Optical Network Configurations

[d_elm]

My microRendu is working well with two TP-LINK MC200CM adapters, a iFi iPower for the adapter closest to the microRendu and a 16 inch Audioquest Pearl CAT7 cable.

[d_elm]

I am not having a problem with microRendu ethernet in gigabit mode and TP-LINK MC200CM, also 1 gigabit.

[d_elm]

Anything before the fibre isolation does not matter. Make sure the fibre bridge is right before the renderer. The power for the first MC... does not matter. For the other MC.., since noise from it will make its way over ethernet to your renderer, I use an iFi iPower, 9v. Put both SMPSs for the MC... on a power bar and power the bar through and AC-7 from Array Solutions. Change AC connectors to suit. Might want to experiment with what ethernet cable to use between MC... and renderer. I use a 16 inch piece of CAT 7 with shield connected at one only, the end that has a ground, if any.

[d_elm]

Put the fibre isolation right before the mr, not before the switch into the mr.

[d_elm]

Any ethernet cable before the optical isolation need only be CAT5 or CAT5E. That should be low cost.

[d_elm]

For a test can you replace microRendu with a laptop ? Test transfer rates and that all appears good. If the laptop can run a DLNA renderer, eg foobar2000 with DLNA plugin, attach the DAC and test for all formats for playback. I am using MC200CM with 1meter fibre, CAT7 into microRendu with no problems. I did find the MC200CM would not work if the CAT7 shield is connected at both ends. I removed the shield connection at the MC200CM end.

[d_elm]

The downstream FMC should feed directly the audio component, no switch between as the switch will introduce more noise.  The downstream FMC should be powered by the best power supply you are comfortable purchasing.  I use the Uptone Audio LPS-1 set at 5V to power an MC100CM.  The MC100CM contains switching regulators so it can be improved upon but I do not know of a better FMC to use.  You can also try a Gb FMC pair, such as MC200CM, but I and others found 100Mbps generats less noise in the audio component's ethernet receiver than Gb.

[d_elm]

1 hour ago, mikey8811 said:

 

Hi both the MC100CM and MC200CM have single outputs correct? So if a switch is not used, they can only feed one component. I have a Roku as well as an Auralic Aries so that necessitates a switch, unless of course you do not recommend that i connect the Roku at the same time but leave that on the router.

 

Thanks

The FMC has a single outlet.  I would put the Roku and the upstream FMC on the switch and have the downstream FMC feed the Aries.  FMCs are not expensive but good power, ie LPS-1, is more money.  You could experiment with a 5V battery, or a 5V iFi, on the downstream FMC.  If there is a difference then you could think about an LPS-1.  I know all these options make a difference with the microRendu but I do not know if they do with the Aries.  Perhaps others on CA have experimented and can advise.

[d_elm]

27 minutes ago, mikey8811 said:

 

Understood. My router has multiple outputs. Can I just put the upstream FMC and the Roku on the router and have the downstream FMC feed the Aries? This way, I can omit a switch altogether safe for the one built into the router.

That should be fine. I only do CAT7 from the downstream FMC to the microRendu, shield connected at FMC end only (metal jacket plastic connector for shield attachment and plastic only connector for no shield attachment).  The rest of my cable, about 70 feet, is CAT5.

[d_elm]

5 hours ago, mikey8811 said:

 

Hi

 

I am about to order the Fast Ethernet Media Converter MC100CM from Amazon. I am in a 240V country. Do you know if the switching power supply provided works for 240V? I will try the supplied PS first. I do have a spare 12V iFi iPower but I don;t suppose that will work.

5V is best as more noise is generated with higher voltages.  The stock SMPS may generate more noise than the FMC removes so be careful with power for the downstream FMC.

[d_elm]

I tried 5V and 7V from an LPS-1 and SQ with a MC100CM was best at 5V.  My guess is less work for the switching regulators in the FMC as they convert to working voltages.

[d_elm]

11 minutes ago, mikey8811 said:

OK I am presuming my existing router has a switching power supply too.

 

So given that all else is equal, would you expect that I get some benefits going through this exercise if I use the stock switching power supplies with the FMC's for the moment? The difference between doing this and my current setup is that i will have put the FMC pair between the router and the Aries and have the cabling being BJC CAT6 instead of the generic CAT4 I currently have.

The FMCs do not cost much for an experiment. Difference or not the next low cost step would be a 5V battery to power the downstream FMC.  If there is an improvement in SQ worth some money then get an LPS-1.

[d_elm]

8 minutes ago, mikey8811 said:

I read that elsewhere too. I think it was the microRendu thread where they said a higher voltage led to less heat on the micro Rendu.

 

Is there also a rule of thumb as to whether 100M is better than 1G for the FMC's? I think there is a story on the front of CA about networking and it says yes because there are less dropped packets with 100M as 1G may be too "fast" for older gear or ARM based processors like you find in these streamers.

 

On another note, since I am picking up the BJC ethernet cables, will the video streamer, Roku also benefit from a BJC HDMI cable as opposed to the Amazon one I am currently using? I read that with HDMI probably not as if it works already then a better cable may be better for longer lengths but for the same short length will be the same as packets going through are packets going through. Any comments?

I have MC100CM and MC200CM pairs and decided by listening the MC100CM into a microRendu delivered slightly better sound.  The Aries might be different.  I have read the ethernet receivers generate noise and the noise varies with the data rate. I did not have data delivery issues with either 1Gbps or 100mbps with up to DXD data.

[d_elm]

2 hours ago, mikey8811 said:

Hi

 

The Amazon order arrived but they screwed up and sent only one of the MC100CM instead of two so it's back to waiting for the other.

 

Just unpacking it and looking at the array of switches behind, I presume I just leave them as is and connect when the other one arrives correct? There is no setting as far as they are concerned?

 

Thanks

I have all the switches up.

[d_elm]

5 hours ago, Monge said:

Thanks for the information. I know there are switches with fiber slots like Cisco, but my plan was to buy a router with fiber slots, if it is possible. So route would be router-fiber-FMC-Lan cable-streamer. Maybe it's a crazy idea or not possible.

Regards Monge

 

I think it is a reasonable idea if you an find all the features needed in the router.  Your options would be better with router-FMC-fibre...

[d_elm]

2 minutes ago, JJarego said:

I'm reviving this thread ...

I'm new on the CA and, by going through the thread, I'm convinced that this the way to to. Since I'm in the process of putting together a new server (to run Roon + HQ Player), this is the right time to complete the shopping list. 

 

I intend to use a single FMC and an optical PCIe card on the PC. I saw that there may be compatibility issued so I would like to make sure that I'm getting it right ... so, here it goes ...

 

Configuration:

ethernet -> FMC -> fiber -> PCIe

 

Which bundle of FMC+fiber+PCIe would you recommend? Would the Trendnet TFC-1000MGA, these transceivers/cable and PCIe card do the trick? Other options?

 

Other questions:

- are the Intel cards a better choice? I'm not willing to compromise SQ but ...

- would the replacement of the PSU on the FMC bring any advantage? The FMC will be galvanically isolated from the PC, so I'm guessing that it may not be quite relevant (?)

 

Thank you and happy 2018! 

I used to use D-LINK MC100CM or MC200CM, preferred 100mbps, and now use a single Netgear FS105 v2.  Fibre introduces jitter so use a short length of media.  I do not think it is clear any more that fibre is best.  The Netgear FS10x and GS10x have magnetics that provide good isolation and @JohnSwenson has found these switches to be special although he has not tested every switch.

[d_elm]

1 hour ago, JJarego said:

 

Thanks @d_elm! ... really? do you prefer the result with this netgear switch? are you using a "plain vanilla" ethernet cable?

I can say the Netgear switch is as good as the fibre and is a simpler setup with one box instead of two, although this is not important to me.  I plan to have the switch moded by SOtM for better power regulation and an external clock. I am powering the FS105 v2 at 7V with an LPS -1.  I purchased that used on eBay recently.  The current FS105 is v3 and requires more than 7V.  The current GS105 can be powered with 7V.

Good power for a switch or  downstream FMC is very important.

 

Ethernet into the switch is 6 feet of plain CAT6 from a wall plate.  Upstream from that I have 70 feet of plain CAT5 and two switches.  Ethernet out of the switch is two feet of Audioquest Pearl with a JSSG faraday shield.

 

I have a wireless phone base about two feet from the back of my stereo cabinet.  Last week I received a Cornet ED88T meter that tells me the 2GHz radiation from the phone is high.  I find aluminum foil cuts the radiation to a low level so I will be hanging a piece of framed foil (stuff I purchased for a radiant barrier) behind the cabinet.

[d_elm]

5 minutes ago, tboooe said:

Absolutely legit question...the problem is my NAA PC does not have the capability for me to add a fiber NIC.  That is why I tried using an FMC there first.  Based on my experience, having an FMC between was more detrimental than just running straight CAT6.

My experience with FMCs was that good power ( eg LPS-1) is needed for the downstream FMC so that the noise injected by FMC circuit was less than the noise removed by the conversion to light by the upstream FMC.  Still room for improvement in an FMC with switching regulators and a noisy clock.

[d_elm]

11 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

 

 

These are good points.  I guess one of the key questions is whether the noise actually gets into the data or whether all of the noise we should be concerned with is noise that travels in the cabling or its shielding and somehow gets to the DAC that way, affecting its ability to process the otherwise clean data signal.  In analog cables it is easier to see how noise can become part of the signal, in data cables less so. Nonetheless, I agree that using a good LPS with the downstream FMC  is important, but that doesn't directly address where we are trying to eliminate noise. 

 

Presumably, if noise can "enter" the digital bitstream then once it is there you can't get rid of it, no matter how "clean" your downstream wiring and components are.  But if "bits are bits," then presumably all the noise we need to deal with is to prevent stuff from traveling from one component to the next in the wiring/shielding, which would be one reason to use Cat 6a cabling from the FMC to DAC.  

Agree, we do know  "bits are bits", as long as a digital stream's eye pattern and receiving clock are good enough to recognize the bits correctly,  and the noise introduced by a component can get into the next downstream component.   In addition to CAT6, or whatever, into the DAC I suggest installing a JSSG faraday shield.  Use 0.5 inch shielding and slieving as it will slip over the ethernet connectors.

[d_elm]

52 minutes ago, CJH said:

the_doc735:

Sorry, I'm old and have no idea how to make diagrams in these forums.

Chris H.

I use Microsoft Visio and think others do also.