[Progisus]

In the wrong thread then.

Sorry guys. Misunderstood the conversation. Enjoy the journey. Prog on!

 

[griff500]

Sorry guys. Misunderstood the conversation. Enjoy the journey. Prog on!

No problem and if you ever decide to try one then let everyone know your thoughts.

I expected nothing but, out of curiosity, tried an ethernet cable from Sablon Audio on sale or return. To my surprise, it didn't go back.

 

[OCC7N]

Sorry guys. Misunderstood the conversation. Enjoy the journey. Prog on!

I am more interested in the sound of the different switches/chips, than the cables. Cables is important but it is the last step for me. I keep it stock(generic), then - rabbit hole

Late March or late April, I will test two different switches as blindtest. Both switches which LHY SW8 and SW10 is based on. LGS108 and CBS220.

Multiple files test per switch (because of multiple dacs).

Files will be sent to my friend which will rename them so I don´t even know them. Generic CAT7 cables.

Recording will be done with : Ethernet Afterdark X1(2x ports, i350-T2, with 75Ohm masterclock) into the Solid State Logic SSL12 recording interface.

Cables are fun, but switches(the chip) is what will define most of the sonic signature.

 

[greenblured]

 

[bluenight]

Cheers for the recommendation - I have that and the Neotechs (both OCC copper and the silver) in my Audiophonics cart for a while there, both have a bunch of positive buyer reviews.

@OCC7N I think part of the objection from some folk re shielding is around the potential for ground loops and/or transfer of noise over the shielding if it is connected at both ends. With the best of both worlds being using shielding but grounding only at one end (this might've even been discussed recently on this thread, can't recall).

Which funnily enough is what I just experimented with with some '3k' carbon fibre sheathing from AliX. Well the shielding was floating, not grounded at either end I realise, will need to make an effort to extend the foil to the ethernet RJ-45 plug outer copper ground). Cables tested with:

• an unshielded cat 5, a highly shielded Amazon Cat 8, a Furutech LAN-8 NCF each connected to an Ifi LAN iSilencer, the iFi on the feeding into my LHY switch, one cable from my server, the other from an FMC - one of a pair connecting to the router etc
• a generic DC-USB cable used here: Topping P50 LPS > DC-USB cable > iFi DC iPurifier2 > downstream (closest to LHY) FMC.

Some nice improvements for all but the Furutech where it was marginal. And apart from the too short lengths (I only had a 3m length, so had to make some calls) I reckon they look a bit cooler too. Will try on a few more cables including XLR interconnects and clock cables.

All in all pretty happy with my carbon fibre shielding experiment/proof of concept, I shall be getting a bunch more.

(This should probably be over in the AliX cables thread, but what the hey..)

Now they really look like snake oil cables

 

[sajunky]

Now they really look like snake oil cables

No snake oil there. Floating extra shield makes little effect when shielding is already really good and properly terminated both sides.

On a leaking shielded cable the effect depends on electrical and dielectrical properties of such material. Carbon fibre is not a dielectric which is good. It is conducting electricity, but the amount depends on how is treated. It is difficult for me to assess what they were trying to achieve, but I suspect they tried to bring similar effect to the ferrites, so conductivity is a secondary issue. You may be aware that ferrites absorbing field energy ability is well recognised in the engineering industry. In this case adding a material with ability to absorb electromagnetic field would be beneficial. This is my guess and carbon fibre is an ideal material for a treatment with such compound.

 

[Jake2]

No snake oil there. Floating extra shield makes little effect when shielding is already really good and properly terminated both sides.

On a leaking shielded cable the effect depends on electrical and dielectrical properties of such material. Carbon fibre is not a dielectric which is good. It is conducting electricity, but the amount depends on how is treated. It is difficult for me to assess what they were trying to achieve, but I suspect they tried to bring similar effect to the ferrites, so conductivity is a secondary issue. You may be aware that ferrites absorbing field energy ability is well recognised in the engineering industry. In this case adding a material with ability to absorb electromagnetic field would be beneficial. This is my guess and carbon fibre is an ideal material for a treatment with such compound.

