• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Surprise findings on Ethernet cables/cleaners/reclockers

Well, the thread title is "surprise findings". I know the guys here that design Ethernet stuff would be very surprised...
 
Well, the thread title is "surprise findings". I know the guys here that design Ethernet stuff would be very surprised...
I've done tens of thousands of miles of Ethernet and I would be very surprised.
 
Link should be fixed.
I don't see myself in a debt of gratitude or trying to prove anything to you. It is up to others to research on the analog side, since I am not a specialist here. I can only point out where sound influences come from via the Ethernet path.
If that is not enough for you, then sorry.

I can only recommend to insert an isolator into the Ethernet chain and listen to it. If you don't hear any sound differences, then be happy.
https://www.amazon.de/Network-Insulator-Protection-Lightning-62619-gray/dp/B00WZ3QHVQ/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3S2D8BTSMNJIY&keywords=delock+ethernet+surge&qid=1673953178&sprefix=delock+ethernet+surge,aps,90&sr=8-2

You've done nothing to show the output of a DAC changing. If you believe you have equipment that is good enough to display eye pattern differences in switches and cabling then you also have to concede we have equally good equipment that can show fluctuations in DAC output as influenced by it's inputs.
 
by people whose horizon only reaches a SINAD value
The first engagement with you is about controlled listening tests, but you come back with this hairy old chestnut?
 
Some more words for those for whom the subject is new:

The sound difference is not caused by influencing the data signal. This is quite bulletproof over Ethernet as it is a differential signal.
But with the differential signal also common mode noise is transmitted, which gets into the ground of the endpoint (for example Stremer) and is then given further over the digital chain (e.g. USB). With the streamer I use for measuring, all Ethernet noise is transported directly via the USB ground to the DAC. The data are of course bitperfect - there is no doubt about that, so speculations regarding the manipulation of the data is impossible.

The common mode noise are usually quite indifferent to Ethernet, so here with normal "IT" switches only in the context of EMI compatibility is looked.

For more information you can also check this thread:


Is this with UTP or STP? If I understand what you're saying, common mode noise on the ethernet can affect the analog signal ground in the DAC?
 
Well, the thread title is "surprise findings". I know the guys here that design Ethernet stuff would be very surprised...

Very surprised by they will probably earn more $$$ selling snake oil??
 
Some more words for those for whom the subject is new:

The sound difference is not caused by influencing the data signal. This is quite bulletproof over Ethernet as it is a differential signal.
But with the differential signal also common mode noise is transmitted, which gets into the ground of the endpoint (for example Stremer) and is then given further over the digital chain (e.g. USB). With the streamer I use for measuring, all Ethernet noise is transported directly via the USB ground to the DAC. The data are of course bitperfect - there is no doubt about that, so speculations regarding the manipulation of the data is impossible.

The common mode noise are usually quite indifferent to Ethernet, so here with normal "IT" switches only in the context of EMI compatibility is looked.

For more information you can also check this thread:

You cite another forum also containing no evidence but anecdotes as proof?

What do you think the CMRRs are for those devices (provided there is even common noise transmitted of which there is also no proof)?
 
As an update, Eric, the author of the measurements in the OP, has recently published an update of a test with EtherREGEN driven by a Mutec REF10 external clock ($640 + $5000 retail).

The results? Again, "surprising" -- not!

https://www.open-end-music.com/foru...astruktur-switches-nur-lesen/page3#post695734

I believe Eric (@VonGoethe) is banned on ASR. But I do commend him on still trying to measure what the manufacturer and a good number of audiophile devotees believe makes a significant difference in sound quality. Eric was not even trying to measure SQ improvements: just the claimed improvement in jitter and noise before the conversion to analog. And still no luck finding that "significant" benefit.
 
As an update, Eric, the author of the measurements in the OP, has recently published an update of a test with EtherREGEN driven by a Mutec REF10 external clock ($640 + $5000 retail).

The results? Again, "surprising" -- not!

https://www.open-end-music.com/foru...astruktur-switches-nur-lesen/page3#post695734

I believe Eric (@VonGoethe) is banned on ASR. But I do commend him on still trying to measure what the manufacturer and a good number of audiophile devotees believe makes a significant difference in sound quality. Eric was not even trying to measure SQ improvements: just the claimed improvement in jitter and noise before the conversion to analog. And still no luck finding that "significant" benefit.

But can he show that the jitter and noise make any difference to Ethernet frame decoding, much less the audio playback? It's not like the Ethernet frame is fed into a DAC.
 
But can he show that the jitter and noise make any difference to Ethernet frame decoding, much less the audio playback? It's not like the Ethernet frame is fed into a DAC.

