The DAC Scam?

square_wave said:

@mbhangui , From all that has been said so far we have realised that a listener's preference is going to be a subjective one due to all the varied and myriad variables at play. We have discussed a lot of it already. We also know that almost all dacs adhere to basic engineering specifications. The difference in sound comes from the implementation, dac type, parts choices etc. If that is the case, do we have any other choice than a subjective listening test to decide what we choose for ourselves ?

I accept that due to nature of the audio industry, there are wild claims and devices being sold at unobtanium price points etc. Let's leave that aside for a while for rich collectors.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. The final verdict has to be totally subjective without saying which DAC Sounds the best. Because what sounds best to me may not sound best to someone else. If there are glaring flaws, those will be revealed by objective assessment of the DAC. Measurements will provide some kind of a common minimum base, But at the moment sound engineering cannot take into account how the listener is going to perceive the sound. Music like any other art will always have a subjective opinion having the last word.

I'm sure a time will come when science will be able to tap into the nerve signals, cerberal cortex and individually tailor the sound of the equipment to listener's liking. Taking this further, probably even directly send the signal to the auditory nerves without use of headphones and speakers.

I always exchange mails with the designer of the product i am planning to buy. Be it Esoteric or Rethms or Tekton or Thoress or Berning or Croft or Quicksilver. Till such time i feel comfortable, I don’t proceed. I end up exchanging 25-30 mails before i take a final call.

If the designer doesn’t respond I don’t buy. Period.

mbhangui said:

That thrills me. I never expected anyone here having dabbled with Materials Science.

Click to expand...

Me two

Hi-fi industry experts talk software, power supplies, master clocks and more

Analogous said:

Hi-fi industry experts talk software, power supplies, master clocks and more

https://www.whathifi.com/hi-fi/music-streamers/cyrus-dcs-bluesound-and-more-discuss-how-music-streamer-performance-is-defined-by-more-than-just-chipsets

Click to expand...

The article is confusing and in some comments misleading. Let us break down the comments

The streaming module is a crucial music streamer component. It communicates with the source to get your music before packaging it up in a digital language the DAC chip can understand. Up until this point, the digital audio data is more or less handled as it would be had it come from a CD transport.

Click to expand...

So far good. But how is the music streamer component crucial? Is it a rocket science to get data from the source to the destination using TCP/IP? Any decent streamer will achieve that without a sweat. The above statement is accurate but misleading in the sense that it picturises the job of the streamer to be extremely difficult. Now the next comment

As dCS’s James Cook tells us, this first process performed by the streaming module guarantees bit-perfect data from a lossless source.

“This means two comparable streamers that support the same version of a streaming service will output an identical data stream,” he says. “This holds true largely regardless of network conditions, the equipment upstream of the network streamer, and to a degree the streamer itself.”

Click to expand...

Again, bang on. Ha Ha. dCS advocates all streamers using the same service to be the same. Maybe dCS doesn't make streamers. Now the next comment

What about your home network conditions; does that affect the obtaining of networked music?

“While network stability is important, the reality is that most modern connections, whether wi-fi or wired, offer ample bandwidth for even the highest-resolution audio,” says Cambridge Audio’s engineering team.

Click to expand...

Again no issue with the above. So almost all streamers with gigabit network interface will prove to be equal. The only issue I see is when you use wifi. The bandwidth that you get from wifi is shared with all devices connected to the wifi access point. So with a good network, your DAC buffer will always have data. At Home I can easily simulate the effect of using wifi. Go to the room that has poor wifi coverage and play some song on DSD. You will definitely get drop outs. A good software like mpd will fill the drop out with silence so that the music continues with silence.

Now the next comment is misleading and deliberate. Reviewers often abuse the use of terms like YMMV and garbase in, garbage out. Use those magic words to sound honest and accomodate cases which go against what you want to convey.

How the data stream is rendered before the digital-to-analogue conversion stage, however, does make a difference. “The way a streamer unpacks and processes a digital file has already shaped the final sound,” says Fell Audio’s Luke Tyson.

