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

[jkeny]

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?

What are you attempting to now say?
I know the microrendu design & the added value work is all on the USB side, not on the ethernet receiver end. The ethernet receiver is just a standard SBC (single board computer) - any SBC with networking functionality could have been used. This particular one was chosen because of it's powering requirements.

You obviously have no notion what is unique about this device & what it's USP is

The added value in the microrendu is in the area of USB transmission which uses the USB2412 USB hub chip, same as used in the Regen but now powered by linear regulators targeted towards RF usage, the LT3042 regulator. another LT3042 reg is used to power the 24MHz clock feeding the USB2412. No other computer uses such a USB transmission setup.

It is NOT a 24.01MHz clock as you claim in your picture as anybody who had the first inking about how digital transmission works would know.

These rookie mistakes are what constantly reveal your lack of knowledge & as I said before, you are better off not posting to save yourself further embarrassment. You already made a claim on WBF that asynchronous USB retransmitted packets found to be in error (& tried to pin this error on John Swenson), now you think USB clocking is done on 24.01MHz clocking - I mean jeez, Amir - how much more basic knowledge do you wish to reveal?

You've tried to make numerous claims, all of which have been found to be lacking in basic knowledge of what you are talking about. I'm sorry for this but if you continue to comment in ignorance & arrogance about issues in which you are patently clueless, I will continue to reveal your lack of knowledge - it's necessary to clean the misinformed crap off threads less readers are led astray by scientism.

I suggest you post this on your scientism forum where I'm sure everyone will mumble agreement & cheer you on.

 

[amirm]

What are you attempting to now say?

The device's job is to improve transmission of Ethernet data to USB. Since you are all worried about Ethernet side screwing things up way downstream in a DAC, I am wondering why this was not a concern for John to fix. Or maybe he has fixed and hence the Ethernet cable makes no difference there. I await Josh's answers.

 

[jkeny]

The device's job is to improve transmission of Ethernet data to USB. Since you are all worried about Ethernet side screwing things up way downstream in a DAC, I am wondering why this was not a concern for John to fix. Or maybe he has fixed and hence the Ethernet cable makes no difference there. I await Josh's answers.

You know not of what you speak or ultracrepidarian for short!

 

[amirm]

I know the microrendu design & the added value work is all on the USB side, not on the ethernet receiver end. The ethernet receiver is just a standard SBC (single board computer) - any SBC with networking functionality could have been used. This particular one was chosen because of it's powering requirements.

The single board computer does not have the Ethernet physical interface. That, John had to put on his daughtercard that he built. If Ethernet is such a pollutant can you venture why he put it just two inches away from USB interface? Wouldn't you think he would build a larger box, distance the ethernet portion from USB more and/or put in more isolation barriers?

Why would he be so cavalier about the Ethernet end of this device, shoehorning in it a box half the size of a deck of cards???

 

[Steve Williams]

it's a rainy day here in Southern California so just kicking back watching this one

 

[jkeny]

The single board computer does not have the Ethernet physical interface. That, John had to put on his daughtercard that he built.

Wrong again, Amir - do try to read what is posted - I said the "added value is all on the USB side" The only ethernet bit on the daughter board is the LAN socket - you call that "added value"?has The SBC has the ethernet PHY which is the first ethernet layer & the brains of the electrical communication being responsible for the electrical/phyisical handling of ethernet communications.

If Ethernet is such a pollutant can you venture why he put it just two inches away from USB interface? Wouldn't you think he would build a larger box, distance the ethernet portion from USB more and/or put in more isolation barriers?

I don't hold John Swenson up as a guru or anything such but I know the focus in the microrendu was on the USB side.

You obviously know little about product development, despite serving time in MS - tell us again why did they .. why did you leave MS?

Why would he be so cavalier about the Ethernet end of this device, shoehorning in it a box half the size of a deck of cards???

Why don't you ask him as you are now so interested in trying to use another strawman argument?

 

[jkeny]

it's a rainy day here in Southern California so just kicking back watching this one

Yea that ASR channel is boring - a lot of disgruntled mumblers who only become animated when another audio company is being dissed using scientism

 

[amirm]

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.

Oh, in that case nothing separates us. I too would gladly and with pleasure and appreciation use the same DAC you have. Your observation that it is sensitive to all that is your beliefs, it does not reflect on product performance. There are plenty of audiophiles who use them for example without worrying about the Ethernet cable making a difference.

Now, if you had measurements of the DAC showing how it was susceptible to Ethernet noise and such showed up on the output of the DAC and you still cherished it, then we would have words. But you don't. You have a state-of-the-art DAC and any anxiety you have on these other factors is not material.

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.

