AUDIO over IP - REDNET 3 & 16 Review. AES67 Sets A New Standard for Computer Audio

[rb2013]

   
Hi,
With respect, - and I don't wish to belabor the point here too much: this doesn't have anything to do with failed packets, or data integrity. What it's about is the accurate transmission of packets in TIME. It's all about timing, & the more accurate the clock at both the sender and receiving end, (DAC), - the less "work" the DAC's clocks do in cleaning up the signal. This is similar (if you think about it) to disc spinners: - software/firmware error correction doesn't do the job with wobbly discs, and wimpy motors. The VRDS NEO transport with its magnesium disc clamping mechanism & beefy motor "proves" that a great transport improves the SQ, - & substantially. 
A faster cable (10GB) fiber that has galvanic isolation sounds better than a CAT 5e, due to its speed, carrying "less" noise, & perhaps even conducting less vibration. CAT7 cable with CAT6a connectors with it's "higher" specs also sounds better than CAT5e. (Another test is try plugging in an EMO EN-30 Isolator.
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OL54Y7U/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_23?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3DA2BLSV4J2D1
 
Personally, I have never used the SMPS wall-warts that came with my MC200s. I got some $12 LPSs from JameCo. I heard differences with all 3 cable types.
 
I would suggest trying fiber to hear for yourself, - if no difference, - you lose almost nothing. A 30ft fiber run with two FMCs costs less than $150.
 
Cheers,

Great info!  So even with the fiber you found the ethernet isolator helped?  Which cable did you prefer?

 

[Albrecht]

 The cable itself has no "speed" - a 10g spec cable isn't going to do any more or less on a 1g network than 1g

 
Hi,
Perhaps speed is the wrong way to describe the cable. Certainly the SPECs of a CAT7 cable are different than CAT5e as far as bandwidth & crosstalk. Higher bandwidth capable cables may transfer less noise? Fiber, also, galvanically isolated may indeed transmit less noise, (somehow) and therefore "sounds" better.
 
Perhaps EMO isolators may serve one better than fiber? Here's a quote from their SPEC sheet.
 

EMOSAFE EN-30 Network Isolators disconnect every electrically conducting connection (specifically the
data and shield conductors) between devices connected together via a copper-based Ethernet network.
The Network Isolators prevent current flow resulting from differences in electrical potentials, and also
protect connected devices and their users from stray external voltages and power surges which may be
directly or inductively coupled onto the network lines by causes such as installation errors, lightning,
switching operations, and electrostatic discharge 

 
I was happy to hear an improvement with fiber, and it was much cheaper than a BJC or a Supra or a Meicord.
 
Glad that you're trying a couple of FMCs, I also can't fully explain why a BJC CAT7 with CAT6 connectors sounds better than a standard CAT5e.

 

[rb2013]

   
I completely understand what's being discussed...
 
A few things, also with respect. The cable itself has no "speed" - a 10g spec cable isn't going to do any more or less on a 1g network than 1g.
 
Per the other Mike, from previous posts, clocking doesn't matter in this case as long as the data gets there intact, due to the way it's handled. 
 
I do plan to try fiber if for nothing else than to hear (or not) the changes for myself - which is why I haven't and won't comment on what they may or may not be - there would be no validity to my comments if I did. What I am saying is that I think if there are changes it is most likely due to the conversion. Not to mention, if timing is so critical with this tech, adding extra conversion steps would skew that, I would think.

I agree completely - where any SQ effect may come into play is noise on the ethernet line may in some way intermodulate with the receiver and error detection circuit.  Not to level of the poorly designed (for audio) USB, but an effect none the less.  So the insertion of the optical reconstructs the data packet stream - somewhat like (but with different packets of course) the ICRON/Startech GB LAN USB did for USB.
 
Here are the noise filtering charts from the Acoustic Revive website:
http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html

 
That's the theory at least - we'll see in practice...

 

[mhamel]

 
I agree completely - where any SQ effect may come into play is noise on the ethernet line may in some way intermodulate with the receiver and error detection circuit.  Not to level of the poorly designed (for audio) USB, but an effect none the less.  So the insertion of the optical reconstructs the data packet stream - somewhat (but with different packets of course) the ICRON/Startech GB LAN USB did for USB.
 
Here are the noise filtering charts from the Acoustic Revive website:
http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html

 
That's the theory at least - we'll see in practice...

 
The issue with that graphic is that it's way too vague to provide meaningful data.

 

[Albrecht]

 even with the fiber you found the ethernet isolator helped?

