What are Contenders for Top Audiophile Routers? Routers more Impactful than Switches?

[NigelB]

Since dedicated audio routers are rare and given how routers function, an audio router should at a minimum :

+ Create an isolated audio network: Set up a second network dedicated to audio, keeping your streamer separate from general home traffic. Configuring an exclusive port for this ensures better isolation.

+ Reduce unnecessary network traffic: Unlike a switch, which can control traffic to specific MAC addresses, a router can actively minimize overall network noise.

+ Limit automatic adjustments: Routers prioritize the best connection for all devices, often increasing transmission power and noise. Disabling unnecessary optimizations helps maintain a cleaner signal.

+ Be well-shielded: LEDs, unused RJ45 ports, and poor shielding introduce noise. A properly shielded router minimizes interference.

+ Avoid vibration issues: Like other sensitive audio equipment, routers react negatively to vibrations, so proper placement matters.

+ Manage Wi-Fi wisely: A dedicated Wi-Fi access point in the router should allow only one control device to connect, reducing wireless noise. Antennas should be large enough to avoid excessive power boosting.

+ Address indirect noise sources: While Wi-Fi itself doesn’t interfere with the music signal’s frequency, to make Wi-Fi happen, ground plane noise, PSU noise, and RFI do—so proper design and power management are key.

Again, not an exhaustive list, but these are some key areas where an audio-focused router can make a difference.

That's a great list in general networked audio terms, but I'm afraid dedicated audiophile routers are rare for a reason: for the vast majority of us, they're a solution looking for a problem, a problem which can far more effectively be solved later in the networked audo chain. When it comes to networked audio, "source first" would be the worst way of investing one's hard-earned funds as there are too many ways for conducted and radiated RFI noise (including from the huge range of non-audio devices we all have in our homes) to do its mischief along the chain from router to streamer.

You can create an isolated audio network by simply hanging a high quality switch off your existing router and treating this as the start of your audio network. This will provide all the (noise) separation an audiophile seeks. Then focus on the last metre or so before the streamer and do everything you can to all the radiated and ci=onducted network noise accumulated to that point.

While I agree with your point about shielding, LEDs etc and about the potential issues arising from wifi, I'd suggest if anyone is considering installing an audiophile router then they should subject it to the same rigorous evaluation process they would any other piece of audio equipment and listen before the buy. I'd wager that for most networks feeding most systems in most listening rooms, the same money invested at the other end of the network chain would deliver far more clearly audible improvements in sound quality.

 

[Di-fi]

You can create an isolated audio network by simply hanging a high quality switch off your existing router and treating this as the start of your audio network.

I totally get your point, and I agree that any audio gear, including routers, should go through a thorough evaluation process before making a purchase. However, my view is that a well-designed router can complement the network setup in ways that go beyond just the switch. While a switch may handle most of the traffic, a router that’s specifically implemented with audio in mind can still provide unique benefits by reducing noise and improving overall signal integrity and also integrating audio only Wi-Fi.

That said, I agree that for many systems, focusing on the components at the end of the chain might yield more immediate and noticeable improvements. It’s always about finding the right balance and understanding what works best for your specific setup.

 

[Kingrex]

I heard a big difference when I separated the router from the modem. At my new house I put a Eero Mesh router in. I hear a small difference beteen my stores files and streamed files. I would say the exact same as when I used a high end gaming router. Nothing changes when I pull the ethernet cable.

I use 2 switches in series. The last is a linear Solution switch.

 

[Di-fi]

You can create an isolated audio network by simply hanging a high quality switch off your existing router and treating this as the start of your audio network. This will provide all the (noise) separation an audiophile seeks. Then focus on the last metre or so before the streamer and do everything you can to all the radiated and ci=onducted network noise accumulated to that point.

To help users compare different setups more clearly, I’d like to clarify what you write here. Based on the best solutions from the Reiki website, it sounds like you’re describing a setup where:

1) A post-router switch with a good LPS and high-quality Ethernet cable connects to...

2) A pre-streamer switch, also with a very good power supply, which then connects via the best Ethernet cable possible to the DAC/streamer.

