I’ll be comparing the SOtM sNH-10G directly with a consumer-grade switch – the ZyXEL GS-108B v2. Both switches will be powered by the Paul Hynes SR7 at 9V. I’m using a combination of SOtM dCBL-CAT7 and The Linear Solution Reference CAT7a ethernet cables with a SOTM iSO-CAT6 adapter.
I didn’t have The Linear Solution OCXO on hand but was able to compare it to the SOtM before sending it back. The SOtM sNH-10G is much better – but is more than double the cost of the OCXO. I did, however, enjoy the warmblooded tone of the OCXO more.
Aside from the last track on this list, they were all streamed via Tidal. The last track was played locally on the Innuos ZENith SE MK.2’s internal hard disk.
Although not the greatest of recordings, this live recording still gives a fantastic sense of stereo imaging and plenty of textural perspectives. Instruments, voices, and even cheers from the audience have their directionality and independent energies. The youthful talent of the Queen of Soul is realized beautifully in this piece.
In comparison to the SOtM sNH-10G, the ZyXEL GS-108B has a denser and borderline-dark sound. It’s also immediately flatter and softer. Everything (including the audience) is placed on the same focal plane – and the outlines aren’t super clear. The ZyXEL feels like sound bites being pieced together. It simply doesn’t have nearly the coherence and accurate sonic structure of the SOtM sNH-10G.
In addition, leading edges of the piano notes are obliterated on the ZyXEL. With the SOtM, you could clearly hear every single key press – including how long the note is held, associated decay, and tactility. “Controlled timing” is what comes to mind.
Whereas the ZyXEL does have a richer tone – that’s probably the only positive I could think of. Otherwise, it sounds very jumbled and confused. The SOtM trumps on dynamics, separation, and noise floor. It imparts a perspective in depth and clarity. It’s difficult not to be drawn in – especially midway through when the commotion of the crowd escalates. As the recording ends, you’re able to hear the powerful exertion and prowess in her voice.
The ZyXEL simply falls apart with this fast-paced recording. It just throws its hands up. Instrumentation lacks the tonal variations required for differentiation of timbre. Everything just sounds heavy. Cymbals are also muted in their shine.
Although quite punchy, it’s very broad with its articulation – it lacks precision. Once again, transients are completely nonexistent. It’s also difficult to isolate individual performers in this recording.
With so much going on, the SOtM remains composed. It is not only able to relay all the macro and micro dynamics of the recording, but it’s also able to do so with finesse. You could hear how quickly the cymbals vibrate and gain insight into Coltrane’s impeccable technique on brass. The drummer underpins rhythm whilst the gentle piano plays with presence and palpability. There’s plenty of musicality in the complexitites.
Although the previous track exemplifies what an audiophile-grade switch is capable of, this recording puts the nail in the coffin.
With the SOtM sNH-10G, there’s an immediate purity to the sound. Voices are warm, drums have slam, and cymbals sparkle. The superb tonal balance cannot be understated. The SOtM is able to pace out the rhythm with incredible texture and dynamics. You’re able to feel the acoustic build up, the steely pluck of guitars, and the taut precision of percussive play. Even the audience sounds amazingly present.
The ZyXEL is far less engaging. Everything seems to be glued together in a disoriented way. Voices and instruments sound more singular, synthetic, and diffused. There seems to be a cloudy overcast over the music. PRaT is also unnaturally mellow. Huge difference.
For kicks, I wanted to try a local file on the Innuos ZENith SE Mk.2 server. Which means, the music file doesn’t even touch the switch. Dr. Dre’s 2001 is one of the greatest hip-hop albums ever made. And I’ve probably heard this track a few thousand times.
“Crip walk if you down with the set.”
In the past, I wanted to determine which Ethernet cable sounded closest to a music file played locally. This is in hopes of finding a cable that’s most “pure.” Unfortunately, I’ve noticed changes to the sound of my local music files depending on which Ethernet cable was connected to the Innuos ZENith SE Mk.2 server.
Keeping the Ethernet cable the same, I wanted to know what the impact was on locally stored music with different Ethernet switches. Keep in mind I’m not talking about stored music from a NAS but a file that doesn’t traverse the network at all. In my case it’s a FLAC file played directly from the Innuos server out through USB.
SOtM sNH-10G
With the SOtM sNH-10G connected, the sound was cleaner, quieter, and better focused. Lyrics were more intelligible and you were able to hear deeper into the mix. Snoops and Dre’s voice had the right amount of aggression and flow.
ZyXEL GS-108B v2
The ZyXEL sounds warmer (which is nice) but heavier and more convoluted. It’s difficult to hear aural contrasts – it’s more like a blob of sound. Not a very subtle difference.
So even though the music isn’t streamed through the Ethernet switch and cables, it affects the sound of your music library stored locally. Your local files will sound different depending on what’s connected to your music server. As mentioned, this doesn’t only apply to the switch, but the Ethernet cable as well. Not much of a surprise I guess, considering how pervasive noise is in a system.
I’ll be posting a video demonstrating the differences. It’ll be in a blind test format. If you haven’t done so already, SUBSCRIBE!.
