Watch out for the IGMP Snooping configuration on them, I believe it’s Enabled by default, which will trip up Mosaic consistenly finding your dCS unit. Disabling that configuration should resolve the issue. 
3 Likes
Just to be clear, I agree with you on the network point. However, there are reasons why Jon’s system and experience could be different as between the ER and the Netgear. First, everyone’s system is different, and you have no way of knowing (without a full map) whether Jon has his system set up in a noisy closet, next to the microwave, is using a mix of shielded and unshielded cable, etc. I know you’re an expert, but any of those circumstances could inject noise in one form or another into his system. Given the ER’s isolation capabilities, it is possible it improves this situation, even though both switches are otherwise transmitting bit perfect data. Anup also points out how the Netgear equipment could impair the experience of using the system. It’s also possible that the Netgear equipment he owns is itself noisy, or the wall warts are problematic. Etc., etc., etc. Granted, I think these are corner cases, but they’re not impossible.
I agree with you about the transmission of bit perfect data. It’s why I have used Ethernet for so long. People who tell me they have better bass or more detail or more whatever by changing Ethernet cables or switches make me laugh. But when they tell me they seem to have less noise, or blacker background, or more air, well those might be explicable by reduced noise. And so I say, “ask why.” If you’re hearing something different, consistently and/or blindly, ask why. There is probably an explanation. It could be confirmation bias, or it could be a very real, physical thing.
Simply hearing the music play without dropouts does not perforce mean one has the best sound that can be obtained, even over a network.
I never said that device has no potential benefits over Jon’s Netgear switch. It could provide for a more reliable connection, but that’s about it. It conceptually cannot have any effect on the sound quality.
I hear what you say about noise, and noise happens all the time in any transmission line. His (and our) setup is at the end of sometimes well over 10 other intermediate hops between the streaming server and the dCS. Network transport is designed to handle it quite well, by wrapping the content in several layers removed from the physical layer, where noise actually happens. Think double, triple boxing items for shipping. Sure, the outside box may have smudges, but the contents are all the same deep inside. If you order a book, it either gets to you, or it doesn’t. The packaging may be tarnished but the book has the same content. If the package is so damaged that the book itself is being affected, then you’d return it and expect a new one. Same in IP; if a packet is received but doesn’t pass integrity checksum, it is discarded and the sender will fire off a new one. Your book, if duly received, cannot contain more detail than the author put in it, no matter how “upgraded” the mail truck that brought it to your doorstep is.
1 Like
Right now both switches work, but I can’t get into either of their admin pages to check on anup’s advice.
I used the Netgear app to detect the switches but it won’t even get me to the login page. Tried the factory reset as well.
My cables are a mix of unshielded and shielded. I am going to get a full set of BJC cables to replace the 3-4 shield ones I have. I only have the one BJC at the moment.
For short runs you don’t need shielded cables. Just keep it simple. In fact, shielded cables should be avoided unless the situation calls for use of such.
Edit: also no need to get Cat 6 and higher. Or plenum, or partitioned cable, for that matter. A good Cat 5 is all that you need, with good terminations. For my home use, I make my own cables with whatever surplus cable I find at our data center.
2 Likes
mwilson, thank you for adding your expert voice to this discussion. It is appreciated.
One quick question - I don’t quite understand why shielded cables should be avoided for short runs. If, as you have so clearly and articulately stated and summarized in your responses, it’s all about the data checksum and acceptance or rejection at the receipt checkpoint, why should shielding or the lack thereof matter at all?
And finally, what are the advantages of shielded cables for longer distances, which btw begin at what distance?
Please note that I am NOT trying to be persnickety or playing “gotcha”, I am only trying to understand.
Thanks in advance.
Generally speaking, the physical architecture of an Ethernet cable is quite adept at not absorbing RF interference, as long as it follows specifications and uses two twisted pairs to carry the signal. The twisting of the wires in each pair will cancel out most interference.
Shielding comes into play when running Ethernet cables together, and in parallel, with unconduited power cables over significant distances. Think raceways. But this shouldn’t be done anyway given that it’s poor practice and also likely against building codes in many jurisdictions. If this is the case, shielding should be employed, but also carefully inspected, so as the ground to be bonded on both ends of the run. You’ll know a proper shielded cable by the metal RJ-45 connector. A shielded cable that’s bonded only on one end is a recipe for RF disaster, as the shield is effectively acting as an antenna.
The good news is that none of this will affect the audio quality beyond experiencing buffering and/or plain dropouts.
Additionally, today’s network interfaces have significantly evolved and are really good at dealing with noise and interference. Shielding was more of an issue back in the days of 10 MBs networking, and when hubs were used instead of switches.
I hope this helps.
2 Likes
Hari may also like to read this FAQ from dCS which refers in part to the advisability of using unshielded ethernet cables. There is also lots of discussion about this in various threads on this forum and the search facility may prove worthwhile investigating.
This may be of interest
Good article, covering both sides of the argument.
A similar argument can be made about homeopathy; proponents swear by it, whereas science says it’s just water. I’m no physician so I’m steering clear of this one, but in the case of audio I think I’ve explained in a few posts why any audiophile switch cannot possibly enhance the sound. The only enhancement is in the pockets of the manufacturer.
If even dcs personnel say to not bother spending on such stuff, and they themselves are using basic networking components, I believe it speaks for itself.
