I’m struggling to be honest. You purchased some geeky stuff to see if it would make a difference.
You made the effort to get it installed.
You heard a difference.
?
You’re struggling? I’m confused. Is there something I’m missing?
All you need is just some simple, cheap ethernet cables using the cisco switch as a hub.
You make things too complicated, and your system may sound worse as a result.
for me, vs cheap ethernet cables, it sounded better with the fiber bridge.
That seems a strange way to connect a LAN - if I understand your description correctly - you have the server connected to the router which is also a switch & then to another switch & then to the Atom
That’s two switches in series (daisy chained)
The accepted convention is server - switch - renderer (Atom) for all the local streaming & a branch from the switch to the router for internet (web streaming) & local wireless communications.
It’s certainly possible to make things more complicated than they need to be, and I’m all for keeping things simple wherever possible.
Having said that, if switches are working properly, they shouldn’t be causing any problems. As it happens, between my server and NDX, there are 3 switches, because that’s what I need to get a wired LAN around the house with ports in the right places. It works just as well as it does if I connect all the audio gear to the same switch.
You have it right Mike.
The theory behind this is that the Mac Mini runs off a smps so putting it in to the router direct, isolates it from the Atom.
I have more tests to do regards moving stuff around to get the best sound quality, but so far, this is the best I have come up with.
As previously noted, the clocks etc in the converter may not be the best quality so putting it before the switch allows the switch to reclock and send a decent signal to the Atom.
The only thing of (minor) concern is the converter uses a smps itself. My intention is to try it with a linear supply once I dig one out of the cupboard.
I don’t understand or agree the logic.
The Mac Mini SMPS will not be isolated from the Atom by plugging it into the router, any switching noise that does exist permeates all over ethernet & power (assuming its a problem - which I don’t believe can be said is always the case)
As you point out the Fibre converters are SMPS’s, as does the Cisco switch as does the router; & not forgetting every other electrical device around the house, including the Atom for its standby operation.
The obvious location for the fibre link is on the ethernet line into the Atom. & then get the Mac Mini plugged into the Cisco switch
I’ve install fibre in a friends AV + HiFi, a lot of fuss for not much gains IMO.
I’m not sure it’s suited or brings much to a domestic network, best for long distance outside the scope of ethernet & large commercial installs (IMO)
Anyhow, you’re having fun experimenting, so whats to loose. Enjoy.
All I can do is point at the results I have had so far.
If I put the converter between switch and Atom, frankly, it’s crap. Move it between the switch and router, there’s a definite uplift in sound (to me anyways).
Putting the Mac Mini back on the Cisco switch, again, drops SQ. On the router, it’s OK.
Best sound is as I described. I’ll move it around some more to see if I can improve but I’m happy with what I have.
Whether this is convention or accepted practice doesn’t matter. As I said previously, as with all things audio, numbers mean nothing.
It’s not in the way, it works and I’m enjoying it.
Really, for what it cost, it’s worth a try. (And that’s all it was to me, something to play with)
You never know, you might like it.
2 Likes
Sure, but what you are doing is digital noise shaping… you are moving the noise around and prefer your current noise config on your setup… you may well be probably adding yet more noise underneath the covers with the media converters that you have inserted in your Ethernet segment tomyour streamer, but sure you may well find the end more digitally noisy end result more pleasing…
My preference is to simplify and thereby reduce noise overall, and focus elsewhere to optimise the performance… but there is nothing wrong with tinkering… but do bear in mind there are probably several ways of creating your noise shaped environment… possibly more reliably.
I would suggest in the longer term once you have finished tinkering that a more simplified setup is ultimately a more reliable setup… and possibly what you may want to think about.
Noise shaping is a well established phenomenon the land of Naim, and a similar approach is used in firmware ‘tuning’ where the processing noise can be shaped by the code execution timing by the engineers, almost like a digital tone control, to provide the subjectively most appealing result… but even in the very controlled environment, compared to a home network setup, of the Naim DAC or streamer it can be a little hit and miss.
2 Likes
If it’s noise shaping then so be it. What’s the difference between this and cable swapping?
If there’s noise and distortion on the square wave then whats the problem with ‘reshaping’ said square wave to a more theoretically perfect version of itself. I can’t verify if any shaping has taken place, I don’t have the test equipment. All I have are the 2 fleshy appendages on the side of my head.
I had no idea where my experiments would lead when I started, would it be better, worse or no change. Didn’t have a clue. All I know is I prefer it now to previously.
I fail to see why you should have an issue with this.
Probably not a lot, but to my mind a cable is probably a more reliable tweak in the longer term.
I think you misunderstand however what noise shaping means… it’s about moving the noise present such that it is less obviously noticed and interferes less when listening (as in this case) to the resultant audio…
it’s the noise spectrum that is shaped by moving it to where it is more benign in the associated system.
when i had the media converters, the sound was more open, softer and nicer, with more fine details. For me it was more an effect of the removed than added noise.
Finally i replaced the fiber bridge by audioquest diamond ethernet cables, which gave me the same sound but with better timing.
Maybe my interpretation was a little off kilter (thanks for the clarification) but my previous point still stands.
If noise shaping (as you describe) provides a better overall sound, wheres the problem.
Wouldn’t vibration / resonance control be classified as such. (think equipment supports and the like)?
What about the order which gear is placed on a rack? Etc etc.
The list goes on and o…
To replace what I have with something like the Diamond would be prohibitively expensive. I’ll stick to what I have for now and just enjoy it. 
2 Likes
I can’t see what you doing is any different to what others do with their tweaks and what I have done. If you have found it works for you then well done. There are no hard and fast rules. You can see that on hear as what works for some doesn’t for others.
Hi @raym55 there is no problem with experimenting/tinkering at all. My only caution would be about concluding cause and effect when based on empirical observations/listening with such modifications to your environment…
However my advice would be to keep the audio system and supporting infrastructure as simple as possible, as that will aid reliability and consistency over time… but clearly that is a personal choice
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.