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

[audiojerry]

7 hours ago, JohnSwenson said:

... new switch will NOT be wireless.

 

You CAN buy inexpensive wireless bridge boxes that have WiFi and a regular Ethernet jack on the same box. They do not cost very much and should work very well with the new switch. Just plug a regular Ethernet cable between the bridge and the switch.

John S.

Thank you K and John and tboooe for the help. I'm glad to know a pathway exists to use the future switch.   

 

It just occurred to me: Would the ethernet switch supercede the use of a usb for input into the dac? If so, would my

IR and LPS-1 then be obsolete to me?   

 

[Cornan]

1 hour ago, tboooe said:

Here is the wireless bridge i've been using for a while now.  Rock solid, cheap and handles DSD and high res in my system without any drop outs.

 

https://www.amazon.com/D-Link-Wireless-Gigabit-Extender-DAP-1650/dp/B00JFOP688

 

Here is my personal tip https://www.tp-link.com/us/products/details/cat-5508_RE650.html

 

The TP-Link RE650 is everything you’ll want from a wireless extender/ bridge. Reliable, blasting fast, easy to manage and great SQ. I would’nt trade it for any other one. Period. ?

[charlesphoto]

2 hours ago, audiojerry said:

Thank you K and John and tboooe for the help. I'm glad to know a pathway exists to use the future switch.   

 

It just occurred to me: Would the ethernet switch supercede the use of a usb for input into the dac? If so, would my

IR and LPS-1 then be obsolete to me?   

 

If your DAC has an Ethernet lan input, which is still pretty rare. I think you need to read up on what an Ethernet switch actually is.

[audiojerry]

5 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

 If your DAC has an Ethernet lan input, which is still pretty rare. I think you need to read up on what an Ethernet switch actually is.

 

Yes, the PS Audio DirectStream Jr has an ethenet/LAN input to its built-in network bridge. The network bridge also has an hdmi input for i2s, which supposedly is superior because it separates the clock from the audio signal.  I don't no why, but PS recommends against using wireless ethernet. 

 

I'm dubious that sound quality using ethernet to the bridge would improve what I'm already getting from USB with the IR and LPS-1 (or LPS-1.2). If ethernet to a bridge is the superior approach, then I'm hesitant to get the LPS 1.2. 

[Superdad]

14 minutes ago, audiojerry said:

Yes, the PS Audio DirectStream Jr has an ethenet/LAN input to its built-in network bridge. The network bridge also has an hdmi input for i2s, which supposedly is superior because it separates the clock from the audio signal.  I don't no why, but PS recommends against using wireless ethernet.

 

Hi Jerry:

 

Well the Ethernet input is just one of the 6 inputs available on your DirectStream Jr.:

 

The I2S (via LVDS on HDMI) input is not technically part of the "Bridge" circuity at all.  Without going too far into the complexities of formats and such, I'll mention that I2S is in some sense the most "native" input--in that ultimately all other inputs are producing an I2S output to feed the DAC circuitry itself.  So a USB input is really a USB>I2S circuit, and the Ethernet input is Ethernet>I2S, and so on (though it's a bit more complicated for AES, S/PDIF, and Toslink)--and I am oversimplifying in any case.

 

The point being that yes, depending upon how the input circuits--and all that follows--are executed, different inputs may deliver slightly different sonic results.  Even use of the I2S input introduces the vagaries of whatever I2S source one uses (typically an outboard USB>I2S converter), and then the audio-rate clocks in that source become rather important (since few DACs feed their master clock out their HDMI connector to slave the source).

 

14 minutes ago, audiojerry said:

I'm dubious that sound quality using ethernet to the bridge would improve what I'm already getting from USB with the IR and LPS-1 (or LPS-1.2). If ethernet to a bridge is the superior approach, then I'm hesitant to get the LPS 1.2. 

 

One can not generalize.  You just need to try the various inputs and see hear! 

Of course current Ethernet inputs on DACs generally impose restrictions on how you get the music to them.  It is not as if our computer operating systems have built-in support to see DACs connected on our LANs.  That's where DLNA, Roon, etc. come in.

 

 

Have a great weekend everyone.  I about done with the flu, and UltraCap LPS-1.2 boards are at last going into their cases and being prepared for shipments around the world!  So I am in MUCH better sprits that a week ago! 

[audiojerry]

Thank you for your response Alex, but I'm still unsure of my path going forward.

 

I've been reading all the positive comments about the LPS-1.2 and the improvements it provides over the LPS-1, and I was

ready to place my order for an LPS 1.2, but then you muddied the waters for me with the your EtherREGEN announcement. 

