PDA

View Full Version : Wireless vs Ethernet. Any sound quality differences?



Steve W
2010-09-16, 06:09
My SB Touch feeds a DAC by digital coaxial and then onto my amp. I'm keen to get the best sound quality possible. Should I expect there to be any difference in sound quality between the wireless connection and a physical ethernet connection? I don't really like the idea of wireless connection for HD music files (up to 24bit, 96kHz) but I am having trouble with occasional drop outs on the ethernet connection (looses sight of the ports momentarily) whilst the wireless shows no such issue. Can I go wireless and be confident that sound quality will not suffer?

dcolak
2010-09-16, 07:19
My SB Touch feeds a DAC by digital coaxial and then onto my amp. I'm keen to get the best sound quality possible. Should I expect there to be any difference in sound quality between the wireless connection and a physical ethernet connection? I don't really like the idea of wireless connection for HD music files (up to 24bit, 96kHz) but I am having trouble with occasional drop outs on the ethernet connection (looses sight of the ports momentarily) whilst the wireless shows no such issue. Can I go wireless and be confident that sound quality will not suffer?

When you copy a Word file over your Wi-Fi, does it end up corrupt?

No it doesn't ;)

The same thing is with music, Wi-Fi or Ethernet it's the same.

If there is a problem, you will hear the music stop. ;)

Steve W
2010-09-16, 07:56
When you copy a Word file over your Wi-Fi, does it end up corrupt?

No it doesn't ;)

The same thing is with music, Wi-Fi or Ethernet it's the same.

If there is a problem, you will hear the music stop. ;)

I also think the same but I still worry about audio quality/integrity. I worry about small, occasional data loss that could just contribute to jitter, poor clock timing or stereo imaging and hence degrade the audio quality subtly without actual drop out?

If that is definitely not an issue then I may as well give up on the ethernet hassle and go wireless..

mlsstl
2010-09-16, 08:08
I also think the same but I still worry about audio quality/integrity. I worry about small, occasional data loss that could just contribute to jitter, poor clock timing or stereo imaging and hence degrade the audio quality subtly without actual drop out?
Remember that the Touch and earlier Squeezebox players contain a buffer that collects the incoming data stream and then parcels it out as needed. I once unplugged the CAT-5 cable to my SB3 and it continued to play perfectly for 7 or 8 seconds before it stopped. That's a long time in the world of data transmission.

Also, if you just want to be paranoid, any delay or minor interruption in a wireless signal can be duplicated on a wired LAN that shares the data path with other computers.

The only problem with wireless is it can be subject to interference from other wireless devices such as 2.4 GHz cordless phones, etc. It that's an issue you're going to notice it and it won't be subtle. Otherwise, my opinion is that if it is working, don't worry about it unless you're just determined to have a case of audiophilia nervosa one way or the other.

Phil Leigh
2010-09-16, 09:27
I also think the same but I still worry about audio quality/integrity. I worry about small, occasional data loss that could just contribute to jitter, poor clock timing or stereo imaging and hence degrade the audio quality subtly without actual drop out?

If that is definitely not an issue then I may as well give up on the ethernet hassle and go wireless..

No no no no .... did I say no? :-)

There is no "data loss" - even an audible drop out is not a "loss" but rather a delay...

There's no jitter to be found here. The audio integrity etc is 100%. Unless you get drop-outs - which means that your network is broken and needs fixing...

JJZolx
2010-09-16, 13:39
My SB Touch feeds a DAC by digital coaxial and then onto my amp. I'm keen to get the best sound quality possible. Should I expect there to be any difference in sound quality between the wireless connection and a physical ethernet connection? I don't really like the idea of wireless connection for HD music files (up to 24bit, 96kHz) but I am having trouble with occasional drop outs on the ethernet connection (looses sight of the ports momentarily) whilst the wireless shows no such issue. Can I go wireless and be confident that sound quality will not suffer?

That's an odd twist to the wireless vs. wired debate. It's usually the other way around. If you have wire, I'd say use it. You should fix whatever is wrong with the connection rather than falling back to wireless. Try different patch cables, repunch the wall jacks, get a new switch or router.

Steve W
2010-09-16, 13:56
That's an odd twist to the wireless vs. wired debate. It's usually the other way around. If you have wire, I'd say use it. You should fix whatever is wrong with the connection rather than falling back to wireless. Try different patch cables, repunch the wall jacks, get a new switch or router.

