I am new here and I don't find this argument/post very inviting. As opposed to inviting discussion and trying to get to the bottom of a topic that is obviously interesting to the community, it appears to be attempt to shut down discussion and force a particular view/outcome. This seems more akin to Facebook groups. I hoped to avoid that here.
steakster858 posts10-30-2019 1:55pmIt
appears that some posters here don’t know the difference between
obtaining optimal sound vs any sound. Perhaps, their systems aren’t
resolving enough to demonstrate improvements. Unfortunately, these
posters are polluting other member’s threads with distracting noise.
|
This is an interesting take, going beyond just power supply noise injection, and considering signal injection. I will throw out some thoughts at you w.r.t. that. Please take them as just that, arguments, not attacks on the precept. - Almost exclusively, the claims are that Cat-6/7/etc. "sounds better". While that claim may not be accurate, Cat 6/7 will allow much higher signal edge speeds, which would lead to more noise injection by your proposed method.
- Even for these custom designs, they would use off the shelf ethernet drivers to ensure compatibility and they are forced into a specific impedance. I would expect most use off the shelf ethernet transformers as well. You could edge shape with some capacitance to decrease capacitive noise transfer, but then you are likely to create more end-point jitter (and see first argument).
- Outside of the high frequencies, which can get in, but are also the most likely to be filtered at some point, the subharmonics which could be in the audio band or modulated down are going to be mainly a function of the data itself.
Just some more thoughts to ponder on to add to your valuable post. salmarg9,123 posts10-29-2019 9:14amAs
someone having extensive experience in digital (and analog) design,
although not for audio, it is very conceivable to me that a network
switch can make a difference sonically. Not because it affects the
accuracy with which 1s and 0s are received; not because it affects the
timing with which those bits are received; and probably not because of
most of the reasons that are likely to be offered in the marketing
literature of makers of audiophile-oriented switches.
The likely
reason relates to differences in waveform characteristics such as
signal risetimes and falltimes (i.e., the amount of time it takes for
the signal to transition from its lower voltage state to its higher
voltage state and vice versa); differences in noise that may be riding
on the signal; and differences in distortion of the waveform that may be
present. In other words, things that affect the spectral composition of
the waveform. |
|
|
It appears that some posters here don’t know the difference between obtaining optimal sound vs any sound. Perhaps, their systems aren’t resolving enough to demonstrate improvements. Unfortunately, these posters are polluting other member’s threads with distracting noise.
I am assuming this is directed at me. If so, I it would be cooler if @david_ten, the person, who started this thread, would say my posts are annoying. Anyways, the points I am making about Fiber Optical into an audio system are likely going to be the discussed in depth by others in the future. The first Network Switch listed by @david_ten has Fiber Optical built-in. Wouldn't it be interesting to understand why it exists and how it relates to an audio system?
Melco S100 (just announced) https://www.melco-audio-masters.com/uploads/1/0/1/5/101505220/mel_2073_s100_a4_2pp_info_sheet_v3.pdf
I certainly would be interested if @David_ten tried Fiber Optical into his Denafrips Terminator USB connection. I know he said he has optimized his USB connection. BTW - Here is another "Audiophile Network Switch" that showed up on my Facebook ad's.
https://stereo-magazine.com/article/audiophile-network-switch
|