 

You seem to indicate that it is not possible to predict whether the EtherREGEN will provide better sound quality in my situation. I don't plan on using Roon or other streaming service, and all my music is sourced from an external hd on my laptop running JRiver, and feeding my DirecStream Jr from an ISO REGEN with LPS-1 I think the music sounds exceptionally good this way.

 

Alex or John, could you make a general recommendation for those of us using USB with the ISO Regen and LPS-1. Should we upgrade to the LPS-1.2 or supercede it with an EtherREGEN if our dacs have both capabilities?  Of course that puts you in the position of discouraging the sale of one Uptone product in favor of another.  Sorry for that.

[pl_svn]

17 minutes ago, audiojerry said:

Roon or other streaming service

 

just in case: Roon is not a streaming service but a great music manager and player which *also* can stream Tidal

it has a proprietary network protocol to stream from the computer running Roon to an ethernet endpoint

if your DAC has ethernet and is compatible with Roon... just enroll for a free trial 

[cat6man]

what are your thoughts on where to place the new quiet switch in the following setup?

 

1.  NUC (running hqplayer embedded, music files on usb HDD) and much else feeding into a 24 port netgear switch

2.  netgear switch ouput via 50' cable to audio system via both cat6 and optical (then optical-ethernet conversion at audio end)

3.  at audio end of 50' runs, ultraRendu+lps1.2 into DAC

4.  NUC and switch is in basement at back of house, audio is on first floor at front of house, hence long cable run

 

so i see a number of options:

a. nuc=>uptone switch, clean port out to 50' cable to ultraRendu, dirty port connection to 24 port switch

b. nuc=>24 port switch, 50' run of either cat6 or optical going into uptone switch at audio end of house, output to ultraRendu

 

option a) eliminates going through the 24 port switch but has 50' run to ultraRendu

option b) places uptone switch closer to ultraRendu (probably mount in basement just below audio system)

but goes through 24 port switch

 

Thoughts on which configuration would be preferable?

 

 

[diecaster]

If UpTone uses 100BASE-TX, the max distance is 328 feet and that is when using Cat5 cable. 50 feet would hardly seem to be a problem. Even given that, I would probably opt for option B because it puts the UpTone switch off by itself (less EMI to worry about) and uses a shorter cable to the ultraRendu which is never a bad thing.

[charlesphoto]

37 minutes ago, cat6man said:

 

option a) eliminates going through the 24 port switch but has 50' run to ultraRendu

option b) places uptone switch closer to ultraRendu (probably mount in basement just below audio system)

but goes through 24 port switch

 

Thoughts on which configuration would be preferable?

 

 

 

My situation is a bit different then yours, but here's what I'm trying. I just got used cheap a Cisco 2960 and to me it sounds better than Netgear with JSGT and LPS. So it got me thinking that I could go to another 2960 via optical fiber and via the SFP outs and eliminate the TP-Link FMC's and their power supplies pre rendu. And then at some point if word is the etherRegen is a hit, swap that out for the 2960 but still connect via the SFP. I also have a 24 port fanless Trendnet for whole house duty which also sounded better than the small Netgears. Unfortunately all of these switches are within a two to three foot radius of the hifi, though two in the closet in the basement below the hifi upstairs. And the Nuc downstairs which will be plugged into the transmitting 2960. Trade-offs.

 

So, in your case, I would consider running both copper and optical at the same time considering how cheap the cable is compared to the hassle of running it. And then consider a used 2960 ($30 or so on eBay, OEM SFP's about $5 on same) on the far end with your NUC plugged into it and transmitting via optical to the etherRegen. But really either way works I think in your setup as long as the clean out is to your Ultra. Depends where you physically like the NUC located best. 

[genjamon]

4 hours ago, cat6man said:

what are your thoughts on where to place the new quiet switch in the following setup?

 

1.  NUC (running hqplayer embedded, music files on usb HDD) and much else feeding into a 24 port netgear switch

2.  netgear switch ouput via 50' cable to audio system via both cat6 and optical (then optical-ethernet conversion at audio end)

3.  at audio end of 50' runs, ultraRendu+lps1.2 into DAC

4.  NUC and switch is in basement at back of house, audio is on first floor at front of house, hence long cable run

 

so i see a number of options:

a. nuc=>uptone switch, clean port out to 50' cable to ultraRendu, dirty port connection to 24 port switch

b. nuc=>24 port switch, 50' run of either cat6 or optical going into uptone switch at audio end of house, output to ultraRendu

 

option a) eliminates going through the 24 port switch but has 50' run to ultraRendu

option b) places uptone switch closer to ultraRendu (probably mount in basement just below audio system)

but goes through 24 port switch

 

Thoughts on which configuration would be preferable?