I also noticed that the Reiki switch is a 2-port solution with only one input and one output (unlike the more common multiport switches and routers). I assume this design eliminates unnecessary packet handling and network congestion, providing a direct, streamlined signal path focused on clocking, noise isolation, and signal conditioning. It does all of that—and maybe even more—but it doesn’t actually switch. Then I’d personally call it an Ethernet filter, reclocker, or signal purifier.

Reiki’s best audio network topology involves:

1) A first Ethernet ‘filter’ with excellent power.

2) A second Ethernet ‘filter’ with better shielding and a similarly high-quality PSU.

Reiki’s post-router ‘filter’ seems to overlap somewhat with the audible benefits of a router tuned for audio, as discussed in this thread, so I thought it was worth considering for a clear comparison. That said, we both seem to agree on the importance of using a second device upstream—ensuring that a well-optimized router-to-switch path provides the switch with a cleaner, lower-noise data stream. Ultimately, two well-powered key devices—connected via copper or fiber—play a crucial role, with the pre-streamer switch being the most important for optimizing performance. While the pre-streamer switch does the heavy lifting for sound quality, optimizing what comes before it—now forming a dedicated audio-only network—allows the switch to perform at its best.

 

[NigelB]

To help users compare different setups more clearly, I’d like to clarify what you write here. Based on the best solutions from the Reiki website, it sounds like you’re describing a setup where:

1) A post-router switch with a good LPS and high-quality Ethernet cable connects to...

2) A pre-streamer switch, also with a very good power supply, which then connects via the best Ethernet cable possible to the DAC/streamer.

I also noticed that the Reiki switch is a 2-port solution with only one input and one output (unlike the more common multiport switches and routers). I assume this design eliminates unnecessary packet handling and network congestion, providing a direct, streamlined signal path focused on clocking, noise isolation, and signal conditioning. It does all of that—and maybe even more—but it doesn’t actually switch. Then I’d personally call it an Ethernet filter, reclocker, or signal purifier.

Reiki’s best audio network topology involves:

1) A first Ethernet ‘filter’ with excellent power.

2) A second Ethernet ‘filter’ with better shielding and a similarly high-quality PSU.

Reiki’s post-router ‘filter’ seems to overlap somewhat with the audible benefits of a router tuned for audio, as discussed in this thread, so I thought it was worth considering for a clear comparison. That said, we both seem to agree on the importance of using a second device upstream—ensuring that a well-optimized router-to-switch path provides the switch with a cleaner, lower-noise data stream. Ultimately, two well-powered key devices—connected via copper or fiber—play a crucial role, with the pre-streamer switch being the most important for optimizing performance. While the pre-streamer switch does the heavy lifting for sound quality, optimizing what comes before it—now forming a dedicated audio-only network—allows the switch to perform at its best.

This is a great clarification, thanks.

You're right about the 2-port topoology making it technically not a switch; the most appropriate alternative nomenclature in network terms would be a "relay" though this implies same in same out.. I hate it being described as a reclocker as that suggests there is something abour clock accuracy in the ethernet switch domain which can affect sound quality and I'm on record as stating/arguing that there isn't. I don't like it being called a filter as this puts it in the same bag as passive filters and most I've tried have taken away from what a (powered) switch does rather than added to it.

You're also right about the "overlap". Accumulated experience suggests the first (post-router) ethernet switch makes a substantial difference in only a subset of systems (and I guess these systems would be the same which would benefit from an audio-dedicated router). Whereas the second switch makes a difference in 100% of systems, for reasons which are hopefully obvious to anyone with sufficient interest to be reading this thread (!) and relate to accumulated RFI noise both conducted and radiated.

Best,
Nigel

 

[Macattack]

So tell me what else to do?

Fiber to panel outside house, copper to panel
Inside closet in entry way of home. Dedicated Copper to Asus router on first floor and second line to Asus router in audio room.

