REVIEW: The best yet most affordable network switch (TPLink WR902AC)

[kswanson27]

I encountered this as well. I think that. Safari on iOS might not want to open this page because it uses the http protocol. Suspecting that was the case, I dug out my HP laptop. Problem solved as I was able to access the configuration page using the Edge browser.

So you set up the TPLink 2.4 on an IOS device and then used your windows laptop wifi to search and find the TPLink URL?

 

[Agent86]

I encountered this as well. I think that. Safari on iOS might not want to open this page because it uses the http protocol. Suspecting that was the case, I dug out my HP laptop. Problem solved as I was able to access the configuration page using the Edge browser.

So you set up the TPLink 2.4 on an IOS device and then used your windows laptop wifi to search and find the TPLink URL?

If you have a windows laptop with Wifi, do ALL the steps in the process from there. It just takes two minutes. Start fresh by pushing a pin into the factory reset of the TP link and detect the 2.4 from your Windows laptop.

 

[Billgates307]

If you have a windows laptop with Wifi, do ALL the steps in the process from there. It just takes two minutes. Start fresh by pushing a pin into the factory reset of the TP link and detect the 2.4 from your Windows laptop.

Yes, Reset the damn thing first. push the reset button for about 10 seconds. It will flash. Then you are good to go. I simply configured the device on my iPad. This was no problem. I was able to log in immediately. But I would also recommend a laptop over a phone or iPad.

 

[Windows X]

Client mode doesn't have its own DHCP server to access. You need to check parent router to find its IP address to access control panel page.

If you still can't access TP-Link even after factory reset, please make sure you have network connection established properly. You can also try legacy IP address 192.168.0.254 to access too.

 

[BigAlMc]

Firstly, many thanks to @keithc for the very intriguing thread. I can honestly say this has grabbed my attention more than any other thread on WBF this year.

Read it on Saturday. Ordered the TP-Link and an Ankur powerbank same day.

I'm a big believer in the benefits of a good/great switch having done what's probably a typical journey last few years. EtherRegen, modded Buffalo, Phoenixnet and now the Tempus. So it's fair to say I'm pretty sceptical but for the £60 entrance fee I'm more than willing to prove myself wrong in the name of science .

Took me a few attempts to get it up and running. Partly my own dufus mistakes admittedly, but as of yesterday arvo my Grimm MU1 is connected to the TP-Link rather than the Tempus.

Haven't done any real listening comparisons yet as it took me so damn long just to get music playing again . So the A-B comparisons will need to wait until the weekend. All I can say is that if I'm missing any SQ, then it's not at all obvious as my systems sounding great. Too soon to say better or not. But it's sounding very nice.

Great thread and suggestions.

If I may be so bold, can I suggest a sticky page at the start of this thread with the detailed instructions? Assuming that's possible here. Just otherwise as this thread no doubt balloons then people will ask time and time again for the instructions. Might be easier/better to have one set of definitive instructions at the start.

Thanks again for the inspiration and all the contributions that are helping shape this one.

My system has been stable for ages as I'd largely banished FOMO. So an audiophile experiment is a nice change to end the year with.

Great work!

Cheers,
Alan

 

[Windows X]

After playing around with TP-Link nano router today, I think I found a way to implement this old gem into my current system now.

While using wireless isolation degrades sound quality significantly in my system, using this router as an access point still can improve sound quality.

If you don't have audiophile grade of wireless router installed (one with low jitter clock / low noise components upgraded), using this router as a wifi access point can reduce jitter and noise in wireless network.

Rather than using wifi from main router which tend to be noisy and affect network packets in streaming directly, extending an access point so main router can focus on wired transmission can help with network isolation.

In this way, you can perform tri-network isolation approach like this.

Modem router: Focus on internet data modulation
Network Switch: Focus on wired network transmission
WiFi access point: Focus on wireless network transmission

TP-Link Nano router can be configured to have low power transmission and have WMM disabled to reduce latency further (Some gamers set wifi router to use legacy mode and have WMM disabled trading speed for even lower latency).

Using AP Isolation will help this router focusing on connection between connected wired and wireless devices. If your streamer is wired, this option can help your streaming app on mobile device focusing with wired streamer better and reduce interference from other wireless devices.

