Best audiophile switch

[Republicoftexas69]

Whether they're cheap or pricey, while optical connections can have some benefits, the power consumption of a single SFP module (and we need two!) can actually equal or even exceed that of the switch itself. Media converters, by converting electrical signals to optical and back, add some extra processing, which not only increases power consumption but also raises the system’s noise floor. This extra power draw can lead to more noise in the system.

If you choose RJ45 connections instead, you start with a lower noise floor, and Ethernet cables can add a bit of 'smoothing' or for some create a more 'realistic' sound compared to optical. This can make the sound more enjoyable and soften any harsh edges. Of course, it's a matter of preference. Both choices require careful setup, though

Whether they're cheap or pricey, while optical connections can have some benefits, the power consumption of a single SFP module (and we need two!) can actually equal or even exceed that of the switch itself. Media converters, by converting electrical signals to optical and back, add some extra processing, which not only increases power consumption but also raises the system’s noise floor. This extra power draw can lead to more noise in the system.

If you choose RJ45 connections instead, you start with a lower noise floor, and Ethernet cables can add a bit of 'smoothing' or for some create a more 'realistic' sound compared to optical. This can make the sound more enjoyable and soften any harsh edges. Of course, it's a matter of preference. Both choices require careful setup, though.

Okay. not changing.

 

[audiobomber]

Whether they're cheap or pricey, while optical connections can have some benefits, the power consumption of a single SFP module (and we need two!) can actually equal or even exceed that of the switch itself. Media converters, by converting electrical signals to optical and back, add some extra processing, which not only increases power consumption but also raises the system’s noise floor. This extra power draw can lead to more noise in the system.

You don't mention the benefits of fiber optics:
- Complete galvanic isolation. The tiny transformers in every RJ45 port provide partial galvanic isolation, but cannot block high-source-impedance AC leakage.
- Immunity from RFI and EMI that a copper cable inevitably absorbs. I have a 50 ft. run from my network gear to my main audio system. No ethernet cable will compete over that length.

The low level of digital noise from a top quality FMC/SFP conversion will be further reduced by downstream processing in a server, streamer and/or switch.

If you choose RJ45 connections instead, you start with a lower noise floor, and Ethernet cables can add a bit of 'smoothing' or for some create a more 'realistic' sound compared to optical. This can make the sound more enjoyable and soften any harsh edges. Of course, it's a matter of preference. Both choices require careful setup, though.

I have experienced what you are talking about, with ethernet cables at all levels of cost. It is colouration, and it is present with every ethernet cable. You can find an ethernet cable that is coloured to your liking, and this colouration can be highly useful in flavouring the sound of your system. But every network audio system will benefit from the complete break from EMI/RFI and ground plane noise provided by fiber optic conversion, somewhere in the chain. I own four pairs of SFPs at various levels, from most basic to top quality. They clearly differ in performance, but none sound coloured.

 

[billeames]

Ansuz D2 is the best of the bunch! I have had quite a few Powerswitches and tried almost all of them except the new 22000 euro D-TC GOLD Signature!
On the top of the podium is the D2 (which I use in my double switch system) together with the current Telegartner M12 Premium which is the best switch I have ever tried

This is Bill Eames, I'm new to switches and streaming. I have a DCS Bartok streamer/dac. CD sound quite a bit better through my Esoteric K01X clocked cable, transparent reference.

I'm hoping to close the gap, but I don't understand how to use the tele Gardner M2 premium. I have mail ethernet cables. I don't know how that works with the teleGardner. M12 premium. I wonder if adapter cables come with it. I can always ask the seller.

I'm thinking about the English Electric switch eight, and network acousticsTempus.

 

[Lee]

I have been doing extensive listening to the new UEF switch from Synergistic. It's really, really good. I would definitely recommend including it on the short list.

I am hearing a very low noise floor, great dynamics, loads of resolution, and a wide soundstage.

 

[TonyW]

I have been doing extensive listening to the new UEF switch from Synergistic. It's really, really good. I would definitely recommend including it on the short list.

I am hearing a very low noise floor, great dynamics, loads of resolution, and a wide soundstage.

How did you get a hold of their new one? I’ve been waiting two months almost.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I have been doing extensive listening to the new UEF switch from Synergistic. It's really, really good. I would definitely recommend including it on the short list.

I am hearing a very low noise floor, great dynamics, loads of resolution, and a wide soundstage.

What are your sonic impressions on direct comparison between this new switch and your incumbent switch?

 

[Lee]

How did you get a hold of their new one? I’ve been waiting two months almost.

