It seems this is a white paper in the marketing sense rather than the informative sense. It is lacking any empirical data or interpretation thereof.

I do not doubt that different devices, no matter how apparently benign their role, can and do introduce audible variations into complex audio systems. And I have no experience of comparing Ethernet devices so am not in a position to comment as to whether I have heard any differences.

But that paper seems to ignore the rather fundamental fact that any digital audio device knows exactly what the clock rate is (e.g. for CD it is 44.1kHz) and thus (i) the DAC can reclock and regenerate the signal with relatively little jitter and (ii) if it cannot understand whether the voltage has crossed the Rubicon it can ask for it to be resent. If it does not do those things well it is because it is not a great DAC rather than the signal is jittery or smeared as a result of an Ethernet switch which, as I understand it*, is asynchronous. So the EtherREGEN switch may do something good but I can not see how it relates to the argument presented. Unless he is saying that the very asynchronicity of the Ethernet signal introduces enough jitter-inducing noise as to introduce (audible) distortions through the DAC mechanism? In which case it is an electronically badly designed DAC which is susceptible to any asynchronous signal no matter how it has been pampered as it is routed around the network.

* I usually avoid commenting on technical things as I have a vestigial understanding of the inner working of digital audio - if any of my comments above are wrong I am very happy to be corrected and educated.

Flame suit donned smile

In the spirit of Spinaltap, I would like to confirm that I am not involved in the corrupt theft of a global sport.