Not what he was trying to measure, but that's certainly the key question. The manufacturer (and audiophile believers) discuss all kinds of ideas that attempt to explain why cleaning up and reclocking the ethernet signal could lead to sound improvement. The popular two are noise and jitter elimination. Seems that the EtherREGEN + REF10 combination fail on both counts despite the extreme price compared to a simple ethernet switch.
 
As an update, Eric, the author of the measurements in the OP, has recently published an update of a test with EtherREGEN driven by a Mutec REF10 external clock ($640 + $5000 retail).

The results? Again, "surprising" -- not!

https://www.open-end-music.com/foru...astruktur-switches-nur-lesen/page3#post695734

I believe Eric (@VonGoethe) is banned on ASR. But I do commend him on still trying to measure what the manufacturer and a good number of audiophile devotees believe makes a significant difference in sound quality. Eric was not even trying to measure SQ improvements: just the claimed improvement in jitter and noise before the conversion to analog. And still no luck finding that "significant" benefit.

What could be the reasons for the ban….questioning all sound influencing factors would be sad. It is only through such people that science is where it is now!
 
It is only through such people that science is where it is now!
Hardly. Denying science is what’s gets him to do these futile exercises in the first place.
 
It is important to recognize that science is a constantly evolving discipline based on continuous research and verification. While it is legitimate to question certain aspects of science, it is unreasonable and unproductive to reject the entire discipline. Instead, we should strive to critically examine and improve the methods and insights of science to continuously expand our understanding of the world.
 
It is important to recognize that science is a constantly evolving discipline based on continuous research and verification.
That’s just an empty cop-out to justify all kinds of nonsense.
While it is legitimate to question certain aspects of science, it is unreasonable and unproductive to reject the entire discipline. Instead, we should strive to critically examine and improve the methods and insights of science to continuously expand our understanding of the world.
What justification is there to question this particular piece of science? To make it easy let’s concentrate on adding a precise clock to a network switch to improve audio performance.
 
Interesting to me that, once again, adding low level noise seems to be correlated with finding the sound "more spacious". In this case, unlike vinyl/tape/tubes, it may not be audible.
Paul K bumping this thread had me re-reading this and thinking after seeing your comment again in the present, it has me thinking.

I recall Amir saying that EMI/RFI into unshielded audiophile interconnects can something create a false sense of detail. This provides the scientific basis for how some might hear cable differences.

Sony’s DSEE HX is all about adding extra noise, albeit they have stated but never published the science that the DSEE AI is based upon master recordings from DSD/DXD in the Sony Music catalog, converting them to 44.1 and then feeding it into a machine learning algorithm to try to identify patterns between the 24/44.1 and 24/48 content vs the actual high res recording. But what you are really capturing then is the pattern of ultrasonic noise of the ADCs used in that training set on top of any actual high resolution musical info.

I recently looked at the Topping D90 v. Marantz SA-10 and came to the realization that the increase in ultrasonics in the SA-10 is more truthful to the DSD file. And if there is such a thing as a DSD sound, it’s ultrasonic noise.

Amplifiers like the L-08M (DC to 600 kHz; no worries about cable choice), Spectral (requiring MIT cable to avoid oscillation), and Halcro (250 kHZ bandwidth) and never famed for their warmth. In contrast, Marantz’s super slow roll off filter adds a ton of artifacts in the ultrasonic range in their AVRs and the SA-10 chooses to run well past the 50 kHz of scarlet book.

I tried looking up the SACD standards and found
ANNEX D.3 (Maximum peak signal : MaxPeak/MP)
Peak signal levels above +3.10 dB SA-CD in quasi DC-50kHz bandwidth determined in ANNEX D.3 (MaxPeak/MP) are not allowed.

ANNEX D.4 (Maximum high frequency noise power : HF)
The accumulated RMS signal + noise level of the DSD signal in 40kHz- 100kHz bandwidth determined in ANNEX D.4 is maximally equal to the RMS level of an input sinewave with a peak amplitude of -20 dB SA-CD.

That’s a really high ultrasonic allowance of noise!

Doing DeltaWave comparisons between @pkanes algorithm for DSD decoding and the ultrasonic roll off filter and TASCAM’s (presumably the same as Esoteric’s algortihm) shows that decoding DSD 2.8 generates anywhere from -120 dB to -140 dB PK Metric depending if you are converting to 88, 176, 352, 704 kHz.

Maybe those who think they hear the EtherRegen doing something to the sound are hearing the effects of added ultrasonic noise which then pollutes the audible range like seasoning in a way that is favorable.

If you look at Marantz’s various noise shaping algorithms, they picked the one that allows the most ultrasonic noise as the default for the SA-10 and for the AV10, they also offer the correct filter for measurements but the default slow roll off for the default setting since it sounds better to their team. I have to imaging that a company like Marantz has detailed analytics on what sells compared to the Denon equivalent and their decision away from transparency is intentional and founded upon marketing/sales data somehow.
 