Andy at the factory sent it to me to do the first review. It's literally the very first one.

 

[Lee]

What are your sonic impressions on direct comparison between this new switch and your incumbent switch?

I am hearing more detail and a wider soundstage. Need more A/B time but it seems to have a lower noise floor.

 

[gionaz]

I'm hoping to close the gap, but I don't understand how to use the tele Gardner M2 premium. I have mail ethernet cables. I don't know how that works with the teleGardner. M12 premium. I wonder if adapter cables come with it. I can always ask the seller.

the M12 Premium switch comes with two cables with M12 and RJ45 connections, you don't have to worry about anything, you have everything you need to connect it to a network device input and output...

 

[Synaxis]

the M12 Premium switch comes with two cables with M12 and RJ45 connections, you don't have to worry about anything, you have everything you need to connect it to a network device input and output...

Correct.

I had the M12 Premium. It comes with everything you need to just plug in and play.

Note I improved the sound by 1) plugging it into my Puritan power filter and 2) putting the switch on a vibtriaon control platform.

 

[Di-fi]

But every network audio system will benefit from the complete break from EMI/RFI and ground plane noise provided by fiber optic conversion, somewhere in the chain. I own four pairs of SFPs at various levels, from most basic to top quality. They clearly differ in performance, but none sound coloured.

What does the ideal audiophile switch look like when considering the entire network chain from ISP to DAC? Where are the switches with both SFP cages and RJ45 ports? For you, it seems the best audiophile switch includes fiber input—perhaps because your setup has a higher-than-average level of noise to deal with in the first place? Almost impossible to compare of course, but just a thought.

At the end of the day, though, most systems still rely on an Ethernet cable between the switch and the streamer or DAC, which brings in noise—EMI/RFI, ground plane noise—into the streamer. Unless your streamer directly accepts fiber, in which case, why not bypass the last switch entirely?

Take the Sonore Signature Rendu SE with optical input, for example. Users comparing cable types often find that a copper DAC cable—while possibly bringing in some EMI/RFI and ground plane noise—may still be preferred over the fiber optic connection, because it eliminates two SFPs (related noise) but doesn’t benefit from the complete break provided by optical isolation.

digital noise from a top quality FMC/SFP conversion will be further reduced by downstream processing in a server, streamer and/or switch.

Whether the remaining noise comes from optical conversion or another source, its reduction follows the same principles. A well-designed switch should block noise, but it can also introduce new noise through the subsequent Ethernet connection.

 

[audiobomber]

What does the ideal audiophile switch look like when considering the entire network chain from ISP to DAC? Where are the switches with both SFP cages and RJ45 ports?

“Ideal” is a personal judgment call, but surely you realize there are a number of audiophile switches with both SFP and RJ45 ports, from UpTone Audio, Matrix Audio, Melco, LHY, AfterDark, SOtM, etc. Or simply add an outboard FMC to any switch.

For you, it seems the best audiophile switch includes fiber input—perhaps because your setup has a higher-than-average level of noise to deal with in the first place?

I don’t claim that only switches with SFP ports are worthwhile. I do claim that a well-implemented optical break will be beneficial.

My network is more extensive than some, because I run four separate audio systems. IME, ancillaries connected to my switches do not affect sound quality. OTOH, any change (LAN cable, switch, PSU) in the direct chain is immediately noticeable.

Almost impossible to compare of course, but just a thought.

Not impossible to compare at all. I compared 50 feet of Audio Sensibility Supra+ ethernet cable (cryogenically treated Supra CAT8 with Telegartner connectors), with and without LAN Isolator, to a basic TP-Link MC220L and smf with Finisar 1318 modules. Costs were very similar. Both setups were plugged into my EtherRegen. Tonality, microdetail and soundstage improved with glass fiber. I have since made major improvements to my fiber system.

At the end of the day, though, most systems still rely on an Ethernet cable between the switch and the streamer or DAC, which brings in noise—EMI/RFI, ground plane noise—into the streamer. Unless your streamer directly accepts fiber, in which case, why not bypass the last switch entirely?

Most everyone agrees that the final LAN cable is critical. I’ve tried many to find the one I liked best. Every system needs at least one switch.

Take the Sonore Signature Rendu SE with optical input, for example. Users comparing cable types often find that a copper DAC cable—while possibly bringing in some EMI/RFI and ground plane noise—may still be preferred over the fiber optic connection, because it eliminates two SFPs (related noise) but doesn’t benefit from the complete break provided by optical isolation.

