I think the detail about buffering is really significant.
While I’ve heard some noticeable differences using high-end switches with other audio equipment, my Bartok seems pretty immune to any noise from the network. Every part of the design seems immaculately thought through and executed.
PS I agree, it is great to have the developers contribute on here 
In theory, everything sounds logical…
But still, there are other kinds of problems, since different network equipment affects the final sound quality. To deny this is to deny the experience of the huge number of enthusiasts and the market for audiophile network devices (even if some of them are snake oil)
Hmm, that sounds tautological to me. There may be reasons why poorly constructed networks, network components, non-compliant cables, or noise sources produce audible results in systems, and some of those reasons may be psychoacoustic, and some may even be real, but the presence of a market to sell to those perceptions does not in this hobby prove the reality. And with respect to James’ point, those upstream devices/components/cables/actions do not affect the timing of the (asynchronous) musical information. If one has a problem switch, that is causing an obnoxious ground loop for example, or some other noise, then by all means, one should fix that! But that is quite different from claiming that clocking a network switch makes a difference in SQ. [Full disclosure: I had an EtherREGEN in my Vivaldi speaker system, which I had purchased for its isolation capabilities, and to compare with my GigaFoil 4. And just for shits & giggles, I clocked it with both my Perf10 and Kronos1 reference clocks. Audibly, it produced nothing different from the GigaFoil. But it was fun. Eventually, I removed the ER, because it always ran hot, even on its own little metal stand that I made for it, and it routinely locked up on me, requiring a hard reboot. Those two problems were consistent in both my speaker system and headphone rack.]
An Obnoxious ground loop…Greg I missed you the last mounths, but now I know you are back 
I learn new english words almost every post you launch…that’s fun 
For this reason, even a full reclock, buffer, and the rest described above does not solve all the problems. This means that the ethernet interface is not absolutely stable and immune.
I have a basic quality switch, a good liner power supply, a recommended certified cable, but one Melco changes the game. I have tried others with varying degrees of success.
I know that some manufacturers have gone a little further and added optical usb, ethernet. I think I already wrote about the experiences of enthusiasts… 
It means that the Ethernet interface is immune to clocking issues.
I’d like to learn more about noise, where it comes from, and how it propagates to the analog signal path.
A.
As would I. But at this stage of the explanation that James has been methodically publishing, the discussion was about timing. Getting thet clarity is important. If there are ways that noise can ride along the Ethernet delivery system, get through the dCS interface, and then into the analog chain, I would love to know that.
I agree that we should not assume that Ethernet is “perfect”; to do so would be to deny the possibility of future improvement. But the fact that there are “unsolved problems” does not prove anything about the Ethernet interface. It’s a version of the old truism: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Proving you’ve got unsolved problems in your system doesn’t prove there is anything wrong with Ethernet.
And what does this even mean: “does not solve all the problems”? What problems? What problems have been identified that require solving? When one speaks in such generalities, it conveys no information to someone who hasn’t sat in the room with you, heard what you heard, and then heard your explanation of what problems were identified and then which ones were solved and which remain unsolved.
It might mean we have to keep exploring how it is that changes in a network switch for example can purportedly improve some aspect of the musical information. But this is not voodoo. It’s science. The question should be: “if we think we hear a change, what is it that changed that produces the outcome?” If there is to be an actual explanation, one on which logical improvement can be based, we have to understand how. Otherwise, each box/cable-builder is just throwing darts blindfolded. And asking customers to accept a lot on faith. That’s no way to run a railroad. Whether it’s tighter tolerance resistors, a cable weaving pattern, better copper, faster relays, different PSUs, improved isolation, etc., even if the method is accidental, at some point is has to be explicable, and reproducible in order to be anything more than confirmation bias. Importantly, I am not saying it has to be measurable. Eventually, an actual change will be measurable, but I am comfortable with the mantra that “not everything we hear is measurable, and that not every measurement matters.” But that’s always an “interim state.” The goal should be to understand how and why. Because it’s the how and why which is the foundation of future improvement. Otherwise, blindfolded darts.