I have been experimenting a few network solutions and found this tri-network isolation approach working like a charm. This will help audiophile network switch maintaining good wired network quality, improve efficiency of modem router and leverage WiFi to access point.

At least this scenario allows me to enjoy the music better than using WiFi from ISP modem router. And since I already have modified wireless router for audiophile tasks, I still prefer current projects I'm using over this one I tried from 15 years ago but it's still better than bare minimum.

 

[keithc]

Haven't done any real listening comparisons yet as it took me so damn long just to get music playing again .

If I may be so bold, can I suggest a sticky page at the start of this thread with the detailed instructions? Assuming that's possible here. Just otherwise as this thread no doubt balloons then people will ask time and time again for the instructions. Might be easier/better to have one set of definitive instructions at the start.

Great idea! I can not edit the original post #2 anymore to add the instructions at the bottom but maybe @treitz3 can modify it to point to the instructions here: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...work-switch-tplink-wr902ac.41708/post-1095426

If you have a windows laptop with Wifi, do ALL the steps in the process from there. It just takes two minutes. Start fresh by pushing a pin into the factory reset of the TP link and detect the 2.4 from your Windows laptop.

Absolutely agree, the paperclip has become my new best friend!

I've set up 5 of these WR902AC now in my house and some have been straightforward out of the box, but 2 were really fickle. I've had seemingly random success using Mac vs Windows, Chrome/Safari/Firefox/Edge, wifi vs direct ethernet, etc. One of them took maybe 9 resets before it finally came to life. Definitely can be painful.

Client mode doesn't have its own DHCP server to access. You need to check parent router to find its IP address to access control panel page.

Recommend folks w/ less networking expertise than @Windows X to follow the stepwise instructions listed above and do the initial TPLink setup with the physical mode switch (WR902AC version 4) in AP mode.

 

[Di-fi]

One thing that may not be immediately obvious is that the WR902AC seems to work so well here specifically because it is used in client mode, not simply because it is a WiFi device.

In access point mode a device is constantly advertising itself, managing associations, and handling different kinds of traffic. Even when nothing much is happening, there is ongoing RF activity, CPU work, and power fluctuation.

In client mode the behavior is very different. The WR902AC becomes a quiet endpoint. One WiFi connection upstream and one Ethernet connection downstream. No client management, no beaconing, no tablets or phones attached. The Ethernet side that the streamer sees is therefore much calmer and more predictable.

Control devices like phones and tablets remain connected to the main network and never touch the WR902AC. Only the music stream crosses the bridge. That separation seems to be the key, because it prevents control traffic and upstream WiFi activity from coupling into the audio path.

So this is not about WiFi sounding better than Ethernet. It is about terminating the upstream RF and network environment and handing the streamer a quieter signal. That also explains why power quality, reduced transmit power, turning LEDs off, and physical placement can further improve results. The device is already quiet by design in client mode, and small reductions in noise become audible.

In that sense the WR902AC behaves less like a router and more like a simple external network bridge, even though it was never designed for audio use.

 

[Windows X]

One thing that may not be immediately obvious is that the WR902AC seems to work so well here specifically because it is used in client mode, not simply because it is a WiFi device.

In access point mode a device is constantly advertising itself, managing associations, and handling different kinds of traffic. Even when nothing much is happening, there is ongoing RF activity, CPU work, and power fluctuation.

In client mode the behavior is very different. The WR902AC becomes a quiet endpoint. One WiFi connection upstream and one Ethernet connection downstream. No client management, no beaconing, no tablets or phones attached. The Ethernet side that the streamer sees is therefore much calmer and more predictable.

Control devices like phones and tablets remain connected to the main network and never touch the WR902AC. Only the music stream crosses the bridge. That separation seems to be the key, because it prevents control traffic and upstream WiFi activity from coupling into the audio path.

So this is not about WiFi sounding better than Ethernet. It is about terminating the upstream RF and network environment and handing the streamer a quieter signal. That also explains why power quality, reduced transmit power, turning LEDs off, and physical placement can further improve results. The device is already quiet by design in client mode, and small reductions in noise become audible.

In that sense the WR902AC behaves less like a router and more like a simple external network bridge, even though it was never designed for audio use.

Maybe it works for you. In my experience from my own system with equipment like Esoteric Grandioso K1X SE with 10MHz clock, I prefer wired connection from good quality network switch more.