“Its handling and transmission of ones and zeroes within the [circuit] board affect timing, accuracy and ultimately musicality; garbage in, garbage out!”

Tyson says that in this world of increasingly affordable music streamers, “it’s easy to assume that a great music streamer is simply defined by the DAC chipset or streaming module it uses”.

Click to expand...

How will that transmission of ones and zeroes cause a problem if your DAC already has the data? Well the above statement is true only when you have a streamer with pure digital transport like SPDIF. If you are using a USB dac, all that the streamer has to do is put data in the buffer without resampling or changing the sampling rate. The clock of the streamer does not matter as most dac are now asynchronous. The DAC will use it's own clock and play data from the buffer bit perfect.

Another misleading statement to make the user go for the manufacturer's all integrated solution. Who in their right mind will connect a SOTA dac with a horrible power supply?

Several design factors need careful consideration in order to prevent a plague affecting all hi-fi: noise. “Even the best DACs and processors won’t perform optimally if the power supply is noisy or the circuit design introduces unwanted electrical interference,” says WiiM’s Dr. Lifeng Zhao.

Let’s take the power supply. Ideally you want separate supplies feeding the digital (DAC) and analogue (post-DAC) stages with, as Audiolab’s Jan Ertner describes, “clean, consistent power”.

Click to expand...

Another marketing bullshit below. Most DACs now, even the cheap Chinese DACs from Topping use multiple ultra-low-noise regulators providing separately to the left and right channel. This is one of the reason why these DACs achieve very low SINAD values

Ertner says that the DAC’s supply in Audiolab’s flagship 9000N (our current Product of the Year streamer) having multiple discrete ultra-low-noise regulators providing power separately to the left and right channels for each conversion stage is a “vital contributor” to its performance.

Click to expand...

Another marketing bull below. It is as if the person has revealed a secret that LPS are better than SMPS. Also remember that in today's times, there are many SMPS that equal LPS on the noise front and easily outperform LPS on power delivery front.

As an aside, Neville at Harman believes that linear power supplies are preferable to the smaller and arguably more efficient switch-mode supplies here, as they produce less noise and provide “cleaner and more stable power for optimal sound quality”.

As he rightly points out, you need these separate analogue and digital supplies to be isolated from one another, too. And ‘away’ from sensitive circuitry, full stop.

Click to expand...

Now after a long time reading the article, some truth again. But look at what he is saying "using an external DAC" make you achieve good quality regardless of the quality of the streamer. If Chord Electronics was making a streamer, you wouldn't have got this statement. So all good if you use Chord's DAC and any bloody streamer

But you can go one better than that. Chord Electronics’ Matt Bartlett says that using a streamer with an external DAC is “one of the best ways to isolate the audio signals, as this allows you to keep all the analogue audio signals you actually listen to, away from any of the noisier streaming functions”.

Click to expand...

Now again some marketing bull. This will hold true if you hire a 9 year old kid who has just learnt coding to write a streamer. Even a Rs 3000 Raspberry PI 3 will not do what he is alluding to below. Any normal user after reading this will be scared to try anything other than A Cyrus, Cambridge, Lumin, streamer. That is the power of the doubt that the below statement places in the mind of a clueless computer illiterate audiophile. The below can have some truth if you are using an interface like SPDIF or I2S, but it is not the universal truth. Is there any streamer out there with poor [decoding] implemenation? Zeez!!!

Cyrus’s Clarke explains that the way streamers receive and decode data – by receiving it in blocks (sometimes referred to as ‘packets’) and placing it in a buffer for decoding in blocks – can also produce noise.

“Specifically when dealing with compressed audio, a poor [decoding] implementation will have measurable artefacts at the block-processing frequency,” he says.

Click to expand...

