Installed a new switch today

[Anupc (Anup)]

@T38.45

I’ll try to test the new generation,…

Good for you, let us know how it goes.

By the way, I’ve absolutely no argument against folks who believe they hear a difference themselves, just so long as they don’t try to suggest it’s science fact without clear objective evidence

@Lee

A man without experience on the product is a man without an opinion on the product.

I went to the factory in Aalborg and saw the switches being built. They have mini Tesla coils inside for noise reduction and I believe that is what makes the device effective.

That sounds dangerously like what a snake-oil salesman might say, as they rely on cognitive bias to sell their wares.

There’s just not enough hours in a day to waste time trying out products from a manufacturer who publicly spouts pseudo-science nonsense. And thanks to your video, plenty of folks now know to avoid Ansuz (hint: just take a look at the comments section of your vid )

By the way, a factory visit means absolutely nothing. As for the “Tesla Coil”, well, clearly they have to add something in there when they’re marking up the price of an OEM product by 10,000%!

[imprezap2]

I just have to change the power supply to my switch to hear a significant difference, no believe involved.

[BillK]

@Anupc

By the way, I’ve absolutely no argument against folks who believe they hear a difference themselves, just so long as they don’t try to suggest it’s science fact without clear objective evidence

I don’t think I’ve ever seen any subjectivist say something was “science fact,” just objectivists when trying to belittle subjectivists.

Subjectivists merely say it sounds better.

@Anupc

There’s just not enough hours in a day to waste time trying out products from a manufacturer who publicly spouts pseudo-science nonsense. And thanks to your video, plenty of folks now know to avoid Ansuz (hint: just take a look at the comments section of your vid )

It’s always fun to see you making fun of people who have no qualms about revealing who they work for, but in alternate posts you say you work for one of the biggest switch makers and the biggest switch maker.

Juniper? Cisco? Who knows, you can just allude to it while belittling those who have no problem stating their affiliation.

Swenson states he designed PHYs for LSI Logic/Avago/Broadcom, something that could easily be confirmed one way or the other; we can’t confirm yours.

Now I get it, there’s no need to drop the shield of privacy and anonymity the Internet provides, but when someone says “believe me, I know, I’m a billionaire” they’d better reveal their bank statements to someone acceptable to all parties for verification.

@Anupc

By the way, a factory visit means absolutely nothing.

Nor do your statements without as you like to say, facts to back them up.

What’s amazing is you and others keep talking about what is done in switches to provide bit-perfect transfer and eliminate noise from the data transfer process when I and others have stated in every post that this has nothing to do with the transmitted data and everything to do with noise somehow affecting the audio produced by the DAC.

The data is transfer is bit-perfect and bullet-proof. No one here doubts that.

However, you won’t find the word “audio” mentioned at all in 802.3. It simply wasn’t of any concern when 802.3 was first drafted and still isn’t of concern to IEEE, at least not in that spec.

Lee clearly said what he believes to be responsible for the improved sound the device causes to be produced, he didn’t say “these parts are the reason why.”

Look, I don’t have a dog in this hunt, I’ve heard the improvements, and as someone who deals at the hardware and software levels with Ethernet daily I agree with your statements that Ethernet was designed to eliminate many of these effects.

However, I also remember when jitter wasn’t understood well and people made fun of the fact that you could hear audible effects of bending Toslink cables even when the data being received was bit-perfect. It was only later we found what bending the cable was doing to S/PDIF jitter rates.

My beef with objectivists is not that they say “the measurements don’t show what you’re hearing,” rather it’s “you can’t hear a difference, the measurements say so” and never grasp that the measurement tools we have may not in fact measure whatever causes the audible effects we hear.

We have GCMS systems that can measure particulates to the PPB level, and yet the human nose - let alone canine noses - are more sensitive than those instruments are.

There is no reason to believe our other senses aren’t more acute than our measurement gear is, either.

[Lee (Lee Scoggins)]

Well said Bill.

[Anupc (Anup)]

@BillK

I don’t think I’ve ever seen any subjectivist say something was “science fact,” just objectivists when trying to belittle subjectivists.

Fair enough. But you can’t deny post after post where the implications are clear, yours included.

@BillK

It’s always fun to see you making fun of people who have no qualms about revealing who they work for

These people chose to be in the public domain. I don’t. There’s a difference.

@BillK

Swenson states he designed PHYs for LSI Logic/Avago/Broadcom, something that could easily be confirmed one way or the other; we can’t confirm yours.

As a matter of fact, I tried confirming that some time ago when Uptone first emerged. I couldn’t find any source to validate that he actually worked for those companies. Granted it was just a cursory search, but it was quite telling.

@BillK

However, you won’t find the word “audio” mentioned at all in 802.3. It simply wasn’t of any concern when 802.3 was first drafted and still isn’t of concern to IEEE, at least not in that spec.

You’re not looking hard enough. Besides, the 802.3 standards has been developing for decades to be payload agnostic, meaning it’ll transport triple-play by nature; Audio, Video, Data. Today, 802.3 will even transport high-speed synchronous payloads. If you don’t quite get the relevance, don’t worry about it

@BillK

However, I also remember when jitter wasn’t understood well

Those jitter issues (in the case of TOSLink) were identified a mere couple of years after development of the interface. Ethernet has been around for nearly 50 years, and is by a huge margin, the most ubiquitous interface on the planet. The suggestion that some audiophile can identify a problem with it, by ear, is frankly, quite ludicrous.

[BillK]

@Anupc

Those jitter issues (in the case of TOSLink) were identified a mere couple of years after development of the interface. Ethernet has been around for nearly 50 years, and is by a huge margin, the most ubiquitous interface on the planet. The suggestion that some audiophile can identify a problem with it, by ear, is frankly, quite ludicrous.

Again, you’re misstating the point.

It’s not an issue with the protocol at all, it’s a secondary effect in a particular use case.

Nothing affects data transmission, which is what IEEE is focused upon.

Yes, Ethernet has been around for 50 years. It’s been used to transfer digital data to high end DACs for how long? Perhaps ten years?

Or put another way, AC power has been around for home use for around 140 years, yet the effects of cables and noise upon power lines and the development of filters to remove it based upon their effect upon audio reproduction is something new to the past twenty years or so.

If you want to deny those effects, feel free to contact any of the hospitals listed here as medical facilities don’t often purchase “snake oil” products:

Clear Image Scientific

(Objectivists have in the past and the purchase and continued use of the products by the facilities named were confirmed.)

[vkennedy (Vince)]

Try as we might, with little exception, there’s no replacement for experience. I can look at the chemical composition of a tomato, yet not know how it tastes.

[keiserrg]

I will merely write that I think it is interesting that dCS itself is not touching this debate/thread. Prior posts from dCS engineers state what they recommend and use, which are $10 spec unshielded Ethernet cables from Amazon.

Q.E.D. (IMHO)

[all2ofme (Ben (www.tasmanbayaudio.co.nz))]

Quite.

I’m happy that there’s room in the world for everyone, and that people enjoy differences that I can’t hear. Good for them.

I think the only thing that makes me unhappy is the idea of someone reading a gushing account of something that might make zero difference (or worse) in their system and feeling compelled to spend time and money on it. And/or feeling like a twit if they can’t hear the difference they’re expecting.

We don’t read too many tales of buyer’s remorse because most of us don’t like to own up to feeling taken advantage of.

Nor do we see many examples of manufacturers telling customers in very clear terms that they should use cables that mean their equipment won’t perform at its best.

“We recommend $12 Ethernet cables — exotic versions will only make your system sound better.”

[vkennedy (Vince)]

Buyer beware holds true on so many things. I tried a garden burger once.

[Anupc (Anup)]

@BillK

Nothing affects data transmission, which is what IEEE is focused upon.

