|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
212.56.75.201
Dave has done something that deserves its own post.Kind of you to say so, Steve. One reason I didn't reply to hfavandepas was that I thought fmak's last post on your thread was too funny to displace from the top of the pile. But, in response to public demand, H/W that separate post. Hfavandepas had asked:
At what more locations in your wired LAN network did you change the connections in the RJ45 plugs?
My setup goes: Server (dedicated NIC) <> switch <> media converter - fibre link - media converter <> in-line filter <> switch <> switch <> in-line filter <> audio PC.
Each "<>" represents a LAN cable but most of them are very short. I made up leads for all seven using Telegartner plugs and Excel cable. After stumbling on the "vasectomy tweak" (snipping pairs 3 and 4 from the leads), I remade them all by reconnecting the active pairs (1&2, 3&6) and physically removing the inactive pairs (4&5, 7&8), by shortening the length and by discarding the outer sleeve and "cross filler" where space was tight. See pic in link and here:
http://www.futureshop.co.uk/excel-cat6-utp-data-cable-price-per-m-p-4882.html
As I run my system at 10-BaseT. it takes a few moments to start playing. The sonic difference between the speeds is marked and the delay a price I feel well worth paying. As you know, 1000-Base-T needs all four pairs.
Telegartner claims that its plugs match impedances better than cheaper competitors. It's certainly easy to get a neat fit with, crucially, minimal untwisting when connecting two pairs only.
The Excel Cat6 cable seems well made with pairs tightly and evenly twisted - better than some "Cat6" cables I've looked at though I'm sure equally good cables can be had elsewhere. Excel claims that "[the] polyethylene cross filler ensures optimum cross talk performance". As that makes sense, I compensated for discarding it by moving the pairs slightly apart. No, I haven't a shred of evidence that that made the slightest sonic difference but it didn't cost and I felt better for it.
Whatever, I did repeatedly try swapping out the last lead in the chain with one made from stock cable and plugs, again two pairs only. At least in my system, the difference in sound quality is markedly poorer with the cheaper cable. If you use a fibre link, you would probably find, as I did, that the "server-side" leads are much less sensitive than the "DAC-side" ones to PSU and assembly quality but not, sadly, totally impervious to them.
Also, in light of sounchekk's comments about EMO isolators being ineffective, I spent an hour or two the other night repeatedly swapping them in and out of the system. I still insist that they make for a perceptible improvement but would accept that they're on the expensive side for the difference they make. (I bought mine way before fibre links became all the rage on CA.) IOW, they're worth trying if the budget can stretch to them but they'd not be the first thing I'd try to were I to start again.
So, hfavandepas, thanks for your useful feedback. I hope the above helps.
Dave
Edits: 02/03/17Follow Ups:
Hi Ryelands,Thank you for this second LAN-tweak post.
I must admit, I never paid much attention too 'audiophile' LAN-cables (Audioquest, ect).
But the LAN tweak you suggested (snipping pairs 3 and 4) was very easy and..... very effective!!
It could be easily repeated at my friends home-LAN, with the same profound, positive effect on sound quality.Re-reading your posts carefully, suggested that my home-LAN probably still had un-used potential for better sound quality.
(when using better RJ-45 plugs, better network- cable, galvanic-isolation with help of fiber, etc)So I did A LOT OF (!) reading and 'google-ing' on:
signal-reflection caused by variations of impedance in LAN-cable, low quality RJ45 plugs and flimsy connections.
Also about: crosstalk between unshielded pairs, near-end crosstalk, far-end crosstalk, eye-patterns in UTP-cable at 100 Mb/s and 1000Mb/s, use of transformers in LAN-sockets, etc, ect.From this I learned: my home LAN is a real mess !
I had no idea about:
- the quality of my Cat 5 and Cat 5e UTP-cable (I always bought what's on offer)
- the quality of my RJ45 plugs (I only checked for use with 'stranded' or 'solid' cable),
- the quality of my RJ45-wall-sockets, etc.
- the quality of my connections (if connections work, than they are probably: OK)
- EtcI decided to do it all over again.