Rest of the article is basically all that we know and all that is needed to avoid degradation of audio quality but nothing that requires top scientists from NASA to solve the problem. Rest of the article is filled with truths, half-truths and subjective comments. I would end the thing with clocks. dCS loves to talk about the clocks. The same dCS that threatened lawsuit on one reviewer


dCS tries to hammer in your mind that clocks used by steamer are important. When using a good USB dac the clock used by the streamer has no influence on the sound unless your streamer uses a digital only output SPDIF or I2S.

USB is a superior and more "correct" interface for audio. Problem with S/PDIF is that it makes the source the "master," forcing the DAC to chase its timing. This means that if the source S/PDIF signal is not very clean, it can impact target DAC performance. Fortunately over the years S/PDIF interface has been perfected a lot and even in low cost implementation it can be excellent. You can read this excellent test done by Archimago https://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html?m=1

Still, there is no reason to have this antiquated architecture. Using asynchronous mode USB, the DAC can set the cadence using a high-performance clock in the dac and force the source, in this case a computer or streamer, to follow it. So the clock of the streamer will have no bearing on the quality of sound.

Yes, there is some risk of noise here as USB is a much more complicated interface than S/PDIF. Dedicated processors are used to implement it and if not isolated from the sensitive DAC analog circuit (including its clock), we can still get polluted output. Fortunately this has also been sorted out for the most part and in high performance DACs it simply is not an issue. If you still think USB is noisy then you can get this USB cleaner. It will do a far better job at cleaning than my USB Regen from Uptone that cleans nothing!!!



Rest of the article is same. Few truths with sprinkling of half-truths and subjective comments meant mostly as promotion/advertisement.

Bhanghui sir is amazing gem of hfv forums

mbhangui said:

The article is confusing and in some comments misleading. Let us break down the comments



So far good. But how is the music streamer component crucial? Is it a rocket science to get data from the source to the destination using TCP/IP? Any decent streamer will achieve that without a sweat. The above statement is accurate but misleading in the sense that it picturises the job of the streamer to be extremely difficult. Now the next comment



Again, bang on. Ha Ha. dCS advocates all streamers using the same service to be the same. Maybe dCS doesn't make streamers. Now the next comment



Again no issue with the above. So almost all streamers with gigabit network interface will prove to be equal. The only issue I see is when you use wifi. The bandwidth that you get from wifi is shared with all devices connected to the wifi access point. So with a good network, your DAC buffer will always have data. At Home I can easily simulate the effect of using wifi. Go to the room that has poor wifi coverage and play some song on DSD. You will definitely get drop outs. A good software like mpd will fill the drop out with silence so that the music continues with silence.

Now the next comment is misleading and deliberate. Reviewers often abuse the use of terms like YMMV and garbase in, garbage out. Use those magic words to sound honest and accomodate cases which go against what you want to convey.



How will that transmission of ones and zeroes cause a problem if your DAC already has the data? Well the above statement is true only when you have a streamer with pure digital transport like SPDIF. If you are using a USB dac, all that the streamer has to do is put data in the buffer without resampling or changing the sampling rate. The clock of the streamer does not matter as most dac are now asynchronous. The DAC will use it's own clock and play data from the buffer bit perfect.

Another misleading statement to make the user go for the manufacturer's all integrated solution. Who in their right mind will connect a SOTA dac with a horrible power supply?



Another marketing bullshit below. Most DACs now, even the cheap Chinese DACs from Topping use multiple ultra-low-noise regulators providing separately to the left and right channel. This is one of the reason why these DACs achieve very low SINAD values



Another marketing bull below. It is as if the person has revealed a secret that LPS are better than SMPS. Also remember that in today's times, there are many SMPS that equal LPS on the noise front and easily outperform LPS on power delivery front.



Now after a long time reading the article, some truth again. But look at what he is saying "using an external DAC" make you achieve good quality regardless of the quality of the streamer. If Chord Electronics was making a streamer, you wouldn't have got this statement. So all good if you use Chord's DAC and any bloody streamer


Now again some marketing bull. This will hold true if you hire a 9 year old kid who has just learnt coding to write a streamer. Even a Rs 3000 Raspberry PI 3 will not do what he is alluding to below. Any normal user after reading this will be scared to try anything other than A Cyrus, Cambridge, Lumin, streamer. That is the power of the doubt that the below statement places in the mind of a clueless computer illiterate audiophile. The below can have some truth if you are using an interface like SPDIF or I2S, but it is not the universal truth. Is there any streamer out there with poor [decoding] implemenation? Zeez!!!



