alexaldente
New Head-Fier
Has anyone tried this? Seems reasonably priced, wondering if it's worth getting to try out.
https://stackaudio.co.uk/smoothlan/?v=5435c69ed3bc
https://stackaudio.co.uk/smoothlan/?v=5435c69ed3bc
StackAudio SmoothLAN Ethernet Filter
- Thread starter alexaldente
- Start date
Roseval
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Posts
- 1,598
- Likes
- 559
Try https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../uptone-audio-etherregen-switch-review.10232/
Gives you a taste of the effectivity of this type of products.
100 Mbps only. Hard pass when there are filtering solutions that offer 1Gbps and even 2.5Gbps. I use the 1Gbps Network Acoustics Eno2 streaming system myself with no compromise in speed
alexaldente
New Head-Fier
User listening experience I would prefer to hear first hand feedback, not graphs and geeks with instruments doesn't tell me anything about changes in sound.
What a joke of a so called "science"
This is real science here: https://ethernet-sound.com/das-dros...r-gleichtaktstoerungen-auf-dem-letzten-meter/
bfreedma
The Hornet!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Posts
- 3,389
- Likes
- 2,798
So you want to ignore the "geeks" who actually understand the Ethernet/802.x operating model and standards? The same standards that enable the internet to exist, online finance to be reliable and secure, and trillions of other transactions every day?
Sounds like a plan - let's ignore them and believe the marketing...
Those standards tell nothing about audio perception lol. Heck they didn't even consider audio perception in developing those standards and specifications. Data is data that is being error corrected NEVER EVER correlates to digital audio with more common mode EMI as it travels through the Ethernet cable having a different audio perception than the other digital audio with less common mode EMI as it travels to better implemented Ethernet cable
bfreedma
The Hornet!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Posts
- 3,389
- Likes
- 2,798
The only reason you would be worried about EMI is if you use out of spec "audiophile" cables. Ethernet, when actually following standards, is galvanically isolated. And if you're going to claim that the EMI is acting as some kind of repeatable audio filter, that would be obvious and evident in the data stream - bits would have to be altered. I've looked for this with sniffers and never found it - do you have some evidence that it exists? That would be interesting as it would "prove" that ethernet data and packet error correction doesn't work, as it should be identifying those modified bits/packets as CRC errors. That would be a remarkable find given the decades of use of those protocols.
The digital data not only correlates to audio content that traverses ethernet, it absolutely has to. No matter how much you don't want it to be true, digital data doesn't behave any different over ethernet than any other data. If what you believe to be the case was true, either the internet doesn't work or a secret cabal of 802 anarchists has managed to write all manner of viral modifications for data streams of different types.
As to audio perception - how would an anything ethernet related produce that? Perception by definition is how sound is heard and interpreted which has nothing to do with output. Of course our perceptions are different - physiological, emotional, situational, experience, etc. We do perceive the exact same output differently but the reason isn't the output device, it's the ears and brain of the listener.
"We all hear differently" is very true, but the reason is the listener variables (physiological, environmental, emotional), not a variable of the audio output devices.
Like I said, audio content (I call it DATA which is of course error corrected or we don't have internet or tele communications) never ever correlates to a digital audio stream with more common mode EMI as it travels through a standard per 802.x Ethernet cable against the audio perception of a digital audio stream with less common mode EMI as it travels through better designed Ethernet cable
You already said it yourself and you've actually prove my point with this statement. The output means that Data is the output and is error corrected obviously in this case and has nothing to do with audio perception
We don't have a discussion at all if you want to say data is data as is audio perception is audio perception being the same. They're not obviously but the perception of audio streams with more CM EMI or less CM EMI as they go through better or worse designed Ethernet cable is real and audible
What you're describing are external factors that can affect audio perception but it does NOT negate the audio equipment is causing a different audio perception
You already said it yourself and you've actually prove my point with this statement. The output means that Data is the output and is error corrected obviously in this case and has nothing to do with audio perception
We don't have a discussion at all if you want to say data is data as is audio perception is audio perception being the same. They're not obviously but the perception of audio streams with more CM EMI or less CM EMI as they go through better or worse designed Ethernet cable is real and audible
What you're describing are external factors that can affect audio perception but it does NOT negate the audio equipment is causing a different audio perception
Last edited:
bfreedma
The Hornet!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Posts
- 3,389
- Likes
- 2,798
EMI would be simple to test and confirm/disprove. Just put a scope on the Ethernet port on the output device and another on the Ethernet port of the input device. If there are electrical/analog differences, it would show there. Due to Ethernet being galvanically isolated, there will be no differences attributable to EMI from the source.
The companies who build these devices must have the scopes and other measuring tools available- without them, how would they know that their design is working. This would prove that the manufacturer had a device that was working as advertised. The evidence would help them sell more units, yet it’s never produced. Kind of an odd business strategy.
As someone with over 4 decades of design, implementation and operational of networks supporting industries where errors , if they occurred, are measured in lives and millions of dollars, it’s both entertaining and sad to see people who clearly don’t have a basic understanding of digital data transmission, electrical engineering and related knowledge try to support devices that simply can’t do what they claim.
