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

[NigelB]

The argument that a group listening test might not reveal significant differences assumes that all listeners have the same sensitivity to subtle changes. However, audiophile-grade equipment often reveals nuances that may not be immediately apparent in quick A/B testing. Controlled long-term listening in familiar environments may be necessary to discern potential benefits.

Agreed.

Allow me to call yours a pragmatic yet somewhat limited view of the role of network separation in audio setups. Besides, not all streamers and DACs handle network noise equally. Some designs are more susceptible than others, making the effectiveness of different network isolation strategies system-dependent.

I like pragmatic and disagree with limited, but I would, wouldn't I!

My assumption is that anyone exploring audiophile routers will already have experimented within various switches and filters and landed on the unit or combination which makes most difference in their system. A really good switch will kill so much of the noise reaching it that the sensitivity of the DAC to noise is verging on irrelevant; if the switch or an equivalently high performance optical break or filter) was not there, I'd agree with you 100%.

While your skepticism toward "audiophile routers" as a category is understandable, there remains room to explore network architecture optimizations beyond a single high-quality filter. For example dedicated fiber-based isolation, advanced grounding techniques, advanced clocking and optimized network components may and have already shown real improvements in certain setups.

Agreed re fiber-based, grounding, etc. Disagreed re clocking if by "advanced" you mean high accuracy, agreed if you mean low RFI noise.
My skepticism fades away if the enquirer has already sorted their network optimally in noise reduction terms, as for example you and @luca.pelliccioli appear to have made an excellent job of. But if people start looking at audiophile routers at the other end of the playback chain before they have sorted the sharp end just before the streamer, It is difficult to resist pointing out the comparatively small improvement they might perceive vs spending that same money at the sharp end. And this is because I know, as you do, how networks work.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of network separation is system-dependent, and each audiophile must weigh potential improvements against the cost and complexity of implementation.

Agreed!

All the best,
Nigel

 

[agisthos]

But if people start looking at audiophile routers at the other end of the playback chain before they have sorted the sharp end just before the streamer, It is difficult to resist pointing out the comparatively small improvement they might perceive vs spending that same money at the sharp end. And this is because I know, as you do, how networks work.

This is completely true. I started playing with router upgrades first, simply because it was convenient at the time. But I knew that upstream would be more beneficial, how much so I did not know.
When I finally got an audiophile grade switch I experienced how much a jump it was compared to anything I was doing on the router side.

As Nigel says sort your router out only when you have the sharp end sorted out first.

 

[Di-fi]

Agreed.

I like pragmatic and disagree with limited, but I would, wouldn't I!

My assumption is that anyone exploring audiophile routers will already have experimented within various switches and filters and landed on the unit or combination which makes most difference in their system. A really good switch will kill so much of the noise reaching it that the sensitivity of the DAC to noise is verging on irrelevant; if the switch or an equivalently high performance optical break or filter) was not there, I'd agree with you 100%.

Agreed re fiber-based, grounding, etc. Disagreed re clocking if by "advanced" you mean high accuracy, agreed if you mean low RFI noise.
My skepticism fades away if the enquirer has already sorted their network optimally in noise reduction terms, as for example you and @luca.pelliccioli appear to have made an excellent job of. But if people start looking at audiophile routers at the other end of the playback chain before they have sorted the sharp end just before the streamer, It is difficult to resist pointing out the comparatively small improvement they might perceive vs spending that same money at the sharp end. And this is because I know, as you do, how networks work.

Agreed!

All the best,
Nigel

Nigel, we are working toward the same goal—reducing network noise for better audio—but with very different cost levels.

Your approach with filters or two-port switches, combined with high-end power supplies and Ethernet cables, is undoubtedly effective, but you haven’t shed much light on why or how these work so well. That said, I appreciate how here at WBF, you actively try to propose network solutions for specific user cases, which is valuable. My approach aims to achieve strong results at a more reasonable budget by optimizing both the router and multiport switch together. At the end of the day, it’s about balancing performance with cost.

Your presence here (and The Best Audiophile Switch thread) as a manufacturer is much appreciated. It would be wonderful to have valuable feedback from other manufacturers as well.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[NigelB]

Nigel, we are working toward the same goal—reducing network noise for better audio—but with very different cost levels.

Your approach with filters or two-port switches, combined with high-end power supplies and Ethernet cables, is undoubtedly effective, but you haven’t shed much light on why or how these work so well. That said, I appreciate how here at WBF, you actively try to propose network solutions for specific user cases, which is valuable. My approach aims to achieve strong results at a more reasonable budget by optimizing both the router and multiport switch together. At the end of the day, it’s about balancing performance with cost.

Your presence here (and The Best Audiophile Switch thread) as a manufacturer is much appreciated. It would be wonderful to have valuable feedback from other manufacturers as well.

Cheers,
Paul

Cheers to you too Paul. I’ve tried to explain my own approach with blog articles etc on my website and there’s only so far I can go in threads like this without turning my posts into adverts which I really really really try so hard to avoid. The principles I argue for apply beyond any specific products I hope.

The primary role of all these deliberations and design considerations is to minimise the amount of radiated and conducted RFI reaching the analog(ue) output side of our DAC, where it does its sonic mischief across all frequencies through intermodulation distortion.

Wherever in the networked audio chain a device is, we seek to:
1) minimise the amount of incoming conducted (on the input cable) RFI which accompanies the signal on the ougoing cable
2) minimise the amount of radiated RFI which can get into/through our device case to be conducted onwards
3) minimise the amount of noise the device itself generates in the process of doing its good work, whether conducted or radiated.

Different manufacturers and different audiophiles might choose to focus their attention on any or all of these of course. Whatever, it is because we audiophiles seek to most effectively deal with the accumulated (radiated and conducted) RFI at any point in the chain, to the ultimate benefit at the DAC, that intervention X later in the chain almost universally has more impact than the same intervention X further upstream.

Best,
Nigel