2 Likes
We’re talking about two different things. I completely agree about packets and SQ. Been saying that for years. So, please don’t keep restating what we agree on as though we don’t. But noise on an Ethernet line—to use the example of a shielded cable with one RJ45 plug terminated properly and the other not—is a completely different thing. And if it does get into the DAC, it is no longer the same as damaged Amazon packaging. We generally don’t store the box alongside the book on a shelf; not so with noise. You could easily be playing delightful music with zero dropouts but still have a noisy network that causes problems for a DAC not well designed to handle such problems. Galvanic isolation should solve for most of that, but repeated listening tests have demonstrated that it does not.solve for everything. These are two separate issues, and the Ethernet standards don’t necessarily solve for poor design/construction, cable choice, parasitic noise, etc. I’m not talking audiophilevoodoo here. I don’t believe in “audiophile” switches or “clocking Ethernet streams,” or any of that stuff. But I do know there are people who are intensely sensitive to a variety of cues in musical presentation. Some can tell the difference between silver disc and Ethernet into the same DAC, and others hear the opposite consistently (discussions like that over sr PSAudio led to significant improvements in both network and disc playback). When we hear such claims, asking why seems to me a far more worthwhile endeavor than stating things like “I’m an expert and I can tell you that will have 0% effect 100% of the time.” All things being equal, I am inclined to agree with you. But sometimes, what people hear indicates that not all things are actually equal. Perhaps for Jon, it might be as simple as cheap Netgear vs. expensive EtherREGEN. Or maybe it is, as @Anupc suggested, worth checking the Netgear IGMP snooping settings. That would not indicate a fault in Ethernet, just the way the switch is configured being suboptimal for Mosaic. Such listening and openness can lead to significant improvements in our experience. But Jon repeatedly reports that his system sounds better with the ER than the NG. Rather than flatly saying (without hearing) “not possible,” might collective expertise be even more valuable walking through possible explanations?
Interestingly, it was a GigaFoil that alerted me to a problem with a cable running to the DAC before my Vivaldi. With the GigaFoil, my wife noticed an improvement in what she characterized as “depth” in the music. This led me to discover that I had a sloppily constructed cable. Swap the cable, and poof, problem solved. Between the cable and the DAC, something was getting in that shouldn’t. Once a proper cable was inserted, the GigaFoil became unnecessary.
I am of the mind that most noise that can ride an Ethernet line is probably inaudible. But there may be people who can prove us wrong on that. I’d like to think that, no matter how well designed Ethernet is and how well we think we know it, that there might yet be more to learn.
2 Likes
I understand what you say, and indeed I was only focusing on the actual content received. If you say that actual noise can make it past the network interface, and past the many isolation boundaries within the dCS unit (or stack) itself, then I don’t know what to say other than hey, who am I to judge what people spend their money on. I’ve also read rave reviews of stones placed on top of units that dramatically expand air and detail, so what do I know, other than I guess it’s time for me to respectfully bow out of this thread.
Thank you ALL for your informed thinking. The Michael Lavorgna link was interesting as well. As so many have said, I guess it all comes down to the listener. After all, it’s his/her money and happiness.
As behavioral economic research has shown over and over, we are all - somewhat unfortunately - irrational at times and often even predictably irrational! I like to say that I bow to the temple of logic, but even I know that logic isn’t always the answer or even always correct or even appropriate. Sigh.
4 Likes
Very helpful info here. I won’t speak to the ethernet connection, but it’s amazing how misinformed many people are about other types of digital connections. Most somehow think that 1s and 0s are actually sent down a cable, which is of course impossible. Instead, depending on the connection, there is an analog wave and noise.
Great video linked below:
I’m sorry, but that vid is just so bogus 
In a typical DAC, the bit stream that flows to the DAC conversion stage is usually I²S protocol based (once all the error-corrected TCP streams are unwrapped).
He’s showing a signal digram that looks like this;
But in reality, even an amateur hand-soldered I²S DAC connection signal looks like this (@ 44.1/16 rates);
Hans’ Youtube Videos are just filled with the usual audiophile hyperbole, best to take them with a big pinch of salt 
1 Like
Well my BJC cables are on the way and I have a Farad Super 3 linear PSU to clean up my power as well. Hopefully i can experiment some more over the coming weeks and report back.
Very eloquent and accurate.
I will share my travails with Ethernet ( Cables and Switches) so that at least some forum members can avoid the same pitfalls.
Ethernet Cables:
a. Ordered a JCAT ethernet cable from Poland after reading Jay Luong’s glowing review on Audio Bacon. After taking my payment there was complete silence and no cable. Only when I complained to PayPal the JCAT owner paid attention. He then shipped the cable to the wrong address. I finally received the cable. It is short and very “beautiful”. The SQ is excellent but does not make up for the poor customer service, t he short length, and the cost= 1300 or so in US
b. Shunyata Sigma Ethernet: Bought used. Also a terrific cable. No complaints, $750 used.
c. SOtm dCBL-CAT7 Audiophile Ethernet Cable: Bought new. Prompt delivery. $500. Exceptional SQ- am going to keep this one!
d. Tellurium Q Ethernet: Bought used for $400. Very good but not exceptional
Plan to sell a, b and d.
Lesson learnt: All that “glitters in reviews” is nowhere near “Gold”.
SOtM dBCL cable at $500 is a fantastic value for the dCS Bartok.
Ethernet Switches:
a. Ether REGN from Uptone Audio: $660. Excellent but runs very hot. I sold mine.
b. Melco S-100: Available for $1980 from Underwood Hi Fi in the US. This is a very well made device. Sound quality is excellent. Is it worth $2000? We can debate that for ever.
c. Alternatives that I did not try, but may be worth trying would be one or two of the myriad offerings from Sonore. If anyone has experience with Sonore devices with dCS products, please share.
Hope the above helps…at least someone
Best
Rit
An interesting turn of phrase. Worth posting this again, with respect to avoiding pitfalls:
5 Likes
Thank you Greg
I did as you suggested.
Sorry. Didn’t mean for you to repost in another thread. That’s not necessary. I was reposting Andrew’s advice about Ethernet cables. To me, it speaks to value.