For the very same reasons that, to my ears, network playback generally sounded better than USB (and for good reason), I believe there must be better ways to encode, transmit, and decode musical information. I have great faith in the advancement of technology, and I can’t even imagine what quality of musical reproduction will be available to my grandchildren. But for now with what we know, the evidence that a network switch or other upstream device can improve musical information is really thin if not non-existent. Such devices might improve a specific system by solving a problem, e.g., noise, and thereby improving the presentation in that system. But not by changing the quality of the musical information.
Greg,
I will remember the story with Apple, jailbreak and сidia. Many options that were not in iOS were implemented by enthusiasts, and then they appeared in new iOS.
I just want to draw attention to the fact that there is an influence, and it is better for the manufacturer to understand this issue.
And yes, I will always first try the basic things recommended by the manufacturer, and only if I am convinced by some statistics of reviews on the Internet, then I will try it myself. To try everything in a row - life is not enough)))
Fair point. I was an early jailbreaker on some of my early iPhones. And I do think that some of that enthusiasm probably helped accelerate the path for Apple to get real apps on the phone rather than mere web widgets. I might quibble that jailbreaking was a direct response to Apple’s very constrictive early customer models, rather than a shortcoming in the science of telecomputing, but the deficiencies of some of their early antennae are also on point.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am an all-in supporter of enthusiasts in any hobby/ activity. Customer-driven innovation is a good thing. Let’s keep hammering on the conventional wisdom. But with rationality. There was much to despise about early USB audio for example. And much to hope for if not embrace immediately about early network audio. But the improvements that have been made over the last thirty years are based on technology. It’s one thing for the customer to say “I don’t know how it works, but I know it is better” (Rossini, meet Vivaldi), but it’s another thing altogether for the maker to be unable to explain the engineering and for someone else to be unable to replicate the result. This speaks directly to your point:
Spot on. There isn’t time to try everything. Doesn’t matter how “golden-eared” someone is. For me, there needs to be some rational framework to explain the possibility before I will convert enjoyment time to non-enjoyment assessment time.
To push your memory metaphor a bit further, we could each jailbreak our phones using the same method, install the same software, and then report in a forum that it worked for one of us but not the other. There was always an explanation, some mistake or misstep along the way that could explain the differential outcome. It wasn’t always rectifiable—ah, the fun of jailbreaking—but it was understandable. Similarly, the same phone could get good reception in one area and lousy in another. Cell network problems? Maybe. But what about the antenna? That turned out to be absolutely the case in some phone models. If someone can find the equivalent in Ethernet, I am all ears. 
I believe manufacturers need to do a combination of both. You improve as much as you can through understanding the science, but you still need to look (listen) at the result - with, at times, contradictory results as we don’t understand the science of everything yet.
It’s much the same way with other areas of engineering such as the development of lithium batteries and superconductors. Many of the advances have been based on ‘what happens if we replace element a with element b?’. The results couldn’t have been predicted with our current understanding, but some worked (and many more failed).
That’s not at all what I was referring to, and it’s not what “blindfolded darts” means. Trying new things, without knowing what the results might be, is a perfectly valid method of experimentation. Though it is rarely “blind.” It is usually an educated guess. One does not swap copper for vulcanized rubber and expect to improve the conductivity of one’s medium. One selects a new alternative based on what one knows about the alternative, though one might not be able to predict the outcome of the new combination. If it’s better, keep it, record it, and move the R&D forward. If it’s worse or same, record it, and also keep trying. The scientist-engineer controls for and records the inputs and outputs. And the results are verifiable. Not blindfolded darts. Experimentation is not a blindfolded process, and even accidental discovery rarely is. Simply claiming that something changes/improves/worsens something without an explanation for how, though, leaves the customer with zero reference point. That’s blindfolded. And it’s how way too many reviewers and customers and dealers seem to feel comfortable operating in this hobby. Over on digital photography, lens sharpness and color fidelity are verifiable, as are pixel light gathering and doling shutter recording speeds. One can still prefer the color and contrast of a Rodenstock lens over a Schneider, but one will have definitive reference points for explaining what one’s eyes see. With cars, “feels faster” and “is faster” are two decidedly different things, but both are explicable with objective data. My e-tron GT is decidedly not faster than either my R8 or RS7, but it feels as though it is, and I know exactly why. There is no reason we could not enjoy that framework in Audi if it weren’t that out industry and much of the customer base depend on it being otherwise.