 
Hi RB,
 
No, sorry, didn't mean to imply that i also used an EMO EN-30 with the fiber: (although I will probably try it later). I was just meaning to imply that somehow the isolation properties of converting to Fiber could lower the noise floor and that's why we hear an improvement in SQ.
 
Sorry about the lack of clarity there.
 
I tried a short run on loan of Meicord, CAT7 cable, Rosewill CAT7 with CAT6 connectors, regular CAT5e and regular CAT6a cables in my system. the Meicord was the "worst" test cause it was only 6 feet and I had to move the NAS to my audio track to try it and it could've been playing muckety muck with the system due to its SMPS, noisy HD, and general vicinity to the audio gear.
 
Cheers,

 

[rb2013]

   
The issue with that graphic is that it's way too vague to provide meaningful data.

You mean like their 'Shuman Resonate Frequency Generator" LOL!
 
I see your point.  I think the best source was the Srajan's 6Moons review of the Sotm Ethernet CAT6 ISO - $350.  He kinds said it wasn;t worth the very min improvement.  Same for their fancy CAT6 cable.  But I guess it a big YMMV.
 
It might work for some - or the couple of hundred not an issue for a 1-2% improvement.
 
Need to start a loaner club for this stuff - too expensive to buy and try.
 
My PPA V2, iFi iUSB2.0, LH Labs 2G haven't sold yet.  Took a bath on the Regen.

 

[rb2013]

   
Hi RB,
 
No, sorry, didn't mean to imply that i also used an EMO EN-30 with the fiber: (although I will probably try it later). I was just meaning to imply that somehow the isolation properties of converting to Fiber could lower the noise floor and that's why we hear an improvement in SQ.
 
Sorry about the lack of clarity there.
 
I tried a short run on loan of Meicord, CAT7 cable, Rosewill CAT7 with CAT6 connectors, regular CAT5e and regular CAT6a cables in my system. the Meicord was the "worst" test cause it was only 6 feet and I had to move the NAS to my audio track to try it and it could've been playing muckety muck with the system due to its SMPS, noisy HD, and general vicinity to the audio gear.
 
Cheers,

Thanks for that clarification.
 
My thinking is that this AES67 Dante protocol may not be as sensitive to these noise issues as say a NAS or NAA.  I found not difference in CAT6 cables (I have a few), even the BJC CAT6 550Mhz - from the Red one FR supplies.  That to me was strange - as I can usually detect very minor changes, good, bad or different.
 
Not my experience with the Startech audio over IP.  Now SPDIF or AES cables heck yeah!
 
So maybe that's an area folks can look to improve the SQ - the connection AFTER the REDNET.  To the DAC.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10001_10001_170245_-1

Albrecht, are these the lps you're using?

 

[mhamel]

 
I agree completely - where any SQ effect may come into play is noise on the ethernet line may in some way intermodulate with the receiver and error detection circuit.  Not to level of the poorly designed (for audio) USB, but an effect none the less.  So the insertion of the optical reconstructs the data packet stream - somewhat like (but with different packets of course) the ICRON/Startech GB LAN USB did for USB.
 

 
That's not how the CRC works. If the data in the packet is changed by even one single bit, the packet is bad and automatically re-transmitted. 
 
The "speed" rating of an ethernet cable comes into play as you hit the higher bandwidths required for faster data transmission - the BJC cable may be working better not because it's Cat6, but because it is fully tested and meets spec.  Likewise when you're running GigE over a cable rated for 10G, the bandwidth required is much lower than the cable is designed to handle and far below the limits of the sspec - you're not approaching anywhere near the limits of the cable rating, so there's less chance for error along the way.
 
There are also other factors that could be coming into play - different isolation transformers built into the NICs and switch(es) that we're all using, for one. That might help explain why an isolation device or fiber works better for some than others, or may/may not be audible, for example.  At the Dante input of the Rednet boxes, there's much less of a variation between any of our systems since we're all using either the RedNet3 or D16 at this point, though if you want to dive deep enough you could look at variances in production runs of parts, differences in board designs across models, etc, etc, etc.
 
To be clear though in all of the discussion we've had going on, I am and will always be all for anything that does make a positive difference in the sound, which is the endless quest in this obsessi...er.. hobby.  

 

[mhamel]

 
You mean like their 'Shuman Resonate Frequency Generator" LOL!
 