Rest of the article is basically all that we know and all that is needed to avoid degradation of audio quality but nothing that requires top scientists from NASA to solve the problem. Rest of the article is filled with truths, half-truths and subjective comments. I would end the thing with clocks. dCS loves to talk about the clocks. The same dCS that threatened lawsuit on one reviewer

dCS is threatening me with a lawsuit over a negative review [Update Inside] - GoldenSound

dCS has threatened me with a "7-figure lawsuit" over my coverage of the dCS Bartok in 2021. This video discusses my response to their claims

goldensound.audio

dCS tries to hammer in your mind that clocks used by steamer are important. When using a good USB dac the clock used by the streamer has no influence on the sound unless your streamer uses a digital only output SPDIF or I2S.

USB is a superior and more "correct" interface for audio. Problem with S/PDIF is that it makes the source the "master," forcing the DAC to chase its timing. This means that if the source S/PDIF signal is not very clean, it can impact target DAC performance. Fortunately over the years S/PDIF interface has been perfected a lot and even in low cost implementation it can be excellent. You can read this excellent test done by Archimago https://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html?m=1

Still, there is no reason to have this antiquated architecture. Using asynchronous mode USB, the DAC can set the cadence using a high-performance clock in the dac and force the source, in this case a computer or streamer, to follow it. So the clock of the streamer will have no bearing on the quality of sound.

Yes, there is some risk of noise here as USB is a much more complicated interface than S/PDIF. Dedicated processors are used to implement it and if not isolated from the sensitive DAC analog circuit (including its clock), we can still get polluted output. Fortunately this has also been sorted out for the most part and in high performance DACs it simply is not an issue. If you still think USB is noisy then you can get this USB cleaner. It will do a far better job at cleaning than my USB Regen from Uptone that cleans nothing!!!

View attachment 90038

Rest of the article is same. Few truths with sprinkling of half-truths and subjective comments meant mostly as promotion/advertisement.

Click to expand...

I must admit I am now more confused than when I started.
There seems to be more smoke and mirrors when it comes to electronics and electric power designs than other aspects of audio

Analogous said:

I must admit I am now more confused than when I started.
There seems to be more smoke and mirrors when it comes to electronics and electric power designs than other aspects of audio

Click to expand...

So true, I thought Analogue playback had too many parts to get it to play and streaming digital has made it so more complicated
more than the moving parts its information/misinformation to add to tec which keeps changing

maybe best would be to get something which plays well and then just stick to it .

mbhangui said:

The article is confusing and in some comments misleading. Let us break down the comments



So far good. But how is the music streamer component crucial? Is it a rocket science to get data from the source to the destination using TCP/IP? Any decent streamer will achieve that without a sweat. The above statement is accurate but misleading in the sense that it picturises the job of the streamer to be extremely difficult. Now the next comment



Again, bang on. Ha Ha. dCS advocates all streamers using the same service to be the same. Maybe dCS doesn't make streamers. Now the next comment



Again no issue with the above. So almost all streamers with gigabit network interface will prove to be equal. The only issue I see is when you use wifi. The bandwidth that you get from wifi is shared with all devices connected to the wifi access point. So with a good network, your DAC buffer will always have data. At Home I can easily simulate the effect of using wifi. Go to the room that has poor wifi coverage and play some song on DSD. You will definitely get drop outs. A good software like mpd will fill the drop out with silence so that the music continues with silence.

Now the next comment is misleading and deliberate. Reviewers often abuse the use of terms like YMMV and garbase in, garbage out. Use those magic words to sound honest and accomodate cases which go against what you want to convey.



