EtherREGEN: The long development thread. [Some Gen2 dev. pics and update starting on page 92.]

[Ralf11]

47 minutes ago, Blake said:

 

If I owned an expensive server I would think about selling now, before the used market value tanks.

 

No - just add some graphene to it and sell it for 3x your price on ebay

[R1200CL]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Ummm...  By definition an optical interface is already super clean, only data travels on it, no noise.

 

Looking forward to a Signature Rendu SE MKll with optical interface ?

 

If your statement is correct, we won’t be needing the EtherRegen. Only optical interfaces on the streamers. Then there for sure will be an UltraRendu MKll in a future.  Just exchange the RJ45 with a SPF. I don’t think it’s that simple and easy. 

 

My understanding is that John’s design reclocks and clean up phase noice etc.

Several unique digital cleaning techniques, in addition to the leakage blocking.

 

 

[d_elm]

55 minutes ago, barrows said:

Ummm...  By definition an optical interface is already super clean, only data travels on it, no noise.

However, fibre does introduce jitter.

[rickca]

35 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Looking forward to a Signature Rendu SE MKll with optical interface

Can we please move all the speculation to some other thread?  

[barrows]

34 minutes ago, d_elm said:

However, fibre does introduce jitter.

Jitter to what?  Ethernet data is perfect, and jitter on the packets matters not at all.  That jitter does not change the data, or effect it in any way.  And the DAC never sees that jitter.

[Arpiben]

39 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

Looking forward to a Signature Rendu SE MKll with optical interface ?

 

If your statement is correct, we won’t be needing the EtherRegen. Only optical interfaces on the streamers. Then there for sure will be an UltraRendu MKll in a future.  Just exchange the RJ45 with a SPF. I don’t think it’s that simple and easy. 

 

My understanding is that John’s design reclocks and clean up phase noice etc.

Several unique digital cleaning techniques, in addition to the leakage blocking.

 

 

 

An optical streamer 10Gbps/1Gbps SFP and a DAC with same optical 10Gbps/1Gbps SFP input as well as a proper design, that should be more than enough.

[R1200CL]

5 minutes ago, Arpiben said:

 

An optical streamer 10Gbps/1Gbps SFP and a DAC with same optical 10Gbps/1Gbps SFP input as well as a proper design should be more than enough.

 

Do you want to exchange a DAC usb interface with optical ethernet ?

[Arpiben]

2 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

Do you want to exchange a DAC usb interface with optical ethernet ?

 

Adding the optical Ethernet interface at DAC level,yes. Keeping only USB and SPDIF for connectivity issues.

[R1200CL]

44 minutes ago, Arpiben said:

 

Adding the optical Ethernet interface at DAC level,yes. Keeping only USB and SPDIF for connectivity issues.

 

Well if so what is the the purpose to the streamer ?

 

I’m not getting the logic with a streamer input and output is both a SFP. 

[Kendrick]

I understand that the EtherRegen is intended as the last device in the signal path before the streamer/dac. However, many audiophiles keep the modem/router/server far from their audio system.   In my case, the IT gear is connected  to an Aqvox “audiophile” switch in a separate part of the house with 75’ of ethernet to an Sonore Ultra Rendu.   In theory, the EtherRegen could be located either with the IT gear, replacing the Aqvox switch, or with the audio gear using both the Aqvox and EtherRegen switches.  I wonder which will sound  better or perhaps it is too early to know?  

[barrows]

5 minutes ago, Kendrick said:

I understand that the EtherRegen is intended as the last device in the signal path before the streamer/dac. However, many audiophiles keep the modem/router/server far from their audio system.   In my case, the IT gear is connected  to an Aqvox “audiophile” switch in a separate part of the house with 75’ of ethernet to an Sonore Ultra Rendu.   In theory, the EtherRegen could be located either with the IT gear, replacing the Aqvox switch, or with the audio gear using both the Aqvox and EtherRegen switches.  I wonder which will sound  better or perhaps it is too early to know?  

When in doubt, simpler is usually better.  I would go with A, using only 1 switch.

[asdf1000]

7 hours ago, barrows said:

Ummm...  By definition an optical interface is already super clean, only data travels on it, no noise.

 

5 hours ago, barrows said:

Jitter to what?  Ethernet data is perfect, and jitter on the packets matters not at all.  That jitter does not change the data, or effect it in any way.  And the DAC never sees that jitter.

