Relationship between Ethernet Switch and SQ

Man, there is some different opinions. But we all have them.

I am using an EtherRegen in my computer room that converts the ethernet to fiber which then goes to my Lumin X1 in my audio room. Pretty much clutter free.

To me, the fiber was a game changer in sound quality. The music became calmer and more natural. I suppose the transceivers are important. I am using Finisar

ozzy

@cleeds  ha? Dropped bits? Man who’s saying anything about dropped bits?

I’m talking about difference in sound quality that’s influenced more by a component design and implementation as well as parts quality that impact the sonics more than the network switches, or converting copper to fiber and back to copper, using switches and upgrading power supplies on routers, switches and fiber optic converters. This is the topic of this discussion. Let’s not highjack it.

@ozzy your setup makes sense - using fiber into Lumin that accepts it. One step convert copper to fiber optic and clean up the EMI and RFI on the copper data line. 

@mathiasmingus

there is a very simple answer to your question, and it is the only answer, adding a switch in the chain can only deteriorate, it can never under any circumstance enhance. It is absolutely impossible and anyone telling you differently does not understand the technology.

a good switch only adds a bit of latency, a bad switch can cause frame drops and cause audible issues. that said, the switch needs to be pretty bad to cause issues for streaming services.

and on the topic of streaming, there is no such thing as continues stream, it is a series of downloads into a buffer. Any media over TCP/IP and Ethernet buffers. Regarding caching, at least according to Qobuz all players are supposed to cache, but some manufacturers want to fool their buyers by saving it is a better experience if you don’t cache, but that is just BS.

anyone with foundational knowledge of the topic can verify all of the above with a packet capture. 

@fredrik222 there is no downloading into a buffer. Buffering will let you buffer some data to help manage the data stream to allow other processing to take place. Let’s say for example it will buffer 1.5min or even less of a 5min track. This allows the processing to do what it should be doing. It’s not an uninterrupted stream as t never should be. Typically buffering is done in memory.
Caching on the other hand will cache the entire result set and the streamer will process the data from the cache (much larger solid stare drive or larger memory area). Aurender, for example, leverages a 240GB cache. If you pause in the middle of the playlist that was cached earlier and come back to it an hour later, the same data will continue to reside there until the cache is cleared. The same exact concepts apply on the database either you use SQL, Oracle on premises or Google or AWS in the cloud. When the user runs a query, if caching is enabled, the results will be cached. So that you can run and rerun the same exact data query - the result will be pulled from cache and not from the database again. Unless the criteria changes. With buffering it will always be re-pulled.

But one thing we can finally agree on, you and I, is the addition of switches. In every scenario I ever tried a switch caused degradation in sound quality.

@audphile1 no, you are wrong. Do a packet capture like I said. There is no such thing as a continuous stream, for any media, over the internet. It is just not possible. Buffering doesn’t have to be in memory, especially not when it comes to something so small as an audio stream, but typically it is.

Qobuz still wants the player to cache all tracks, but does not force 3rd party players to do so. You really don’t need to explain caching or buffering to me.