Making a complete new fresh start with my home-LAN.
This time with carefully chosen cables, plugs, etc.* What UTP-cable too choose?
- From the bleujeanscable.com article: 'Is your CAT 6 cable a dog'
https://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/is-your-cat6-a-dog.htm
I learned that choosing Belden UTP-cable was a save choice.- From reading about picking up common-mode noise, cross-talk between pairs, etc I learned every pair has too be shielded individually.
Both criteria automatically lead too CAT.7 cable from Belden.
www.avsupplies.nl had 100 m Belden ISTP CAT.7 1885ENH on stock, which I bought.* What RJ45 plug too choose?
Looking for a RJ45 plugs with minimum reflection than there's not much choice.
It's either Telegartner MFP8, Belkin Cat 6a Field Mount Plug or Metz connect Cat 6a field plug pro.
I could not find sources for Belkin or Metz.
So 14 Rj45 Telegartner MFP8-plugs where also sourced through avsupplies.nl* Connecting cable shield
Contrary to 'audiophile wisdom' I did connect the Cat.7 shields on both (!) cable ends.
Connecting only one side of a shield, is a bad habit from the consumer-audio-world.
Consumer-audio mostly uses (potentially) troublesome unbalanced connections and often has a Pin-1 problem build-inn by design.
Thus in case of consumer-audio, connecting only one end of the shield, reduces chance of getting in to trouble by creating a ground loop.
But it is still a bad habit, so I connected both ends.I also connected the CAT.7 cable shield too a real earth safety ground at the Switch.
* Sound quality jump
After 2 day's I had completely re-wired and re-plugged my home-LAN.
And WHOW, I wasn't prepared for this. A profound jump in sound quality.
The new LAN give twice the jump in SQ, compared too the old LAN-situation with only snipping pairs 3 & 4 too the Mac mini.Later on I disconnected pair 3 & 4 in my newly wired and newly plugged LAN, but I could not hear a difference in sound quality.
In the newly wired LAN (with Belden ISTP Cat.7 + Telegartner MFP8 plugs) the tweak did not work.
I could not hear any difference with or without pair 3 & 4 connected.
Probably: greatly reducing crosstalk and reflections is key and did the trick.[edit:
However already from the beginning I did reduce the LAN-speed to 10 Mb/s on the LAN-side Thunderbold Mac mini NIC.
(in system network settings: hardware tab).
10 Mb/s is enough for audio streaming and has much better eye-patterns.
So: old LAN 10Mb/s compared to new LAN 10Mb/s
End edit]Many thanks too Ryelands for making me re-think and re-wire my home-LAN !
Mark
NB
I have 2 TP-link mc200cm on order. I want too insert them between the Mac Mini and the Merging Hapi. See what happens.My newly re-wired and re-plugged home-LAN setup:
* Cable modem/router/switch
<- 0,5 m Cat7->* Netgear Prosafe Plus GS1108Ev3 8 port
(also Cat7 to NAS + Cat7 WiFi D-link DIR 868-L)
At this point the ISTP Cat.7 cable shield is connected too Earth Safety Ground.
<- 20m Cat7->* thunderbold NIC -> Mac mini <- build-inn NIC
<- 1 m Cat7 ->* Merging Hapi
<- XLR AES/EBU VoVox SD link ->* PMC TwoTwo.8 (left monitor)
<- 5m Cat7 ->* PMC TwoTWo.8 (right monitor)
<- Cat-termination-plug
Netgear Prosafe GS108E -> Belden ISTP Cat.7 1885ENH + Telegartner Cat6A plugs -> Mac mini (SSD, 2 NIC s, Audirvana, ARC2 Room Correction plugin) -> Belden Cat 7/Telegartner -> Merging Hapi -> AES/EBU XLR Vovox SD -> PMC TwoTwo.8
Edits: 03/23/17 03/23/17 03/23/17
Hi there.
Just to let u know.
I had a look at a rather typical LAN transformer solution from Wuerth Electronics.
The Wurth ethernet jacks do not have just a transformer inside.
They also have a common-mode choke inside!!!
