[sajunky]

Not totally true, what you are saying goes for dumb switches/L2 and up..

^^^This.

Actually there is absolutely no risk (it can be even a dumb switch) if no other device is connected to a switch, just cable modem and a router. However in this place I would use a pair of FMC's instead of a switch.

 

[audiobomber]

^^^This.

Actually there is absolutely no risk (it can be even a dumb switch) if no other device is connected to a switch, just cable modem and a router.

Sure, but why would you use a multiport switch like the CBS220 for one input port and one output port?

However in this place I would use a pair of FMC's instead of a switch.

Or a LAN filter.

 

[OCC7N]

^^^This.

Actually there is absolutely no risk (it can be even a dumb switch) if no other device is connected to a switch, just cable modem and a router. However in this place I would use a pair of FMC's instead of a switch.

I agree that FMC is best practice before router. Much easier recommendation than a L3 switch.

I will only recommend this on a secure firewall like pfsense/opnsense. Making such DIY you need a capable cpu performance. However the Netgate 2100 is very good for 650/500 bandwith without any switches on the network....I got it to go up to 800/500 with the Cisco implementation. I have a 1000/500 fiber subscription. If pfsense/opnsense supports the Afterdark X1 and Afterdark S1 I would probably build the router myself, instead of the 6100. I see the incoming signal as the most important now. Before it was the source/endpoint. This latest experiment has changed that thought

....

I don´t use the Cisco only to optical isolate but I use it because it sounds DAMN GOOD! I have tried many FMC on the mainstream. Any Cisco switch will sound better(have character) to my liking.

It changes everything! - Cisco is not just switch!. If you just want a switch buy something like the 108. If fewer ports needed 105

 

[sajunky]

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.

I have a different proposition for Wifi separation. Get a router sans WiFi for a main routing function. Then WiFi router can be placed anywhere on your LAN, you can place isilencer there. However WiFi router is not the biggest source of noise; a cable modem is. In a current configuration WiFi router is a biggest source of noise, it is only because is on the path of a cable modem.

You can find on this thread my post recommending Ubiquity ER-X. It is fantastic device, very capable in a small factor, speed up to 1Gbps if all hardware functions are enabled. DC powered, you can plug LPS. It will forward VoIP traffic, so you can move VoIP device on the LAN side. There is a version with SFP, it can be used for separating noise coming from the ISP modem. This is the only place I do recommend fiber.

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

Allright. I was focusing on ground loops distribution, not switching data packets.

 

[bluenight]

@OCC7N Is the Cisco CBS220 8G 2SFP better then other audiophile switches you have tried(you have tried some different ones right? ).

Was it better even at plug and play? Or did you have to manage alot of options to make it better then regular switch? (you have managed alot of options right, for less data traffic and such?)

@sajunky With the None wifi router Ubiquity ER-X. I could never get to control and send my streamed music with my smartphones apps to my audio streamer?
That would be a big no for me.

Not even if i use one port on the Ubiquity ER-X and connect my Wi-Fi router there would they be able to communicate?
Lets say one other port goes wired to my audio streamer.

Also the only way i would consider using sfp optical would be going direct from an sfp port from router like Ubiquity ER-X have on some version. And like Cisco CBS220 8G 2SFP have like you do with wired RJ45 connections. That would work going straight in to a device like lets say a network streamer with optical input like Lumin U2?

Never liked adding more powered equipment like FMC in the chain. I like it simple.

 

[OCC7N]

@OCC7N Is the Cisco CBS220 8G 2SFP better then other audiophile switches you have tried(you have tried some different ones right? ).

Was it better even at plug and play? Or did you have to manage alot of options to make it better then regular switch? (you have managed alot of options right, for less data traffic and such?)

@sajunky With the None wifi router Ubiquity ER-X. I could never get to control and send my streamed music with my smartphones apps to my audio streamer?
That would be a big no for me.

Not even if i use one port on the Ubiquity ER-X and connect my Wi-Fi router there would they be able to communicate?
Lets say one other port goes wired to my audio streamer.

Also the only way i would consider using sfp optical would be going direct from an sfp port from router like Ubiquity ER-X have on some version. And like Cisco CBS220 8G 2SFP have like you do with wired RJ45 connections. That would work going straight in to a device like lets say a network streamer with optical input like Lumin U2?

Never liked adding more powered equipment like FMC in the chain. I like it simple.

The Cisco CBS220 has a EEE/Power saving feature which I turned off.

On the LAN side it is pretty much plug and play. ROUTER/RJ45 -> CBS220/RJ45 -> RJ45/SOURCE.

I was speechless earlier as I noticed the break in process made the sound even better. I am only 2-3 days(20 hours of audio listening) in and it started to shine even more. I use decent power supply 12V, not the stock on both.

I have Afterdark X1 network adapter as the source/pcie with a cheap alibaba masterclock. This card also have a black level in sound, however even 1 CBS220 added noticeable impact to my liking.