Since the switch is introducing noise into the system, what happens if I unplug the Ethernet cable from the Innuos server once some of the music is buffered in from Roon?
Totally impractical – but I was curious. Luckily playing a local file will still play through in Roon so I could test both. Testing streams was a bit more time-consuming.
Børresen is proud to launch the Børresen X1 stand-mounted loudspeaker. This two-way loudspeaker is the… Read More
Innuos has released the latest version of its operating system, innuOS 2.6, offering an improved… Read More
Four-way Aphrodite Designed for Best-in-Class Two- and Multi-channel Sound Reproduction MELVILLE, NY, January 24, 2024 – Alta… Read More
Cameron MacLeod wrote a nice piece on how Shazam actually works. I've been curious since… Read More
STERLING, VA, U.S.A. — YG Acoustics, one of the leading loudspeaker manufacturers in the high-end… Read More
In a deeply unfortunate incident, Coco's life was tragically cut short, leaving behind a legacy… Read More
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
Chris Conneker of Computer Audiophile concurs with your POV, as do many others.
There is an alternative to the wildly expensive SOtM switch.
Paul Pang offers two Audio Grade Switches. One @ $219.00 and the other at $1190.00
https://ppaproduct.blogspot.com/2015/07/audio-grade-switcher.html?m=1
Pang suggests that two of the $1190.00 switches takes fidelity to an even higher level.
A follow up review comparing the Pang modded switches to the SOtM and Cisco switches would be most welcome.
"MEASUREMENT MORONS"
Thank you!!!
You stated my my view to the letter, with 1 exception. I call them :"Flat Landers" rather than Measurement Morons.
As we know "Flat Landers" KNEW that the world was flat, in much the same way that audio naysayers KNOW that the things that they either can't afford or don't want to pay for cannot possibly change the sound.
We as humans are still the equivalent to infants in our knowledge.
Just because WE DON'T YET KNOW how to perform the appropriate measurements to satisfy the Measurement Morons, does not mean changes do not exist.
But here's what I do know any piece of equipment that doesn't have a signal to noise ratio of CD quality or better is a no go for me. Then start listening with Pet Sounds. More likely than not I'm done, the piece of equipment can't do it. By the time I get to my reference banjo and harmonica recordings I have eliminated nine out ten pieces of equipment.
And I can safely say a lot is known about what measurements are important.
A continuity tester is all I use for audio cables. The rest is in the listening.
I was wondering can this switch be deployed as a noise filter? due to circumstances I have to use a wireless bride to connect to my innuos so if I add the SOTM switch between my wireless bridge and the innuos, will it improve the sound quality?
Most definitely. I'm only saying that because I've tried using an ASUS bridge directly before. Sounds better with the SOtM.
What about going direct from router to Streamer/DAC without a switch?
You don’t buy such a switch because you need more ports, you do it because of its re-clocking and lower noise capacitors etc. Is it worth the price tag? -> you have to decide for yourself.
You, silly, silly human being. Thanks for the laughs!
Agreed. I have been in professional audio for 40 years, and this is easily the silliest article I’ve ever made the mistake of reading.
How can this be a audio switch, it doesn't even support IEEE802.1BA standard. Go lookup a Catalyst 9200, 3850, 9300 and get a real switch instead.
A rebranded cheap switch and call it audiophile doesn't make the product better, even if it costs 10 times more than normal.
Sorry, I really don't believe this review. And the speakers in the test are more like midrange too.
OK, you're probably a bachelor in engineering, but not in networks. :)
You obviously have a faulty music player. The fact that plugging a cable in can alter the sound of the player means that the players designers did a bad job of designing the EMI / RFI suppression system in the music player.
There is so much buffering going on in file playback that in a well designed system, only two factors are relevant, file integrity and sample clock performance. In a badly designed system, where shielding and interference suppression were disregarded, all sorts of things start to mess with the system.
My question is why you are barking up the wrong tree and kludging a "fix" that means paying snake-oil money to address a problem that should not exist in a well designed system.
You said it better than I could have, a well designed DAC should be immune to what is plugged into it. I suspect a lot of audiophile digital gear is indeed poorly engineered.
You guys obviously aren't audiophiles. Tell me...which DAC or music server/player is completely immune to noise? You wouldn't be able to point out a single damn product - because it doesn't exist. Even "well-designed" gear is susceptible. Also, the level of suppression matters and could adjust how one enjoys the sound. Which goes back to "If it measures well, it doesn't mean it'll sound good to everyone."
They all are susceptible, to a varying degree. Agreed. But the thing that matters is whether they will degrade their output as a result of it. "Audiophile" gear has a long history of not being designed to be robust and tolerant, interface-wise, probably because there are observable problems with constraining bandwidth in the analog domain. But this is digital data. If the bits that come in are identical to what is being sent from disk (and the CRC32 on the Ethernet frames pretty much guarantees that, together with the TCP checksumming and retransmission going on, for which we have buffering), the resulting waveform will not deviate as a function of the transfer.
