XACT(LY) - Review of XACT S1 Evo Music Server and N1 Switch

On 9/4/2024 at 12:53 AM, di-fi said:

Dear @Marcin_gps,

 

The XACT S1 is a remarkable piece of technology that serves dual purposes as both a network switch/router and a music server/player. This versatility is a significant achievement, as it challenges the traditional distinctions between a streamer and a switch. Essentially, the difference lies only in the operating system, allowing the S1 to transition seamlessly between these roles.

 

As an end user, I see great potential in having a single unit that performs both functions. However, from a commercial perspective, this might be less appealing, as it could reduce the need for separate devices. I hope that in the near future, there will be a way to integrate both functions effectively. Such integration should address network noise issues, eliminating the need for audiophile switches designed to minimize this noise.

 

I was excited about the new developments, but I felt a bit disappointed when I was told that adding a switch was necessary to improve the S1. This leads us to a choice within the same brand: either the “likely too expensive $12k S1 switch or the more affordable $6k N1” (from WBF). Deciding between these options can be challenging, if money is no object what to choose for best SQ?

 

And how to understand the flexibility of the S1, which can function as a streamer one day and a switch the next? As is not the case with the N1 switch, which lacks this dual capability.

 

Best,

As much as I'd love to integrate both features - music server/player & switch - running simultaneously, it's not possible. Even if it was, it would cripple performance and that is sth I can't accept. 

And I never said that adding a switch is necessary. I wrote that it can improve sound, but this is true for any music server/streamer. 

Best regards,
Marcin
 

On 9/4/2024 at 12:53 AM, di-fi said:

I felt a bit disappointed when I was told that adding a switch was necessary to improve the S1.

To @Marcin_gps, Thank you for your comment. I should have mentioned that adding a switch would enhance the S1's sound quality.
 

I don't mean to suggest that streamers perform poorly without audiophile network switches, but it's an issue we have to contend with. It's surprising to think that network management has become an art form in its own right.

Your work, whether deliberate or not, blur the conventional boundaries between a streamer and a switch. At their core, the distinction seems to hinge merely on the operating system, while the physical hardware has the capacity to fulfill both roles. From an end-user perspective, the potential of a unified device that integrates these functions is substantial. This could address the challenge of noise propagation over Ethernet, a persistent issue. Nonetheless, I recognize that pursuing this solution might not be commercially viable at present, and I understand the dilemma for manufacturers and being unable or unwilling to provide an answer today. Congrats to you for S1.

@Marcin_gps Congrats on the new product! Can you share more on the Phanton Music Drive cabling? DOes it connect only the memory storage drive, or other components as well?

On 9/10/2024 at 4:14 PM, lsantista said:

@Marcin_gps Congrats on the new product! Can you share more on the Phanton Music Drive cabling? DOes it connect only the memory storage drive, or other components as well?

It connects the SSD with the motherboard inside the unit. However we also launched USB and LAN cable: https://xact.audio/phantom/

Best regards,
Marcin
 

On 9/6/2024 at 1:21 PM, Marcin_gps said:

As much as I'd love to integrate both features - music server/player & switch - running simultaneously, it's not possible. Even if it was, it would cripple performance and that is sth I can't accept. 

 

And I never said that adding a switch is necessary. I wrote that it can improve sound, but this is true for any music server/streamer. 

5 hours ago, Marcin_gps said:

However we also launched USB and LAN cable: https://xact.audio/phantom/

If server/player & switch running simultaneously is not possible. It seems my best option to improve sound, and assuming there will be an R1, it seems this is how I need to assemble my streaming section before the DAC:

Modem ➔ 

XACT R1 Router ➔ XACT PHANTOM LAN Cable ➔

XACT N1 Switch ➔ XACT PHANTOM LAN Cable ➔

XACT S1 Streamer ➔ XACT PHANTOM USB Cable ➔

DAC

The S1/s1 EVO can act as a router. We ported OpenWRT system. 

Best regards,
Marcin
 

On 9/12/2024 at 10:19 AM, Marcin_gps said:

The S1/s1 EVO can act as a router. We ported OpenWRT system. 

 

Best regards,
Marcin
 

@Marcin_gps, you have to stop!

I’m blown away by this, and it’s hard for me to comprehend. First, I had to get my head around the idea of two interchangeable S1 units acting as a switch and a streamer. Now, the thought of a trio of S1 units functioning as a router, switch, and streamer is just unbelievable!