I'm not going to elaborate why it doesn't work or share background studies to convince anyone here. People can use different things and enjoy what they prefer more. I'm just sharing my experience that can be useful for readers.

However, I'd like to share some knowledge from my studies about WiFi VS wired network and how it'll affect system.

1. WiFi transmission of actual data will have higher packet fragmentation and have less data integrity
2. WiFi will have more network jitter and latency
3. WiFi will also pick-up radio frequency interference and mix along with network packet signal

The good part of WiFi is it can reduce the effect of having a bad wired network. Since this is What's best forum not a group where people buy budget products, I assume most readers here will find their way to improve network chain and make wired network performing better.

So, wireless isolation doesn't sound bad if you want to reduce interference. However, isolation with actual streaming data involved will do harm more than good in my own system. Maybe it's better elsewhere and that's fine too.

About using TP-Link router as an access point, let's not forget how I mentioned enabling AP isolation to handle cases you mentiond better. I used to use client mode before 15 years ago and even said it was good choice back then.

However, that was for my old music server playing local files only and use wireless as a remote control so wireless isolation with ethernet connection to streamer is more preferable than WiFi adapter on streamer.

When I tested again with streaming services, I found this client mode performing worse than direct ethernet cable from standard modem router to my streamer. And I have tried a lot of highend audiophile network switches on my own systems too.

I read this thread and discuss with a few audiophile friends who own highend systems and some of them also used to use TP-Link nano router with client mode that I setup for them like 10+ years ago. They all are using access point mode now.

Anyway, you can try different setup and configuration and see what works for you better. It will only take a few minutes for adjustments. My point is one shouldn't just assume on general consensus opinion and keep exploring to find more suitable options.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[Di-fi]

One practical note from trying this myself. Many of the useful WiFi and system settings are only accessible when the unit is in AP mode. In client mode, the interface seems much more limited?

 

[Windows X]

One practical note from trying this myself. On the WR902AC, many of the useful WiFi and system settings are only accessible when the unit is in AP mode. In client mode, the interface seems much more limited?

I think it might come from your understanding about client mode performing with less overhead which is incorrect on this point.

I forget to mention in previous post how Client mode actually works harder as it also need to communicate with parent wifi signal and become a bridge between existing wifi network which often cause more latency.

Meanwhile in client mode it will host its own WiFi access point to communicate with existing DHCP server so this access point mode will actually work less than client mode. Client mode may sound nice in end user's point of view but they work just like wifi extender.

It's better to extend DHCP server from wired network to reduce workload and latency. Well, I'm not against the client mode to be honest. I used to use it before and it worked well in some cases too.

But if you want TP-Link to work with lowest overhead as much as possible, access point mode will allow TP-Link to operate low powered WiFi network to talk with just connected devices in isolation and communiate through wired network to network switch is better in my place.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[Di-fi]

Maybe it works for you. In my experience from my own system with equipment like Esoteric Grandioso K1X SE with 10MHz clock, I prefer wired connection from good quality network switch more.

I'm not going to elaborate why it doesn't work or share background studies to convince anyone here. People can use different things and enjoy what they prefer more. I'm just sharing my experience that can be useful for readers.

However, I'd like to share some knowledge from my studies about WiFi VS wired network and how it'll affect system.

1. WiFi transmission of actual data will have higher packet fragmentation and have less data integrity
2. WiFi will have more network jitter and latency
3. WiFi will also pick-up radio frequency interference and mix along with network packet signal

The good part of WiFi is it can reduce the effect of having a bad wired network. Since this is What's best forum not a group where people buy budget products, I assume most readers here will find their way to improve network chain and make wired network performing better.

So, wireless isolation doesn't sound bad if you want to reduce interference. However, isolation with actual streaming data involved will do harm more than good in my own system. Maybe it's better elsewhere and that's fine too.

About using TP-Link router as an access point, let's not forget how I mentioned enabling AP isolation to handle cases you mentiond better. I used to use client mode before 15 years ago and even said it was good choice back then.

However, that was for my old music server playing local files only and use wireless as a remote control so wireless isolation with ethernet connection to streamer is more preferable than WiFi adapter on streamer.

When I tested again with streaming services, I found this client mode performing worse than direct ethernet cable from standard modem router to my streamer. And I have tried a lot of highend audiophile network switches on my own systems too.

