How COULD upgraded Ethernet cables make a positive difference? What's behind it?

[jkeny]

You say these things as if you have such data but earlier I asked if you had any measurement data for Ethernet cables and you said no. Are you changing that position or these are stuff you are throwing out there with no basis to verify them for the topic at hand?

Are you incapable of reading technical papers related to differential cabling? Do you only read technical papers that have the words "ethernet", "cable", "data" "noise measurements" "audibility" (& whatever else you decide to filter)?

Do you know how differential noise is handled by transformers?

Please stop this trolling!!

 

[jkeny]

Ethernet is both a physical interface and boatload of software protocol above it. It always, always runs asynchronous from the audio stream. It is also always non-real-time. It is also transformer interfaced. None of this is true of USB. To equate them is to think that riding an elephant is the same as a car because they both move you!

I've pointed out this, your strawman, to you before & yet you continually return to it. Why?
What is being talked about here is the electrical behaviour of said digital transmissions & from that perspective USB & ethernet are very similar & involve the same differential concerns as all such signalling. If you don't understand this, then you have no excuse for being involved in this discussion.

I recently did a tear down of the Sonore MicroRendu. I suggest reading that to understand the massive difference. A dual-core CPU running Linux with more power supplies than you can shake a stick at, including a switchmode input one is used to provide support for Ethernet input. None of that is remotely necessary for USB only interfacing.

So?

Every bit audio sample likely goes through hundreds of thousands of CPU instructions before being available to be sent to the DAC. There are a ton of asynchronous and synchronous activities going on in the CPU core(s) and networking stack, none of which is the case with plain USB.

So?

You put all that aside and went after what the cable does?

Hilarious!! Now you accuse me of focussing on the cable whereas before you couldn't wait but to accuse me of NOT focussing on cable issues. Your attempts at flip-flopping between one strawman & another is really becoming outrageous trolling. At one moment it's the software, then you accuse me of having no data/measurements for ethernet cables, now you are trying to accuse me of only focussing on cables & ignoring the software. As I say, hilarious!

Please spend some time to read and understand the full system here. If you don't understand networking you really have no business even entering such discussions. You are just as blind as the wireworld person was talking about data errors and such.

There is a lot of complexity here that goes beyond even the most addicted forum junkie. You can't latch on a phrase like common mode noise or noise modulation and think that gets you any mileage.

I know you want to dismiss CM noise in any way you can as it has bitten you on the bum many times already both in your understanding & your measurements. But your continued trolling & refusal to understand what all this is about is really doing you no favours. I suggest that you would be better engaged dissing Wireworld on ASR, rather than trolling here.

 

[jkeny]

Again, to the point of the jitter he mentions around the 12KHz skirt which is of course the result of close-in phase noise - I have long heard claims from Jocko Homo & other experts in RF signalling & clocking in audio that this area of an oscillators phase noise is the crucial factor involved in the auditory perception of the 'realness' of sounds & soundstage solidity. His claim was that in digital audio, it is defined by & limited by the physics of the crystal structure & finish (surface polish) in the oscillator itself & then by its surrounding circuitry inside & outside the oscillator. All of which determines the phase noise (jitter behaviour) at the master clock input pin (assuming a chip) of the D to A converter IC. I have never found a way to test this for myself as advertised low jitter oscillators, like Crystek or NDK, (I'm told & believe) actually range over quite a wide jitter spectrum range (the advertised graphs, plots & specs are usually a selected best in the batch & measured using very specific PS & conditions). These clocks also tend not to focus on close-in phase noise in their specs - low phase noise in this area is difficult to achieve. So when I got a chance to acquire an oscillator which was actually measured (& graph provided) showing a low level of close-in phase noise, I jumped at it - I could now actually test the claim.

I can report that yes, indeed, the claims are correct - close-in phase noise is important for the illusion of audible realism. But care has to be taken with maintaining such signal purity.