You mentioned it's not possible right now, but I can only imagine how impressive it will be when all three are combined into one unit, still reducing noise and eliminating extra cables. I believe we'll reach that point in the coming years without crippling performance and I’m excited to see how you'll contribute to this journey.

Best regards,

Paul

.

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

.

One bullet to rule them all Alex ! 😂 But seriously, was there more, or is this a cliffhanger?

On 9/13/2024 at 5:50 PM, di-fi said:

@Marcin_gps, you have to stop!

I’m blown away by this, and it’s hard for me to comprehend. First, I had to get my head around the idea of two interchangeable S1 units acting as a switch and a streamer. Now, the thought of a trio of S1 units functioning as a router, switch, and streamer is just unbelievable!

 

You mentioned it's not possible right now, but I can only imagine how impressive it will be when all three are combined into one unit, still reducing noise and eliminating extra cables. I believe we'll reach that point in the coming years without crippling performance and I’m excited to see how you'll contribute to this journey.

 

Best regards,

Paul

Hi Paul, 

Thank you.

It's important to understand  that, as in real life, there are no free dinners in digital audio too. 

The XACT S1 sounds as good as it does, because I spent years reducing overhead. 

Best regards,
Marcin
 

9 hours ago, Marcin_gps said:

Hi Paul, 

 

Thank you.

 

It's important to understand  that, as in real life, there are no free dinners in digital audio too. 

 

The XACT S1 sounds as good as it does, because I spent years reducing overhead. 

 

Best regards,
Marcin
 

Hi Marcin,

If my suggestion to combine the functions of a router, switch, and streamer into a single device led you to consider creating a device that merges these three functions at a fraction of the cost, that wasn’t my intention. The real issue is whether we will be stuck using three separate devices to reduce noise forever, and who will continue the research and development needed to address this. It seems to me that if anyone can accomplish this, it could be you, and you should charge a fair price for it. I apologize if my suggestion came across as expecting it for free—that would indeed be unfair given the effort involved.

My interpretation of Marcin's post with the "free dinner" is that XACT S1 sounds as good as it is because all is reduced what does not contribute to excellent sound.

I don't think that an all-in-one device (router/switch/server) will provide the same high SQ as separate devices.

Beside that there are other disadvantages with this concept.

On 9/18/2024 at 9:32 AM, matthias said:

Beside that there are other disadvantages with this concept.

By minimizing overhead and reducing board size while ensuring proper isolation, a unified assembly with high signal quality could benefit users by consolidating devices. Sure, this concept faces challenges but I would not call those disadvantages.
With the same high sound quality, having a single device would clearly be advantageous for the end user. What disadvantages do you see in this concept?

13 hours ago, di-fi said:

By minimizing overhead and reducing board size while ensuring proper isolation, a unified assembly with high signal quality could benefit users by consolidating devices. Sure, this concept faces challenges but I would not call those disadvantages.
With the same high sound quality, having a single device would clearly be advantageous for the end user. What disadvantages do you see in this concept?

I've been doing this for 15 years. Never ever adding more features and processing resulted in 'the same high sound quality' hence my comment about free dinners. 

Best regards,
Marcin
 

14 hours ago, di-fi said:

What disadvantages do you see in this concept?

1.) Upgrades: The frequency of a 3-in-one device is threefold in comparison to one device. In the worst case you have to send it back to the manufacturer.

2.) With separate devices all have their own or one separate power supply and their own case. These two points provide better SQ in comparison to all-in-one.

3.) There might be different router requirements in different continents.

4.) Some router/streamer combos offer better SQ without a switch in between.

5.) Most people wouldn't like to have the function of a router in their living room.

6.) Some people prefer to have a wifi connection between router and switch or streamer.

7.) Most people want to replace either router (or switch) or streamer and not all together.

8.) Because of different requirements it might to more difficult to sell on the used market.

9.) The case of a 3-in-one might be too big for some racks.

Surely there are more... 😎

Thanks for your comment @matthias. I believe it's possible to break from conventional thinking without compromising performance. With his groundbreaking design, Marcin has already shown that a (not officially released X1) router is no longer just a router, neither is the X1 switch what a switch used to be. More similarities than differences between each device open new ways to integration, at least if it wasn’t for XACT, that is how I see it now.
 

The challenges you mention appear easily surmountable, so who knows what the future might hold?
 