I mean to be fair to @bluenight they are rocking a bit of a reptilian vibe, and the one I gave a light PU spray to (experiment to inhibit fraying) has an especially oily sheen...

As to what 'they' were thinking, you give em (me) far too much credit with talk of ferrites and such. My idea was much more basic: from my experimentation with graphite foil & felt over the last month or so in a range of locations the results suggested to me that carbon has both RFI absorption/shielding and vibration damping properties. Stood to reason carbon fibre 'fabric' sleeves might do same. Given the far from perfect shielding coverage or terminations of my test cables, I'd hazard a guess vibration damping is a big part of why these brought the improvements they did. But the shielding, even though imperfect, likely played a role too as it effectively briges over connection points that would otherwise be a shielding discontinuity so exposed... Ie. RJ45 plugs & socket into iFi LAN iSilencers or DC plug into DC socket on DC iPurifier...

I've since had 1m X 300mm of 3K CF fabric arrive and my experimentation with it over the last few days suggests a vibration damping role from audible improvements even when 'just' folded loosely on top of a component where you'd think its RFI shielding role would be negligible. It is super drapable and feels very 'damped' to the touch.

For what it's worth Furutech in their fancy pants flaship $3k power cord have multiple layers of 'damping' inner sheaths of which one is, drum roll, carbon infused polyethylene fibres. I only stumbled across this after getting good results, so I googled to see if there was a damping association with carbon in a hifi context...

https://www.furutech.com/2023/05/24/22796/ (do 'find on page' for "carbon" and you'll see Furutech use carbon or CF in 4-5 ways/places in that cable)

 

[OCC7N]

Scenario 1:

ISP/Fiberbox -> Optical fiber-> ISP/FMC ->RJ45 -> Linksys LGS108(LHY SW8) -> RJ45 -> Router ->RJ45 -> PCIe/Source/Afterdark X1

Scenario 2.

ISP/Fiberbox -> Optical fiber-> ISP/FMC -> RJ45 -> Linksys LGS108(LHY SW8) -> RJ45 -> Router -> RJ45-> Cisco CBS220(LHY SW10) ->RJ45 -> PCIe/Source/Afterdark X1.

Scenario 1 sound dead* and soulless* vs Scenario 2, which is not only more musical but also a better performance bandwidth/latency wise.

(*too much black background like floating in space)

I am so satisfied with the Cisco CBS220 I have one more on the way. This switch beats the LGS108 in performance, well it does cost 3-4x times more, so it should. However I find the price for the CBS220 pretty good competitive. Sound is more collected with great dynamics - musical.

...

As I have access to a lot of different brand SFPs I decided to take/test care of the WAN side of the router. Replacing the Linksys LGS108 with another CBS220 with Optical fiber between ISP/FMC and Router.

Scenarion 3.

ISP/Fiberbox -> fiber cable ->ISP/FMC -> RJ45 cable -> Cisco CBS220(LHY SW10)-> SFP out to Routers WAN input -> RJ45 -> Cisco CBS220(LHY SW10) -> PCIe/Source/Afterdark X1.

-----

All RJ45 cables used in the scenarios is generic CAT8.1 S/FTP
Afterdark X1 stock adapter settings

 

[OCC7N]

Cisco CBS220 is every penny worth. I really believe the LHY SW10 will sound amazing now.

I only used 2 but I consider buying the third.

Used Scenarion 3

Spoiler: chain

Network: ISP-FMC/RJ45 > Cisco CBS220/SFP > WAN - Router/RJ45 - LAN - Cisco CBS220/RJ45 > Afterdark X1 PCIe

The sound is simply likable. Dark, nicely rounded, but punchy.

Linksys LGS108 vs Cisco CBS220 is night and day difference. The music is so much different now I have to break-in my brain.

 

[audiobomber]

I borrowed a friend's iFi Audio LAN iSilencer for a week, then purchased my own. The LAN iSilencer compromised the sound when playing local files from my NAS, but provided a definite improvement with internet music when plugged into my router. The iSilencer replaced a similarly priced LAN filter I was using on the router.