I felt cured of the "audiophilia nervosa" I was suffering - I'm now in the middle of a relapse... :)

Dura
2010-09-16, 14:22
I think the argument about the buffer is really good.
As always, the truth should be in listening, but that is sometimes easier said then done, and the A.N. Suffers are very tight.
using wireless it seems to me there are two possibilties, taking into account the buffer thing:
1) wireless is Evil because it causes the wireless receptor to be active giving pollution in the system or:
2) wireless is Good, because now that horrible poisoned RFI from the router or server cannot reach your Squeezebix, at least not by signal wire.

Me, I love 2), sounds very plausible and happens to be convenient to me, since my router and PC are on the other side of the house.

Phil Leigh
2010-09-16, 15:08
I think the argument about the buffer is really good.
As always, the truth should be in listening, but that is sometimes easier said then done, and the A.N. Suffers are very tight.
using wireless it seems to me there are two possibilties, taking into account the buffer thing:
1) wireless is Evil because it causes the wireless receptor to be active giving pollution in the system or:
2) wireless is Good, because now that horrible poisoned RFI from the router or server cannot reach your Squeezebix, at least not by signal wire.

Me, I love 2), sounds very plausible and happens to be convenient to me, since my router and PC are on the other side of the house.

I agree "the truth is in the listening". I defy anyone to prove - or even claim! - that they can hear a difference between a properly working ethernet or Wlan connection.

Curiously, if anything there is more of a chance of the ethernet sounding worse due to some people stupidly using cat6 SHIELDED cable!

aubuti
2010-09-16, 15:19
I don't really like the idea of wireless connection for HD music files (up to 24bit, 96kHz) but I am having trouble with occasional drop outs on the ethernet connection (looses sight of the ports momentarily) whilst the wireless shows no such issue.
I suggest you fix that problem. There is absolutely no good reason to be "loosing" sight of the ports. Either your router's bad, or the cable's bad, or something else with your ethernet is not right. Fix that and use the wired connection, not because it has better sound quality, but because it is more reliable.

ralphpnj
2010-09-16, 15:56
I have both a Touch and Transporter. The Transporter has a wireless connection and the Touch has a wired connection. When playing 24/96 files both devices will sometimes rebuffer at the beginning of playback but then they will play fine for very long periods. As far as i can tell there is absolutely no difference in sound quality between wired and wireless connections.

So stop worrying and enjoy the music.

peterw
2010-09-16, 16:50
I have both a Touch and Transporter. The Transporter has a wireless connection and the Touch has a wired connection. When playing 24/96 files both devices will sometimes rebuffer at the beginning of playback

A design flaw (IMO it's a flaw) in the Squeezebox architecture is that the buffer is only for the current track. At the start of a new track, all the players start refilling their buffers from scratch, so the system is more vulnerable to network trouble when a new song starts.

andyg
2010-09-16, 17:04
On Sep 16, 2010, at 7:50 PM, peterw wrote:

>
> ralphpnj;577070 Wrote:
>> I have both a Touch and Transporter. The Transporter has a wireless
>> connection and the Touch has a wired connection. When playing 24/96
>> files both devices will sometimes rebuffer at the beginning of playback
>
> A design flaw (IMO it's a flaw) in the Squeezebox architecture is that
> the buffer is only for the current track. At the start of a new track,
> all the players start refilling their buffers from scratch, so the
> system is more vulnerable to network trouble when a new song starts.

Not quite, the next track begins buffering 10 seconds before the current track ends.

yerma
2010-09-16, 23:56
I worry about small, occasional data loss that could just contribute to jitter, poor clock timing or stereo imaging and hence degrade the audio quality subtly without actual drop out?

I felt cured of the "audiophilia nervosa" I was suffering - I'm now in the middle of a relapse... :)
If you are still worrying about "jitter, poor clock timing or stereo imaging" you are NOT cured...

soundcheck
2010-09-17, 00:44
Hi there.

My 0,02$:

* A buffer needs to be managed. Size doesn't actually matters here.
* An ethernet port needs to be managed too.
* The overall communication flow needs to be managed as well.

* A wireless connection comes with highly variable bandwidth.
If your neighbor starts downloading stuff on his WLAN your level drops
resp. goes up and down continuously.

* The wireless driver on the Touch requires plenty of resources.
Turn it off and you'll hear what I mean.

* Capacity constraints: E.g. try to run a 24/96 PCM stream over WLAN!?!?


Bottom line:

Turning from wireless to wired ethernet will make a difference on quality audio systems.
Not because of data-corruption or similar. It's rather because of changing load conditions.


That's my experience. (see link below)


Enjoy.

JJZolx
2010-09-17, 00:50
* The wireless driver on the Touch requires plenty of resources.
Turn it off and you'll hear what I mean.