1.) Upgrades: Design for modularity, allowing component swaps without returning the entire device.
2.) Power & Cases: Use advanced power management and internal isolation to minimize interference.
3.) Regional Router Requirements: Create region-specific modules or configurable router settings.
4.) SQ Without Switch: Ensure minimal signal degradation with high-quality networking and audio components.
5.) Router in Living Room: Focus on sleek designs that blend into living spaces.
6.) WiFi Preference: Include both wired and wireless connectivity options.
7.)  Replacing Parts: Make components modular for easy replacement of individual parts. Or let go of thinking in separates : router + switch + streamer is one. 
8.)  Used Market: This applies to both integrated and separate systems, so it’s not unique to integrated. Encourage a robust market by ensuring compatibility across regions.
9.) Case Size: Prioritize compact (or customizable) designs to fit different setups.

Note that I am  not talking 5 months, but more like 5 years. Maybe that is all it takes…😎.

@di-fi

Sorry, but your arguments do not convince me at all. It seems to be the same for manufacturers.

I would never buy such a device and see only disadvantages.

I do not understand what you will gain with it. Most probably it will be more expensive than separate devices for the same SQ, but YMMV.

All the best 🙂

On 9/20/2024 at 9:54 PM, matthias said:

@di-fi

Sorry, but your arguments do not convince me at all. It seems to be the same for manufacturers.

I would never buy such a device and see only disadvantages.

I do not understand what you will gain with it. Most probably it will be more expensive than separate devices for the same SQ, but YMMV.

All the best 🙂

 

@matthias

As an audiophile, I've seen remarkable advancements in network technology tuning over the years. However, I firmly believe that the upstream network should not dictate the audiophile setup process. The explosion of costly network switches, filters, and cables has created a new audiophile network industry that, while exciting, has left us stuck in a cycle of endless tuning.

As I see it, audiophiles have projected their need for fine-tuning onto the network aspect, complicating the pursuit of SQ. So I advocate for the integration of network noise control directly into streamer and DAC devices. By achieving near perfection in this area, these devices would provide consistent sound quality, independent of network variables, and elevate the performance of every downstream component.

This approach allows us to focus on the truly enjoyable and rewarding process of downstream tuning. By eliminating the burden of managing network-related variables, we can fine-tune cables and devices with precision, creating a more efficient and satisfying path to optimal SQ.

Cheers

2 hours ago, di-fi said:

As I see it, audiophiles have projected their need for fine-tuning onto the network aspect, complicating the pursuit of SQ. So I advocate for the integration of network noise control directly into streamer and DAC devices. By achieving near perfection in this area, these devices would provide consistent sound quality, independent of network variables, and elevate the performance of every downstream component.

 

I believe that @Marcin_gps has posted here that he has used (or is using)his own server without additional switches and had a very good result.  

There are other streamers/servers that are also mostly immune to upstream noise (I use one as a result of having been through a process of adding multiple upstream devices as you describe, but this thread isn't the appropriate place to discuss other products).  Still, I use a passive filter which makes a slight improvement in my particular network.  

My point is that what you are looking for may already exist (that is, mostly noise immune streamer/servers or streamer/DACs).  Audiophiles will always experiment and tweak.  As streaming has grown and become one viable path toward high fidelity sound (could we say five years ago? And some will disagree that high fidelity can be achieved with streaming) and folks have finally acknowledged that there is noise carried by the network signal, the marketplace has grown accordingly.  

While I myself try to achieve simplification, and my streamer/DAC is one such measure, I do not see the advantage of combining routers and switches.  Folks like me, who desire convenience of TV/internet connections with built-in troubleshooting capabilities (ie, excellent app), will continue to use the router provided by the ISP. 

On 9/22/2024 at 4:49 PM, PYP said:

I believe that @Marcin_gps has posted here that he has used (or is using)his own server without additional switches and had a very good result.  

 

@PYPThanks for sharing. Indeed, Marcin achieved a solid result without the switch, but the best result came with it. I understand your desire for convenience, but convenience often aligns with good results, not necessarily the best ones. It’s worth noting that Marcin didn’t connect his home devices, like his TV, to his audio network.
For example, even a device like the Grimm can still reveal upstream network changes. My point aligns with Marcin's approach: he introduces a top-tier device that only delivers its best performance in an optimal setup—specifically, a trio of router, switch, and streamer in a rigorously controlled network environment.

However, what frustrates me is that it seems unfair to expect end users to solve this network issue themselves. We’re handed this problem, and it feels like we’re left responsible for addressing something that should have been taken care of by the manufacturers. Don’t get me wrong, it still sounds incredible, but like most streamers, it only truly shines with a better network. That said, this approach might not be for everyone—especially if you enjoy the process of tuning your network.
This is all I have to say about this here. Thanks.