 

The way I read this, it implies that you think John Swenson's 'clock blocking' research is a waste of time?

 

Because there is already an option of having a pair of cheap optical FMC's before a Rendu (with the most downstream FMC being powered by an Uptone grounded SMPS for example)... a relatively cheap network optical isolation solution that already exists...

 

So a pair of FMCs means no electrical network noise and there's no jitter you suggest... so what else is needed? Nothing?

 

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

a waist 

 

... so what else is needed? 

 

 

maybe a tighter belt

[asdf1000]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

maybe a tighter belt

 

Hehe good catch. Corrected.

[barrows]

16 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

 

The way I read this, it implies that you think John Swenson's 'clock blocking' research is a waste of time?

 

Because there is already an option of having a pair of cheap optical FMC's before a Rendu (with the most downstream FMC being powered by an Uptone grounded SMPS for example)... a relatively cheap network optical isolation solution that already exists...

 

So a pair of FMCs means no electrical network noise and there's no jitter you suggest... so what else is needed? Nothing?

 

Actually, with a pair of FMCs you have all the problems inherent in commercial computer gear with the downstream FMC, as it then outputs to the Renderer/DAC.  So the optical isolation will make whatever is upstream of it a non-issue (in terms of noise, which is all that matters in this scenario, as long as this upstream gear does not share electrical AC supply directly with the audio system), but it does not eliminate problems caused by the final FMC converting to an electrical signal.  The UpTone switch takes care of this problem by being designed to be entirely isolated from upstream gear by optical interface, and then, being designed to have the lowest possible noise footprint on its Ethernet output to the Renderer/DAC (of course care should be taken about what this switch is powered by if it is going to be located close to or in the audio system, I prefer to not have any cheap, poor quality SMPS near the audio system).

What I am saying is that any "jitter" of the optical interface is a non-issue.  Ethernet transmission of data is not analogous to audio signal jitter of a toslink interface.

Please, I would like to hear an thorough explanation of:

 

1. Source of jitter which you ascribe to optical interfaces (jitter specs for ethernet optical interfaces)

2. The mechanism of which you are concerned that the Ethernet packet jitter will effect audio sonics.

 

[asdf1000]

7 minutes ago, barrows said:

Please, I would like to hear an thorough explanation of:

 

1. Source of jitter which you ascribe to optical interfaces (jitter specs for ethernet optical interfaces)

2. The mechanism of which you are concerned that the Ethernet packet jitter will effect audio sonics.

 

Is this for me? I have no concerns and haven't made any claims... I was just asking questions.

 

7 minutes ago, barrows said:

So the optical isolation will make whatever is upstream of it a non-issue (in terms of noise, which is all that matters in this scenario, as long as this upstream gear does not share electrical AC supply directly with the audio system), but it does not eliminate problems caused by the final FMC converting to an electrical signal.

 

Noted. This noise (converting optical to electrical) is something that interests me. The noise isn't very well filtered by the downstream ethernet cable transformers ?

 

[barrows]

58 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Is this for me? I have no concerns and haven't made any claims... I was just asking questions.

 

 

Noted. This noise (converting optical to electrical) is something that interests me. The noise isn't very well filtered by the downstream ethernet cable transformers ?

 

The jitter was brought up by @d_elm, after a brief Internet search I can find no substantiation of these claims, not that they would matter for two channel audio playback anyway.  Optical fiber is a great way to provide complete noise isolation from everything on the rest of the Network.

 

Noise from converting optical to electrical is not an issue for me, the noise which does appear to be an issue is the noise generated by all commercial computer products (computers, routers, switches, etc), as well as any processors.  The point of the UpTone switch is to address all possible issues and provide a clean, ultra low noise, signal with high integrity, to the Renderer.  By having this switch as the final device before the Renderer one eliminates (probably) all possible issues which could effect ultimate audio performance of the Renderer/DAC.

While ethernet transformers do a good job of providing isolation, they are not perfect devices, and still allow some noise to cause issues, the UpTone switch addresses these issues. 

[asdf1000]

59 minutes ago, barrows said:

Noise from converting optical to electrical is not an issue for me, the noise which does appear to be an issue is the noise generated by all commercial computer products (computers, routers, switches, etc), as well as any processors.

 

Noted, so in your opinion then, if the optical-to-electrical FMC noise conversion is a non issue, jitter is a non issue and upstream electrical noise is a non issue, then a pair of widely available optical FMC's is all you need before a networked stream/DAC, with a good PSU for the most downstream optical FMC?