And they also have surge protection inside.
If your isolator also comes with such a common-mode choke,
you'd have another filter in the pipe.
Which would of course attenuate the noise even further.
I had a look at a rather typical LAN transformer solution from Wuerth Electronics.
Without details of the "LAN transformer solution" you're referring to, I can't comment. Every switch and MC I've looked at uses a U&T device labelled UTH18205. I can't say what's in it as, despite searching, I haven't managed to find pertinent literature.
if your isolator also comes with such a common-mode choke, you'd have another filter in the pipe.
But you prior said (wrongly) that "these EMU filters just cut the ground/shield" though (rightly) making no mention of common-mode chokes. As the datasheet makes clear, they don't come with chokes. With respect, if you're going to say that "I won't even try one of these devices" but insist on talking about them, you should at least read the pertinent literature.
Look.
First of all:
You tell me, they make a difference.
I buy that. I always do. Pretty much everything makes
a difference.
Perhaps it's a bit difficult to understand.
But I told you from an isolation perspective your isolators
are redundant and waste of money.
At 130€uro these are IMO overpriced anyhow. "Medical" is a term almost as
moneyprinting as the term "audiophile".
2nd question would be -- Why do they make a difference??
Your manufacturer says - they isolate and take care on surge protection.
Good. Potentially two more transformers in the loop.
For sure this can make a difference.
Now I was doing some research for a DIY option over the weekend.
By coincidence I stepped over the Wuerth stuff.
Interestingly I found common-mode chokes attached to the transformer
on their devices.
That doesn't mean though that they all have the same setup.
Anyhow. Now I might be able to build my own "isolator" plus "filter" at < 20Euro.
I just wanted to share this.
Enjoy.
you think my post was funny? Each link and plug and socket may contribute it's own SQ. The skill or lack of it in termination may also have their effects.
And inmates talk about 'optimisation'?????????
Seven LAN cables and . . . you think my post was funny?
Note that two of those seven leads are separated from the others by a fibre optic link. Whatever, I made a gentle joke at mutual expense that you seemed to take not only seriously but triumphantly. Of course your post was funny. Was it not meant to be?
Each link and plug and socket may contribute it's own SQ. The skill or lack of it in termination may also have their effects.
I'm grateful for your comment but left wondering if you'd spotted that the posts I made in this and other threads compared four different brands of cable and plumped for the second cheapest, described which brand of connector I used, how I configured the leads and, in part, why; that I reported which make of (CA recommended) switch I used and the brand it replaced; at what speed I ran the LAN and how it compared sonically to higher speeds and so on. I also described re-working leads to get inter alia better termination (feeling, as I recall, that my skill with Telegartner plugs might have improved) and repeatedly trying them with and without in-line filters.
After I confessed that "the setup shown in the pic . . . took me several months to get 'right' ", it might have crossed your mind that that was because I was doing one thing at a time, listening, reversing and then reinstating or rejecting changes as I went and, at intervals, back-tracking to see if later changes made earlier ones redundant. IOW, all pretty standard stuff. I can't remember how many different power supplies, isolation schemes, etc I hooked up before trying the LPS-1 (which, as I'd ordered it to use elsewhere, had no dog in the fight) and deciding it was so far ahead of everything else that it had to stay, prior proposal be blowed.
IOW, I was well aware that "each link and plug and socket may contribute it's own SQ" and proceeded accordingly. Another inmate (whose approach you praised) did the obvious thing - repeated the simplest of the tweaks I'd described and, finding it working well enough to justify repeating in a different setup, did so, reported his result and sought further information.
I was reluctant to provide any on the forum because I knew that lifting my comments from a passing remark to something structured would instantly see me slapped down by those so expert that they can dismiss a lengthy project without reading posts with care or pertinent datasheets at all, let alone trying anything for themselves. Inevitably, the hauteur is followed up with remarks of the "Nope. I won't even try one of these devices" type and undocumented claims.
To sum up, techniques (tweaks?) for improving LAN connections in the audio context have made headway in recent months, esp over on CA. Some there adopted a passive approach ("better" leads, filters, local PSUs, etc), others an "active" one emphasising fibre optic links to a server. I originally went "passive" but was persuaded, in part by Steve's pieces in Audiostream, to add a fibre link. I was quickly convinced that the two approaches were complimentary and, spurred on by gratifying results, took the approach as far as I reasonably could given current technology and my funding.
And inmates talk about 'optimisation'?????????
No, though others still occasionally use the word in what we can probably agree is a casual manner, it's you who seems to feel the need to bang on even about passing quips long after everyone else has lost interest.
If anyone wants to comment in light of their own tests or ask questions, I'll try to contribute but I'll not respond further to jibes.
D
mathematics of combinations and permutations.
https://revisionmaths.com/advanced-level-maths-revision/statistics/permutations-and-combinations
the word "optimise" is not to be found anywhere on the webpage you cite. Nor do any of the math problems presented have anything to do with the concept. The answer to the question "Ten people go to a party. How many different ways can they be seated?" has but one answer. As do the other statistical examples. There's nothing to optimize - just equations to solve.
Let's find where the word is used elsewhere on that website, shall we?
"normally to optimise profit.
I think the rest of us understand what that means in that context. One takes steps to improve profit since there is no "absolute" result or equation to solve.
"The UCAS website is also now fully optimised for mobile phones and tablets...
I think the rest of us understand what that means in this context as well. Since "mobile friendly" is a relative term, it generally means they have adjusted the page content for easier visibility on a small screen.
Do you understand?
insight and understanding of how multiple variables affect the performance of systems.
Try some insight and understanding of how multiple variables affect the performance of systems.
Quite. The idea that you can understand the issues I hoped this thread might discuss by counting the instances of a generic interconnector in a system comprising a series of passive and complex active devices whose behaviour you ignore in favour of the arithmetic of factorial numbers strikes me as fatuous.
Following up with a banality like the above adds insult to fatuity. The effect of multiple variables on LAN performance in the audio context has been discussed at length in several threads over on CA. Many of the posts are interesting, others not so much but anyone who tries to replicate the gist learns that another key variable in PC audio is being addressed there and elsewhere.
Sadly, trying to involve AA inmates in what is proving an interesting topic has, not for the first time, been undermined by a self-appointed Committee of Public Safety. Pity that, even if it was predictable.
D
And unlike you, truly understand the meaning of the word "optimize". Your *example* demonstrates you don't have the remotest clue. Do you really believe that "optimize" is synonymous with "calculate"?
Too funny!
Again and again, you continue to demonstrate absolute ignorance as to its meaning.
Keep trying, Fred. Maybe you might find someone agrees with your perverse interpretation.
Do you have the foggiest notion of what dictionaries do?
Apparently not! No surprise here. :)
I just figured it out. fmak is referring to the word optimiSe. We are referring to the word optimiZe.
Apparently, there is a BIG difference.
is not between the King's English and American English as both share the same dictionaries. I find the same answer with the Oxford version as I do the Webster .
He, on the other hand, speaks fmakian. :)
your inability to explain or justify what you claim for your system; instead, your rely on semantics and peripheral postings to hide such false claims.
That's really funny fmak! I understand E-Stat's claims and his system very well after reading a couple of his posts.
Yours on the other hand remains a mystery because you've never posted it in your profile or laid out exactly what you're running. Is it the Pipo PC this week or that humongous Dell workstation with the noisy blowers in it? What ever happened with those ATX linear power supplies you were supposed to post about? Did you ever fix that oscilloscope you blew up while probing around where you didn't belong? Defrag any of your SSD's lately? What's up with YOUR system?
your inability to explain or justify what you claim for your system
to repeat what apparently you cannot understand. :)
And like before, you are utterly incapable of providing any semblance of an intelligent response discussing the details provided.
Clueless.
this is what EStat means to you.
Get some proper engineering education and training; you will then know that your system is not optimised as you claim.
to find an actual definition that supports your claim as many of us have requested you do. Obviously, you cannot. And don't understand the definition of.......definition! The word does not represent a single absolute state like "unique" or "full". One can further optimize parameters in a process for better results.I do smile, however, when I hear the flight attendant say "We have a very full flight" or quite commonly hear folks talk about something that is "very unique". They share your inability to understand the language.