In my experience, as a broadcast network engineer doing several orders of magnitude more complicated things than essentially copying a file over a short cable, (like transfering 100+ channels of real-time live sound 600km over dedicated networks and playing some of them back in surround, which of course requires path delay alignment in the microseconds range to be believable) the cable and the switch are negligable. As long as they perform to standard and lose no bits, and the switch supports the timing protocols. (This is of no concern to your test case, because you can buffer and will use your local sample clock oscillator steered to the values derived from metadata in the file. I am listening to my GPS-controlled OXCO putting IEEE1588-2008 packets on the wire, and using that as sample clock steering. Much harder. And measurable.)
Why am I going on about this? Because _everything_ is done to a budget. It simply does not make sense to start wandering off in these directions before the problems with the DAC are solved. Because, I'm 100% certain that that is where you'll find the root cause.
Paying large amounts of money for Ethernet gear simply does not make sense from a systems engineering point of view, not here, where no optics are involved, no distances are critical, and no bandwidths are even remotely constrained.
I'd start with getting a good oscillator for the DAC, one that is stable and has negligable jitter. Probably means that it needs to be an OXCO, i.e ovenized and separate. Or rubidium, steered by GPS, if you want long-term stability.
Oh, and don't forget, make sure you do not have ground loops running in the Ethernet cable screen. Potential equalization with short and low-impedance cables is very important; as is insensitivity to Pin 1 problems (Muncy, JAES, 1994).
This is /engineering/ -- it is not voodoo. It is treated as voodoo by people who earn large amounts of money from people who want to believe in it. But in the end, there are simple reasons why things work and not, especially so in digital transmission.
Put your money in record players and loudspeakers instead. That is where money makes a direct difference. The rest is simple. At least in comparison.
And compare double-blind. We have 100+ years of solid psychology research pointing to it being completely necessary to get anything remotely repeatably true out of subjective evaluation.
Thanks.
fantastic reply, Måns !!
Jay's response of "You guys obviously aren’t audiophiles." is the perfect red-flag for cult'ish, mob thinking over a quest for objective truth. In a time where lots of anti-science rhetoric is flying about, that and other monikers like "measurement morons" cast the audiophile community as a sort of voodoo religion.
For years, I've called myself an audiophile... I love music & I simply strive to re-create it to the best of my ability. That ability is a combination of budget, understanding & limits of my own perception. First, we need to acknowledge that this industry is FULL of snake-oil. Some is malicious, some is not... but where there's a buck to be made, you can guarantee somebody will be there waiting for a sucker. Nobody wants to be that sucker and most would never want to admit to it either.
Anyway, in the realm of analog hi-fi, I think there's still plenty of wiggle-room for some crazy-complex electrical interactions masquerading as some kind of witchcraft. From the DAC-forward, there's a complex system where each component up to & including the electromagnetic thing moving the air has it's own butterfly-effect on the net result.
I see lots of folks applying that same type of thinking to the even MORE complex digital system on the other side of the DAC... so many that really want to believe that the same principals apply to the packets, frames & serial-streams of binary data. And while it is a modulated signal that can have errors, those have been mitigated by the checksums, error-correcting protocols & buffers. Yes, if you're streaming audio via. UDP, it can contain glitches... but that's not how most of this media is streamed.... it's treated like files over a application-level protocol. Think about it... if you send a file from one computer to another over ethernet and it gets corrupted... something is very very wrong!!
Audiophile switches... *SMH* it's like somebody found a band of zealots out in the desert, desperately looking for a new god...
TCP checksumming? Make your homework!
Music- and Videostreaming does not use TCP/IP but UDP/IP and Google has even an own Protocol -> less overhead, but no checksumming or resending of lost packets. Therefore quality of components and cables matter even more or error correction has to fill the gaps, which will be audible when reaching a certain threshold. Digital is not fool proof, it can go wrong as well.
You are 100 % certain that his DAC is "bad". Have you measured his DAC or the same model ? Have you checked the manufacturer's website for specs ?
Maybe you should offer to replace the clock for him with a money back guarantee?
Otherwise why should he follow your guesses at his expense ?
I've worked in networking for 20 years, TCP-IP is a lossless protocol, if a packet gets corrupted, then it's re-sent... What switch you use has zero impact on the quality of your sound.
Following your theory,all content on the internet would suffer degradation every time is duplicated, and 90% of it would be corrupt - as as a "software developer" you should know that is crap, every file has a checksum, any corruption would be detected.
I'm not saying the packets have errors - they don't. Otherwise, it would be clearly audible. I'm saying the cable itself indeed changes the sound at the output due to how it modulates noise and interacts with the connected components.
That DAC does not exist.
Seth, You suspect without scientific proof ? WTH ?
Have to agree with you here. Although, with a tiny budget like his it is probable he might get bad results even if there were a decent component here and there in the signal chain. In my humble opinion, no point reviewing a switch before the rest is in order.
Do you have scientific proof that Mr. Bacon's music player is incorrectly designed ?
Thanks for the laughs! I applaud your ability to write absolute utter nonsense for 5 pages straight and still making it sound like an article.
Oh boy.... wait until someone flags the Master on this review --- the one and only Dr. Ethan Winer! Then the hell will break lose.
How does this compare to the TLS you reviewed in Sept 18?