|
|
Post by NigelB on Jan 13, 2024 19:10:52 GMT
My router is the first switch in the network, taking internet from 4G+. That is fed from a linear supercap PSU. The EtherREGEN follows that, with a 1m Supra Cat8 cable, itself also powered from a linear supercap PSU. Then onto the 5m fibre run to the streamer. It's simple and short. I will experiment with leaving the EtherREGEN in circuit when I get the EtherREGEN Gen 2, but that adds complexity and another PSU. You seem to be using the EtherRegen to clean up the signal from the router before it goes into your optical cable. No noise can pass through the fibre/fiber connection, as you I'm sure you know, though ground plane noise is a thing. Have you tried using the EtherRegen say 0.5m Cat cable from the streamer? How did it sound by comparison? |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 13, 2024 20:49:04 GMT
You seem to be using the EtherRegen to clean up the signal from the router before it goes into your optical cable. No noise can pass through the fibre/fiber connection, as you I'm sure you know, though ground plane noise is a thing. And yet I heard very clearly the improvement in the EtherREGEN's performance when I changed the clock cable to a Tubulus Concentus. And again when I inserted a Mini-Circuits BLP-10.7+ filter. And again, with an even larger effect, when I switched the power supply from a Zero Zone to an Uptone JS-2 PSU. Be careful when making assumptions. "No noise can cross the moat in the ER" and yet I heard the above and changing the ethernet cable from router to ER very clearly. "No noise can pass through the fibre" and yet I heard very clearly the effects of changing SFPs and the fibre cable itself when experimenting. Evaluation your experimental findings and adjust the theory to suit. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelB on Jan 13, 2024 22:14:58 GMT
You seem to be using the EtherRegen to clean up the signal from the router before it goes into your optical cable. No noise can pass through the fibre/fiber connection, as you I'm sure you know, though ground plane noise is a thing. And yet I heard very clearly the improvement in the EtherREGEN's performance when I changed the clock cable to a Tubulus Concentus. And again when I inserted a Mini-Circuits BLP-10.7+ filter. And again, with an even larger effect, when I switched the power supply from a Zero Zone to an Uptone JS-2 PSU. Be careful when making assumptions. "No noise can cross the moat in the ER" and yet I heard the above and changing the ethernet cable from router to ER very clearly. "No noise can pass through the fibre" and yet I heard very clearly the effects of changing SFPs and the fibre cable itself when experimenting. Evaluation your experimental findings and adjust the theory to suit. Your ears, your system, and we can always learn from each others' experiences, which is what I'm trying to do.
Apologies if it is upstream, but what is the clock connected to the EtherRegen for? And what does the Connectus do?
The filter, I get.
The power supply I get.
"No noise can cross the moat in the ER" is something I would never assert myself. I don't like the term moat, as you may have noticed. It's not a thing in electrical terms, it's a clever analogy which describes the galvanic isolation which all switches provide though the EtherRegen appears to perform well beyond many. All switches let noise pass, it's a question of how much.
"No noise can pass through the fibre" on the other hand I m happy to assert is an absolute fact. That's very different from saying no noise can pass through an optical connection! There are converters at either end and the downstream converter is by far the most important in noise terms; changes of SFP here can indeed affect sound quality. Power supplies can affect both as the noise is not moving over the optical cable. I use single mode OS2 cable rather than multi-mode OM.
