Indeed we do like to argue to the nth degree on here.
I have asked for papers or research results on the measured difference between sound quality for ‘best’ implementation of wifi and wired systems. No one has pointed me to any. My entirely subjective experience, as everyone else’s must be, is that my implementation of wifi is as good as my implementation of hard wired. My further experiential conclusions are that differing the streamer and dac make significant differences to the sound. I only offer that experience as something to discuss or consider for others to use or discard as they think fit.
If we want to take out the fact that we are discussing this on a hifi forum, then I am sure that there is the relevant technical expertise amongst the lan/wan members to explain why the implementation of wifi has been so badly mis sold to the world when hard wired is not only adequate but provides a better service.
I think, as mentioned by several above, it’s just that, generally, wired works more predictably, easier and stable in an average home environment, or less of a pain. Sound quality improvement further to that is a slightly different matter and is what everyone decides to invest further in quality components - however debatable and personal this might be - but it really does not need any huge investment at all to make wired work flawlessly (and not more than wifi).
Wifi, if perfected (very difficult or largely impossible for any average user and average home environment), might bring SQ benefits - and even then wifi optimisation of hifi hardware is not universal as wifi is a source of interference in your streamer/dac box too.
You would have noticed that your high end DAC has no wifi card inside and no wifi capability at all - it may be for a good reason?
My high end dac (edit: Vega hdmi connected to an Aries) is from Auralic who have, and advertise, their optimised wifi for hifi connectivity
From a magazine review.
“The next thing I want to talk about is WiFi. There are many streamers out there that offer WiFi, however, for most there will be a downgrade in performance. This is mostly due to the fact that WiFi is noisy. AURALiC has worked really hard to make WiFi as quiet as possible, and they even recommend connecting the Aries via WiFi, as an Ethernet cord is just another way to introduce noise into your system. In my testing I was not able to tell the difference between WiFi and Ethernet. Switching back and forth was not noticeable, and the Aries continued to be just as responsive.”
Whether that is marketing bs or not could be debated, but at least they are trying.
As the quote says “AURALiC has worked really hard to make WiFi as quiet as possible”
I find their manufacturer guidance very balanced, useful and practical and I don’t think they advertise WiFi over wired, just seem to be saying it’s good and improved? In fact, as I read, they say “Wi-Fi can offer a great solution if you’re not able to run an ethernet cable between your AURALiC streamer and your home network router. “ … IF you are not able to run an ethernet cable…
Indeed I was referring to your VEGA G2.1 DAC, one of the best around - and no wifi inside!
When it comes to networking, some may claim that fibre optic is superior, others may support direct ethernet wiring and yet others are proponents of WiFi.
In truth, all are capable of providing adequate performance and all can provide SoTA performance WHEN fully optimized. Given that non will provide their best possible performance without being optimized, the first question is; are you perfectly happy with ‘adequate sound quality’ and would you like to keep your system as simple and cheap as possible? If the answer is “yes” then either simple, uncomplicated ethernet or wi-fi will suffice. Just don’t expect anything like the best performance your system could provide. In the analog field, that would be akin to buying a $300 turntable and expecting £30,000 performance. Just isn’t going to happen.
Generally speaking, networking products and standards were never developed with music reproduction in mind, so it would be the rare network engineer who is familiar with the sonic results of any type of network. For them, the concept of ‘bit perfect’ is as far as networking needs to go and as long as you have the same bit pattern at the end as at the beginning, you’re golden.
But if you’re not satisfied with mediocre sonic performance and really want to know something about how networking can be optimised to get the best sonics, you probably need to talk to the few DIY Audiophile IT specialists who post details of their work and experiments and to companies developing S0TA equipment for digital streaming….companies like Taiko Audio, Innuos, Pink Faun etc.
When you do that, you find that there is a substantial amount of research going on, but all with the purpose of developing the best DIY or commercial products (I am really not aware of any academic research into digital streaming……I imagine getting appropriate funding levels could be difficult).
What you will find is that the people mentioned above understand the impact of all kinds of network related digital issues, conditions, faults, set points etc. on the resulting sonics of computer based hifi.
To give you some examples:
Power supply ripple
Power supply impedance
Network traffic
Ground plane noise
Error handling
Bandwidth
Bios settings
Operating systems
Push vs pull comms
Interfaces
CPU activity and interrupts
Power supply topology
Buffer sizes
Switch noise
Galvanic Isolation
Hardware layout
Bandwidth
File format
Software
Filters
Memory devices
EMI production and control
RFI control
Clock stability and jitter
Cables
Vibration and resonance control
Board layout
Etc. etc.
Some of their findings will surprise you, for example that your streaming set up can influence the sound quality of your analog music reproduction.
The input of experts and research is beneficial to manufacturers and suppliers and I applaud them
BUT
this topic is about wired and Wi-Fi networks, and streaming. My modest, stable, wired system delivers better SQ and experience from my PC W10 “NAS”, Qobuz and Internet radio than my TT, CD player and tuner did previously (they have earned their long rest in the loft).
So maybe I have cracked your 27 examples!
Streaming is simple so let us not over-complicate it.