Audio room router 20’ Ethernet cable to Modded Buffalo GS2016 switch, 1 meter fiber to second Buffalo GS2016 switch, 1.0 meter WW Plat 10 Ethernet to Server. The ‘herd’ are both powered by a Keces P3 LPS and each ground to a Shunyata CGS box.

 

[NigelB]

So tell me what else to do?

Fiber to panel outside house, copper to panel
Inside closet in entry way of home. Dedicated Copper to Asus router on first floor and second line to Asus router in audio room.

Audio room router 20’ Ethernet cable to Modded Buffalo GS2016 switch, 1 meter fiber to second Buffalo GS2016 switch, 1.0 meter WW Plat 10 Ethernet to Server. The ‘herd’ are both powered by a Keces P3 LPS and each ground to a Shunyata CGS box.

Looks like a good combo of fiber and copper. If you have a multimeter, test the WW Platinum 1m for shield grounding. Flip the meter to ohms and rest one probe on each of the metal RJ45 plug cases.

If the display doesn't budge, you're good.

If it flickers, the measurement is irrelevant but it demonstrates that you have continuity of shield grounding from second switch to server which is not ideal.

If the latter, try a cheap stock and short (0.5m if you can get away with it, 1m if not) Cat6 UTP cable. See what happens to the sound. Every system has different amounts of radiated and conducted noise in it so it's hard to generalise but in many systems the Cat 6 will sound better as the noise stopped by the switch can't travel down the shield to reach the streamer. Some people have been pleasantly surprised by this test.

Hope this helps. Report back!

 

[Di-fi]

So tell me what else to do?

Fiber to panel outside house, copper to panel
Inside closet in entry way of home. Dedicated Copper to Asus router on first floor and second line to Asus router in audio room.

Audio room router 20’ Ethernet cable to Modded Buffalo GS2016 switch, 1 meter fiber to second Buffalo GS2016 switch, 1.0 meter WW Plat 10 Ethernet to Server. The ‘herd’ are both powered by a Keces P3 LPS and each ground to a Shunyata CGS box.

If you’re happy with your sound quality using two cascading switches, feel free to stay relaxed in that comfortable chair

Since this thread is about routers, perhaps you can adjust router settings to improve performance, as discussed here—e.g., avoid using other ports. You also seem to have two Asus (Wi-Fi?) routers in series, which isn’t entirely clear to me. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t recommend it.

For connecting the switches, I’d go with 20 ft fiber and 1m copper instead. If you’re looking to improve your current setup, consider trying a post-router switch leading to an audiophile pre-streamer switch—though I personally prefer one audio router and one audio switch. Power it with the Keces LPS (or your best PSU) and use the best DC cable for the last switch, keeping the grounding setup as is.

 

[PYP]

a no-cost "tweak" for an existing router: re-boot or power cycle on a regular basis. [also works for Roon updates: re-boot the streamer.]

If nothing else, you might find that your browser is more responsive.

 

[NigelB]

If you’re happy with your sound quality using two cascading switches, feel free to stay relaxed in that comfortable chair

Since this thread is about routers, perhaps you can adjust router settings to improve performance, as discussed here—e.g., avoid using other ports. You also seem to have two Asus (Wi-Fi?) routers in series, which isn’t entirely clear to me. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t recommend it.

For connecting the switches, I’d go with 20 ft fiber and 1m copper instead. If you’re looking to improve your current setup, consider trying a post-router switch leading to an audiophile pre-streamer switch—though I personally prefer one audio router and one audio switch. Power it with the Keces LPS (or your best PSU) and use the best DC cable for the last switch, keeping the grounding setup as is.

I understand the intention and applaud an appropriate separation of topics for ease of navigation for all, but the second part of the thread title "Routers more Impactful than Switches?" invites people to consider switches as part of the "exam question" so to speak...

 

[Macattack]

If you’re happy with your sound quality using two cascading switches, feel free to stay relaxed in that comfortable chair

Since this thread is about routers, perhaps you can adjust router settings to improve performance, as discussed here—e.g., avoid using other ports.

What settings should be changed?

(Thought this thread was about which is more impactful - routers or switches?)