:)

adamdea
2010-09-17, 06:34
In a nutshell
1 there is no rational reason why wi fi cannot stream data as accurately as a wired connection
2 some people think they can hear a difference in the music played by the different routes through a Touch though.
3 the explanation posited seems to be that the wifi receiver (and possibly the processor) has to try very hard and that this might make the touch handle the wireless stream worse than wired ethernet stream even if the two streams are themselves identical
4 early generation wifi suffered from unreliability and drop out which lead to the standard mantra being that you shouldn't use wifi for high quality audio.
5 some people don't hear any difference and attribute the suggestion that there is a difference to expectation bias. ("Do these big black speakers sound a) dark, b) bright?")
6 similar considerations apply to a whole raft of other possible tweaks (offboard flac conversion, turning off extraneous processor functions etc and possibly to others such as turning off analogue/digital outs).
Personally I listen over wifi because I can't be bothered to re-wire, and have separate mains spurs powering the hifi so I doubt powerline will work. If i go to the trouble of installing cat 5e throughout my house I probably not bother to A/B afterwards anyway because it will be too late by then. By my guess even if wired is better
a. you could reproduce the same result by having a second wireless router thingy wired to the touch. I may try this.
b. most people who currently strongly prefer wired connection would not like that idea at all for a variety of reasons which will range from metaphysics to quantum field theory and all of which may be true.
Basically if you don't already know what you think before listening I bet you will still be unsure after. I

soundcheck
2010-09-17, 07:18
In a nutshell
1 there is no rational reason why wi fi cannot stream data as accurately as a wired connection
2 some people think they can hear a difference in the music played by the different routes through a Touch though.
3 the explanation posited seems to be that the wifi receiver (and possibly the processor) has to try very hard and that this might make the touch handle the wireless stream worse than wired ethernet stream even if the two streams are themselves identical
4 early generation wifi suffered from unreliability and drop out which lead to the standard mantra being that you shouldn't use wifi for high quality audio.
5 some people don't hear any difference and attribute the suggestion that there is a difference to expectation bias. ("Do these big black speakers sound a) dark, b) bright?")
6 similar considerations apply to a whole raft of other possible tweaks (offboard flac conversion, turning off extraneous processor functions etc and possibly to others such as turning off analogue/digital outs).
Personally I listen over wifi because I can't be bothered to re-wire, and have separate mains spurs powering the hifi so I doubt powerline will work. If i go to the trouble of installing cat 5e throughout my house I probably not bother to A/B afterwards anyway because it will be too late by then. By my guess even if wired is better
a. you could reproduce the same result by having a second wireless router thingy wired to the touch. I may try this.
b. most people who currently strongly prefer wired connection would not like that idea at all for a variety of reasons which will range from metaphysics to quantum field theory and all of which may be true.
Basically if you don't already know what you think before listening I bet you will still be unsure after. I

Number 2 should read:
Some systems do show improvements depending which route was chosen others not. The more revealing your system the earlier you'll hear it.
Or: Some DACs are that great that source associated flaws won't make a difference anymore.
Or: Check the batteries of your hearing aid.


But: It's not about "thinking of hearing something"!


I am sure those discussions will go on forever. Every 2nd thread over
ends up like that.

Enjoy. (I do!)

adamdea
2010-09-17, 09:50
Number 2 should read:
Some systems do show improvements depending which route was chosen others not. The more revealing your system the earlier you'll hear it.
Or: Some DACs are that great that source associated flaws won't make a difference anymore......
But: It's not about "thinking of hearing something"!

Enjoy. (I do!)
Number 2 could if you prefer be revised to say that some people report that they hear a difference. I am intrigued however by the ingenuity of your suggestion that people who don't hear a difference either have a system which is not good enough or a DAC which is too good.

Phil Leigh
2010-09-17, 10:11
...


But: It's not about "thinking of hearing something"!

ALL hearing is in fact "thinking of hearing something" :-)
Ears are NOT microphones. They are connected to a brain (usually). It is the brain that decides what we do or don't hear.

firedog
2010-09-18, 02:06
I agree in theory there should be no difference.

When I was using a Duet and had only standard 16/44.1 files I used wireless and was perfectly happy.

On the Touch I've switched to wired. Main reason is that there were problems on my system with some skips and too much (re)buffering, mainly with hi-res files.

Since switching to wired about 99% of these problems have disappeared.

YMMV - on my setup it made a difference.

As far as sound quality, I "think" I hear a minor improvement with wired, but I may be imagining it. I'm not really interested in serious testing the respective SQs, as I'm staying with the wired for the reasons mentioned above. As a result I've also used the software mods to turn the wireless module off.