I am in shock like I am starting over with my whole setup. Thats how it improved.

It feels like I have added an improvement to the sound worth over 1000 dollars. Like a DAC/DDC on the network.

Its such a change my brain needs break-in to this new sound

 

[bluenight]

@audiobomber or anyone else.
I use 3 ifi Lan iSilencer at the very last stop RJ45 input connections to my DMP-A6 streamer, Apple TV 4k and LG B6 Oled tv. And been happy with the improvement.
So there could be benefits in adding more earlier in the chain lets say one between my router and switch? And maybe one after my fiberwall box(no sfp port but RJ45)and between router input (where it all starts)
And why would that be. Would the switch perform better because less noise from router somehow leading to more accurate timed clock calculations?

Shouldn't the last stop be most effective and the one only needed because it would clean up all earlier noise in the chain and all air bourn emi accumulated in the Ethernet wire. Makes most sense to me. But i understand things can be more complex then it seem and everything isn't logical.

 

[sajunky]

@sajunky With the None wifi router Ubiquity ER-X. I could never get to control and send my streamed music with my smartphones apps to my audio streamer?
That would be a big no for me.

Right, you pick up a problem, I forgotten to mention. Of course in default configuration it would stop the phone communicating with wired devices on your LAN. After adding another router (which becomes a main Internet router) the WiFi router would need to be reconfigured to work as an Access Point (disabling Internet routing) to became a part of the same LAN. Most of the consumer WiFi routers will do it automatically if nothing is plugged to a WAN port, just using only LAN ports.

In other words you only need to know to plug a cable to the LAN port instead of the WAN port as is in a case where WiFi device is also your broadband router.

Not even if i use one port on the Ubiquity ER-X and connect my Wi-Fi router there would they be able to communicate?
Lets say one other port goes wired to my audio streamer.

Yes & yes. ER-X has a built-in switch on the LAN side. You can use only one LAN port or more, like adding the external switch. It is how it works in default configuration, as ports can be removed from the switch, but it is only for the advanced users.

Also the only way i would consider using sfp optical would be going direct from an sfp port from router like Ubiquity ER-X have on some version. And like Cisco CBS220 8G 2SFP have like you do with wired RJ45 connections. That would work going straight in to a device like lets say a network streamer with optical input like Lumin U2?

I suggested fiber link to the user who has a cable modem. This is very noisy device. It is important to cut ground loops at this point.

You have a fiber broadband box which provides galvanic isolation from the outside house. I don't think another fiber connection between fiber box and router is neccessary. Rather I would test whether solution tested by @OCC7N (who also has fiber Internet, similar case) works for you, as broadband fiber box can generate a lot of its own noise. Fiber box generate a different type of noise than from a broadband modem. Less low-frequency ground loops, more radio frequency.

Never liked adding more powered equipment like FMC in the chain. I like it simple.

I also don't like a noise spread through the FMC power connection. Use it to protect a house from a noise coming from the outside. It gives 100% protection from lightning strikes as a bonus.

 

[TRHH]

That is my current setup: Galvanic isolation from the mains - electrical isolation
- Decoupling the power supply from the mains

Torben

 

[OCC7N]

Right, you pick up a problem, I forgotten to mention. Of course in default configuration it would stop the phone communicating with wired devices on your LAN. After adding another router (which becomes a main Internet router) the WiFi router would need to be reconfigured to work as an Access Point (disabling Internet routing) to became a part of the same LAN. Most of the consumer WiFi routers will do it automatically if nothing is plugged to a WAN port, just using only LAN ports.

In other words you only need to know to plug a cable to the LAN port instead of the WAN port as is in a case where WiFi device is also your broadband router.

Yes & yes. ER-X has a built-in switch on the LAN side. You can use only one LAN port or more, like adding the external switch. It is how it works in default configuration, as ports can be removed from the switch, but it is only for the advanced users.

I suggested fiber link to the user who has a cable modem. This is very noisy device. It is important to cut ground loops at this point.

You have a fiber broadband box which provides galvanic isolation from the outside house. I don't think another fiber connection between fiber box and router is neccessary. Rather I would test whether solution tested by @OCC7N (who also has fiber Internet, similar case) works for you, as broadband fiber box can generate a lot of its own noise. Fiber box generate a different type of noise than from a broadband modem. Less low-frequency ground loops, more radio frequency.

I also don't like a noise spread through the FMC power connection. Use it to protect a house from a noise coming from the outside. It gives 100% protection from lightning strikes as a bonus.

The problem for is that the ISP/FMC is very poor quality output from fiber to ethernet.

I even plan to “reclock” the signal between Fiberbox and ISP/FMC. Change of course the power supply on this FMC.

I am working on a solution to implement Afterdark S1 here with single mode adapter(simplex)

If CBS220 can improve after this poor FMC then putting the optical “amplification/reclock” in front of it will improve everything.