Ahhh, this probably explains why you keep thinking Ethernet noise is the “problem”. Well, you couldn’t be more wrong about something so basic. (IIRC, you made this same mistaken statement once before).

As an IEEE member going on 17 years now, I can tell you categorically that they, including the 802.3 Group, spends an inordinate amount of effort looking at all aspects of noise.

Not just in the context of data transmission error rates, but also the impact of noise transmission on connected systems, through interface specifications for Ethernet port magnetics (and pluggables), for example with galvanic isolation/multi-core transformer, common-mode chokes, even component placement guidelines, all specifically developed to neutralise noise/EMI transfer on the connected systems.

[BillK]

@Anupc

Ahhh, this probably explains why you keep thinking Ethernet noise is the “problem”. Well, you couldn’t be more wrong about something so basic. (IIRC, you made this same mistaken statement once before).

As an IEEE member going on 17 years now, I can tell you categorically that they, including the 802.3 Group, spends an inordinate amount of effort looking at all aspects of noise.

Not just in the context of data transmission error rates, but also the impact of noise transmission on connected systems, through interface specifications for Ethernet port magnetics (and pluggables), for example with galvanic isolation/multi-core transformer, common-mode chokes, even component placement guidelines, all specifically developed to neutralise noise/EMI transfer on the connected systems.

Thanks for the comment; it just wouldn’t be a post from you without your egregious condescension.

I appreciate the work IEEE has done regarding electrical noise, yet somehow small audio companies have found something to improve the sound of systems using Ethernet to transfer audio data; I guess the IEEE experts aren’t so knowledgeable after all. I suspect if I read all the IEEE specs not one word would be mentioned about high-end audio and how noise might impact the soundstage of reproduced music - imagine that.

It’s rather like the way no one in all of the bodies dealing with electrical power recognized the issue of noise there until audio companies started making filtering devices that then turned out to have applications in the medical field. Not even the makers of the multi-million dollar medical devices realized that, it was a relatively small audio company (Shunyata) that did, all due to a medical specialist who happened to be an audiophile wondering what would happen if he plugged the hospital’s multi-million dollar electrical device into his audiophile AC filter.

That’s the wonderful thing about discoveries; you never know where they will come from.

Perhaps some day we will even find a way to measure sonic differences that are so easily heard.

Until then I guess you can just go on belittling me as you refuse to quantify what you hear, only what you can measure, and that’s your right.

Who knows, perhaps the higher end clock cables induce timing errors that we hear as pleasurable, in which case I’m fine with that if it makes my system sound better to me.

[Anupc (Anup)]

You’re welcome

@BillK

yet somehow small audio companies have found something to improve the sound of systems transferring audio data over Ethernet

Such as? Perhaps you can provide an actual example of this? (We expect some objective “improvement” not just marketing/hand-waving claims).

[BillK]

You listen for an improvement.

Measurements aren’t needed unless you refuse to hear improvements unless you are first shown measurements.

As I said, if that’s the way you want to roll, so be it.

[Anupc (Anup)]

Right, no actual example to back up your statement then.

[BillK]

Just like your industry credentials.

[Anupc (Anup)]

Sure, no need to take my word for it, at least I’m able to provide actual factual statements that are easily verified.

Here, be my guest; https://www.google.com/search?as_q=site%3Awww.ieee802.org+Ethernet+noise

[BillK]

Yes, I am saying there are likely some effects that only have any noticeable affect in that context, again just like power and the way Garth Powell’s coworkers at Furman/Panamax thought his findings silly when the devices he found sounded worst provided some of the best measurements.

High End Munchen 2015 - AudioQuest Niagara 7000 - Garth Powell

[Anupc (Anup)]

No wonder you keep finding nothing

[BillK]

Yep, IEEE doesn’t care about high end audio, which is what my original statement said.

Standards bodies said MP3 encoding was perceptually lossless, too.