Is it not true that the wireless module can produce noise that could slightly degrade the SQ?

mlsstl
2010-09-18, 05:28
I agree in theory there should be no difference.

[snip]

On the Touch I've switched to wired. Main reason is that there were problems on my system with some skips and too much (re)buffering, mainly with hi-res files.

Since switching to wired about 99% of these problems have disappeared.

YMMV - on my setup it made a difference.

As far as sound quality, I "think" I hear a minor improvement with wired, but I may be imagining it....

The skipping and buffering problems are exactly what one would expect with a poor wireless connection.

Does anyone remember the old game of moving the rabbit ears on a TV set for the best reception? A few inches one way or the other could make a big difference in picture quality.

A wireless computer signal is still a radio wave. I had a very poor connection when I installed a Squeezebox Radio in the kitchen. After looking at the situation, I realized I had a washer/dryer sitting in the direct path between the router and the radio. Moving the router down two shelves solved the problem - the signal now ran under the washer/dryer.

As for the sound quality difference, I realize that some have come up with theories (i.e., when on, the wireless module contaminates the analog line section, etc.) but I try to follow Occum's Razor on such things. Subjective influences in humans, conscious and unconscious, are very well documented and in constant operation in our brains. I'd vote for that as the most likely to account for your perception, but then it's also OK. Whatever works to enhance your enjoyment of music is fine in my book.

Phil Leigh
2010-09-19, 07:20
Is it not true that the wireless module can produce noise that could slightly degrade the SQ?

Case not proven, as they would say in Scotland. It's a fine theory with no proof...

Waldo Pepper
2010-09-20, 07:17
A design flaw (IMO it's a flaw) in the Squeezebox architecture is that the buffer is only for the current track. At the start of a new track, all the players start refilling their buffers from scratch, so the system is more vulnerable to network trouble when a new song starts.

Not convinced about this. Marillion tracks on "Misplaced Childhood" 1 & 2 seem together timewise perfectly on the Touch just as they do on the CD.

Same with Roger Waters stuff.

Phil Leigh
2010-09-20, 08:18
Not convinced about this. Marillion tracks on "Misplaced Childhood" 1 & 2 seem together timewise perfectly on the Touch just as they do on the CD.

Same with Roger Waters stuff.

All tracks play gaplessly because...as AndyG said
"Not quite, the next track begins buffering 10 seconds before the current track ends."

JJZolx
2010-09-20, 09:51
All tracks play gaplessly because...as AndyG said
"Not quite, the next track begins buffering 10 seconds before the current track ends."

And also this is how crossfade between tracks is possible.

JohnSwenson
2010-09-20, 12:14
And also why skipping while in the middle of a song can cause problems. When going to the next song in a playlisy it is prefetched so there is already data in the local buffer when the previous song ends, when you push the skip button there is no prefetch, you have to sit and wait while the server opens the file and sends a buffers worth of data to the player.

John S.

JJZolx
2010-09-20, 13:33
And also why skipping while in the middle of a song can cause problems. When going to the next song in a playlisy it is prefetched so there is already data in the local buffer when the previous song ends, when you push the skip button there is no prefetch, you have to sit and wait while the server opens the file and sends a buffers worth of data to the player.

What exactly is the problem?

Pressing the skip button will skip to the next song, which may or may not be partially in the buffer. If the start isn't in the buffer then you wait while it _begins_ to fill the buffer sufficiently to allow playback. Skipping twice or more in quick succession guarantees that you'll wait. Depends on your network speed, but on mine the wait is never more than 1-2 seconds.

Is that what you're calling a problem?

JohnSwenson
2010-09-20, 14:10
My understanding of this is that when skipping, the full large buffer is not filled up all the way right at the beginning, primarily to cut down on the time the user has to wait before music starts playing. Unfortunately this also means that its possible for that small buffer to run out of data before the next buffer gets filled up, thus causing the infamous stuttering. This is more probable if 24/96 files are being played or TinySBS is being used or if using a not so great Wifi connection.

This also why I think you hear some people talking about things work fine except for the first song out of a playlist. That first song doesn't have a prefetch and is probably using the "short buffer" right at the beginning, thus increasing the probability of getting a stutter.

John S.

JJZolx
2010-09-20, 14:49
My understanding of this is that when skipping, the full large buffer is not filled up all the way right at the beginning, primarily to cut down on the time the user has to wait before music starts playing. Unfortunately this also means that its possible for that small buffer to run out of data before the next buffer gets filled up, thus causing the infamous stuttering. This is more probable if 24/96 files are being played or TinySBS is being used or if using a not so great Wifi connection.

This also why I think you hear some people talking about things work fine except for the first song out of a playlist. That first song doesn't have a prefetch and is probably using the "short buffer" right at the beginning, thus increasing the probability of getting a stutter.