I see your point.  I think the best source was the Srajan's 6Moons review of the Sotm Ethernet CAT6 ISO - $350.  He kinds said it wasn;t worth the very min improvement.  Same for their fancy CAT6 cable.  But I guess it a big YMMV.
 
It might work for some - or the couple of hundred not an issue for a 1-2% improvement.
 
Need to start a loaner club for this stuff - too expensive to buy and try.
 
My PPA V2, iFi iUSB2.0, LH Labs 2G haven't sold yet.  Took a bath on the Regen.

 
This is one of the things about these forums that is both good and bad.
 
Years back this would have been a local user group where we all hashed this stuff out at meet over a few drinks or dinner - then all sat down in the same room to check out the gear, try different pieces brought by the group, etc.. that's much more difficult when everyone is scattered.
 
On the other hand, the nearly unlimited access to information and the ability to have these discussions, learn from each other and find new things to enjoy the hobby that the internet brings to the table are awesome.

 

[Albrecht]

 are these the lps you're using?

 
 
Hi,
 
No, - these ones. The FMCs are rated at .6A but these .5A work fine.
 
 
https://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10001_10001_162996_-1
 
Cheers,

 

[rb2013]

   
That's not how the CRC works. If the data in the packet is changed by even one single bit, the packet is bad and automatically re-transmitted. 
 
The "speed" rating of an ethernet cable comes into play as you hit the higher bandwidths required for faster data transmission - the BJC cable may be working better not because it's Cat6, but because it is fully tested and meets spec.  Likewise when you're running GigE over a cable rated for 10G, the bandwidth required is much lower than the cable is designed to handle and far below the limits of the sspec - you're not approaching anywhere near the limits of the cable rating, so there's less chance for error along the way.
 
There are also other factors that could be coming into play - different isolation transformers built into the NICs and switch(es) that we're all using, for one. That might help explain why an isolation device or fiber works better for some than others, or may/may not be audible, for example.  At the Dante input of the Rednet boxes, there's much less of a variation between any of our systems since we're all using either the RedNet3 or D16 at this point, though if you want to dive deep enough you could look at variances in production runs of parts, differences in board designs across models, etc, etc, etc.
 
To be clear though in all of the discussion we've had going on, I am and will always be all for anything that does make a positive difference in the sound, which is the endless quest in this obsessi...er.. hobby.  

So noise is not a factor - but spec matching is.  The $27 BJC is pretty hard to beat.

 

[rb2013]

Interesting thread here guys:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19241-Nadac/page20&highlight=NADAC

Thanks for that  - interesting feedback there using the Ravenna NADAC.

 

[rb2013]

   
This is one of the things about these forums that is both good and bad.
 
Years back this would have been a local user group where we all hashed this stuff out at meet over a few drinks or dinner - then all sat down in the same room to check out the gear, try different pieces brought by the group, etc.. that's much more difficult when everyone is scattered.
 
On the other hand, the nearly unlimited access to information and the ability to have these discussions, learn from each other and find new things to enjoy the hobby that the internet brings to the table are awesome.

Global now - I'm not a audio meeting kinda guy.  To busy when the markets are shut.  Typing while I watch these boring markets more my flavor.  Got do something on a day the DOW ranges by 40pts!
 
But Brexit vote is coming Thursday...

 

[Albrecht]

 On the other hand, the nearly unlimited access to information and the ability to have these discussions, learn from each other and find new things to enjoy the hobby that the internet brings to the table are awesome.

 
 
+1 for sure
 
To further clarify, - a noticeable improvement doesn't mean a dramatic improvement. I certainly agree with RB that you get more improvements with SPDIF, (and also) USB cables. Also, - I'm betting RedNet/Dante is much different than say and Aurender or a Aries. With the Aurender & Aries, one is streaming files & loading them up into cache. With some of these players, that don't cache, or have less RAM memory, - they may behave differently.
Take a look at the F-1, - it has built in Isolation & really good clocks: moreso than bandwidth, it's likely that there is some benefit garnered from isolating, but whether or not that benefit is worth it or even noticeable is contingent on both upstream & downstream equipment.
People are also noticing differences with different NAS PSUs. 
 
My downstairs neighbor came up to listen to Peter Gabriel the other night and asked if I could play the microRendu instead of the SACD, - I told him that we WERE listening to the microRendu..
 
He makes fun of me for running fiber, - yet, - that is part of what goes into the final result. If fiber doesn't make any difference than CAT6a with Rednet/Dante, - I'll be happy to throw it away and get rid of those 2 bloody annoying FMC power supplies, and dumb converter boxes....
Cheers,