 

[sajunky]

I borrowed a friend's iFi Audio LAN iSilencer for a week, then purchased my own. The LAN iSilencer compromised the sound when playing local files from my NAS, but provided a definite improvement with internet music when plugged into my router. The iSilencer replaced a similarly priced LAN filter I was using on the router.

Get something before the router. @OCC7N had a good idea.

BTW, I am confused with your description. If you plug isilencer into the router, you don't have access to your NAS? I think you do, it should be no sound degradation when playing from NAS as well.

 

[OCC7N]

Get something before the router. @OCC7N had a good idea.

BTW, I am confused with your description. If you plug isilencer into the router, you don't have access to your NAS? I think you do, it should be no sound degradation when playing from NAS as well.

All I can say about my improvements is that CBS220 is not just a switch. People who doubt network switches have a "sound" difference than other switches, should try the CBS220 or any other Cisco switch. I am still in shock and have not been able to move from my chair with my headphones for over 8hours now.

No matter where you put the CBS220 it sounds amazing. However the biggest improvement was before the routher which has SFP input. Even though I had the first one at source/streamer, adding the second one with optical/power isolation, before the router. floored me.

Anybody who wants to do this should have a router on a higher sound/quality level than their ISP router.

----

This solution made me remove Baaske MI1005 and Pink Faun Isolator. They are bottlenecks after this big change.

----

I will add the Cisco Meraki MS120-8P as soon as I can afford it. Best part of this switch vs the old one(MS220-8P) it has DC input!

Scenario 4 will be:
Network: ISP-FMC/RJ45 > Cisco Meraki MS120-8/SFP > WAN - Router/RJ45 - LAN -> Cisco CBS220/SFP >Cisco CBS220/RJ45> Afterdark X1 PCIe

However if the sound gets a lot more resolving I will return it or sell one of the CBS. The sound now is on the peak of being resolving, much more than this is "surgically" clean.

I find the sound signature perfect, but I still want the Meraki though

 

[audiobomber]

Get something before the router. @OCC7N had a good idea.

That would be a good idea if I was using wi-fi for music, but my main audio systems are hard-wired via ethernet cable and fiber optics, no wi-fi. Internet service to my home is via copper cable, no fiber available. It goes to the internet provider's modem, then to a VOIP box, then to my router. The modem, VOIP box, router and switch all have upgraded power supplies, but still, lots of non-audiophile-grade gear.

I initially put the iSilencer on the WAN connection into the router, but I wanted to remove noise generated in the router's wi-fi radios, so I moved it to the router's LAN outlet feeding my N8 switch.

BTW, I am confused with your description. If you plug isilencer into the router, you don't have access to your NAS? I think you do, it should be no sound degradation when playing from NAS as well.

The NAS is connected to the same switch as the router. The router is not in the chain when I play music from the NAS. Downstream connections from the N8 switch to both my main system and desktop system are common to both NAS and router. When I tried the iSilencer downstream from the EtherRegen in my main audio system, I heard a slightly compressed soundstage and a decrease in bass power, so it will remain on the router, in the internet music chain. But I would emphasize, it is doing a fine job improving that setup.

 

[audiobomber]

the biggest improvement was before the routher which has SFP input

I heard that you should never connect a switch ahead of the router, because the router has a firewall and a switch doesn't, creating a security risk.

 

[OCC7N]

I heard that you should never connect a switch ahead of the router, because the router has a firewall and a switch doesn't, creating a security issue.

Not totally true, what you are saying goes for dumb switches/L2 and up...however it is true when you are talking about my setup because my switches is somewhere between L2-L3. A L3 switch would be 1000% no go. CBS220 does need a learning curve for secure configuration to make it dumber/L2

My network devices also shuts down with my computer. Even though I have the most secure firewall/Netgate 2100 I will put the Netgate 6100 before my first switch for 24/7 usage.

The Netgate 6100 has SFP on the LAN side. The reason to keep Netgate 2100 is becuase of how great it sounds, the Cisco CBS220 boosted the quality. It will be in bridge mode when I get the 6100. I want to be able to put my NAS even behind this Netgate 2100!