Checking Nordost's website, I discovered that the QNet is "a layer-2 Ethernet switch"—all Ethernet switches are layer-2 devices—"with five ports designed from the ground up with high-end audio performance and an extremely low noise operation in mind. ... Most audiophile switches on the market take an existing consumer-level switch and improve parts of it, typically the power supply and the clock. While this approach certainly produces an improved performance, it doesn't come close to the results achieved by a design conceived from the drawing board to transmit and receive high speed signals."
This claim seemed plausible, at least in the abstract. Everything in a system matters. Sometimes improvements are "large," as in upgrading to a new DAC, server, amplifier, or speaker. Sometimes they're "small," as when a rack, cable, power product, or footer is replaced. I've put "large" and "small" in quotes because even small changes can have outsized importance in the impact the music makes. The cumulative sum of small incremental improvements can raise system performance from good or very good to great. What's more, occasionally a "small" change can cause a system to suddenly snap into focus; so, paradoxically, even a small change can be large.
But—as I talked to Gabor, I did have "buts." I doubted the QNet would make a difference in my unusually complicated Ethernet network, which converted Ethernet to optical and back again using three Small Green Computer/Sonore Optical Modules and an Uptone Audio EtherRegen. They, the router, Roon Nucleus+, and more all received power from HDPlex 300 four-device linear power supplies ($685/each). Gabor replied that I'd simply plug all those devices into the QNet Ethernet switch.
She also said that while the QNet would sound "really good" with its supplied switch-mode wall wart, it would sound even better with an optional QSource linear power supply (LPS).
The QSource, I soon learned, has four outputs fixed at 5V and two that are adjustable. Output A switches between 9V, 12V, or 19V; 9V is intended for the QNet. Output B switches between 12V, 19V, and 24V; 19V is appropriate for Roon Nucleus and Nucleus+ music servers. The QSource's fixed 5V outputs, which can provide very little power, are intended for Nordost QPoint Resonance Synchronizers, which I don't have. Those outputs can't handle 5V devices that demand significant current (footnote 1).
Gabor said that the QSource sounds best with its premium QSource umbilical LEMO interface cables, which cost far more than the aftermarket Ghent Audio Canare umbilical interface cables I use with the HDPlex 300. She was also certain that the QSource would produce better sound from the Roon Nucleus+ than the HDPlex 300 does—a bold statement from someone who, I'm guessing, has never heard the effects of an HDPlex 300.
Time to ponder. My music room router was a basic Linksys, which, when I bought it, cost $39.99. Undoubtedly, its Ethernet ports were sourced and assembled as cheaply as possible. It seemed reasonable that better conductive materials and superior noise isolation might create a better-sounding network interface. How much that would matter, I had no idea. Only by listening would I discover if the QNet and QSource made a difference significant enough to justify their cost.
More details The QNet has five numbered Ethernet ports. Ports 1–3 are auto-negotiated 1000BASE-T (1Gbps) ports designed for routers and other "generic network devices." Ports 4 and 5 are fixed, 100BASE-TX (100Mbps) "audio" ports for audio servers, players, and external media sources. (See Sidebar on Ethernet protocols.)
The QNet runs comfortably warm to the touch. Its innards are illuminated with a soft, pleasing blue light that's only visible at certain angles. The QSource runs quite hot. It's quite easy to accidentally flip one of the switches, which are located on the QSource's bottom side; I did it when I placed a Wilson Pedestal under it and then pushed the QSource around. I was lucky—I didn't break anything—but it would be easy to accidentally send a component too high a voltage. If your QNet gets as hot as the QSource, disconnect immediately and check the switch.
Electrical engineer Dennis Bonotto, senior R&D engineer and international sales rep at Nordost, supplied more information. Bonotto played a key role in the engineering team that designed the QNet/QSource. "97–98% of the audiophile switches on the market are mods of less noble switches, if you will," he said. "Their different ports share some circuitry, terminations, and grounds, with soldering across and between the ports. Everything that happens on one port is heard by the other ports. Some mount their oscillator clock on a daughter board and then run a cable between them. It may be better than the switch you buy at Wal-Mart, but it kinda defeats the point.
"Our main goal was to make the QNet as transparent and 'not there' as possible. ... We really believe that by reducing or minimizing the noise that is added into every single process that happens between signal entrance and exit—by tackling every single source of noise that might affect the signal going through the QNet—we can make a better, more silent device.
"We took really good care to create five completely independent circuits, one for each physically separated port. The shielding material on the ports is one piece folded; it's not really soldered or joined. The shield on each RJ45 is independently soldered to the board; then they connect to a common ground plane. On our boards, the traces are separated and built to very high precision. The width of every trace, the distance between them, and the distance to the underlying layer was calculated to minimize noise and reflections.
"There are six linear power supplies within the QNet that feed the IC-switch engine. There are also several other parts of the intelligent circuit that need power. Every little voltage and current that the system demands is supplied by an independent power supply.
"Apart from the connection between the power input and the PCB, there are no wires; everything else is surface mount. Our superhigh-precision clock oscillator is mounted a hair from the main engine switch. All the circuits are independent. Instead of a two-layer PCB, we have six layers. The signal is very well insulated, with very minimal radiation leakage."
What's that oscillator for? "When the Ethernet signal arrives, it is undone, so to speak, and redone," Bonotto replied. "The bits (information) are transformed, encapsulated, and made into symbols so they can travel down the line in a more efficient and noise-proof way. When they arrive, everything must be de-encapsulated, as it were, and transformed back into bits. Then it gets routed and gets re-encapsulated and resent out on the other port. For this to happen, you need a clock base—a timing base. It's the oscillator that makes it possible." (footnote 2)
While you can use the QNet's supplied switch-mode power supply to operate it, such supplies are "major sources of noise that propagates all over the place," Bonotto said. "They're super-efficient, compact, and relatively cheap, but the price you pay for switching the AC input at megahertz speed and transforming it into DC output is noise. Even in larger switch-mode supplies, there's no way you can get rid of all the noise.
"Linear power supplies like the QSource are dead quiet but much less efficient. Because they require transformers, they're not cheap. Our QSource was built to minimize all potential sources of noise between input and output. You get what you pay for."
Nordost's team set out to tackle every noise source they could identify. "Beyond the choice of parts within the QSource, we paid attention to the way we arranged and connected them, and to the precision to which we built our PCBs," he said. "It's something of a miracle that we fit everything inside the case. Don't forget that the power cable you use on it also makes a difference."
Potential roadblock = opportunity When Nordost rep Michael Marko arrived to install the switch, it would not transmit a signal from router #2 to my other components. After several emails and phone calls to Bonotto, we traced the problem to an error with my network configuration. After that was corrected and my optical network was rerouted, the QNet functioned flawlessly.
Many weeks after Marko visited, I reconfigured the optical network, eliminating two electrical/optical converters, the HDPlex 300 that powered them, and an Ethernet cable.
Let there be music Midway through the review period, my dCS Rossini DAC, which I use with the Rossini clock, was upgraded to Rossini Apex status; this allowed me to hear more of what I'd already discovered the QNet and QSource could deliver. Other components included a D'Agostino Momentum HD preamp and Progression M550 monoblocks, Wilson Alexia 2 loudspeakers, AudioQuest Niagara 7000 and Niagara 5000 power conditioners, and a Stromtank S 1000 battery power AC regenerator. Ethernet cables were Nordost Valhalla 2 and Wireworld Platinum Starlight Cat8. Power cables were Nordost Odin 2, a single Valhalla 2, and AQ Dragon. Interconnects were Nordost Odin 2. Supports were from Wilson and Nordost, and the rack a Grand Prix Monza. And then there was the room treatment....
I approached both QNet and QSource with healthy skepticism. I was not prepared for what I heard.
Herb Reichert hinted, in his August 2022 Gramophone Dreams column, that he is under the spell of Maria Callas, one of the great opera singers, "who supercharge the air in front of them with the purest tones (footnote 3) and the most dramatic dynamics." (It's quite possible that Herb and I share the same Callas-inspired nightmare: Jim Austin, disguised as Callas playing Lady Macbeth, approaching our computers, slashing some of our favored adjectives (footnote 4), and splattering our monitors with blood. But perhaps I'm projecting.)
Like Herb, I'm also soprano-bewitched, currently, by the voice of Véronique Gens singing Guillaume Lekeu's Nocturne, from his Trois Poèmes. I cannot get it out of my head. Lekeu's marvelous song, found on Gens's recital Nuits (Qobuz 24/96 FLAC, Alpha 589), is so beautiful, so all-of-one-piece, and so perfectly accompanied by I Giardini piano quintet that I awake over and over to its melody. I'm equally haunted by the lyrics, which end (in translation), "The moon gleams like a golden clasp! / And, perfuming the happy plain, / The heather falls asleep / In the luminous shadows." Not a bad soundtrack to one's life.
The first thing I heard after I installed the QNet was that Gens's voice grew in size. Colors were more vivid. As silence filled spaces between notes, the soundstage seemed to expand in all directions. All that from a simple switch?
When I ditched QNet's switch-mode wall wart for the QSource, a touch of brightness I'd been hearing vanished and all the QNet's positive effects increased. With more silence came more beauty and detail—and with it, more light and spiritual insight. Those insights aren't always pretty—take Callas's voice as Lady Macbeth—but they inevitably get me closer to truth, whose essence can be as terrible and earth-shaking as it can be beautiful and beneficent. I can honestly say that the QNet/QSource pairing transported me closer to my ultimate goal, which is to move closer to the source of artistic creation and the artists I love.
When I disconnected the Roon Nucleus+ server/streamer from the HDPlex 300 and powered it, as well, with the QSource, I heard even more color, detail, and clarity. As another veil lifted, images again grew in size and became more believable. Yes, I compared connector cable options. The Nordost premium QSource DC cables delivered more vibrant energy and subtle dynamic/ tonal shifts than the stock cables. The premium's gauge is thicker. Big surprise (footnote 5).
Here ends the tale Rather than listing example after musical example, I'll simply say that it is now much easier to follow each line in even the most complex passages of Mahler or Strauss and to understand, musically, the reasons behind the complexity. Thunderous organ now resonates strongly, without inappropriate boom. Tonal color inside my music room is beyond acid-rush intensity. Outside, however, it remains Pacific-Northwest gray.
It's been a long time since I ended a review with "I bought the review samples." But I did. And once I realized how vital the QNet was to my system—how a simple network switch allowed me to achieve so much more of what high-end audio is about, and how much more silent and revealing the QSource was than my other linear power supply—I bought a second QSource for my etherRegen and AfterDark clock. I didn't think a second QSource would make another huge difference, but when the soundstage suddenly expanded beyond the front and side walls, my pleasure expanded concomitantly. Don't you love when that happens?
Footnote 1: According to the specifications, the maximum power output of all four 5V outputs combined is 5W.
Footnote 2: As I soon learned, the Roon Nucleus+ server/streamer functions best with the faster ports. With 100Mbps, if Qobuz even played, it kept timing out and jumping from track to track.
Footnote 3: The multifaceted nature of those unique tones, pure or not, is a subject of endless fascination bordering on obsession. Take it from one obsessed.
Footnote 4: Also adverbs. Especially adverbs.—Jim Austin
Footnote 5: QSource cable's terminations do not insert completely into some devices, including the Roon Nucleus+. Sometimes they loosen at the slightest touch. Nordost would be wise to address this.
Log in or register to post comments COMMENTS Suggest a follow-up... Submitted by JRT on October 5, 2022 - 4:38pm I suggest that you contact and interview Kevin Gross on the subject. He is a subject matter expert with high level of breadth and depth of knowledge on the subject of digital audio in general, and especially in digital audio over an Ethernet network. He led the group that produced AES67, and my understanding is that very much of that was his direct work product. You won't find another subject matter expert who _better_ understands what does and does not have any effect. He might also point you toward a network switch and power supply and isolators and Cat.5e cables which combine to function _perfectly_ in the application for a lot less than $6K, and he may have some ideas as to why your audio playback system performance was compromised when using the cheaper network components that presumably meet network performance requirements when utilized for transferring other data without errors on the same network. As to Nordost, I would not know if he has any monied interests in Nordost products, but you could ask him. https://www.aes.org/aes/kevingross https://www.aes.org/member/contact.cfm?ID=1062017258 http://www.linkedin.com/in/kevingross https://www.google.com/search?q=aes+kevin+gross Log in or register to post comments RH Submitted by RH on October 5, 2022 - 8:31pm QUESTION FOR John Atkinson or Jim Austin: Is there any reason we don't see measurements for these type of products. For Jason to have heard these differences it suggests there the Nordost product is changing something measurable in the signal. (?) Log in or register to post comments This is a new low. Submitted by GrumpyBadger on October 6, 2022 - 3:43am All I can say is... wow. This is an IMPRESSIVE amount of nonsense. Absolutely anyone who knows how the Ethernet system actually works will agree. Ethernet data is packetised and error checked at every stage. Each data packet arrives either wholly intact or is discarded and re-sent as many times as needed for an intact delivery. The final data assembled from packets can only be 100% perfect or is rejected entirely. So you'll have complete data dropouts or perfect data. Nothing in between whatsoever. The need for noise immunity is simply to reduce the number of errored packets and has zero influence on final assembled data integrity. Imagine if the pictures, text, etc. sent over Ethernet had noise induced artifacts of any kind - we would have abandoned it as a network technology immediately. The so-called "R&D engineer" claiming this device aids audio transparency either needs to go back to school or is a straight up liar. The so-called reviewer is either lying to us or himself about perceived audio differences. Log in or register to post comments Or, imagine that connected to Submitted by CG on October 6, 2022 - 7:34am Or, imagine that connected to this network there's analog circuitry not 100% immune to the effects of RFI. Y'know; common- and normal-mode noise currents. Audio playback is a realtime process. Brains don't ignore noise like packet based data transmission does. Now, you could certainly question the merits of the devices reviewed here. Or, raise a stink about why analog audio equipment is not robustly protected against noise currents. (And, at the same time, discuss what this extra noise immunity would cost.) Both are good arguments. Full disclosure: I am not an audio professional. But, I do spend my working hours fretting over optimizing the performance of mixed signal transmission. Admittedly, that's at frequencies between 5 MHz and 5 GHz, but similar ideas apply to audio. Log in or register to post comments Kudos. Submitted by JHL on October 6, 2022 - 4:38am What a great review. Those of us who still use audio for listening will immediately recognize many points in the report as familiar, both cause and effect. I can't count the number of times But It's $%#* Impossible! has become reliably, vividly audible right down to the same shared experiences and almost identical descriptions. Then, like clockwork, one by one But It's $%#* Impossible! become mainstream technologies because those shared experiences become incontrovertible patterns of evidence. Over and over. Most interestingly this happens in digital's Perfect Sound Forever, [snort] right down to the power supplies, connections, and contacts. All audible. This is of no consequence to curs who use fine audio to barge in and make messes on your floors but as alluded, time vindicates. Great review. Continue to stand in the breach (with your mop and pail) and have the courage and conviction to report it as it sounds, regardless. The alternative is the dismal sound of $99 hifi. Log in or register to post comments Please provide an example of Submitted by GrumpyBadger on October 6, 2022 - 5:46am Please provide an example of "But It's $%#* Impossible! become mainstream technologies" Then read IEEE Standard 802.3 and please do tell us exactly where the non-absolute alteration of transmitted data occurs. The burden of proof lies upon you. I really, really look forward to your response. Log in or register to post comments Fallacy. Submitted by JHL on October 6, 2022 - 7:17am First, despite minor outbreaks of hair shirt objectivists denying them their experience, among audiophiles audio is positively littered with exceptionally well-received tech disdained by technologist gainsayers. This is because audiophiles listen and generally don't degrade audio into a conflict. The whole point to the din and racket from the contrary ilk is that a tech must be approved a priori if not to be disallowed on face, sound unheard. In that church approved tech is either sanctified by clergy or excommunicated. This review is an example. You could have just declined to buy the product. But you didn't. Second and pursuant that, in this context I don't give a damn what the IEEE has standardized because I'm making a philosophical point. Like the reviewer, I care about what the things IEEE may or may not have standardized sound like, and how to arrange dozens of them in combination and succession to musical effect. Putative objectivists still seem to think this is a theological battle to be waged in place of the listener's experience and narrative: Using audio not for its purpose but to assert about it, commit fallacy, claim fraud, and leap into anonymous arguments on the internet with civil types. You could have just declined to buy the product. But you didn't. Log in or register to post comments @JHL - "theological battle?" Submitted by Archimago on October 6, 2022 - 10:02am "Putative objectivists still seem to think this is a theological battle to be waged in place of the listener's experience and narrative: Using audio not for its purpose but to assert about it, commit fallacy, claim fraud, and leap into anonymous arguments on the internet with civil types." Ahem. I don't think objectivists are the camp who would make "theological" claims about this stuff whatsoever. The only pseudo-theology here is the faith of the pure subjective folks who put their trust in company reps and and engineers who are of course biased to promote a product for financial gain as if these comments actually made any sense or that they have in fact done what they claim. For example: "We really believe that by reducing or minimizing the noise that is added into every single process that happens between signal entrance and exit—by tackling every single source of noise that might affect the signal going through the QNet—we can make a better, more silent device." Perhaps they can show us where and what kind of "silence" they've achieved compared to a typical reasonably priced $50-100 5-port gigabit switch? Maybe show us a single instance where noise might be different coming out of the 100Mbps vs. 1Gb ports? A modern 1 gigabit switch is mature technology these days, utilizing low power and the higher end models can also be managed with functions like QoS which an audiophile might want to take advantage of if they have busy networks. So far the claims of this $3200 Nordost switch appears to be words and testimony of those who sell and those who believe - isn't that what "theology" is about? Log in or register to post comments Let's see... Submitted by JHL on October 6, 2022 - 10:58am ...if we understand your premise. Condensing it in the order of your objections we see 1) a tacit but apparently automatic doubt regarding capital gain, 2) an incumbent seller bias, presumably complicit in some sort of unstated ethical problem, and 3) the sum leading to a broadbrushed slight against the product's stated rationale. From this is summed up an analog to how switches work elsewhere from which you magically derive an automatic damnation of the whole ball of wax you've constructed over here. Is that close? I ask because before blowing the broader related construct apart on epistemological grounds and showing it for the religious belief system it is I want to know just what work you're standing pat on. Log in or register to post comments My "zero experience opinion alarm" keeps going off... Submitted by The Tinkerer on October 6, 2022 - 8:30am ... so many comments are making theory-based statements of "unpossibility!". Yet, none of them have heard the devices under review. Is this undergrad debate 101 or just more wine tasting, minus the wine? Keep up the great work, JVS. THIS full AES member, and retired audio professional, finds the review (and topic) very interesting. Log in or register to post comments Must we try all snake oil first before demanding evidence? Submitted by Archimago on October 6, 2022 - 10:11am Asking $3200 for a 5-port ethernet switch is pricing at orders of magnitude higher than needed for home ethernet installations. Must we try all kinds of expensive snake oil to see if they "work" when logic and engineering principles of how digital data is transmitted across networks indicate that the benefit is far and away negligible from a machine like this? Or do we start by taking a cautious stance, and wait for the company to provide some evidence this does anything special for 3-grand of after-tax dollars? JVS' testimony is interesting I suppose but there have been instances where I think some of us know not to trust the claims completely. Log in or register to post comments Pretending to have first-hand knowledge... Submitted by The Tinkerer on October 6, 2022 - 12:09pm ... when you do NOT, seems more risky to me than what you proposed. Seems this isn't being marketed towards you. Rather than virtue signaling by attempting to "save" others from certain calamity, you could just NOT PURCHASE IT and omit the whole crusading part. You COULD do that. It's permitted. Log in or register to post comments Is this a question of the Submitted by CG on October 6, 2022 - 3:00pm Is this a question of the pricing, which is absolutely much higher than some alternatives, or whether there may be a scientific/engineering reason why there might be merit to a product like this? Two different questions, at least to me. Log in or register to post comments ... so many comments are Submitted by RH on October 6, 2022 - 11:08am ... so many comments are making theory-based statements of "unpossibility!". Yet, none of them have heard the devices under review. Hey, I have a specially minted coin that, if you tape it to the top of your wrist, will allow you to step off the ledge of a tall building, and instead of falling to your death, you will hover in the air and float down gently to the ground. What? You're skeptical? My "zero experience alarm" is going off. You can't really have an informed opinion about the likelihood this will work, without trying it just as I described. Right? Except we both know you don't think that at all. You don't REALLY have to go personally trying every claim anyone ever throws out in order to have an opinion. If you have some knowledge about a claim, you can rate the plausibility quite well. If I claim to a physicist that my friend has created a Perpetual Motion Machine in his garage they don't have to go "experience it for themselves" because they have sound knowledge about physics and know the likelihood is around O such a device is even possible. This is how we go through life making rational, informed decisions about which type of propositions are plausible or not, whether to waste time, or not. The people here objecting to the claims about this switch are doing so on the basis of some knowledge about how these things actually work, and hence the implausibility of the claims made for the device. If you can put forth some technical argument/evidence that would support the product's claim why not present it (and not just "I heard a difference" since people easily imagine differences)? Otherwise, skepticism based on the technical claims remains justified. Log in or register to post comments I happen to have... Submitted by JHL on October 6, 2022 - 11:35am ...on my list of prognostications dated over a century ago, a magic gas that when injected into a bladder shall levitate you and it above the earth. I have a bolt of cloth and these sticks and with my plans you'll fly like a bird. I have a distilled fluid derived from deep in the soil that with my mechanical carriage will perambulate you to your office. Your examples, RH, prove the point you're arguing against, and what you're doing is not skepticism. The authentic skeptic simply doesn't lay out money for any of these examples. He never climbs aboard. The *subjective gainsayer* insists a phenomenon or action may not occur because of his own beliefs - despite airplanes and cars - and then goes to irrational lengths to argue the point strictly by the lights of varying subjective disbelief. Log in or register to post comments All those words, RH Submitted by The Tinkerer on October 6, 2022 - 12:10pm And yet zero actual experience. What a waste. Wine tasting, minus the wine. Log in or register to post comments So I presume you won't Submitted by RH on October 6, 2022 - 12:20pm So I presume you won't address the point made in all those words? If the words were "wasted" on you, well that's up to you. But others are reading these threads, so not all is "wasted" ;-) Log in or register to post comments Oh no I just don't respond to Submitted by The Tinkerer on October 6, 2022 - 12:21pm Oh no I just don't respond to word salad. I'm full from lunch. You have zero experience with any item under review. The end. Log in or register to post comments So can I interest you in a Submitted by RH on October 6, 2022 - 12:27pm So can I interest you in a special coin I've made that, placed on your amps, will VASTLY improve the sound? It's only $40! You could send me money via paypal! You're an audiophile. You care about improving the sound of your system right? And for a mere $40? The only reason you would not go for this is that you are skeptical of the claim. Except you have no basis for skepticism because, after all, you've had "zero experience" listening with this special coin. Does all this appeal to "you haven't tried, so you can't have a reasonable opinion" sound like nonsense to you? Welcome to the club ;-) Log in or register to post comments You debate like a 3rd grader. Submitted by The Tinkerer on October 6, 2022 - 12:42pm You debate like a 3rd grader. Apples to axe handles. You've committed the famed 'Illicit Major' type of categorical syllogism. Oh and I don't require you to curate my hypothetical behavior. It's both incorrect and rude. Log in or register to post comments You've committed the famed Submitted by RH on October 6, 2022 - 12:59pm You've committed the famed 'Illicit Major' type of categorical syllogism. Ah..no I haven't. (I enjoy philosophy, so recognize your false claim). First, 'Illicit Major' is a formal fallacy. I was making an informal argument. You should have recognized it as an informal reductio ad absurdum based on YOUR claim "so many comments are making theory-based statements of "unpossibility!". Yet, none of them have heard the devices under review. " Which clearly suggested that it's unreasonable to be skeptical about a claim, even by appeal to theory, without having personally tested the claim oneself. THAT is the principle I have been deconstructing via reductio ad absurdum - this principle leads to absurdities like not being able to justify skepticism towards any claim anyone makes "unless you've got first hand experience with the item." Hence: special coin and perpetual motion machine analogies. Now the likely reflex is to say "but that's silly, it's disanalogous because, you see, the NORDOST product claims aren't outrageous, like the ones you made for coins and perpetual motion machines. It's much more plausible!" Which would be missing the point. Worse, that simply begs the question because the very plausibility of the Nordost device ARE what is under dispute! So to avoid Special Pleading you would have to actually demonstrate why the Nordost device IS actually plausibly altering the signal, or better yet produce actual evidence it DOES change the signal. And no it's not "rude" to point out that we both know you don't find my claims about the Special Coin to be compelling or plausible. Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong on that and I'll send you my paypal info so you can make your purchase ;-) Log in or register to post comments You're wrong. You've been Submitted by The Tinkerer on October 6, 2022 - 1:19pm You're wrong. You've been exposed as expressing an informed opinion about a device for which you have zero knowledge. You made abundant theory-based proclamations. Then you attempted to construct additional ad-hominem attacks against me just as you have against JVS and Nordost. Next, I don't need you to curate what I say. I didn't suggest anything. I said what I said. Res Ipsa Loquitor. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. Lastly, you are EMPHATICALLY incorrect as you have 100% constructed a Formal Fallacy. I cannot understand this fact on your behalf. Just as I do not need you to attempt to curate, or reframe MY statements, you do not need to do so for yours, either. Your statements speak for themselves, as it were. Your lack of understanding of the structural underpinnings of your fallacious statements leads me to doubt, greatly, your passion for philosophy. Log in or register to post comments You've been exposed as Submitted by RH on October 6, 2022 - 1:21pm You've been exposed as expressing an informed opinion about a device for which you have zero knowledge. You seem to be either hallucinating this, or more likely, mixing me up with some other member in this thread. I haven't made explicit claims to technical knowledge (mentioned others are doing so), and you have not exposed a single thing about my "knowledge" regarding electronics as it relates to the Nordost switcher. Again, to be charitable, I have to presume you are mixing me up with someone else. "I didn't suggest anything. I said what I said." So...your just produced a series of words with no implications? That's weird. Why would you do that? (And, yes, your statement did have the implications I suggested, and you kept repeating the same "point.). Virtually your entire response is pure assertion and I frankly get the impression you don't really grasp, or care about, the nature of "assertion" vs "argument" or how arguments actually work. (Since you aren't producing any - except for assertions the implications of which you will then disavow and not support). So, yes, this will be fruitless. S'long. Log in or register to post comments You're a flat-earth hack. If Submitted by The Tinkerer on October 6, 2022 - 1:30pm You're a flat-earth hack. If you didn't put words in my mouth, you wouldn't have any words at all. I'm sure I'll see you the next time you attempt to peddle reductionist objectivist drivel in the comment section, for equipment that you do not own and neither with which do you have any experience. Or when you attempt to gate-keep audio on behalf of "Ze Zience, YAH! *boot stomp in unison*, *salute*". So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good bye. Log in or register to post comments I more than addressed it. Submitted by JHL on October 6, 2022 - 12:39pm I blew it apart. It was and remains a preposterous, wildly obvious strawman. Log in or register to post comments And yet.... Submitted by AudioBang on October 6, 2022 - 10:45am Uptone Audio sold over 3200 units of their [EtherRegen] switch, published a technical white paper on the issues that the product addressed, hosted a forum for user and engineering-based questions/comments, a user feedback forum with over 1400 positive user comments, and offered a money-back guaranty if you were not fully satisfied. I recall their return rate being extremely small. Yet, muckraking Audio Science testifies to not measure or hear a difference and files the product under "Quackery". I have three of them timed off a Mutec Ref10 SE120 and powered by a hybrid LPS/SMPS supply. I have no doubt about the reviewer's findings. I surrender....Delegate me to the Nut House. Log in or register to post comments Come on in Submitted by Jason Victor Serinus on October 6, 2022 - 1:52pm I have a soft spot for organic cashews. How about you? jason Log in or register to post comments It's all part of a plot to disrupt the fixed world-view... Submitted by AudioBang on October 6, 2022 - 2:41pm Nothing like a bag of ALDIS organic cashews with sea salt over recently expanded holography and improved system resolution. I've got to be mindful though to not eat the entire bag in one listening session. I've offered for people to visit and listen but turns out when they cling to what they know, their real intention is getting me to hand over a bigger club to try to beat me with :) Log in or register to post comments Be wary of the sea salt content Submitted by Jason Victor Serinus on October 6, 2022 - 2:48pm Too much can lead to a bloated midrange. Log in or register to post comments Your humorous rejoinders. . . Submitted by teched58 on October 6, 2022 - 3:43pm . . .enhance your reputation as a serious reviewer. Log in or register to post comments :) Submitted by AudioBang on October 6, 2022 - 3:48pm :) Log in or register to post comments Holy shit, you guys! Submitted by ChrisS on October 6, 2022 - 12:19pm Shut up! Try these things out, or don't... https://www.stereophile.com/content/quackery-gullibility-and-open-mindedness Log in or register to post comments Whither technical competence? Submitted by teched58 on October 6, 2022 - 1:04pm This review is both funny and sad at the same time. Log in or register to post comments for all intents and purposes.. Submitted by ok on October 7, 2022 - 1:14am hitler and krishnamurti shared some 99.999 of human genome; one wonders why were they not the same person in the first place. Log in or register to post comments the article inspired me to test Submitted by PeterPani on October 7, 2022 - 12:46am Yesterday I streamed classical music in 24/96 quality from a wav-file I stored on my www-homepage before starting a listening session: OSM Chamber Soloists, Schubert Octet in F Major, D. 803 Streamed through a common router-network on my Samsung laptop into my Nagra DAC. And next I played the file from my laptop directly into the Nagra DAC. No sound difference at all to my ears. But, I am pretty bad with digital music. I got many DAC's over the years - cheap and expensive ones. They all sound nearly the same to me. All I can hear is a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. All the noise coming from other sources. I don't know, I cannot hear differences when switching off influencing devices. (very different to playing from analog source - there I can hear differences) Log in or register to post comments job descirption Submitted by michelesurdi on October 7, 2022 - 4:05am wouldn't it be quicker to let the head of marketing write the blurb himself?after all it's in his job description. Log in or register to post comments Yes... Submitted by teched58 on October 7, 2022 - 11:02am ...it's essentially indistinguishable from branded content. [EDIT:] BTW, as a piece of branded content, I would give this a very high rating. Jason is an excellent writer. Log in or register to post comments finally Submitted by David Harper on October 7, 2022 - 11:12am This kind of nonsense is finally being called out. So many have wasted so much money on this kind of snake oil that TAS and Stereophile have made a living off of them. The reviewers either imagine what they hear or they are simply lying. "there's a sucker born every minute". Log in or register to post comments You read... Submitted by ChrisS on October 7, 2022 - 8:13pm ...TAS? As well as Stereophile? Hahahahahahahaha!! What a way to torture yourself! Hahahahahahahahaha!! Log in or register to post comments Whoa folks... just hold on there... Submitted by barrows on October 7, 2022 - 12:11pm People, before you go on saying its "impossible" do you really think it is your place to comment on such that you have no experience of? Many things have been though to be "impossible" in audio before (perfect sound forever comes to mind) only to be found to be in error. BTW, most, if not all, Nordost dealers will allow for an in home trial of products like this with no financial risk-perhaps those who are skeptical should try it, you just might eat your words and enjoy improved sound quality. Log in or register to post comments You don't even need to Submitted by CG on October 8, 2022 - 10:05am You don't even need to experience these products. There are scholarly papers and books authored by people like Bill Whitlock, Ralph Morrison, and Henry Ott that describe what often takes place with regard to noise currents in actual systems. Not just audio systems, either. Whether the reviewed products solve these problems, I haven't a clue. Whether they are worth the money is another question still. Here's a question... If Ethernet and other signaling systems are completely immune to noise effects and are otherwise perfect, why are there so many error correction techniques associated with them? Why anything associated with audio gets shamed and labeled as impossible is something I've never understood. Where's a sociologist when you need one? Full disclosure: My day job has nothing to with audio, but does encounter systemic noise issues all the time. I also don't use any Nordost products, so I've not got a horse in that race, either. Log in or register to post comments either lying to us or himself about perceived audio difference Submitted by georgehifi on October 7, 2022 - 9:50pm Correct, just how much of these expensive addon's are needed in the streaming/downloading chain to make them "try to" sound as good as CD transports can do with early uncompressed issues (<2000) of a CD, and yet still not sound as good!!! Because most stuff streamed or downloaded is later (>2000) compressed versions. https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/1/dr/asc?artist=Elton%20John&alb... Cheers George Log in or register to post comments This is one time... Submitted by MatthewT on October 7, 2022 - 4:45pm Where I'd like to know where it's made and how much Nordost makes on each one. Log in or register to post comments
I suggest that you contact and interview Kevin Gross on the subject. He is a subject matter expert with high level of breadth and depth of knowledge on the subject of digital audio in general, and especially in digital audio over an Ethernet network. He led the group that produced AES67, and my understanding is that very much of that was his direct work product. You won't find another subject matter expert who _better_ understands what does and does not have any effect. He might also point you toward a network switch and power supply and isolators and Cat.5e cables which combine to function _perfectly_ in the application for a lot less than $6K, and he may have some ideas as to why your audio playback system performance was compromised when using the cheaper network components that presumably meet network performance requirements when utilized for transferring other data without errors on the same network.
As to Nordost, I would not know if he has any monied interests in Nordost products, but you could ask him.
https://www.aes.org/aes/kevingross
https://www.aes.org/member/contact.cfm?ID=1062017258
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kevingross
https://www.google.com/search?q=aes+kevin+gross
QUESTION FOR John Atkinson or Jim Austin:
Is there any reason we don't see measurements for these type of products.
For Jason to have heard these differences it suggests there the Nordost product is changing something measurable in the signal. (?)
All I can say is... wow. This is an IMPRESSIVE amount of nonsense. Absolutely anyone who knows how the Ethernet system actually works will agree. Ethernet data is packetised and error checked at every stage. Each data packet arrives either wholly intact or is discarded and re-sent as many times as needed for an intact delivery. The final data assembled from packets can only be 100% perfect or is rejected entirely. So you'll have complete data dropouts or perfect data. Nothing in between whatsoever.
The need for noise immunity is simply to reduce the number of errored packets and has zero influence on final assembled data integrity.
Imagine if the pictures, text, etc. sent over Ethernet had noise induced artifacts of any kind - we would have abandoned it as a network technology immediately.
The so-called "R&D engineer" claiming this device aids audio transparency either needs to go back to school or is a straight up liar.
The so-called reviewer is either lying to us or himself about perceived audio differences.
Or, imagine that connected to this network there's analog circuitry not 100% immune to the effects of RFI. Y'know; common- and normal-mode noise currents.
Audio playback is a realtime process. Brains don't ignore noise like packet based data transmission does.
Now, you could certainly question the merits of the devices reviewed here. Or, raise a stink about why analog audio equipment is not robustly protected against noise currents. (And, at the same time, discuss what this extra noise immunity would cost.) Both are good arguments.
Full disclosure: I am not an audio professional. But, I do spend my working hours fretting over optimizing the performance of mixed signal transmission. Admittedly, that's at frequencies between 5 MHz and 5 GHz, but similar ideas apply to audio.
What a great review. Those of us who still use audio for listening will immediately recognize many points in the report as familiar, both cause and effect. I can't count the number of times But It's $%#* Impossible! has become reliably, vividly audible right down to the same shared experiences and almost identical descriptions.
Then, like clockwork, one by one But It's $%#* Impossible! become mainstream technologies because those shared experiences become incontrovertible patterns of evidence. Over and over.
Most interestingly this happens in digital's Perfect Sound Forever, [snort] right down to the power supplies, connections, and contacts. All audible. This is of no consequence to curs who use fine audio to barge in and make messes on your floors but as alluded, time vindicates.
Great review. Continue to stand in the breach (with your mop and pail) and have the courage and conviction to report it as it sounds, regardless. The alternative is the dismal sound of $99 hifi.
Please provide an example of "But It's $%#* Impossible! become mainstream technologies"
Then read IEEE Standard 802.3 and please do tell us exactly where the non-absolute alteration of transmitted data occurs. The burden of proof lies upon you.
I really, really look forward to your response.
First, despite minor outbreaks of hair shirt objectivists denying them their experience, among audiophiles audio is positively littered with exceptionally well-received tech disdained by technologist gainsayers. This is because audiophiles listen and generally don't degrade audio into a conflict.
The whole point to the din and racket from the contrary ilk is that a tech must be approved a priori if not to be disallowed on face, sound unheard. In that church approved tech is either sanctified by clergy or excommunicated. This review is an example.
You could have just declined to buy the product. But you didn't.
Second and pursuant that, in this context I don't give a damn what the IEEE has standardized because I'm making a philosophical point. Like the reviewer, I care about what the things IEEE may or may not have standardized sound like, and how to arrange dozens of them in combination and succession to musical effect.
Putative objectivists still seem to think this is a theological battle to be waged in place of the listener's experience and narrative: Using audio not for its purpose but to assert about it, commit fallacy, claim fraud, and leap into anonymous arguments on the internet with civil types.
You could have just declined to buy the product. But you didn't.
"Putative objectivists still seem to think this is a theological battle to be waged in place of the listener's experience and narrative: Using audio not for its purpose but to assert about it, commit fallacy, claim fraud, and leap into anonymous arguments on the internet with civil types."
Ahem. I don't think objectivists are the camp who would make "theological" claims about this stuff whatsoever. The only pseudo-theology here is the faith of the pure subjective folks who put their trust in company reps and and engineers who are of course biased to promote a product for financial gain as if these comments actually made any sense or that they have in fact done what they claim.
For example: "We really believe that by reducing or minimizing the noise that is added into every single process that happens between signal entrance and exit—by tackling every single source of noise that might affect the signal going through the QNet—we can make a better, more silent device."
Perhaps they can show us where and what kind of "silence" they've achieved compared to a typical reasonably priced $50-100 5-port gigabit switch? Maybe show us a single instance where noise might be different coming out of the 100Mbps vs. 1Gb ports?
A modern 1 gigabit switch is mature technology these days, utilizing low power and the higher end models can also be managed with functions like QoS which an audiophile might want to take advantage of if they have busy networks. So far the claims of this $3200 Nordost switch appears to be words and testimony of those who sell and those who believe - isn't that what "theology" is about?
...if we understand your premise. Condensing it in the order of your objections we see 1) a tacit but apparently automatic doubt regarding capital gain, 2) an incumbent seller bias, presumably complicit in some sort of unstated ethical problem, and 3) the sum leading to a broadbrushed slight against the product's stated rationale. From this is summed up an analog to how switches work elsewhere from which you magically derive an automatic damnation of the whole ball of wax you've constructed over here.
Is that close? I ask because before blowing the broader related construct apart on epistemological grounds and showing it for the religious belief system it is I want to know just what work you're standing pat on.
... so many comments are making theory-based statements of "unpossibility!". Yet, none of them have heard the devices under review. Is this undergrad debate 101 or just more wine tasting, minus the wine?
Keep up the great work, JVS. THIS full AES member, and retired audio professional, finds the review (and topic) very interesting.
Asking $3200 for a 5-port ethernet switch is pricing at orders of magnitude higher than needed for home ethernet installations.
Must we try all kinds of expensive snake oil to see if they "work" when logic and engineering principles of how digital data is transmitted across networks indicate that the benefit is far and away negligible from a machine like this?
Or do we start by taking a cautious stance, and wait for the company to provide some evidence this does anything special for 3-grand of after-tax dollars? JVS' testimony is interesting I suppose but there have been instances where I think some of us know not to trust the claims completely.
... when you do NOT, seems more risky to me than what you proposed.
Seems this isn't being marketed towards you. Rather than virtue signaling by attempting to "save" others from certain calamity, you could just NOT PURCHASE IT and omit the whole crusading part. You COULD do that. It's permitted.
Is this a question of the pricing, which is absolutely much higher than some alternatives, or whether there may be a scientific/engineering reason why there might be merit to a product like this? Two different questions, at least to me.
... so many comments are making theory-based statements of "unpossibility!". Yet, none of them have heard the devices under review.
Hey, I have a specially minted coin that, if you tape it to the top of your wrist, will allow you to step off the ledge of a tall building, and instead of falling to your death, you will hover in the air and float down gently to the ground.
What? You're skeptical? My "zero experience alarm" is going off. You can't really have an informed opinion about the likelihood this will work, without trying it just as I described. Right?
Except we both know you don't think that at all. You don't REALLY have to go personally trying every claim anyone ever throws out in order to have an opinion. If you have some knowledge about a claim, you can rate the plausibility quite well.
If I claim to a physicist that my friend has created a Perpetual Motion Machine in his garage they don't have to go "experience it for themselves" because they have sound knowledge about physics and know the likelihood is around O such a device is even possible.
This is how we go through life making rational, informed decisions about which type of propositions are plausible or not, whether to waste time, or not.
The people here objecting to the claims about this switch are doing so on the basis of some knowledge about how these things actually work, and hence the implausibility of the claims made for the device. If you can put forth some technical argument/evidence that would support the product's claim why not present it (and not just "I heard a difference" since people easily imagine differences)?
Otherwise, skepticism based on the technical claims remains justified.
...on my list of prognostications dated over a century ago, a magic gas that when injected into a bladder shall levitate you and it above the earth. I have a bolt of cloth and these sticks and with my plans you'll fly like a bird. I have a distilled fluid derived from deep in the soil that with my mechanical carriage will perambulate you to your office.
Your examples, RH, prove the point you're arguing against, and what you're doing is not skepticism. The authentic skeptic simply doesn't lay out money for any of these examples. He never climbs aboard. The *subjective gainsayer* insists a phenomenon or action may not occur because of his own beliefs - despite airplanes and cars - and then goes to irrational lengths to argue the point strictly by the lights of varying subjective disbelief.
And yet zero actual experience. What a waste.
Wine tasting, minus the wine.
So I presume you won't address the point made in all those words?
If the words were "wasted" on you, well that's up to you.
But others are reading these threads, so not all is "wasted" ;-)
Oh no I just don't respond to word salad. I'm full from lunch.
You have zero experience with any item under review. The end.
So can I interest you in a special coin I've made that, placed on your amps, will VASTLY improve the sound?
It's only $40! You could send me money via paypal!
You're an audiophile. You care about improving the sound of your system right? And for a mere $40?
The only reason you would not go for this is that you are skeptical of the claim.
Except you have no basis for skepticism because, after all, you've had "zero experience" listening with this special coin.
Does all this appeal to "you haven't tried, so you can't have a reasonable opinion" sound like nonsense to you?
Welcome to the club ;-)
You debate like a 3rd grader.
You've committed the famed 'Illicit Major' type of categorical syllogism.
Oh and I don't require you to curate my hypothetical behavior. It's both incorrect and rude.
You've committed the famed 'Illicit Major' type of categorical syllogism.
Ah..no I haven't. (I enjoy philosophy, so recognize your false claim).
First, 'Illicit Major' is a formal fallacy. I was making an informal argument. You should have recognized it as an informal reductio ad absurdum based on YOUR claim
"so many comments are making theory-based statements of "unpossibility!". Yet, none of them have heard the devices under review. "
Which clearly suggested that it's unreasonable to be skeptical about a claim, even by appeal to theory, without having personally tested the claim oneself.
THAT is the principle I have been deconstructing via reductio ad absurdum - this principle leads to absurdities like not being able to justify skepticism towards any claim anyone makes "unless you've got first hand experience with the item."
Hence: special coin and perpetual motion machine analogies.
Now the likely reflex is to say "but that's silly, it's disanalogous because, you see, the NORDOST product claims aren't outrageous, like the ones you made for coins and perpetual motion machines. It's much more plausible!"
Which would be missing the point. Worse, that simply begs the question because the very plausibility of the Nordost device ARE what is under dispute! So to avoid Special Pleading you would have to actually demonstrate why the Nordost device IS actually plausibly altering the signal, or better yet produce actual evidence it DOES change the signal.
And no it's not "rude" to point out that we both know you don't find my claims about the Special Coin to be compelling or plausible.
Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong on that and I'll send you my paypal info so you can make your purchase ;-)
You're wrong. You've been exposed as expressing an informed opinion about a device for which you have zero knowledge. You made abundant theory-based proclamations. Then you attempted to construct additional ad-hominem attacks against me just as you have against JVS and Nordost.
Next, I don't need you to curate what I say. I didn't suggest anything. I said what I said. Res Ipsa Loquitor. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Lastly, you are EMPHATICALLY incorrect as you have 100% constructed a Formal Fallacy. I cannot understand this fact on your behalf. Just as I do not need you to attempt to curate, or reframe MY statements, you do not need to do so for yours, either. Your statements speak for themselves, as it were.
Your lack of understanding of the structural underpinnings of your fallacious statements leads me to doubt, greatly, your passion for philosophy.
You've been exposed as expressing an informed opinion about a device for which you have zero knowledge.
You seem to be either hallucinating this, or more likely, mixing me up with some other member in this thread. I haven't made explicit claims to technical knowledge (mentioned others are doing so), and you have not exposed a single thing about my "knowledge" regarding electronics as it relates to the Nordost switcher. Again, to be charitable, I have to presume you are mixing me up with someone else.
"I didn't suggest anything. I said what I said."
So...your just produced a series of words with no implications? That's weird. Why would you do that? (And, yes, your statement did have the implications I suggested, and you kept repeating the same "point.).
Virtually your entire response is pure assertion and I frankly get the impression you don't really grasp, or care about, the nature of "assertion" vs "argument" or how arguments actually work. (Since you aren't producing any - except for assertions the implications of which you will then disavow and not support).
So, yes, this will be fruitless.
You're a flat-earth hack. If you didn't put words in my mouth, you wouldn't have any words at all.
I'm sure I'll see you the next time you attempt to peddle reductionist objectivist drivel in the comment section, for equipment that you do not own and neither with which do you have any experience. Or when you attempt to gate-keep audio on behalf of "Ze Zience, YAH! *boot stomp in unison*, *salute*".
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good bye.
I blew it apart. It was and remains a preposterous, wildly obvious strawman.
Uptone Audio sold over 3200 units of their [EtherRegen] switch, published a technical white paper on the issues that the product addressed, hosted a forum for user and engineering-based questions/comments, a user feedback forum with over 1400 positive user comments, and offered a money-back guaranty if you were not fully satisfied. I recall their return rate being extremely small. Yet, muckraking Audio Science testifies to not measure or hear a difference and files the product under "Quackery". I have three of them timed off a Mutec Ref10 SE120 and powered by a hybrid LPS/SMPS supply. I have no doubt about the reviewer's findings. I surrender....Delegate me to the Nut House.
I have a soft spot for organic cashews. How about you?
Nothing like a bag of ALDIS organic cashews with sea salt over recently expanded holography and improved system resolution. I've got to be mindful though to not eat the entire bag in one listening session. I've offered for people to visit and listen but turns out when they cling to what they know, their real intention is getting me to hand over a bigger club to try to beat me with :)
Too much can lead to a bloated midrange.
. . .enhance your reputation as a serious reviewer.
Try these things out, or don't...
https://www.stereophile.com/content/quackery-gullibility-and-open-mindedness
This review is both funny and sad at the same time.
hitler and krishnamurti shared some 99.999 of human genome; one wonders why were they not the same person in the first place.
Yesterday I streamed classical music in 24/96 quality from a wav-file I stored on my www-homepage before starting a listening session: OSM Chamber Soloists, Schubert Octet in F Major, D. 803 Streamed through a common router-network on my Samsung laptop into my Nagra DAC. And next I played the file from my laptop directly into the Nagra DAC. No sound difference at all to my ears.
But, I am pretty bad with digital music. I got many DAC's over the years - cheap and expensive ones. They all sound nearly the same to me. All I can hear is a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. All the noise coming from other sources. I don't know, I cannot hear differences when switching off influencing devices. (very different to playing from analog source - there I can hear differences)
wouldn't it be quicker to let the head of marketing write the blurb himself?after all it's in his job description.
...it's essentially indistinguishable from branded content.
[EDIT:] BTW, as a piece of branded content, I would give this a very high rating. Jason is an excellent writer.
This kind of nonsense is finally being called out. So many have wasted so much money on this kind of snake oil that TAS and Stereophile have made a living off of them. The reviewers either imagine what they hear or they are simply lying. "there's a sucker born every minute".
What a way to torture yourself!
People, before you go on saying its "impossible" do you really think it is your place to comment on such that you have no experience of? Many things have been though to be "impossible" in audio before (perfect sound forever comes to mind) only to be found to be in error. BTW, most, if not all, Nordost dealers will allow for an in home trial of products like this with no financial risk-perhaps those who are skeptical should try it, you just might eat your words and enjoy improved sound quality.
You don't even need to experience these products.
There are scholarly papers and books authored by people like Bill Whitlock, Ralph Morrison, and Henry Ott that describe what often takes place with regard to noise currents in actual systems. Not just audio systems, either.
Whether the reviewed products solve these problems, I haven't a clue. Whether they are worth the money is another question still.
Here's a question... If Ethernet and other signaling systems are completely immune to noise effects and are otherwise perfect, why are there so many error correction techniques associated with them?
Why anything associated with audio gets shamed and labeled as impossible is something I've never understood. Where's a sociologist when you need one?
Full disclosure: My day job has nothing to with audio, but does encounter systemic noise issues all the time. I also don't use any Nordost products, so I've not got a horse in that race, either.
Correct, just how much of these expensive addon's are needed in the streaming/downloading chain to make them "try to" sound as good as CD transports can do with early uncompressed issues (<2000) of a CD, and yet still not sound as good!!! Because most stuff streamed or downloaded is later (>2000) compressed versions.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/1/dr/asc?artist=Elton%20John&alb...
Where I'd like to know where it's made and how much Nordost makes on each one.