Why does this phase noise result in these particular auditory perceptions - 'realness'; solidity & layering in soundstage depth? My theory is based on what I have learned so far about auditory perception. We pay particular attention to the attack portion of a sound - it's timing & the steepness of the risetime of the sound - this is called the fine structure of the sound. We also pay particular attention to the sound's envelope - the rise & fall in amplitude of the sound over time. Auditory perception & ASA uses timing & correlation between these important elements of the soundfield. The start of the attack portion of the sound i.e. the bit where it is becoming audible out of the silence, is at a low level. Close in phase noise creates a fuzziness to a particular frequency so rather than 12KHz we have a range of frequencies either side of what should be a sharp 12KHz spike. Now take all the frequencies involved in the attack portion of a guitar chord pluck & everyone of those frequencies will have a fuzziness to their edge from low amplitude level to the full amplitude of the attack portion. This fuzziness affects where we perceive the timing of the start of the sound & it's build up - all of which we perceive as slightly unnatural sounding (not consciously so however, not until is is removed & we hear a better reconstruction of the sound)

So, to my mind, dismissing close in phase noise (as is usually done), is mistaken!

 

[YashN]

Yes, I know of whom you speak

As do I

 

[YashN]

I recently did a tear down of the Sonore MicroRendu.

Some people know only to 'tear-down' existing products, mis-measure them and pass off their mis-measurements and ignorance as 'science' when in fact it is a making a mockery of the field...

Others are instead sought out by three or four different manufacturers and actually research, measure, listen, improve on their design and then manage to release acclaimed products which prove their worth in audiophile systems of the most demanding, including other manufacturers who demonstrate their latest gear in audio shows around the world...

'tear-down' - HA!

 

[jkeny]

I recently did a tear down of the Sonore MicroRendu. I suggest reading that to understand the massive difference. A dual-core CPU running Linux with more power supplies than you can shake a stick at, including a switchmode input one is used to provide support for Ethernet input. None of that is remotely necessary for USB only interfacing.

I'm sorry to say but the more you post the more you show how little you understand about all of this. The MicroRendu is a category of device called a network audio adapter. Do you really think that is required for ethernet transmission handling? I mean, Amir, really - I can do ethernet packet input or USB packet input in the audio domain using a single XMOS chip, powered by a single 3.3V supply & no Linux OS required.

I have asked you many questions in this thread - every time you show a dearth of knowledge in an area, I ask you a question. Here's another question to add to the many unanswered questions I have had to ask you - do you know the difference between a NAA & other ethernet devices in terms of functionality?

You demonstrate that you don't & furthermore that you are unsuitable for passing comment on the microrendu or networking in general.

What you demonstrate is that you are practised in the art of scientism - the pretense that you are doing real science - just enough to fool the gullible & similarly agenda-driven acolytes. Unfortunately scientism has become popular - all one has to do is look at Archi Magoo & his measurement website

I will mirror your own words back at you " If you don't understand networking you really have no business even entering such discussions." but I will add, you are really out of your depth as is patently evident to any reader. Time to stop & save your further embarrassment.

 

[amirm]

Are you incapable of reading technical papers related to differential cabling? Do you only read technical papers that have the words "ethernet", "cable", "data" "noise measurements" "audibility" (& whatever else you decide to filter)?

Do you know how differential noise is handled by transformers?

Please stop this trolling!!

The topic of this thread is Ethernet cables. It is not "differential cabling." HDMI uses TMDS. Should we discuss it and presume it applies to Ethernet somehow?

And even on differential cabling you have presented nothing of use. I am not engaging on them because they are off-topic chatter, not because they have any value whatsoever in these discussions.

So I repeat, you have no measurement data or listening test results to offer us. Nor do you have requisite knowledge of this whole area. We go back and forth to have some fun but at the end, you are just modulating the noise floor of the forum, nothing else!

 

[jkeny]

The topic of this thread is Ethernet cables. It is not "differential cabling." HDMI uses TMDS. Should we discuss it and presume it applies to Ethernet somehow?