I don’t know what kind of fiber systems the people who prefer copper are using. It matters, a lot. Of course the LAN cable matters too. Copper is an easy way to flavour your sound.

Whether the remaining noise comes from optical conversion or another source, its reduction follows the same principles. A well-designed switch should block noise, but it can also introduce new noise through the subsequent Ethernet connection.

That’s the job for the streamer and DAC, to condition the incoming feed from the network.

 

[Synaxis]

I don’t know what kind of fiber systems the people who prefer copper are using. It matters, a lot. Of course the LAN cable matters too. Copper is an easy way to flavour your sound.

Hi - I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with your points.

And I don't pretend to claim copper or fiber is superior to one or the other.

I will only say if people think that fiber doesn't "color" the sound, and is absolutely neutral, and that the electronics in the fiber boxes don't still impart their own flavor on the sound (albeit different than copper), I would argue that is not the case.

I personally don't think (I'm not an engineer not do I pretend to be one) that it's possible for music to go through ANY gear and to be able to declare one way is flavored and one is not.

To me (again, just my own non-argumentative opinion) it's ALL flavored - just in different ways that different people perceive to be better or worse. Going through electronics is going through electronics.

 

[Di-fi]

That’s the job for the streamer and DAC, to condition the incoming feed from the network

but unfortunately, some noise still makes its way through, becoming embedded in the conditioned signal along with the distinct character of copper or fiber.

The low level of digital noise from a top quality FMC/SFP conversion will be further reduced by downstream processing in a server, streamer and/or switch.

I agree that a high-quality FMC/SFP conversion can help lower digital noise, but downstream processing in a server, streamer, or switch doesn’t always further reduce that noise. In many cases, these components introduce their own noise or alter the signal in ways that may not be purely beneficial. The effectiveness of noise reduction depends on the specific implementation and system synergy.

Almost impossible to compare of course, but just a thought.

Not impossible to compare at all.

Sorry, I meant the relative audible differences between different setups.

 

[ssfas]

What does the ideal audiophile switch look like when considering the entire network chain from ISP to DAC? Where are the switches with both SFP cages and RJ45 ports? For you, it seems the best audiophile switch includes fiber input—perhaps because your setup has a higher-than-average level of noise to deal with in the first place? Almost impossible to compare of course, but just a thought.

At the end of the day, though, most systems still rely on an Ethernet cable between the switch and the streamer or DAC, which brings in noise—EMI/RFI, ground plane noise—into the streamer. Unless your streamer directly accepts fiber, in which case, why not bypass the last switch entirely?

Take the Sonore Signature Rendu SE with optical input, for example. Users comparing cable types often find that a copper DAC cable—while possibly bringing in some EMI/RFI and ground plane noise—may still be preferred over the fiber optic connection, because it eliminates two SFPs (related noise) but doesn’t benefit from the complete break provided by optical isolation.


Whether the remaining noise comes from optical conversion or another source, its reduction follows the same principles. A well-designed switch should block noise, but it can also introduce new noise through the subsequent Ethernet connection.

My central switch has SFP sockets and there is a 25m long fibre optic cable to the hifi. It has a SC connector at the hifi end, so can plug in to a TP-link MC200CM FMC without needing a transceiver. The FMC is powered by a 9v battery.

I also have a 30m CAT6a running parallel from the same with. I use that cable for an access point, kept plenty far away from the hifi.

I've used the CAT6a direct into the streamer rather than the F/O - FMC and it makes no difference. It's just more practical to use the CAT 6a for the access point.

Either way, I don't use a switch anywhere near the stereo. I had the good sense to bury a cable conduit box in the wall behind the audio that goes to the floor above and to the network cupboard, and there aren't many mains cables nearby.

 

[audiobomber]

I will only say if people think that fiber doesn't "color" the sound, and is absolutely neutral, and that the electronics in the fiber boxes don't still impart their own flavor on the sound (albeit different than copper), I would argue that is not the case.

Here's what I said: "I own four pairs of SFPs at various levels, from most basic to top quality. They clearly differ in performance, but none sound coloured." In other words. the SFPs are relatively neutral, when used in the same switch. If you want to hear coloured, compare a Sablon 2020 (chocolaty) with a Melco C100 (very bright).

 

[kennyb123]

Here's what I said: "I own four pairs of SFPs at various levels, from most basic to top quality. They clearly differ in performance, but none sound coloured." In other words. the SFPs are relatively neutral, when used in the same switch. If you want to hear coloured, compare a Sablon 2020 (chocolaty) with a Melco C100 (very bright).