Granted, patent rights tend to muck up this abstract discussion a bit, because inventors are incentivized to protect their secret sauce until it enjoys legal protection (those that refuse to explain and also fail to patent are telling us something, whether want to admit it or not). We may not know exactly why one “thing” (whatever it is) should be better than another. But the thing’s characteristics, including its measured properties, can give us a clue. Regrettably few manufacturers tell us much about their products—which actually does tell us much about their products—but those that do, allow us to make educated guesses about which might actually produce an improvement in our particular system. Again, that’s not blindfolded darts.
[edited for brevity]
I honestly doubt any manufacturer would be mad enough to have no goal to work towards and I didn’t suggest otherwise.
We’re agreed that an educated guess is better than a complete guess, but educated guesses don’t always work out (again, because we don’t understand everything there is to know about science), so I stand by my opinion that at times people ‘get lucky’, even if with hindsight people might understand why that approach worked. I did not say this is how it always or even usually happens, just that it happens. I’m not sure we actually disagree on this.
Your point that ‘One does not swap copper for vulcanized rubber and expect to improve the conductivity of one’s medium’ appears disingenuous. As the opposite has already been proven, it would be downright silly to try this.
Always needing an explanation of why something works assumes that an explanation is readily to hand and, as you point out, protection of intellectual property often gets in the way. The reality is we can’t explain everything we measure, otherwise we would be able to explain how Quantum Entanglement works (as opposed to merely demonstrating that it exists).
Uhm … not so much demonstrating that it exists.
It’s more like “conducting repeatable experiments that produce measurable effects compatible with what the theory predicts, and that would be quite unlikely under hypotheses that contradict said theory”.
As human beings, we are not allowed to discuss reality. We can study relations between observables.
A.
Excellent series. One aspect of clocking that I hope you will address has to do with the provision for an externally attached “master clock” for the Vivaldi Clock. What type of clock should this be if used? And what would be it’s overall value with other components, which rely on clocking, within a consumer audio system? I’m thinking here of network switches of maybe CD playback or streaming devices.
I love tech explanations because they help me organize my thoughts about things that can or cannot make sense.
Example of one thing that doesn’t make sense: an external clock for your Ethernet switch.
Reason why it doesn’t make sense: not even the order in which data packets arrive at the Ethernet card have any importance, let alone exact timing.
Example of something that may make sense: an optical insulator right before the Ethernet card may improve things by preventing noise from entering the analog signal path through the card.
BUT: noise may well enter through the transceiver power unit …
I’d really love to hear from DCS about this. And I also have a question: why don’t you add an optical Ethernet port?
A.
Oh I think that’s been answered. Perhaps not quite as directly as some might want, but here, here, here, and here for example are some not-entirely-obtuse clues on what dCS think.
Thanks for the links. And it appears you’ve settled on the Perf 10 over the other current options, right?
Might give that a try in lieu of the OP21 I’ve had for a few years. But I’ll wait until I’ve done the APEX upgrade for my Vivaldi DAC.
Steve, I like the Perf10 a lot, but it’s in another home these days. I replaced it with the Novus Kronos1. It’s a GNSS-disciplined atomic clock.I think both act on the Vivaldi similarly.
Ah. That’s the one you were putting in after the Perf10. I recall pics of satellite dishes. Or was that something else. If it was, that’s something I’d avoid at my condo/townhouse site.
Seems that the Perf10 is a better fit for me.
The OP21 is supporting both the dCS and the etherREGEN. I’m assuming the Perf10 will do the the same. What do you recommend to power the Perf10?
The GNSS antennae for the Kronos1 are not large, but they do have to be mounted for clear sky access. I had some success with window mounting for testing purposes, but until I got them roof mounted, I did not have 100% signal lock and use. Pic below shows the antennae on standard J-mounts. Yes, the Perf10 has plenty of outputs for other devices. I had a custom power supply built by James Soh at Plixir Power. I suspect that was overkill, but 