 

 

Or the most expensive and over the top, and thus truest audiophile option (C)... NUC=>50ft cat 6 or optical to new Uptone switch, separate 50 ft run between 24 port switch and Uptone.  

[charlesphoto]

Great idea. 50’ of decent Cat6 is actually not that much, and as long as you are running it, like I said, may as well do two runs or more. And if you do audiophile ethernet cable, it should be just be the short run between the Uptone switch and the rendu. 

[cat6man]

an argument against option a:

 

i don't want to bottleneck data transfer in the house by running more than necessary audio data through the uptone switch, which doesn't support gigabit ethernet. 

 

option a would mean all music or video being moved or copied to/from the NUC's drives would be limited to a 10/100 port.

[JohnSwenson]

The switch is designed to be used with the "clean port", the 10/100 one connecting directly to the critical device for audio, (ultraRendu etc) and all other connections, such as servers, NAS, compute engines etc. go into one of the other ports which are full gigabit.

 

Putting some other standard device in between our switch and the critical audio device (ultraRendu etc) just puts back in leakage and clock noise, negating what this switch is all about.

 

John S.

[pl_svn]

so... the SFP too is/can be Gigabit?

[JohnSwenson]

Yes,

the SFP port is Gigabit. It supports SFP speed negotiation, but what you plug into it has to also support speed negotiation if you want to run slower than Gigabit. Not all modules do. When it powers up it is running Gigabit, if the module supports speed negotiation and wants to run slower it will do so.

 

Note that the SFP port is not the "clean port", it is essentially the same as the other Ethernet ports.

 

John S.

[R1200CL]

@JohnSwenson

How is the progress ? ?

[Superdad]

3 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

@JohnSwenson

How is the progress ? ?

 

Just fine, thanks.  We are not going to share details of exactly where we are in development.  Still looking forward to a summer release as planned.  

[pl_svn]

16 hours ago, JohnSwenson said:

Yes,

the SFP port is Gigabit. It supports SFP speed negotiation, but what you plug into it has to also support speed negotiation if you want to run slower than Gigabit. Not all modules do. When it powers up it is running Gigabit, if the module supports speed negotiation and wants to run slower it will do so.

 

Note that the SFP port is not the "clean port", it is essentially the same as the other Ethernet ports.

 

John S.

 

great, right what I need: 10/100 for just the endpoint and Gigabit for everything else 

when I tried using a Fast ethernet switch for everything, all was fine but uploading new music to the NAS was pita slow 

(plus... finding 10/100 SFPs is becoming pretty hard, at least here)

 

can't wait 

[zoom25]

Dear Alex & John,

 

I was wondering if you guys were going to include or recommend particular ethernet cables for use with this unit?

 

I'm also curious if in your investigation you guys have looked at the length of ethernet cables as a variable/factor? Ideally it'd be a good cable like a Cat6 Belden bonded that has been terminated and sold by Belden (that way you'd know it's authentic). Belden bonded is a good candidate as it's more likely to maintain the same structure throughout its entire length, especially after coiling.

 

So perhaps comparing that cable above in lengths such as: less than 1m, 1-2m, 3m, 10m, 20m.

 

You can do this for not only the final 'clean' run, but also for the cables connecting to this switch.

 

If you had done this sort of test with other switches in the past or your own switch, I would love to compare notes and see if you guys noticed any differences and which way the results went.

 

Thanks!

[zoom25]

@JohnSwenson @Superdad

 

I forgot to tag above. 

[cat6man]

I guess I missed that the other 'dirty' ports are full gigabit.

 

Is there any concern about the amount of activity in the switch?

Is it better to have less traffic on the other (non-10/100 'clean')  ports?

[JohnSwenson]

6 hours ago, cat6man said:

I guess I missed that the other 'dirty' ports are full gigabit.

 

Is there any concern about the amount of activity in the switch?

Is it better to have less traffic on the other (non-10/100 'clean')  ports?

Note we have not actually built this yet, so I can't say for sure, but this is being designed such that what happens with the other ports does not affect the "clean" port.

 

John S.

[cat6man]

cool.........now back to listening to music here.

it's time to let the engineers work!

[rickca]

@JohnSwenson have you built the measurement equipment you need for your research yet?