Maybe those who think they hear the EtherRegen doing something to the sound are hearing the effects of added ultrasonic noise which then pollutes the audible range like seasoning in a way that is favorable.
Or, and this is far more reasonable: they just buy into the hype and hear what they want to hear.
 
It is important to recognize that science is a constantly evolving discipline based on continuous research and verification. While it is legitimate to question certain aspects of science, it is unreasonable and unproductive to reject the entire discipline. Instead, we should strive to critically examine and improve the methods and insights of science to continuously expand our understanding of the world.
It is also important to prove your assertions, especially if they go against the orthodoxy. And other people won't do that for you, until you first show some firm evidence.
 
Hardly. Denying science is what’s gets him to do these futile exercises in the first place.

That's not quite the case here. Finding an objective way to demonstrate a result that's already established using different methods is proper science. Eric took the objective approach to trying to prove an outlandish audiophile claim, and demonstrated that the claim about reduced noise and jitter was incorrect. He did it in the way that did not rely on a specific DAC or a streamer device, which is an improvement on the method that uses the output of a DAC, as that can only be claimed to be valid for those DAC(s) that were tested.

Had he found an improvement in jitter/noise levels, then yes, the next step would be to demonstrate that this could make an audible difference at the analog output of a typical audio system. That is much harder to do as a general case, but Eric didn't have to go down this route since he found no improvement in the digital domain.
 
Paul K bumping this thread had me re-reading this and thinking after seeing your comment again in the present, it has me thinking.

I recall Amir saying that EMI/RFI into unshielded audiophile interconnects can something create a false sense of detail. This provides the scientific basis for how some might hear cable differences.

Sony’s DSEE HX is all about adding extra noise, albeit they have stated but never published the science that the DSEE AI is based upon master recordings from DSD/DXD in the Sony Music catalog, converting them to 44.1 and then feeding it into a machine learning algorithm to try to identify patterns between the 24/44.1 and 24/48 content vs the actual high res recording. But what you are really capturing then is the pattern of ultrasonic noise of the ADCs used in that training set on top of any actual high resolution musical info.

I recently looked at the Topping D90 v. Marantz SA-10 and came to the realization that the increase in ultrasonics in the SA-10 is more truthful to the DSD file. And if there is such a thing as a DSD sound, it’s ultrasonic noise.

Amplifiers like the L-08M (DC to 600 kHz; no worries about cable choice), Spectral (requiring MIT cable to avoid oscillation), and Halcro (250 kHZ bandwidth) and never famed for their warmth. In contrast, Marantz’s super slow roll off filter adds a ton of artifacts in the ultrasonic range in their AVRs and the SA-10 chooses to run well past the 50 kHz of scarlet book.

I tried looking up the SACD standards and found
ANNEX D.3 (Maximum peak signal : MaxPeak/MP)
Peak signal levels above +3.10 dB SA-CD in quasi DC-50kHz bandwidth determined in ANNEX D.3 (MaxPeak/MP) are not allowed.

ANNEX D.4 (Maximum high frequency noise power : HF)
The accumulated RMS signal + noise level of the DSD signal in 40kHz- 100kHz bandwidth determined in ANNEX D.4 is maximally equal to the RMS level of an input sinewave with a peak amplitude of -20 dB SA-CD.

That’s a really high ultrasonic allowance of noise!

Doing DeltaWave comparisons between @pkanes algorithm for DSD decoding and the ultrasonic roll off filter and TASCAM’s (presumably the same as Esoteric’s algortihm) shows that decoding DSD 2.8 generates anywhere from -120 dB to -140 dB PK Metric depending if you are converting to 88, 176, 352, 704 kHz.

Maybe those who think they hear the EtherRegen doing something to the sound are hearing the effects of added ultrasonic noise which then pollutes the audible range like seasoning in a way that is favorable.

If you look at Marantz’s various noise shaping algorithms, they picked the one that allows the most ultrasonic noise as the default for the SA-10 and for the AV10, they also offer the correct filter for measurements but the default slow roll off for the default setting since it sounds better to their team. I have to imaging that a company like Marantz has detailed analytics on what sells compared to the Denon equivalent and their decision away from transparency is intentional and founded upon marketing/sales data somehow.

Noise can certainly make a difference. It can become audible directly by leaking into the analog output stage, or it can create distortions by modulating the D2A clock, creating jitter/phase noise. All of these effects should be measurable at the output stage, and it should be easy enough to test with EtherREGEN+REF10 and without (since these are not critical for operation and can be removed completely). I've yet to see a measurement where this improvement is demonstrated including from the manufacturer of EtherREGEN.

For me, any addition of extra noise and distortion to the output of a DAC is an undesirable result of adding nearly $6000 worth of equipment, but I guess others may still want to pay extra for a less transparent, more veiled playback ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom