Putting a switch in the chain - mixed feelings

Streaming Audio
75

Umm - well, some of the reports are impossible to interpret because the poster refuses to say what kit they have in what configuration.

Yes, there are random elements to the use of any switch, cable or other bit of equipment because it will respond to the unique syste, including the overall electrical environment of the person’s house, the room, and the person’s hearing and taste.

But I do think that there are enough reports from trusted members of the forum whose systems are known, that certain patterns can be discerned.

As you know, I summarised what I believed were a few key general findings on the long switches thread.

Also, some other general findings seem to be emerging slowly here on some of the newer switches that are in the market.

Some facts about how these components are built are coming to light.

And some good quality reports of the SQ effects they have for individuals are being shared.

3 Likes
76

Well, I’ve got a Cisco 2960 and some Designacable Cat6a winging it’s way to me now. I’ve got no switch and generic Cat5e at the moment. It’s relatively low cost and I need a switch anyway as I ran out of ISP router connections ages ago. A month or so ago I would have said that it would not make a difference at all, bits are bits and all that, but have been convinced to give it a go.

My system is visible in my profile so fingers crossed it does something good.

77

Wrong replay, sorry…

1 Like
78

… sorry, i don’t understand what you are traying to point out…

Regards
Theopa

79

Just in case it was me: that was just a silly joke on “unmanaged”. So nothing to understand really… But I do not believe a managed switch is essential for improved sound quality, And in fact most Cisco users on this forum do not avail themselves of the possibilities.

80

Hello MichaelB,

Aha, I understand.

True, a managed, and especially a used managed switch, is IMHO not the solution for data-integrity on your LAN. Resetting those managed switches is not easy, and leave them managed as they are will cause new, other for the user unknow issues on the LAN.

Maybe a bit of a semantic discussion, but a manageable switch is ALWAYS managed, that’s why it is called a managed switch. When you leave it in its originale state, it will still be a managed switch, managed by its former owner(s) or by the Brand who sold it. Switches come in a lot of tastes, and this has a reason! They are designed for very special tasks, keep that in mind.

So, I only buy new, unmanageable switches. I’ve got two know, and is it’s a great improvement on my LAN. Not only for music streams, but also for IP TV and the WIFI connections.

If this tweak may not help boosting up your performance on your LAN, it may be due to the fact that the ROUTER of your ISP understands only one speed. So it is paramount to connect only the ROUTER whit the switch, and leave the other RJ45-connections unused. No other connection is allowed, only for a second/third and so on, switch.

Now you are sure that your LAN will be provided with the highest speed possible, whit the best data-integrity possible on your LAN

Another misunderstanding I encounter in various blogs and posts is about TCP. TCP can provide data transport with the best data-integrity possible, but that’s only a possibility to use TCP. TCP can al so be used to send data back to the sender, not to check the data-integrity, but to look, for example, into your computer, use your music files to stream them to other members, like with P2P connections (the early SPOTIFY method). Hence, with TCP it is still possible to loose a lot of frames on the way to your DAC, and there is no guaranty that TCP always is providing a lossless format. With streaming it will be never lossless. I realise, it is a bold statement; But, it’s almost impossible due to the fact streams take place in real-time-domain-conditions. TCP is not developed for real-time-domain data-streams. So I am convinced that this is the main reason why people experience difference in sound, when altering the LAN-connections.

Enjoy listening

81

Interesting comment that for data integrity only the switch should be connected to the ISP router. I’ll try that when I get my switch.

I’d think that even an unmanaged switch was managed in some way (as a function of the design and firmware etc.), it is just that is not configurable by the user.

82

I have only my server Melco connected to the switch. No else traffic. So I need not to bother with manageable or not manageable switch.

83

Is anybody actually making that assertion? In my limited experience, transmission errors, packet loss or whatever are pretty much unheard of unless, say, your internet connection or WiFi drops out, or perhaps you have a defective Ethernet cable. Then you get silence, or perhaps stuttering, rather than a general effect on sound quality.
It’s a simple matter to look at the log in your router or switch, and see if there are any data errors, and I have never seen any on my home network, ever. I don’t think that means my audio network is perfect and could never be improved.

