Can you please comment on @keiserrg post which reprinted dCS statement on galvanic isolation and the design of their products. While you are at it I would also add @Anupc comments detailing additional lengths dCS goes to when designing and building our boxes:
“Not only does dCS use completely discrete Ethernet isolation transformers, there are circuit elements after the transformers to provide further high-frequency noise immunity, after which the Ethernet signals are fed into a completely separate daughterboard which has additional signal filtering elements!”
Notwithstanding the build specifications detailed above are you going on record as saying the addition of 3rd party switches such as Ansuz, Innuos, English Electric, Nordost, Reiki, Uptone, Silent Angel, etc. will IMPROVE upon what dCS has already engineered into our boxes?
If you believe so that would imply there was more dCS could have done to ensure noise free operation. I would be interested in hearing what you feel dCS could have done beyond their current design.
Sure. Fundamentally, and I write this as a dCS user of decades if I include my enjoyment of Arcam’s RingDAC players, there is only so much any designer can do inside their case. Ref discussion arising from my recent posting about the arrival of my Rossini Master Clock, it is acknowledged by dCS themselves that despite their unrivalled (IMHO) engineering capabilities, the physical separation of clock duties into a different chassis brings sonic performance benefits.
It’s a separation of responsibilities thing. Some manufacturers apply the same principle to the separation of power supplies into their own case.
I’m confident that the galvanic isolation incorporated into dCS’s products is the or amongst the best in the world. I question neither the world class design principles nor the world class engineering skills behind the implementation.
No, absolutely not, either on or off the record!
Firstly there is a wide range of switches in that list with a wide range of performance levels.
Secondly, I am simply pointing out that real world experience demonstrates that excellence in engineering cannot overcome the laws of physics and sometimes even the best in the world can be better - outside not inside the box.
Thirdly, and I can only offer this on behalf of a single manufacturer, it would be my absolute pleasure to visit the dCS HQ so we can see together whether or not there is a sonic improvement to be had. And then all the people who need to know will know; including me. Small, business confidential, employees only, no external information sharing without mutual consent.
I am confident, rock solid confident, that dCS has done absolutely everything it can inside their cases.
At risk of diverting to a different topic, I see an increasing number of streamer manufacturers incorporating SFP ports into their designs. You can see the attraction but this ignores the noise generated by the back conversion process and whenever I’ve suggested someone compares an external FMC (connected to the streamer ia a short unshielded Cat 6 or similar cable) with the internal one, they always prefer the sound with the external one: separation of responsibilities again.
I wrote up my experience with the failing etherREGEN in the Vandersteen forum, which allows pictures, and thought it might be of interest here. For what it’s worth, the rather expensive audiophile switch I used to replace the etherREGEN definitely improved the sound quality of my system. https://forum.vandersteen.com/topic/2699-extraordinary-customer-service/#comments
Might be worth checking whether the AQ Vodka has the shield grounded to both plugs and if so risking a $ on trying a short unshielded cable. This will stop any noise generated by the back-converting SFP in your downstream OpticalModule from simply being conducted down the shield to your Bartók (the fiberoptic will obviously stop anything further upstream from reaching it). This is in line with dCS’s own guidance too.
We’re not going to see any explanation that has any actual technical merit or depth whatsoever.
Additionally, it’s absolutely ludicrous that a manufacturer of one of these “Audiophile Ethernet Switches” supposedly owns a Rossini, and yet is unable to illustrate objectively the efficacy of his own product in his own possession!
You really find it hard to accept, don’t you, that your obviously deep professional knowledge from the 100% digital world of corporate networking is not entirely relevant to the digital-plus-analog(ue) world of audio.
You much prefer to suggest - tirelessly, dismissively, and usually with an emoji which does not align with the negative emotions behind your words - that inverted commas are needed around Audiophile Network Switch. That the thousands of people around the world, including those here, who choose to use an audiophile network switch just before their streamer are naive and gullible. That designers and manufacturers of audiophile network switches are “obviously” duping these audio enthusiasts with their clever marketing. And other rather cynical perspectives, merely because the honest relationships and transactions behind extensive audiophile network switch ownership do not fit your own worldview.
And, yes, I find all of the above personally insulting. It insults my ethics, my motivation, my experience and my expertise. Which is why I do not let your unfounded assertions lie unchallenged.
Most troubling is your insistence on some sort of graph or data as the only proof you, the judge who has already decided the accused is guilty, will accept. Don’t you recall how those of us involved in the 3.0 early access programme relied entirely on our hearing, our judgements, our subjective preferences, rather than insisting that dCS somehow “prove” objectively whether this Mapper is better than that Mapper, this Filter is better than that Filter, or indeed that they actually do anything at all? Hearing is why we are here.
I only have access to one product range, natch; I regularly put this up for listening tests by genuinely prospective customers and genuinely prospective dealers, and I don’t need to share here the gushing feedback.I’ve offered to do the same with dCS behind closed doors in case they want to hear for themselves. That’s all I can offer.
Please accept this and move on. You have no need to visit threads about the EE8 or EtherRegen or any other thread with switch in the title.
I asked Duck.AI (an AI that purports not to track you, much like the DuckDuck.go search engine) whether the AQ Vodka cable is grounded to both plugs, and got this response.
Pseudo-scientific explanations with no technical merit whatsoever. Products sold without any objective evidence and solely on the basis of social “testimonials”. Attempting to dissuade those who point out the truth from telling others.
There’s over 200 years of history on this sort of thing: Snake Oil
@anupc: you are most certainly not speaking the truth; you don’t actually know what science is (I was a global CIO in pharma and do); and you’re on repeat. Please recognise the limits of your understanding and experience, stop this keyboard bullying, and listen and learn.
Well, we’re back here again. Another networking thread where the conversation quickly slides away from civil. I’m getting posts on this thread flagged to the moderators on both sides of the argument for being inappropriate.
I think we are once again at the point where the original topic has had both sides raise their point and we’re conversationally spiralling, with no new or relevant information related to the original topic being raised.
I have reviewed all of the flagged posts as they have been made but rather than action the individual posts, and given that OP has marked the thread as solved, I am going to close this thread.