I continue to experiment, to iterate theory and practice, but I refuse to go all practice. Happy to hear a difference and then work out how I can possibly be hearing it. Forums can be a place in which someone shares a possible explanation which I want to put to the (listening) test. But we all have to filter somehow rather than buying every single device on the market, and personally I need at least a glimpse of a possible explanation before I'll get my wallet out.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jan 14, 2024 0:36:11 GMT
You seem to be using the EtherRegen to clean up the signal from the router before it goes into your optical cable. No noise can pass through the fibre/fiber connection, as you I'm sure you know, though ground plane noise is a thing. "No noise can cross the moat in the ER" and yet I heard the above and changing the ethernet cable from router to ER very clearly. "No noise can pass through the fibre" and yet I heard very clearly the effects of changing SFPs and the fibre cable itself when experimenting. When I visited you with John, swapping out that fiber cable you were unhappy with yielded a significant improvement in tone - I say this as a somewhat cable sceptic too ... |
|
|
|
Post by orange55 on Jan 14, 2024 9:32:34 GMT
Like MartinT covered. I too hear even slight changes the other side of the optical link. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 14, 2024 9:54:47 GMT
"No noise can cross the moat in the ER" is something I would never assert myself. I don't like the term moat, as you may have noticed. It's not a thing in electrical terms, it's a clever analogy which describes the galvanic isolation which all switches provide though the EtherRegen appears to perform well beyond many. All switches let noise pass, it's a question of how much. The isolation in the EtherREGEN, which they call a moat, is way more advanced than in any other switch. You can even see it delineated as a thick yellow line on their circuit board below. The ONLY things which cross the moat are two opto-isolators and the isolating DC to DC converter to provide power to the B side. Other switches do not have this level of isolation. See what I mean about designed from the ground up? Even so, a small amount of noise crosses it, as does noise crossing fibre. It's all about reduction as you cannot eliminate it.  |
|
Tobias
Rank: Quartet
Posts: 325
|
Post by Tobias on Jan 14, 2024 11:17:40 GMT
And yet I heard very clearly the improvement in the EtherREGEN's performance when I changed the clock cable to a Tubulus Concentus. And again when I inserted a Mini-Circuits BLP-10.7+ filter. And again, with an even larger effect, when I switched the power supply from a Zero Zone to an Uptone JS-2 PSU. Be careful when making assumptions. "No noise can cross the moat in the ER" and yet I heard the above and changing the ethernet cable from router to ER very clearly. "No noise can pass through the fibre" and yet I heard very clearly the effects of changing SFPs and the fibre cable itself when experimenting. Evaluation your experimental findings and adjust the theory to suit. Your ears, your system, and we can always learn from each others' experiences, which is what I'm trying to do.
Apologies if it is upstream, but what is the clock connected to the EtherRegen for? And what does the Connectus do?
The filter, I get.
The power supply I get.
"No noise can cross the moat in the ER" is something I would never assert myself. I don't like the term moat, as you may have noticed. It's not a thing in electrical terms, it's a clever analogy which describes the galvanic isolation which all switches provide though the EtherRegen appears to perform well beyond many. All switches let noise pass, it's a question of how much.
"No noise can pass through the fibre" on the other hand I m happy to assert is an absolute fact. That's very different from saying no noise can pass through an optical connection! There are converters at either end and the downstream converter is by far the most important in noise terms; changes of SFP here can indeed affect sound quality. Power supplies can affect both as the noise is not moving over the optical cable. I use single mode OS2 cable rather than multi-mode OM.
I continue to experiment, to iterate theory and practice, but I refuse to go all practice. Happy to hear a difference and then work out how I can possibly be hearing it. Forums can be a place in which someone shares a possible explanation which I want to put to the (listening) test. But we all have to filter somehow rather than buying every single device on the market, and personally I need at least a glimpse of a possible explanation before I'll get my wallet out.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Sorry if you have shared this already, but can you help us share what you have in terms of digital noise reduction right now, in front of your streamer? (similar to what i did) I had a similar view as yours very recently, wanting to understand before buying, but in my opinion this is an area where you have to try it in practice, even if it is questionable. The reason is that the improvements possible in this area are way bigger than one could ever imagine, in my opinion. I have never found an area that is so rewarding to improve, as this one, especially since much of it is seen as snake oil... :-) My experience now is basically that you seem to get what you pay for (Switches, Cables, Isolators), at least in reasonable price brackets, even if there are many ways to achieve the lower noise floor and some ways are likely much cheaper. I am going to keep upgrading my gear in this area since it is fun and rewarding, even with my modest equipment. Better (expensive) ethernet cables recently blew me away, for example, when fed with a decently clean signal to protect (important, in my opinion). I share this only because i think it is a shame that people are still missing out on this due to being too skeptical (I was one of them!). |
|
|
|
Post by NigelB on Jan 14, 2024 22:20:20 GMT
Sorry if you have shared this already, but can you help us share what you have in terms of digital noise reduction right now, in front of your streamer? (similar to what i did) I had a similar view as yours very recently, wanting to understand before buying, but in my opinion this is an area where you have to try it in practice, even if it is questionable. The reason is that the improvements possible in this area are way bigger than one could ever imagine, in my opinion. I have never found an area that is so rewarding to improve, as this one, especially since much of it is seen as snake oil... :-) My experience now is basically that you seem to get what you pay for (Switches, Cables, Isolators), at least in reasonable price brackets, even if there are many ways to achieve the lower noise floor and some ways are likely much cheaper. I am going to keep upgrading my gear in this area since it is fun and rewarding, even with my modest equipment. Better (expensive) ethernet cables recently blew me away, for example, when fed with a decently clean signal to protect (important, in my opinion). I share this only because i think it is a shame that people are still missing out on this due to being too skeptical (I was one of them!). Appreciate your post. I use my own (Reiki Audio) products; an Optical Bridge followed by a SuperSwitch. Trust me, I am used to people saying that things like switches are snake oil - until they hear the difference for themselves!