How will that transmission of ones and zeroes cause a problem if your DAC already has the data? Well the above statement is true only when you have a streamer with pure digital transport like SPDIF. If you are using a USB dac, all that the streamer has to do is put data in the buffer without resampling or changing the sampling rate. The clock of the streamer does not matter as most dac are now asynchronous. The DAC will use it's own clock and play data from the buffer bit perfect.

Another misleading statement to make the user go for the manufacturer's all integrated solution. Who in their right mind will connect a SOTA dac with a horrible power supply?



Another marketing bullshit below. Most DACs now, even the cheap Chinese DACs from Topping use multiple ultra-low-noise regulators providing separately to the left and right channel. This is one of the reason why these DACs achieve very low SINAD values



Another marketing bull below. It is as if the person has revealed a secret that LPS are better than SMPS. Also remember that in today's times, there are many SMPS that equal LPS on the noise front and easily outperform LPS on power delivery front.



Now after a long time reading the article, some truth again. But look at what he is saying "using an external DAC" make you achieve good quality regardless of the quality of the streamer. If Chord Electronics was making a streamer, you wouldn't have got this statement. So all good if you use Chord's DAC and any bloody streamer


Now again some marketing bull. This will hold true if you hire a 9 year old kid who has just learnt coding to write a streamer. Even a Rs 3000 Raspberry PI 3 will not do what he is alluding to below. Any normal user after reading this will be scared to try anything other than A Cyrus, Cambridge, Lumin, streamer. That is the power of the doubt that the below statement places in the mind of a clueless computer illiterate audiophile. The below can have some truth if you are using an interface like SPDIF or I2S, but it is not the universal truth. Is there any streamer out there with poor [decoding] implemenation? Zeez!!!



Rest of the article is basically all that we know and all that is needed to avoid degradation of audio quality but nothing that requires top scientists from NASA to solve the problem. Rest of the article is filled with truths, half-truths and subjective comments. I would end the thing with clocks. dCS loves to talk about the clocks. The same dCS that threatened lawsuit on one reviewer

dCS is threatening me with a lawsuit over a negative review [Update Inside] - GoldenSound

dCS has threatened me with a "7-figure lawsuit" over my coverage of the dCS Bartok in 2021. This video discusses my response to their claims

goldensound.audio

dCS tries to hammer in your mind that clocks used by steamer are important. When using a good USB dac the clock used by the streamer has no influence on the sound unless your streamer uses a digital only output SPDIF or I2S.

USB is a superior and more "correct" interface for audio. Problem with S/PDIF is that it makes the source the "master," forcing the DAC to chase its timing. This means that if the source S/PDIF signal is not very clean, it can impact target DAC performance. Fortunately over the years S/PDIF interface has been perfected a lot and even in low cost implementation it can be excellent. You can read this excellent test done by Archimago https://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html?m=1

Still, there is no reason to have this antiquated architecture. Using asynchronous mode USB, the DAC can set the cadence using a high-performance clock in the dac and force the source, in this case a computer or streamer, to follow it. So the clock of the streamer will have no bearing on the quality of sound.

Yes, there is some risk of noise here as USB is a much more complicated interface than S/PDIF. Dedicated processors are used to implement it and if not isolated from the sensitive DAC analog circuit (including its clock), we can still get polluted output. Fortunately this has also been sorted out for the most part and in high performance DACs it simply is not an issue. If you still think USB is noisy then you can get this USB cleaner. It will do a far better job at cleaning than my USB Regen from Uptone that cleans nothing!!!

Rest of the article is same. Few truths with sprinkling of half-truths and subjective comments meant mostly as promotion/advertisement.

Click to expand...

All this is fine and dandy on paper. Unfortunately reality is much more complicated. USB isn't a standard that is built for audio - it is built for data and as a result, other than master clock control, it has many issues - primarily amongst those is the lack of isolation. If there is noise/EMI on USB, they will land up at the DAC output. This can be measured very easily especially if the digital section of a DAC is not galvanically isolated from the analog section. Many streamers offer isolated aka transformer coupled outputs that help keep the noise out but this isn't true for cheap streamers and is especially not true for a raspberry pi in its stock form.