Ah, right. Is this pre-buffering set to a fixed amount in the code, or is it a pref somewhere? You're right, starting playback after prebuffering 3 seconds of 24/96 FLAC on a marginal wireless network is totally different than prebuffering 3 seconds of a 128 kbps Mp3 on a 100 Mbps wired network.

I know that in most streaming video players this is a configurable setting, as setting it too low means you get the stuttering you speak of. I don't know that I've seen such a setting for Squeezebox Server.

Stephen
2011-02-10, 11:33
I agree "the truth is in the listening". I defy anyone to prove - or even claim! - that they can hear a difference between a properly working ethernet or Wlan connection.

Curiously, if anything there is more of a chance of the ethernet sounding worse due to some people stupidly using cat6 SHIELDED cable!

Any suggestion for RFI problems? I unplug my Ethernet cable from Touch to router and the noise out of my speakers stops. Of course, it's not a constant issue.

Phil Leigh
2011-02-10, 16:01
Any suggestion for RFI problems? I unplug my Ethernet cable from Touch to router and the noise out of my speakers stops. Of course, it's not a constant issue.

Sorry - what noise? Are you using the analogue outputs of the Touch?

I would suggest ferrite clamps at the touch end of the ethernet cable.


But there should be NO audible noise from your ethernet connection - can you describe the noise?

Stephen
2011-02-10, 16:15
Static-y sizzle.

Yes, analog outs.

Through research online, I've come to understand that wireless routers can introduce noise issues with stereo systems, ham radio etc.

I also seemed to have an issue with Touch in wifi mode when it was next to my amplifier, which is tube-based. (I moved it away from the amp and the problem seemed to go away, but then I went Ethernet to eliminate dropouts.)

praganj
2011-02-10, 16:21
Any suggestion for RFI problems? I unplug my Ethernet cable from Touch to router and the noise out of my speakers stops. Of course, it's not a constant issue.

You are probably getting some noise (switched power supply ?) from the router throug the screen of the ethernet cable. You can very carefully remove one cm of screen from the ethernet cable about 5cm before Squeezebox, this can help. Do it carefully, do not damage important twisted cable pairs :)

I dont know how long is the cable between your router and SBT, you can try also one unscreened cable.

Phil Leigh
2011-02-10, 16:21
Static-y sizzle.

Yes, analog outs.

Through research online, I've come to understand that wireless routers can introduce noise issues with stereo systems, ham radio etc.

I also seemed to have an issue with Touch in wifi mode when it was next to my amplifier, which is tube-based. (I moved it away from the amp and the problem seemed to go away, but then I went Ethernet to eliminate dropouts.)

OK - and does the noise go when you disconnect the Touch analogue outputs from your amp (but with the Touch still connected to the Router via ethernet)?

Is the noise on both channels or just one?

soundcheck
2011-02-11, 02:28
Hi folks.

Just to mention it.

Phil did some measurements recently, to prove the relevance of my toolbox.

Phils soundcheck's-Touch-Toolbox-2.0 measurements (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=610116&postcount=329)

He figured that my WLAN OFF mod caused one of the biggest impact of all my mods he was able to apply.

No further comment from my side - on the subject "SBT wireless vs. wired".

You'll find my currently preferred solution on my blog.
Though watch out: "Any wired setup does not equal any other wired setup either."


Enjoy.

Phil Leigh
2011-02-11, 02:43
Hi folks.

Just to mention it.

Phil did some measurements recently, to prove the relevance of my toolbox.

Phils soundcheck's-Touch-Toolbox-2.0 measurements (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=610116&postcount=329)

He figured that my WLAN OFF mod caused one of the biggest impact of all my mods he was able to apply.

No further comment from my side - on the subject "SBT wireless vs. wired".

You'll find my currently preferred solution on my blog.
Though watch out: "Any wired setup does not equal any other wired setup either."


Enjoy.

FYI My tests were on the analogue outputs.

soundcheck
2011-02-11, 03:54
FYI My tests were on the analogue outputs.

Yep. Even that made an obvious difference. ;)

Mnyb
2011-02-11, 04:07
Yep. Even that made an obvious difference. ;)

But it is on the analog out it has a possibility to make a difference ?

A different signal is reaching your analog amp ? ok.

soundcheck
2011-02-11, 06:12
But it is on the analog out it has a possibility to make a difference ?

A different signal is reaching your analog amp ? ok.

From your cryptic response I could extract your hidden believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that digital connections incl. endpoints don't suffer distortions.

Interesting view.

That definitely would make a nice case for the "Myth Busters".