 

[OCC7N]

That is my current setup: Galvanic isolation from the mains - electrical isolation
- Decoupling the power supply from the mains



Torben

Where is the ISP/WAN part?

Nice picture overview btw

 

[audiobomber]

I have a different proposition for Wifi separation. Get a router sans WiFi for a main routing function. Then WiFi router can be placed anywhere on your LAN, you can place isilencer there. However WiFi router is not the biggest source of noise; a cable modem is. In a current configuration WiFi router is a biggest source of noise, it is only because is on the path of a cable modem.

The modem, VOIP box and router are all noisy, that's why I put the iSilencer between the router and the Silent Angel N8 switch. I have two separate feeds from the switch to my audio systems.
Desktop system:
TP-Link MC220L FMC with iPower X > single-mode fiber > 10G Tek Gbit FMC with medical grade PSU > PC
The SFP's are 10GTek, ethernet cables are my favourite generics
Main System:
Sonore opticalModule Deluxe with Pardo MiniTeddy LPS > single-mode fiber > Uptone EtherRegen with Pardo 12/2 > exaSound PlayPoint with Zero-Zone 2020 LPS.
The SFP's are FTLF1318P3BTL, ethernet cables are Audio Sensibility Signature

You can find on this thread my post recommending Ubiquity ER-X. It is fantastic device, very capable in a small factor, speed up to 1Gbps if all hardware functions are enabled. DC powered, you can plug LPS. It will forward VoIP traffic, so you can move VoIP device on the LAN side. There is a version with SFP, it can be used for separating noise coming from the ISP modem.

I have heard plenty about the Ubiquity, mostly because it is a pain in the butt to configure. Its claim to fame is no wi-fi and a built-in switch, but I already have an excellent switch. Any router can be configured to work with wi-fi turned off, so that's not a big deal.

It is a commonly held belief among audiophiles that locally stored music sounds better that internet streaming. It is certainly good quality and highly entertaining, but I use it as background, when I'm reading or surfing the net. My NAS is set up for Port Trunking, such that only music goes through the modified Furtech cable to the N8 switch. Other traffic goes through the second cable.

I have a friend with a top notch system with fiber optic internet service, Netgear router with iPower Elite SMPS, wi-fi turned off. Even so, the music stored on his K50 server's hard drive sounds better.

This is the only place I do recommend fiber.

Most audiophiles use fiber for the longest cable run and that is also my recommendation. I have tried 50' of CAT6, CAT8 and CAT8 with a LAN Isolator. Compared to Supra Super (cryogenically treated Supra CAT8 with Telegartner connectors, even the baseline MC220L with iPower X was a clear winner. The oMD with Pardo supply is shockingly better.

Allright. I was focusing on ground loops distribution, not switching data packets.

As described above, I have fiber connections to my audio systems. I am also careful to use shield-tied cables appropriately to avoid ground loops.

 

[audiobomber]

@audiobomber or anyone else.
I use 3 ifi Lan iSilencer at the very last stop RJ45 input connections to my DMP-A6 streamer, Apple TV 4k and LG B6 Oled tv. And been happy with the improvement.
So there could be benefits in adding more earlier in the chain lets say one between my router and switch? And maybe one after my fiberwall box(no sfp port but RJ45)and between router input (where it all starts)

Sorry, I don't know whether adding another iSilencer upstream would benefit you. Probably, but could go either way. I use the iSilencer further back in the chain so it can benefit three of my systems. I could add three more iSilencers, but it's just not worth it, given my priorities.

Shouldn't the last stop be most effective and the one only needed because it would clean up all earlier noise in the chain and all air bourn emi accumulated in the Ethernet wire. Makes most sense to me. But i understand things can be more complex then it seem and everything isn't logical.

The closer a device is to the DAC the more impact it has.

In my case, the iSilencer was simply not resolving enough to use in my main music system, so it was relegated to cleaning up music from the internet, which I consider to be very good, but second-tier. I will be receiving a Network Audio Muon for a test run shortly. I will be interested to see whether it can hang between the ER and PlayPoint.

 

[sajunky]

I have heard plenty about the Ubiquity, mostly because it is a pain in the butt to configure. Its claim to fame is no wi-fi and a built-in switch, but I already have an excellent switch. Any router can be configured to work with wi-fi turned off, so that's not a big deal.

OK. Use any router with WiFi turned off as you like. ER-X is not a bone of contention. Problem is that some readers may read that WiFi routers are noisy. This is not true. Your WiFi router is noisy as uplink is noisy. This is where noise is coming from.

BTW, ER-X works out of the box, in a typical case it doesn't need special configuration.

 

[Exocer]

I will be receiving a Network Audio Muon for a test run shortly. I will be interested to see whether it can hang between the ER and PlayPoint.

Looking forward to your feedback on this!