84

It was in the post I replied to, although perhaps data integrity was not the correct choice of words.
I’m yearning the days of my ignorant bliss when I thought any Ethernet cable connected to my ISP router was all I needed. Maybe after my latest experiment I can return to those days!

85

Don’t worry too much about it. The Cisco 2960 is well worth having in a system (and is a bit of a bargain) but these are all icing on the cake upgrades for a well established system. It ain’t going to sound broken with a bog standard Netgear switch !

1 Like
86

I’m not worried, more curious as to whether this makes any difference or not as there are clearly two very different views. It’s quite exciting really. I may be worried if I think it does make a positive difference as then there is a whole new world of tweakery that I had dismissed, such as the Ether Regen.

87

@ChrisSU
When people state they hear differences in de SQ by altering their LAN geometry, you can never deny such statements. Regardless of there are package losses etc. With streaming data, you will always loos some . . . .

I see streams in this perspective: I regard an audio/video stream as a signal, just the kind which travel from your pre to your power amplifier. Just connecting the stream whit as low as possible connections in the LAN, (just as you would do in your audio-chain) will enhance the quality and stability of the stream.

I strongly believe that this is de cause why people hear differences in their LAN chain, by altering the signal (data) path. A Switch brings a lot of peace and ease on the LAN compared by using only your ISP router. I don’t think that the kind of Switch will make great differences. That’s why I choose an unmanageable Switch, to block out any kind of setting made for a special purpose on the network.

Enjoy Listening,

Theopa

89

It depends on all the system components, if the RJ45 ports are shrouded, if they are connected to earth/ground & so on.
A few years ago it was a forum subject & we tried various means of breaking the screen connection, some reported a SQ difference, but nothing conclusive.

90

Other than that typically managed switches will IGMP snoop group data unlike basic consumer switches, whether they be ‘audiophile’ or not.
Snooping group data reduces unnecessary streamer NIC processing and therefore, albeit by a small amount improves SQ. it’s the same logic of why some prefer WAV over FLAC… and also depends how much group data and how many groups are on your home LAN.
The more your home LAN is used for other functions in your house, the more likely this is of being of benefit.
If your LAN has nothing on it other than solely your DLNA audio and cloud audio streaming then there is unlikely to be a benefit.

My view is there is too much focus on the esoteric aspects of the home Ethernet physical layer (serial line clocks in switches and Ethernet cable) in isolation, rather than the quality of the home network itself which can drive SQ.
Without consideration of these aspects I just can’t see how anyone can say device X sounds better than device Y, as the benefits and drawbacks overlap, that was certainly the case with my experience.

3 Likes
91

Last switch in house replaced yesterday with another Unifi US8. All Ciscos gone and in the loft, will have to get round to selling them. So fully Unifi at last and happy. Both switches that serve my AV and Hifi are all PoE powered, nice small footprint, less cables and PSUs and for the most part be managed from my phone. Very happy camper.

92

Hi, an observation, when I last looked I think the US8 only supported IGMPv3, so if still the case I believe you will need to check all group users are using v3 on your LAN or you might find snooping problematic.
I have a mix of v2 and v3 on some groups, and IGMP I believe should use the lowest common denominator.
Naim supports v3.

93

This could be one reason why some people find a benefit from combining the Cisco with products like the EtherRegen and others do not. All the non-audio stuff on my network is handled wirelessly, so the IGMP snooping is of no (audible to me) benefit: the wired side is extremely simple. But there’s no doubt that in my system the EtherRegen has made a very big difference compared to the improvement that the Cisco Catalyst brought and I am happy to recommend that others give it a try. The Melco switch was another matter: there were definite pros and cons there, mostly cons for me - a bit like some “high-end” cables.

94

Hi, the IGMP occurs across a subnet … so it matters not whether it is via Ethernet or wireless.
Many quality wifi access points support IGMP snooping, as wifi is a medium you don’t want to fill with redundant data.
But yes if your network uses are simple and the only multicast used are local group addresses (224.0.0.0/24 such as mDNS ) then IGMP snooping will yield no benefits.

95

Especially since I’m using the wi-fi on the BT modem-router, which works just as well as the old Apple Airport…