Many users on this forum are more concerned about “cannot find room” or “station lost” because when it is stable it both works and sounds fine.
It’s an interesting question. I am not one to proclaim that “bits are bits” and thus there can be no difference. I was convinced (to my surprise) of the benefit of a Powerline within 30 seconds of first plugging it in. But, try as I might, I can’t tell the difference between a wired and a wireless connection to my router. This was also rather to my surprise as the received wisdom on this forum and elsewhere is that there SHOULD be an obvious difference.
I use a wired network but have a laptop with a test version of Asset and Serviio, and a copy of my library that can connect over Wi-Fi. I have a good Wi-Fi too and in an A/B test there is no difference.
The reason for strongly suggesting a wired network is:
Firstly stability.
Secondly some early Naim streamers have flaky Wi-Fi modules so a wired connection overcomes this issue.
Having asked the original question, I should say I have a wired connection (2960, to server using Catsnake ethernet cable), then server to USB DAC, via a relatively cheap cable. To my ears there is no audible noise or jitter (and not sure what jitter would sound like anyway), so am happy. I can’t easily use Wi-Fi in my set up so can’t compare.
I am however persuaded that any modern DAC should rid itself of most transmission noise and jitter however it gets there, and measurements of the output of a DAC usually show no difference when a device supposed to reduce these audio nasties is placed before it, so “demonstrating” that the DAC is doing it’s job without help (or the device is not doing what it claims). However, I am intrigued by the fact that many people can hear a difference when measurements say there isn’t one.
My system may work well as all my Powerlines are on the same circuit/ring main. Being a small property I believe there is only one circuit for the ground floor plug sockets & a separate one for the first floor ones which I have no network items connected to. Being a small house, Wi-Fi works well & easily in the whole house &, as previously stated, only my PC, the TV & Hi-Fi are hardwired to the network.
The lighting circuits are separate, as are the kitchen appliance & shower circuits.
Yes, my bad. I was meaning that putting something in front of a DAC that is supposed to reduce jitter and eliminate other nasties usually appears to make no difference to the measurements of those parameters at the output of the DAC, but people claim to be able to hear a difference. I’d better edit.
Wi-fi or ethernet impacting sound quality is technically not possible on how the transmission protocols work. If a streamer device is picking up interference from wi-fi signals or noise from an ethernet connection, the device is extremely poorly designed or defective.
The way the streamer receives the digital music data works technically same way as you download a music file to your computer. The content of a, say flac file, will be exactly the same regardless on what kind of connection you downloaded it with. Any corruption in a music file is extremely audible, I bet many of you have heard a corrupted mp3 file or a scratched CD.
There is a lot of subjective judgement in going from adequate to mediocre. By definition the former to the ears of the beholder is not the latter. That’s your bias talking or perhaps a poor choice of words.
My system has none of your list. I get hours of enjoyment out of it and all who have heard it think it’s great. In terms of what might be achievable then sure it may only fall to be classified as adequate but to many sets of ears it is already more than enough and thus nowhere near mediocre.
But surely if the manufacturers know of that long list of influences then analog isolation and digital domain processing will eliminate network artefacts that impact sound quality?
So I have some technical knowledge of networking (not very deep though) and I would like to know if you can make improvements in sound quality simply be making configuration changes to a home Wi-Fi router (i.e. those provided by broadband suppliers). For example if I configure my BT router to give each Hi-Fi device a static IP address and keep all of the traffic between those devices to one band will keeping all other devices (computer, pads, phones etc.) on the other band is that likely to make any difference at all?
Would other router changes make any noticeable difference?
I appreciate that quality of components (e.g. Wi-fi and power supply units) are likely to have a big impact.
Hi Andrewsb,
Based on my experience and what I have read from other enthusiasts the router can play a significant role in final sound quality.
Routers with the Broadcom chipset outperform routers using the Puma chipset due to some serious flaws (bugs) in the Puma.
Also, a tri-band router like the TPLink ASC5400 with one 5GHz channel dedicated to audio works extremely well, given that it checks all the boxes below. This usually requires that the ISP router be set to modem only mode and connected to a better quality router via its WAN cable
Other major improvements can be made with power supplies and anti-vibration measures. I use an Atacama base under my router.
When setting up a router several things should be well managed:
Network traffic……you want as little as possible near your hi-fi and you should avoid bottlenecks on any of the router’s channels
Signal strength….ideally you want enough to make a reliable link without soaking your hi-fi in RFI
Interference sources such as microwave ovens
Priority of clients. You want audio streaming to have the highest priority
Bandwidth….using 2.4GHz is preferred for distance and wall penetration but is far more likely to suffer channel overcrowding from close neighbours. You should always check to see which channels are busy and which have plenty of bandwidth. 5GHz suffers less from overcrowding because it wont penetrate walls, doesn’t have good distance capability and is generally not as common amongst typical household wi-fi clients.
There are other areas like buffer sizes that can be managed to the benefit of your hi-fi but that does require some specialised technical knowledge.
Hi Chargel,
That’s certainly true for the Taiko Extreme , given the amount of effort that Emile Bok and his crew have put into making their server network independent . Having said that, their next products awaiting release are a network card, router, switch and battery power supply.