Nuclear plants don’t need them to eliminate EMI. Nor do financial institutions, medical facilities. Nor do the recording/engineering/mastering studios where your music is created. But for simple home audio reproduction…
And one more time: how does an inanimate device “cause a different audio perception”? Where within the definition of perception do you see anything other than perception being a strictly human interpretation of the same output?
per·cep·tion
/pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwiF28P6tIWMAxVUFVkFHU3ZMPMQ3eEDegQIOxAM
noun
noun: perception; plural noun: perceptions
- the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
"the normal limits to human perception"- the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
"the perception of pain"
- a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.
"Hollywood's perception of the tastes of the American public" - intuitive understanding and insight.
"“He wouldn't have accepted,” said my mother with unusual perception"
- the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
Source? Results? An assumption that isn't scientific at all. Just to add context, I'm not referring to data packets that is obviously 100% error corrected so the output is 100% preserved, but rather audio streaming that carries some level of CM EMI being audibly different compared to an audio streaming that carries higher level of CM EMI
Companies that build these Ethernet cable only needs to meet the standard 802.x protocol. They don't need to invest money on analytical instrument that measures parameters/properties beyond the specs defined by 802.x protocol (e.g. interference and frequency spectrum (No, not the FFT on the analog output of an AP555B like Amir does because he's not measuring the correct parameter that can potentially explain audibility differences)).
How could you be so sure that the output is the same if the parameter that you're measuring is NOT the right parameter. I'll give you a hint, it ain't SINAD for sure and that's because the output will be obviously the same! Making assumptions about the output being the same just because the holy SINAD says so is a huge fallacy my friend
Last edited:
bfreedma
The Hornet!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Posts
- 3,389
- Likes
- 2,798
Are you actually reading my posts? Your responses make me wonder
1. Source. The IEEE 802.3 standard. Literally a requirement stated by the international body that determines Ethernet standards. A good overview is contained in this document https://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/af/public/mar00/stapleton_1_0300.pdf. Results: approximately one trillion successfully connected IP devices that function in a wide range of environments where EMI is an actual potential issue.
2. I’m asking why the vendors who make these black boxes don’t show these measurements, nothing to do with cable standards. A company manufacturing a device that reduces EMI (or any other electrical noise) must surely have the equipment to measure whether their device is actually doing that? How could you engineer and test something like this without being able to see the results and to tweak performance. You’re also completely wrong about how 802 products are tested. Again, the IEE 802 committees have documents specifically requirements for noise rejection. Before you ask, I’ve been a member of several of those 802 subcommittees and have reviewed numerous test plans and results. You really should take some time and read the current 802 standard - they are publicly available and I assure you that far more than what you’re asking for here is covered with testing methodologies and validation.
3. Nice strawman but I never mentioned SINAD as it’s not relevant to what would be measured. The discussion here is about Ethernet carried electrical signals, not audio device output. I’m simply suggesting scoping the two ends of the system and nulling them to see if there is or is not a difference in the signal on either side of the Ethernet connection. All that said, if a manufacturer wants to specify what should be measured, let’s get it done with conditions aligned with intended use. IE, let’s perform the tests in a typical home network environment, not one where the levels of EMI replicate what might be seen in the generator room of a commercial power plant.
The odd thing here is that you’re asking me for proof and not the manufacturer making these claims. Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the vendor to provide hard evidence of a technical product performing as advertised?
I repeat, I never said that the data is compromised. The EMI levels aren't enough to compromise the data integrity whatsoever. You and I agree on this BTW and as is the IEEE 802.3 standard or else we won't be writing back and forth through Internet right?
I already alluded you to CM EMI. It's one of the main factors for the audibility difference. Another one is noise floor frequency spectrum plot of Ethernet cables with induced CM EMI to evaluate its noise rejection performance throughout the FR range where Ethernet is most sensitive
Null process would be 100% perfect null, and that's because the data is preserved and the CM EMI does NOT interfere with the data accuracy due to error correction as long as the Ethernet cable meets IEEE 802.3 standards. Data accuracy is not correlated to audibility between different levels of CM EMI from an audio stream that's traveling through ethernet cables
Apologies for misinterpreting this. Data is preserved obviously between the sending and receiving device, but the effect of worsening CM EMI on audibility perception is a different matter altogether
I'll ask you a question on what frequency range of RFI and EMI does galvanic isolation cover BTW? Do you think galvanic isolation prevents RFI/EMI from getting into the Ethernet cables?
Last edited:
bfreedma
The Hornet!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Posts
- 3,389
- Likes
- 2,798
The information on galvanic isolation is detailed in the link you clearly didn’t bother to read.
Your insistence without evidence that accepted operating parameters of 802 from port to network to port are incorrect/ subject to EMI that audibly impacts a digital connection coupled with a lack of willingness to read the details you ask for make continuing this discussion pointless. Unless you can point to actual supporting evidence, the last word can be yours.
Last edited:
At least you know that the galvanic isolation is only for mains (50-60 Hz) and blocking DC specs and NOT CM EMI. Yes, galvanic isolation DOES NOT prevent RFI/EMI going into the cables. Heck you need a high pass filter for Ethernet data packets to even work and pass through lol. Just that fact alone is a variable that can be a potential cause for audibility differences between Ethernet cables. I already specified the variable you need to measure which is CM EMI levels and its effect on the frequency spectrum where Ethernet is bounded/most sensitive range (i.e. 0-125 MHz) across the Ethernet cable
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