I can tell you that my list of so called High-End DACs responding to my changes, grows on a daily basis. The latest was a 3k5$ device.

Cheers

Howard Turkster
2011-03-08, 09:16
I agree "the truth is in the listening". I defy anyone to prove - or even claim! - that they can hear a difference between a properly working ethernet or Wlan connection.

Curiously, if anything there is more of a chance of the ethernet sounding worse due to some people stupidly using cat6 SHIELDED cable!

So I have a techie outfit coming to my house to wire it with Cat6 this Thursday. I guess I should verify they are using un-shielded? Or can I assume they will?

Hyptothetically, if they used shielded, and it ran to an ethernet switch first before reaching my Touch, and the cable from the switch to the Touch was unshielded, would that setup still be "bad" or would it avoid problems?

Phil Leigh
2011-03-08, 10:13
...
Hyptothetically, if they used shielded, and it ran to an ethernet switch first before reaching my Touch, and the cable from the switch to the Touch was unshielded, would that setup still be "bad" or would it avoid problems?

No that would be OK. You don't want the possibility of the shield providing a route directly into the Touch.

Don't forget the linear supply for the switch.

ralphpnj
2011-03-08, 10:23
Don't forget the linear supply for the switch.

Why does a network switch need a linear power supply? How does having a linear power supply affect the sound of the Touch? I'm not doubting you, I just don't understand the relationship between the power supply of a network switch and the sound of the Touch.

Phil Leigh
2011-03-08, 10:46
Why does a network switch need a linear power supply? How does having a linear power supply affect the sound of the Touch? I'm not doubting you, I just don't understand the relationship between the power supply of a network switch and the sound of the Touch.

An SMPS (which is what all switches, routers etc come with) could radiate bad RFI... just like the Touch supply...

aubuti
2011-03-08, 10:55
I'm not doubting you, I just don't understand the relationship between the power supply of a network switch and the sound of the Touch.
My reading is either (a) Phil is having some fun, or (b) he finally drank the Kool-Aid.

Waldo Pepper
2011-03-08, 12:21
An SMPS (which is what all switches, routers etc come with) could radiate bad RFI... just like the Touch supply...

A SMPS is not going to affect what is going through a network switch.

Apart from (decent) HiFi components, name me one thing that doesn't have a SMPS of some sort. They are cheap and very efficient compared to 50Hz transformer designs.

Mobile chargers.
TVs.
Video.
DVD players.

Not to mention the rubbish compact flourescent bulbs put out.

They are abundant in everything and moreso due to EEC legistlation on low power devices. All part of the EEC Low Power Directive.

They are here to stay and of much better performance than 10 years ago.

If you claim to be able to hear a difference then you are barking mad. Can I interest you in the fluffle gaggled new SMPS with a noise floor of -70dBV root mean square peak output music power device? With enhanced Calculus functions....

I am in the wrong business!!!!

Phil Leigh
2011-03-08, 13:17
A SMPS is not going to affect what is going through a network switch.

Apart from (decent) HiFi components, name me one thing that doesn't have a SMPS of some sort. They are cheap and very efficient compared to 50Hz transformer designs.

Mobile chargers.
TVs.
Video.
DVD players.

Not to mention the rubbish compact flourescent bulbs put out.

They are abundant in everything and moreso due to EEC legistlation on low power devices. All part of the EEC Low Power Directive.

They are here to stay and of much better performance than 10 years ago.

If you claim to be able to hear a difference then you are barking mad. Can I interest you in the fluffle gaggled new SMPS with a noise floor of -70dBV root mean square peak output music power device? With enhanced Calculus functions....

I am in the wrong business!!!!

I didn't say it would affect what is going through the switch - of course it won't.

You really need to read things more carefully...

Phil Leigh
2011-03-08, 13:18
My reading is either (a) Phil is having some fun, or (b) he finally drank the Kool-Aid.

What's Kool-Aid?

Howard Turkster
2011-03-08, 14:57
So Phil, can I at least take your advice regarding the shielded cable seriously?

garym
2011-03-08, 15:11
So Phil, can I at least take your advice regarding the shielded cable seriously?

Yes. Shielded ethernet cable is not very common in the US in residential installs (at least what I'm told) but seems to be more common in Europe. The issue (I'm told) is that it is much more difficult to correctly install shielded CAT6 and its connectors, etc.. Myself, I used unshielded CAT6.....

Phil Leigh
2011-03-08, 15:12
So Phil, can I at least take your advice regarding the shielded cable seriously?