Even with a DAC that is fully isolated (T+A DAC 200), I still hear improvements with an isolated network output. Streaming audio takes a lot of work to sound right.

reignofchaos said:

All this is fine and dandy on paper. Unfortunately reality is much more complicated. USB isn't a standard that is built for audio - it is built for data and as a result, other than master clock control, it has many issues - primarily amongst those is the lack of isolation. If there is noise/EMI on USB, they will land up at the DAC output. This can be measured very easily especially if the digital section of a DAC is not galvanically isolated from the analog section. Many streamers offer isolated aka transformer coupled outputs that help keep the noise out but this isn't true for cheap streamers and is especially not true for a raspberry pi in its stock form.

Click to expand...

If you have a dac that cannot isolate noise/EMI on the USB then you have a badly designed dac regardless of its cost. BTW RPI even in it's stock form doesn't have more noise than a macbook.

Bitperfect playback from a reasonable quality computer, using an asynchronous interface, and through a reputable DAC would result in the same sonic output irrespective of claims I've heard otherwise. I have found no need for special power supplies, fancy cables, or specialty devices for example to clean up the USB signal. In my mind "reasonable" just means a device that's known to be reliable and has a good reputation, rather than something that needs be endorsed by an audiophile guru. This is the most logical position to take intellectually given how digital devices work, based on objective results I've found, and subjectively I have no cause to testify otherwise. To put it bluntly... Yes, "bits are bits" using modern digital computer playback hooked up to a good asynchronous DAC!

Click to expand...

reignofchaos said:

Even with a DAC that is fully isolated (T+A DAC 200), I still hear improvements with an isolated network output. Streaming audio takes a lot of work to sound right.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't take a lot of work to sound right. If one hears a difference then one is either using a shielded ethernet cable that couples the power supply noise to the network or one hears things that are really not there. Streaming is not rocket science.

mbhangui said:

If you have a dac that cannot isolate noise/EMI on the USB then you have a badly designed dac regardless of its cost. BTW RPI even in it's stock form doesn't have more noise than a macbook.

MEASUREMENTS: Raspberry Pi 3 as USB Audio Streamer (with recommended CRAAP config & TIDAL/MQA arrives)

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

MUSINGS: Do "audiophile" computer-based players make a difference? On "Everything Matters" and wisdom.

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

No it doesn't take a lot of work to sound right. If one hears a difference then one is either using a shielded ethernet cable that couples the power supply noise to the network or one hears things that are really not there. Streaming is not rocket science.

Click to expand...

Well lets say from experience I beg to differ. I don't care what these links say.

Also here is something which has measurable USB noise

Similar to the dac scam you have these audiophile network switch - a similar kind of scam. A good example is the aqvox audiophile ethernet switch which goes with the description "AQVOX SWITCH SE audiophile high-end network LAN isolator". It is available online https://www.myhifishop.de/Geraete/A...hiler-High-End-Netzwerk-LAN-Isolator::87.html
This is a 800 Euro switch which is nothing but a $ 30 switch from dlink.

You can see how users found the aqvox switch to be brilliant and how it made the audio fantastic and probably the best thing invented on this planet after the wheel. The same kind of comments you get with snake oil products claiming to improve audio.

The subsequent discussion regarding the AQVOX switch post the discovery that it is just a $ 30 switch from dlink is here.

An interesting "Linus" video on the "Audio Quality Ethernet"

I’m not going to make much comment, but this tech youtuber examines the inside of an Audio Quality Switch. I bring this up because frankly unless you have a super noisy (electrically) environment or distances that exceed 100m then there is really no need for even optical networking with respect...

community.roonlabs.com

mbhangui said:

Similar to the dac scam you have these audiophile network switch - a similar kind of scam. A good example is the aqvox audiophile ethernet switch which goes with the description "AQVOX SWITCH SE audiophile high-end network LAN isolator". It is available online https://www.myhifishop.de/Geraete/A...hiler-High-End-Netzwerk-LAN-Isolator::87.html
This is a 800 Euro switch which is nothing but a $ 30 switch from dlink.