Nah. You have a faulty audio evaluation methodology and instead of recognizing that, you are reflecting it on the design of this DAC. What you pay for in the form of thousands if not tens of thousands of a dollar for a high-end DAC is exactly this: immunity to all the vagaries of things around them. To say that they have failed in this regard because your perception tells you and technology is not advanced enough is neither here nor there.

 

[amirm]

"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...

I don't agree with your comment about software: changes there are at glacial pace. Learn a C++ and you could have employment for life.

Now, hardware is a different kettle of fish and a vast ocean due to many application of it. I keep up extensively in it spending a ton of time keeping up with it. I listen to blogs and spend far more time no the engineering forum than here. Before I got into audio as a child, I was an electronics hobbyist so it remains of high interest to me.

But in an ironic twist, what is required to know this topic is not today's computer/electronic's knowledge, but that of the past. When I implemented TCP/IP and Ethernet, computers did not come with either. I also had to manage design of computer systems when everything was discrete. So you learned things from first principal.

Today someone like John goes and buys a computer running Linux and puts it in his microrendu. It is all plug-and play and as a result, he has no appreciation of what is going on in there. It is a black box to him. Me? I imagine every line of code as it is running in there, all the traffic in the CPU, caches, memory, etc. He went and futz with the USB because he had implemented one from scratch so focused there. Without whole system knowledge, he jumped into one component rather than stepping back and thinking what the high-order bits might be to address first. Simple things like making a larger box and separating the computer side from I/O side was missed. Is it any wonder then that it does no better than my laptop?

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.

That is the point I made much earlier that this is a complex system requiring knowledge of many subsystems. It cannot be simplified to "oh, it is just another wire" as John is attempting to do for example.

 

[jkeny]

.......
Today someone like John goes and buys a computer running Linux and puts it in his microrendu. It is all plug-and play and as a result, he has no appreciation of what is going on in there. It is a black box to him. Me? I imagine every line of code as it is running in there, all the traffic in the CPU, caches, memory, etc. He went and futz with the USB because he had implemented one from scratch so focused there. Without whole system knowledge, he jumped into one component rather than stepping back and thinking what the high-order bits might be to address first. Simple things like making a larger box and separating the computer side from I/O side was missed. Is it any wonder then that it does no better than my laptop?

Please use JohnS or Swenson when referring to John Swenson as opposed to me - avoids confusion.
JohnS focused on USB improvement in the microrendu as the added value of this device, like many products that take a similar approach. Again you show little understanding of product development. I can nominate many areas of weakness in many audio products, including the microrendu, Regen, Berkely Alpha DAC, etc - there are compromises in most audio products that belie either the price point they were built to or the knowledge limitations of the designer.

That is the point I made much earlier that this is a complex system requiring knowledge of many subsystems. It cannot be simplified to "oh, it is just another wire" as John is attempting to do for example.

I presume the "John" here is me? Building another strawman argument, Amir - I don't consider ethernet as "just another wire" as you say. You again misrepresent & refuse to accept that what is being focused on in the whole ethernet complexity is the electrical perturbations on the wire which is premised to be the probable cause of audible issues.

Again & again you want to redirect from this noise - it's not a bit delivery issue!!

How many times are you going to repeat this threadbare mantra?

 

[still-one]

it's a rainy day here in Southern California so just kicking back watching this one

 

[Steve Williams]

The lawyers call it obfuscate and deflect. It does get tedious just reading these posts and waiting for something substantive

 

[SCAudiophile]

I don't agree with your comment about software: changes there are at glacial pace. Learn a C++ and you could have employment for life.

Now, hardware is a different kettle of fish and a vast ocean due to many application of it. I keep up extensively in it spending a ton of time keeping up with it. I listen to blogs and spend far more time no the engineering forum than here. Before I got into audio as a child, I was an electronics hobbyist so it remains of high interest to me.

But in an ironic twist, what is required to know this topic is not today's computer/electronic's knowledge, but that of the past. When I implemented TCP/IP and Ethernet, computers did not come with either. I also had to manage design of computer systems when everything was discrete. So you learned things from first principal.

Today someone like John goes and buys a computer running Linux and puts it in his microrendu. It is all plug-and play and as a result, he has no appreciation of what is going on in there. It is a black box to him. Me? I imagine every line of code as it is running in there, all the traffic in the CPU, caches, memory, etc. He went and futz with the USB because he had implemented one from scratch so focused there. Without whole system knowledge, he jumped into one component rather than stepping back and thinking what the high-order bits might be to address first. Simple things like making a larger box and separating the computer side from I/O side was missed. Is it any wonder then that it does no better than my laptop?

That is the point I made much earlier that this is a complex system requiring knowledge of many subsystems. It cannot be simplified to "oh, it is just another wire" as John is attempting to do for example.