Your linked example is a hoot. When Dick and Jane add 2+2, they are not "optimising" anything.
And yes, Virginia a micro Rendu is a computer with hardware and software optimized for the sole function of music playback.
Like your registry hacks, elevating the process priority of the music server software optimizes its ability to deliver latency-free delivery of the file.
BTW, I am a software engineer and supply chain consultant. I've re-written code optimizing them for speed of execution. I've fine tuned kernel parameters and instance resource allocations in VM environments optimizing them for efficiency. I have helped customers optimize their inventory spend for improved product GMROI and profitibility.
GMAFB!
edit: For those truly interested in the topic, here are Microsoft's recommendations to Optimize Windows for Better Performance
Here's another source for learning Top 12 Tips: How to Optimize and Speed Up Windows 7 Performance
You'll find another five million such links on "optimization".
Edits: 02/05/17
this figures? From an accredited ABET engineering program?
a decade before the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB) was established in 1985.
But then, Microsoft doesn't have a clue as to any software engineering prowess, right?
Keep trying convincing others of your unique definition that no one else uses. :)
You remain unable to provide even an inkling of any organization or body who agrees with you.
Cheerio, Frank!
Exactly, they and older computing degrees are NOT Engineering degrees and not recognised through the Washington Accord as qualifications for engineers.
Sitting in front of a screen for 4 years does not mean that graduates had actually 'engineered' anything, in spite of claims otherwise by some universities that run Computer Science programs. Hell, some of these courses don't even require Advanced Mathematics as a prerequisite.
you remain consistently oblivious to reality.
Here is IBM talking about Performance Optimization and Tuning Techniques for IBM Power Systems Processors Including IBM POWER8
When all else fails, avoid-avoid-avoid the real question, right?
How's that approach working out for you? :)
you have been doing is quoting words without reasoning or justification.
What has IBM to do with what I have been asking you to explain and justify?
It's about the word "optimization" and your inability to understand it.
...you have been doing is quoting words without reasoning or justification.
The concept is called "Using a word in a sentence" to help you understand the meaning in context. The rest of us learned that in elementary school. Each example I've cited uses the word to illustrate its meaning.
Get it? Most likely not!
Or, let's recall your inability to provide even a single source that agrees with the voices in your head. Not one. Zip. Nada. Zilch. You've posted dozens of responses and continue to ignore the basic question which apparently flies over your head every time.
Certainly not any prominent computer or software company agrees with you as we've witnessed! Maybe they don't understand engineering like you do. LOL!
Hmmmm. How about engineering as it applies to loudspeakers? Maybe you find this company doesn't get your concept either. Hint: Here's another application of the word in a sentence.
...that aims to the highest optimization
Time to leave your delusionary world again. :)
as a 'software engineer???' who does not know what optimisation means in the technical and not marketing sense.
to repeat everything I've already posted and add a few details.
Again and again, I'm only too happy to repeat everything I've already posted and add a few details.
And I've recently added two more optimizations towards further minimizing the potential for server based noise to effect the audio signal. The UPS to which the downstairs server is connected now runs through a Tripp Lite conditioner. And I've upgraded my balanced interconnects to a more thoroughly shielded set. Sound floor is already dead quiet, but I've experienced that RFI sometimes manifests itself as a kind of false brightness.
I continue to await any commentary from you as to the many steps I've taken to optimize performance using a device already designed from the ground up solely for audio duty.
Cheerio!
I never said they are ineffective!!!
I said
1. UTP isolates shield/ground by definition
2. each jack comes with a transformer by definition
From that perspective EMU sells you more or less redundant features.
However.
You'll have two more transformers in the loop. This might make
the difference.
And I also said, I don't doubt that you experience a difference.
If you change the physics you'll cause a change.
The level of change I'm expecting though wouldn't justify a @129$ invest.
First I'd look elsewhere to figure out what's still missing.
Enjoy.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: