Just curious: should I run Rock to one switch and the endpoint to the other? Or both on the same?
How will the signal path be? (If dual switch)
(Dumb question maybe) Does the core send the signal back via switch to the router, and then back to the other switch, outputting to endpoint? (Logically yes)
If mono switch. Will the signal path be handled internally by the switch? (Core signal back to switch and then directly to endpoint?) Or will the signal go back through router nevertheless?
Another reason for asking: Will separate switches minimize the risk of noise from eg Core hardware?
Curious about the signal path, and noise reduction
Iâd suggest to not sweat about the digital information transport side of things, since as long as thereâs no drop outs and youâre not hearing any undue strange noises everythingâs taken care of - there will be no audible problems in any of those scenarios.
But if youâre susceptible to fear, uncertainty and doubt, the âaudiophile industryâ is happy to sell all kinds of digital band aids to you âŚ
So from a âshortest pathwayâ perspective you should plug both your core and and endpoint into the same switch. But in reality, unless you have something bad going on on your network this couldnât possibly result in enough latency that it would impact an audio stream.
If youâre concerned about âisolationâ, then weâre in a different world. Some people use Ethernet over fiber, some use galvanically isolated switches, some people put their switches on vibration-isolating feet, etc. I do none of those things, and you have to decide for yourself if you think that electrical isolation at the level of Ethernet is worth worrying about. This part of the discussion can be very very disruptive on these forums, I try to mostly stay out of the debates.
In short - from a network latency perspective, it doesnât matter unless something else is awry in your network, but having them in the same switch is âbetterâ even if only by such a tiny amount that it canât matter in the real world. From a âsound qualityâ standpoint, there are many other sources on this forum and elsewhere to read about. I have an opinion, but I do not express my opinion (much).
Remove as much devices from your chain as possible. As more devices as more can fail or make problems. And as mikeb said, it is data not audio, so noise, jitter and all the other audiophile fears are no problem, if nothing is defect.
One other thing to mention. Lots of consumer routers have switches built into them. Yes, itâs the same box, but they really from a network perspective have two separate devices - a router and a (usually) 4 port switch. Generally separate switches have better performance and/or thereâs a reason why you purchased them, so having a single Ethernet cable connecting your switch to the router is preferred to having some devices connected to the router. The router will be totally uninvolved unless youâre doing something fancy (multiple vLANs, L3 routing, other stuff I donât really understand myself).
(In the first example the core & endpoint are plugged into the second switch, in the second example Switch 2, the core and endpoint are plugged into Switch 1)
If you are doing this:
Then youâre using the switch inside the Router as your âcoreâ switch, which is almost certainly fine in real life, but which can be a crappy switch with a very minimal backplane, for instance.
In general, the simple answer is âkeep things that have to exchange a lot of traffic close to one another topologicallyâ where topologically basically means âconnected to the same thing or as close as you can practically get itâ.
If you mean the signal path in Roon, it will be completely transparent to it and makes no difference whatsoever. Roon does not know (or care) how network packets make it to the endpoint.
If you mean the data flow through the network, if both switches are connected directly, data will go from the core, to the switch the core is plugged into, to the switch endpoint is plugged into, then to the endpoint. If both switches are plugged into different ports in the router (which has its own switch inside) then it will be the same except that there will be routerâs switch between first and second router. In any case, under any normal circumstances it will not make any difference for sound, although there will be one more device consuming electricity and at risk of breaking at some point.
Yes.
No. Well, ânoâ with a caveat. Some (generally speaking super-expensive audiophile) equipment is badly designed and sensitive to any noise within 10 miles radius. In that case anything is possible. With anything well-designed this is a non-issue.
I have endpoints connected to the same switch as the core, through 2 switches, and through 3 switches (maybe something goes through 4, but I donât feel like tracing all the cables right now). There is absolutely no added noise or any difference in sound.
There could be some caveats if you have something else connected to those switches that uses a lot of bandwidth and can saturate the connection. Assuming you have gigabit ethernet, I can hardly see how you could do that in home usage though.
The topology that I recommend is similar to what Roon Labs describes in this article. Connect a single unmanaged switch to your internet router. Cable Core (your NAS, if you have one) and as many Output devices as possible to that unmanaged switch. If the router can also function as a Wi-Fi access point and has adequate coverage, use it to connect Control devices (eg., smartphones, tablets, laptops). Otherwise, connect one or more Wi-Fi access points to the remaining ports on the router.
This design is balanced in the sense that traffic from all endpoint devices passes through the same number of switches before reaching the router (Internet). Itâs also optimized since devices that are most likely to talk to each other (Core and Outputs,and NAS) are connected to the same switch (no inter-switch traffic required).
A tweak to this design is to connect Wi-Fi access points to the unmanaged switch instead of the router. Doing so will add an extra switch hop for wireless devices (the access point counts as a switch) but may be advantageous if the switch internal to the router creates problems.
Folks who have larger networks may end up with a central âdistributionâ switch that only has the router and other small âaccessâ switches and access points connected to it. If the central switch can provide power over Ethernet (PoE), you can use a single UPS to power your entire home network by selecting PoE-powered access switches and Wi-Fi access points. All endpoint devices connect via Wi-Fi or one of the small (typically five or eight port) access switches. As above, this is what I refer to as a balanced topology. It just has an extra layer.
Wi-Fi mesh networks are workable, but they are harder to balance and are usually less reliable unless the nodes use wired Ethernet for their backhaul connections.
Pro tip: Use the simplest topology that will get the job done as each layer tends to negatively impact reliability increases troubleshooting effort.
Andrew_Stein1
(Lack of Time is the Bane of an Audiophile)
14
I have a complex in-home network, with 4 switches, covering needs for IOT across dozens of non-Roon devices and my Roon Core and 4 Roon endpoints. My endpoints are on different switches than my Roon Core. Iâve never had a problem. The internet topology, simple or complex, should handle any data issues between devices across the network.
Donât overthink it - let the network do itâs data thing, and Roon is going to run just fine.
I guess my version would be âif it ainât broke certainly donât even think about making a plan to fix it⌠but given the sensitivity of Roon networking, if you have an option to use a simpler topology why not take itâ.
I too have a fairly complex topology with 5 switches (two big in 2 separate cores connected over several hundred feet of fiber, 2 distribution switches in different parts of the home, one sub-distribution 5 port switch - not sure if thatâs a word). Itâs never been an issue, But Iâve had so many other weird ghosts in the machine that if I had a chance to simplify I probably would.
Why would it? PoE is part of the Ethernet standard, and thatâs how many network devices are powered. All my access points are powered this way, and so is CCTV etc. All devices happily coexist on the same network.
Nonetheless, please do not derail the discussion into another debate about the perceived sound quality of digital networks. Thanks.
There isnât much to add here - all of the comments and advice are very sound and the people answering are some of the most knowledgeable folks in this forum.
I donât specifically worry about the number of switches in my digital audio path and I use, and donât worry about, PoE. As others have said, unless something is broken, malfunctioning, or very poorly designed, you wonât have issues. This is digital data and if itâs being moved through your network without incident, sound quality can neither be improved nor degraded by cables and switches.
Itâs sometimes helpful to remember that if youâre streaming music from an external source, such as Tidal or Qobuz, the audio youâre playing has already traveled hundreds or thousands of miles and has traversed multiple switches and routing planes along the way. The feet/meters of cable in your home and the several switches are not likely to cause a problem. And the cables used by your internet service provider certainly donât have any more potential to improve or degrade sound quality than the ones you use at home.
One point I will make about how home networks are wired is that itâs a good idea to not create cycles in your network. Wire it up like a tree - the nodes are branches, your router is the âtrunkâ. There should be one wired or wireless path from any given endpoint to any other given endpoint. Networks can often self correct when cycles exist but there is usually no good reason for cycles in a home network topology and they can create problems.
PoE is delivered via DC, not AC. Therefore, the power does not contaminate the data lines. Regulators and DC-to-DC converters in PoE equipment remove any ânoiseâ on the DC lines from minute currents induced by the data lines. Connections are magnetically coupled, so you also get galvanic isolation âfor freeâ, thanks to the IEEE standards governing Ethernet. Iâm not aware of any audio components that operate via PoE; the PoE devices are several links upstream from analog components in the audio chainâŚtoo far removed to have an impact even if it were possible. Thereâs nothing to worry about here, and Iâve never experienced a negative impact to sound quality due to use of PoE.
I can see how, intuitively, mixing power and data signals could be a concern. Many folks have the same concerns about USB cables which also mix DC power and data lines. I suspect that errors from USB cabling are more common than Ethernet (I lack a way to measure, but perhaps others have done so). Unlike USB audio protocols, computer networks allow for retransmission of bad packets. Things have to be pretty bad on a computer network for there to be an audible impact from packet loss, and that impact will be dropouts in sound due to buffer underruns rather than stuff like a collapsed soundstage, dry mids, etched highs, or however folks tend to imagine the effects.
I understand how audiophile nervosa creeps in, but when building a network for computer audio, the focus must be on simplicity and reliability. Get those right, and thereâs nothing to worry about regarding sound quality. Sound is influenced a thousand times more by components and setup decisions further downstream.