No, it's not the topic, just as what Wireworld claim is NOT the topic. The Topic is clearly stated "How COULD upgraded ethernet cables..........." The capitals are not mine they're in the thread title. Again another failure to read/understand on your part which really is becoming tedious

And even on differential cabling you have presented nothing of use. I am not engaging on them because they are off-topic chatter, not because they have any value whatsoever in these discussions.

So I repeat, you have no measurement data or listening test results to offer us. Nor do you have requisite knowledge of this whole area.

Not worthy of a response

We go back and forth to have some fun but at the end, you are just modulating the noise floor of the forum, nothing else!

Hehe, at least you have finally used the term & are you trying to claim your posts are some form of data transmission or signal in this analogy? Hehe, again - yes, it's fun

 

[amirm]

I have asked you many questions in this thread - every time you show a dearth of knowledge in an area, I ask you a question. Here's another question to add to the many unanswered questions I have had to ask you - do you know the difference between a NAA & other ethernet devices in terms of functionality?

As for as the functionality we are discussing here, there is none. Let's dig into this. The Sonore MicroRendu has two boards. One board is an off-the-shelf, stand-alone computer:

This is a tiny board but courtesy of advancement in VLSI (IC) development we have a complete system on a chip, much like you have in your phone or tablet. There is flash memory that stores the operating system (Linux) and applications. There is DRAM memory. There is an Ethernet interface and there is USB. All of this is then coupled to another card created by Sonore that has a handful parts such as USB hub, Ethernet connector (missing on the small board computer), etc.:

Put the two together and you have a very small computer. In that regard, it is identical to a computer server you would build yourself. You might run Linux on that computer, Windows or Mac. No matter which, they all use a CPU, memory and a modern operating system to take care of networking software stack which sits on top of the Ethernet physical layer. So whether you use a large computer or Sonore, the functionality remains the same.

Whether you use a computer server or a streamer what occurs is the same:
1. Ethernet packets (chunk of data) arrive at unpredictable times from the server.
2. Ethernet traffic is captured into DMA memory and a hardware interrupt is generated.
3. The packet is copied into kernel memory.
4. A DPC is called to handle the packet at lower interrupt priority.
5. One or more packets may arrive before DPC is serviced.
6. Sometime later when there are no higher priority hardware interrupts, the kernel services the DPCs
7. Appropriate function is called in the IP layer of the networking stack to handle the incoming packet
8. IP receive packet function examines the packet looking at destination address. If it is for another computer in its routing table, it will re-transmit it on its alternate interface.
9. If not, the protocol field in the packet is examined. In our situation it is most likely TCP packet (although for Internet streaming it may also be UDP).
10. Packet is put on the TCP receive link and TCP receive function is called.
11. Going into the workings of TCP is beyond the scope of this post but suffice it to say, checksums are preformed, acknowledges are sent if necessary.
12. TCP finds the app looking for its data by the port number in the packet. It searches its queue of sockets opened in listen mode with that port number.
13. Data is put on that socket queue and call is made to the operating system to wake up the process waiting for it.
14. Process thread is then running which then takes the raw data and does what it thinks is needed. In the case of USB output, another worker thread likely has that device open and with the appropriate API the data is pushed onto that (I am skipping tons of detail here).
15. This being a full blown computer (streamer or server), tons of other async activity is occurring. Timer interrupts are firing to update system time/clock, memory management to page in process pages and allocate buffer memory for networking. Other daemons are running that cause context switches, CPU cache flushing, TLB updates, on end on.

I will stop here and note again that so much activity is going on in the system to move bits from network interface to USB. And the same happens whether you are running an embedded Ethernet solution like a streamer/microrendu or your Mac, PC or dedicated DLNA server.

Now for anyone to go and focus on the Ethernet wire as if it is some RCA audio connection is just plain wrong. EThernet cable is a tiny, tiny portion of the system footprint. Crap load of other stuff is running all over to implement the rich interface we use on Ethernet whether it is file sharing, Roon endpoint, DLNA or something else. What it absolutely is not, is a dump data pump like you are assuming.

