i don't know, what i don't know.
it's not about 'good enough', or not 'needing to change'. my head is not in the sand. but i'll never be one of those who is trying to understand the little steps of digital network evolution. i will, OTOH, wet my finger, raise it, and see whether the breeze of change is strong enough to act.
these network changes are so easy and cheap....almost relatively free. if it's a clear step......once a year i will act. i do want better when i can get it.
i've invested in the best possible foundation for my digital, it deserves to be kept optimal.
Really well said. Often we are unaware of "noise" that's present until something comes along later that strips that noise away.
Per Webster's, noise can be defined as "any sound that is undesired" or "an unwanted signal or a disturbance in an electronic device". It seems to me that Steve W has been talking about the former as he keeps coming to back saying that he hasn't noticed anything amiss. Improving our networks is aimed more at addressing the latter though. The goal is to remove unwanted signals or disturbances our network passes onto our gear that can degrade audio performance. We tend not to know how much harm is being done until something comes along that attenuates or eliminates the unwanted signal or disturbance.
I really don't understand the logic in investing mega bucks on a server and then slightly hindering it by not taking steps to address signals or disturbances that could be passed to it via the network - especially when "these network changes are so easy and cheap".
Last edited: