[vinay_ys]

192khz/32bit audio track is 6.144Mbps. Assuming smallest data packet, at 64 bytes data per packet that's 12kpps. Any switch that has more bandwidth per port, more total non-blocking switching and forwarding rate that the sum of each port in use will suffice. These days, you would definitely go for gigabit non-blocking switches which have <1ns inter-packet gap and way too much bandwidth and forwarding rate than what your PCM stream needs.

[com2kid]

> 192khz

Please don't. You'll make Nyquist sad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...

On its way to your speakers, a audio file sampled at 192khz will ideally be identical to a recording done at 44.1khz, except over sampling can introduce audio artifacts that degrade audio quality so you can end up with worse audio.

So, please, don't unnecessarily over sample.

[Karrot_Kream]

If you're talking about a general WAN, there's no guarantee that jitter on your route may not violate 12kpps, and it's quite common on most oversubscribed ISPs to stutter receiving 6.144Mbps due to occasional high latency causing a missed packet window (oversimplifying here because there are audio receive buffers as well.) Over a LAN this would only happen if you're pushing your switch to the limit.

Should you buy an audiophile network switch? God no.

[vidarh]

But this only matters either if you don't have enough bandwidth to compensate and a buffer, or for whatever reason can't buffer much (e.g. it's live and two-way)

[Karrot_Kream]

Yeah hence I mention the WAN. Generally some link along your WAN route is oversaturated, on a shitty ISP it's probably the link to your local ISP itself. I presumed audiophile switches would be popular for real-time streaming solutions, but I still don't understand the appeal.