Your disagreement may be due to semantics. I agree with @Synaxis that fiber can still impart a flavor on the sound. When the music is robbed of color that is still a coloration from my perspective. When the highs are made to sound harsh and unnatural, that is also a coloration from my perspective.

I'm not sure though how meaningful the term "performance" is when describing sound quality. I'm not sure what you are even meaning to convey with this.

I tend to look at hardware more from the perspective of how well it gets out of the way of the music. The fiber optimizations that I had implemented a while back achieved that far better any copper that I had tried up to that point. A copper cable that I tried not too long (QSA Lanedri Gamma Infinity) proved to be significantly better at getting out of the way of the music than my fiber.

 

[JiminGa]

Your disagreement may be due to semantics. I agree with @Synaxis that fiber can still impart a flavor on the sound. When the music is robbed of color that is still a coloration from my perspective. When the highs are made to sound harsh and unnatural, that is also a coloration from my perspective.

I'm not sure though how meaningful the term "performance" is when describing sound quality. I'm not sure what you are even meaning to convey with this.

I tend to look at hardware more from the perspective of how well it gets out of the way of the music. The fiber optimizations that I had implemented a while back achieved that far better any copper that I had tried up to that point. A copper cable that I tried not too long (QSA Lanedri Gamma Infinity) proved to be significantly better at getting out of the way of the music than my fiber.

Fly Eagles Fly!

 

[Di-fi]

Your disagreement may be due to semantics. I agree with @Synaxis that fiber can still impart a flavor on the sound. When the music is robbed of color that is still a coloration from my perspective. When the highs are made to sound harsh and unnatural, that is also a coloration from my perspective.

I'm not sure though how meaningful the term "performance" is when describing sound quality. I'm not sure what you are even meaning to convey with this.

I tend to look at hardware more from the perspective of how well it gets out of the way of the music. The fiber optimizations that I had implemented a while back achieved that far better any copper that I had tried up to that point. A copper cable that I tried not too long (QSA Lanedri Gamma Infinity) proved to be significantly better at getting out of the way of the music than my fiber.

I see where you're coming from and I don’t want to get caught up in semantics, but to be honest, 'gets out of the way of the music' isn’t entirely clear. How colorless can music be? How can we ever know if we’ve truly heard it that way?

Your phrasing suggests 'removing elements' from the conditioned signal to get back to the original sound quality (by adding a QSA Ethernet cable), while others here may see it as adding something to get closer to the desired outcome—perhaps achieving 'transparency' or 'neutrality' (if that's the goal). Ultimately, we're discussing the best switch—one that alters noise in a way we appreciate, much like the DAC, streamer, and cables we use.

That said, this thread is about audiophile switches, and we seem to agree that a switch can’t be judged in isolation—no audio device can. The key is understanding how it interacts with cables, power, and connected gear. In my case, up to the router, but that’s also dependent on setup and environment, which we haven’t even touched on here. Rather than chasing a single ‘best’ switch, I appreciate how different setups shape the sound and which combinations work best. Keep the insights coming.

 

[Synaxis]

to get back to the original sound quality .....

I think this is a phrase that is often used to the detriment of enjoying music.

I have a really good friend in England you was involved with the recording of some of the biggest artists in the world. And as he's told me often, this sentence is kinda just. well, bunk.

The artists usually has no control over where mics are set up.

The artists usually has no control over the final sound of the record.

The artists and almost everyone involved was usually high as a kite.

Unless you use the same room acoustics, on the same speakers, you will never hear "what they heard".

By the time you play the music on the medium of your choice, it is altered ever further.

Many of the artists don't care about overall fidelity of the recording.

So knowing all this, WHY would I care to try and "recreate" this instead of simply assembling a system that sounds good to ME. The "artist" isn't in my room and if they made a crappy recording, I don't want to listen to a crappy recording and suffer through it to be able to say "yeah, but that's how the drunk, high, artist who had very little control over the recording wanted me to listen to it".

Although I know you don't mean it that way, I find that hollow pursuit of what we think the "artist wanted us to hear" to be pretty presumptions and a mental exercise rooted in pursuing everything but enjoyable sound.

Again, this is NOT aimed at you, but the use of that statement as I see on the forums.

I don't know the artist. I don't care to know the artist. I don't owe anything to the artist to listen a certain way. I only care to assemble a system that sounds good. The pursuit of "how it was meant to sound from the artist" is a philosophical pursuit by people who want to argue about words and not listen to music (IMO).