No matter what you do here, you are dealing with a highly noisy system compared to S/PDIF or USB. The solution to deal with that is to buy a high-performance DAC that does not even blink when all this is happening outside it. Any DAC that audibly modulates its output because way, way upstream some ethernet cable is moving bits around needs to be thrown in the trash can.

Computer architecture and networking has been part of my professional experience for some four decades now John. I did my first Ethernet driver back in 1984 or so. Implemented TCP/IP stack shortly after. Kernel development for years more. And management and design of computer architecture for another decade. It is what has paid a roof our head and pays for the household bills still today . Now, I don't know everything so happy to be corrected. First, I like to understand your background in this regard. Do you mind explaining what you know and how you came to know it?

 

[jkeny]

Give up your trolling, Amir, it really is tedious. There's no need to continuously try to promote ASR - is it on it's last legs or something that you are so desperate, shoehorning in reference to it at every opportunity?

We all know your troll tactics & you have more than adequately exposed what you don't know & don't understand - as well as what you refuse to understand.

Enough with your false claim "I don't know everything so happy to be corrected." - you are at the opposite polar extreme from this claim as you have shown here again & again.

 

[microstrip]

(...) No matter what you do here, you are dealing with a highly noisy system compared to S/PDIF or USB. The solution to deal with that is to buy a high-performance DAC that does not even blink when all this is happening outside it. Any DAC that audibly modulates its output because way, way upstream some ethernet cable is moving bits around needs to be thrown in the trash can. (...)

I will stay out of the technical debate, but should note that this view is what essentially separates us. Most audiophiles will wisely pick a DAC that they find sounds best in their systems, not the DACs that are insensitive to ethernet cables.

Perhaps because with these "trash" DACs people have built the SOTA great systems we prefer and enjoy. And we would like to know why they are sensitive to Ethernet cables. This was what was being asked.

All IMHO and YMMV.

 

[amirm]

I will stay out of the technical debate, but should note that this view is what essentially separates us. Most audiophiles will wisely pick a DAC that they find sounds best in their systems, not the DACs that are insensitive to ethernet cables.

Why do you think these two things are at odds with each other? It would be heck of a travesty if the DAC that is liked is signing to the tune of digital bits on Ethernet. It would be saying you like you analog sound modulated by digital streams elsewhere.

 

[microstrip]

Why do you think these two things are at odds with each other? It would be heck of a travesty if the DAC that is liked is signing to the tune of digital bits on Ethernet. It would be saying you like you analog sound modulated by digital streams elsewhere.

I do not think - it seems it is the current reality in the audiophile world. A few people reported that what I consider the best sounding DACs are sensitive to Ethernet cables. My current system digital system is sensitive to ethernet cables and similar thinks, such as clock, digital and power cables.

We could think that as technology develops and systems improve in perceivable sound quality these aspects would be solved, but the tendency is the inverse - the best sounding, even the more technologically developed, brings us sensitivity in these awkward aspects.

 

[jkeny]

I do not think - it seems it is the current reality in the audiophile world. A few people reported that what I consider the best sounding DACs are sensitive to Ethernet cables. My current system digital system is sensitive to ethernet cables and similar thinks, such as clock, digital and power cables.

We could think that as technology develops and systems improve in perceivable sound quality these aspects would be solved, but the tendency is the inverse - the best sounding, even the more technologically developed, brings us sensitivity in these awkward aspects.

The role I see for threads like these is to try to understand what are the mechanisms at play & attempt to find solutions to these. So we work on premises of what's going on & experiments which prove or disprove our premise correctness. All to improve & solve the issues as they are discovered. As you rightly say, as technology advances & replay is improved, these issues begin to be noticed because of the very quality of the reply systems. They are no longer easy to track down in terms of amplitude & frequency in the analogue domain i.e. individually identified distortions - they tend to be more about the holistic soundscape - soundstage depth, realism, etc. i.e more about auditory perception & how it analyses & interprets signals & the correlation between various elements in the soundstream.