There appears to be some misunderstanding, and it might be the words I'm using, huge apologies if so as I do try hard to be precise. For example, when I say "no noise can pass over an optical cable", this is NOT the same as asserting that no change upstream of an optical connection can make a sonic difference (so you're ears are kidding you etc, as one often reads on, well, most hifi forums/social media you can think of). Absolutely not. Power supplies for example can make a huge difference wherever they are. But I'm happy to stand by my assertion that no noise passes over the optical cable itself, as that is scientifically impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelB on Jan 14, 2024 22:28:08 GMT
"No noise can cross the moat in the ER" is something I would never assert myself. I don't like the term moat, as you may have noticed. It's not a thing in electrical terms, it's a clever analogy which describes the galvanic isolation which all switches provide though the EtherRegen appears to perform well beyond many. All switches let noise pass, it's a question of how much. The isolation in the EtherREGEN, which they call a moat, is way more advanced than in any other switch. You can even see it delineated as a thick yellow line on their circuit board below. The ONLY things which cross the moat are two opto-isolators and the isolating DC to DC converter to provide power to the B side. Other switches do not have this level of isolation. See what I mean about designed from the ground up? Even so, a small amount of noise crosses it, as does noise crossing fibre. It's all about reduction as you cannot eliminate it. Yes, I am familiar with the design. Quite so many references to jitter in such diagrams do not fill me with confidence and risk misleading people about what it means. Jitter in ethernet, as I think I've said here before, refers to packet delay and there is no mechanism by which it can impact sound quality (unlike jitter in streamers and DACs). I've read the related white paper (I think that's what it's called) and it doesn't help. If ethernet packet delay (this kind of jitter) impacted sound quality then ethernet clock accuracy would be important in reducing it, but it doesn't so they're not and I find such references to clocks unhelpful and potentially misleading.
Thanks for your patience but I think we'd better leave it there as I'm at risk of trying your patience if I haven't done so already. I'm genuinely pleased that you're pleased with your setup, and all I want to do is to work out and learn from what makes a difference by combining practical experience and theoretical understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 15, 2024 7:33:41 GMT
Jitter in ethernet, as I think I've said here before, refers to packet delay and there is no mechanism by which it can impact sound quality (unlike jitter in streamers and DACs). No, I don't think it does. Each data word is encoded as PCM (numbers). These numbers are wrapped in ethernet as packets using waveforms and that waveform can have perfect square edges (unlikely) or be imperfect, with minute jitter in the rising and falling edges. This translates as noise entering the streamer/DDC/DAC through uncertainty around the trigger point, resulting in all the alanogue smearing we are familiar with. There is no 'packet delay' as you put it. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelB on Jan 15, 2024 15:56:33 GMT
Jitter in ethernet, as I think I've said here before, refers to packet delay and there is no mechanism by which it can impact sound quality (unlike jitter in streamers and DACs). No, I don't think it does. Each data word is encoded as PCM (numbers). These numbers are wrapped in ethernet as packets using waveforms and that waveform can have perfect square edges (unlikely) or be imperfect, with minute jitter in the rising and falling edges. This translates as noise entering the streamer/DDC/DAC through uncertainty around the trigger point, resulting in all the alanogue smearing we are familiar with. There is no 'packet delay' as you put it. When network egineers speak of jitter, they mean packet delay - well packet delay variability. When we speak of jitter in the streamer-and-beyond domain, we mean something different. The waveform of which you speak is received by the streamer as a waveform which is interpreted as 1s and 0s; if there were errors here, a 1 might be mistaken for a 0 and vice versa but they aren't, as there is error correction etc built into the 7-layer ethernet protocol. The rising and falling edges do not affect this translation of waveform to a bistream digital interpretation; any "timing" in the signal is ignored as the streamer uses its own (or an external) clock to do this. It certainly does not translate as noise. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelB on Jan 15, 2024 15:58:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 15, 2024 17:08:24 GMT