My advice WAS serious.

stone
2011-03-09, 01:35
My SB Touch feeds a DAC by digital coaxial and then onto my amp. I'm keen to get the best sound quality possible. Should I expect there to be any difference in sound quality between the wireless connection and a physical ethernet connection? I don't really like the idea of wireless connection for HD music files (up to 24bit, 96kHz) but I am having trouble with occasional drop outs on the ethernet connection (looses sight of the ports momentarily) whilst the wireless shows no such issue. Can I go wireless and be confident that sound quality will not suffer?

My observations: On SB Touch, using ethernet, 24bit/96kHz material is played lossless (no conversion on server). When using WIFI, the material is down-converted to 16bit/44kHz on the server. So, yes for high definition flac there is a difference

Phil Leigh
2011-03-09, 02:37
My observations: On SB Touch, using ethernet, 24bit/96kHz material is played lossless (no conversion on server). When using WIFI, the material is down-converted to 16bit/44kHz on the server. So, yes for high definition flac there is a difference

This is definitely not correct. Touch plays 24/96 via both ethernet and wi-fi!

adamdea
2011-03-09, 05:05
What's Kool-Aid?
A soft drink; but I am guessing that the comment was a reference to the practice described in the book by Tom Woolfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Kool-Aid_Acid_Test

adamdea
2011-03-09, 05:09
FYI My tests were on the analogue outputs.

Am I right in thinking that you were going to have a go on the digital output? Just wondering if there was any progress?

garym
2011-03-09, 06:03
A soft drink; but I am guessing that the comment was a reference to the practice described in the book by Tom Woolfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Kool-Aid_Acid_Test

Excellent book, but I think the reference was to the mass suicide of Jim Jones followers in Jonestown, Guyana (via drinking the kool-aid).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

edit: actually either interpretation would work!

aubuti
2011-03-09, 06:43
garym has it right (both the original post and the edit). For disambiguation, also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

Phil Leigh
2011-03-09, 06:52
Am I right in thinking that you were going to have a go on the digital output? Just wondering if there was any progress?

not yet - maybe by the end of March

adamdea
2011-03-09, 09:02
garym has it right (both the original post and the edit). For disambiguation, also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
...thanks, I am always grateful to learn something new.

garym
2011-03-09, 09:05
...thanks, I am always grateful to learn something new.

And in case there are any fans of mid-1960s youth culture, San Francisco Bay music scene (e.g., Grateful Dead), Ken Kesey, etc. this book by Tom Wolfe is a MUST READ.

Phil Leigh
2011-03-09, 09:07
And in case there are any fans of mid-1960s youth culture, San Francisco Bay music scene (e.g., Grateful Dead), Ken Kesey, etc. this book by Tom Wolfe is a MUST READ.

The whole Pranksters thing was part of my wife's Art History degree... - so I had actually encountered the book in question... ;o)

garym
2011-03-09, 09:10
The whole Pranksters thing was part of my wife's Art History degree... - so I had actually encountered the book in question... ;o)

...and my first ever live rock concert was the Grateful Dead, December 26, 1969. ;-)

edit: Not that I'm anal enough to keep track of the dates of every concert I ever attended. But in recent history I discovered the trove of GD material at archive.org and actually can now listen to my first concert again!

ralphpnj
2011-03-09, 17:22
...and my first ever live rock concert was the Grateful Dead, December 26, 1969. ;-)

edit: Not that I'm anal enough to keep track of the dates of every concert I ever attended. But in recent history I discovered the trove of GD material at archive.org and actually can now listen to my first concert again!

So did you attend SMU or did you just live in Dallas in 1969?

But more importantly: Was it a good show and was Jerry on that night? In other words, had he drank the Kool-Aid? Had you?

garym
2011-03-09, 17:35
So did you attend SMU or did you just live in Dallas in 1969?

But more importantly: Was it a good show and was Jerry on that night? In other words, had he drank the Kool-Aid? Had you?

Lived in Dallas and saw about every rock show that came to town between 69 and late 70s, just happened that the show was at SMU's McFarland Auditorium (I saw lots of good shows at that venue over the years....seems like I saw Rick Wakeman perform his "Six Wife's of Henry the 8th" at that venue.

Anyhow, I thought Jerry was "on" at the time (in terms of playing) but keep in mind that it was my FIRST concert and I was 14 years old. So the entire thing was an experience. It was interesting because Bill was stuck in an airplane evidently and late to the show. So the first few songs were just acoustic, no drums. Then Bill arrived and eventually they switched to electric. So I got to hear "Dark Star" that night.