I don't consider this exposure of previously hidden audibility issues an indication of retrograde steps once they are accompanied by increased realism - I consider them the next stage in our improved playback & when the issues are solved will result in further audible improvements

There is nothing to be gained by suggesting that any DAC which is affected by upstream issues is trash unless one cares to nominate all those DACs which are immune to such issues (& not just because they are masking the issues with issues of their own.)

 

[YashN]

And management and design of computer architecture for another decade.

It's very apparent you haven't built anything yourself in all those years.

You wouldn't even be able to build just a really, really tiny subset of that I/O board above: the enhanced Regen version within it.

And I don't even need to mention all the other great technology designed within it.

Writing a wall of text and taking pictures of its internals and your background doesn't make you appear more clever, it does the exact opposite, just as when you mentioned async USB does resending of data.

 

[YashN]

Give up your trolling, Amir, it really is tedious. There's no need to continuously try to promote ASR - is it on it's last legs or something that you are so desperate, shoehorning in reference to it at every opportunity?

Let's see:

- I don't see any other post in the 'tear-down' thread apart from his own, must be feeling lonely there.

- His supposed 'measurement' thread ended up being a demonstration of how incompetent the measurement process was, went quiet for a year, and was recently revived by a poster saying he tried the product and loved it.

Conclusion?

 

[mcduman]

to add to this classy discussion from my own experience:

1. i considered fiber ethernet for a while then read that those 2x TP-LINK MC200CM converters worked better with linear power supplies.
2. instead i decided to power my modem/router with a 12 v battery to cure the switch mode nasties. A battery has 1/1000 the ripple of a smps. Asus E series modem/routers use 12 dc & draw just 0.2A current. So a $25 12ah battery is good for about 50 hours.
3. and i liked the results. nothing game changing but similar to using good cable risers instead throwing everything on the carpet.
4. i threw in an acoustic revive ethernet cable because the cable looked well made, i liked the color and acoustic revive was one of the first companies that came up with specialty ethernet cables. they have some measurements on their internet site for amir to review and comment https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html
5. so the networking side of things is something that one must pay attention to as a complete package starting from the router without spending large sums of money.

 

[SCAudiophile]

"And management and design of computer architecture for another decade."

With due respect, there is no such thing; over 30 years in the high-tech SW and HW industries has proven that, at least to me. Change is inevitable, the reasons for it arrive while you are designing what you hope to be for the future and they arrive very much in real-time with demands to already be done yesterday...as to the questions around the impact of Ethernet cables and their quality, susceptibility to noise, etc....are concerned, Ethernet is a link-layer protocol in the TCP/IP stack; it and the cable that carries it are only 1 small part of the stack involved on either end and in-between. I doubt we could really do it total justice here without a lot more involved discussion though a number of people have touched on many of the conjoined topic areas.

 

[jkeny]

For all those wishing to experiment with noise reduction techniques on ethernet cables, there is an approach detailed here that anyone can try, using some ferrite chokes.

An example of the application of this technique with before & after measurements is given here - an SDR radio hobbyist, where else
These SDR screenshots show some of the differences

There is are slides showing each step with measurements here

Notable measured changes on reducing both ethernet cable noise floor & noise spikes were obtained with:
- using Ferrite chokes on ethernet cables
- using ferrite beads on PSU lines
- changing SMPS to linear PS for ethernet switches (echoes what mcduman & others have said) - in the slides you will see measurements of the reduction in noise & noise spikes from the change to linear PS


RFI Before treatment


RFI After treatment



I'm sure if anyone is truly interested they can find other examples of measured noise on ethernet cables but is it really necessary - everybody in the industry knows that it's a fact - that's why they have ethernet differential transformers, CM chokes, active CM suppression devices for ethernet.

Does this affect your audio system in audible ways? I would surmise that it depends on many factors.

 

[amirm]

It's very apparent you haven't built anything yourself in all those years.

You wouldn't even be able to build just a really, really tiny subset of that I/O board above: the enhanced Regen version within it.

And I don't even need to mention all the other great technology designed within it.

Do you think among all the great technology in it that it is immune to what Ethernet cable you plug into it? Or do you believe that it illuded John to get there?