The waveform of which you speak is received by the streamer as a waveform which is interpreted as 1s and 0s; if there were errors here, a 1 might be mistaken for a 0 and vice versa but they aren't, as there is error correction etc built into the 7-layer ethernet protocol. The rising and falling edges do not affect this translation of waveform to a bistream digital interpretation; any "timing" in the signal is ignored as the streamer uses its own (or an external) clock to do this. You've got it wrong again because you keep making bad assumptions. It has NOTHING to do with falsely interpreting the data. If it did, the music would be unlistenable. The waveform is ANALOGUE. It simply represents the digital data. Jitter in the waveform (which carries the data) causes uncertainty in the triggering of said data into the DAC. This uncertainty in triggering is noise which affects the D/A conversion. I'm going to stop now, because you seem hell-bent on making points without listening to what you have been told. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelB on Jan 15, 2024 21:16:29 GMT
The waveform of which you speak is received by the streamer as a waveform which is interpreted as 1s and 0s; if there were errors here, a 1 might be mistaken for a 0 and vice versa but they aren't, as there is error correction etc built into the 7-layer ethernet protocol. The rising and falling edges do not affect this translation of waveform to a bistream digital interpretation; any "timing" in the signal is ignored as the streamer uses its own (or an external) clock to do this. You've got it wrong again because you keep making bad assumptions. It has NOTHING to do with falsely interpreting the data. If it did, the music would be unlistenable. The waveform is ANALOGUE. It simply represents the digital data. Jitter in the waveform (which carries the data) causes uncertainty in the triggering of said data into the DAC. This uncertainty in triggering is noise which affects the D/A conversion. I'm going to stop now, because you seem hell-bent on making points without listening to what you have been told. As you wish. We fundamentally disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by The Brookmeister on Jan 15, 2024 21:54:40 GMT
The flash are you from the WAM forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveC on Jan 16, 2024 11:37:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 12:16:00 GMT
Agreed. However, this forum was setup in order to exchange useful information on audio reproduction and debunk false assumptions, so that members can achieve more for less.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveC on Jan 16, 2024 12:40:37 GMT
Martin
A lot of useful information is indeed exchanged on this forum, but that is different from someone who joins with the apparent sole purpose of arguing for the sake of it!
He has exactly the same MO over on the dCS Community forum!
|
|
Tobias
Rank: Quartet
Posts: 325
|
Post by Tobias on Jan 16, 2024 12:44:00 GMT
I think it is worth noticing that someone like Hans Beekhuyzen has recently changed his mind regarding the "need" for additional clocking, from a jitter reduction point of view, prior to the DAC clock.
Since he tested the Networks Accousics Muon Pro Streaming System he seem to have changed his mind. This is a passive ethernet filtering solution that manages to give a near "perfect" result without any additional clocking involved. I guess it can be improved even more (?) but he don´t see additional clocking as needed or being a critical function any longer.
Having said this, when switch/streamer re-clocking results in lowed noise floor then that is also obviously a working solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 13:46:47 GMT
I think it is worth noticing that someone like Hans Beekhuyzen has recently changed his mind regarding the "need" for additional clocking, from a jitter reduction point of view, prior to the DAC clock. Oh sure, Tobias, and we are all learning constantly. I cannot tell you how much I have learned in the last 3-4 years on the subject of digital audio reproduction, and I'm still just scratching the surface. However - and this is important - I do back up any claims I make by having at least experimented and tested practically the components I am talking about. I cannot talk about, say, an LHY clock as I've never tried one (except to say that the squarewave output looks poor) - but I can see that many other users like them. I can talk about AfterDark and EtherREGEN as I've been using them for a long time and know what makes them work well and what doesn't. Yet sometimes I am told what I know not to be true. Winning an argument is unimportant to me, but I never want TAS to be accused of disinformation. |
|