I'll plead the 5th on drinking the Kool-Aid. Here's the show:

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1969-12-26.sbd.warner-evans.28448.sbeok.flac16

ralphpnj
2011-03-09, 18:14
Lived in Dallas and saw about every rock show that came to town between 69 and late 70s, just happened that the show was at SMU's McFarland Auditorium (I saw lots of good shows at that venue over the years....seems like I saw Rick Wakeman perform his "Six Wife's of Henry the 8th" at that venue.

Anyhow, I thought Jerry was "on" at the time (in terms of playing) but keep in mind that it was my FIRST concert and I was 14 years old. So the entire thing was an experience. It was interesting because Bill was stuck in an airplane evidently and late to the show. So the first few songs were just acoustic, no drums. Then Bill arrived and eventually they switched to electric. So I got to hear "Dark Star" that night.

I'll plead the 5th on drinking the Kool-Aid. Here's the show:

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1969-12-26.sbd.warner-evans.28448.sbeok.flac16

A few quick notes:

Up until a few years ago the of the Archive.org Dead shows were available for download (in flac or shn) as well as streaming but then the Dead asked them to stop offering the shows for download.

My first GD show was back in the spring of 1970 in Brooklyn, NY, not far from where I grew up, in fact less than 10 stops on the elevated subway. However my first concert was Creedence Clearwater Revival at Madison Square Garden sometime in 1969. I'm about the same age as you (born in Jan. 1955) and growing up in Brooklyn I was able to catch quite a few shows at the old Fillmore East before they closed the door in the spring of 1971.

garym
2011-03-09, 18:33
A few quick notes:

Yep, I was fortunate to haunt to archive.org site a year or two before the lossless downloading was stopped.

Up until a few years ago the of the Archive.org Dead shows were available for download (in flac or shn) as well as streaming but then the Dead asked them to stop offering the shows for download.

My first GD show was back in the spring of 1970 in Brooklyn, NY, not far from where I grew up, in fact less than 10 stops on the elevated subway. However my first concert was Creedence Clearwater Revival at Madison Square Garden sometime in 1969. I'm about the same age as you (born in Jan. 1955) and growing up in Brooklyn I was able to catch quite a few shows at the old Fillmore East before they closed the door in the spring of 1971.

Ah yes. We saw many of the same tours I'm sure. I saw some fantastic shows (and some not so good shows, but fantastic artists (the Doors with a drunk Jim Morrison). A fantastic "The Band" show on what I think was their only national solo tour (but I saw them again with Dylan in 73 or so (Before the Flood tour).

Dallas was sorta the hinterlands, but on the way from the east to west coast, so most major acts stopped off there. Got to see Hendrix in Ft. Worth, Janis Joplin in Dallas. Too many to list. Your time period at Fillmore East was classic. You may have seen the shows that resulted in Allman Bros live at fillmore (maybe doubtful....your parents may not have allowed you to stay out until dawn!).

Oh well, I could go on about this topic but I better stop. Has nothing to do with WIFI vs ethernet. But it does explain why there's a lot of things about sound quality that I can't distinguish any more, despite pretty good equipment. Too many really loud concerts (The Who, Who's Next Tour, front row...oh my!). age induced hearing loss, etc.

ralphpnj
2011-03-09, 19:15
You may have seen the shows that resulted in Allman Bros live at fillmore (maybe doubtful....your parents may not have allowed you to stay out until dawn!).

In fact I did see the Allman Brothers at the Fillmore East when they recorded "Live at The Fillmore". The Fillmore had early and late shows and I went to the early show. Duane Allman opened the show by saying "I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that there's no smoking but the good news is that this is our third album" and then launched into Statesboro Blues.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled topic:

A Touch connected via Wi-fi sounds no different than a Touch connected via ethernet and both will play up to 24bit/96kHz files (unless the Touch is being synced with a SB Classic, Radio or Boom which does not support hi-rez files).

firedog
2011-03-10, 04:02
Ah yes. We saw many of the same tours I'm sure. I saw some fantastic shows (and some not so good shows, but fantastic artists (the Doors with a drunk Jim Morrison). A fantastic "The Band" show on what I think was their only national solo tour (but I saw them again with Dylan in 73 or so (Before the Flood tour).

Dallas was sorta the hinterlands, but on the way from the east to west coast, so most major acts stopped off there. Got to see Hendrix in Ft. Worth, Janis Joplin in Dallas. Too many to list.

I lived there too. One of the big sound and light companies of the time, SHOWCO, was located in Ft. Worth, so many big acts that used them started tours in the area.

garym
2011-03-10, 05:07
I lived there too. One of the big sound and light companies of the time, SHOWCO, was located in Ft. Worth, so many big acts that used them started tours in the area.

Yep, ShowCo was the biggie. I remember seeing that stamped on a lot of equipment!