You also seem to have two Asus (Wi-Fi?) routers in series, which isn’t entirely clear to me. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t recommend it.

Yes, the upstairs router is connected via in-wall ethernet. Why not?

I figure the fiber break of the two switches obviates the need to worry about the router.

For connecting the switches, I’d go with 20 ft fiber and 1m copper instead. If you’re looking to improve your current setup, consider trying a post-router switch leading to an audiophile pre-streamer switch—though I personally prefer one audio router and one audio switch. Power it with the Keces LPS (or your best PSU) and use the best DC cable for the last switch, keeping the grounding setup as is.

I have considered moving the first Buffalo to the Ethernet outlet / Router in my audio room and then using a 7 meter fiber to the next Buffalo - which is in one of my racks. I have an extra Keces to power it with.

 

[Di-fi]

What settings should be changed?

(Thought this thread was about which is more impactful - routers or switches?)

Sorry, I initially focused only on the first phrase. In my opinion, these are two completely different devices—while they share some functions, comparing them is like apples and oranges.

Regarding settings, I recommend checking Streamfidelity’s post on router settings to adjust. Reducing power wherever possible (e.g., Wi-Fi antennas, constant monitoring, and unnecessary functions) helps minimize noise. More processing means more noise. A well adjusted audiorouter should help reduce the processing in the switch.

 

[Di-fi]

Yes, the upstairs router is connected via in-wall ethernet. Why not?

To minimize noise, I’d simply go router → switch instead of router → router → switch.

 

[NigelB]

To minimize noise, I’d simply go router → switch instead of router → router → switch.

Agreed. Of course the switch needs to be (a) good quality/highly effective and (b) installed just - say 0.5-1m (1.5-3ft) before the streamer, not hanging off the router with a long cable from there to the hifi system.

I know you know this yourself of course, but you never know who might come across this discussion and I am continually surprised by the number of people who think they have tried a switch but, because of where in the network they put it, they really haven't.

In purely digital/ethernet terms these two setups are identical:
a) router>1m cable>switch>10m cable>streamer
b) router>10m cable>switch>1m cable>streamer
but in sound quality terms (b) will win hands down because of non-digital (noise) factors.

 

[audiobomber]

In purely digital/ethernet terms these two setups are identical:
a) router>1m cable>switch>10m cable>streamer
b) router>10m cable>switch>1m cable>streamer
but in sound quality terms (b) will win hands down because of non-digital (noise) factors.

I agree except both setups need a 10m fiber cable break.

 

[caesar]

Gentlemen, appreciate the replies! I have a couple of questions:

Realistically, in most cases, the audiophile router will be inserted after the router that is provided by the internet provider. how long of a cable should separate the 2 routers?

What are the sonic trade-offs of using fiber optic cables between routers and switches in one's setup?

thanks

 

[Marcin_gps]

XACT S1 or S1 EVO can replace the main router. Definitely sounds better than using a normal router even with optimizations and a high-end linear PSU.

 

[agisthos]

As long as you set static ip's that are on the same address range, you can run your system routerless if you are just playing local files, as Marcin says.

In fact years ago I ran a system switchless, having a highly modified Oppo as a pure digital streamer - directly connected to a qnap nas with a single cable. It sounded better than putting any switch in between at the time (10 years ago) as there were no switch advancements back then.

 

[Di-fi]

XACT S1 or S1 EVO can replace the main router. Definitely sounds better than using a normal router even with optimizations and a high-end linear PSU.

@Marcin_gps ,

As in → S1 router → S1 switch → streamer?

Or S1 router → streamer and no switch fonction?

Do I understand correctly that in both scenarios, and to obtain the highest sq (vs. ’sounds better’) the S1 router manages all network connections via five RJ-45 ports: one for audio, one for Wi-Fi, and three for home, NAS, or other devices?

In this case, there is no switching, eliminating all negative aspects of switching and noise, as only data routing occurs.

 

[NigelB]

I agree except both setups need a 10m fiber cable break.

Why? A complete optical break is a complete optical break unless I'm missing something, and I'm sure you'll gently enlighten me if so.