF as the ER. But both have not run-in and no idea where they would end.
I’ve only had one - on first power-up needing to re-power and it has been otherwise solid for a week with no drop-outs - and I’ve been connecting and disconnecting A and B ports a lot.
DB.
1 Like
The cascade Ciscos in my set up with white 8tc model and blue PD is sounding better vs the only white non PD. However, the differences between cascade and blue PD are minimal in my home and system.
Nothing is changing in the set up, only the vodka is connected between router and first Cisco or between first and second ( so BJ between router and first).
Maybe with a vodka on also the router / first Cisco would still improve. Very probably.
From my test, on my opinion, better have one Cisco PD model with good power cord and best sounding Ethernet cables ( in my case the diamond) than 2 Ciscos with average sounding Ethernet cables and power cords.
For me the Ethernet cables have greater impact.
Then the PD model comes in second. Probably the cascade Ciscos in third position, but I will have to compare once more vs an alone PD Cisco.
Hi DB
Are you saying that the differences you describe have happened after you’ve attached the ER switch to the same final Cisco that feeds the ND555, or to the Melco, or what?
Jim
Trial: 2940 - ER - Melco - ND555
Ref: 2940 - 2960 - Melco - ND555
…so just swapping the ER in for the 2960 - then back later to compare.
In fact I’m running both ER and 2960 from the 2940 and just move the feed from one to other - I can do it in 3 or 4 secs, so easy and quick to compare.
Then I try different Ethernet cables from the 2940 to ER over time - as the ER has run-in more what worked one day (or even hour) was not best later; it seems you can ‘tune’ the performance a lot by the feed to the A port. The B port goes to Melco then Melco to ND555.
…it makes no difference - I know - but it does.
DB.
1 Like
I’ve gone back to the one PD switch for now. I have another new PD switch coming Monday, then I’ll daisy-chain and hear what happens again. I have found with the onboard PSU switch daisy-chained in the music becomes too fat. I don’t dig the lardy sound in any shape or form so will now wait until my other PD arrives before trying again…
So try to see how you find the cascade Ciscos vs the only one PD ( external ps). I am curious…
1 Like
And are all these tests using only files stored on the Melco?
Or some also with web steamed music?
I’m guessing the former as you said that no data is flowing thru the ER.
So the ER is electrically feeding noise into the Melco and ND555, which makes significant alterations to the sound.
All the boxes are wired in series and switched on so it makes sense that each changes the whole.
Maybe worth comparing with web streaming of the same tracks to see how that alters things.
Also perhaps of interest to put the ER after the Melco. It might sound worse - but you never know.
I’m going to have to book an appointment with an audiologist.
My hearing doesn’t even register on the scale if some of the comments here are anything to go by.
3 Likes
Are you finding the single switch more coherent with a tad more boogie factor also?
I’d say it is more that it is not feeding as much noise as other items - perhaps.
All boxes feed noise - commercial items will meet a spec to ‘work’ and meet design criteria which will have not much to do with an ideal low-noise injection into a streaming system. It is either audible or not - I’m finding it is easy to hear.
The Ethernet is a matched transmission line that ‘should’ have its signal regenerated ‘clean’ (actually just differently) at each transposition stage. But each box will inject its own noise and ride atop the noise being fed into it and pass that on - unless it cleanly regenerates the signal and has a now-noise PS to help with that.
I’m guessing if one box is inserted that injects very little noise nearby the other boxes designed for HiFi and low noise then this may be why it is apparent. Both Melco and ND555 are HiFi items that claim low noise and the ER has an isolation bridge inside between the A ports and the B port out to the HiFi.
So replacing a commercial Cisco 2960 switch with a specially designed switch intended to isolate noise-injection may be why I’m hearing differences in noise - at a guess. 
I’m of the ‘try it’ camp rather than deciding by dogmatic faith without trying it is impossible.
The fact it is easy audible to me and a few friended that I’ve demoed it to and hear the effect but put their own words to describe it their own way, but not tangential to what I hear is interesting.
On female vocal it is especially obvious - and on all high-frequency edges of percussion - subtle timing information and patterns that were a blur now distinct.
I think it has some more run-in to go though.
DB.
3 Likes
Not sure that they are differences on the boogie factor. But I want to compare again. Don’t know yet which set up I prefer.