I've been in high-end HW/SW for over 30 years and have lost track of the number of (in the millions) of production code in a long list of languages from Assembler up through C/C++, the AI languages (LISP, OPS5, SNEPS, Prolog, Smalltalk, etc..), "Nextgen environments/languages from the 90s", Java and other implementation choices of the 'modern age' that has been in my head. C++ as a career is a good one provided you find work in high-end Fin.Svces or other vertical that has not moved their high-end algos off that language. We could go round and round I suspect but not here as it's not the time or the place. I don't agree that the S/W world moves at a glacial pace, quite to the contrary. Glad to see we agree on other points though; have yourself a great day!

 

[jkeny]

I've been in high-end HW/SW for over 30 years and have lost track of the number of (in the millions) of production code in a long list of languages from Assembler up through C/C++, the AI languages (LISP, OPS5, SNEPS, Prolog, Smalltalk, etc..), "Nextgen environments/languages from the 90s", Java and other implementation choices of the 'modern age' that has been in my head. C++ as a career is a good one provided you find work in high-end Fin.Svces or other vertical that has not moved their high-end algos off that language. We could go round and round I suspect but not here as it's not the time or the place. I don't agree that the S/W world moves at a glacial pace, quite to the contrary. Glad to see we agree on other points though; have yourself a great day!

Couldn't agree more - software is rapidly changing, often to meet changing business needs. My 20 years experience as owner of a software development company leads me to that conclusion.

Ethernet cables don't deserve 132 posts, in the grand scheme of things. However, they can illustrate an important underlying principle which is becoming more crucial to all of us at this technological stage in the development of audio playback - the principle of system noise & it's effect on our auditory perceptions. Cables, ethernet but USB moreso, illustrate just one aspect of this infiltration of noise into our audio systems. Up to now, it has been one of the most overlooked areas in audio. Now there is a growing awareness of the issue both at consumer level & with some audio designers - it has become one of the targets to focus on for next level improvement in replay. What it is bringing into focus too is the perceptual importance of the linearity of low level signals.

All one has to do is Look at the audio threads on this forum - topics like "realism", "presence & tone", "Live Vs replay" - they mostly involve attention to system noise issues. As micro said, now that replay systems have reached a level where the obvious distortions are mostly ironed out, we are now at a stage where we have begun to focus on achieving a more realistic illusion - we can begin to target the real goal of our audio playback systems, delivering a better (emotional) connection with the music.

 

[SCAudiophile]

Couldn't agree more - software is rapidly changing, often to meet changing business needs. My 20 years experience as owner of a software development company leads me to that conclusion.

Ethernet cables don't deserve 132 posts, in the grand scheme of things. However, they can illustrate an important underlying principle which is becoming more crucial to all of us at this technological stage in the development of audio playback - the principle of system noise & it's effect on our auditory perceptions. Cables, ethernet but USB moreso, illustrate just one aspect of this infiltration of noise into our audio systems. Up to now, it has been one of the most overlooked areas in audio. Now there is a growing awareness of the issue both at consumer level & with some audio designers - it has become one of the targets to focus on for next level improvement in replay. What it is bringing into focus too is the perceptual importance of the linearity of low level signals.

All one has to do is Look at the audio threads on this forum - topics like "realism", "presence & tone", "Live Vs replay" - they mostly involve attention to system noise issues. As micro said, now that replay systems have reached a level where the obvious distortions are mostly ironed out, we are now at a stage where we have begun to focus on achieving a more realistic illusion - we can begin to target the real goal of our audio playback systems, delivering a better (emotional) connection with the music.

Great post....even when we remove noise from our systems (or nearly so) we are left with ambient noise in our environments. Sensory deprivation studies show in vivid relief just how attuned we are to a certain level of noise and other sensory input from the time we are conceived and take form in the womb. Some individuals have been known to go mad or at least not be able to cope with the total removal of noise and of sensory input of any kind in these tests. Noise of various kinds is a definite fact of our existence....

 

[amirm]

I've been in high-end HW/SW for over 30 years and have lost track of the number of (in the millions) of production code in a long list of languages from Assembler up through C/C++, the AI languages (LISP, OPS5, SNEPS, Prolog, Smalltalk, etc..), "Nextgen environments/languages from the 90s", Java and other implementation choices of the 'modern age' that has been in my head. C++ as a career is a good one provided you find work in high-end Fin.Svces or other vertical that has not moved their high-end algos off that language. We could go round and round I suspect but not here as it's not the time or the place. I don't agree that the S/W world moves at a glacial pace, quite to the contrary.