You can see how users found the aqvox switch to be brilliant and how it made the audio fantastic and probably the best thing invented on this planet after the wheel. The same kind of comments you get with snake oil products claiming to improve audio.

The subsequent discussion regarding the AQVOX switch post the discovery that it is just a $ 30 switch from dlink is here.

An interesting "Linus" video on the "Audio Quality Ethernet"

Sometimes, the difference is subtle (like the difference between the two Netgear switches). But in this case, the difference was a sensitive one, and it was obvious. Anyway, this test does not mean that the sound improvement forcefully resulted from a better performance of EtherRegen. It’s...

community.roonlabs.com

Click to expand...

I think there was a thread here on network switches with opinions on how they impacted sound. Can’t recall if it led to a definite opinion/decision/conclusion (for me). I don’t know if Aqvox was discussed.

Analogous said:

I think there was a thread here on network switches with opinions on how they impacted sound. Can’t recall if it led to a definite opinion/decision/conclusion (for me). I don’t know if Aqvox was discussed.

Click to expand...

The switch ports are galvanically isolated. You don't require special switch and special power supply for the switch. But you can screw it up by using high quality shielded cat6 and greater cables. Once you insert a shielded ethernet cable with the thought that shield is good, you have introduced the noise produced by the noisy switch into your network, into your streamer and the dac that you have connected to the streamer. Then the only solution is to have an audiophile ethernet switch with very good power supply. In such a situation you will definitely get improvement. So the lesson here is DON"T USE SHIELDED ETHERNET CABLES and screw up the galvanic isolation that each switch port provides. Just remember that the switch ports are galvanically isolated using transfomers and that makes your streamer immune to the noisy switch environment. But as soon as you connect (even a single shielded ethernet cable), your galvanic protection is gone. Here is what is inside each ethernet port. These tiny isolation transformers inside isolate your equipment from the noisy atmosphere produced by the switch and the SMPS that powers the switch.



More discussion on a similar topic here. Look at @captainsubtext post.

So the question arises. Where and when do you use shielded ethernet cables?

Shielded Ethernet cables are used in environments with high levels of electromagnetic interference (EMI) or electrostatic discharge (ESD), such as data centers, manufacturing plants, and industrial settings, to ensure reliable and secure data transfer.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Why Shielded Cables?
  
  • Shielded Ethernet cables (STP or S/FTP) have an outer layer of shielding (foil or braid) that protects against EMI and RFI (radio frequency interference).
    
    
  • This shielding helps maintain signal integrity, preventing data corruption and ensuring reliable network performance in noisy environments.
    
  • Industrial Environments: Manufacturing plants, factories, and other industrial settings often have machinery and equipment that generate significant EMI.
    
    
  • Data Centers: High-speed networks and critical infrastructure in data centers require the reliability and performance that shielded cables can provide.
    
    
  • Telecommunications Networks: Shielded cables are used in telecommunications networks to safeguard against interference from other signals and electronic devices.
    
    
  • Outdoor Installations: Outdoor aerial installations are prone to ESD (electrostatic discharge) risks, making shielded cables a necessity.
    
    
  • Longer Cable Runs: Shielded cables are beneficial in environments with heavy machinery or multiple electronic devices, as they can help maintain signal integrity over longer distances.

Types of Shielded Ethernet Cables:

• STP (Shielded Twisted Pair): Has an overall generic shield, which can be a foil or a braid.
  
  
• S/STP (Shielded/Shielded Twisted Pair): Has a shield for each pair and an overall outer shield.

Proper Grounding:

• It's crucial to properly bond and ground the cable shields to ensure the shielding is effective.
  
  
• Bonding and grounding can help mitigate ESD risks and prevent ground loops.

Let's make it as simple as possible. Here are two badly recorded videos - one direct via usb of my roon server


This is via the my SOTM transport


Please use headphones. Hear a difference?