I read this thread and discuss with a few audiophile friends who own highend systems and some of them also used to use TP-Link nano router with client mode that I setup for them like 10+ years ago. They all are using access point mode now.

Anyway, you can try different setup and configuration and see what works for you better. It will only take a few minutes for adjustments. My point is one shouldn't just assume on general consensus opinion and keep exploring to find more suitable options.

Regards,
Keetakawee

Thanks for the detailed reply, that helps clarify where our experiences differ.

I agree with your technical points about WiFi itself. If the comparison is WiFi carrying the audio stream versus a well optimized wired network with good switches and clocking, wired will usually win and often does.

Where this thread seems more specific is in how some people are using the WR902AC as a way to terminate upstream network and RF noise when the wired chain feeding the streamer is not fully under control, or when control devices and routers are audibly intrusive. In that context, client mode is not about WiFi being better than Ethernet, but about isolating the streamer from what comes before.

Your earlier use of client mode for control only while playing local files makes complete sense and is a cleaner use case. What people are describing here with streaming services is more of a last hop isolation trick, and I agree it will be very system dependent.

So I think we are largely aligned. In a highly optimized wired setup, direct Ethernet is still the reference. In other systems, client mode bridging can be a useful tool rather than a universal solution.

Thanks for adding your perspective,
Regards

 

[Di-fi]

I think it might come from your understanding about client mode performing with less overhead which is incorrect on this point.

I forget to mention in previous post how Client mode actually works harder as it also need to communicate with parent wifi signal and become a bridge between existing wifi network which often cause more latency.

Meanwhile in client mode it will host its own WiFi access point to communicate with existing DHCP server so this access point mode will actually work less than client mode. Client mode may sound nice in end user's point of view but they work just like wifi extender.

It's better to extend DHCP server from wired network to reduce workload and latency. Well, I'm not against the client mode to be honest. I used to use it before and it worked well in some cases too.

But if you want TP-Link to work with lowest overhead as much as possible, access point mode will allow TP-Link to operate low powered WiFi network to talk with just connected devices in isolation and communiate through wired network to network switch is better in my place.

Regards,
Keetakawee

I think the difference is not so much how hard the device works internally, but where the noise and activity ends up relative to the streamer. I am not assuming client mode has lower CPU load in absolute terms, and I agree it behaves more like a WiFi bridge or extender.

What seems to matter in some systems is that in client mode the WR902AC does not host control devices or mix control traffic with the audio path. Phones and tablets stay upstream, and only the music stream crosses the bridge. In AP mode, even with isolation enabled, the device is still actively serving clients, which in some setups appears to couple more activity into the downstream Ethernet side.

So from my perspective it is less about latency or protocol efficiency, and more about how noise and traffic are partitioned in a given system. That likely explains why AP mode works better in your setup, while client mode works better in others.

I agree there is no single correct answer here. Both modes can make sense depending on how the rest of the network is built and how sensitive the downstream gear is.
Cheers

 

[Windows X]

Thanks for the detailed reply, that helps clarify where our experiences differ.

I agree with your technical points about WiFi itself. If the comparison is WiFi carrying the audio stream versus a well optimized wired network with good switches and clocking, wired will usually win and often does.

Where this thread seems more specific is in how some people are using the WR902AC as a way to terminate upstream network and RF noise when the wired chain feeding the streamer is not fully under control, or when control devices and routers are audibly intrusive. In that context, client mode is not about WiFi being better than Ethernet, but about isolating the streamer from what comes before.

Your earlier use of client mode for control only while playing local files makes complete sense and is a cleaner use case. What people are describing here with streaming services is more of a last hop isolation trick, and I agree it will be very system dependent.

So I think we are largely aligned. In a highly optimized wired setup, direct Ethernet is still the reference. In other systems, client mode bridging can be a useful tool rather than a universal solution.

Thanks for adding your perspective,
Regards

You're welcome. I believe both ethernet and wireless connection are important so I'm still supportive to make use of this project somehow. I just find it working better as an acess point in my scenario.

In era of streaming, many streamers having different technologies to handle stream packets differently so it may need to evaluate all chains and how streaming works in each case before implementing the most suitable one from research.