That is hardly any change for 30 years. Imagine how much computing has advanced. You also exaggerate and I assume you know. LISP? I programmed in it but it was a tiny blip in computing world. Smalltalk? You have to be kidding. Major programming languages were Fortran, COBOL, Basic, and then C came about and over a decade or so dominated the computing industry.

And C++ for financial services? Where on earth did that come from? My son as a hobby works an open source game and it is all written in C++. I worked for the world's largest software company and when I say C/C++ and its lineage dominate, that is the case, not some corner case.

But let's put all that aside because we are talking about a narrow field in this topic. Namely, embedded programming where a computer is used as part of an end-part that is not a computer as far as the customer is concerned. In this world by far C language dominates. For custom OS development it is king because it is close to hardware and you can't afford to have garbage collection. Linux operating system dominates in audio products and its kernel is entirely written in C language. And ask any embedded engineer what language they like to use and by far the will tell you C language -- the same language that dates back to early 1970s or more than 40 years ago. Windows kernel (core OS) is also written in C. As is MacOS.

Your experience must not have extended to embedded and OS development to hold the views you are expressing.

 

[amirm]

Couldn't agree more - software is rapidly changing, often to meet changing business needs. My 20 years experience as owner of a software development company leads me to that conclusion.

That's it? The sum total of your professional experience is this topic is this? There is little related to the topics we are discussing in there.

Ethernet cables don't deserve 132 posts, in the grand scheme of things. However, they can illustrate an important underlying principle which is becoming more crucial to all of us at this technological stage in the development of audio playback - the principle of system noise & it's effect on our auditory perceptions. Cables, ethernet but USB moreso, illustrate just one aspect of this infiltration of noise into our audio systems.

Infiltration? Conversion to digital has massively reduced the amount of noise in our systems. All I have to do is go back to my tape deck to have the noise come back.

Earlier you asked me if I have heard noise modulation. I said yes and the main source of it today for me is analog sources. LP almost always suffers from noise/noise modulation. Yet it is by far one of the most popular formats for high-end members here. If noise is such a terrible thing, how come it is so little heard or bothered by in our membership?

Up to now, it has been one of the most overlooked areas in audio. Now there is a growing awareness of the issue both at consumer level & with some audio designers - it has become one of the targets to focus on for next level improvement in replay. What it is bringing into focus too is the perceptual importance of the linearity of low level signals.

Nonsense. Anyone designing a high-performance DAC has noise in their sight front and center. The performance achieved by these systems is exemplary. Earlier I asked people if paused their system they could hear noise. Nobody reported that they did.

It is the weirdest thing in audio where we assume things are broken and then work backward to justify it. Oh there is system noise, let me see if I can find a way to justify going spending money on this and that tweak.

Noise is readily measured anyway. Where are those measurements John? Can you show us this noise problem in any high-performance DAC?

 

[jkeny]

 

[Whatmore]

Couldn't agree more - software is rapidly changing, often to meet changing business needs. My 20 years experience as owner of a software development company leads me to that conclusion.
Hi
Ethernet cables don't deserve 132 posts, in the grand scheme of things. However, they can illustrate an important underlying principle which is becoming more crucial to all of us at this technological stage in the development of audio playback - the principle of system noise & it's effect on our auditory perceptions. Cables, ethernet but USB moreso, illustrate just one aspect of this infiltration of noise into our audio systems. Up to now, it has been one of the most overlooked areas in audio. Now there is a growing awareness of the issue both at consumer level & with some audio designers - it has become one of the targets to focus on for next level improvement in replay. What it is bringing into focus too is the perceptual importance of the linearity of low level signals.

All one has to do is Look at the audio threads on this forum - topics like "realism", "presence & tone", "Live Vs replay" - they mostly involve attention to system noise issues. As micro said, now that replay systems have reached a level where the obvious distortions are mostly ironed out, we are now at a stage where we have begun to focus on achieving a more realistic illusion - we can begin to target the real goal of our audio playback systems, delivering a better (emotional) connection with the music.

fas42, have you hacked into John's account?

 

[SCAudiophile]

Nonsense. Anyone designing a high-performance DAC has noise in their sight front and center. The performance achieved by these systems is exemplary. Earlier I asked people if paused their system they could hear noise. Nobody reported that they did.

It is the weirdest thing in audio where we assume things are broken and then work backward to justify it. Oh there is system noise, let me see if I can find a way to justify going spending money on this and that tweak.

Amir,...good day. Before I respond to your reply to my prior post, I will say this is a good portion of your reply and I agree 100%. See my earlier post, noise is a fact of life even when we think we remove a good portion of it, there is plenty still around in the works and in our environments and the inputs to those environments (power, etc...) to deal/live with and affect our listening and experiencing music and life in general.