Can the digital "signal" be over-laundered, unlike money?


Pretty much what is implied by the title. 

Credit to @sns who got me thinking about this. I've chosen a path of refrain. Others have chosen differently.

I'm curious about members' thoughts and experiences on this? 

Though this comes from a 'clocking thread' by no means am I restricting the topic to clocking alone.

Please consider my question from the perspective of all ["cleaning"] devices used in the digital chain, active and passive.

 

From member 'sns' and the Ethernet Clocking thread [for more context]:

 

"I recently experienced an issue of what I perceive as overclocking with addition of audiophile switch with OXCO clock.  Adding switch in front of server, NAS resulted in overly precise sound staging and images."

"My take is there can be an excessive amount of clocking within particular streaming setups.

...One can go [to0] far, based on my experience."

 

Acknowledgement and Request:

- For the bits are bits camp, the answer is obvious and given and I accept that.

- The OP is directed to those that have utilized devices in the signal path for "cleaning" purposes.

Note: I am using 'cleaning' as a broad and general catch-all term...it goes by many different names and approaches.

 

Thank You! - David.

david_ten

Jump to the end. Does it sound good? What sound are you looking for. I am in the camp of not liking to change the sound the artist originally wanted. This is like remastered albums they are changing what the original is.

@sgreg1 

Does it sound good? - Yes

What sound are you looking for - The artist and mastering engineer originally created in the recording studio. 

Since you jump to the end, here is what you’ve missed….

“ A really good Ethernet switch with attention paid to the PSU and the clock improves the natural timbre of voices and instruments, along with a general increase in clarity. Adding a top class Ethernet Filter to remove RFI and stop it getting into the ground plane of the downstream electronics lowers the noise floor of the music, giving more fine detail and dynamics and a larger soundstage with more air and space around instruments.”

It’s not about changing the sound of what originally recorded but rather a pursuit to hear the music as close to the original in our homes. 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I've been reflecting on aspects of each post and will follow up with questions, etc.

I believe I mentioned this in prior post on another thread.  I think we can all agree optimal network performance requires galvanic isolation, proper timing, maximum jitter reduction, shielding from emi/rfi. With so many choices of equipment to address these issues, highly likely every streaming solution is unique. What works for one situation may not work for another, this especially true at the margins when one has optimal or near optimal setup already. One may upset delicate balance they may have achieved by adding another network appliance.

 

One can speculate or presume my issues with switch were due to inferior clocking, poor implementation, inferior parts. Perhaps a higher quality switch would further optimize my network, perhaps not, only insertion of such a switch would provide empirical evidence.

 

At this point I question how does one know when network is optimized? If one's system is providing high resolution, natural timbre, balanced tonality, freq extension at both ends, wonderful micro and macro dynamics, precise and natural sound stage, imaging, is that not proof of optimized network? Is there a point where we can say enough is enough?  The conundrum is this is one of those known unknowns, the reason so many are never satisfied. We can't know if our present networks are optimized until we've tried any number of other network configurations.

 

While I try never to say never, I'm at the point where I'm satisfied with present network, other bigger fish to fry. My take is until we have all fiber solution, I'm done.

Post removed