Even consulting with ChatGPT can also give a false recommendation having different aspects tangled together. From my scenario, I use mobile device to control streamer wirelessly but my streamer is still playing from internet directly so it might sound different from other streamers that may pass packets differently too.

Here's summary I asked ChatGPT to make to demonstrate the use case of client mode and access point mode with effect on jitter and latency. I hope this will be useful for educational purpose.



Perhaps client mode may work better in some systems when data is streamed from mobile through wifi directly. Some streamers may have features like memory playback or multi-layer caching causing results to be different too.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[Windows X]

I think the difference is not so much how hard the device works internally, but where the noise and activity ends up relative to the streamer. I am not assuming client mode has lower CPU load in absolute terms, and I agree it behaves more like a WiFi bridge or extender.

What seems to matter in some systems is that in client mode the WR902AC does not host control devices or mix control traffic with the audio path. Phones and tablets stay upstream, and only the music stream crosses the bridge. In AP mode, even with isolation enabled, the device is still actively serving clients, which in some setups appears to couple more activity into the downstream Ethernet side.

So from my perspective it is less about latency or protocol efficiency, and more about how noise and traffic are partitioned in a given system. That likely explains why AP mode works better in your setup, while client mode works better in others.

I agree there is no single correct answer here. Both modes can make sense depending on how the rest of the network is built and how sensitive the downstream gear is.
Cheers

While AP mode has beacon and more CPU utilization than client mode, WiFi bridge often cause more jitter and latency in network chain. It also depend on router's job to choose optimal mode in different scenarios.

From my personal experience, what's best for streaming data is to have the best wired streaming implementation. In this hobby, a single mismatched ethernet cable in the chain can throw everything off balance so it might not be so rewarding compared to just using client mode.

So my main concern is about data integrity of streaming packets. Sending data through wired network will have less jitter and noise than wireless one. And client mode will make data going through wireless directly which can do harm more than good.

If you have modified wireless router with low jitter and noise, it can also be as good as audiophile switch too. Anyway, it doesn't hurt to try both options and see what works for you better. Balancing number and beacon and its size can also help too.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[Di-fi]

One practical note from trying this myself. Many of the useful WiFi and system settings are only accessible when the unit is in AP mode. In client mode, the interface seems much more limited?

the settings that seem to matter most when the WR902AC is used as a streaming bridge are:

Client mode only.
2.4 GHz only.
20 MHz channel width.
Manual channel selection rather than auto.
Transmit power reduced to the lowest level that remains stable.
LEDs turned off.
All nonessential services disabled.
Clean power if possible, battery or a good linear supply.

A few observations from using it this way. The WR902AC is carrying the music stream itself, not just control traffic. Tablets and phones should not connect to it. 100Mb Ethernet is sufficient for most high resolution streaming. Placement still matters, and keeping it some distance away from the streamer and switch helps reduce RF coupling.

 

[keithc]

Great discussion and the wealth of technical expertise here is always inspiring.

I just want to remind the many readers (like myself) who has an average consumer understanding of these networking devices, or perhaps even the technophobes, that you do not need to get deep into the tech to try this WR902AC + battery at home. Several members now have implemented this in the past week without much fuss; just follow the step-by-step instructions.

And ultimately let your ears decide!

 

[treitz3]

Great idea! I can not edit the original post #2 anymore to add the instructions at the bottom but maybe @treitz3 can modify it to point to the instructions here: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...work-switch-tplink-wr902ac.41708/post-1095426

Done.

Tom

 

[kswanson27]

I encountered this as well. I think that. Safari on iOS might not want to open this page because it uses the http protocol. Suspecting that was the case, I dug out my HP laptop. Problem solved as I was able to access the configuration page using the Edge browser.

Success. Taking your suggestion before dragging my old windows laptop out I tried again on my iPhone. I omitted http:// from the address when I entered it in Safari and it worked. It was a PITA using my phone for this kind of thing but I completed the setup process with no apparent problem. Unfortunately my Anker battery pack was delayed and won't be delivered until this afternoon so no SQ results yet.

 

[chopchopbin]

I also had trouble linking up the TPlink WR902AC via wireless. But when I attached an ethernet cable from my laptop to the TPLink, it connected immediately. BTW, I used an Shunyata Omega ethernet cable, I cannot vouch for any other brand.