[barrows]

6 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Noted, so in your opinion then, if the optical-to-electrical noise conversion is a non issue, jitter is a non issue and upstream electrical noise is a non issue, then a pair of widely available optical FMC's is all you need before a networked stream/DAC, with a good PSU for the most downstream optical FMC?

Please go back and re-read my response to this.  I already explained the problems of just using two OTS commercial FMCs.

[asdf1000]

5 minutes ago, barrows said:

Please go back and re-read my response to this.  I already explained the problems of just using two OTS commercial FMCs.

 

You first said:  it does not eliminate problems caused by the final FMC converting to an electrical signal.

 

Then followed this with: Noise from converting optical to electrical is not an issue for me

 

Apologies if I misunderstood.

[R1200CL]

If @barrows is correct, we will know when someone is using a Roon ready streamer with optical Ethernet interface. 

 

And test this by using one FMC vs the EtherRegen. 

 

The challange my be how to further evaluate the one RJ45 clean side of the EtherRegen in the same setup, unless that specific streamer has both options available. (Or is an upgrade of something that exists). 

[asdf1000]

30 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

If @barrows is correct, we will know when someone is using a Roon ready streamer with optical Ethernet interface. 

 

And test this by using one FMC vs the EtherRegen. 

 

Personally I'm not trying to find out if barrows is correct or not. Just interested in his expert (theoretical) opinion. Nothing more than friendly discussion really.

 

There'll be plenty of observations and comparisons shared in due course obviously.

 

[Superdad]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

Jitter to what?  Ethernet data is perfect, and jitter on the packets matters not at all.  That jitter does not change the data, or effect it in any way.  And the DAC never sees that jitter.

 

There are some theories why none of that may be true.  The same was said about USB interfacing and you know as well as anyone how that turned out.  

Its not about the data, its about how jitter and PS ground bounce gets embedded into it.  John and I are refraining from expounding on these theories too far until the clock test system is running and we can produce proof. 

 

2 hours ago, barrows said:

Noise from converting optical to electrical is not an issue for me, the noise which does appear to be an issue is the noise generated by all commercial computer products (computers, routers, switches, etc), as well as any processors.  The point of the UpTone switch is to address all possible issues and provide a clean, ultra low noise, signal with high integrity, to the Renderer.  By having this switch as the final device before the Renderer one eliminates (probably) all possible issues which could effect ultimate audio performance of the Renderer/DAC.

While ethernet transformers do a good job of providing isolation, they are not perfect devices, and still allow some noise to cause issues, the UpTone switch addresses these issues. 

 

While you are not too far off the mark Barrows, I would like to as that you allow me and John speak to the purpose, functioning, and mechanisms of the EtherREGEN.  I prefer to keep things real and focused, and not generalized.  The goals and mechanisms of our switch are not fully captured by your posts--understandable in that you are not read in on the specifics of what we are doing.

For example, the optical connection to the unit is not particularly primary, and clocking is indeed a very important aspect of the design.

 

[diecaster]

19 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Its not about the data, its about how jitter and PS ground bounce gets embedded into it.

 

Hold on. It's digital data, 0's and 1's, you can't embed anything into the data. The analog crap that comes along with it? Yes, but not in the digital data.

 

If your switch does what is claimed, none of that "analog crap" (above -120dB or so) will make it through your switch. If it does make it through your switch, what is the point of coming out with it???

[Superdad]

TO ALL:

 

There is a good chance I may lock this thread again.  I recently reopened it to share some updates about EtherREGEN and to answer a few questions that have come up--as well as to tease a few bits about the design goals and methods of this product we are excited about.

 

But I must explain that the side diversions this thread has taken in the past week are becoming an unaffordable distraction for John and me.  He is very focused on development, test, and measurement, and I have have my own sizable list of tasks associated with bringing this product out--on an already bit late schedule.  

So taking time to steer and correct the conversation about what the piece is all about, and to tiptoe around both revealing details we are not certain or ready to yet, as well as not yet being armed with the evidence of efficacy we hope to share, is not productive or comfortable for either of us.

 

The above is my way of asking you all to simmer down now!  

Anyone is welcome to open a new thread about their thoughts on Ethernet for audio, be it about clocking, isolation, optical interfaces, whatever.  

 

Thanks for understanding.

 

--Alex C.